Contrasting Carnal and Spiritual Matters: Omega (Parte Dos)

From a distance, all things seem typical...
It is when we zoom in that we see...

Continued from Parte Uno...

Both Christianity and Islam agree that Yeshua was (called) the Messiah / Christ.

The definition of Messiah being almost uniform in both Judaism and Christianity, Islamic theology has a very different and partial understanding.

What should be clarified here (as will be shown from the citations) is that the Jewish law was wholly and eternally fulfilled in Messiah.

This the Christian position.

This claim of the law's fulfillment is not only misunderstood within the variety of Christian circles, it is grossly misunderstood in both Judaism and in Islam.

To state clearly: the law of Moses and the testimony of all the Hebrew prophets culminated in Yeshua as the Lord thy God.

With this, the hostilities prescribed in the law for violations done was fulfilled by and in Christ.

This is where we understand 'grace and truth' came through Yeshua Christ.

This is the proclamation of Christ...the Gospel message...the Christian theological stance.

The Gospel and letters repeat a peaceful and peace-filled message to mankind, with peace always being the response to violence, love to hate, blessing to curse.

Full submission to mankind for God's sake, what the term 'Islam' somewhat means interestingly.

Islamic theology expresses Yeshua as Messiah (Isa al Masih) and as the penultimate prophet to Muhammad, while as already mentioned having a unique definition of Messiah not found in the previous two theologies (Judaism and Christianity).

In exploring the definition of Messiah, the misperceptions are another point of disagreement needing remedy.

One issue is the understanding, the other what is explicitly written in the texts defining the concept.

The 'similarities' of the so-called three Abrahamic religions begin to diverge into different directions when defining and understanding Messiah.

Interestingly the central character mentioned most in all three places is the same character which, due to misunderstanding of them, causes the greatest consternation and division.

Expressed as Messiah and a variety of titles and names in the Judaic account, by Name and various attributes in the Gospel, and by various attributes and names in Muhammad's poetry (the Quran).

For religious Jews then and now, Messiah has yet to arrive...Yeshua usually viewed as a pretender or possible prophet, but not the Messiah by complete prophetic definition.

For Christians, Messiah is Yeshua and He returned to reign from His eternal heavenly throne.

For Muslims, Yeshua was another prophet and nothing greater than Muhammad; the Arabic man believed to be a prophet and the human example a Muslim follows.

For all others, perhaps Yeshua was a good man, or a kind person, or someone who historically existed and contributed to life's ideas.

What is clear is the historical impact Yeshua has had on humanity and the manner the Gospel resonates in the hearts of (or offends) those who consider its message.

Is there any evidence in the Gospel and teachings or lessons regarding violence?

Does the Gospel contain an allowance to fight, or to strive against others, or a teaching about how to react to being treated badly, or even how to respond to those who desire to kill the Christian?

Does the Gospel, or did Yeshua, teach any form of violence or allowance for violence?

There are a few verses that are claimed by contenders and believed by confused religious people to be 'violent', or teaching an allowance for violence of fighting.

These are widely misunderstood.

One is a parable about a certain king that was rejected by his people, and when he is declared king and comes to rule, he demands his enemies to be stricken down.

This is a parable about a future time and the king is God Himself executing His judgment over His enemies.

Another is Yeshua asking if the disciples have swords, and then asking them to sell certain things in order to buy swords.

In this directive there is mention of a prophecy that will soon be fulfilled.

When one of the disciples (Peter) actually uses his sword in attempting to prevent Yeshua's arrest, Peter is chastised for having used the sword and another lesson is mentioned about those who live by the sword will die by the sword.

This incident arguably being the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Messiah will be found among the transgressors (Peter having transgressed the law and physically hurt someone).

One can understand the desire to have swords was to bring forth the prophetic fulfillment.

Another is about Christ not bringing peace but a sword.

When reading these and others in their full context, the teaching is made more sensible and the definitions of 'sword' are realized as speaking not about physical weapons of war, but something very different (the sword is the Word of God).

What is remarkable and historically accurate from both secular and religious accounts, is the lack of evidence showing the disciples of Christ being violent for several centuries after Christ.

Christ being the initial Example, and after Peter's transgression, there is no further violent account in either the Gospel and letters or ancient church teaching.

There is only evidence of Christians being persecuted, tortured, killed and massacred...but no account of them fighting to save themselves, nor defend themselves, nor raising a hand or weapon against their enemies.

The violence rising in the Christian ranks came about in the 4th century after the faith was co-opted as an acceptable (legal) religion, and eventually the official Roman state religion with other religions being outlawed.

Although certain church leaders began to write allowances for war, or fighting through the state as a political tool, other church leaders and laity were not in agreement with such carnal manners.

Historically, wherever place the faith infiltrated (Roman empire, Persian empire, etc.) the church continued subject to carnal manners of political intrigue.

Secular laws began to reflect the church's influence.

I wonder if the two were ever to be intermingled or understood as one from another.

Not the 'separation of church and state' modern view, but the fact that one transcends and is superior to the other while not being wholly subject, but in service to the external.

Meaning: although the governments of men historically (and continue to) resort to force in order to continue rule, enforce law, reprimand rebels, incarcerate criminals, etc., the positions occupied by the royal priesthood are not directly affiliated.

This balance is expressed in the study of the first believed-to-be temporal Christian king; Constantine.

Although certain terms in our languages do not clearly address or encapsulate fully some ideas, the term caesaropapism is afforded a space to introduce a concept.

By definition, I wonder if a secular king can honestly have administrative influence over ecclesiastical issues.

The bishops of the church became understood to be kings according to God's right of recognition over man's kingdom, Christ being King of kings over all things visible and invisible.

This is a definition of Messiah.

This definition triumphed over the secular state, paganism eventually being outlawed and the faith in Christ being recognized as the truth over lesser ideas.

The priestly kings were not those who wielded temporal power, but spiritual influence.

The carnal kings continued as they've always been; enforcers of secular law and tools of punishment for those who transgressed the law.

Unfortunately, secular influence diminished ecclesiastical precedence.

The carnal overshadowed grace and truth in certain circles of temporal influence, yet this wasn't universal throughout all Christendom (the invisible church beyond political borders).

What was previously lorded over humans in secular state law, was eventually interpreted through the law of Christ.

The law of 'eye for an eye' was fulfilled by the law of love in Christ...yet this was not realized in every home nor every domain where the faith in Christ spread, then and sadly still not today.

Where the light dawned, so did the sinful nature persist wherever night would fall.

As carnal perceptions began to be argued alongside spiritual realities, night began to fall in the hearts of some men holding highly esteemed and influential positions.

Love for one's neighbor, and for one's enemy, wained among certain religious circles that conflated state management with church leadership, sacrifice of enemies in place of sacrificing self in loving one's enemies.

This is where particular literal or spiritual interpretations of inspired texts are crucial.

The manner the ancient church triumphed over its oppressors and enemies was via peaceful means (as martyrs, not as men fighting their enemies).

What was always quite clear eventually became somewhat confused, and no more is it confused than in Today's modern view of the past and in Today's manners towards others, even perceived enemies.

Previous ancient kings would lead their warriors into battle.

Kings were warriors, or became warriors, and this was how they attained, kept and held onto temporal power.

As civilizations grew and cultures imitated civilized manners longstanding communities like a trade center or city center, kings began to be more administrators of law than fighting warriors.

The 'fighting' was conducted through words and through the court of the king.

Yet, not every carnal king has understood the order of law and their responsibility...instead repeating the very old manners of 'eye for an eye' and the strife that so easily confuses the heart and mind; temptations of this world.

Through Christ the sword of the Word of God brought a physical reality from a spiritual wonderment to fruition...but so very few have understood or realized.

Despite this, the law of God has been made ever clearer and evident throughout the world.

Continued in Parte Tres...