The majority position held by the church for 1500 years was that one could divorce only in the case of unrepentant adultery, and remarriage was not possible until one's spouse died. The divorced party was always to remain celibate and unmarried until reconciliation could take place. Other than this, divorce was not permitted. It, therefore, functioned more like our idea of separation than a true divorce, since the church saw the one flesh union as being intact until death in one of the partners.
The Reformers came along and assumed the same interpretation of porneia that the Gentile church did, i.e., it refers to adultery. This wasn't ever questioned, and may therefore show why the New Testament does not mention the exception clause in any of the documents given to Gentiles (i.e., Mark, Luke, Romans, 1 Corinthians), but only the work written to Jewish Christians (i.e., Matthew) who would have understood the word differently.
In any case, this leads the church into believing that there was a basis for divorce. However, because there was no basis for remarriage, those who knew the church's teaching and were in submission to it kept divorces at a minimum, as people figured it was better to remain married than to be unmarried.
However, the Reformers, assuming the definition of porneia as adultery, settled on an innovation by arguing that remarriage was permissible. They did this by assuming the definition of porneia in Matthew 5 and 19 as adultery, and then arguing that adultery was punishable by death and death breaks the one flesh union. Hence, adultery breaks the one flesh union because it should be followed by execution.
The problem is that most magistrates at the time did not execute people for adultery (although it was still employed by some). These magistrates were viewed as wicked for not executing people on the basis of adultery, and thus, the sin of the remarriage while the spouse lives is on the magistrate, not on the "innocent" individual. Both Luther and Calvin argued for this, and many people coming out of the Reformation simply followed their reasoning.
Adultery was expanded to also include abandonment because it was assumed that one often only abandoned his or her spouse because they were off with someone else, committing adultery of mind and/or body.
The problem with the logic is manifold. First, porneia doesn't mean adultery in Matthew 5 and 19 as I've argued before. Second, it is contrary to what Christ argues about reconciliation in Matthew 18. It's a bit hard to reconcile with someone who is being executed for the sin, paying fully for it. Third, the Jews don't practice the death penalty for adultery by the time Matthew writes his Gospel, and the Roman government certainly does not. Yet, Christ's words are absolute about divorce and remarriage, and so are Paul's. There is no mention of blaming the government or that adultery is a legitimate reason to divorce anywhere in their words. Finally, although one could argue that the bulk of the blame is put on the person who divorces (e.g., "he makes her commit adultery"), the blame is not completely shifted away from the people involved. She is still committing adultery and considered an adulteress while her husband lives, and the person who marries her is considered an adulterer. The blame isn't completely shifted to another party who may be in the wrong and causing one to commit adultery through their rebellious actions. I would apply the same principle to any government that did not exercise what the Reformers viewed as responsible action.
Furthermore, abandonment is not viewed as adultery in the New Testament. If it was, then a man who fully abandoned his wife in divorce would be allowing her to remarry in the eyes of God. Instead, Jesus says she is an adulteress for remarrying and so is the guy who marries her. The expansion of adultery to abandonment is simply a rebellious act on the part of the Reformers who used more of their own reasoning when it came to the issue than their reliance upon the Scripture's reasoning about the subject.
So much for sola Scriptura on this issue. In fact, I see this as a glaring black mark on the Reformation. The Reformers simply wanted to justify remarriage, and their reasoning for it wasn't biblical nor ecclesiastical. It was not them restoring what had been lost, but coming up with something new. In that regard, it is one of the errors of the Reformation, an error that was rejected by the majority of the church for 1500 years before it, that should be discarded.
"Whenever a man takes upon him to make additions to the Scriptures, he is likely to end with valuing his own additions above the Scripture itself." J. C. Ryle
It's good that you're able to critique your own tradition like this. I'd imagine that those who hold the Westminster Confession as practically inspired would be unable to make this move.
ReplyDeleteIs it too hard then to disavow the Reformers' slaughter of their Anabaptist brethren as well? ;-)
I do wonder, though, how much of an error is enough to disqualify a tradition in your eyes, particularly as this was a pretty serious error. Do you think Calvin (or whoever) will get a few disciplinary lashes but be let in to the New Jerusalem anyway?
I always tell people I'm only Reformed as far as the Reformers agree with Scripture and the Church before them. Otherwise, I'm not.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe the Anabaptists are orthodox Christians, and their issue is more complicated because it carries a physical threat to the community. That doesn't justify everything that was done, but I don't condemn it completely since I see the possible reasons for it.
I don't listen to the Reformers very often on ethics, as I think they are often confused. I think their theology is reformed because they are forced into the Bible and orthodox tradition to form it, but their ethics are generally a mixture of the Bible and the Renaissance (I guess the church in every age can be described as such if they are not careful to follow biblical ethics from the foundation it provides). However, because they are teachers and have led countless people into adultery, they will answer for much.
semper reformanda
ReplyDeleteThat's very interesting, and I applaud your general attitude since many Reformed turn them into virtual Saints.
ReplyDeleteA few thoughts I've had since our last conversation on such matters: It does seem to me that the mainstream Anabaptists (not the Munsterites, etc) were orthodox enough to fall under 'love your enemies, do good to them', which the Reformed obviously didn't do.
Also, we are to preserve life, yes... and yet, the gospel seems to call us to accept death and injustice as the route to true life without retaliating (Mark 8:31-38; 1 Peter 2:18-23). Ultimately, I'd argue that the Reformers did indeed adulterate their ethics with the cultural aims of Christendom in terms of state churches, use of the sword, etc. They understood little of what it is to take up the cross, with the refusal of retaliatory worldly power that implies (with 'What good is it for a man to gain the whole world...' quite possibly an echo of Jesus' temptation of worldly power).
That said, it's the pre-Reformation Waldensians I identify with much more. Like Wycliffe, they had a healthy Augustinian sense of predestination, faith and works, and genuinely took up the cross. Also worth looking into Petr Chelcicky, the 15th c. Czech, whose anti-Constantinian Net of Faith is floating aroud the net with an excellent introduction.
I think it might be helpful to understand that the conclusion can only follow if one conflates the different commands and purposes given to the two kingdoms. The verses you quoted are given to individual Christians, not governments. Governments are not to refrain from violence in the protection of the people. I would argue that not even individuals in the role of government (e.g., their homes) should refrain from violence in its protection. These commands have to do with the individual's commitment to give his life for the sake of the gospel, and it is usually at the hands of government that has the authority to execute that he loses his life. Hence, they are brought before judges and rulers and may lose their lives to those authorities. Individuals who are preaching the gospel or living it out don't resort to vengeance (which is not self-defense) or revolution against God's powers. That's what 1 Peter and Mark 8:31-38 are actually about. As such, they don't really touch upon the issue of government authority (except that government retains it even when killing Christians), which is given by God to execute chaotic agents, even when Christians in government are dealing with other Christians as government agents.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm suggesting (in line with the groups I've mentioned) is more of a middle path, one where I acknowledge that God providentially uses the State to punish some sin, but Christians don't get involved in that, as they are indeed activities of another (and therefore unholy) kingdom that will always be the same in this evil age. Habakkuk, among other OT examples, come to mind in terms of evil powers used by God. So on the one hand there's Romans 13, but on the other Daniel's vision paints all the kingdoms of the earth as chaos beasts, while 1 Cor has it that God's wisdom is not that of the rulers of age and that (ch 15) all authorities are Jesus' enemies to be destroyed on his return. So I would critique the wars and policies of any State (which are ultimately out of self-interest on the human level) without being concerned to overthow them or try and get them to stop. The church gets on with its own kingdom business and God uses the powers as He will.
ReplyDeleteI do think there's political significance to taking up the cross. With reference to the preceding verses about Jesus being rejected by the elders, etc., and suffering many things, I'd suggest it means we are to be those who suffer under worldly power and don't wield it over others, in imitation of Christ who didn't take up worldly power, as in the wilderness. 'For the sake of the gospel' would then mean that we accept such a position as a result of accepting the gospel and trusting Jesus as Lord, losing a life of worldly power and riches to gain new life in Christ. It's hard to explain the contrast with gaining the world otherwise, as simply refusing to die for the gospel is no guarantee of gaining worldly power and possessions. We are to be aliens and strangers, the lowly and weak, in the world, not those who get in with the powers that be.
1 Peter 2 seems to bear out (at an individual level) a rejection of self-defence - there's nothing to say that the slave's suffering is always due to preaching the gospel, and Christ's example is explicitly said to be one of eschewing self-defence and retaliation. Even for the defence of others, if we follow the example of Christ, who gave his life as a ransom - e.g. Eph 5, 'as Christ lay down his life for the church'.
The danger is always that the church ends up typologically like Babylon, the anti-church contrasted with the New Jerusalem, whoring itself out to the Beast power. I didn't elaborate on that last time, but I mean that in a typological sense, whether Babylon referred to Rome or Jerusalem ('outside which the the Lord was crucified') originally - an application suggested in different ways by Meredith Kline and G.K. Beale.
I don't see in Romans 13 that God merely uses the state, but that it is given the right of execution as His servant for "good." If we conflate the misuse of government with actual government then we are seeing an institution that is set in place by God as inherently evil. The Bible never presents it as such. Hence, government, as in Israel, can be filled with believers. If it is inherently evil, then Israel never should have been a nation. Yet, He joins the two together.
ReplyDeleteThe context says nothing about not wielding earthly power. You're adding that to the text in order to feed your point. We both agree that one might suffer under government powers, as Christ did, because of the gospel; but this doesn't say anything to the point that Christians shouldn't be a part of government, so the text is misused at that point. The specific following of Christ is to suffer, not at all times, under abusive authority, but if called on occasion to suffer under them.
Christ doesn't take up any power in the wilderness because He must live as a man under the power of the Father. If He exercises His own, He rejects His mission. It has nothing to do with taking up power on earth, which, in fact, is the Messiah's mission in the long run.
You're arguing for an asceticism if you're arguing that we must retreat from all earthly positions and riches. That isn't the point of the text. The point is that to be Christ's disciple, when the two are in conflict, one must give out to the other. If you argue that this is all of the time, then you need to cut ties with your family completely, even if there is no conflict between the two; you must get rid of all of your earthly riches, even if they allow you to support other Christians; and you must immediately commit suicide because the gospel demands that you reject and do not love your life so as to hold onto it. None of this is what Jesus is talking about. He's talking about when the two are in conflict, one must yield to the other, and His disciples will yield all that they are and all that they have, power including, to the exaltation of Christ. Again, Ben, you're stretching the text to search for an argument here, but there isn't one to be had. You have to beg the question as to whether government involvement is antichristian first and then argue that discipleship demands we give up anything antichristian.
