Mere mention of a code of conduct conjures up visions of the perfect hero – individuals who should be held in highest esteem and whom all should aspire to emulate. Yet history has revealed that there were both notably honorable as well as notoriously despicable members of these warrior classes. Two questions then arise. First, does a notably honorable man really need a code of conduct? Second, can a code of conduct make a notoriously despicable man honorable? The answer to both questions lies in understanding that the external expression of any code of conduct, whether corporate (group) or personal (individual), is filtered through ones personal internal code of ethics and governed by the foundation upon which that personal internal code of ethics is established.

It is generally assumed that any corporate code of ethics, whether written or unwritten, has at its core, the intent to guide it’s adherents to embrace virtue, shun vice and exhibit the highest expression of moral integrity. However, this assumption has been strenuously argued sighting various historical movements whose notorious leaders caused and/or condoned their follower’s display of despicable conduct. Therefore, placing implicit faith in the implied integrity of a corporate code of conduct can prove to be a grievous error without filtering its precepts through a personal code of ethics founded upon a rock-solid foundation that is steeped in virtue.

Every individual, whether knowingly or unknowingly, implements a personal code of ethics. One’s personal internal code of ethics is derived from the values (comprised of virtues and/or vices) they hold to be most important. Virtues are the positive components of which one’s personal code of ethics is comprised. Virtues are of the highest quality – depicting moral excellence. Vices are the negative components of which one’s code of ethics is comprised. Vices are of the lowest quality – depicting moral depravity. To the degree that one aspires to embrace the qualities of those virtues or vices defines their moral bent and thus the external expression of their code of ethics.

Scripture cautions us that “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, But he who heeds counsel is wise” (Proverbs 12:15). Scripture further cautions us that the heart of man is “… deceitful above all things and desperately wicked” (Jeremiah 17:9). These cautions should cause one to consider that if the foundation of ones internal code of ethics is comprised of ones perceived intelligence and integrity then it is also compromised by ones lack of intelligence and integrity. To suppose that we possess superior intelligence and integrity in all that pertains to being the perfect example of chivalry and that we naturally exude the spiritual attributes of nobility (freedom from anything petty, mean, or dubious in conduct and character) and righteousness (guiltlessness or blamelessness), would imply that our ego has blinded us to reality. This would amount to irrefutable proof that pride and self-exaltation has replaced any hope of true chivalry. Furthermore, if ones inherent moral bent is essentially deceitful and wicked, then ones internal code of ethics is doomed to fall short of the essence of true chivalry.

So, how do we answer the question “can a code of conduct make a notoriously despicable man honorable”? In view of the Proverbs 12:15 caution that “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, But he who heeds counsel is wise”, and considering the natural inclination of the heart toward deceitfulness and wickedness, ones natural inclination would be to reject any instruction opposing their moral bent rendering them virtually un-teachable. If one has absolutely no inclination to be truly honorable, logic would dictate there would be no way that a man-made code of conduct could perform a miraculous change in their heart.

Next, how do we answer the question “does a notably honorable man really need a code of conduct”? It would seem that in view of the Jeremiah 17:9 caution that the heart of man is inherently “… deceitful above all things and desperately wicked”, that there is no such thing as a truly honorable man. So, the likelihood that a man-made code of conduct could cause a deceitful, desperately wicked man to change the natural inclination of their heart seems virtually impossible. It would seem then that we must aspire to a higher code of ethics than one devised by man, but where can we turn?

The Apostle Paul very clearly points us toward that higher code of ethics. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) The Apostle Peter confirms that Scripture is not devised by man “… knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:20, 21)

Still a problem remains – “…the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14) Jesus’ words are even more direct “He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.” (John 8:47)

So why does this problem exist – It all began in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2). God endowed Adam with the authority to act as His vice-regent and have close personal relationship (both physical and spiritual) with Him. In his official capacity as God’s representative, Adam was given instruction regarding his privileges and responsibilities and cautioned that failure to comply with specified responsibilities would be construed as disobedience (the Biblical equivalent of sin) and would result in the loss of specified privileges including the close personal relationship. Unfortunately, Adam as the first representative of the human race, is also considered the corporate (Oh-oh, there’s that troublesome word again) head of the human race. To make a long story short, Adam was enticed into disobeying God’s instructions and as mankind’s corporate head, we as members of the human race are conceived in Adam’s disobedience (fallen state) and thereby share estrangement from close personal relationship with God. The Apostle Paul stated this very succinctly, “Therefore, just as through one man (Adam) sin entered the world, and death (physical and spiritual) through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned” (being conceived in Adams disobedience) (Romans 5:12)

Fortunately, God has provided a solution to the problem – Just “… as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” (Romans 5:19) Or to explain in more detail, “…through one man’s (Adam’s) offense judgment came to all men (“all men” united in Adam), resulting in condemnation (guilt), even so through one Man’s (Jesus’) righteous act the free gift (salvation / reconciliation to God) came to all men (“all men” united in Jesus), resulting in justification of life” (the justification that results in spiritual life instead of spiritual death). (Romans 5:18). Simply put “… God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)

So, the final question is DO YOU BELIEVE? Do you believe that God loves you so much that He does not want you to remain under the condemnation inherited through our disobedient corporate head, Adam? Do you believe that God wants us to transfer our allegiance to the obedient corporate head, Jesus? If you believe this, you are no longer like “…the natural man [who] does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14) Instead you are becoming like “He who is of God [and] hears God’s words…” and you no longer “…do not hear, because you are not of God.” (John 8:47) You need to know “that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” (Romans 10:9,10) Then, you can aspire to a higher code of ethics than one devised by man. You can turn to God’s Code of Ethics, the Word of God. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

