John Piper, Steven Anderson and the Bible Allow Hitting Children for Discipline

Pastor John Piper says he believes Jesus would have spanked a child if he was married and had children. John Piper goes to the Old Testament and the New Testament for his proof. Piper uses Matthew 5 to argue Jesus would have used verses like Proverbs 13:24, (“He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.”) as proof texts for spanking children.

Westernised Christians may find it difficult to listen to. Westernised Christians may also find the saying in Matthew 5:18 troubling at it suggests Jesus followed the OT law:

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Pastor Steven Anderson demonstrates how to use a belt to physically discipline a child in latter part of this video. I wonder if some early Bible-believing Christians were doing something similar to their wives and slaves?

 

Advertisements


Categories: Islam

48 replies

  1. This is nothing new br. Yahya. Many Christians, pastors, and their scholars endorse this from the Old Testament (Bible):

    https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/10/09/does-the-bible-teach-child-abuse-beat-him-with-a-rod/

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Why, exactly, would it be troubling for a Christian to understand that our Jewish Messiah (Jesus) would follow the Jewish law? What else should we expect?

    Yahya, are you aware of the theological division re sacrifical law, moral law, etc?

    Like

    • So you admit that Jesus obeyed the Law and taught others to obey it! So who authorised Paul to teach it was all abolished in Ephesians 2:25?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Paul

      Jesus taught that he fulfilled the law, hence, law no longer necessary.

      Like

    • Then why of who did he say that until heaven and earth pass away not one letter not one stroke of a letter will pass from the law?

      Liked by 2 people

    • kev non sequitur

      Liked by 1 person

    • Paul Williams.

      Both Samuel and Kev have told you that Jesus fulfilled the law by perfect obedience to it. Why do you insist on asking questions that have already been answered on multiple threads? Why do you ignore Jesus’ own teaching on this? Paul’s teaching in Eph is completely consistent and accurate, which is why he, Peter, James and the other disciples agreed in Acts after the counsel.

      Besides, Jesus’ obedience to the law is not a problem for Christians- it is part of our heritage and theology. You, however, have a much big problem, since if Jesus was a law observer this means he upheld the sacrificial and atonement system, which of course falsifies Islam. So in your attempts to criticise another faith all you do is falsify your own.

      Like

    • And I’d still like to hear from Yahya re the theological distinction within the law.

      Like

    • ‘Both Samuel and Kev have told you that Jesus fulfilled the law by perfect obedience to it.’

      So what? They have offered no evidence that Jesus taught this.

      ‘Why do you insist on asking questions that have already been answered on multiple threads?’

      But they have not. That is the problem.

      ‘Why do you ignore Jesus’ own teaching on this?’

      Matthew says Jesus taught strict torah obedience to his followers (see Matt 23 for just one example). Paul claimed wrongly that Jesus “abolished” the torah in Ephesians 2:15.

      “Jesus’ obedience to the law is not a problem for Christians”

      It should be! You do not live as Jesus did. Muslims do.

      ‘if Jesus was a law observer this means he upheld the sacrificial and atonement system, which of course falsifies Islam. So in your attempts to criticise another faith all you do is falsify your own.’

      LOL a non-sequitor.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jesus said he came to fulfill the law. How can you say that is not evidence for the claim that Jesus fulfilled the law? Astonishing!!

      Paul, you need to go back to your Greek. Do a word study on “abolish” and you will find that the term was used in connection with institutions, laws, etc., to convey the idea of “to invalidate”. So in the passage Jesus says he has come not to invalidate the law, but to fulfill it. Jesus’ own words.

      Like

    • We do not have Jesus’s actual words. He taught in Aramaic not Greek.

      What is the Aramaic word for fulfill and what does it mean?

      And don’t forget that Paul said Jesus “abolished” the law, the very word you define. A massive contradition which proves Paul was not called by God.

      “He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances”

      Liked by 1 person

    • Samuel addressed Ephesians so you are just pretending their is some type of contradiction left unanswered.

      Now, concerning Jesus’s words, surely you see the irony of dismissing the fulfillment motif of Matt 5 while yourself relying upon Matt 23? You do realise both are written in the same book and language? Lol!!

      Like

    • No, Samuel failed to address Ephesians at all. He waffled and did not deal with Paul’s clear teaching that the Law has been abolished. This of course directly contradicts Jesus in Matthew.

      I am not clear what Matthew means by “fulfil”. In the commentaries there are various possible interpretations. But it does not mean the law is no longer binding on followers of Jesus.

      What do you make of this:

      ‘Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practise what they teach.’

      Liked by 1 person

    • To Fulfil something in NO WAY means to end something. EVERY dictionary in EVERY language in EVERY understanding of the word means to carry out something be it a task or role. in NO WAY did it, does it, will it mean to “abolish” ANYTHING.

      It one thing for all the mental gymnastics of this Hellenistic theology but completely another when you deliberately change the meaning of a word. What utter absurdity.

      Once again absolutely pathetic from the pagans, PATHETIC.

      Like

    • Muslims.

      You seem reluctant to allow Jesus the fulfilment motif yet yourselves have a doctrine of abrogation.

      Jesus doesn’t remove, invalidate or get rid of the law- he completes/ fulfills it. There Is no gymnastics with any terminology here. These are the words of the messiah.

      Samuel explained what abolished meant in the context of the letter. You seem to think everything is “clear” without ever actually engaging with the texts involved, yet seem completely happy to allow nuance with so called Koranic contradictions. It would be nice Paul to see some fairness in these discussions rather than Ahmed deedat style apologetics.

      Like

  3. American psycho

    Like

  4. Paul Williams –
    There is no Ephesians 2:25.

    Like

    • Amazing that you have put forth this argument for years, and yet pride yourself on intellectual exegesis, etc. and yet don’t understand the context of Ephesians 2:11-22 and what it is saying.

      Like

    • I have discussed the context before.

      Like

    • But you mis-construe the author’s intention when you claim it means that all the moral law also is abolished. It is the enmity of the law, in context, (see the surrounding verses), the specific laws that create barriers between Jews and Gentiles, that was “set aside” or “nullified”, “rendered powerless”. (Greek: katargeo – to nullify, set aside, render powerless) The moral law is still in effect. The food laws, circumcision, Sabbath day, Jewish feasts, barrier of the temple courts of keeping Gentiles out, separation laws – these are the laws that create barriers that were done away with.

      “But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
      14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, (the separation laws that create the cultural separation and enmity with each other) . . . ”

      Like

    • Even so- it contradicts Jesus teaching in Matthew on the law.

      Like

    • No it does not contradict Matthew because Matthew 5:18 says that Jesus came to fulfill. Jesus fulfilled all the law in His life and on the cross, therefore only setting aside the ceremonial and civil aspects of the law code, not the moral law. The “weightier matters” as Jesus said in Matthew 23:23 are the moral laws that all Christians have always believed are still valid. (Romans 13:8-10; 7:12; 1 Timothy 1:8-11)

      The external laws of circumcision (book of Galatians, Acts 15), feast days (Colossians 2:16-20), food laws (Mark 7:19), Sabbath day changed to Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; Revelation 1:10; Colossians 2:16), punishments, sacrificial laws (Hebrews chapters 7-10)and Levitical laws pertaining to priests have been fulfilled and therefore no longer binding on anyone, especially Gentiles.

      Like

    • what does “fulfil” mean? My scholarly commentaries list 6 different possible meanings.

      And where does JESUS say all these things in Matthew?

      Like

    • It means exactly what Christianity has been saying. The atonement set aside the ceremonial, sacrificial, outward things, food laws, Sabbath changed from Sat. to Sunday, etc. Book of Hebrews and the other verses I gave you show this. Whatever separated Jews and Gentiles as external markers – what binds people together is their faith in Christ now. Basic Christian teaching.

      Like

    • Ken you have failed to answer my question a you well know.

      Like

    • In the context of Matthew 5 and “you have heard it said; but I say to you” (Matthew 5:21-48) and “unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees” (5:20), to fulfill points to Jesus Himself and His Messianic Mission of being the suffering servant (of Isaiah 52:13-15 to 53:12) – see Matthew 20:28 / Mark 10:45 – the law and the prophets are fulfilled by Jesus Himself, and He obeyed all the law in His lifetime, and set aside the ceremonial and external laws (like food laws) since they cannot cleanse the heart – Mark 7:14-23 / Matthew 15:1-20. Matthew 27:45-51 shows how the atonement on the cross fulfilled the law by splitting the veil in two and thus breaking down the barrier so that all peoples from all nations may enter into the presence of God by repentance and faith in their hearts (God giving a new heart – Ezekiel 36:26-27), both Jews and Gentiles, which is also what Ephesians 2:11-22 is talking about, taking away the enmity of the external laws that divide Jews and Gentiles, and giving people a new covenant heart of change from the inside to the outside, not outside external efforts to clean up one’s life by human effort, but the power of God to change a heart by grace and the power to repent and believe in Christ. “cleansing their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:9-11)

      Like

  5. the same apostle Paul wrote that “the law is holy, good, and righteous” – Romans 7:12, see also 1 Timothy 1:8-11, which proves you are wrong.

    and Romans 13:8-10 shows the apostle knows the moral law is still in effect and the law of love motivates us to seek to obey the moral law.

    Like

  6. James D. G. Dunn, one of your favorite Biblical scholars to quote over these years since 2011, proves you are wrong:

    “Here it becomes obvious that Paul was able to differentiate within the law . He maintains that some laws, here the law of circumcision no longer counted, but in the same breathe he reasserts the importance of keeping the law of God.

    Does this not remind us of Jesus? . . .

    Paul drew his attitude to the law from Jesus, no other explanation makes such sense of the evidence available to us. It was Jesus’ teaching and example which showed him that in Christ neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision but faith operating effectively through love. [Galatians 5:6] It was no doubt this teaching and that example that Paul had in mind when he speaks of “the law of Christ”.

    Dunn concludes:

    “Should we then speak of a gulf between Jesus and Paul? NO!

    Should we deduce that Paul departed from or corrupted the good news which Jesus brought? No!

