13 Responses to “February 20, 2009”

1. john
   February 22nd, 2009 @ 11:39 pm

   The race critcism has come up a lot recently.
   I think this is because a lot of those people carry the wounds of the past and are not yet healed.When this is the case any thing negative, even brought forth with good intentions is misunderstood.
   Hurts not healed and people responding in hurt( if continued) usually leads to a strong spirit of control and manipulation coming in,which should not be given into ;while at the same time trying to reach out to those wounds so that they are healed.
   Obama’s election was quoted by many in the context of bringing healing to the community.I dont think so.Some might disagree.
   Isreal experienced freedom from slavery in the natural but yet were slaves at heart even after ,save a few.

2. Michael
   February 23rd, 2009 @ 10:12 am

   I’m still wondering what Dr. Brown thinks about the “eye for eye” case regarding the Iranian woman. That’s a hard one for me.

3. Dr Michael Brown
   February 23rd, 2009 @ 11:14 am

   Michael,

   I gave my basic view at the end of the show, since, in fact, the teachings of Jesus have helped to shape our moral views, while the teachings of Judaism have repudiated “eye for eye” as well for twenty centuries. My take is this: If you permanently affect the life of another person through a willful, malicious act, your own life is permanently affected (in this case, life in prison with no hope of parole would be a possibility). But if you blind the person who blinds, do you rape the person who rapes, etc.?

4. Dr Michael Brown
   February 23rd, 2009 @ 11:14 am

   John,

   Important points, for sure.

5. Michael
   February 23rd, 2009 @ 12:12 pm

   I guess the reason it is hard for me is because some people seem hopeless despite forgiveness and showing Christ’s love to them. For some people, being jailed for any period of time doesn’t look so bad. Even so, I guess if we can keep them locked up and away from harming others, that’s our best bet for keeping within Jesus’ teachings without sinning. From a carnal perspective, I can see how people might think an “eye for eye” punishment could better keep other people in check. Raping the person who rapes isn’t quite equivalent, so maybe the equivalent option is castration. After all, Jesus said if your hands, eyes, etc. cause you to sin, cut them off, ha. (I realize the context is different) On another note, I don’t know what to say about things such as the death penalty. Even Mike Huckabee had to make that call before and decided to go through with it. As followers of Jesus, can we really be for this? That’s tough for me. Seems to be promoting eye for eye.

6. Ewan
   February 24th, 2009 @ 4:20 pm

   I think Dr. Brown did an early show on the topic of capital punishment. Christian support for capital punishment for the crime of murder is based on Genesis 9:6 and is in an entirely different category to the ‘eye for eye’ issue. Christians should have no problem supporting the right of the state to carry out capital punishment on those found guilty of murder.

7. Michael
   February 24th, 2009 @ 11:25 pm

   You’re right Ewan. There was a show on this and I just listened to it. It makes better since to me now how the death penalty can be unquestionably supported. It still technically seems a bit like it fits in the “eye for eye” category to me. Do you think the “eye for eye” response for other scenarios can sometimes be justified such as the case of the Iranian woman? Sometimes it seems justified to me like when someone’s life is permanently altered because of another person’s evil intent, but that may just be my flesh talking.

8. Ewan
   February 25th, 2009 @ 8:14 am

   Hi Michael. Concerning the ‘eye for eye’ issue I would have to be guided by what Dr. Brown says. I understand that generally speaking those aspects of the OT law concerning punishment belong to that category of civil and ceremonial law that has not carried over into the new covenant age. The moral law remains the same but we don’t stone people to death for breaking it. The exception is in the case of murder because it goes back to the Noahic covenant which predated the nation of Israel and which was clearly universal in its application. There are some Christians who argue that the OT penalties should still apply today. Do a Google search on ‘Christian Reconstructionism’.

9. Michael
   February 25th, 2009 @ 10:23 am

   Good points Ewan. Explaining the different covenants and their timing makes that very clear. I got a chance to read about Christian Reconstructionism, and just like Jesus replaced “eye for eye” actions, it is disobedience to Christ for people to have that sort of mindset. Yeah, I guess my flesh was getting the better of me thinking of some “eye for eye” situations and how the evildoer should pay. Although I hate to see terrible things happen to people by others, I have to remember that Jesus offers forgiveness to the evildoer.

10. Ewan
    February 26th, 2009 @ 7:58 am

    Certainly the ‘evil doer’ should pay in some way. This is the job of the state to punish evil and reward good as per Romans 13. The state is concerned with justice, not forgiveness.

    This is a good article on the Christian View of Government and Law

11. mwiya
    February 27th, 2009 @ 10:37 am

    Some of what the article says is true, but other parts I disagree with. Scripture shows that human government has always been against the Almighty, from the plains of Shinar to modern times. Human Government is constantly against God, only when God steps in and creates Theocracy is there a government that glorifies Him and even then because of our evil hearts we still often rebel. Human government is there to keep some semblance or order in a world that would other wise be completely anarchic because of sin. The Enemy is the prince of this world and so ultimately the earthly nation states are ruled by Him as we see in Daniel where the spiritual prince of Persia fights against God and his angels lead by Michael. In fact Paul talks of how there are matters that should only be settled within the church such as disputes. That said Governments are ordained by God for this very purpose to keep order in a sinful world. Its the means through which God restrains evil men from utterly destroying themselves. He rules over the nations for this very reason, and shall judge them as Psalm 2 shows so clearly for they rage against Him.

    How does the christian influence the government? By preaching to the leaders within it and by living a righteous life if an employee of it. Which is why Paul preached even to those of the house hold of Caesar. Whenever christians have tried to create christian governments it has flopped, take England for example! Its not our duty to police the world!

    Which is why I can never understand why a christian could ever be a soldier and kill (take the world wars where christians murdered christians in the battlefields of Europe), or be a judge and sentene another to death considering how he himself knows is a criminal pardoned by the Mighty God. Better to let the heathen states do the judging as Paul clearly showed us, we have our place and the heathen have theirs.

    If Jesus judged no man to death, why should we? If Paul as a believer or Peter or any of the apostles did no such thing why should we? We are to be separate, yet we are to be in the world at the same time.

12. Ewan
    February 27th, 2009 @ 8:06 pm

    mwiya, you still fail to recognise that the state and the church have different mandates from God and therefore our responsibilities as Christians when involved in each are also different. Until you recognise this distinction you will continue to project our responsibilities as Christian individuals (i.e. to forgive others) onto the state which has different priorities (i.e. to enforce justice rather than to forgive the criminal).

    The type of thinking that you demonstrate which has its roots in Anabaptist theology leads to the church withdrawing from its role as ‘salt and light’ to the society and simply focusing all of its efforts on the Gospel. This is one of the main reasons why Western civilisation is in such bad shape today, because the church is not performing its ‘salt and light’ role.

13. Mwiya
    February 28th, 2009 @ 4:07 pm

    Don’t you think that by simply living by the commands of Jesus and spreading the Gospel we will truly be the Light of the world as Jesus want us to be? Its our works that manifest the light within us, namely Christ in us who does the works. If Christ did not attempt to reform the Roman Empire why should we? If he commanded us to make disciples why should we settle for less by trying to make moral looking unbelievers who will still be destined for hell? Yes we should defend the defenseless, yes we should speak out against injustice. But let us do no violence as we have done since the crusades, let us stop killing men as if Christ sentenced one to death whilst on earth. Let us keep to our limits whilst showing the world that it must change. The state has a purpose as a police man to keep the justice and a form of order in a world of sin. I think we feel the need to impress a form of morality on people when they actually need Christ. They may act moral, homosexuals may give up their immorality but the wrath of God will still abide on them if they do not believe in the Son of Man. I’m not saying we should not tell people to repent of their wickedness I’m saying we should point them to Christ whilst doing so otherwise it is ultimately in vain. God will still be angry with them, His wrath will still be upon them. The church is performing its salt and light role. The Foundation is not shaken, the Lord knows those who are his. They do his commandments.

    Jesus want us to do his commandments. That should be our focus, glorifying Him in doing his word as per John 14-17

Leave a Reply