 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
RELATE! EMAGAZINE
Brought to you by PURSUING THE TRUTH MINISTRIES
March 2003
Well hello and a hearty "God Bless" you. I pray that all is well with you and that your walk with the Lord is a blessed one. Are you free? What binds you? Are you letting religion or someone else dictate your life walk with God? How often do you spend time in fellowship with Christ? How often do you study the scriptures to discover the truths that are within them? I pray that you are actively pursuing the truth of God's Word. Stay faithful and be all that God wants you to be. Accomplish your purpose in Christ.
Let me also welcome those who have subscribed to the eMagazine last month. Welcome to Pursuing the Truth Ministries. There were quite a few new subscribers last month. As a matter of fact, we have never had that many subscriptions in one month.
WHAT'S NEW
Well finally! Pursuing the Truth Ministries has a new website. Check it out and let me know what you think. The navigation system was updated and improved, in my opinion. You will notice a section for lectures (formerly called "talks"). These are basically short discussions that I present on various topics. There is also a section for online forums for you to interact with each other and myself. Soon I will add interactive lessons for you to use. So feel free to go through the new website and let me know what you think.
We received a large number of new subscribers last month. So again let everyone welcome the new subscribers to Relate! eMagazine. God bless you all.
Pursuing the Truth is going outside of the Internet. We are going to have our first meeting on April 12th. We haven't decided on a topic but it looks as though it will have to do with "How to study the Bible" and putting Christ back in church. Those are the themes that we have going around right now. Soon things will become clearer.
Contribute to this ministry financially. Would you like to give in support of the ministry? If so then click on the donation link so that you can give to this ministry. We would really appreciate it. You can give online or via check. Instructions are at http://www.pursuingthetruth.org/donate.asp.
BIBLE STUDY: RETALIATION
By William R. Cunningham
We are wronged and now justice must be initiated to set things right. However, is it necessary to always seek justice when we are offended or wronged? Can we say for certain that the will of God is that we always retaliate for the wrong that is done to us? We will find that it is indeed not the will of God that we seek retribution for being wronged for every situation. Sometimes it is not in our best interest nor the will of God to seek retribution for the times we are wronged. Sometimes we have to back off and allow God to take care of the situations. I would dare say that our suffering might be for a greater good. So let's examine this topic of retaliation to get a better understanding of how to govern our lives according to the Bible.
An Eye For an Eye
We have heard the statement "An eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth." We typically interpret that saying, which derives from the scripture given below, to mean that we should retaliate based on the offense. In other words, if you break my jar then I have a right to break your jar. If you hit me then I have a right to hit you. I remember a time when I was in high school walking home with some friends and we came across two guys that were fighting, whom we knew. They broke up and were arguing and I said, why not just walk away and forget about or something to that affect (it was a long time ago). One guy looked at me and said something like, "You're kidding right. You can't be serious." I remember that his expression was of confusion. Why in the world would you let someone hit you and get away with it. It was a code in the hood that you retaliate for being wronged. If a guy tore your sweater then you had a right to rip his coat. You get the picture. However, is that always true? What is accomplished by retaliating and what could be accomplished by not retaliating?
Consider the following scripture.
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'" - Matthew 5:38
What does the principle of and eye for an eye really mean? The "eye for an eye" and "tooth for a tooth" are part of the widespread ancient Near Eastern law of retaliation. In Israel and other cultures, this principle was enforced by a court and refers to legalized vengeance; personal vengeance was never accepted in the Law of Moses, except as a concession for a relative's murder (see Numbers 35:18-21). The Old Testament did not permit personal vengeance. Vengeance was actually the prerogative of God (See Deuteronomy 32:35).
The primary purpose of the "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" law was to ensure that the punishment for a crime was indeed fitting for the crime. It was designed to provide fairness or justice in the penalties for crimes committed. For example, consider the following scripture.
Exodus 21:22-25 (NKJV) "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
The penalty must be fitting to the crime. That was again the whole purpose of "an eye for an eye." This was important because in some cultures the penalty for a crime could have far exceeded what would have been considered just or fair. So it appears at first glance that the Bible supports the idea of just retaliation. However, it was simply a system to ensure justice in assigning penalties for crimes.
Turn the Other Cheek
Matthew 5:39 (NKJV) But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
Here is that famous scripture regarding turning the other cheek. It is believed that this scripture suggests that Christians are not supposed to respond to offense. For example, if someone slaps a Christian in the face then the Christian is not supposed to respond or retaliate. However, this is not true. Yes there are times when retaliation would not be in the best interest of the person slapped or perhaps the slapping person. This however does not mean that we should not respond in all cases. If this were so then Jesus would not have had to give us instruction of dealing with offenses against us (See Matthew 18:10-14). So what does Jesus mean by turning the other cheek?
The blow on the right cheek was the most grievous insult possible in the ancient world (apart from inflicting serious physical harm), and in many cultures was listed alongside the "eye for an eye" laws; both Jewish and Roman law permitted prosecution for this offense. A prophet might endure such ill treatment (1 Kings 22:24; Isaiah 50:6).
Being Sued
Matthew 5:40 (NKJV) If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also.
The tunic was an undergarment and the cloak was a loose fitting outer garment. The poorest people of the Empire (such as most peasants in Egypt) had only an inner and outer garment, and the theft of a cloak would lead to legal recourse. Jesus seems to hyperbolically (we will discuss hyperbole later) imply the turning over of one's possessions to avoid a legal dispute affecting only oneself. Jesus gives this advice in spite of the fact that, under Jewish law, a legal case to regain one's cloak would have been foolproof: a creditor could not take a poor person's outer cloak, which might serve as one's only blanket at night as well as a coat (Exodus 22:26-27).
Go the Extra Mile
Matthew 5:41 (NKJV) And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.
Roman soldiers had the legal right to impress the labor, work animal, or substance of local residents (see Mark 15:21). The Roman government could press anyone into its service to carry a load as far as one mile. Matthew records a Roman officer doing this to Simon of Cyrene in Matthew 27:32. In the subject scripture, Jesus suggests that a person go an extra mile even though the law only required that the person was only legally obligated for one mile. Again Jesus seems to encourage us to go beyond legalism by going the extra mile. The phrase, "going the extra mile" has come to indicate doing something beyond the call of duty or responsibility. Besides, why should we govern our lives merely by rules and protocol. The Kingdom of God transcends those as Jesus describes here.
Unselfish Giving
Matthew 5:42 (NKJV) Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.
Beggars were widespread. The Bible stressed giving to those in need (Deuteronomy 15:11; Psalm 112:5, 9; Proverbs 21:13). God would take care of the needs of those who helped the poor (Deuteronomy 15:10; Proverbs 19:17; 22:9; 28:8). Biblical laws against usury (charging interest) and especially about lending to the poor before the year of release (Deuteronomy 15:9; Leviticus 25) support Jesus' principle here. However, Jesus goes even farther in emphasizing unselfish giving.
Lesson Learned
Jesus seems to be speaking in hyperbolic terms to teach the lesson of non-retaliation. Generally He commands us to have a generous and compassionate attitude toward the needy. He makes this application in four areas: physical attacks (verse 39), legal suits (verse 40), government demands (verse 41), and financial requests (verse 42).
Jesus uses hyperbole to make his point about retaliation. Hyperbole is a rhetorical exaggeration, a figure of speech often used by Jewish wisdom teachers to underline their point. The point of Jesus' hyperbolic illustrations is generally to grab the hearer's attention and force that hearer to take his point seriously. So Jesus' hyperbolic illustrations should not be considered as teachings on what to do when slapped or sued but as a means of rhetorically getting his point across about the primary message, which in this case is non-retaliation and going beyond legalism.
The Bible gives us more insight into the principle of non-retaliation. Consider the following scripture.
1 Corinthians 6:7 (NKJV) 7Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated?
Many philosophers who believed that property did not matter could advocate ignoring offenses rather than going to court. Paul prefers the Jewish method of settling disputes within the community, which serves both justice and the community's witness to the outside world.
There are two sides to this concept. Christians should be able to settle disputes amongst themselves within the Christian community. However, the Christian community must be worthy to operate in such a fashion. The Christian community today in general is not up to par with this type of operation. The Christian community has unfortunately degraded to a church community, which is not always exclusively Christians. Therefore, the church has generally failed in this area and people are left to pursue legal action or justice outside of the Christian community. However, the judicial system is wrought with just as much unworthiness as the general Christian community. There are many churches that have the integrity and respect of its congregation so that disputes amongst its Christian members can indeed be settled within that community.
In any case, Paul advocates that Christians should settle disputes among themselves without going to the Gentile community. He also suggests that it is not necessary to go to the law when we are wronged. Why not be wronged or cheated? Why do we have to retaliate whenever we have been wronged? The suggestion here by Paul is the same as Jesus' in our lesson text. There may be times when we are legally justified to take a certain legal action against someone. We may find that retaliation is not a desirable course of action though it is the justified course of action. Just because we have the right to do something doesn't mean that we should do it. So don't think that it is necessary to retaliate every time you are wronged or think that you are wronged.