    Should we conclude that Paul transformed Jesus’ message into something that Jesus Himself would not recognize? No! . . . ”

    Jesus’ discriminating attitude to the law and the love command . . . ” (David Wood ran out of time at that point)

    (James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels. Eerdmans, 2011, pages 114-115)

    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/10/11/james-d-g-dunn-should-we-deduce-that-paul-departed-from-or-corrupted-the-good-news-which-jesus-brought-no/

    Like

    • How then do you reconcile Paul with this from Matthew?

      ‘Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practise what they teach. ‘

      and

      ‘Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practised without neglecting the others.’

      Like

    • Before the fulfillment of the law at the cross, of course they were suppossed to obey all of it, but the external laws, the food laws, the sacrificial system is no longer applicable after the atonement/cross.

      The principle is right there in one of the one of the verses you quoted – Matthew 23:23 – the weightier laws are going to continue, the lesser, external, ceremonial, ritualistic ones are going to pass away. “clean the inside of your cup first” = internal repentance, being born again by the Holy Spirit, not external washings or food laws that do nothing for the heart and mind.

      Mark 7:14-23

      it is not what one eats that defiles him, but what he says, because it comes from the heart / mind – for whatever comes out of the mouth comes from the heart – evil thoughts, etc.

      Like

    • ‘Before the fulfillment of the law at the cross, of course they were suppossed to obey all of it, but the external laws, the food laws, the sacrificial system is no longer applicable after the atonement/cross.’

      Where does JESUS say this in Matthew?

      ————————————————-

      You claim:

      ‘The principle is right there in one of the one of the verses you quoted – Matthew 23:23 – the weightier laws are going to continue, the lesser, external, ceremonial, ritualistic ones are going to pass away.’

      Here is the verse again:

      ‘Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practised without neglecting the others.’

      I notice how you blatantly lie about the verse which says the opposite of what you say.

      You have been caught out Ken!

      Like

    • “without neglecting the others” – before the cross – Jesus is speaking before the atonement / cross event happens. Once His atonement is accomplished, all the food laws and ceremonial laws are finished and no longer applicable, per teaching of the rest of the NT, which I already showed you.

      Of course you already knew this, as you claim to be a former Evangelical Christian, or didn’t they teach you these things?

      Like

    • Ken you have failed to answer my question- as you well know.

      Like

    • Matthew 27:46 – Jesus’ quoting Psalm 22:1 and demonstrating He is willingly taking the punishment and wrath of God against sin within Himself as the final sacrifice for sin – demonstrates how He fulfilled all the ceremonial and sacrificial laws of the OT.

      Matthew 27:51 – the veil in the temple was torn in two – now all may enter the presence of God by repentance and faith in the heart, by the grace of the new birth – God has to take out the heart of stone (of bondage to sin and external dead religion, like the Pharisees, and what Islam emphasizes), and give a person a new heart of repentance, faith, obedience – Ezekiel 36:26-27. The law and the prophets prophesied of these things and Jesus fulfilled them.

      Like

  7. Matthew 23:26 – clean the inside first – must have a new heart, repentance and faith in Christ; only then can outward external behavior change.

    Ezekiel 36:26-27 – “I will take away your heart of stone and give you a new heart of flesh” (soft, repentance, being born again – see John 3:1-10)

    Acts 15:9 – “cleansing their hearts by faith”

    Like

  8. There are beatings and there are beatings. Each child is different, as is each parent. Who can really say how many slaps, or how hard each slap, is suitable to chastise a child? Isn’t it that most slapping is spontaneously delivered having stemmed from anger or frustration? There exists many serious cases of child abuse everywhere on this world. There needed to be legislation to protect defenseless children. ‘Secularists’ perhaps thought it necessary to introduce blanket-legislation to curb the practice. It has worked. There are very few parents in the UK today who will beat their children. And when I say ‘beat’, I mean severe slapping that hurts intensely. That’s a good result. Now well-meaning parents must find more subtle ways to correct children. And they do!
    Human-being is growing more and more sophisticated. “Spare the rod and spoil the child.” you say? “I say, “Time makes ancient good uncouth.”

    Like

  9. There is rational logic and then there is christian logic. In Christianity

    *to fulfill means to break
    *don’t abolish means you must break
    *one means three
    *three means one
    *worship God alone means worship others too
    *don’t worship others, means worship others
    *don’t eat pork means eat pork
    *salvation is by obeying law means salvation is not by obeying law
    *no salvation for those who break the laws means salvation is certainly for those who break the law
    *don’t me call good means i am the “good”
    *etc etc

    How can anyone argue with this mentality.

    Like

  10. Any disciplining of the child that leaves a mark or causes a wound would be against the law of Moses:

    Exodus 21 v 23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

    I don’t believe the bible teaches that no laws can change or pass away.

    “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

    “Till heaven and earth pass” is an idiom which equates to: “it will always be the case that….”

    My understanding of this verse is that what Jesus said is equivalent to the following:

    “It will always be the case that nothing shall pass from the law until the conditions for the change have been fulfilled.”

    There was precedent for this in the garden of Eden, at the flood, and Mt Sinai where the covenants and laws were changed.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: