But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of slavery, to make you leave the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:5)
Not only was this not to be accepted or tolerated, but the one who was a false prophet was to be slain. None of this shunning or getting called before the pastor! In the New Testament however, the wording is similar but the methods are different:
But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” (1 Cor 5: 11-13)
The wording is very similar and the principle is the same: the immoral/idolaters etc. cannot be welcome among God’s people. While we are still to purge the evil doer from our midst, it is a rejection of fellowship. No longer are we called to take up the sword (or stone) and drive the evil one out from among us by killing them but instead we are called to withhold from them the fellowship of the saints. It is common to reference the Old Testament laws regarding self-defense and defense of others as a defense of believers using the sword, but it seems that in this contrast we see that yet again wielding the sword even in the defense of the faith is not permitted among the people of God.
4 comments:
Arthur, I think my question on one of your previous posts on this may be related. I never got a response.
"Arthur, you make some interesting points. I’ll be brief as work still calls.
Your use of the NT may be a bit sketchy. Particularly Matthew 5:38ff and Romans 12. In Matthew 5 38ff, I believe that Jesus is dealing with the idea of revenge. That being the case, I would say that we are absolutely not to seek revenge. Even in war throry, that is why we have “rules” which seek to prevent soldiers from “chasing down” a fleeing enemy and shooting him, for instance, after the enemy soldier has just shot one of ours. That is revenge. That is our guy seeking justice and retribution. Rather, he is to capture the enemy combatant, if anything. Further, Jesus’ advocacy of the disciples being armed with swords in Luke 22:35-38 sure seems to say that He was against self defense.
In Romans 1217 , it seems to me that we have the Apostle being consistent with Jesus and disallowing “payback” or revenge.
More: in Deut. 22:23-27 we have a woman who is being attacked under the expectation to cry out for help. Someone should rescue her. Of course how would one rescue her but to seize the man, violently if necessary, to prevent or stop the rape.
Further, the OT is noted for its commands to defend the needy, etc.
Summary, Christians are not to seek revenge and personal justice. We have courts for justice. But Christians are absolutely to protect life..their own and the lives of others when necessary.
Just my thoughts."
Some OT laws and the outworking of those remain abiding (6th command). Others' outworking remain an ecclesiastical function, albeit a more gracious outworking. But my questions relate to the NT passages you cited in your previous post. They seem to have the NT permitting self defense.
Les,
I did forget to reply to your original question, sorry!
In Matt 5 and Romans 12, what does it say? That we should not seek revenge true, but the greater idea here is that we trust in God to deal out justice for us. If we truly believe God is sovereign, then ought we not trust Him to deal with the unjust instead of taking matters into our own hands? The "just war" theory is fine for nations but I still don't see any warrant at all for New Testament believers to take up the sword in self-defense or on behalf of the state.
As far as Deuteronomy 22, is that not an example of civil laws? A few verses earlier in Deu 22: 12-21 we see how we are to deal with a woman accused of not being a virgin, either by whipping the man who lied about it or stoning the woman. In Deu 22:10 we are admonished to not plow with an ox and donkey together, a law I don't think we see as binding today. In the verses following Deu 22: 23-27, in Deu 22: 28-29 we see that a man who lies with a virgin is forced under the law to pay her dad 50 shekels and to marry her. It seems that you are being kind of selective in which OT civil laws you are using to support your contention that Christians are free to use violence as they see fit to defend their own lives and the lives of others.
I see your point about the Deut. passage. I'm not so sure it is strictly civil only though. The implication is she calls out for help or not...not that she calls the civil authorities. Certainly the assumption is that someone, anyone, could rescue her in the city.
Further, the very first verse of the chapter puts forth the principle of helping protect a neighbor's property. Certainly if we are to help preserve out neighbor's property we are to help preserve our neighbor's life, right? And if our neighbor, then ourselves.
As far as the NT and trusting God, yes. But we trust God for our food for our very sustenance. But we still procure the food, cook it and actually pick it up and put it in our mouths to eat. i.e. we trust God, but we do things necessary to live.
Thoughts? This is a good discussion anyway.
Les,
I still see those civil laws as being rules of conduct for Israel as a nation-state. The whole section speaks of things ranging from rules when Israel goes to war to marriage. I would argue that under the New Covenant, we rely on secular civil authorities to carry out justice in this world (Romans 13: 1-7 ). I just don't see where we are called or permitted to carry that out ourselves. In fact it can be argued that the civil authorities are used by God to punish wrongdoers at times (like World War II perhaps?) but nowhere do we see God using believers to carry out punitive vengeance or to take up the sword on behalf of the civil authorities.
I would say that while we rely on God for everything, the idea of God as the avenger of wrongdoing and the corresponding idea of returning good for evil (Romans 12: 19-21) is specifically addressed to this idea. In other words, God is sovereign over all things but He also placed a special emphasis on the idea of vengeance against the wrong-doer, just as there is a special emphasis on the soveriegnity of God in salvation through election.
Post a Comment