Consider the following excerpt from the Disciples' Study Bible, which I believe really summarizes the lesson learned here very well.
Evil and Suffering, Endurance—Disciples should respond to evil attacks from enemies with a non-retaliation and a non-vindictive attitude (Lk 6:29-36). God provides the sun and the rain for all people. Disciples should not usurp God’s role by attacking evil without God’s guidance. The Christian response to evil acts against us must rise above legalism which protects against excess punishment. We must love our attackers and desire the best for them. Divine love rather than self-interest must control our actions. God’s character, not human models, is the standard by which to judge our actions. See note on Ro 12:14-21.
Christian Ethics, Character—Jesus’ teaching about retaliation surprised His audience as much as an enemy’s sudden attack would have. They knew how to deal with enemies. He called for love of an enemy which transcends any action an enemy might perform. We are not to regard persons as enemies but to love them as people God created and as potential followers of Christ.
Generally speaking, we could conclude this by saying that Christians should not live by mere legalism. We should live by the Word of God. Sure we are required to obey the law (Romans 13). However, sometimes it is not necessary to take legal action for what has happened to us. Sometimes we can forgive or just rely on God to handle the situations. At the very least we should not act emotionally and simply retaliate with the full force of the law behind our backs.
RESOLVING CONFLICTS
By William R. Cunningham
How do you resolve conflicts between Christian brothers and sisters? The concept presented above comes into focus in this area. However, Jesus did give us some guidelines for resolving situations when someone offends us. Consider the following scripture.
Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. - Matthew 18:15-17
Jesus gives us three steps to resolving conflicts, which are as follows.
- Go to the person and tell him or her how he or she offended you
- If he or she doesn't listen then go back to him or her with two or three witnesses in a second effort to resolve the issue.
- If he or she still won't listen to you the take him or her to the church (assembly) with the goal of resolving the issue and restoring the relationship
Now if the person still doesn't listen after going before the church (or refuses any efforts of resolution) then Jesus said to reckon that person as a heathen and tax collector, which were not part of the fellowship.
The common theme of Jesus' teaching is that you approach the person that offended you. Now there are other teachings that deal with how to approach the person and other things that we have to consider in order to restore the relationship. For example, we should consider the teachings on forgiveness. In any case, your primary goal is to restore the relationship that was damaged by an offense.
I believe it is very important that people learn to interact with each other. We are so quick to run to the law, take legal action, and retaliate instead of simply approaching the person that offended us and try to reconcile the situation. Sometimes the offense is unintentional or it could simply be a misunderstanding on our part.
Here are some related scriptures to resolving conflicts.
- Matthew 5:22-25
- Matthew 18:21-35
A fundamental element of Christian conflict management is to communicate with the offender. Also, be willing to accept your part in contributing to a situation else we may try to blame it all on the offender. Be ready to resolve the issue and stay away from emotional responses that could cause you to hold resentment, which produces a whole slew of problems later.
MARRIAGE CORNER: PURSUING PURPOSE
Pastor Robert Randolph-Davis of Abundant Life Christian Center presented a concept about marriage relationships that I had not heard before. He said that the wife should submit to the purpose of the husband. If she doesn't submit to the purpose of the husband then her selfishness would have negative consequences on the relationship and in fulfilling the purpose of God for the union. Now I must admit that at first I couldn't see how a women could just give up her rights and submit to her husband regardless of how godly or ungodly he is. That was quite broad to me and I couldn't see it applying to all marriages. However, the principle seemed to be very sound in my opinion.
I have been researching marriage for many years now in an attempt to make mine a good one. I started shortly after I was married and started noticing some potential problems. I believed then as I do now that we have to gain knowledge of the thing that confronts us in order for us to defeat it or deal with it affectively. I applied that philosophy to marriage and in the process I have learned a lot. I have also helped many people in their marriage relationships over the years. However, the problems that people would present to me and the problems that I saw in my own marriage seemed to stem from one underlying problem, which I will briefly discuss here.
Consider the following scripture.
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. Genesis 2:18 (KJV)
Whenever I read this verse I would always read it as if the words help and meet were one word. However, they are two separate words and knowing this significantly changes the interpretation of this verse. Let's take a look at it by a word study.