In truly God-centered martial art systems, scripture, not tradition, provides the validation for all aspects of the instruction. In an attempt to retain as much of the traditional oriental flavor as possible without compromising the scriptural perspective, all aspects of the traditional approach are held up to the scrutiny of scripture. To site one example – from a strictly traditional oriental perspective, “Bowing is a traditional and highly ceremonial manner of displaying a moment of respectful silence in memory of the many dedicated individuals who over the centuries have virtually devoted their lives to the very demanding intellectual, physical, and spiritual pursuits necessary in the attainment of mastery in the oriental fighting arts.” (taken from Budo Aikido – Kukyu Training Manual) Obviously, a devoutly spiritual martial artist would have a problem with this concept of paying homage to individuals no matter how dedicated they were to the martial arts.

How then could a Christian justify bowing in a martial arts setting? In Christian based martial arts systems, the student is cautioned that God clearly instructed Moses to record “You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them” (Ex. 20:3-5). That pretty well sums it up – bowing is taboo. But wait!!! What about Abraham, God’s man of faith? Genesis chapter 23 reveals that Abraham requested the cave of Machpelah, owned by Ephron, who dwelt among the children of Heth, as a burying place for his wife Sarah. In the process of obtaining the burying place, twice, Abraham “bowed before the people of the land” (Gen. 23:7,12). Although Moses’ Law was not etched in stone, so to speak, at the time Abraham bowed before the people of the land, to entertain the thought that Abraham bowed to pay homage to the people would a misnomer. Bowing was merely a custom in Abraham’s culture much like shaking hands is in our modern day culture.

Apparently, it all has to do with attitude. On the one hand, if in one’s mind, one is bowing as a sign of reverential homage, it would be in direct opposition with the clear teaching of Exodus 20. On the other hand, if in one’s mind, one is bowing in keeping with custom and no thought of reverential homage is being entertained, it would be more in keeping with the example of Abraham as recorded in Genesis 23 and therefore permissable.

Ceremonial bowing is performed:

when entering and exiting the training area.
at the beginning and the end of the training session.
at the beginning and the end of practice with a partner(s).
at the beginning and the end of sparring with a partner(s).
at the beginning and the end of communication with Sensei.
at the beginning and the end of testing for promotion.

This concept of turning the other cheek posses a very difficult dilemma for me.  I have been involved in the martial arts for several decades.  I love the martial arts. I love to teach the martial arts. I love how the martial arts help me stay in shape and keep me flexible. But, how can I be involved in the martial arts and still remain faithful to the teachings of scripture?

Some Christian martial artists attempt to resolve this issue by referring to 2 Cor. 11:21 where it seems that the apostle Paul also found it to be a dilemma to be struck in the face. In this second letter to the Corinthians, it appears that he admitted that while the Corinthians tolerated being struck in the face, he was “… too weak for that” – the implication being that he would have, in fact, retaliated.  Other martial artists have even said “Scripture says to turn the other cheek, but it doesn’t say what to do after that, sooooo! That is when you knock their lights out”.

Christian scholars have addressed the topic of “turning the other cheek” and presented the following:

“Jesus gives us a radical example so we will avoid retaliation, not so we will explore the limits of his example. … A backhanded blow to the right cheek did not imply shattered teeth (tooth for tooth was a separate statement); it was an insult, the severest public affront to a person’s dignity.” ^[1]

“To be slapped on the right cheek would be interpreted more as an insulting act of contempt than a violent physical attack (cf. Mat. 26:67).” ^[2]

Perhaps we should take a closer look at the context in which Jesus said “… But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” (Mat. 5:39)  Note that in looking at this passage we need to be careful not to be led or misled by false teachers nor lead or mislead by false teaching.  It has been said “a text taken out of context becomes a pretext”; i.e. twisting a statement in order to cloak divisive intentions (see Acts 23:15).

The words Jesus spoke concerning turning the other cheek are found in the Bible, nestled among the teachings called “The Sermon on the Mount” (Mat. 5:1 – 7:27).  The Sermon on the Mount describes the rewards and the responsibilities of being a Christian.  The central theme of the Sermon on the Mount is found in Mat. 5:48, “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.”  While the word perfect, as it is used here, refers to human kind, it does not refer to being entirely without fault or defect (flawless) — although God certainly is — it is more like “lacking in no essential detail (complete)”.

With three whole chapters being devoted to the aspects of being as much like God as is humanly possible (complete), how does one become complete (lacking in no essential detail) and what is the purpose?  2 Tim. 3:16 describes the method by which we become complete and verse 17 reveals the purpose for becoming complete: “¹⁶All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, ¹⁷that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”  So then, the Scripture gradually transforms us so that we become equipped to do good.

The Sermon on the Mount can be divided into 10 major divisions.  The words of Jesus regarding, turning the other cheek (Mat. 5:39), are found in the third division emphasizing “True Righteousness” (Mat. 5:17 – 48).  In verse 20, Jesus clarified what He considered true righteousness to be: “For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” 

The question then arises: “Since turning the other cheek is in some way connected with true righteousness, what does righteous mean and how can I have righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees?”  Simply put, righteous is being right in God’s sight.  The only way to be right in God’s sight is “… if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. ^For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10:9-10).

