Jesus Christ: Two Jewish Views ( Part III Resurrection)

C. Resurrection

Theodosus Harnack, an Estonian Lutheran theologian, once said "Where you stand with regard to the fact of the Resurrection is in my eyes no longer Christian theology. To me Christianity either stands or falls on the Resurrection. " Many of Jesus' contemporaries whether Jew or Roman would agree.

Why do the Christians emphasize these three points of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection? "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, (New International Version ).

-Jewish Christian view
It is interesting to note that using a word search the Corinthians passage connects to the passage from the prophet Hosea.

"Come, let us return to the LORD. For He has torn us, but He will heal us; He has wounded us, but He will bandage us. "He will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day, That we may live before Him. " (New International Version)

Paul says in his first letter to the Corinthians that if Christ was not raised then your faith means nothing.

"Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. " (New International Version)

The first people to witness the resurrection were the women who wanted to go back and finish the preparations for Jesus' complete burial. They did go to the tomb for there would have been the Roman seal and the Roman guard(s) to be there as additional markers. Others were the remaining 11 of Jesus' disciples. In the gospels, Jesus also appears to people individually and 500 people at one time. (New International Version) Also all of the Jewish people were assembled in Jerusalem for the obligatory feasts. Everyone would have heard the goings ons of the two Jewish religious groups that despised each other coming together to bargain with their equally despised Roman representative ruler.

-Non-Christian Jews view

"And those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them live again the third day as the prophets had foretold." (Josephus)

Perhaps it could be possible that it wasn't Jesus that the people saw. It could have been hallucinations etc. Perhaps it could have been the wrong tomb, the women that went to the tomb were emotionally distraught and could have gone/entered the incorrect sepulcher. Perhaps as was mentioned in this time period, the disciples' stole Jesus Body and claimed that he rose from the dead. Eleven easily emotionally distressed disciples could have overcome a Roman guard at a tomb with little to few problems. (Evidence that Demands a Verdict)

Rejection of Resurrection on three basic principles-

1) The criteria in general that is given by Christians is not specific to case (an example would be the argument of death of Messiah). " If no verse in the prophets unambiguously presented resurrection a a criterion for recognizing the Messiah---and none does--- then such a hypothetical wonder would prove nothing." (Klinghoffer, )

2) Limited numbers of witnesses. For example, when Moses gave the Sinai Covenant (Ten Commandments), he had two million witness the entirety of the Jewish nation watching with their own eyes. Nowhere in the Gospels or in other early Christian works are there any considerable amount that would compare to this. (Klinghoffer)

3) Christ is proved as Messiah because of the resurrection. Yet what does the resurrection prove? That Jesus was the messiah. This reasoning is circular; it proves nothing. (Klinghoffer)


Additionally, responding to the Hosea comment, if Jesus was perfect then there would be no need for him to to go to G-d for repentance and and healing. (Klinghoffer)

Jesus Christ: Two Jewish Views (part II the Resurrection)

B. THE BURIAL
-(Background)
First of all embalming while usual for Egypt was not practiced among Israelis particularly Judeans. Tradition dictated that the remaining were to respect the dead by going through a process of burying the body. However because the holy day was coming up the burial would be rather hasty. The usual measure would be as follows:

"As soon as the last breath was drawn, the eyes of the dead were closed by the oldest or the most distinguished son or next relative, the mouth was shut, and kept in position by a band on the cheek-bones, and the body placed upon sand or salt on the floor to retard decomposition, metal or glass being put upon the navel to prevent swelling. Then the body was washed and anointed with aromatic unguents, and wrapped in linen clothes."

