Posted on by Abe Austin

Loving Your Enemy vs Renouncing Evil- Father Forgive Them

With my last two posts I’ve brought up scriptures that are commonly used to argue that disciples of Christ cannot judge wrong behavior, and explained why this interpretation is false. I will continue this pattern with today’s entry, where I examine the greatest act of non-judgment in all the scriptures. It is, of course, the moment where Christ was upon the cross, being executed for false charges, and asking Heavenly Father to forgive his killers. Luke 23:33-34:

33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.

34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

If Christ would forgive the people that did the greatest evil imaginable to him, then shouldn’t we excuse everyone else for anything that they ever do?

Well, no. That goes too far. And the reason why is that while Christ’s forgiveness was certainly magnanimous, it was not absolute. I believe there are two clear limitations on Christ’s forgiveness here.

  1. He was not seeking forgiveness for everyone. It seems clear in these two verses that the “them” he asked forgiveness for was the same “they” that “parted his raiment,” which would mean the Roman guards assigned to carry out his execution. There is nothing to suggest the Jesus was asking for forgiveness for the Pharisees that had called for his death on trumped up charges, knowing full well that they were condemning an innocent man, and of whom Christ said, “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” Christ was able to distinguish between the truly guilty, and those only guilty by association, and here he only asked forgiveness for the latter.
  2. He was not trying to have them forgiven for everything. Jesus was speaking specifically of his execution, which was carried out by these men only because it was assigned to them by their superiors to do so. He was beseeching for them in this matter where they “knew not what they did,” but that would not make them any less culpable for other sins, ones where they did know what they did. Before or after executing Christ, if any of these men should lie, or steal, or contradict their conscience in any way, they would still be on the hook for those actions.

Thus, this passage is an example of forgiving the ignorant when they are ignorant. It makes no assertions, however, about the knowingly guilty. Does this passage still have a lesson of love of forgiveness for followers of Christ? Of course! We should all aspire to similarly remove ourselves from our pain and recognize whether we have been wronged deliberately or ignorantly, and we should have the presence of mind to pardon those that are still learning. We should be gracious enough to give the benefit of the doubt as far as it can rationally be extended, though not so far that it becomes a farce.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Loving Your Enemy vs Renouncing Evil- Judge Not

Matthew 7:1, 4-5:

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

In my last post I considered one of the passages typically used to say that Christians should not judge others, today I am looking at another.

“Judge not, that ye be not judged,” Jesus said, and so, we are told, it is not our place to call out the behavior of another as sinful or in need of censure. Admittedly, when looking at that verse in isolation, that could be a potentially correct interpretation of the passage. But how, then, does that hold up when three verses later Christ talks about removing the beam from your own eye so that you can remove the mote from your brother’s? How are you even to determine that there is a mote in your brother’s eye, and help him to pluck it out, if you have not “judged” that something about him is amiss?

And surely, even the staunchest critic of Christian judgment must admit that they, too, believe in renouncing some forms of evil. Can we not call a murderer, a child abuser, or a rapist wrong? Would anyone really make the case that with such crimes we must simply shrug our shoulders and say “well, it’s not my place to judge?!”

Obviously, any coherent interpretation of “judge not, that ye be not judged” must be consistent with Christ’s other words and also consistent with common sense. So what could a more fitting interpretation of this phrase be? Well, let us consider that our English word “judge” has multiple meanings. There is the sort of “Judging” with a capital “J,” such as when I am convicted by a court of law for a serious crime. There is also “judging” with a lower-case “j,” though, such as when my neighbor thinks I am lazy for leaving my Christmas decorations out until Easter.

And, as it turns out, this same strong/weak form is also found in the original Greek word that is used in today’s passage. The word that is being interpreted as “judge” is κρίνετε (krinete). This word is used at various points in the Bible, in a weaker form, being written as “judge” with a lower-case-j. In it’s strong form, however, it is more similar to our English word “condemn.” In fact, it is translated exactly this way in other verses, such as in John 3:17 where it states, “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”

Do Not Condemn)

In the King James Version of the Bible, Matthew 7:1 is translated as “Judge not, that ye be not judged,” but another valid interpretation, and one that I think might be more accurate to our current vocabulary, would be “Condemn not, that ye be not condemned.” And this sentiment I fully agree with. If anyone tells me that it is not the role of an individual Christian such as myself to “condemn” another person, they are absolutely right. I am not sitting in final judgment for anybody. I cannot comprehend the sinner’s whole life story, where they are coming from or where they will go, and I cannot state unequivocally that they deserve hell fire. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t, it just isn’t my place to say.

