Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. Verse Tool: show

THE 16 COMMANDMENTS

Right & Wrong

THE 16 COMMANDMENTS

Postby Paidion » Sat Jul 21, 2018 7:01 pm

Here are the 16 commandments of Jesus (taken from "The Sermon on the Mount"). Do we obey ALL of them?

The Sixteen Commandments of Jesus

1. Do not get angry. (Matt 5:22)
2. Do not commit adultery. (Matt 5:28)
3. Do not separate from your spouse. (Matt 5:32)
4. Do not take an oath (Matt 5: 34)
5. Do not resist an evil person (Matt 5:39)
6. Give to the one who asks you for something. (Matt 5:42)
7. Love your enemies, pray for them, and do good to them. (Matt 5:44)
8. Do not give alms, pray, or fast in order to receive praise from people.(Matt 6:1,5,16)
9. Pardon people for their blunders. (Matt 6: 14)
10. Do not hoard goods or be a slave to money. (Matt 6: 19,24)
11. Do not be anxious about your physical needs. (Matt 6:31,34)
12. Do not condemn people. (Matt 7:1)
13. Do not give holy things to those who cannot appreciate them. (Matt 7:6)
14. Ask for what you need, and you will be given it. (Matt 7:7)
15. Whatever you want people to do for you, do for them (Matt 7:12)
16. Beware of false prophets. (Matt7:15)
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years old. I am now 80.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 4709
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: THE 16 COMMANDMENTS

Postby steve » Sat Jul 21, 2018 7:42 pm

That's a good list, Paidion.

Of course, application must take into account such literary phenomena as metaphors (e.g., 5:13-16; 6:22-23; 7:3-6, 13-20) and hyperbole or the omission of qualifications (e.g., Matt.5:22, 29-30, 39-42; 6:3, 6; 7:1, 8), very common features in the Sermon on the Mount.
User avatar
steve
 
Posts: 3298
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: THE 16 COMMANDMENTS

Postby Paidion » Tue Jul 24, 2018 9:11 pm

I'm surprised that there haven't been more comments about these commandments, and whether or not the Lord expects us to keep them. SHOULD we really obey Jesus’ commands concerning non-resistance? If we see someone about to kill a child, are we to just stand there and let him do it? If ISIS is wreaking havoc in our community, should we refuse to join the army to stop them? These are the hard questions relating to complying with Jesus’ teaching that we are not to resist evil people.

I would like to post the thoughts of Leo Tolstoi on this very issue. I have omitted some parts and have indicated this with three dots …

How, then, is a man to act when he sees that obvious harm will result from following the law of love and the law of non-resistance? In the example that is always cited, how is a man to act when a robber in his sight kills or injures a child, and when the child cannot be saved otherwise than by killing the robber?

It is generally assumed that, when they cite such an example, there can be no other answer to the question than that the robber ought to be killed in order to save the child…

It is assumed that it is necessary to kill the robber in order to save the child, but we need only stop and think on what ground a man should act thus, be he a Christian or a non-Christian, to convince ourselves that such an act can have no rational foundations… Why should a non-Christian, who does not recognize God and the meaning of life in the fulfillment of His will, kill the robber in defending the child? Someone certainly dies if he kills the robber, but he does not know for certain until the very last moment whether the robber will kill the child or not. There is also this irregularity: who has decided that the life of the child is more valuable and better than the life of the robber?

If a non-Christian does not recognize God, and does not consider the meaning of life to consist in the fulfillment of God’s will, then the consideration as to what is more profitable for him and for all men – the continuation of the robber’s life or that of the child – is only a calculation that guides the choice of his acts. But to decide this, he must know what will become of the child who he saves, and what would become of the robber if he did not kill him. But he cannot know that. And so, if he is a non-Christian, he has no rational foundation for saving the child through the death of the robber.

But if a man is a Christian, and so recognizes God and sees the meaning of life in the fulfillment of His will, he has still less cause to depart from the law given him by God, no matter what terrible robber may attack any innocent and beautiful child. He may implore the robber, may place his body between the robber and his victim, but there is one thing he cannot do: he cannot consciously depart from the law of God, the fulfillment of which gives meaning to his life.

