Q&A – Page 95 – Church of the Eternal God

Q How do you explain Luke 22:35-38? Doesn't this passage allow, if not command, Christian warfare?

April 1, 2005

_A Luke 22:35-38 reads in context: “And He said to them, `When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?’ So they said, `Nothing.’ [God took care of them.] Then He said to them, `But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: “And He was numbered with the transgressors.” For the things concerning Me have an end.’ So they said: `Lord, look, here are two swords.’ And He said to them: `It is enough.'”

This passage cannot be used to justify participation of a Christian to fight in war. In fact, the passage teaches the exact opposite. First of all, “two swords” would hardly be enough for Christ’s disciples to defend themselves against the coming Roman persecution. Secondly, Christ Himself makes clear why they were to buy swords. It was so that the prophecy regarding Him could be fulfilled. What specific prophetic saying had to be fulfilled? “And He was numbered with the transgressors.” What transgression did the disciples – who had swords – become guilty of?

Did God ORDER Ancient Israel to SIN?

April 1, 2005

_{Q Although there are examples in the Old Testament when men decided to go to war, other passages show that God ordered them to war. If human warfare is always wrong, did God order men to SIN?}

_A To answer this question, it would be helpful to recall that sin begins in the mind – many times, long before the physical act is committed.

If a man lusts after a woman in his heart (mind) he has already committed the sin of adultery, in the eyes of God (compare Matthew 5:27-28). If a person hates another in his heart (mind), he has committed murder already, in the eyes of God (compare Matthew 5:21-22). The law has already been broken. Sin has already been committed.

Thus, in David’s and in ancient Israel’s situations, both had already broken God’s law and committed sin against Him, in their hearts, when they desired to go to war. They had already become men of war, in their hearts – sinners, who had chosen to live contrary to God and His Way (but they might not have even realized that fighting in war is sin).

Q Please explain Romans 13:3, stating that "rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil." I could think of many rulers who are a terror to good works. Also, do we have to obey civil rulers and their laws in everything?

April 1, 2005

_A Paul is talking here about rulers in general who uphold certain laws to guarantee a civil and peaceful and harmonious lifestyle among their citizens. Paul is referring to submission to and enforcement of civil and criminal laws, such as theft or murder.

Paul is not talking here about the Hitlers or the Neros, who encourage their citizens to betray Christians or the Jews so they can be killed. We need to remember Christ’s statement to OBEY the Pharisees in all that they tell the people – but later, Peter did not obey them when they told him not to preach in the name of Christ. Christ would not obey them, either, in following their rules of ceremonial washings or to have no contact with “sinners.” So, Christ and Paul were talking about matters that were not in conflict with God’s Word. (Notice, too, that John the Baptist openly rebuked Herod for committing adultery with his brother’s wife – see Luke 3:19-20. Also, Daniel refused to obey the order of King Darius, not to pray to God, while his three
friends disobeyed the order of King Nebuchadnezzar to worship the golden image).

Q What are the Biblical reasons compelling a Christian to refuse to participate in military service and war?

April 1, 2005

_A There are different Biblical principles involved. We believe that the following will best express our religious convictions against participating in military service and war:

A true Christian is a stranger, alien and exile (1 Peter 2:11; Hebrews 11:13) while here on earth; an ambassador for Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20); and a representative of God’s kingdom. As such, and in being a light to the world by proper conduct (Matthew 5:14-16), a true Christian does not take part in this world’s governmental or political affairs, because it is not God who presently rules this world, but Satan the devil (Revelation 2:13; Luke 4:5-6). Christians are admonished to come out of the governmental and political systems of this world (Revelation 18:4).

Q What are the Biblical principles enjoining us not to serve on a jury?

April 1, 2005

_A There are different Biblical principles involved. We believe that the following will best express our religious convictions against participating in jury duty:

A true Christian is a stranger, alien and exile (1 Peter 2:11; Hebrews 11:13) while here on earth; an ambassador for Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20); and a representative of God’s Kingdom. As such, and in being a light to the world by proper conduct (Matthew 5:14-16), a true Christian does not take part in this world’s governmental or political affairs, as presently, it is not God who rules this earth, but Satan the devil (Revelation 2:13; Luke 4:5-6). Christians are challenged to come out of the governmental and political systems of this world. Christ, knowing that God’s Kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36), refused to judge a civil matter when He was asked to do so (Luke 12:14). Paul, likewise, prohibited judging those “who are outside” the church (1 Corinthians 5:12).