When we truly believe that Jesus was commissioned by God the Father to forfeit His life (the sinless substitute: 2 Cor. 5:21, Eph. 2:8-9, Rom. 6:23) for our life (the sinner: Rom. 3:23, Psa. 51:5, Isa. 59:2) — and because He Himself was not deserving of death (being sinless), God raised Him from the dead — then we are saved and our righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees because they refused to believe in Jesus even when they received reports that He was seen alive by many.

It is imperative to note that Jesus gave His life to satisfy God’s law which required law breakers to pay the penalty of death for their disobedience (sin).  This act of compassion on the part of Jesus allows God to remain unwavering in His position against sin, and be merciful at the same time. If each person were to pay the penalty (in this case, die) for breaking God’s law (sinning), they would die IN their sins and pay the penalty they justly deserved. On the other hand, if a sinless (righteous) substitute, were to pay the penalty on behalf of the law breaker, then the law would have been fulfilled (the penalty paid) and the law breaker would be released from paying the penalty.  Jesus fully understood the terrible agony He would suffer on our behalf (Mat. 26:39), but He knew He had been commissioned to be the unblemished (sinless) sacrificial Lamb of God.  Jesus also practiced what He preached concerning turning the other cheek : “…they began to spit in Jesus’ face and beat him with their fists. And some slapped him” (Mat. 26:67, cf. Lk. 22:64, Jn. 18:22, Jn. 19:3).

OK! – The inspired (God breathed) scriptures are telling me that I am to turn the other cheek (and I do want to be righteous in God’s sight); but Jesus also said: “Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Mat. 5:19)  So… I also need to be concerned with not breaking the least of these commandments and certainly not teach others (by words or by example) to break the commandments.

Is it possible that Paul considered breaking “…one of the least of these commandments” and by example teach “… men so”? (Mat. 5:19)  God forbid!  Perhaps we should search the scriptures for other references to this turn the other cheek concept, and compare how they are used lest we be considered “… untaught and unstable people [who] twist [scripture] to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures… being led away with the error of the wicked” (2 Pet. 3:16-17).

So far we have concentrated exclusively on the New Testament, but the Old Testament also addresses the issue. In the book of Lamentations, written by the prophet Jeremiah, we find the earliest use of the concept regarding turning the other cheek (Lam. 3:30 NLT).  Jeremiah was lamenting (grieving) over the downfall of Jerusalem and not feeling so good about the fact that his submission to God’s mission was causing him suffering and hardship.  The details are set forth in the Book of Jeremiah, also written by Jeremiah.  We learn that Jeremiah had been commissioned by God to warn the Jewish leaders and the people to repent of their sins or be punished for their rebellion.  God made it clear to Jeremiah that He intended to send the Babylonians to administer that punishment (Jer. 20: 4).  The Jewish leaders and the people were angry that Jeremiah had pronounced doom on them and they struck Jeremiah and treated him harshly (Jer. 20:1-2, 26:8-9, 32:2, 37:15, 38:6).

Let’s sum it up. In the case of Jesus, as in the case of Jeremiah, they were both fulfilling a commission to which God had appointed them.  As God’s representatives, their duty was to conduct themselves in a manner that would bring honor to God and not discredit Him in any way.  In both cases they were sent to warn God’s people of the consequences for their disobedience to God, and they were not sent to carry out the punishment.  In both cases it was the people they were sent to warn who struck them.

As mentioned earlier, to think that Paul would knowingly break any commandment, and by example teach others to do the same, contradicts all that he stood for.  A closer look at what Paul said reveals his true dedication to the commission God had appointed him.  Paul was pointing out that the Corinthians were willing to “put up with” a false apostle who was misleading them and taking advantage of them (2 Cor. 11:20).  First, this false apostle was bringing them “into bondage” (under yoke of the Law of Moses – Acts 15:1).  Second, he devoured them (laid burdensome financial demands on them).  Third, he “takes from you”, meaning he exploited them by reducing their self-esteem so they would blindly do his bidding. Forth, this false apostle exalted himself by directing criticism at the true apostles and attempting to appear superior by his assertiveness.  Finally, he struck the Corinthians “on the face” asserting his implied authority and further reducing their dignity.

Paul’s statement in the next verse (2 Cor. 11:21), “To our shame I say that we were too weak for that!” is very revealing.  Paul was not there with the Corinthians, he was corresponding by letter.  He was not saying that “we were too weak for that” referring to being too weak to allow the false apostle strike him.  Paul was referring to the extreme intimidation tactics the false apostle used to substantiate his authority over the Corinthians.  Paul was saying, if that kind of aggressive conduct was what the Corinthians expected from true representatives of God, he just could not bring himself to use intimidation to fulfill God’s commission.

The examples set by Jesus, Jeremiah and Paul clearly directs us to conduct ourselves in a God- honoring manner.  They always conducted themselves in a way that was intended to direct the attention to God and not to themselves.  In each case they obviously were acting as ambassadors of God.  We too, are not to draw attention to ourselves and are to be ambassadors of Christ Jesus: “… we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing” (2 Cor. 2:15).  When we have any involvement with others, we are to enter with the fragrance of Christ and exit with the fragrance of Christ lingering.  In this way we can be a sweet smelling savor to God.

Additionally, there are numerous examples we could consider from scripture that seem to justify the use of defensive measures: Abraham went to the defense of his nephew Lot (Gen. 14:8-16), King Saul went to the defense of the Gileadites (1 Sam. 11:1-11), King David went to the defense of his family and the wives and children of his army (1 Sam. 30:1-19) — just to name a few.  In each case they obviously were not acting as ambassadors of God.  It appears that the objective was the safety and welfare of the innocent and not for self-glorification.

How can I follow the example of Abraham, Saul, and David in employing only defensive measures to ensure the safety and welfare of the innocent, as well as the example of Jesus, Jeremiah and Paul in directing attention to God and not to myself while letting the fragrance of Christ permeate every involvement with others?

Another thing to note is that Abraham, Saul and David had weapons which they used for the safety and welfare of the innocent.  Those weapons were specifically designed to maim and kill. In our modern society it is illegal to carry a weapon without a permit.  My only weapon would be my defensive skills.  Those defensive skills are not specifically designed to maim and kill, but they do not lack that capability.  Using defensive skills in an offensive manner would not allow the fragrance of Christ permeate every involvement with others; and would instead, leave a stench.

On the other hand, Jesus, Jeremiah and Paul did not carry weapons.  Their primary defensive tactic was to avoid altercations.  My primary defensive tactic must be to avoid altercations and if unavoidable then to use defensive skills only.

In summary, let me use a personal example.  Several years ago, I and my students were invited to put on a demonstration at a church youth outreach event.  I had been teaching martial arts at that church for several years. There were approximately 300 teenagers in attendance from several communities.  At the end of the demonstration, the announcer (a friend of mine???) asked if “anyone would like to spar with the instructor” (me).  This invitation had not been discussed or agreed to before the demonstration.  Apparently the teens had a champion in the audience, whose name was called out in several areas of the stands.  Their champion stepped on to the mat, and I was seemingly obligated to honor the announcer’s challenge.  I had a choice to make: I could spar to humiliate their champion (assuming my skills were good enough); or I could spar to allow him look good in front of all his friends (again – assuming my skills were good enough).

My decision was to (hopefully) help him remain in the high esteem of his friends.  I believe God commended me for my choice because I spoke with the young man after the event.  He told me he was a second degree black belt and a highly rated tournament competitor.  He then asked why I didn’t take him out right away because he sensed I could have.  I told him I didn’t want to make him look bad in front of his friends.  A tear came to his eyes and he said: “I thought so.”  I believe God allowed the fragrance of Christ to permeate that involvement with that young man; and, by the way, one of the youth pastors later had an opportunity to present the gospel to him.

Did I turn the other cheek?  I presented both cheeks as a target, and when he delivered a punch or a kick, I avoided the blows by moving the intended target out of the way, or by putting a hand or arm in the way just enough to divert the attack and help him remain their champion – my humble effort to be obedient and do what was right in that situation.

1 Cor. 10:31-33: “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.” 

^[2]Chouinard, Larry: Matthew. Joplin, Mo. : College Press, 1997 (The College Press NIV Commentary), S. Mt 5:39

The words Jesus spoke concerning “… if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off”, as well as “… if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out” are found in the Bible in the gospel of Mark (Mk. 9:43 & 47).  In order to grasp the significance of Jesus’ seemingly extreme statements, it is imperative to begin with the premise that the words of the Bible are intended to direct the reader into “… spiritual understanding” (Colossians 1:9). With this premise firmly in mind, we can then gain greater insight from the words delivered by the messenger from God to the Old Testament prophet Daniel revealing that “… many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt” (abhorrence / loathing) (Dan. 12: 2).  With this insight we then begin to understand that the statements of Jesus’ being addressed here vividly illustrate that the choices we make in our temporary existence, experienced in the present physical realm, can have a catastrophic affect on our future eternal existence, experienced in the spiritual realm.

There are those who question whether Jesus truly intended for His words to be taken literally. This advances the question: “Would Jesus really advocate self-mutilation?”  They point out that Jesus, on occasion, seemingly utilized hyperbole (exaggeration, overstatement) to give greater impact to His statements; and thus we need to take His statements with a “grain of salt”. This tends to open the door to the implication that Scripture contains error and that we need to take these statements, along with other statements by Jesus and perhaps all of Scripture, under careful scrutiny. In doing this, mankind (the created) has very subtly elevated himself to a position as judge over God (the Creator), the author of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16, 17; 1 Thes. 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:20, 21; 2 Pet. 3:15, 16).

Even Christians, who truly believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, erroneously may attest to their high view of Scripture by saying “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it”. Again, very subtly, these devout Christians can leave the impression in the minds of their hearers that Scripture needs their approval to be valid. In reality, it would be more accurate to say, “The Bible says it – that settles it”. This would leave the hearer with the clear message that Scripture (in the original autographs), were inspired (breathed out) and superintended (overseen) by our sovereign (supreme authority) God — so that all Scripture is inerrant (without error) (2 Tim. 3:16, 17; 2 Pet. 1:20, 21).

When we consider that the word “everlasting” in the Daniel 12:2 passage means eternal, forever, perpetual, without end; and that Scripture makes it very clear that mankind is destined to experience an eternal existence, the question then arises “Will I experience eternal life or eternal dying?” It is hard to imagine that one could die eternally. It would seem that dying would go on only so long and then come to an end. However, a closer look at Mark 9:42-48 should quickly dispel that idea (also see Mat. 25:46).