But that doesn’t mean that I cannot judge their behavior. That does not mean that I can’t stand in opposition to the act of sin and renounce it emphatically.

Put another way, Christ’s words compel us not to condemn the sinner, for that is a child of God, but we absolutely should condemn the sinful behavior, for that is the work of the devil. I am, myself, a sinner, and everyone should condemn my acts of selfishness and meanness, just as I do. But also, I am a Son of God, and because of that fact no one should write me off as a completely lost cause. It is possible to do the one without the other.

This is exactly what Christ is describing in the passage above, hating the mote in the eye, but loving the brother enough to point it out so that it can be removed. Not only are loving our enemy and renouncing evil compatible with one another, in most cases they are one and the same thing! Like God’s Son, let us not condemn the world, but let us use righteous judgment to help save it from the condemnation that it is already in!

Posted on by Abe Austin

Loving Your Enemy vs Renouncing Evil- Turn the Other Cheek

Matthew 5:38-40, 43-44:

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

There are a few passages of scripture that are often used to to argue that Christians should not judge others. Today I am looking at the first, which is Christ’s teaching that we should “turn the other cheek.”

We all have a basic sense of justice within us that when a person insults us we want to insult them back, and when they strike us we want to strike them back. But Christ compelled his followers to suppress that natural spirit of retaliation, and instead invite another rebuke from them! This is extraordinary, and it certainly asks a great deal of every disciple, but we should note that there are certain requirements attributed to this sermon that Jesus never actually called for:

  1. Nowhere does Christ say that the offender is to be absolved of their guilt. Turning the other cheek is not the same as justifying what the other person has done. If anything, our invitation to be struck again doubly condemns the offender! Also, note that while verse 44 calls on us to love, bless, pray for, and do good to those that harm us, Christ does not ever say for us to approve, justify, or defend their crimes. We can both love our enemy and turn the other cheek, while still maintaining that their behavior is wrong.
  2. Christ gives examples of how we would accept relatively light forms of physical violence and the loss of an article of clothing. These are both small infractions, and both related to the loss or harm of earthly, physical things. It is not right to take this instruction and apply it to wrongs of a greater severity, such as another person trying to kill you and your family, or of a different type, such as another person trying to spread lies in your community. Nothing in this passage suggests that there is never a time to defend or push back.
  3. In each example, Christ is only talking about the disciple accepting a personal slight. There is a great difference between allowing wrongs to be perpetrated against the self and allowing wrongs to be perpetrated against others. Christ does not say, “whosoever shall smite your child upon the cheek, turn to him your other child’s also!” That would be passivity to the point of cruelty to the innocent. We do not only refute the evil of the world for our own sake, but for the protection of the weak and the innocent also.

What Christ teaches in these verses has real weight and meaning, and calls for a real change in his followers. But we should limit the lessons that we take from this to the ones that were actually intended, and not mis-attribute other lessons upon it as well. Christ is calling us to do something very hard, but only on a personal level and for particular sorts of offense. Nowhere in these verses does Christ say that we should allow others to take every liberty against our person, or call evil good, or cease to preach repentance to the wicked, or fail to protect the innocent. We can do all of those things while still being totally consistent with the instruction to turn the other cheek.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Loving Your Enemy vs Renouncing Evil- God’s Judgment

The Old Testament gives accounts of the people of Israel being an extension of the Lord to bring judgment and condemnation upon the pagan nations of Canaan. It also gives accounts of them going to war when not as an extension of the Lord, and suffering disastrous results.

As an example of the first we have God instructing the Israelites to circle the city of Jericho, following a very precise ritual that resulted in the walls of the city collapsing to the ground. The Israelites charged in and won a tremendous victory that day. As an example of the second we have the Israelites going up to battle with the Philistines with the Ark of the Covenant in 1 Samuel 4. God had not commanded them to go up to this fight, and as a result Israel lost 30,000 footmen, were forced to retreat, and the Ark of the Covenant was lost to their enemies.

I think in these opposing examples there is a lesson for when we should battle with the enemies of the church, and when we should hold our peace. We must always remember that we are the foot-soldiers and God is the general. This is His fight to fight. It is up to Him to decide when the field is right for battle and when it isn’t. The choice is His, not ours. Our duty is simply to obey. In both of the stories, the Israelites were willing to fight the Lord’s enemies, the difference was that the time to do so was right in the first instance, and not in the second.