1 Peter is dealing with abusive authorities, not people in general. It is not dealing with criminals, foreign armies, etc. It is dealing with those in authority, i.e., governmental authority, over Christians and how Christians should respect authority for the sake of the gospel (i.e., since governmental authority is good and a servant of God that represents Him in that role). He doesn't say, "Tolerate the emperor," but rather "honor" him. So there would be no self-defense against governmental authority because it represents God's authority, even in its abuse. God will deal with the abuse Himself as a higher authority. This says nothing to whether one would act appropriately in defending the realm over which he governs (family or state), except, again, that God considers those in the government to have that authority and right (which would mean Christians in that role would have that right in terms of family and state). Christ does not defy the authorities, even when unjustly accused and punished, and neither should we. That is the analogy being made in 1 Peter.
ReplyDeleteAs I said before, the church becomes, not Babylon, but the false prophet, when it teaches the church to worship another God/Christ and to take upon the moral habits of the world (theology and ethics in whatever sphere they are in). Revelation isn't talking about the evil of political power in general, or warning Christians not to get involved in government, but the evil of the Roman world and its abuse of political power in the killing of Christians and its war with Christ. The contrast between the two cities, then, is one of moral character and what god they worship, not their positions of governmental power and the exercise thereof in general.
If you took your view to the logical conclusion, Ben, you'd have to argue that Christians must retreat from, rather than redeem, the world, since to participate in it is to be corrupted by what is inherently evil. I think you know that isn't biblical, but you are arguing this. You're just limiting the sphere to government, but the arguments you're making would mean that you apply that to all spheres.
Your thoughts on remarriage were helpful, btw: Kathryn and I were puzzling over that one recently.
ReplyDeleteTo clarify: I'm not saying that earthly government (with the coercive force that makes it authoritative) is inherently evil. It's more a matter of a change of modus operandi in terms of how God's people carry out His kingdom work and authority, and what that implies about the righteousness of kingdoms and methods other than God's *in this final age*. So, yes, Israel had an army and physical punishments under the Old Covenant: but, just as our approach to food and other issues has been changed, in the New Covenant our battle is no longer against flesh and blood (Eph 6) but has been transposed to the spiritual realm, and internal discipline now doesn't involve physical harm - there are no provisions for a defence or offence military in the new torah of Christ for his kingdom people. Jesus himself demonstrates this change in approach ('My kingdom is not of this world... if it was, my disciples would be fighting...').
So I don't think you can use the OT governance as justification for believers in worldly governance as that was the uniquely holy government of God's people, which now uses different methods *during this final age*. Jesus will indeed be very violent when he returns (and Christians will indeed judge the world), but only he can exercise and direct that kind of authority in perfect righteousness. In the meantime, we present a suffering witness of the cross rather than acting according to the foolishness of the rulers of the age. This in turn looks like foolishness to the world, until the tables are turned and the last are made first (1 Cor 1-6). We therefore have a standard by which to judge whether any authority is of God's kingdom or not in this age (Mark 10: 'you know the rulers of the gentiles...) and therefore whether we should wield that authority or not.
The ruler (a person rather than an abstract concept of 'the state') in Romans 13 is more precisely described as ruling 'for your [Christians'] good' rather than being good in himself, which I assume is only the result of God's providence in light of the total depravity described in Romans 1-3. If God doesn't want Christians involved then that will naturally result in evil just as an unregenerate ruler will use his authority for evil.
My point with Daniel is that all the kingdoms leading up to God's kingdom are against God, as 1 Cor 15:23-24 also suggests. Obviously referring to the empires pre-Christ in Daniel, but if the vision has further fulfillment(s) to the final breaking in of the kingdom - as Revelation takes up with its own beast - it doesn't really leave room for any non-bestial kingdoms other than the kingdom of God.
The nomenclature of 'Two Kingdoms' itself poses the question: if one kingdom (which is truly a kingdom) is God's, then whose is the other? If the kingdom of God is the only righteous one (Romans 14:17), then I'd assume its ways of eschewing vengeance (Romans 12) contrast with those of other kingdoms (Romans 13); the authority to take up the sword for vengeance can therefore only be conferred by a kingdom other than the church, and is therefore of an unrighteous kingdom. Otherwise the two kingdoms are more like an overlapping Venn diagram, with State power as potentially a function of God's one kingdom when carried out by a Kingdom member, rather than just under God's providential control.
ReplyDeleteI didn't mean to imply that the 1 Peter passage speaks of non-involvement in worldly authority: I agree that it's about individual self-defense. But I'm not sure that the passage itself lays out the logic you speak of: it seems to refer more to Christ's example of suffering unjustly as the generative principle for a Christian ethic, which may also underlie Paul's words in 1 Cor 4:12 ('when we are persecuted, we endure'), as well as the absence of self-defense against people of any station in the Gospels and Acts. Regardless, it's interesting to ponder where any worldly authority has come from: at some point our own nations' governance, as well as the Romans', were stolen from someone else. The mafioso or mugger extorting money has taken authority over others in a not dissimilar way. Jesus wry words about kings not taxing their sons may express something of this.
My heart in this is not to twist Scripture, or at least I hope not. It's more that the alternative, trying to find the Christian way to 'do politics' or whatever seems to me to involve a great deal more philosophical speculation and extrapolation from the Bible. Such makes errors much more likely, especially when it comes to matters with so many major consequences. So I'm merely exploring whether the views I've outlined frame the Biblical data the best, as I believe they offer an elegant and straightforward approach that may avoid grievous error.
And yes, there is a certain sort of asceticism to be found in the NT, I think. We're to be in the world, exiles in Babylon... but that's not a comfortable situation! Perhaps harder than ever, in societies where our lifestyles, luxuries and pension funds are the result of murder and exploitation overseas, past and present (James 5). The more I read, the more impossible it seems to change this... just as the Bible says, men are going from bad to worse in this evil age and only Christ's return will put an end to that. In the meantime we press on, the seed under the ground, snatching a few from the flames, seeking to avoid adding to the evil system as little as possible - aliens and strangers. Jesus' words about rendering 'unto Caesar' may help, making the distinction between being an authority who does evil and one who does something not wrong in itself (give someone money) but whose resources or work are sadly used for evil purposes by the authorities.
Finally, the pre-Constantine church does seem to have held to something like the above in teaching (if not always in practice as the age of Constantine approached). Ronald Sider's sourcebook 'The Early Church on Killing' demonstrates this. Maybe they were wrong, but it's food for thought.
"So, yes, Israel had an army and physical punishments under the Old Covenant: but, just as our approach to food and other issues has been changed, in the New Covenant our battle is no longer against flesh and blood (Eph 6) but has been transposed to the spiritual realm, and internal discipline now doesn't involve physical harm - there are no provisions for a defence or offence military in the new torah of Christ for his kingdom people. Jesus himself demonstrates this change in approach ('My kingdom is not of this world... if it was, my disciples would be fighting...')."
ReplyDeleteIt's a change in the means, not the ends. The means of staying temporary chaos has always been the state, but when Christ came, He made His church out of multiple nations, and hence, it could no longer be a state. The state retains its authority and the good that it does in staying chaos, and any Christian desiring to do good in that realm is doing just that, good. The Church is a different means to staying chaos eternally. It does this through the gospel. Both are doing the work of creation to stay chaos. The problem with pagans in state is that they often misidentify what is chaotic and what is not. This why Christians should absolutely seek to take on government as much as possible. It doesn't have anything to do with the purpose of the church (hence, Christ's kingdom/the church is not one that wages physical wars--that's for the state to do), but it does have everything to do with doing good in the staying of chaos in the world. That's why government is a good and the servant of God for good.
The "holy" government of God in the OT is as corrupt as any government I've ever seen. That abuse doesn't negate the good of government and its purpose anymore than an abuse of any good thing negates the thing itself.
"The nomenclature of 'Two Kingdoms' itself poses the question: if one kingdom (which is truly a kingdom) is God's, then whose is the other?"
It depends upon to whom the federal head belongs. That's why it's important to have Christians in government to either lead or influence it.
But the terminology of two kingdoms doesn't mean one belongs to God and the other to Satan, but rather that both kingdoms are meant to fulfill justice in the world in different ways. The kingdoms are hijacked by abusive people and become distorted when they do not worship God, but this does not mean that they cannot worship God. Again, every household is a government. If you argue that they all belong to the devil because they're not the church, you end up arguing that households are evil and Christians should take no part in them. This just isn't an idea you could ever derive from Scripture taken in context.
Again, 1 Peter is not talking about suffering under a criminal who has no authority to put you to death. Christ's example is suffering unjustly under abusive authorities, and those are the examples given in the text (abusive masters, abusive husbands, abusive government). Should Christians suffer under abusive authority for Christ? Yes. Should Christians then consider these authorities as evil because they are abusive and often do satanic things? No. Hence, they aren't something from which Christians should withdraw, but rather to occupy for the glory of God by playing out their Christianity in government in terms of displaying what non-abusive authority looks like.
ReplyDelete"And yes, there is a certain sort of asceticism to be found in the NT, I think."
We're exiles because of the message and our lifestyles, not because we withdraw from the world, but because we are cast out from it by the world. That's the persecution. We are not allowed to serve in government, buy, sell, live, etc. That's not something self-inflicted. Asceticism is gnostic and evil. It profits nothing but a self-congratulatory attitude produced by a false sense of piety. As Paul said, "I did not mean at all that you should not associate with the immoral of this world." We are in the world but not of it. That's different than arguing that we should not be in the world by withdrawing from certain institutions. This argument is never made by the Bible.
You're right that everything is tied up in corruption, so how does a Christian respond? Kill himself? No, he responds by redeeming whatever is corrupt, not by withdrawing from it. So a government that is corrupt should be redeemed so that it functions as it should, protecting the innocent from criminals and other aggressors. We redeem money, our citizenship, our positions in life, our jobs, our friendships, our family, etc. by staying in it and being a witness for Christ both in word and deed. You're isolating government, but I can say everything you've said about government about everything that exists in the corrupt world. Our mission is to redeem it, order it, put it back to its proper function, and that includes our primary mission of eternal order as well as the temporary mission to order that which is around us as all nations are blessed by our presence.
I would suggest to you, Ben, that if these texts that you've used is all the support you can muster for your position that it may be due to the fact that it isn't a biblical one. There are reasons why one should not attack government, and the primary one is that it represents God in His work of holding chaos at bay in the world. Hence, it has His authority and it would be disordered to do so. But to protect one's family or nation in the role of government from other chaotic agents is working with God's authority, not against it. Hence, the Scripture never argues the way that you are doing here. If it is just to kill in self-defense in the OT, it is just to kill in self-defense in the New. Justice stems from God and He doesn't change. The means may change, but the just act remains just.
