Skip to main content

Visiting the prisoners

   Some people have wondered if they should have been visiting people that they knew were prisoners. One place in the Scriptures that gives us the affirmative on the question is Matthew 25:31-46 when Jesus describes the Final Judgment. The whole passage is recommended reading, but I will point out to everyone here the snippets that are relevant. Jesus said about the righteous (in Matthew 25:38-40), that they will say, "When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You? ’The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me." Then He described about the unrighteous (in Matthew 25:44-46), that they will say,  "Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
   The answer is "yes," obviously people should be visiting the prisoners. If there is a controversial case, then all the more is it the case of the matter that you should visit the prisoner. Apply the Golden Rule. If you were in the middle of a difficult problem, then you would require more help or attention. To the extent of the difficulty is the extent that someone needs others to help. I think it's safe to say from those verses that it is a dividing line issue. 
   Cases might become controversial if the defendant actually has a defense to provide the court, meaning his or her imprisonment then looks even more unfair, causing more opposition even. If they have no defense, they actually committed the crime, and the case is not controversial, the above verses still seem to indicate that people should visit the prisoner.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I don’t have legalism. That should explain things

    Many of you probably noticed that I have referred to secular songs multiple times in my posts. The reason why I can be a professing Christian and listen to and/or refer to secular songs is because I do not have the heresy of legalism. Others who adhere to legalism have been trying to say (wrongfully so) that believers in Christ are not ever allowed to listen to any “secular music.” That would be incorrect as speaking too simply and drawing a hard and fast boundary line for everyone where no hard and fast boundary exists.    If you want to know what legalism is, I am providing a few links here to explain it-  https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-Christian-legalism.html     https://carm.org/what-is-legalism   Legalism (when it occurs in the church) is basically (typically) the erroneous belief system which states that a person’s salvation depends on the continual adherence to rules of conduct and behavior (either to attain or mainta...
Post a Comment
Read more

Going Against One's Word or Breaking Vows

    Inherent in the problem having to do with breaking a vow that one has previously made (from a Biblical point of view) is the classic distinction between "law" and "grace" which is talked about a great in the writings of Paul. It is not advisable to make a vow (Matthew 5:34-35), or to break a vow (Matthew 5:33), obviously because of the strict justice of God and His righteous standard. However, to think that a vow made foolishly, rashly, in error, while intoxicated, poisoned, mentally compromised, etc, must always be observed forever, is not only a wrong way or practice for being too legalistic, it would practically be heresy because one would be ignoring what Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross. The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross does away with the ceremonial ordinances of the Old Testament by fulfilling them, bringing them to completion in the bringing of a new covenant in Him. Well guess what? In the Old Testament ceremonial ordinances the Jews had a way t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Personality Types and the Fall of Man Argument

   There will be some who will want to say that I was being illogical or unbiblical when I wrote the post about how personality differences get misunderstood.  Their argument is basically that differing personalities are a consequence of the Fall of Man- a consequence of the DNA getting disordered.  Therefore, they will say, that people who don't fit the "perfect personality" are sinful. God created one man, they will say, with a perfect personality (Adam).  In truth, they can cite Adam, Eve, and Jesus.  That argument is not correct, and I will stand my ground on this.    The reason why they are not correct is because they are making the unwarranted assumption all of Adam's descendants would have had the same personality had the Fall never happened. I can say with a fair degree of certainty that had the Fall never happened, there would have been different kinds of people with different personalities, it just would have been a more perfect world. ...
Post a Comment
Read more