(Bible Encyclopedia Online)

Spices were used as part of the burial to keep the body preserved to some extent for any visiting during the obligatory three days. As well as it gave the proper structure for the body to decay and would keep away vermin. A significant thing to note is that the mount of spices were large

"one effect of this would to be cause the powder immediately bout the body to adhere to it, but the great bulk of it ould remain dry. The head and hair were also anointed with this unguent. I do not find that the powdered spice was applied to the ace of head. However.... The body would be simple embedded in the powdered spice. It may have been that the women desired to repair this omission as far as they could." (Latham)

-Jewish Christian view
The gospels say that the chief Priests and Pharisees came the day after Jesus' death to Pilate. Gospel of Matthew and said,

"Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I am to rise again.' "Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day, otherwise His disciples may come and steal Him away and say to the people, 'He has risen from the dead,' and the last deception will be worse than the first." Pilate said to them, "You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how." And they went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone.

(New International Version)

-the Non-Christian Jews view
The only real significant point here is that Jesus' family and his disciples did not bury and prepare his body for burial. This would be considered a shame on them for people close to the deceased were supposed to show respect by such burial preparations. An of course where the body was buried in connection to resurrection will be dealt with on the following paragraphs with the resurrection.

Jesus Christ: Two Jewish Views (part I) The Death of

It is important to start this discussion with two givens. 1) that the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptural texts are accurate and valid 2) that Jesus Christ existed at least as a man.

A. Jesus' Death
What about Jesus' death? Most people could probably identify or how he died. The cross is a familiar symbol to many. But we need to take a step back and look at this in a different view. The rulers in charge of the political scene were the Romans. In the early first century CE (All dates will be in C.E. to be as objective as possible) the land of Palestine (early modern Israel) was part of the
Roman empire. The Romans had conquered Palestine at least a century before in 63 BC (online timeline of Palestine).

Generally speaking, the Romans allowed a great part of religious tolerance and some local governance. They had selected someone who they thought was a 'local', a man called Herod to rule as their executive representative. On the judicial side (or what we would recognize as judicial, yet called a governor) a disgraced Roman official by the name of Pontius Pilate; who was put in charge of the Palestine greater area.

For hardened criminals or enemies of the state/empire, the preferred method of death was crucifixion. This is described by many historians as "the most cruel and atrocious of punishments" (Cicero). Before the prisoner was crucified, it was not unusual to be flogged and beaten to humor your guards. Romans had a fascination for putting things on display and often used hills to this advantage. The T- shaped form of wood would be laid on the ground and prisoner then would be fastened to it by nails. The nails would pierce every limb of the body at a strategic point to ensure that the nail would keep the body on the cross. With using as little of scientific and medical terminology as possible, the with the acute pain from the nails in hands and feet the prisoner would be struggling for air. The nails would be positioned for great annoyance and in order to push up you would tear your flesh on the nails on your feet. In doing so you would get a breath of cool air for your burning lungs. then the prisoner would relax and the body down again. The prisoner would feel the tearing once more on his ligaments by the protruding nails. Usually the prisoners would die by asphyxiation "blocking the airway so that the individual on the receiving end cannot breathe and ultimately dies. Asphyxiation also comes under the category of strangulation, which - as we have already mentioned - is the process of blocking an individual's airways until they stop breathing.” (Explore Forensics UK definition) [Note: In Zugibe's work, he argues against asphyxiation as a cause and lists traumatic and hypovolemic shock instead. ] Crucifixion meant death by whatever subsequent cause.

First Century people did not deny that Jesus had died. It was only many centuries later that there were theories that Jesus did not die. For purposes of our discussion, we will assume that Jesus did die from crucifixion. What the disagreement is defined as, is what does Jesus' death proved.

-Jewish Christian view
First, the proponents of the view that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. The early Jewish Christians saw Jesus death as necessary according to what the Scriptures said. The gospel of John, who was Jesus' disciple and eyewitness, says this in John;

"Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day) asked Pilate that their legs be broken and that they might be taken away. So the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first man and of the other who was crucified with Him; but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs, But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe.

For these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture "NOT A BONE OF HIM SHALL BE BROKEN."

And again another Scripture, "THEY SHALL LOOK UPON HIM WHOM THEY PEIRCED."

[capitals and punctuations are in original](New American Standard Bible, 1997.)