It's problematic to appeal to some early church fathers on the issue: 1. Because they had an aversion to joining the army due to the fact that one had to worship Caesar in it. 2. Because they themselves are influenced by Neo-Platonism/Gnosticism in their view of the two kingdoms.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply, Bryan. A few more clarifications:
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the Bible doesn't talk in terms of an abstract concept of 'the state' (something of an anachronistic term), but in terms of the concrete ruler, king, authority, etc. So it's not the state as a concept that's sinful, but the totally depraved non-Christian ruler or the Christian who's seeking after the wrong sort of kingdom.
By describing the OT government as 'holy' I didn't mean that the rulers themselves got everything right by any means. I meant that the legislation itself was the only civil law code to be given directly from God Himself and as a whole was uniquely for Israel. It wasn't a blueprint to be mapped onto other nations' civil governments (the error of the theonomists, of course). So only Israel could have a fully God-approved (in theory!) society.
I'd suggest that applies to the church now. We are the standard for what a holy kingdom looks like in this age in theory and practice. It is striking how the powers (spiritual or physical) behind other kingdoms are uniformly described as God's enemies, whether in Daniel's vision, in 1 Cor 1-4 and 16, or Eph 6. Just as with the Babylonians and Cyrus, God still uses them as His servants for at least some good, but we wouldn't want to directly wield their coercive authority (I doubt the press-ganged and doom-prophesying Daniel wanted anything to do with the evil Babylonian army described by Habakkuk).
Righteous war has not been 'outsourced' to another kingdom - there is still an army in Israel, but *all* Christians are soldiers in God's kingdom now and the battle is not against flesh and blood. So we still practice self-defense, but against a spiritual enemy, not a physical one - battle orders have changed for now, the shadows of the Old covenant giving way to the realities of the New, just as many things righteous or unrighteous for OT Israel have become acceptable or unacceptable for the New Covenant people. Otherwise Jesus and the early church, as a true kingdom, would have been entirely justified in forming militias and fighting off the Jews and Romans, as any attack on the church is an attack on the soldiers of Christ. But Christ's non-resistant pattern is laid down as the example for how, say, fathers are to lay down their lives for their families (Eph 5).
Households are part of the church kingdom because they're clearly given authority as *part of it* - NT instructions to fathers, mothers, etc. No similar instructions for state rulers... the closest is masters (Eph 6), who are even then told not to threaten their slaves - the very basis and possibility of having full power over them. So overall, what I'm saying is that, if God's kingdom is the only righteous 'realm' we are to seek, only the authority positions and actions within that realm are according to His moral will in this final age. Other kingdoms are not His righteous kingdom, and therefore cannot act according to His moral will.
By a certain sort of asceticism I meant more that we are to live differently in some kind of material way - not storing up treasures on earth, not serving Mammon, etc. So not leaving the world. But certainly, such a lifestyle will make us different and may well exclude us from some spheres of society, in which case we become a prophetic witness. Money and worldly power always go hand-in-hand, more than ever in today's world. We are called to live quiet lives, to mind our own business, to share the gospel, to build up the church and care for our families - not much more. I would suggest that, in light of Scripture, any attempt to 'redeem' the world's systems is futile and in fact has always led to further evil made worse by it being done in the name of Christ.
ReplyDeleteSider deals quite convincingly with the claim that the issue was largely or only about the idolatry for the church fathers (e.g. Helgeland's work). His short book is worth a look.
As for the Gnosticism/asceticism, you might find this blog post by a friend of mine of interest on that:
http://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/p/gnostic-dualism.html
"So it's not the state as a concept that's sinful, but the totally depraved non-Christian ruler or the Christian who's seeking after the wrong sort of kingdom."
ReplyDeleteIf any kingdom that is not the kingdom of God in your view is inherently evil then this makes the very existence of any other kingdom or ruler evil. That's the problem with this logic. You've essentially argued that only the church should exist and that all government that is not the church should not exist, nor should the church function as government in the physical sense, since you've stated that even Christians pursuing the physical rule over a domain is evil because it isn't the spiritual rule of the church through the gospel. This is all very problematic in a sinful world where chaos wishes to wipe out the innocent.
"So only Israel could have a fully God-approved (in theory!) society."
But it is approved. The abuse is not. What is rejected is the abuse, not the physical rule/use of violence over chaos.
"I'd suggest that applies to the church now. We are the standard for what a holy kingdom looks like in this age in theory and practice. It is striking how the powers (spiritual or physical) behind other kingdoms are uniformly described as God's enemies, whether in Daniel's vision, in 1 Cor 1-4 and 16, or Eph 6."
That's because they describe demonic powers due to the unbelievers in the world, not because they are demonic themselves. Hence, if Christians ran them they would not be demonic anymore.
"Just as with the Babylonians and Cyrus, God still uses them as His servants for at least some good, but we wouldn't want to directly wield their coercive authority (I doubt the press-ganged and doom-prophesying Daniel wanted anything to do with the evil Babylonian army described by Habakkuk)."
Why wouldn't we want to use their coercive authority? All authority is coercive, including God's. It all threatens violence in the case of non-compliance. Daniel, in the story, advised a king that commanded that army. That contributes to the success of the man in all his pursuits, including military and judicial.
"Righteous war has not been 'outsourced' to another kingdom - there is still an army in Israel, but *all* Christians are soldiers in God's kingdom now and the battle is not against flesh and blood."
ReplyDeleteRighteousness/Justice has been a part of every kingdom, not just Israel. That's why God judges the nations when they fail to do it. If it was just for Israel the other nations wouldn't be punished for failing to perform it. You've collapsed all righteousness into spiritual righteousness in relation to God and are not taking into account horizontal righteousness between mankind. Israel is the chosen nation for the former and latter, but the nations must also practice the latter. It would be evil to not perform the acts of government when assigned to do so, and this means leaders over family, tribe, nation, etc. have an obligation to protect by force if necessary the people within their domains. To not do this is to bring upon themselves the judgment of God in the immediate sense.
"So we still practice self-defense, but against a spiritual enemy, not a physical one - battle orders have changed for now, the shadows of the Old covenant giving way to the realities of the New, just as many things righteous or unrighteous for OT Israel have become acceptable or unacceptable for the New Covenant people."
This is a gnostic fallacy. It's their over-realized eschatology. It's like saying we're spiritual people now so we no longer have genders. It ignores the fact that the physical world is not the one to come yet, but still needs to hold chaos at bay through the physical as well as the spiritual. Paul is not saying that there is no war against flesh and blood that we may have to fight, but that our ultimate war isn't against flesh and blood. Otherwise, you don't need to eat anymore because our food is spiritual food and you don't need to drink because our drink is spiritual drink.
Name me an ethic that is part of the creation principle in the OT that is not fully applied in the New? What is righteous in the OT (violence to stay physical chaos) is righteous in the New. There is no evidence of any change. The evidence of change is the means concerning who carries it out because the Israel of God has been made up of all nations, so it cannot be a nation destroying other nations itself.
"Otherwise Jesus and the early church, as a true kingdom, would have been entirely justified in forming militias and fighting off the Jews and Romans, as any attack on the church is an attack on the soldiers of Christ. But Christ's non-resistant pattern is laid down as the example for how, say, fathers are to lay down their lives for their families (Eph 5)."
That's a non sequitur. They wouldn't be justified because the kingdom of God is taking over all kingdoms through the gospel. They wouldn't be justified because it would be rebelling against an established government that carries the authority of God with it. They wouldn't be justified because it isn't the mission of the church to hold physical chaos at bay. It is the mission of government. It would be counterproductive and evil to overthrow it.
"Households are part of the church kingdom because they're clearly given authority as *part of it* - NT instructions to fathers, mothers, etc. No similar instructions for state rulers... the closest is masters (Eph 6), who are even then told not to threaten their slaves - the very basis and possibility of having full power over them. So overall, what I'm saying is that, if God's kingdom is the only righteous 'realm' we are to seek, only the authority positions and actions within that realm are according to His moral will in this final age. Other kingdoms are not His righteous kingdom, and therefore cannot act according to His moral will."
ReplyDeleteHouseholds are a part of the earthly kingdoms, otherwise you're arguing that there is no legitimate household or marriage or family unless it is a part of the church. Christian households take upon themselves a dual purpose just like the Christian individual does, i.e., one of physical protection and one of spiritual.
"By a certain sort of asceticism I meant more that we are to live differently in some kind of material way - not storing up treasures on earth, not serving Mammon, etc. So not leaving the world. But certainly, such a lifestyle will make us different and may well exclude us from some spheres of society, in which case we become a prophetic witness. Money and worldly power always go hand-in-hand, more than ever in today's world."
Not storing up treasure on earth and serving mammon are attitudes toward material things, not the rejection of storing them up. Otherwise, the apostolic church was in sin for collecting/storing up money for the poor. It's not the act that is condemned but the attitude that is an abuse. You're confusing the abuse with the thing itself in the same way you are with government.
"We are called to live quiet lives, to mind our own business, to share the gospel, to build up the church and care for our families - not much more."
Caring for family is physical. That includes protection not only from impersonal chaotic forces but personal. The government is simply a larger family. Care for family also includes support of government that protects the family from other tribes, nations, criminals, etc.
Leading quiet lives means you don't act as a rebel against God's ordained governmental authorities. It has nothing to do with whether one should pursue government roles.
"I would suggest that, in light of Scripture, any attempt to 'redeem' the world's systems is futile and in fact has always led to further evil made worse by it being done in the name of Christ."
You're not redeeming them for secular people. You're redeeming the office, thing, etc. as a Christian who uses it the way it should be used. Whether that be food, drink, marriage, children, farming, whatever. A thing is redeemed when restored to its proper use and only a Christian can properly do that, so you are making a case that more Christians should be involved in government, not less.
"always led to further evil made worse by it being done in the name of Christ."
ReplyDeleteThat's a bit of overstatement. It's actually led to what is creational more than it has led to evil. I think you're emphasizing certain examples but forgetting daily examples of Christians doing this throughout history. The edicts of Constantine and Theodosius saved many Christian lives on a larger scale and Christians were preserved through violent times by violent acts either of theirs or the tribes/nations under which they took refuge.
"Sider deals quite convincingly with the claim that the issue was largely or only about the idolatry for the church fathers (e.g. Helgeland's work). His short book is worth a look."
I didn't say it was the sole reason. I said it was a major reason. The other one was their neo-platonic/gnostic influence.