⁴³“If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched—⁴⁴where ‘Their worm does not die
 And the fire is not quenched.’ (Isa.66:24)
⁴⁵And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched—⁴⁶where ‘Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.’
⁴⁷And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire—⁴⁸where
‘Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.’ ”

So, back to the question – Would Jesus really advocate self-mutilation?  In view of the evidence Scripture presents that if the members of our body cause us to sin (Mk. 9:43, 45 & 47), then we must consider their temporal worth in relation to our eternal destiny. If our eye causes us to carry out lustful thoughts or if our hand is the instrument by which we carry out acts of vengeance; and if their removal would eliminate the propensity to indulge in sinful acts and assure our eternal destiny – then Jesus’ words should definitely be taken literally.

If, on the other hand (no pun intended), after gouging out our eye or after cutting off our hand, the propensity to sin still remains, we then simply become a one-eyed luster or a one handed avenger and we have not addressed the root of the problem. Scripture teaches that the propensity to sin resides in the heart and mind (Jer. 17:9-10; also Mk. 7:20-23). The question then arises – “How can the propensity to sin be removed from my heart and my mind so that I no longer engage the members of my body in the carrying out of acts of lust or vengeance?”

The short answer is – the propensity to sin will always be there as long as I continue to assume in my heart and mind that I (the created) am superior to God (the Creator) and therefore competent to pass judgment as to the validity and efficacy of God’s words of doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17). I need to renounce the throne from which I preside over my personal world and surrender it to the true King (Jesus) revealed in Scripture.

How do I place myself in subjection to God?

            Click here – YouTube – Three Ball Gospel Illustration (6:29 min.)
                        Primarily for adults but children can grasp the concept as well.

            Click here – Gospel Presentation – Ilze Luneau, Luneaus Basketball Family (6:19 min.)
                       Primarily for children but adults can entertain the kid inside themselves.

            Click here – Door to door Gospel Presentation – Pastor Steven Anderson of
                       Faithful Word Baptist Church, Tempe Arizona (10:00 min)
                       Primarily for adults but children can grasp the concept as well.

Scriptures cited in the text are noted here for your convenience.

Col. 1:9 -  … we … do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;

2 Tim. 3:16-17 – ^16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, ^17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

1 Thes. 2:13 – ^13 For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.

2 Pet. 1:20, 21 – ^20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, ^21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

2 Pet. 3:15, 16 – ^15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, ^16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Jer. 17: 9-10 – ⁹  “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it? ¹⁰   I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways, According to the fruit of his doings.

Mk. 7: 20-23 – ^20 And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. ^21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, ^22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. ^23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”

The word KAMIDO is comprised of two Japanese words. KAMI meaning “God” and DO meaning “the way”. By combining the word KAMIDO with AIKIDO, we then have “God’s way – to harmony with the (Holy) Spirit”. God’s way to harmony with the Spirit is to do all things in accord with God’s precepts and thereby glorify God.

In Matthew 5:14-16, God’s word tells us that we “are the light of the world” and that a lamp is not lit to be put “under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.” We are to let our light so shine before men, that they may see our good works and glorify our Father in heaven. It is the goal of Kamido Aikido to be a light in the world of martial arts, to shine in the darkness of oriental philosophy and to glorify our Father in heaven.

Archeological Research -

Archeologists have postulated that since the beginning of time, self-preservation or self protection has been a major concern for mankind and, that, what they call “primitive man”, developed simple yet effective methods of survival. Archeological research has led some to conclude that very early “man-like beings” most likely lived in trees to avoid falling prey to wild animals and when they did venture down from their lofty sanctuary in the trees, it is supposed that they stayed in groups, an appropriate application of the concept of “safety in numbers”. Even simple acts like avoiding dangerous situations are interpreted as a demonstration of man’s instinctive concern for survival.

Archeologists have unearthed, so to speak, evidence that early man developed tools for farming and found them to be useful as weapons. Man’s need to provide food caused him to improve his tools and his instinct to protect himself caused him to improve implements that could be used as weapons. This will to survive has given rise to specialists in various methods of self protection with weapons as well as without weapons. Examples would be the gladiators of the Roman Era, the knights of the Crusade Era, the fencing masters of France and Italy and the Samurai of Japan.

Archeology is defined as “the science or study of history from the remains of early human cultures as discovered chiefly by systematic excavations.” It is very interesting that by digging in the ground, “systematic excavations”, one would conclude that man-like beings lived in trees, “above ground”. It would seem that one would be better convinced that lofty habitats were the abode of choice if domestic implements, tools or weapons were found in abundance in the trees. Could those early man-like beings actually have been monkeys? After all, monkeys even to this day tend to reside in trees.

Religious Records

Scientific research is not alone in indicating tendencies toward violence in early man. Religious records support this premise as well. That familiar biblical story of Cain and Abel recorded in the fourth chapter of the book of Genesis, beginning with the first verse, relates to us a story of violence that occurred within the very first family in religious history. The eighth verse in particular states, “And Cain talked with Abel his brother, and it came to pass when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against his brother and slew him”.

A special “THANK YOU” to Oriental ingenuity

Obviously, the Orientals did not invent fighting, but they did make fantastic strides in developing fighting arts virtually into a science. Just as the oriental fighting arts evolved as a blending or refinement of new ideas, based upon the ideas and fighting forms which have preceded them, so too, KAMIDO AIKIDO is a systematic and scientific blending of the elements of AIKIDO, KARATE, JUDO and JUJITSU.

