Does Matthew 5:41 support a Christian performing alternative (non-combative) service, if "drafted" or placed under "compulsory service"?

Matthew 5:41 is where Jesus said: "If someone under authority impresses you into service for a mile, go with him two miles."

The answer is, Yes. In effect, that is what Jehovah's Witnesses have always done in that we have chosen prison as an alternative to war. Jesus was really counseling his followers to "not resist him that is wicked." So, for example, in the United States during the Vietnam War there was considerable anti-government sentiment because of the draft. Some draftees burned their draft cards in public to demonstrate their resistance, while other draft resisters fled to Canada. Jehovah's Witnesses went to prison instead. So, in that respect we submitted to those in authority and willingly served prisons terms rather than violate our consciences by going to war.

Following Christ's counsel about submitting to those in authority has its limits though. For instance, consider the case of Daniel and the three Hebrews in Babylon: They willingly submitted to their captors in some respects, but they steadfastly refused to eat the king's polluted delicacies because doing so would have caused them to violate the Mosaic Law. Also, they refused to bow down before the golden image on the Plains of Dura.

So it is that we may only submit to those in authority as long as doing so does not cause us to violate some other Christian law or principle. For example, during the Holocaust, Jehovah's Witnesses willingly cooperated with their Nazi captors in the concentration camps. However, when the Nazis tried to force us to work in munitions factories or in some other way indirectly support Hitler's war effort, the brothers refused to cooperate.

Unfortunately, though, in the past the Watchtower has more or less determined for each Witness that prison is the only acceptable alternative to military service. But, we now recognize that some forms of alternative service are not objectionable to some persons. So, it is rightly understood now as being a matter of conscience for each individual facing the issue.

In view of the fact that the world is preparing for what appears to be global warfare, and, in the United States, some members of Congress are proposing bringing back the draft, your question seems timely. Here is a post 9-11 article that discusses alternatives to war from a non-JW perspective. [LINK]

Here is an article [LINK] that discusses the situation of Jehovah's Witnesses in South Korea, where there are no alternatives: It is either the military or prison.

Dear Watchman I have a question that I have had a hard time answering as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Every time I approach an elder with the question I get the run around. Born Again Christians tell me that JW's can't answer the question because they don't have an answer. My question concerns the bodily resurrection of Jesus. At John 2:19-22 it tells us "destroy this temple and in 3 days I will raise it up. He was talking about the temple of his body." Now, JW's say Jesus was raised in the "spirit," but does these verses not prove that Christians are right and Jesus arose in the "flesh"? One elder told me that the "body" was the Christian congregation. But that just does not make sense. Another elder told me that it was Jesus' spirit body. But Jesus spirit body never was destroyed. Please help

As with other doctrines, we must always be cautious about jumping to conclusions based upon the interpretation of merely one verse in the Bible. Perhaps, if John 2:19-22 was the only text in the entire Bible that discussed Christ's nature after his resurrection, we might be justified in coming to the conclusion that Jesus was resurrected in the flesh. It is not the only verse though. In fact, there are a number of other scriptures that indicate that Jesus was resurrected as a spirit creature. Still, we have to use our power of reason to solve seeming contradictions and paradoxes.

For example, Hebrews 5:7 says: "In the days of his flesh Christ offered up supplications and also petitions to the One who was able to save him out of death..."

Reasoning on the verse above, if the "days of his flesh" were before Jesus' death, as the text clearly indicates, then it is evident that Jesus was no longer in the flesh after Jehovah saved him out of death. Furthermore, the apostle Paul wrote at 2 Corinthians: "Even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, certainly we now know him so no longer." What does that mean? It means that the apostles and original disciples that personally knew Jesus when he was a man of flesh no longer knew him as a man of flesh and blood. That's because Christ was obviously no longer flesh. Paul knew what he was talking about. He is the only human to ever "see" Christ in the spirit. His close encounter with the glorified Christ on the road to Damascus left him dumbstruck and blind for three days.

In the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul explained the heavenly resurrection and he plainly stated that anointed Christians had to be changed from flesh to spirit; the reason being: "However, this I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God's kingdom, neither does corruption inherit incorruption. Look! I tell you a sacred secret: We shall not all fall asleep in death, but we shall all be changed..."

Again, using our powers of reason; if flesh and blood cannot inherit God's heavenly kingdom, and all anointed Christians are changed, the question naturally arises: What are they changed into? They are changed into the nature and glory of Christ Jesus. So, it stands to reason that Jesus too was changed. He was changed from a flesh and blood mortal into an immortal, indestructible, glorious spirit Son of God. In fact, that's what Jesus tried to explain to Nicodemus about what it meant to be born again, when he said to him: "What is flesh is flesh, and what is spirit is spirit." In other words, humans are humans, and spirit creatures are spirit creatures. So, in order for a man to become a spirit he has to become born again. Being born again eventually involves dying as to the flesh, thus making it possible to fully emerge into the spirit word as a new creation, which is what Jesus and the 144,000 become---a new creation.