In this passage we see that the writer John (who is a Jew and "Christian") wrote that the Jews knew Jesus had died and took preparations against that. John also involves Pontius Pilate (a definite non-Jew and non Christian) as knowing this and giving orders to dispose of the body securely. Then John also writes of himself as a witness and shows that Pilate's orders were carried out. Notice that John goes out of his way to point out Messianic prophecy for us. Those quotes that John alludes to are cross references to the Jewish Scriptural passages, Psalm 34 and Zechariah 12 respectively.

According to the gospel texts, Jesus gave his testimony, risked his credibility on the fact that he would die, be buried and rise again. Jesus testified of himself that he was the son of God. Jesus said this when he heard that Lazarus was dead, "This sickness is not to end in death, but for the glory of
God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by it. (John 11:4)

Others also testified of Jesus as being the 'son of God'. Martha, sister of the famous resurrected Lazarus, says in John 11:27 "She said to Him, "Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world." " While Peter, in the gospel of Matthew, confessed that Jesus was the Son of the living God.

-The Non-Christian Jews view
The Zechariah passage quoted says 'whom they have pierced”. The fact is that the Roman soldiers pierced Jesus' hands by Pilate's order. The Jews did not pierce him. Talmudic Scholars believe this passage refers to Israel. (Klinghoffer)

Furthermore, the Talmud Tractate Sukkah does list two Messiahs; Messiah son of Joseph who would be sacrificed, the other is Messiah son of David who would be the liberating conquering Messiah King. Jesus' lineage written from Matthew and Luke Gospels we can conclude at least two things. First that Jesus was from tribe of Judah not Joseph. Secondly, Jesus couldn't be Messiah Son of David because only Jesus' earthly father was Joseph the son of David, yet Jesus' did not trace his
lineage from his surrogate father. On the other hand, Jesus' mother did not descend from David. (Klinghoffer)

Klinghoffer asserts would be that Jesus' himself did not claim to be the son of God. Use of two examples here that proves this. After Peter's affirmation that Jesus was the son of God Jesus rebukes him. Not only does Jesus rebuke Peter but also the other disciples that they should not tell anyone. Jesus' death was not unique to prove that he was the messiah because there were many other failed messiahs that were also executed. (Klinghoffer)

The historian Flavius Josephus, a renegade Jewish turned general historian, remarks on Jesus, "And when Pilate, at he suggestion of the principal men among had condemned him to the cross."

Jesus Christ: Two Jewish Views (Intro)

The tailoring business was so bad that Feitelberg said to his partner, "Only the Messiah could help us."

"How could even the Messiah help us?" asked the partner in despair.

"Why , " said Feitleberg, "he'd bring back the dead, and naturally they'd need new clothes."

"But some of the dead are tailors." the partner observed gloomily.

"So what? " asked Feitelberg. " they wouldn't have a chance! How many of them would know this years styles?"(Treasury of Jewish Folklore)

This is a humorous or chuckle worthy conversation piece that shows some insight into a more serious aspect of religious Jewish life. Looking for the Messiah permeated their culture and society. The Christians (who in the beginning were largely Jews) believed that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, yet many other Jews at that time denied this. Growing up in a Christian home, this particular belief has always been a curiosity for me. I know the Christian view of the story, however I am not as knowledgeable about the Jewish thought. Let us look objectively at the historical evidence, and present the findings. This assignment is NOT an argumentative paper but an essay emphasizing a historical moment or event. I will be focusing on the main point of Christianity: the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And we will try to answer the following question, “Why did or did not the contemporary Jews accept or recognize Jesus Christ as their Messiah after they saw or heard his death, burial and resurrection?”

New format coming soon!!!

There should probably be a preface saying something to the extent that I really hate posting super long posts. Therefore, I will be doing smaller posts that will have major connectives. Yes, I will be introducing a topic giving it an intro. Then a few days later I will add a post that will contain a point that will cover a few paragraphs. (hopefully) Those four sentences there were probably as clear as mud. :)

Prep Time Please!

We paced the floor of the Springfield Baptist Church. Kayla and I weren't the only ones waiting for the speech and debate results. There were hundreds of other judges, coaches, parents, siblings that paced, giggled, whispered, and played cards in that church basement in Springfield, Missouri. What seemed like an eternity later, we finally had an official to announce who would proceed o the net bracket to qualify for nationals. Everyone waited in breathless anticipation as he, Mr. J. Palen ( no relationship to vice presidential hopeful) announced each event and the competitors in them. Impromptu, Extemporaneous, Expository, Duo Interpretation, Humorous Interp, Dramatic Interp, Open Interp,Lincoln Douglas Debate. Finally, he announced our event-- team policy debate. He gave the team name and then we (audience) would give the debater's clap. ...."Buell-Buell" Clap! "Pynes-Urbanovsky" Clap! "Dowd-Wilson" Clap! "Dilley-Paul" Clap!

After the announcements of results the room erupted into a flurry of congratulations, hugs, cheers and a few disappointed sighs. Once the names were listed off we only had to wait a few minutes from the tab room for the matches. Everyone crowded around the four posting centers in the basement room and halls. Communiques were delivered by screams, shouts, hand signals, and most likely a few text messages. The church halls became populated once more with people clutching legal pads, other standing nervously in pumps and carrying the their evidence boxes.

Kayla and I were matched against the Dilley-Paul team. This was a bit of a disappointment and largely stressful (or at least for me it was). There was the realization that only one of us would make it to the next bracket. Both of our teams were from the same state and club, yet one would have to be eliminated. Not to mention that my partner and I were not communicating well together in the previous matches; or that the previous year Kayla and her partner had bean the Dilley-Paul team out of the nationals list; or that their moms and sisters were our confidantes and coaches.

Kayla and I set up our boxes and binders in the room. Kayla stood off to the side and talked low about our strategy for that round. Standing in her gray pin striped suit, Kayla was confident that we could win this round. "We argue constitutionality. Just ask some basic questions, you know how, in cross examination. I will go through and negate the case on their own principles and you will give the disadvantages. Hmm... Let's have at least five maybe even seven. Impact them; connect the disadvantages to their own life. It will be easy. Don't sweat it. If you or I do, it will translate as in confidence in our position and we both know these guys are smooth speakers. We can't let them fluster us. "

We watched the judges slowly filter in . There were five of them rather than the usual three. I recognized two as homeschool and debate mums, the other judges were from the community. When they were all assembled, they opposite team asked the judges their judging philosophy. This is not highly unusual. As practice Kayla and I try to make sure that the other team asks the question. It makes sure that we are not perceived as sucking up to the judges, we let the opposite team do that. When the judges were asked about their judging philosophy all of them something to the extent of give me evidence and connectors for the arguments'. It seemed easy enough.


The rules for outrounds and higher brackets is to let a coin toss determine who will debate which side of the resolution. Dilley- Paul won the flip and they chose affirmative. This was fine; Kayla and I would have chosen negative anyways. After the obligatory handshakes and quite prayer, Nate Paul started the round with his speech. He presented his case for the resolution that 'the united States federal government should substantially change their policy on illegal immigration.' Their viewpoint was that we should substantially change it by reversing the Plyler Versus Doe decision by the Supreme Court. This court decision granted the illegal immigrants to receive free public education and other benefits previously solely entitled to legal citizens of America.

After his speech was cross examination, this was my job to ask him questions. Kayla had nothing for me to pursue. I made up most of my questions up on the spot. At the beginning my questions were not clear and rather confusing. Even with that drawback though, Nate was able to reconstruct them and give a smooth reply/I was so disgusted and disappointed with myself.. In order to to concentrate on a heavy negative block, Kayla did not use much prep time. For her speech, Kayla had many good points and covered the entire case just as we had planned. But then when Nate(Paul) cross examined her, Kayla let a few of her points fall. Ben Dilley gave the next speech. He hardly used his notes at all and flawlessly delivered his refutation to Kayla's speech. Kayla did gain ground in cross examining him. I took quite some prep time to bring up five disadvantages of what would happen to these people not only in the education realm and how that would, in turn, affect us. Ben then gave me questions in cross examination, he kept insisting on giving my opinion. When I politely refused, he doggedly rephrased (almost) the question to say the exactly the same thing..