Fais ce que doit, advienne que pourra (Do what is right and let come what may) is an expression of profound wisdom. Each of us knows unquestionably what he ought to do, but none of us knows or can know what will happen. Thus we are brought to the same conclusion, not only because we must do what is right, but also because we know what is right, and do not know at all what will come and result from our acts. The Christian teaching is a teaching as to what we must do for the fulfillment of the will of Him who sent us into the world. But the reflections as to what consequences we assume to result
from certain acts of men not only have nothing in common with Christianity, but are that very delusion which destroys Christianity. No one has yet seen the imaginary robber with the imaginary child, and all the horrors, which fill history and contemporary events, have been produced only because men imagine that they can know the consequences of the possible acts…

It was this false justification of violence that Christ arraigned. He showed that, since every act of violence could be justified (as actually happens when two enemies do violence to one another and both consider their violence justifiable), and there is no chance of verifying the justice of either cause, it is
necessary to disbelieve any justifications of violence, and it is never necessary to make use of such justifications.

It would seem that men who profess Christianity would have to unveil this deception carefully, because one of the chief manifestations of Christianity consists in the unveiling of this deception. But the very opposite has happened. Men to whom violence was advantageous, and who did not want to give up these advantages, took upon themselves the exclusive propaganda of Christianity. These men asserted that, since there are cases in which the non-application of violence produces more evil than its application (the imaginary robber who kills the child), we must not fully accept Christ’s teaching about non-resistance to evil. They advanced the notion that that we may depart from His teaching in the defense of our lives and of those of other men, in the defense of our country, in the protection of society from madmen and malefactors, and in many other cases. But the decision of the question as to when Christ’s teaching ought to be set aside was left to those very men who made use of violence. Thus, Christ’s teaching about nonresistance to evil turned out to be set aside completely. What is worse than all that, those very men whom Christ arraigned began to consider themselves the exclusive preachers and expounders of His teaching. But “the light shines in the dark,” and the false preachers of Christianity are again arraigned by His teaching.

The question is not whether it will be good or bad for human society to follow the law of love and the resulting law of non-resistance, but whether you – a being who lives today and is dying by degrees every moment – will now, this very minute, fully do the will of Him who sent you and clearly expressed it in tradition and in your reason and heart, or whether you want to act contrary to this will. As soon as the question is put in this form, there will be but one answer: I want at once, this very minute, without any delay, without waiting for anyone, and withoutconsidering the seeming consequences, to fulfill with all my strength what I alone am indubitably commanded to do by Him who sent me into the world. In no case, and under no condition, will I or can I do what is contrary to it, because in this lies the only possibility of my living a rational life that lifts me above my otherwise wretched condition.

By Leo Tolstoi from His Letter to Ernest Howard Crosby on Non-Resistance, January 12, 1896
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years old. I am now 80.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 4709
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: THE 16 COMMANDMENTS

Postby Jason » Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:54 pm

Paidion, I think Jesus said there was only one command which summarized all the law and the prophets. So I'd say your list contains examples of that one command, but is not exhaustive when it comes to its application. I remember a sermon by Greg Boyd where he talked about principles versus rules. One principle (like neighborly love) can encompass hundreds of rules (like not stealing a dude's car, or his wife). I think Jesus taught us a principle and the application of that principle might change from one situation to the next.
User avatar
Jason
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: THE 16 COMMANDMENTS

Postby Paidion » Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:37 pm

Thank you, Jason.
How do you think that principle would be applied if someone is about to harm you or your family?
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years old. I am now 80.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 4709
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: THE 16 COMMANDMENTS

Postby Jason » Thu Aug 02, 2018 8:13 am

Thank you, Jason.
How do you think that principle would be applied if someone is about to harm you or your family?


Steve once said that you are to love your enemy, but not at the expense of the innocent party. My thinking would be similar, so I would defend my family from harm if there was no other option. I don't own a gun though, so this would probably involve me trying to physically restrain someone so my family can flee to safety.

How about you?
User avatar
Jason
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: THE 16 COMMANDMENTS

Postby SteveF » Thu Aug 02, 2018 10:14 am

How do you think that principle would be applied if someone is about to harm you or your family?


In answer to this, I heard someone say hypothetically that if it was your own child assaulting your wife you would obviously do whatever is necessary to protect
your wife, but wouldn't want to do anything more than necessary towards your child since you love both of them.
User avatar
SteveF
 
Posts: 398
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:29 pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario


Return to Ethics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron