“Jesus is all about peace and that’s what we advocate.” “God is all about love and mentioning sin only makes people feel bad.” Heard these before? Sure you have, but in case you haven’t, tune in to any talk show, catch a religious debate with a worldly person, or even better, watch an activist judge at work and you’re guaranteed to hear such refuse. The reason for this clear: people love to propagate their view of God, not God’s view of himself. I’d like to see what God’s word has to say about this matter.
Matthew 10:34 – 36:
In this passage, Jesus is sending the twelve disciples on an evangelistic journey to Israel. In verse 34 he said, “Do not think that I come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword”. Many a skeptic have erroneously concluded this is a contradiction to Luke 2:14. But Luke qualifies this peace is among men with whom God is pleased (i.e., saved people). Matthew is referring the fact that being a believer in Christ will cost a lot, even the love and fellowship of unsaved family members. I love to hear the story of two former Muslims, Drs. Ergun and Emir Caner. They became believers in Jesus and even evangelized and were instrumental in the conversion of family members, all except their father, who remained a devout Muslim until death. They have testified that according to the Koran, their father disowned them and even refused to read any letters they mailed. They suffered division not peace, all for the sake of Christ.
For all you who think or have been told it’s a sin for a Christian to own a gun, listen up. During the Upper Room Sermon, Luke records what the other Gospel writers do not. Jesus warns of the coming danger for his disciples. He reminds them of the past preaching journey and how they took nothing. But now he instructs them to take bag and buy a sword, a short dagger in the Greek. In other words he is telling them they’re coming for you to kill you, so be ready to fight back. No peace here.
John 8:1 – 11:
One disclaimer before I elucidate this point. I know many of you are a better student and exegete of Scripture than I and may feel this passage, although the event occurred, is not in any of the earliest known manuscripts, and therefore, was not intended to be a part of the canon. But for sake of the edification of all, let’s work on the premise that it was to be included. Here is my point:
Jesus forgave this adulterous woman. In fact, according to the law, the man should have been up font ready to take a few stones in the head himself. I guess that’s why Jesus had to write names, dates and times on the ground. It appears all the men there may have spent some and hour or two at her house at some point. But no matter how damning the sin, in verse 11 Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you…” Radical! Jesus forgave. We should, too. But that’s not the end of the story. Listen to what those who want carnal Christianity omit, “Go your way. From now on sin no more.” He told her to stop doing that particular sin “that easily entangled her.”
The Bible makes clear. God is a god of love but he’s also one who disdains sin. He’s a god of peace but also a god of wrath. Unfortunately, many have elected to pick and choose only those attributes of God that suit them most. While we are finite and can not fully comprehend God, he is knowable and we should strive to know God through all he has revealed to us in his word.
If you died today, are you absolutely certain that you would go to heaven? You can be! TRUST JESUS NOW
Read more articles by Valentino Clemons or search for articles on the same topic or others.
"not intended to be a part of the canon" you stated. To this I can only say that I for one am relieved to know that the Sovereign God wasn't too concerned with what we consider canonical and the parts that men thought to omit, He knew to include and, the nerve! He didn't consult us? Also, writer to writer, the article has no flow to it, well, it's abrupt. If a reader has to focus on the words instead of the image portrayed, or story told, the work is diminished and the point lost in the helter-skelter of verbiage. When stating that a passage may or may not be canon I urge you to cite your sources, that way the reader knows or at least has the chance of knowing that you've done some research and aren't a "free agent" with an agenda. It's not a guarantee, just advice. Also, if you don't know exactly what "exegete, exegesis, exegetical" mean, don't use them; it impugns your credibility with the reader. Your use of it here was a malapropism.