In the rebuttals, we faired better together. Our negative block Kayla and handled the transition and flow of arguments well. Nate gave the last affirmative response to us. His voice and mannerisms were fantastic however he failed to address several key points; solvency of plan, failure of definitions and addressing our disadvantages. I enjoyed giving that last negative speech. I felt the passion of debate and the emotions that this might be my last round come and all work together. My speech was articulate. I said what I would do, I did it and I told them what I just did/said. I ended with recapping the reasons why to vote for my team based on what had not been refuted or dropped in the previous affirmative speeches.

Dilley must have a career in politics. He is one of the few debaters I know that can stand up and look flawless after two very good negative rebuttals. Dilley was still able to pull off the Mr. Smart Debater even though he ended the round bringing up multiple 'pieces of forgotten' evidence.

After the judges left the room. the rest of the audience came up to talk with us. There weren't more than thirty of forty in that small room, but it felt good regardless. Nate's mum came up and commented to Kayla and I that she felt we gave the boys an excellent run for their money. She said to me, " Catherine, I really thought the boys had you ladies in the bucket. But it was your speech that I thought really pushed the boys to explain themselves that was an excellent speech. I just want to wish good luck to both of you!"

Those words did a lot to me. I knew my constructive speech and cross examination was not my best. I couldn't tell you how incredibly relieved I was to hear that. Mr. Wilson, Kayla's dad, came up and talked to us. "Girls, I think both of you did a very good job. Kayla you started strong, and Catherine you finished well. I think you gave the judges a decent head scratching situation when it comes to their ballot decision. I honestly can't say if I would vote for you. You made valid points but the boys are very persuasive and Ben especially made a passionate response. Because he gave the last speech his words will be the most remembered, ok? I need you to tell me that you will be ok with their decision. Regardless of the outcome. Kayla?" Kayla hesitated. "Yeah, Dad." Mr. Wilson turned to me "Catherine?" I looked at the floor for a little bit then echoed a "Yeah".Others came up and said similar things. Dilley- Paul packed up and left the room rather quickly. We didn't get to say much to them other than the standard, "good job, I enjoyed it." and the handshake. Perhaps it was just as well, we weren't on very good speaking terms with them personally. They might have thought that we were being overconfident and were 'sucking up' to them.

There was a banquet like program shortly after the round. After the banquet they would announce the winners of the round previous. The most of the ones advancing would qualify for nationals. We all went down to change into proper clothes. We were not going to the banquet in a business suit. Kayla and I as well as many other didn't think that was appropriate wear. Besides, we had been sweating and spilling drinks over the silly suits anyways. There was some entertainment made up of several small ensembles, a slide show honoring the seniors, and a selection of punch and cake. After an hour or so, everyone started getting restless again. I observed the change from the back of the smaller hall. I talked on and off with another advanced debater next to me. Even if he did change debate forms from team policy to Lincoln Douglas, he was still pretty cool.


We had another official guy from Pennsylvania region 8 announce the teams and decisions from the last speech and debate rounds. The following day teh matches would be announced. 'Buell-Buell versus Wanschura- Wanschura; 4-1 decision. Wanschura advances." Gasps ran throughout the room on that one announcement. The Wanschura team had very little experience and the Buell team were state champs in Missouri, Kansas and Nebraska several years running. However, the room settled down a bit from a word from the announcer. By this time I had abandoned my small talk and went to the Paul girls table. They had done well on their other speeches and were still in the running to qualify for nationals. Rachel was concerned about our round outcome. "Would you be terribly offended if I cheered for Nate and Ben? I mean I would love for you to qualify but I also want Nate to have the change to qualify for Team policy debate at nationals." Rachel confessed to me. 'No, I wouldn't be. It's ok, you should be glad for your brother. Scream all you want, but just to warn you I will probably groan or something. Nothing against you, K?" I replied.