The last article you gave me makes a straw man argument and a non sequitur. There is a distinction between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms. This does not imply that the work of God, whether temporal or eternal respectively, is not done through both. It is, in fact, a gnostic over-realized eschatology that argues that the need of the material is no longer necessary, and hence, the need to protect it is no longer necessary. Nowhere is this the biblical model. Instead, what we have argued there is that government (whether family or a larger state) keeps its role to stay physical chaos and the church takes upon the role of staying spiritual chaos. That's why even Origen prayed that the Roman soldiers would have success (i.e., that implies that they kill the barbarian hordes rather than be killed by them) because he knew that would save the lives of the people in their secular nation. If you eat and drink to stay physical chaos, if you kill a poisonous animal to stay physical chaos, if you take shelter to stay physical chaos, it is simply inconsistent to argue that physical chaos no longer needs to be stayed through the physical. The gospel feeds you eternally, but you'll starve to death without physical food. Likewise, the gospel holds back the chaos of the pagan spiritually, but the sword holds it back physically. Both are necessary in the time before the age to come.
ReplyDeleteI think we're talking past each other by this point. Perhaps the nature of internet communication is obscuring the finer distinctions.
ReplyDelete- In a sense, yes, only the church should and will exist because there will be no other kingdom in the New Heavens and Earth. But in the meantime, God uses the unrighteous state rulers to keep some kind of societal order for our good, even as they do much evil. We don't seek to overturn them because our mission is to make disciples, not to eradicate all evil in the world, which will be as Qoheleth described until Christ's return.
- I haven't been arguing along the lines of a physical/spiritual distinction. The kingdom of God clearly has physical effects and consequences in terms of personal life, church life and indeed the New Earth. The issue is more that, as the NT constantly affirms, it is the only kingdom with God's righteous commandments. It follows that only the authority it has been given in this last age is fully pleasing to God. This is not because violence or coercion in itself is wrong (I've never intended to suggest that), but because our project, the ministry of reconciliation, involves holding out mercy to the enemies of God rather than judgement. Other kingdoms are not incorporated into this project, and by their very nature cannot be; on the human level they are off on their own self-serving projects that have nothing to do with the gospel. It's the antithesis between the Church and World, something that Christendom-like projects of varying degrees obscure.
- Although marriages of non-Christians are binding in terms of the vow, the marriage is not made holy or righteous until made part of the kingdom. Legitimate doesn't necessarily mean righteous, as you've argued recently.
- Daniel makes a statement of fact: none of the kingdoms other than God's will be anything other than bestial; as does Paul: 'the rulers of the age' is a pretty comprehensive label, identified with every authority in chapter 16 as Christ's enemies brought to nothing.
- Eph 6 has it that 'the full armour of God' is all we need to do 'everything' against Satan, and makes a deliberate contrast ('not against... but...'). Not something that is said about the need to eat food and so on. I'd argue that in many ways (not exclusively) the creation principles (e.g. Dominion over the earth) are typological of the new creation, a state paradoxically reached through death and the giving up of one's life. Jesus' own sacrifice, after all, wasn't exactly creational from a certain perspective. So we seek to survive in general, we have children, but this world is not our home and so survival in it is not the ultimate value at any cost . It was a more pressing concern for Israel when their bloodline had to be preserved, but now that the sons of Abraham are spiritually born, 'to live is Christ, to die is gain.' To use a cliche, you might be reading the NT in light of the OT, instead of the other way around.
- Relatedly, I do have doubts about your reading of the Sermon on the Mount. 'Enemies' always refers to people of other kingdoms throughout the law, and given that warfare laws against enemies follow 'an eye for an eye' in Deut, it seems likely the hearers would have assumed that Jesus was summarising that material when he referred to 'love your neighbour and hate your enemies' - a principle that affected all levels of Israel's kingdom, government or not. We are a witness to God's loving mercy in holding out the gospel to the world even while they hate us and attack us, as Jesus did - 'Father, forgive them.' Not a contradiction of the law *and prophets*, but a fulfilment of God's ultimate purposes to incorporate the nations into His people and defeat the ultimate enemy, Satan. An approach not according to the wisdom of the rulers of the age, of course.
ReplyDelete- The other nations of the OT were indeed wrong not to seek justice for the poor. But total depravity is such that even if they'd tried they would have failed in some way, and in cases of success would be sinning by doing it for the wrong motives anyway. Only Israel, with God's law, could have potentially done right in those regards, as only the church with God's spirit and new covenant commandments can do righteously now. Otherwise you end up with a sort of Pelagian view of state rulers.
- Daniel's prayer in chapter 9 would make it clear that he was pretty miserable with his situation and that it was a result of sin, not something to be sought after and emulated. I don't know on what basis he governed but it was probably more pragmatic than anything else, and God was merciful in light of the situation. But as we are always part of the kingdom temple we have no excuse to seek the authority of another kingdom in the meantime.
- Agreed on money, didn't mean otherwise. More about the sinful nature of worldly financial systems that are necessary to create immense wealth, required to gain high political office - particularly in these days.
- Certain things got materially better for some Christians after Constantine, but Satan does after all appear as an angel of light. Persian Christians, previously tolerated, were then heavily persecuted due to the identification of Christianity with the enemy nation of Rome, a recurring problem in the middle east to this day. That's one of the very reasons why taking up the power of a particular state is so deadly for the church: it inexorably identifies the nation's concerns with its own and becomes embroiled in wars that have nothing to do with the Kingdom. I don't need to list the evils that has lead to, but suffice to say that the various fascist regimes of the 20th century were able to almost completely co-opt the churches by claiming to be pro-Christian, pro-family, anti-birth control, etc.
- Didn't mean to imply you meant that was the sole reason for the (ante-Nicene) Church Fathers' reasoning - just that, even when they condemn the idolatry, they also say it's because Christians should love their enemies and not kill them, too, even if not in so many words.
"Daniel makes a statement of fact: none of the kingdoms other than God's will be anything other than bestial; as does Paul: 'the rulers of the age' is a pretty comprehensive label, identified with every authority in chapter 16 as Christ's enemies brought to nothing."
ReplyDeleteI think this is why we're talking past each other, Ben. You want to say on one hand that you are not arguing that the institution is inherently evil, but actually you are. I don't think your argument is self aware. Either government is neutral and can be used for the glory of God by Christians or it is inherently evil, and therefore, Christians cannot use it. You can't have it both ways.
My point in redeeming what is used for evil is not to say that we redeem it apart from the gospel or change the world in that way. Instead, my point is that food, drink, your car, your marriage, your money is all neutral. They are created things, as those addressed in Romans 14-15. The world uses them for evil. Hence, if those involved are demonic, so will the thing used be. But Christians redeem the use of food, drink, marriage, money, government by being in them and glorifying God. You're arguing that this is true of all things but government, precisely, because you DO think that government is inherently evil. This comes out by your thinking that Daniel is talking about every government rather than the Babylonian through Seleucid governments (btw, the Maccabean government is viewed as righteous because it is ruled by God's people). It also comes out when you argue that the only fully righteous kingdom is God's kingdom, the church. Hence, by virtue of a non sequitur, all other kingdoms must be unrighteous. But you're equivocating on the word "righteous." A kingdom can be good and just and creational (more on that word in a minute) if under the influence of Christians. It doesn't have to become the church. Your job is not the church. Does that mean that it is inherently evil and you shouldn't be doing it? It's purposes are not to spread the gospel. Is it an evil thing then? But you may say that you use it as a pathway to preach the gospel and create the order within it that allows you to do so. Why is government a different then? If violence is not inherently evil, but is righteous when used appropriately, then what is the inherently evil thing about government?
You also are arguing from abuses. You've brought up the abuse of a Christian government time and again. I can make the same argument about marriage, your job, money, etc. Christians have abused these things too. They abuse food and drink. Ergo, it's just bad when Christians try and eat and drink. Christians abuse marriage. Ergo, it's just bad when Christians try to mix Christianity and marriage. Never argue from the abuse. It's a red herring.
"Relatedly, I do have doubts about your reading of the Sermon on the Mount. 'Enemies' always refers to people of other kingdoms throughout the law,"
ReplyDeleteThat's a lexical fallacy. The word translated as "enemy" in English already spoils the well. Its unmarked meaning merely describes one who is opposed to another. How they are opposed must be determined by the context. Matthew's context is all about how one treats fellow covenant members. To ignore the referent of the argument and make it about unbelievers is to write your own Scripture with your tradition of what you think the word means, and how you've always read it. Notice in your reply that you did not reference Matthew's argument as the context, but other contexts in order to make your case for a meaning.
"and given that warfare laws against enemies follow 'an eye for an eye' in Deut, it seems likely the hearers would have assumed that Jesus was summarising that material when he referred to 'love your neighbour and hate your enemies' - a principle that affected all levels of Israel's kingdom, government or not"
Jesus isn't addressing the law. He's therefore not contradicting it, as He states in the Sermon. Instead, he is addressing rabbinic applications of the law to the covenant community and refuting them. They viewed their opponents in the community as non-"neighbors" and then applied the "eye for eye" principle to them. This led to a divided covenant community which Christ now rebukes. It has nothing to do with how one deals with violent unbelievers in government, which is called "good" in Scripture. Instead, Matthew makes the argument that Jesus agrees completely with the law to its fullest extent. That would include the laws concerning war and eye for eye in judicial settings, since the lex talionis is just/righteous.
So He is addressing what is internal to the covenant community, as the covenant community, not what Christians should do in relation to government.
"- The other nations of the OT were indeed wrong not to seek justice for the poor. But total depravity is such that even if they'd tried they would have failed in some way, and in cases of success would be sinning by doing it for the wrong motives anyway. Only Israel, with God's law, could have potentially done right in those regards, as only the church with God's spirit and new covenant commandments can do righteously now. Otherwise you end up with a sort of Pelagian view of state rulers."
This isn't accurate. Nineveh in Jonah's story is rebuked by God and repents of their oppression for a time. They don't come to YHWH and become Israel. The other nations are judged respectively for how oppressive they are versus the others. This means that they can actually perform this type of horizontal righteousness, even though it is not related to spiritual reconciliation with God. The laws of Hammurapi, Lipit Ishtar, Assyrian law codes, Eshnunna, etc. all look pretty identical to the law of Moses without the devotion to YHWH. Yet, God does not judge them for not worshiping Him and being reconciled to Him, but for not performing those laws which are just. Wisdom is also connected to this, and Proverbs is made up of lots of the wisdom from around the ANE. There is a common grace that gives order to the world and creates a generic righteousness in it. That is not Pelagian, as it has to do with the way God works in the world to restrain evil/chaos, not the goodness or neutral spiritual state of people.