The word "help" in the Hebrew is basically how we would interpret it. It refers to an aid or someone that helps. Now the word "meet" in the Hebrew refers to someone that is comparable with. It denotes someone that is compatible with the person that will be helped in this case. Therefore, God created the woman to be an compatible helper to the male. So right here we see that the woman was purposed by God to help the man and that she was compatible with him. Now without getting into a discussion on submission, which is beyond the scope of this article, suffice it for me to say that a woman that submits to a husband is not necessarily supressing her purpose. On the contrary, if God has put the two together then their purpose will compliment each other such that the will of God for the marriage would be accomplished.
I think it is also important here to not confuse leadership and headship. Jesus is the leader (Lord) of both the man and woman. The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church. We don't see Jesus as the leader in the same way we think of the leader of an organization or company. Jesus is head of the church in that He was before the church and he died for the Church. Jesus loves the church and sacrificed his life in order to save the church. Do you see the difference. The head of the wife is the covering for the wife and family. The husband is the one that would sacrifice himself for the welfare of his wife if you will. He is the one that would protect his wife at all cost. Think of what Jesus did for the church and you have the idea of the responsibility of one who is head.
Now it is to the benefit of the relationship that the wife voluntarily places herself under the headship of the man. After all, if she tries to operate in that role then both would have their heads ont he chopping block, which opens a doorway to destruction to the family. The wife therefore, voluntarily submits or places herself under the covering and headship of the husband. She begins to operate in her role of a compatible helper to the man. This doesn't mean that she should abandon her goals and purpose since it was God that put the two together and it was God that planted his purpose in the both of them for a reason. The bottom line is that you can't have two heads in the relationship.
Now if we think of the marriage relationship more of fulfilling the purpose of God then our perception of it begins to change. We begin to see something very different about marriage then we used to. We begin to see that much of the problems in marriage is due to the fact that the husband or wife or both are not seeking to fulfill the purpose of God for the relationship. The husband tries to dominate the wife and the wife fights back by not submitting to the husband (and why should she if she is not fulfilling his purpose). Consider the following scripture as an example of this.
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ - 1 Corinthians 11:1
How could we know to follow Paul? We follow Paul because he follows Christ. The wife can submit to the husband if the husband submits to Christ and the purpose of God. Does this mean that the wife should rebel if the husband doesn't do this. No. This is because another principle comes into play here that could restore the relationship. She can activate faith operating through active love. That principle is beyond the scope of this article however. What it means is that the wife can still love her husband and submit to him in love as that act through the power of God can transform her husbnad and win him to Christ and the purpose of God.
So what I have found is that many times in marriage the wife does her thing (have her goals such as career and education and children) and the husband has his goals. The two become separate instead of one while each persue their own objectives. The wife never submits to the purpose that God has for the union because she does not submit to the headship and the purpose of the husband. I am not implying that the wife should blindly submit to husband because his purpose combined with her purpose might produce the overall purpose that God has for the union. In other words, his purpose might become that for the union instead as perceived as merely for him. This happens so much in my expereinces. The wife has her own objective and she pursues them. She has a desire for children (not that husbands don't). She has aspirations for career advancement and education. She might even have aspirations for ministry. However, is she helping her husband do what God told him to do for the union? Has she submitted to the headship of the husband? Is she a companion to the husband or is she simply a partner in a human merger called marraige? In many cases the answer is no. She is pursuing her own objectives with no regard to helping the husband fulfill the purpose for the union. She is out doing her thing.
Now of course this doesn't get the husband off the hook. He should not expect his wife to submit to anything if he is not worthy. Many woman have told me that they would love to submit to a man that has purpose. It is when the man does not meet his responsibility as a husband and head of the wife that the wife begins to take things into her own hands and understandably so. So the husband has to pursue the purpose of God for him just as the wife pursues her purpose. However, now those two purposes must be seen in light of the union and not the individual. The husband becomes the head of the wife and the wife becomes the husband's helper. Now the two pursues the purpose that God has for the marriage instead of merely looking at their own personal objectives.
My advice to wifes, submit to your husband and seek to help him. Be with him by helping him fulfill the purpose that God has for the marriage. My advice to husbands is to love your wife and pursue the purpose that God has for the marriage. Stay tuned for more studies and articles on this topic. Keep in mind that this article was merely an overview or summary of the topic in general.
THIS ISSUE'S QUESTION
I have two questions for you this time.
The Bible teaches us that the man is head of the wife (Ephesians 5:23, 1 Corinthians 11:3). Is this the same as stating that the man is head of the household? Explain and give scripture references for your answer.
Is leadership the same as headship? For example, it is said that the man is head of the wife. Is that the same as saying that the man is the leader of the wife (or household)? Explain your answer.