"....... Dilley- Paul versus Dowd-Wilson. 3-2 decision... Dilley-Paul advances." The Paul girls screamed and jumped up from the table. I audibly groaned. Rachel paused to put her hand on my shoulder and say she was sorry it didn't end the way I had hoped. She and Sarah went off to find the rest of their family to celebrate. Knowing Rachel wouldn't come back, I enthroned myself on her chair and talked with the other girls and listened to the other announcements. It wasn't too much longer for them to be done. They only had 16 total teams to announce for that round anyways.

Again the room buzzed as people moved from conversation groups and the advancing competitors. I found my carpool people and we packed things together to head back to our hotel. Was I disappointed? Yeah, a bit. However I knew that I had finished well and had no reason to be ashamed what I did. I also knew I wouldn't be carrying around an evidence box or be in a suit and that felt great advantage.

The Christian Responsiblity to Vote

[This is a speech I gave a number of months ago. While it is dated, I think it is still applicable in the SQ.]

Speech: Christian Responsibilities to vote


Recently, Dr. James Dobson said in an interview on The Laura Ingraham Show : " I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life. "
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000006444.cfm (this is from Citizen link an outbranch of Focus on the Family)


Mr. Dobson went on to say in the interview how he has been disappointed by Republican and Democrat candidates.. While I recognize that Dobson's statement does not reflect the opinions of Focus on the Family, he is still a strong voice that is listened to by the Christian and non-Christian community alike. I feel that this particular issue needs to be addressed. Therefore in my speech I will persuasively present that it is the Christian's responsibility to vote. IN this speech I will have three points 1) one vote is significant. 2) that there are Biblical guidleines 3) our further responsibilities after voting..

1) Statement: "my vote won't matter....its' just one".

This is a statement heard by and said by many. Therefore is significant issue that needs to be addressed.

The territory of Texas became a state of the Union in 1845 by one vote. (source: facts of one vote.) Texas was admitted later that year as out 28th state.

As a woman new voter, I am greatly indebted to the efforts made by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. These women as you well know are or were women suffragists or they believe that women had the capability and duty to vote. But their dream did not become a reality until 1920. You see, in 1920 Congress met convened drafted and accepted an amendment that allowed women the right and responsibility to vote. As laid out in the Constitution, the President signed this bill and then it went to the state legislatures to be accepted. Remember that significant have to accept the proposal for this to become an amendment.. The pivotal state in this process was Tennessee.

(Paraphrased from: "August 26,1920" by Jone Johnson Lewis)

One young legislator, 24 year old Harry Burn, had voted with the anti-suffrage forces to that time. But his mother had urged that he vote for the amendment and for suffrage. When he saw that the vote was very close, and with his anti-suffrage vote would be tied 48 to 48, he decided to vote as his mother had urged him: for the right of women to vote. And so on August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the 36th and deciding state to ratify.

Except that the anti-suffrage forces used parliamentary maneuvers to delay, trying to convert some of the pro-suffrage votes to their side. But eventually their tactics failed, and the governor sent the required notification of the ratification to Washington, D.C.

And so on August 26, 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution became law, and women could vote in the fall elections, including in the Presidential election.

2) Biblical guidelines

The most often repeated comment I hear from Christian conservatives is "We're to be in the world but not of it". This is not a Scripture verse but an interpretation of Paul's letter to the Corinth church in 2 Cor. 10:1-5

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Cor.%2010:1-5;&version=31;

Paul's Defense of His Ministry

1By the meekness and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you—I, Paul, who am "timid" when face to face with you, but "bold" when away! 2I beg you that when I come I may not have to be as bold as I expect to be toward some people who think that we live by the standards of this world. 3For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

Lets look over this:

Verse 1-3 We are to boldly show that God's standard is NOT the world's standard. Instead we are to show that by being to the world the difference such as the fruit of the Spirit love, joy, peace. etc.,

Verse 4 "The weapons we Fight with are not the weapons of the world." is voting or politics a worldly weapon? Can we honestly say that? As we see later in this speech there are guidelines for elected officials. We need to keep in mind that Scripture is not inconsistent but our interpretation maybe.

VERSE 5 "We demolish every argument and pretension that sets itself against the knowledge of God'. Please tell me How do you demolish arguments unless you are out there in the fray and actively opposing? How will those With meekness and gentleness of Christ! This is key, pivotal even because this again shows that we are not of this world. Because Christ is unlike anything this world has ever seen or known.


Are there Biblical guidelines or principles for elected officials?
Answer: absolutely!

Exodus 18:21 -

21"Furthermore, you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2018:20-21;&version=49;

First I would like to clarify one thing before we go on. able men= upright two legged creatures, homo sapeins. Thank you.

Clearly, the three qualifications are

1 fear God, might say fear of not only the moral law but the moral law giver.
2 men of truth, we might also say integrity.
3 hating unjust gain, might also give the words or label as one that hates that the evil get away things.

This is not just a guideline to be used for presidential elections solely. This is can be used for any election of any level.

While I was going through that verse you probably were evaluating the president scene and were thinking, "well, that eliminates candidate a, candidate b, candidate c, and candidate d...." This can be true however what we must always acknowledge that there is no perfect candidate. The truth is that there is no savior on Capital Hill. Our savior is on Calvary Hill. With the commandments to "Go out into all the world." we cannot ignore or excuse this responsibility away. There is not a perfect candidate but that does not excuse our privilege and duty to vote.

Now that we have discussed these two verses, let's do an attitude check. With the various black marks of the candidates, it is easy to think that that particular candidate does not deserve to be president etc.,

However, This is dangerous thinking; for the assumption is that person isn't good enough for my vote. This is a 'trait' called pride. Pride is mentioned in the Scriptures, as listed under the 7 deadly sins that the Lord hates.

Fear could be another reason we hesitate. This is another thing that we need to check. Why should we fear? Who is bigger fear of what might happen or the Lord who created all things? Do we eliminate fear or do we put it in its proper place? we put it in its proper place. It has been said that courage is properly placed fear. When we ask and accept Christs' peace, it comes down and cancels out that improperly placed fear and replaces it with the proper fear of Him. We have courage because our fear is not in the what man can do to me but the fear of our Maker.


C. our Christian further responsibilities beyond voting

1 VOTE

We kinda already discussed this. If you have not registered to vote, there is a myriad of things on the internet or in the blue pages of your phonebook also has information on voting in and for your area.

2 PRAY

Daniel was taken from his homeland and served as a counselor to the mighty corrupt king. but he didn't just serve one, or two corrupt kings, he served three. He served and showed the counter standard to the world. He did this in an ancient Eastern culture. Let me impress on you what this means. In that time anything that the king says goes.. Quite literally.. If you irritated the king or irritated one of his high ranking officials you were at the very least guaranteed life-long banishment or death. Yet, Daniel went on and prayed. In our free America and the 21 century, why should we shun this responsibility?

Even after we vote, we can and should continue to pray. Pray that the incoming presidente will have the hand of our Sovereign Lord on him/her. Pray for the country for the change and to respect the leader at least in his/her position.


3 REMEMBER GOD'S PROMISES

In the gospel of Matthew our Lord's last words were "and I will be with you always, even to the ends of the earth". this is the unconditional promise from our Lord. There is no 'but', 'if' or 'what if', or' if only' this is a full blanketed statement that extends to every circumstance and situation. Just in case you missed it, voting is in that 'always' statement.

CONCLUSION:

Today we have we've looked over three things in this speech. First we looked at a statement of "my vote won't matter...its' just one" and looked at the historical examples that proved the statement to be false. Then we looked at Biblical guidelines to take in consideration as we view the political horizon. We also talked about on the issue of 'perfect candidacy'. That there is no Savior on Capitol Hill but on Calvary Hill. The third point we had today, was our Christian responsiblities after and beyon voting which are prayer and remember God's promises. I would like to leave you today with just repeating that promise. "And lo, I will be with you always even to the ends of the earth." Always? Yeah. Any time? Nov 4, 2008 Any reason? Absolutely Always. Any where? in a voting booth near you. Vote!