ReplyDeleteI reject the dispensational view that God is doing something different to hold chaos at bay. He is not doing anything different than He has always done (use the means of violence and Word to rid the world of chaos). The difference is that He has distinguished between the kingdoms through which He does it. Whereas Israel was both church and state, the church now is just the church and the state now is just the state. Both are doing God's work in the world, and a Christian should join Him in that work by being a part of both (whether via family or larger government institutions).
"Daniel's prayer in chapter 9 would make it clear that he was pretty miserable with his situation and that it was a result of sin, not something to be sought after and emulated. I don't know on what basis he governed but it was probably more pragmatic than anything else, and God was merciful in light of the situation. But as we are always part of the kingdom temple we have no excuse to seek the authority of another kingdom in the meantime."
That's moving the goal post. If Babylon is inherently evil then Daniel should have nothing to do with it, even dying instead of serving it in that capacity. Yet he is viewed as a perfectly righteous man (as is typical of second temple literature). So it does not matter how he got there. If it is inherently evil because it's described as a demonic beast then he should have no part in it. So you basically have the guy reject a piece of meat but he advises the king in a government capacity, which is to partake of the demonic kingdom according to your argument.
"Eph 6 has it that 'the full armour of God' is all we need to do 'everything' against Satan, and makes a deliberate contrast ('not against... but...')."
ReplyDeletePaul is arguing concerning the war that the church has before it. The church does not war against flesh and blood. That is not the gospel's war. That says nothing to whether they should not fight chaos, as eating and drinking is fighting a war with chaos, having children is fighting a war with chaos, living in a house is fighting a war with chaos, etc. and that is all physical, i.e., flesh and blood. You're attempting to read Paul in exclusion to all else, but he's really just talking about the struggle of the church as the church and the individual Christian in his daily life. He's not addressing Christians in government.
"Not something that is said about the need to eat food and so on."
Eating food and so on is a type of physical war against chaos, so he doesn't have to mention it explicitly. Either the only fight we fight against chaos is spiritual or Paul isn't excluding the physical fight against chaos through other capacities.
"I'd argue that in many ways (not exclusively) the creation principles (e.g. Dominion over the earth) are typological of the new creation, a state paradoxically reached through death and the giving up of one's life."
Actually, no, it isn't. Creational is the process of working toward creation against chaos. It therefore by definition cannot be a picture of the eternal state to come. That's creation accomplished. Being creational is the taking of dominion to reach the state of creation, not the completed possession of the condition, which only occurs in the end. That's an important point, as we can only be creational on this side of things. We can only fight chaos in every way on this side of things. Once it is gone, there is no more war. Just shalom. So it isn't about dying to get to the creational. It's about living out the process toward creation. A part of this is keeping chaotic agents in check, physical or spiritual.
"Jesus' own sacrifice, after all, wasn't exactly creational from a certain perspective."
Jesus' sacrifice is the most creational event that has ever occurred. It preserves the very creation. Without it, nothing is redeemed and creation goes to pot.
"So we seek to survive in general, we have children, but this world is not our home and so survival in it is not the ultimate value at any cost ."
Actually, surviving is the work of being creational, so it is our ultimate work in the world. But if surviving temporarily is in conflict with surviving eternally, then the one might give out to the other. We also look to survive as a people in love for one another so it is not merely individual. We hence don't survive at the cost of the glory of God.
"It was a more pressing concern for Israel when their bloodline had to be preserved,"
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how pressing it was to preserve their bloodline when a multiplicity of foreigners is even in Christ's bloodline. The sons of Abraham have always been his spiritual heirs, never just the physical. That's a dispensational argument.
"but now that the sons of Abraham are spiritually born, 'to live is Christ, to die is gain.'
To live is Christ is not an exclusive sentiment to living. It is the motivation for why one does what he does. It is the ultimate purpose for why he seeks what he does, not the only thing he does in the world. To live is Christ means that one takes upon his role as the image and holds chaos at bay. You are essentially arguing that part of the work of the image no longer applies to Christians because now they live for Christ who somehow is now opposed to it even though He was completely for it before.
"To use a cliche, you might be reading the NT in light of the OT, instead of the other way around."
I would never read it the other way around. That's an awful hermeneutic that only sounds pious. I read the NT as the fulfillment of the OT, not as the context of the OT. The NT is not the context of the OT, and the NT never treats itself that way. Instead, the OT is quoted everywhere to give context to the NT. What people usually do is trade the context of the OT as the NT context for their own traditions as the context for the NT, read that back into the OT, and we end up with another religion. The NT is the fullest expression of the OT, and to argue that it somehow changes the ethics of the OT is to fall prey to the fallacy of context replacement.
I also wanted to mention that the verse, "Father, forgive them, for do know what they are doing," is not actually original. It can be interpreted correctly if one leaves it in as an asking God to give them repentance, but I would not hang my theological hat on a verse that is a later interpolation. It's likely built upon Stephen's plea for God not to hold his death against his executioners, likely as a people in general.
ReplyDeleteThanks for slogging on with me on this. It's helped me to consider facets of the issues that I hadn't before. I think we both agree that physical life is not to be preserved at absolutely any cost (i.e. by fighting back against an authority). So it's the limits of life-preservation we're discussing.
ReplyDelete- Let me put it this way: eating pork is neutral. But it was unrighteous for Israel to eat it because God didn't want them to as part of a broader purpose. It is now fine for us to eat it as part of a different phase of God's plan due His broader purposes at work now. So *if* He wishes us to be non-violent or not use certain types of authority in this phase of His plans ('a covenant unlike the one I made with your fathers') the situation is similar. It's clear that food, marriage, etc are part of NT kingdom life, but what types of authority are? That's the question, as authority (made effective by use or direction of coercive force) is what a kingdom is all about. So my job may be neutral and useful for survival, but a given authority is an expression of a particular kingdom and therefore has wider implications.
- Much of the NT fulfillment of the OT isn't obvious or literal... the food laws gone, the temple now Jesus' body, church discipline not involving death, etc, (all 'ethical' matters in so far as they demanded obedience). That's what I meant by interpreting the OT in light of the NT: since the splendor of the Old has gone (2 Cor 3; Hebrews 8:13), I wouldn't want to take ethics directly from the OT without seeing how the apostolic teaching fulfills them, because it was Jesus and the apostles who had the ability to do that correctly. The NT has nothing to indicate how or if Israel's righteous warfare and judicial system is to be transferred to other kingdoms (since Romans 13 is about the rule of a pagan). The OT law said nothing about how Israelites should go and take authority positions or be mercenaries in other kingdoms anyway, so there's nothing to fulfill in that regard in the first place - there's always just the one people of God who have the one undivided law to fulfill, with authority over both physical and spiritual matters (e.g. the disciples given authority over both diseases and demons).
- Matthew 20:25-28 and John 18:36 draw a contrast between worldly authority and that of the kingdom over those both inside and outside. Since Jesus gives himself as the example of righteous authority, it seems natural to me to see his non-resistance being the example we are to follow in terms of how we exercise authority or not as part of his kingdom - and what we are to avoid taking up for the other unrighteous kingdoms that he denounces.
- This fits in with the counter-intuitive nature of the Beatitudes and other passages... the meek, merciful and persecuted inheriting the earth, God choosing the weak and lowly to shame the strong. So the warfare and lex talionis commands are fulfilled in an unexpected way: enemies are now overcome through non-resistance. This is seen in Jesus' own mission: in rejecting worldly power (John 6:15) and being an apparent failure ('non-creationally' failing to preserve his life, so to speak), his sacrifice was in fact a victory that brought his people's enemies, like the Centurion at the cross ('surely, this must be...') into new creation, something that starts now, not just after the eschaton. That's the wisdom of the cross that the world and its rulers sees as foolishness.
- I agree about common grace in terms of statecraft making things better in some sense than they could be. I meant more that the non-Israelite system as a whole would inevitably be unjust due to total depravity. The creation mandate was, after all, given in the garden of Eden for that sacred space alone to be expanded over the face of the earth. As the type of the temple-church-New Jerusalem, that would suggest that such (new)creational work can only be successfully carried out within the boundaries of God's kingdom, not through the demonic kingdoms of the world. Occasional repentance happened for those outside in the OT, but was pretty short lived, as Nahum describes in the case of Nineveh.
ReplyDelete- Daniel 9 would make it clear that it was a shameful situation for him to be in, and a result of his individual and Israel's collective sin. Since he knew about the demonic powers behind the empires, I doubt he wouldn't have been careful which projects he was involved in (positive public works?), perhaps delegating to others what the prophets identified were used for evil (the army). Psalm 82 affirms the demonic powers behind other kingdoms as well, which 1 Corinthians among other NT documents picks up. It's never suggested that kingdoms other than God's can be anything else. Again, not because government is inherently evil but because of what powers will be behind God's government and what powers behind other governments.
- As for the sermon, I'm wary of a proposed rabbinic context not apparent in the text. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to see the broader use of 'enemies' as at least *possible*, given the use of the same Greek word for foreign enemies throughout the LXX, and Jesus referring to things rooted in the Law. But in the immediate context, the Romans were around doing similar things to that described, and Jesus was capable of describing a covenant member one is at odds with as a 'brother' at other points in the sermon. 'He sends His rain...' seems broad, as well as his people being the light of the world and the salt of the earth, having an effect beyond the bounds of the covenant people. In light of my other paras, this need not be a contradiction to the law, but a fulfilment.
- With my historical examples I'm just trying to demonstrate that nothing is quite straightforward when it comes to apparent good being done through the state. At the very least, the non-participation I've suggested avoids the church ever being taken for a ride. I can't see any other way for that not to happen, unless we assume for some reason that we're inherently more discerning or able to see the consequences for foreign Christians than previous generations. That doesn't make my position true, just something to think about.
" Let me put it this way: eating pork is neutral. But it was unrighteous for Israel to eat it because God didn't want them to as part of a broader purpose. It is now fine for us to eat it as part of a different phase of God's plan due His broader purposes at work now. So *if* He wishes us to be non-violent or not use certain types of authority in this phase of His plans ('a covenant unlike the one I made with your fathers') the situation is similar."
ReplyDeleteEating pork is neutral because it isn't connected to the creational principle. Killing murderers is (e.g., Gen 9, the Mosaic Law, etc.). So they are not equivalent. One is amoral and one is a moral good. There is no moral good that is changed in the NT, only brought to its fullest expression, including the act in the OT.