Furthermore, Peter wrote: "Therefore, since Christ suffered in the flesh, you too arm yourselves with the same mental disposition…to the end that he may live the remainder of his time in the flesh, no more for the desires of men, but for God's will." Reasoning on this verse: The apostle expresses very clearly that those with a heavenly hope are simply living out the remainder of their time in the flesh trying to fight against the degenerate tendencies of the flesh. But, the verse indicates that the flesh is merely a temporary condition. Since Christ's followers have the hope of one day putting off the flesh, and since they are "following the Lamb no matter where he goes," the only logical, reasonable conclusion that we may reach is that Christ is no longer flesh. To drive the truth home further, Peter went on to say: "Christ died once for all time concerning sins... he being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit."

After a brief consideration of these verses, it should be obvious that Jesus Christ was not resurrected in the flesh. Those who insist otherwise are simply twisting the Scriptures.

So, what did Jesus mean when he said: "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up… He was talking about the temple of his body."

Well, first consider the context of Jesus' comments. He had just cleared the money changers out of his Father's temple and the Jews demanded to see some sort of sign from him. So, Jesus told them to 'break down this temple and in three days I will raise it up.' The Jews however, where fleshly-minded and not spiritual at all. So, they were imagining that Jesus was talking about the physical temple. That's why they scoffed at him and said that the temple took 46 years to build. In fact, later, at Jesus' trial, one of the false accusers brought the matter up claiming that Jesus had said he was going to rebuild Herod's temple in three days.

So, with the setting in mind, how likely is it that Jesus would take the time to explain to the Jews what he meant by his oracular expression? Even the apostles didn't immediately understand at the time what Jesus was talking about. It was only after Jesus' resurrection that they recalled his words and began to grasp that Jesus' kingdom really wasn't of this world, and that Jesus himself was returning to heaven.

The point of Jesus' comment was to contrast two systems of worship. The Jews imagined that the Jewish system would last forever. They could not conceive that the Mosaic Law covenant, and the priestly temple arrangement, headquartered in the temple at Jerusalem, would ever come to an end. But, Jesus knew that it would. He also knew that he was going to be the central figure in Jehovah's new covenant. So, in reality, Christ replaced the temple arrangement. And it all was going to be made possible by the sacrificial death of Jesus' fleshly body. So, that's why Christ spoke of his body in connection with Jehovah's spiritual temple.

Elsewhere in numerous places in the Greek Scriptures, Jesus is likened to a cornerstone and foundation in Jehovah's spiritual temple; the actual temple being composed of 144,000 living stones. But, Jesus didn't go into a detailed explanation with the hardheaded Jews about what the temple actually was going to be. He merely stated that his body was going to replace Jehovah's stone and mortar temple by virtue of his resurrection from the dead. Of course, the apostles explained these things in more detail much later.

Again, most of the Jews could not grasp Jesus' teaching because they were not spiritually-minded. They thought in terms of the flesh only. Ironically, today there are those who claim to be born again but who are every bit as fleshly-minded and non-spiritual as the Jews were who killed Jesus. That's why such "born-again" type individuals cannot grasp the true teachings of Christ and that's why they twist and distort all the other Bible teachings.

Must a man be a "Jehovah's Witness" in submission to the authority structure of the watchtower, in order to be saved? The reason I ask is that I am not a member of the WT Organization but I believe in Jehovah God and in His Messiah. Do I need to join JW's in order to be saved?

The entire Christian Greek Bible testifies to the fact that Jesus has a congregation of believers that will exist during the judgment. Christ's congregation consists of all those who are anointed at any given period. These chosen ones are referred to in Scripture as Christ's brothers. Being one of Christ's brothers is a very honored privilege. Jehovah's chosen ones are very special to him. That is why one aspect of the basis for Christ's judgment of non-anointed persons is how they treat Christ's spiritual brothers. That is explained in Matthew 25:31-46, in the so-called illustration of the sheep and goats.

Since the Scriptures indicate that Christ gathers all of his chosen brothers into one congregation, that means that there is only one organized religion that Christ recognizes as belonging to himself. It is not a matter of "joining" some religion, but if you believe in Jehovah and his Messiah, as you claim, then at some point, in order to gain salvation you will also have to recognize who Jesus' brothers are and demonstrate your support of them during their hardship.

I cannot in good conscious belong to an Organization that has clearly adulterated, to some degree, the Word of God. I believe that Jehovah has his people on this Earth. I now consider myself again to be one his followers; although, the Organization would certainly disagree. Because of my lack of association with the JWs for some time, of course I have fallen into sin. In light of all of this, is it possible for a servant of Jehovah who has "apostatized," and who has fallen into sin, regain his/her relationship with Jehovah without the need of an earthly organization? Couldn't a relationship with Jehovah be a private one? Do you think it is necessary for a Christian to remain publicly associated with the Watchtower Association to gain Jehovah's favor?

Unfortunately, we as humans seem to possess an unlimited capacity for self-deception. On the one hand you say that you "cannot in good (conscience)" be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. On the other hand you say that, because you're no longer associating with the congregation, you "have fallen into sin." Do you see a contradiction in these two statements? If you have fallen into sin as a direct result of having fallen away from the truth, doesn't that indicate that even though there are problems in the organization, that practicing the truth had some value?

If you have read some of the essays on e-watchman, do you believe that Jehovah is going to judge his people and set all things straight among his people? If you accept what the Scriptures say in this connection, rather than trying to serve Jehovah on your own terms, wouldn't the logical thing be to return to the truth?