Book Reviews

Header Image: Painting by Chris Higham

Easter is upon us once again! Lent is over, Good Friday has passed and now the time for mourning and fasting is complete. It's a time to feast, a time to remember and celebrate the resurrection of Christ as we look forward to our own final resurrection!

But what really is the resurrection? How will we be resurrected, and what does it mean for us that Jesus rose again? Let’s explore what this means for us as Christians, and see what the Scriptures say.

 

The resurrection is spiritual!

That heading may cause some reading this to question me, but do read on – this is actually what the New Testament teaches us (though not only this type of resurrection).

Advertisement

 

Many times in Scripture when speaking of baptism, it is used and described as a symbolic act of dying and being raised with Christ into a new creation, despite keeping our “old” bodies in the meantime. This, I believe, is why there was such an emphasis on the importance of baptism in the early Church, and why it’s something sacred we should also highly esteem and not take lightly.

 

As another blogger puts it, “baptism conveyed the gift of the Spirit and his illuminating and sanctifying roles … in being baptized, the new Christian experienced death (to self) and rebirth. Finally, baptism proclaimed the eschatological hope for restoration in the new creation.”

Advertisement

 

With that in mind, let's take a look at how baptism and resurrection relate to one another:

Colossians 2:12
When you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

 

Colossians 3:1
So if you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.

 

Ephesians 2:5-6

…[God,] even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus

 

Romans 6:4
Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

 

While these verses (and many others) make it clear that through baptism we die to our old selves and are raised anew in Christ, we must also understand that this prefigures our future resurrection when we finally “put on immortality”. Though we will eventually die physically in the body, we won't die at all because death is defeated and it has no sting nor power over us!

Advertisement

 

What happens in death?

You may have heard of the term “soul sleep”, which is the doctrine that when a person dies, their soul (or spirit) “sleeps” in the grave until the resurrection, knowing and experiencing nothing until that time. Some people accept this, especially certain other groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists (based mainly on Eccl. 9:5), except that there are actually various Old Testament passages which speak of Sheol (the “grave”/underworld) as not necessarily being asleep, but as having some limited activity (Isa 14:9), despite it being described as a shadowy and sobre place, with no light nor joy (Job 10:20-22; Psalms 88:6).

 

New Testament theologian, N.T. Wright, describes this intermediate stage as being "conscious," but "compared to being bodily alive, it will be like being asleep". So sort of like a ‘dream state’ in that the level of awareness is limited; in God’s presence but not active in our own bodies and will.

Advertisement

 

By the time of Jesus, this doctrine or belief about the afterlife had developed, and Sheol (Hades in Greek) had become more defined in its description and how the dead were handled there. We can see an example of this in the parable of Jesus about the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) where the wicked are punished in a separate ‘section’ to where the righteous wait peacefully, kept apart by a huge gulf.

 

But this was said and taught pre-crucifixion and more importantly, pre-resurrection.

Advertisement

We get a small glimpse into the mystery of Jesus’ death and resurrection from Peter and Paul in their letters where Peter explains that Jesus “went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison” (1 Peter 3:18-19) – “prison” being the place of the dead for those people from times of old who had died. Paul also, in his letter to the Ephesians, follows up on this same event when he says that Jesus, “who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things” and that in doing so “he made captivity itself a captive” (Eph 4: 8-10).

 

Death itself is captive to Jesus because he holds the keys to Death and Hades (Rev 1:18), and dare I say, this moment when the Light of the World went down into the shadowy darkness of Sheol, it was possibly the first and last time there was ever any light in that gloomy place!

 

Advertisement

Does this mean then, that Sheol/Hades is no longer inhabited? Is there no longer an “intermediate state”? These verses from Peter and Paul would suggest that it was emptied before, but doesn’t necessarily mean that Hades hasn’t been refilled since. Though if we take Hebrews into consideration, it would seem as though there is no need for a waiting place, since “is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgment” (Heb 9:27), but it could be argued that there is still a period of time between the dying and the judgement. Even with Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians, when he says “we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Cor 5:8), that still doesn’t necessarily say there’s no waiting in death before the final resurrection, but it does give hope that even in death, whatever it means, we will be present with our Lord in some form.

 

The resurrection is glorified!

I use the word “glorified” here because saying “physical” just isn't adequate enough to describe the mystery.