"So *if* He wishes us to be non-violent or not use certain types of authority in this phase of His plans ('a covenant unlike the one I made with your fathers') the situation is similar."
He can't do that. God doesn't change. If it's moral to use government to stay physical chaos in the NT, it has to be moral in the New. It cannot be moral for His people to be in government and use it in the OT and not in the NT, or we have a God who changes His mind. Instead, He merely makes His kingdom in the "already/not-yet" the spiritual kingdom, so it wars spiritually, and the regular government remains His servant for good that Christians can join to work against physical chaos. So the reason why those things are a part of the kingdom is because they are physically creational, and the spiritual does not negate the spiritual, as you have in gnostic thinking.
" Much of the NT fulfillment of the OT isn't obvious or literal... the food laws gone, the temple now Jesus' body, church discipline not involving death, etc, (all 'ethical' matters in so far as they demanded obedience). That's what I meant by interpreting the OT in light of the NT: since the splendor of the Old has gone (2 Cor 3; Hebrews 8:13), I wouldn't want to take ethics directly from the OT without seeing how the apostolic teaching fulfills them, because it was Jesus and the apostles who had the ability to do that correctly."
Oh no, Ben, this is totally wrong. You're bringing up ritual pictures, which are amoral, and equating them with moral activity. These are not the same. There is no moral principle in the Old Testament that is not moral in the New. There is simply consistency of the principle. Killing murderers is still fully consistent with the principle of creation, so it hasn't changed that His people should participate in it. They just need to participate in it through the same means they always have, i.e., the temporary/physical government.
ReplyDelete"The NT has nothing to indicate how or if Israel's righteous warfare and judicial system is to be transferred to other kingdoms (since Romans 13 is about the rule of a pagan). The OT law said nothing about how Israelites should go and take authority positions or be mercenaries in other kingdoms anyway, so there's nothing to fulfill in that regard in the first place - there's always just the one people of God who have the one undivided law to fulfill, with authority over both physical and spiritual matters (e.g. the disciples given authority over both diseases and demons)."
That's because Israel isn't transferring anything to other nations. The other nations already have God working through them for temporal good. That's why their law codes are almost identical to the Mosaic law, with the exception of the relational aspect to YHWH. So I think you're confusing total depravity with exhaustive depravity, and then arguing that the nations can do no good. Hence, Christians cannot participate in them because their only activity is demonic and evil. That isn't what the Bible teaches. Temporal good can be done through pagans for the sake of God's elect, and Christians can be, and should be, a force to move government in that direction.
"Matthew 20:25-28 and John 18:36 draw a contrast between worldly authority and that of the kingdom over those both inside and outside. Since Jesus gives himself as the example of righteous authority, it seems natural to me to see his non-resistance being the example we are to follow in terms of how we exercise authority or not as part of his kingdom - and what we are to avoid taking up for the other unrighteous kingdoms that he denounces."
The non-resistance is due to the fact that Jesus' kingdom is not a rival kingdom to the secular government's. It can exist side by side. Hence, there is no need to take it over violently. That's all you're going to get from John.
Matthew is talking about the attitude of how we rule. All authority is servant-authority. This has nothing to do with whether you exercise authority, but how you exercise it.
"This fits in with the counter-intuitive nature of the Beatitudes and other passages... the meek, merciful and persecuted inheriting the earth, God choosing the weak and lowly to shame the strong. So the warfare and lex talionis commands are fulfilled in an unexpected way: enemies are now overcome through non-resistance. This is seen in Jesus' own mission: in rejecting worldly power (John 6:15) and being an apparent failure ('non-creationally' failing to preserve his life, so to speak), his sacrifice was in fact a victory that brought his people's enemies, like the Centurion at the cross ('surely, this must be...') into new creation, something that starts now, not just after the eschaton. That's the wisdom of the cross that the world and its rulers sees as foolishness."
ReplyDeleteBen, now you're just repeating your exegetical errors into one big cumulative argument. I've already stated that you are taking this stuff out of context. Jesus is talking about the inter-relationships of the covenant community, not how you win pagans over to God, or how you overcome evil in the unrepentant world. He's talking about doing good as an example to other Christians who will glorify God, being teachable and inviting to one another in the covenant community. Jesus flat out says He is not contradicting the law, but in your interpretation He actually is. If the law is fulfilled in this way, and not in the way it was to be fulfilled according to YHWH in the OT, then Jesus is 100% contradicting and abolishing it. They're simply new laws in old law clothing. That is not what Matthew is arguing. You have to inject a foreign context, i.e., your tradition, in order to interpret these texts that way. The book is about the least of Jesus' brothers and how they are treated by other brothers, and discipling people in this correct view of Christianity versus the rabbinic Jewish one of His day, nothing more.
"As the type of the temple-church-New Jerusalem, that would suggest that such (new)creational work can only be successfully carried out within the boundaries of God's kingdom, not through the demonic kingdoms of the world."
No, it means that they can only carry it out in terms of the temporal. It will not remain without the spiritual, which is eternal. So, again, I think you are confusing exhaustive and total depravity. Governments can do lots of good, but none of it is eternal without Christ. Christians, however, can do both.
"Daniel 9 would make it clear that it was a shameful situation for him to be in, and a result of his individual and Israel's collective sin. Since he knew about the demonic powers behind the empires, I doubt he wouldn't have been careful which projects he was involved in (positive public works?), perhaps delegating to others what the prophets identified were used for evil (the army)."
ReplyDeleteOf course the exile is shameful, but Daniel wouldn't be doing anything evil in exile and justifying it because it was a shame to him. The guy won't eat a steak in exile and that would have been shameful too. The rest of your argument is an argument from silence. We know he advised him politically in regard to other kingdoms because his first vision is all about that. There is no indication he refused to advise the king otherwise, and nothing in the OT that would have negated doing so. Ultimately, you have to argue that if an entity normally employed by the demonic cannot be used by a righteous source for good then God cannot use pagan government either, and you know that He does, so you're arguing for some sort of exclusion to the rule on God's part.
"Psalm 82 affirms the demonic powers behind other kingdoms as well, which 1 Corinthians among other NT documents picks up. It's never suggested that kingdoms other than God's can be anything else. Again, not because government is inherently evil but because of what powers will be behind God's government and what powers behind other governments."
Again, you're arguing a case for why Christians should be in government then. If you are arguing that government is not inherently evil, was the government at Geneva good because Christians who worshiped God and had the Holy Spirit employed it, or would you say it is evil because it must always be demonic? I think you're confused on this. You really are saying it is inherently evil, or you're going to have to backtrack and say that Christian governments are righteous.
"As for the sermon, I'm wary of a proposed rabbinic context not apparent in the text."
ReplyDeleteThe entire book is speaking against rabbinic Judaism ("you have heard it said," not "written," "for the sake of your tradition," "the tradition of the elders," "the righteousness of the Pharisees"). There are countless examples in the book that indicate Jesus is countering the interpretation of the OT by rabbinic Judaism, and the unique material in Matthew bears this out. To interpret these things as speaking about pagans in the book when there is zero support for that is nonsense.
"It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to see the broader use of 'enemies' as at least *possible*, given the use of the same Greek word for foreign enemies throughout the LXX, and Jesus referring to things rooted in the Law."
It is unreasonable because it's a linguistic fallacy. The name Jesus is used mostly in the OT for Joshua, so if it's reasonable to ignore the context of a book and suppose the previous use of a word in other contexts, then Jesus is Joshua the son of Nun come again. If you want to see the real argument being made by Matthew, and what is truly going on, you have to take the book as a whole and look at why Matthew's unique material says what it does. Look at the parable of the workers in 21, or the statement about fellow servants beating one another at the end of 24, or how one treats the "least of these brothers of Mine" in 25. That's the issue. Not some issue about how Christians treat pagans.
"But in the immediate context, the Romans were around doing similar things to that described,"
ReplyDeleteRight. And now the Gentiles they represent have become Christians, so there is resentment and also an abuse of authority by Jewish leaders in the Christian Church. Hence, Matthew revisits the subject over and over again, including bringing up what authority should look like in the kingdom time and again.
"and Jesus was capable of describing a covenant member one is at odds with as a 'brother' at other points in the sermon."
Not just capable. He does, which is why seeing it in more than one place throughout the sermon and the book is not an argument against its appearance here.
"'He sends His rain...' seems broad, as well as his people being the light of the world and the salt of the earth, having an effect beyond the bounds of the covenant people. In light of my other paras, this need not be a contradiction to the law, but a fulfilment."
And none of this indicates a wider range. They're issues of doing good to those who have done bad to us. This is all within the covenant community in the context.
If it's the fulfillment of the law, then it has nothing to do with pagans because the law is about fellow members of the covenant community. All the Law and Prophets is fulfilled in loving God and fellow covenant member as oneself. There is no room in there for the pagan. If there is, then Jesus is wrong. All of the Law and Prophets does not hang on those two. A third needs to be added, "Love the pagan in the same way too."
"With my historical examples I'm just trying to demonstrate that nothing is quite straightforward when it comes to apparent good being done through the state."
ReplyDeleteOr marriage, or eating, or feeding the poor, or having a career, etc. Because it may not be clear does not negate whether Christians should pursue it.
"At the very least, the non-participation I've suggested avoids the church ever being taken for a ride."
And you can say the same thing about marriage, a job, eating, etc. I would also push back and say that avoiding it means Christians will not be doing the good they are to do in the world and are actually doing something evil, especially when it comes to defending family. Pacifism is evil, so it's not good enough to argue that non-participation is the safest route to serving God.
"I can't see any other way for that not to happen, unless we assume for some reason that we're inherently more discerning or able to see the consequences for foreign Christians than previous generations."
Why do we have to be more discerning? We just have to be biblical in our thinking. I think you're meshing together a bunch of pseudo-Christians with Christians, or Christians doing very non-Christian things in government. We certainly have to be thoughtful about it, but that is the only way I see going forward, as non-participation in temporal creational activity is not an option, since it is a huge part of what doing "good" is.
"Thanks for slogging on with me on this"
Any time, Ben. It's too bad we can't have these conversations in person over dinner. They would be more fruitful and leave us with less Carpal Tunnel. lol
Ha ha. I'm not sure I can say too much more, so hopefully our wrists will be spared.
ReplyDelete- I don't think the law can be carved up between moral/ritual aspects a la Westminster. It was all 'moral' in the sense of demanding obedience, as in Galatians - if you seek to keep part of the OT law, you must keep all of it. And all 'creational' in the sense that not following certain laws of any type could lead to death. Perhaps a better example is the fact that the church no longer stones adulterers, who can even be reconciled to it. Quite a change there. You yourself would see this at work in not retaliating against the authorities, whereas OT Israel were allowed to retaliate against invaders, so for both of us the possibilities for self-defence are not what they once were.