Q Why do you teach that a Christian should not vote in governmental elections?

April 1, 2005

_A In the context of this booklet, we need to understand that the issues of jury duty and voting for the government are both connected with the issue of military service and war.

It is inconsistent to take the position that one cannot join the military because one is an ambassador of Jesus Christ and a citizen of another government – the Kingdom of God – while at the same time serving on a jury or voting in governmental elections. For instance, in the United States, the President is also the Commander-in-Chief, having both the right and the obligation under the Constitution, in certain circumstances, to declare war. How can one refuse to participate in war, while voting for a person who has the right and the obligation to declare war? In the past, people were disqualified as conscientious objectors because they did not refuse to serve on a jury or to vote in governmental elections. It was ruled that such an obvious inconsistency in position showed evidence for non-sincerity of the applicant.

Would you please explain 1 Corinthians 5:11?

March 25, 2005

The passage reads: “But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner — not even to eat with such a person.”

It is important to see the context of that passage. Paul had explained, beginning in verse 1, that he had received reports that there was sexual immorality among the local church members — such a terrible perversion, “as is not even named among the Gentiles–that a man has his father’s wife.” Whether this intimate sexual relationship was between mother and son, or stepmother and son, is debatable. Paul continued in verse 2: “And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you.” They were actually “glorying” about this evil conduct (verse 6), feeling that they needed to be so tolerant and liberal with the law of God that this man’s public action was acceptable in God’s Church. But Paul concluded in verse 13: “Therefore ‘put away from yourselves the evil person.'”

Will the Jews build a temple in Jerusalem, prior to Christ's return?

March 18, 2005

When we consider all the Biblical Scriptures related to this topic, it appears very likely that a temple will be built in the near future, prior to Christ’s return.

When Christ was asked by His disciples what the sign of His coming and of the end of the age [of this present civilization] would be (Matthew 24:3), He referred to the “great tribulation” (verse 21) and, at that same time, “‘the abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (verse 15; compare, too, Mark 13:14, adding, “where it ought not”). In Luke 21:20, in the parallel account, Christ is quoted as saying, “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near.”

From these passages, we see that the abomination of desolation refers to foreign armies which will desolate Jerusalem. But is this ALL that the term, “abomination of desolation” refers to? Christ pointed out that the prophet Daniel spoke about the “abomination of desolation.” He did do so on three occasions — in Daniel 9:27; 11:31 and 12:11. (An additional similar reference can be found in Daniel 8:13). The way those passages are worded, they seem to refer to more than just armies. Daniel 11:31 states that a king of the North shall muster forces, “and they shall defile the sanctuary fortress; then they shall take away the daily sacrifices, and PLACE THERE the abomination of desolation.” Daniel 12:11 states: “And from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation is SET UP…”

There has been much discussion over the years on the question of homosexuality, and particularly recently with the ordination of a homosexual bishop in the USA. What is your Biblical understanding on this issue?

March 11, 2005

The Bible must always be the last word on all doctrinal matters, not the personal opinions of man. Unfortunately, there can be an attitude of “pick and mix” where doctrines can be summarily dismissed that may not suit someone’s personal life-style; that are “uncomfortable,” or “not acceptable” in today’s society; or that don’t fit in with someone’s general approach. On the other hand, if the Bible purportedly backs up personal opinions and beliefs, then Biblical teaching is readily accepted. This means that there are those who, because of their own personal behavior, amend their understanding of Scripture in order that their practices can be (in their own eyes) accommodated by the Word of God. The subject of homosexuality is just one example.

I understand that recently, pastors and elders ordained one of your ministers to the rank of evangelist. Isn't that procedure contrary to Scripture?

March 4, 2005

We assume that you are referring to the concept, taught by some, that ministers can only ordain other ministers to a rank equal to or lower than the rank held by the ordaining minister. Although it is true that the Bible does contain examples reflecting such a procedure, there are other examples reflecting a different procedure.

A correct understanding of this question includes the correct concept of ranks in the ministry. We read in Ephesians 4:11-12 that Christ “Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.”

Although this passage addresses “ranks or positions of responsibility” (Compare W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 21, under “Elder, Eldest”), it also clearly talks about functions. We read Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 12:5-6 that there are “differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but the same God who works all in all.” Paul goes on to explain, in verses 28-29: “And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues [languages]. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles?”