 

Advertisement

Our new bodies will be similar to our current physical bodies, but not the same – not limited like our earthly bodies are; in the same way Jesus was changed, we too shall also be transformed “into the likeness of His glorious body” (Phil 3:21)!

 

In the same way that spiritual beings such as angels can become “physical” in appearance, they aren't the same as we are now. Much like when Jesus ascended to the Father and later appeared to his disciples, he was no longer the same human Jesus they once knew (2 Cor 5:16).

 

Advertisement

Despite eating and drinking (Luke 24:39-43) and seeming the same as before, he now appeared in their midst behind locked doors (John 20:19); travelled with people in an unrecognisable form – or could control other’s perceptions of him until required (Luke 24:15-16), and the could also disappear in the blink of an eye (Luke 24:31)!

 

Christ was raised physically, initially, but then his body was different. Glorified, not human.

 

Advertisement

Origen captures this concept well in his book Contra Celsus;

“After his resurrection, Christ existed in an intermediate state, as it were. For it was somewhere between the physicalness of the body He had before his sufferings and the appearance of a soul uncovered by such a body. It was for this reason that … Jesus came and stood in [the disciples] midst, even though the doors were shut.”

– Origen, Contra Celsus, Book II, ch.62

 

Advertisement

Paul spends quite some time on the resurrection and explaining what it means and how it will be, though it is a topic that will always be limited by our human understanding, which is why the nature of the resurrection is always contrasted with the putting on of new clothes or in building a new tent, or the sowing of seeds. It is quite rightly a mystery, as Paul says!

 

This question of the “how” and “what” of the resurrection has been asked since the earliest times, one such example being by the Corinthian church (1 Cor 15:35). Both of Paul’s letters to the Corinthian church deal with the nature and doctrine of the resurrection quite frequently, using these various types of analogies of tent making and seed sowing, which would have been familiar imagery to first century people from rural backgrounds.

 

Advertisement

Even if you don’t have a farming background, it’s still easy to understand the concept of what is being said here in terms of our physical, mortal body being removed like an outer garment, and being replaced with something better:

2 Corinthians 5:1-2
For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this tent we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling


1 Corinthians 15:44
It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.

 

Advertisement

This is the mystery which Paul expands on in 1 Cor 15:51-52 where he says that “we will all be changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye” showing that the resurrection will be an instantaneous event – one minute mortal, the next immortal. This same type of language is used again by Paul when writing to the Thessalonian church and says that we “will be caught up in the clouds together with [the resurrected dead]” (1 Thes. 4:13-18) as not all of us will die and need to wait for the resurrection like those who have already died. These two passages of Scripture reflect one another and speak of the same event: resurrection.

 

Also note that this message in 1 Thess. was to encourage the believers about those who had already died because they were obviously worrying about what would become of their loved ones now. So Paul writes in order that they wouldn’t be “uninformed” about such things, and so that they wouldn’t grieve like “the rest” – ie. those who don't believe in Christ (1 Thess. 4:13). These words on being caught up and resurrected were specifically for the Church to “encourage one another with”. Any other doctrine that gets pulled out of it, is surely secondary to this.

 

Advertisement

Do we still need to wait for our resurrection, or has the waiting period passed and we can now be “absent from the body and present with the Lord” upon physical death? Some say “yes” to the waiting because they tie it in with the end of the world as we know it, and point to 2 Timothy 2:17-18 as proof that the resurrection hasn’t (or doesn’t) happen yet. Here Paul warns against some false teaching which stated that “the resurrection has already taken place” and in doing so they were “upsetting the faith” of those who listened.

 

But we must remember to keep things in context! Paul wrote this in a time when it was still true – the resurrection hadn't happened at that point, and he was still teaching it as a future event.

 

Advertisement

Scripture wasn't written in a vacuum; it is also confined by time too (as well as holding timeless truths), and it could be entirely possible that believers are glorified in death now. If we look at the curious verse in Matthew’s Gospel account, Matt 27:52-53 shows us that some type of resurrection did already happen, which possibly shows a fulfillment of John 5:28-29 when Jesus taught about those “who are in their graves will hear his voice and will come out” (cf. Dan 12:2).