The Evolution to Kamido Aikido

To better understand the essence of KAMIDO AIKIDO, it would be desirable to be familiar with the history of the oriental fighting arts which preceded and influenced the development of KAMIDO AIKIDO.

Jujitsu

Many of the more popular information sources indicate that a, “Jujitsu like style”, was practiced around 2852 B.C. It is interesting to note how many of these same sources consistently associate the “around 2852 B.C.” date to China’s first historical emperor, Fu-Hi (Fu-xi), as if to lend credence to how truly ancient the roots of the martial art actually are. Especially note that the “2852 B.C.” date and “Jujitsu like style” are linked to an emperor from “China”, not Japan.

Historians have indicated that Chinese writing was introduced into Japan around the 4th century and that prior to that time Japanese myths and rituals were passed on orally. In the 8th century around 712 A.D., “the written record of the ancient beliefs and customs, including a “Jujitsu like style”, first appeared in the Kojiki [records of ancient matters], prepared under imperial order.” It is said that the imperial order was issued around 681 A.D. by The Emperor Temmu due to his desire to preserve the pure traditions and out of concern that the records of the prominent families appeared to be conflicting and erroneous. Emperor Temmu began instructing Hiyeda no Are in the authentic traditions. Hiyeda no Are, it is said, possessed an exceptional memory and was able to recite anything he read and repeat anything he heard without error. Although Emperor Temmu died in 686 A.D., apparently before the writing had commenced, Empress Gemmei, approximately 20 years later, ordered O no Yasumaro, a scribe, to write down the words of Hiyeda no Are. Kojiki was the collaborative effort of O no Yasumaro and Hiyeda no Are.

Thus far we can determine that a “Jujitsu like style” appears to have existed in China “around 2852 B.C.” and through the compilation of “Japanese myths and rituals” around 712 A.D. that a “Jujitsu like style” existed in Japan. This raises the question, is the “Jujitsu like style” practiced in China the same as the one in Japan? A book written in 1904 by Sumitomo Arima, considered to be the first full length book written on Judo, states that there are differing views as to the origin of Jujitsu and that three particular views seem to be in contention for acceptance. One view, of course, is that Jujitsu originated in Japan. Another view is that Shirobei Akiyama, a Japanese physician, visited China, received Jujitsu like instruction, and brought it back to Japan. Still another view is that Chin Gempin, a skilled practitioner of the Chinese art, relocated from China to Japan.

Simitomo Arima’s book addresses obvious confusion as to the true origin of Jujitsu. An earlier document written by Jigoro Kano and T. Lindsay, dated 1887, addresses several reasons for the confusion. (It is worthy to note that Sumitomo Arima was a product of Jigoro Kano’s teaching. Sumitomo Arima was a black belt in Judo, a system founded by Jigoro Kano.) So as not to distort Kano’s findings the following is an excerpt from Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, Volume 15.

In tracing the history of the art, we are met at the outset with difficulties which are not uncommon in similar researches–the unreliableness of much of the literature of the art. Printed books on the subject are scarce, and while there are innumerable manuscripts belonging to various schools of the art, many of them are contradictory and unsatisfactory. The originators of new schools seem often times to have made history to suit their own purposes, and thus the materials for a consistent and clear account of the origin and rise of jujutsu are very scanty. In early times, the knowledge of the history and the art was in the possession of the teachers of the various schools, who handed down information to their pupils as a secret in order to give it a sacred appearance.”

“Moreover, the seclusion of one province from another, as a consequence of the Feudal System of Japan, prevented much acquaintance between teachers and pupils of the various schools, and thus contrary and often contradictory accounts of its history were handed down and believed. Further, it is to be noted that the interest of its students was devoted more to success in the practice of the art than to a knowledge of its rise and progress in the country.”

Another view related to the disparity of opinions regarding the true history of Jujitsu could be couched in the internal conflict between humility and acceptance. It would be quite conceivable that a truly humble person might relinquish the attention generally associated with being founder of a new concept, for the greater good to mankind. The truly humble person, by nature of their modesty, might consider their ideas certain to fall short of the acceptance of the majority. But, their intense belief in the benefits to be gained, might entice them to pass the credit to a source already held in high esteem, as were the Chinese.

We could continue in our attempt to uncover the true history of Jujitsu but it seems as though Jigoro Kano summed it up in his statement “In tracing the history of the art, we are met at the outset with difficulties which are not uncommon in similar researches–the unreliableness of much of the literature of the art. Printed books on the subject are scarce, and while there are innumerable manuscripts belonging to various schools of the art, many of them are contradictory and unsatisfactory.”

Judo

Jujitsu gave birth to Judo, and Jigoro Kano is acclaimed the father of Judo. Kano was born in Japan in 1860 and at 17 years of age, began his martial arts training in Jujitsu under Ryuji Katagiri. Kano did not receive the depth of training he desired and moved on to be trained under Hachinosuke Fukuda, a master of Tenjin Shinyo Ryu Jujitsu. Fukuda grew very ill and died causing Kano to begin training under Masatomo Iso, another master of Tenjin Shinyo Ryu. Due to Kano’s dedication to his practice he was rewarded with an appointment to assistant and his continued success earned him the title of master in Tenjin Shinyo Ryu Jujitsu at 21 years of age. When Iso grew ill, Kano began training under Tsunetoshi Iikubo, master of the Kito School of Jujitsu.