As you see the enemies of God’s kingdom throwing their insults and barbs at the walls of the church, claiming victories and taking souls as they go, you may feel a great desire to leap into the fray, tearing them down in similar manner. But it is imperative to ask yourself, has God actually called you to fight that fight? And has He called you to fight that fight right now?

Having the courage and the desire to fight for God’s kingdom is, in-and-of-itself, a good thing, but it must be bounded by God’s will for when and how. Wage the right war when the time is right to do so, and in the meantime hold the line and be faithful.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Loving Your Enemy vs Renouncing Evil- Question

Jesus showed mercy to the adulterous woman, but he also gave punishment to moneychangers at the temple when he drove them out with a whip.

Jesus besought forgiveness for the very men that carried out his execution, yet he also assured the pharisees that they would not be able to “escape the damnation of hell.”

Jesus besought his followers to turn the other cheek, but he also commanded the nation of Israel to destroy their enemies in the land of Canaan.

In short, at times Christ called for mercy, forgiveness, and patience with sinners and oppressors, while at other times he called for the punishment and condemnation.

The purpose of this study is to understand when we are to be the Lord’s balm and when to be His sword? When are we to be patient and longsuffering, and when are we to stand with boldness against evil? When are we to be a vessel of mercy, and when of justice?

In my following posts I will seek to answer these questions by looking at several examples in the scriptures, particularly of Christ, that speak to both sides. It is not my intention to argue for one side over another, but only to understand how to do what is right, serving God in either fashion according to His will and dictates.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Those Who Cannot Do, Deconstruct

The Human Nature)

It is in our human nature to advance and improve. We are never content with the accomplishments of the past, we always seek to be better and better. We are a race of inventors and innovators, creators and pioneers. Entirely new branches of science, technology, medicine, and mathematics are constantly being opened, and old branches pushed further than ever before.

This is a divine characteristic within us, linked to our need for personal self improvement. It shows how our hearts and minds are constantly pulled toward the ideal. We seek perfection in all its forms, and that gives us the power to do brave, new things. Just as our pioneering spirit leads us to invent life-saving methods, it leads us to engage in soul-saving repentance. This is unquestionably a good thing, and a clear sign of our divine heritage.

But what happens when we lack the innovation to improve on what has already been done, but retain the desire to advance something new?

Deconstruction in Place of Innovation)

Ever since the social sciences began, one truth has emerged above all others: people do their best when they are raised in the traditional, nuclear family.

When a society has each of its children raised by a devoted father and mother, there is less crime, less mental illness, less depression, less suicide, and less drug use. When children have a devoted father and mother they report greater happiness, participate more in their society, obtain higher levels of education, earn more money, give more to charity, and live longer, healthier lives. Society settled on the traditional, nuclear family many years ago, and there simply has never been a better system ever found.

If every alternative strategy for raising humanity has fallen short, then one would think that continued research would be focused on how to strengthen this family unit. How can we better support the working father and the nurturing mother? How can we better train the raising generation to prepare themselves for those roles? How can we remove the temptations and obstacles that lead people to choose harmful alternatives? How can we shore up the children who lose one of their parent-pillars due to some tragedy?

Remarkably, though, those are not the sort of questions that the social pundits of today tend to focus their energy on. In spite of all evidence against it, social academia continues proposing ways to subvert, twist, and fully replace the ideal family. They push for alterations to laws and social norms, even though those changes have no evidence of yielding positive results. They criticize the standards and principles that have stood for years, even when those standards demonstrably lead to a better quality of life for everyone involved.

A society that achieves the pinnacle has the unfortunate tendency to adulterate its adventurous spirit and deconstruct that ideal, crippling and breaking it simply for the sake of having a project to work on, never mind if that project destroys millions of lives along the way! Those that lack the skill to build and improve occupy themselves with tearing apart!

The Ease of Destruction)

And, unfortunately, the rule of the universe is that destruction is always easier than construction. Chaos comes more easily than order. Toppling is always faster than stacking, scattering easier than gathering, breaking more accessible than creating. Even a minority in a short period of time can undo what a majority took a very long while to accomplish. If current trends continue, the collapse of the most basic social unit will occur, and it will be many generations of horror before that good thing can be built back again, if ever at all.

In short, we have very good reason to be very fierce about promoting and protecting the traditional nuclear family, and in renouncing and destroying every bastardized alternative.