 

Matthew writes that after Jesus rose again, “many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised … [and] they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many” – an odd account, which only appears here in Matthew 27, but in some way possibly displays what Paul later wrote about when he said Jesus was the “firstfruits” of resurrection, then the rest follow in the right order (1 Cor 15:23).

 

Advertisement

Ignatius, writing about this during the second century in his letter to the Trallians, explains this resurrection as being those to whom Jesus preached in Hades, and then raised up out of captivity along with himself, since he “descended, indeed, into Hades alone, but He arose accompanied by a multitude”!


Resurrection in Revelation

The “first” or “general” resurrection which is mentioned in the book of Revelation is often what people will point to and read when talking or thinking about our own future. But look where it takes place. Despite the symbolic nature of the text, it's still clear that this event isn't happening on earth, as the earth (and heaven) flee from God's presence! So where is this? Who knows, but it's definitely not somewhere physical or earthly.

Revelation 20:5, 11-12

The rest of the dead did not come to life until the 1,000 years were completed. This is the first resurrection … Then I saw a great white throne and One seated on it. Earth and heaven fled from His presence, and no place was found for them. I also saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened.

Advertisement


This resurrection isn't on earth, or in our old bodies physically coming out of the graves! These are our new, spiritual and glorified bodies which have "grown" from the seed or mortality which were sown in death.

 

So what is the resurrection? It is a mystery of something which is deeply spiritual, yet also joined in the flesh of renewed bodies. It is hope for our future and peace over death, and encouragement for those who have had people they love die.

 

Advertisement

It is something we can rejoice in now through our baptism and new spiritual life in Christ by his Spirit within us, which makes us a new creation.

 

It is strange co-joining of this world and the heavenly realms where, despite still being in our tarnished flesh, we are also seated with Christ up high, waiting until the day in which we finally put on immortality and join our Lord in a restored creation.


It is, as Paul wrote, something that will happen in an instant – in a "twinkling of an eye"!

Advertisement

 

And, in the most important sense, it is Jesus. It’s only through him that we may find this life and take part in the resurrection.

John 11:25-26
I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.

 

Advertisement

Overall, the resurrection is the ultimate redemption of Creation. Our bodies will be renewed along with everything else. It's not about floating away to some heavenly, disembodied state of being but is all about our co-working with Christ for the reconciliation of all things back to God!

 

Even now in our current state, we are spiritually resurrected through baptism so that we can work alongside God in redeeming this world.


This is a very large and deep subject, but I hope this has given you something to want to study further and maybe even some encouragement about what God has planned for our bodies (and indeed, all of creation which is to be renewed – Romans 8:22-23), because salvation and redemption are based around this very concept. If anything, the fact that we, as Christians, look forward to a bodily resurrection says quite clearly that our future lies not in some distant, metaphysical realm, but in a very real and physical world, co-joined and redeemed with Heaven under God where He will be all in all (1 Cor 15:28).

Advertisement

If you are still confused about the resurrection, or worried about death in general, then I want to finish with this “modern parable” if you can call it that. I’m not sure where it is from or what its source is, I’ve just had it written down for some time now, but I like the example of the faith it describes, as that is what we should have in these matters, especially concerning death.

“A sick man turned to his doctor as he was preparing to leave the examination room and said, ‘Doctor, I am afraid to die. Tell me what lies on the other side.’

Very quietly, the doctor said, ‘I don’t know…’

‘You don’t know? You’re a Christian man and you don’t know what’s on the other side?’

The doctor was holding the handle of the door, on the other side came the sound of scratching and whining, and as he opened the door, a dog sprang into the room and leaped on him with an eager show of gladness.

Turning to the patient, the doctor said,

‘Did you notice my dog? He’s never been in this room before. He didn’t know what was inside. He knew nothing except that his master was here, and when the door opened, he sprang in without fear. I know little of what is on the other side of death, but I do know one thing… I know my Master is there and that is enough.’ 

 


Advertisement

Further Reading

Subscribe to Updates
Subscribe to:

Have something to say? Leave a comment below.

Leave a comment   Like   Back to Top   Seen 183 times   Liked 0 times

Subscribe to Updates

If you enjoyed this, why not subscribe to free email updates ?

Order my new book today from Amazon or fortydays.co.uk

Subscribe to Blog updates

Enter your email address to be notified of new posts:

Subscribe to:

Alternatively, you can subscribe via RSS

‹ Return to Blog

We never share or sell your email address to anyone.