- In terms of God's providential control over worldly governments, He is righteous in doing so as He is righteous in decreeing all manner of evil for the purpose of good (and, indeed, righteous in not always preserving the lives of His children when they are attacked by their enemies). So having a professing Christian in civil power doesn't change that authority's ambiguous nature - we know that even Christians can be deceived and used by the enemy ('get behind me, Satan!'). God is above the fray, ordering it all, but we still live under 'the authorities... of this dark world' in some sense, and would end up channelling their power for Babel-like projects if taking up their authority.
- That's why Daniel had a tricky tightrope to walk. Upon reflection, it may well be that he had more leeway due to the way Israel's Law was more similar in function to the law codes of other kingdoms. Perhaps he tried to approximate it through reform (as far as I understand the foreign law codes were more brutal and exploitative in a number of ways). Nebuchadnezzar and Darius even went so far as to outlaw blasphemy and enforce worship of Yahweh after their humbling (which I don't think you'd call for?). But such efforts could only be an approximation, an aping, of Israel's righteous law code that was rooted in all ways in service of the true God, and so the demonic powers behind the empires constantly pushed back to get Daniel out. That's why his desire was to return to the promised land, where he woudn't be a round peg in a square hole and full rghteousness could be realised. Under the New Covenant the Kingdom's laws and methods (even under your schema) are so different to those of the world's that we couldn't even attempt an enforced approximation and would inevitably be trying to construct an unrighteous kingdom of the world.
- Jesus could have asked for legions of angels and the Father would have sent them. It would not have been an unrighteous act in itself, since Christ was the true king of Israel. So his non-resistance was not just about deference to authority, but a new way of overcoming evil. Interesting that he was struck in the face by both Jews and Romans, yet didn't retaliate, which led to Romans repenting (i.e. seeing his good deeds and glorifying his Father).
- I'd suggest then that Christ was enacting the fulfilment of the law *and prophets* in the way I've outlined before, the way that would make disciples of all nations, - the telos of Matthew's gospel (also mentioned not long after the sermon with sons of Abraham coming from East and West). As well as the fact that Rabbis were also discussing how to handle relations with Roman enemies, thus not ruling that out as the context anyway ('Shall we pay taxes...?'), it seems unlikely to me that the original hearers of the sermon would have assumed the gentile enemies to be loved were yet-to-exist converts, or that the later hearers would think that as persecution from non-Christians remained a live issue.
- It's also hard to explain how Jesus saved his people 'from the hands of our enemies' in Luke's Magnificat without such a perspective, because he did not use the warfare techniques the law outlined for such activity. Something else was going on altogether, as the Sermon on the Plain may well also indicate. So what I mean is that the Sermons are at least possibly consistent with the interpretation I've outlined, and given Jesus' own example, it seems best to intepret them in that way.
ReplyDelete- This love for enemies is not the same as love for neighbour, but is seen in, say, Jesus' and Paul's tears for the unsaved Jews, as well as the general call of the gospel in distinction to the way certain people groups were shown no mercy whatsoever in the OT. The fulfilment of *the prophets* in terms of other nations being made part of the covenant, taught the law, and so on, is part of this. Proselytism is not evident in the Law itself, so it's not surprising that various methods may have changed to accomplish God's ultimate purposes.
- Non-resistance needn't imply total passivity or no attempt to save lives. Since Eph 5 lays down Christ's sacrifice as the pattern for love of family, it seems best to suggest that, if possible, fathers should seek to take the bullet so their family can escape (as Jesus came to be 'a ransom for many', while worldly rulers send others to die for them). All warfare will involve the loss of much life for your own side anyway, and violence in self-defence can aggravate an attacker and create worse repercussions. So reacting with violence is not necessarily hugely more conducive to your people's life.
- I thought you'd say that about involvement in marriage, church, etc. I think you'd agree that the political arena is vastly more complex and has the potential to affect many more lives in drastic ways. So extra care and thought is needed, that's all.
- Where approaches more like Calvin's falter is the great difficulty of judging which issues are temporal/physical and which eternal/spiritual. In practice the borders blurred a lot because if the stability of a nation (and indeed existence and power of a 'Christian government') requires a strong, influential and united church then matters of faith inevitably become matters of state: it was this unnatural alliance that the Anabaptists chiefly protested. So Calvin's orchestration of e.g. Servetus' burning and the slaughter of Anabaptists do strike me as grave crimes on his part, looking to Egypt to fight the church's battles. But even beyond that, seeking to make people 'behave Christianly' through force rather the Spirit ultimately led to hypocrisy and resentment... the second of which has created the secularist backlash that will bring worse persecution on the Church than even the Romans dealt.
[My aquaintance Cal recently wrote a good piece on Calvin's Geneva and Two Kingdoms ,btw: http://lettherebejustice.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-children-of-calvin-opportunities.html]
Oh dear. As usual, I've had more to say than I thought. Time to break out the arm splints.
"I don't think the law can be carved up between moral/ritual aspects a la Westminster. It was all 'moral' in the sense of demanding obedience, as in Galatians - if you seek to keep part of the OT law, you must keep all of it. And all 'creational' in the sense that not following certain laws of any type could lead to death."
ReplyDelete1. Jesus divides it up into moral and ritual throughout the Synoptics. Paul does it in both Galatians and Romans. In fact, that is the entire point of the New Testament concerning morality. The morality of the new covenant is placed on the tablets of the members' hearts/minds. Jesus reiterates the morality of the law and says that He came to fill up to the fullest. He then proceeds to go through the morality of the law and communicate that anyone who does not obey Him through it practices lawlessness. He then proceeds to say that the aspects of the ritual law (food laws, sabbath laws, etc.) are not continuing on. Either He's contradicting Himself, or He makes the ritual/moral distinction. Paul does the same in Romans after arguing who is true Israel. He then reiterates the necessity of obeying God through the moral law, but that no one should judge his brother about the ritual (holy days, food laws, etc.). The conversation about circumcision is also a part of the ritual law that is no more in Galatians, but the moral law is restated again at the end of the letter.
2. Saying that the moral law and ritual law are matters of obedience in the OT misunderstands the point. Anything God commanded in the OT could be said to be moral in the obedience of the thing, but the thing itself is not a moral. In other words, it is the obedience to a command that is moral, but I am talking about what is inherently moral because it reflects God's character and relationship in doing good in creation. Ritual law is not moral in that sense, and that is what those who make the distinction mean. There is nothing inherently good about not combining two threads together. These are pictures of spiritual purity, not aspects of spiritual purity themselves.
Perhaps a better example is the fact that the church no longer stones adulterers, who can even be reconciled to it. Quite a change there. You yourself would see this at work in not retaliating against the authorities, whereas OT Israel were allowed to retaliate against invaders, so for both of us the possibilities for self-defence are not what they once were.
"Perhaps a better example is the fact that the church no longer stones adulterers, who can even be reconciled to it. Quite a change there. You yourself would see this at work in not retaliating against the authorities, whereas OT Israel were allowed to retaliate against invaders, so for both of us the possibilities for self-defence are not what they once were."
ReplyDeleteThat isn't a good example because the church should have never stoned adulterers. Israel does so because it's government. It's the government's role to execute someone physically. So there is no change there at all.
I'm not sure what the second point is. Are you saying that no one is allowed to retaliate against a threat to their families? Families under the Israelite government were the hand of the government because there is no police force. They are also the army. So this is still true whenever this is also the case.
" In terms of God's providential control over worldly governments, He is righteous in doing so as He is righteous in decreeing all manner of evil for the purpose of good (and, indeed, righteous in not always preserving the lives of His children when they are attacked by their enemies). So having a professing Christian in civil power doesn't change that authority's ambiguous nature"
Does it have an ambiguous nature or a demonic one? Again, in order to make your argument, you have to say it is inherently demonic/evil and therefore always corrupts the participant. If that is the case, God cannot use it either without being corrupted. If God can use it, then it does not inherently corrupt the user, and it depends upon whether the user is corrupted by an abuse of it. You also, again, are arguing from a possible abuse or outcome, but you can make this argument of any power or created thing, so it is not limited to government.
"we know that even Christians can be deceived and used by the enemy ('get behind me, Satan!'). God is above the fray, ordering it all, but we still live under 'the authorities... of this dark world' in some sense, and would end up channelling their power for Babel-like projects if taking up their authority. "
ReplyDeleteSame goes for the government of a husband in marriage or over children if government by its very nature is corrupt. I don't believe it is. God creates it for good and views it as a good even in Paul's day. The demonic nature of government is dependent upon the federal headship of its leaders. It is not inherently evil, or God made something evil. Instead, it is something corrupted and is something that can be redeemed for its original use in the temporal world.
"Perhaps he tried to approximate it through reform (as far as I understand the foreign law codes were more brutal and exploitative in a number of ways)."
I'm not aware of anything in these laws being more brutal or exploitive. Do you have a source for that?
"Nebuchadnezzar and Darius even went so far as to outlaw blasphemy and enforce worship of Yahweh after their humbling (which I don't think you'd call for?)."
Well, of course, Darius did not do this. The book is suggesting that Antiochus IV do it by using Darius as a proverb to him.
"But such efforts could only be an approximation, an aping, of Israel's righteous law code that was rooted in all ways in service of the true God, and so the demonic powers behind the empires constantly pushed back to get Daniel out. That's why his desire was to return to the promised land, where he woudn't be a round peg in a square hole and full rghteousness could be realised. Under the New Covenant the Kingdom's laws and methods (even under your schema) are so different to those of the world's that we couldn't even attempt an enforced approximation and would inevitably be trying to construct an unrighteous kingdom of the world."
Again, you've made it a zero sum game, as though if its not the eternal kingdom that is righteous in every way, it's demonic. That makes the church demonic as well then, as it is the temporal form of the kingdom in this world that is filled with sin and injustice. There is a temporal justice/righteousness that even demonic governments fulfill. They are not demonic because there is no presence of God's order in creation within them, but because they do not give glory to God for that order. A Christian in government would.
"Jesus could have asked for legions of angels and the Father would have sent them. It would not have been an unrighteous act in itself, since Christ was the true king of Israel."
Actually, it would be. He would be rejecting the Father's will as a man and thus be sinning.
"So his non-resistance was not just about deference to authority, but a new way of overcoming evil."
Nah. Stop reading bad French theology. LOL. This was always the way of overcoming evil for His people. That's why the sacrifices were instituted early on from the beginning. The way to overcome evil in the world is through violence and death, which He proves by practicing in the duration and at the end of all things.