One day while practicing, Kano encountered a man weighing about 200 pounds and being merely half that weight he found himself at the mercy of the bigger man. Kano recognized there were weaknesses in some of the techniques and his desire to defeat the bigger man prompted him to work out new approaches to correct the flaws. He worked very diligently and devised a throw that allowed him to slip under his opponent’s center of gravity and throw him to the ground. Kano became determined to improve jujitsu by applying scientific principles to the techniques and eliminate those techniques that did not adhere to the scientific principles.

In 1882, Kano set up his own school in Eishoji Temple and with some of his private students from the Kito-ryu school he began to develop his Kano Jujitsu style and his Judo style. Iikubo regularly visited Kano’s school and one day, during free style practice, Kano not only prevented Iikubo from throwing him but actually threw Iikubo several times. Iikubo acknowledged Kano’s success by saying “now you teach me.” In 1884 the by-laws of the Kodokan, judo headquarters in Japan were drawn up and judo began to take its place among the martial arts of that time.

Karate

As in Jujitsu, there are conflicting stories concerning Karate’s history and one might be tempted to wonder if the “humility and acceptance” conflict previously mentioned may again be a consideration. Without delving into lengthy comparisons of the various views, presented here is one of the more widely accepted renditions concerning Taishi Daruma, a Buddhist monk. Daruma was also known as Bodhidharma, meaning “enlightenment” and “way of truth”. Daruma taught a modified form of Buddhism that was believed to be better suited to achieving enlightenment than the classical Buddhism.

Daruma’s Buddhism, Zen Buddhism, did not advocate the need to forsake worldly possessions in order to attain higher spiritual evolution as did classical Buddhism. Also, Karma, the belief that a person’s station in life is based upon his deeds in previous lives, and Nirvana, the attainment of permanent and total enlightenment requiring no further spiritual evolution, were excluded from Zen Buddhism. Is there any wonder why Daruma’s modified form of Buddhism became the most widely accepted form in all of China? One might wonder if Daruma’s Zen Buddhism was considered better suited to achieving enlightenment because of reluctance to the forsaking of worldly possessions, the perceived stigma of past lives and the nebulous goal of perfection were no longer an obstacle.

Not all obstacles were removed however. Mental, physical and spiritual disciplines were devoutly adhered to in Daruma’s Zen Buddhism and the practice of each enhanced the development of the others. In as much as the mind, the body and the spirit are each individual parts of the whole, they each must be developed so that they may compliment one another. To develop one without the others is to stint the undeveloped aspect and add to the burden of the developed aspect, resulting in the “whole” being incomplete. Daruma found his monks unable to withstand his rigorous mental, physical and spiritual disciplines in view of their poor physical condition. Their poor physical condition and thereby, incomplete “whole”, bred the feeling of inadequacy, and inadequacy in turn bred a lack of confidence – the first giant step toward failure and a lackadaisical attitude. Daruma persisted in his rigorous disciplines and soon his monks were on the path of harmonious development evolving toward a complete “whole”. From this harmonious development of mind, body and spirit, Daruma’s monks steadily developed greater confidence and eventually came to be known for their courage and strength. Gradually, Daruma’s monks came to be known throughout China for being very capable of protecting themselves against thieves and robbers. From this reputation the monks began to alter their disciplines to include fighting practices leading to the eventual birth of Karate.

Aikido

Aikido, like every other fighting art, evolved as a blending or refinement of new ideas based upon the philosophies and fighting systems which preceded it. We have seen how Jigoro Kano took his experience and expertise in Jujitsu and applied scientific principles to develop new approaches and correct flaws in the techniques giving birth to Judo. In much the same manner, Morehei Ueshiba took his experience in Jujitsu and applied his deep rooted spiritual philosophy giving birth to Aikido.

Morehei Ueshiba was born in Japan in 1883. It is said that when Ueshiba was a small boy he stood helplessly nearby as some young ruffians beat his father over differences on political issues. Ueshiba vowed that he would do whatever was necessary to make himself very strong and help his father protect himself. Throughout his youth Ueshiba worked very hard to develop his strength. If others carried heavy loads he would carry twice as much and during rice harvest time he could handle the heavy rice pounder with such ease that he would individually match the total output of many other young men’s collective efforts.

Ueshiba had an interest in fighting skills (budo, translated “martial way”,” way of war” or “way of the warrior”) as early as ten years of age. He began studying Kito Ryu Jujitsu in 1901 but his training was interrupted when he joined the army around 1903. After returning from military duty, Ueshiba resumed his Jujitsu training and in 1908 was awarded a certificate. In 1916 he was awarded a certificate in Daito Ryu Jujitsu and around 1925 he became engrossed in learning skills associated with swordsmanship and the spear.

The list of Ueshiba’s successes grew yet he did not derive satisfaction from his many achievements. Something was missing – knowledge of the essence of true budo (the way of the warrior – the code of chivalry) still eluded him. He had acquired a deep rooted interest in spiritual matters through his study of Buddhism and Zen Buddhism and he was left with the question of how to unite his spiritual beliefs and his fighting skills. Ueshiba devoted himself to concentrated practice of his fighting skills and passionate study of his religious beliefs in his quest to discover the secret of true budo. One day a navy officer, an instructor of kendo, visited Ueshiba. Their discussion turned into a disagreement and they agreed to fight one another. The visitor attacked Ueshiba repeatedly with his wooden sword, and although the visitor was very skillful, Ueshiba eluded every blow. Eventually his visitor became exhausted and ended his onslaught. Ueshiba went into a nearby garden and he suddenly came to the realization that he had effectively united his spiritual beliefs with his fighting skills. Although he possessed the physical skill to defeat his attacker, his mind, body and spirit worked harmoniously together to protect himself yet not injure his attacker unjustly. Ueshiba had unlocked the secret of true budo, the code of chivalry; the way of the warrior is to conduct oneself in a spirit of love and protection for all beings.

In the early 1920′s Ueshiba began teaching the art that he would later name Aikido. The name says it all. The word AI-KI-DO is comprised of three Japanese words. AI meaning “harmony”, KI meaning “spirit” and DO meaning “the way”. AIKIDO therefore means “the way to harmony with the spirit”.

Kamido Aikido

Kamido Aikido integrates Kano’s philosophy of applying scientific principles to technique and Ueshiba’s revelation of “true budo”. Kano’s philosophy of applying scientific principles to technique is implemented in Kamido Aikido in that the Kamido Aikido student learns:

1. Aikido’s linear and circular movements that combined with gracefulness and fluidity, develop subtle but decisive power.
2. Karate’s stances that provide stability without sacrificing mobility, blocks that either stop or divert attacks and punches and kicks that stun or annihilate.
3. Judo’s throwing and grappling techniques that overwhelm an attacker whether standing or on the ground.
4. Jujitsu’s joint twisting techniques and the application of pressure to sensitive nerve centers that gently or forcefully control an attacker.

Kamido Aikido unites the elements of which the other oriental arts are comprised through a strict and devout adherence to the laws of physics (God’s laws for nature).

Ueshiba’s revelation of “true budo” (the code of chivalry – the way of the warrior) is implemented in Kamido Aikido in that the Kamido Aikido student learns:

1. Knowledge of and faith in the Creator (Rom. 10:17)
2. Faith that produces moral excellence (2 Pet. 1:5)
3. Moral excellence that leads to knowing God better (2 Pet. 1:5)
4. Knowing God (that) leads to self-control (2 Pet. 1:6)
5. Self-control (that) leads to patient endurance (2 Pet. 1:6)
6. Patient endurance (that) leads to godliness (2 Pet. 1:6)
7. Godliness (that) leads to love for others (2 Pet. 1:7)
8. Love for others (that) leads to genuine love for everyone (2 Pet. 1:7)

“1 Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. 2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. 3 He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither. Whatever he does prospers.” (NKJV Psalm 1:1-3; also see Jeremiah 17:7-8)

Clearly, God’s word is telling us that we, who exhibit godly character, truly receive the abundance of God’s blessings. We do not follow the advise of the ungodly, neither do we stand in agreement with them nor sit in association with them (v.1). Instead, we have an insatiable desire to know and to do all that is revealed in God’s word (v.2). We could be likened to a sturdy tree, deeply rooted in fellowship with God, constantly nourished and invigorated by the Spirit, yielding godly works and remaining confident in the faithfulness of God (v.3). All that we do within this close relationship with God will succeed (v.3).

By contrast the ungodly do not fare so well.

“4 The ungodly are not so, But are like the chaff which the wind drives away. 5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, Nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. 6 For the LORD knows the way of the righteous, But the way of the ungodly shall perish.” (NKJV Psalm 1:4-6; also see Jeremiah 17:9-10)

They lack godly character, and prove to be unstable under pressure (v.4). In the final judgment they will have no defense for their choices, they will not partake of God’s reward (v.5). The LORD guides the godly along their way, but He curses the ways of the ungodly. (v.6).

A fitting example of godly and ungodly character is seen in the sons of Jacob, recorded for us in Genesis 49:1-33. Here, Jacob’s last words to his sons were both prophetic (v.1) and a blessing (v.28). It is especially pertinent to consider Jacob’s words to his favorite son, Joseph.

“Joseph is a fruitful bough, A fruitful bough by a well; His branches run over the wall.” (NKJV Genesis 49:22)

Joseph had depth of character (a fruitful bough), he remained faithful to godly principles under pressure (a fruitful bough by a well); his godly character impacted many far and wide (His branches run over the wall).

The Kamido Aikido insignia is intended to symbolize the continuing development of godly character. To develop godly character we must grow in the knowledge of God, become rooted in fellowship with Him through faith, and, “…add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (NKJV 2 Peter 1:2-8)

In Aikido, primary emphasis is placed on linear and circular movement combined with gracefulness and fluidity to develop subtle but decisive power. In Karate, prominence is given to stances that provide stability without sacrificing mobility, blocks that either stop or divert attacks and punches and kicks that stun or annihilate. Generally, little consideration is given, in Karate, to throwing techniques and grappling techniques which are the chief areas of concern in Judo. In Jujitsu, primary concern is devoted to joint twisting techniques and the application of pressure to sensitive nerve centers.

In Kamido Aikido, the elements, of which the other Japanese fighting arts are comprised, are blended together in a highly systematic and scientific manner. The unique bonding agent which unites these elements is a strict and devout adherence to the laws of physics. It would be accurate to state:

KAMIDO AIKIDO = AIKIDO x KARATE x JUDO x JUJITSU