I've already subscribed / don't show me this again

Recent Posts

Why Read The Early Church Fathers?

| 4 days ago | Early Church

Why read the Early Church Fathers? Maybe for some of you reading this, the question might better be phrased as: who are the Church Fathers? No doubt you will be familiar with some of their names: Augustine, Jerome, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr et al. You may have even read portions or quotes by some of these men. But that still doesn't really explain to you who they are and why you should care, much less actually read any of their works. My new book deals with a selection of some of the most influential Early Church Fathers, sometimes also referred to as the Apostolic Fathers (if they lived between AD 70-150), or collectively as the Ante Nicene Fathers for all of those in the period of time preceding the Council of Nicea (AD 325). It is these men who wrote doctrine and defences against heresy and helped to continue and shape the Church in its most formative years. Some of the earlier Christian leaders of the 2nd Century were discipled and taught by the Apostles themselves. Those include Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna. Still others in mid-2nd century were then taught by those who knew the men who were taught by some of the Apostles. One of the more well-known Bishops who was second generation to the Apostles was Irenaeus (best known for his extensive apologetic works, Against Heresies). From chapter 21 onward in my book, I look at a few writers from beyond this period (around 356) up until AD 449 where we can observe some distinctive changes in thought and practice. These people who came before us, those great men of faith, many of whom suffered persecution and martyrdom to preserve the Church and Christ's mission, bridge the gap between the Bible and the present day. They fill the void we sometimes wonder about when we get to the end of reading Acts or the Epistles and think, “what happened next?” or “what happened to the Ephesian church after Paul left?”. So Why Read What They Wrote? The Bible didn't just drop out of the sky, all leather bound and ready to read for us to pick up today. There was a lengthy process of selecting and preserving the apostles teachings which spanned nearly four centuries, and it was due to the Fathers and their faithfulness to the Scriptures that this was possible. Not only that, but due to their close links to the Apostles — some who were even taught directly by an apostle — we now have valuable resources and insights into aspects, teaching and issues within the very early Church which we can learn from and measure our doctrine and interpretation against. This isn't to say that everything the Church Fathers said, did or wrote is perfect; or that we should elevate their texts to the level of Scripture, but we can glean much from those who knew and were discipled by the Apostles (or those who knew them second hand). We can read what certain portions of Scripture meant to them, or see how they interpreted things in the years following the Apostles, and can compare that to how we might read those same Scriptures today. This is a highly valuable resource for us to still have available; to be able to check our beliefs and doctrines against accepted, historical orthodoxy, which was quite literally shaped through blood, sweat and tears. It's a wonderful thing to be able to look back millennia and know that what we believe and follow as Christians has been faithfully passed on and preserved for all this time. Many doctrines we now take for granted were actually developed and defended during this time; carefully worded and formed to ensure that the truth of God doesn't get lost, diluted or warped for selfish gain. We owe much to these men of God and can still learn a great deal from them, as they still speak to us today as part of that great cloud of witnesses who have gone before us (Heb 12:1). This is an excerpt from the introduction to my new book. You can read more from the Early Church Fathers in my new book, 40 Days with the Fathe...

Evidence of the Trinity in the Hebrew Scriptures

| 08th November 2017 | Trinity

Table of Contents Jewishness and the Trinity 1. God Is A Plurality The Name Elohim Plural Verbs used with Elohim The Name Eloah Plural Pronouns Plural Descriptions of God The Shema II. God Is At Least Two Elohim and YHVH Applied to Two Personalities III. God Is Three How Many Persons Are There? The Three Personalities in the Same Passage Conclusion New Testament Light I was recently in some discussions/debates online about the nature of God and whether the "Trinity" exists, or if God is purely singular and exists in different forms rather than different persons.   This idea that God has different "forms" or "modes" is what is known as Modalism (also sometimes called Sabellianism). This doctrine was condemned as heresy by Tertullian around 213 AD, and later by the bishop of Rome around 262 AD. A more modern sect of Christians, often called "Oneness Pentecostals", still hold to this heretical doctrine today. Now, to be clear: I do believe in the Trinity and accept that it is the orthodox position to hold. But that doesn't mean I've always fully grasped the concept. This is something Christians have struggled to define for centuries, hence the sometimes confusing and lengthy language of the creeds (see here, here, here and here for example). So after reading this debate online with some Oneness believers, I decided to look more into the Trinity to try and get my head around it as much as possible. On my searching and reading, I came across an article by Arnold Fruchtenbaum on the Jews for Jesus website. He had taken the time to really look into the Tri-unity of God from a Jewish/Hebrew perspective to bring some clarity to the issue. I found the article to be very helpful for my own understanding, and very illuminating to see the plurality of God in oneness hidden within the Hebrew language, something that is often lost in translation to our English bibles. I'm no Hebrew scholar, so rather than try (and probably fail) to explain the language nuances to you, I sought permission to post a copy of the original article here. I hope that the information provided is as helpful to you as it was for me. The original article begins below. Let me know your thoughts in the comments! Jewishness and the Trinity In a recent question-and-answer article, Rabbi Stanley Greenberg of Temple Sinai in Philadelphia wrote: Christians are, of course, entitled to believe in a trinitarian conception of God, but their effort to base this conception on the Hebrew Bible must fly in the face of the overwhelming story of that Bible. Hebrew Scriptures are clear and unequivocal on the oneness of God . . . The Hebrew Bible affirms the one God with unmistakable clarity. Monotheism, an uncompromising belief in one God, is the hallmark of the Hebrew Bible, the unwavering affirmation of Judaism and the unshakable faith of the Jew.” Whether Christians are accused of being polytheists or tritheists or whether it is admitted that the Christian concept of the Tri-unity is a form of monotheism, one element always appears: one cannot believe in the Trinity and be Jewish. Even if what Christians believe is monotheistic, it still does not seem to be monotheistic enough to qualify as true Jewishness. Rabbi Greenberg’s article tends to reflect that thinking. He went on to say, “…under no circumstances can a concept of a plurality of the Godhead or a trinity of the Godhead ever be based upon the Hebrew Bible.” It is perhaps best then to begin with the very source of Jewish theology and the only means of testing it: the Hebrew Scriptures. Since so much relies on Hebrew language usage, then to the Hebrew we should turn. 1. God Is A Plurality The Name Elohim It is generally agreed that Elohim is a plural noun having the masculine plural ending “im.” The very word Elohim used of the true God in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” is also used in Exodus ...

Should Christians celebrate Halloween?

| 30th October 2017 | Halloween

It's that time of year when you begin to see various articles and debates online about Hallowe'en, and whether it's something that Christians should have any part in. To some people the answer is a straightforward “no”, while others say it falls into the realm of Christian freedom and personal discernment. But what about if you're unsure or somewhere in the middle of those two positions, how should you decide what is the right thing to do? We can all see that the modern celebration of Halloween is focused quite heavily on darkness and evil beings. Here in the UK it's not quite so prevalent; it seems more like an excuse for adults to dress up and have a party as much as the kids do (although with more alcohol involved). American society has really taken the holiday to its extremes with some of the decorations I've seen online and on TV and films, to the point that suicide and murder victims left in public view have been mistaken for scary props! Origins of the holiday Has Hallowe'en always been like this though? Let's take a look at its origins to see where this holiday comes from to help us decide whether we should partake or not. Did you know that Hallowe'en actually started out as a Christian holiday (Holy Day)? “Hallowe’en”, or more precisely, All Hallows Eve (from the Old English hallowed meaning “holy”), is an ancient holiday in the Christian calendar to mark the day before All Saints Day on November 1st. All Saints Day is a day to celebrate and remember the martyrs and all those who have died and gave their lives for the Faith. Originally, this yearly festival began in the 7th century when Pope Boniface IV consecrated the Pantheon, a Roman temple to the gods. This then became a church called St. Mary of the Martyrs, and the date of the consecration, May 13th, was to be celebrated annually thereafter as the Feast of the Holy Martyrs. This was then later changed to November 1st by Pope Gregory IV in 835 AD to commemorate the dedication of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome to all of the saints. The feast day was then extended and made universal to include all the saints who had died, not just martyrs, since there had become too many to individually commemorate. And thus, All Saints Day was born. This isn't even the earliest time that martyrs were remembered as a formal event, as the practice goes way back to at least 135 AD which we can read about in the Martyrdom of Polycarp. In it the believers are said to treat the bones of Polycarp as “more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold”. The next reference comes around 250 AD. In Epistle 36 of Cyprian, he states that the Church should take note of the days in which the martyrs are killed: Finally, also, take note of their days on which they depart, that we may celebrate their commemoration among the memorials of the martyrs … there are celebrated here by us oblations and sacrifices for their commemorations There's also other early references to this practice in sermons by Ephrem the Syrian (373 AD) and John Chrysostom (407 AD), so we can see from the existing historical documents that celebrating the lives of martyrs and “saints” has been long observed within the Church, with the first record being in what is now modern-day Turkey. Aren’t there pagan roots? There is often a lot of references to Hallowe'en being an ancient Celtic festival of Samhain (pronounced Sow-in, a Gaelic word meaning “end of the summer”), originating in Ireland over 2000 years ago. The story goes that this was always the time when the Celts celebrated their dead, and as Christianity spread, the Pope “replaced” the pagan festival with a “Christianised” version to try and convert people easier. But there are a few issues with this version of events, and the historical timeline that it’s meant to follow. For starters, if it truly were an ancient Celtic festival, then the historical documents we have from the early Church shoul...

American Gun Violence and the Early Church on War and Violence

| 03rd October 2017 | Early Church

In light of the sad, recent events in the Las Vegas shooting — and similar events in America— I often see Christians across social media jumping to the defence of gun ownership whenever there is even a slight hint at gun control in America. But how has gun culture become so ingrained in American Christianity when we can observe a clear theme and pattern of thought in the first few centuries of the Church, which goes completely against this? Update 7th Nov 2017: It's so sad to have to update this post on the same subject so soon, almost a month to the day. Yet another shooting, this time in Texas where 26 people have been shot dead in a church of all places. But despite this, America tightens its grip on their guns, and Trump says tighter gun laws would have made no difference to the situation. Days earlier though, when a terrorist killed 8 people in NYC by running them down with a truck, President Trump was quick to tweet about implementing "extreme vetting" of immigrants. Yet again, voices are loud for everything else except curbing gun ownership, and the silence from the Church in America is still deafening. You can read more in the link below, but here's a few examples from the early Church with regards to war and violence, and using or owning weapons: “It is not lawful for a Christian to bear arms for any earthly consideration.” — Marcellus ~298 AD “Under no circumstances should a true Christian draw the sword.” — Tertullian 155-230 AD “God wished iron to be used for the cultivation of the earth, and therefore it should not be used to take human life.”  — Cyprian ~250 AD “The servants of God do not rely for their protection on material defenses but on the pine Providence.”  — Ambrose 338-397 AD I don't have an answer to this cultural problem, and I'm not sure we can ever fully solve the issues of gun violence in the States now; but one thing that I do know is this: the Church in America needs to repent of its idolatry of guns, turn back to God and focus on the love of Christ again, and not on the weapons of destruction. Even if the rest of society clings to their guns, the Church should be the ones clinging to the Prince of Peace instead, and rejecting anything that could cause another harm. You can't love your neighbour or your enemies if you are willing to kill them (Matthew 22:36-40; Matthew 5:44-45). Matthew 26:52Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. There is no room in the teaching or examples of Jesus, nor in the New Testament epistles, to give those who claim the name of Christ, permission to kill another human being! And before you head to the comments to write it, no, Jesus didn't command that we own weapons — Luke 22:36 is taken entirely out of context if you believe that, along with Exodus 22:2 if your thoughts were taking you there next. As John Piper puts it, "Does it accord with the New Testament to encourage the attitude that says, “I have the power to kill you in my pocket, so don’t mess with me”? My answer is, No.". Which is as Paul also taught in Romans: "Do not repay anyone evil for evil" and to "never avenge yourselves" (Rom 12:17, 19) because that is the role of the Lord, not us. Clearly this teaching of non-violence was something that was understood pretty well by the Early Church, as the quotes above point out. We have documented teaching from the first two centuries by those who were taught by the Apostles and who followed in their (and Jesus') instructions, rejecting any and all forms of violence and weapon bearing.  So where did it all go wrong and change?   See more early Church quotes on war and violence here: rogueminister.wordpress.com/.../quotes-the-early-church-on-war-and-violence/ Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.   Further Reading: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/02/las-vegas-shooting-wh...