ReplyDelete"Interesting that he was struck in the face by both Jews and Romans, yet didn't retaliate, which led to Romans repenting (i.e. seeing his good deeds and glorifying his Father)."
Actually, the sky growing dark and the earthquake caused them to repent at His death. He didn't retaliate because they were authorities ordained by God, and it was God's will that He be beaten and die. There is no argument for non-resistance to Threat B in an example of non-resistance to Threat A. There are also times when one would not resist when resisting is futile (i.e., death is a sure thing and something else may be accomplished by it). Again, it's just a non sequitur to use these examples for an extrabiblical idea. It makes you prone to use eisegesis for these passages.
"I'd suggest then that Christ was enacting the fulfilment of the law *and prophets* in the way I've outlined before, the way that would make disciples of all nations, - the telos of Matthew's gospel (also mentioned not long after the sermon with sons of Abraham coming from East and West)."
You're arguing for a different religion then, one of inclusivism. You're doing this because you're changing the law and prophets from loving God and His people to loving God and everyone, since everyone could potentially be His people. That's not what the Scripture indicates. It says the entire Law and Prophets "hangs/hinges" on the two commandments that contextually in the OT refer to God and His already existing covenant community. If it applies to those outside the covenant then God and His people have a lot of explaining to do for breaking the law. Jesus does too, since He's going to come back and destroy Jerusalem in AD 70 as the same old way of dealing with evil outside the covenant that the Son always has.
"As well as the fact that Rabbis were also discussing how to handle relations with Roman enemies, thus not ruling that out as the context anyway ('Shall we pay taxes...?'), it seems unlikely to me that the original hearers of the sermon would have assumed the gentile enemies to be loved were yet-to-exist converts, or that the later hearers would think that as persecution from non-Christians remained a live issue."
ReplyDeleteI'm unclear what you're saying here. Are you arguing that Matthew is not molding what Christ says here to his literary purposes? So you want to interpret the words of Christ and the event apart from the Scripture? I don't have what Jesus originally said how it was taken. I only have Matthew interpreting it a certain way, and he is speaking to a divided church that has Jewish Christians arguing that the Gentiles need to practice Judaism, and shunning both them and other Jews who are offering fellowship to Gentile Christians who are not practicing Judaism. That gives rise to everything he says in the Gospel. Your interpretation has it existing as an incoherent anthology of Jesus sayings.
Second to this, where are you getting that the rabbis are concerned about how they relate to Gentiles? They're trying to trip Jesus up by getting him in trouble with the crowds or the government about taxes. They don't care about Jewish-Gentile relations.
"It's also hard to explain how Jesus saved his people 'from the hands of our enemies' in Luke's Magnificat without such a perspective, because he did not use the warfare techniques the law outlined for such activity."
It's hard for you to explain if you keep interpreting "enemies" as those to which the law refers. It's not hard for me because an enemy is anyone opposed to another. The context bears out in what way they are at odds.
"Something else was going on altogether, as the Sermon on the Plain may well also indicate. So what I mean is that the Sermons are at least possibly consistent with the interpretation I've outlined, and given Jesus' own example, it seems best to intepret them in that way."
But they aren't consistent with it given the context of the sermons in larger literary works that you are ignoring in order to make your argument. So it actually is worst to take them this way because it ignores the context of the sermons and how they function within the larger argument.
"This love for enemies is not the same as love for neighbour, but is seen in, say, Jesus' and Paul's tears for the unsaved Jews, as well as the general call of the gospel in distinction to the way certain people groups were shown no mercy whatsoever in the OT. The fulfilment of *the prophets* in terms of other nations being made part of the covenant, taught the law, and so on, is part of this. Proselytism is not evident in the Law itself, so it's not surprising that various methods may have changed to accomplish God's ultimate purposes."
1. The only people you are loving in evangelism are the elect. We are willing to damn the world further into a far worse judgment than they would have had before by preaching the gospel because we are seeking to love the elect and bring them into the kingdom. So you have an incredibly contradictory idea going on if our enemies refer to unrepentant pagans.
2. You're no longer giving arguments but just expressing your assertions. There is no evidence for your position. These two entries have been nothing but assertion and speculation after assertion and speculation. Where is all of the evidence for this if you have to try and find it in obscure passages from which you make non sequiturs. Really, Ben, if there was such a radical change between OT and NT, you would think it would be explicitly stated, or at least strongly implied. I fail to see anything you've given in support of it as doing this.
"Non-resistance needn't imply total passivity or no attempt to save lives. Since Eph 5 lays down Christ's sacrifice as the pattern for love of family, it seems best to suggest that, if possible, fathers should seek to take the bullet so their family can escape (as Jesus came to be 'a ransom for many', while worldly rulers send others to die for them). All warfare will involve the loss of much life for your own side anyway, and violence in self-defence can aggravate an attacker and create worse repercussions. So reacting with violence is not necessarily hugely more conducive to your people's life."
ReplyDeleteAll your taking a bullet does is allow the attacker to remove you from the equation, so he can massacre your family more easily. You're the strong man, but you're going to remove the responsibility of the strong man to defend his home from yourself, the only one in your family who can do it. So your family can escape? What, does the guy only have one bullet? LOL. Ben, please. Why do advocates of your position take this absurd line of reasoning? Your job is to defend your family, not be worthless human shield that is taken out of the equation in the first minute. If you are worse than an unbeliever for not providing for you family (i.e., protecting them from a lesser/more remote chaos), then you are certainly worse than an unbeliever for not protecting them via violence or any other means (protecting them from a greater/more imminent chaos). So this position is not just something Christians can hold in good conscience. It is, in fact, anticreational and evil. Christ does not merely give Himself up for the church. He also returns and violently kills all of its enemies. Be the whole Christ to your wife and family, not just half of Him.
"I thought you'd say that about involvement in marriage, church, etc. I think you'd agree that the political arena is vastly more complex and has the potential to affect many more lives in drastic ways. So extra care and thought is needed, that's all."
Sure. I agree. But abstaining from it is not thoughtful. It's irresponsible, as it would be to abstain from marriage, a job, etc. on the basis that it can be abused.
"Where approaches more like Calvin's falter is the great difficulty of judging which issues are temporal/physical and which eternal/spiritual. In practice the borders blurred a lot because if the stability of a nation (and indeed existence and power of a 'Christian government') requires a strong, influential and united church then matters of faith inevitably become matters of state: it was this unnatural alliance that the Anabaptists chiefly protested."
ReplyDeleteThis is why you believe that the state is inherently evil. According to God, it is set up in Genesis 9 as good, so that is our point of disagreement. You want to alter what is creational, but there is no Scripture that negates the commands of the creation mandate that would alter them. The truth of the matter is that you seem to just not like what Christians have done in government, but that's still an argument from abuse. I agree with Calvin and the government of Geneva, so it doesn't fall on me as it does you that they did anything wrong. Theological threats were physical threats, and both the church and government were, therefore, needed to intervene.
"But even beyond that, seeking to make people 'behave Christianly' through force rather the Spirit ultimately led to hypocrisy and resentment... the second of which has created the secularist backlash that will bring worse persecution on the Church than even the Romans dealt."
That is not what led to hypocrisy. Resentment is something people feel today toward any law that is not their own. What does making people act Christian look like? Didn't you just argue that the perfect law was God's? All the pagans are being forced to do is respect Christianity, not act like they are Christians. When they were, that obviously was an abuse. But telling people they are not allowed to teach heresy and undermine the foundational religion of the government is a good. Pluralism has led to more hypocrisy and false religion within the church than the church has ever seen, and it has weakened our nations to the point of destruction at the hands of more committed religious nations.
Having read your friend's article, I'm wondering how much biblical theology you guys understand. The kingdom of God is not here in full. It is primarily a physical kingdom of the new world to come. That is what is promised by the Prophets. As such, it is already here in the spiritual sense, not the physical. Hence, the sovereignty issue is really not that big of a deal, and you end up arguing over where to put a church or what to wear, which really is adiaphora, as the Bible doesn't concern itself with these things unless they move into a moral realm. The church should function under a Christian government in the same way that it does under a secular one. That's easy enough. Beyond that, the article is descriptive, but not prescriptive in any way other than implying the same that you've argued here, i.e., that government is often abusive. BTW, church government is also often abusive and therefore Christians shouldn't be involved in the church. See how that works?
ReplyDeleteAgain, Ben, I want to ask you this. Is the command to execute murderers in Genesis 9 that is a part of the creation mandate the creational work of God through righteous men in government now or is it now evil for righteous men in government to obey it, since it would be evil for them to be in government at all?
Haha. I think I'm the one who needs the brace. It takes little labor to unleash an avalanche, but much to carry the rocks back up the mountain.
ReplyDeleteYou're a few degrees more theonomic (loosely speaking) than I thought. I'd be more than willing to accept such a view if the Bible teaches it. Indeed, up to a year and a half ago I was all for that sort of thing, even to a Rutherfordian extreme. Then I had to ask whether the NT really presents the magistrate as essential to the church's health by punishing heretics (which would be for the ultimate good of society if true). I don't believe it does. As for the Western nations, our long history to the present of imperial sin against the rest of the world, often in the name of Christ, makes us more than ripe for judgement from the sceptre of God's wrath or however John of Damascus phrased it.
ReplyDeleteThe meaning of fulfilment is crucial. The Law was expressive of Israel's particular mission, not *primarily* setting forth timeless moral principles. So the warfare commands are partly about possessing and protecting the land, driving out temptation to idolatry, all fulfilled typologically now the kingdom land is within us and in the next age. What I mean is that, while certain moral principles are reiterated in the NT (e.g. Decalogue sans sabbath), that doesn't mean that their outworkings can't be different for the NT mission just as the outworkings of the priestly and food laws are different. As with eating pork, killing someone isn't neutral, moral or immoral in itself. The broader context of the action determines whether it's murder or not. Stoning an adulterer in the OT wasn't murder for Israel, but would be now for the church as the nature of its internal government (which still exists in the form of elders and parents) has changed, even while Paul draws on the same execution text in 1 Cor 5. As I've said, even you limit the possibilities for self-preservation for the average believer against other kingdoms' authorities. So certain moral principles of the Old Law have been republished, but the splendor of the Old Law has faded and so isn't the primary point of reference for the church in how they're worked out.
My point with Jesus and the legions of angels is that, in and of itself, it would not have been unrighteous for the Father to have sent them, or that wouldn't have even been a possibility - if not for Jesus' sacrificial mission it wouldn't have been unrighteous rebellion but a legitimate action of the true king of Israel by Lawful means. So something unusual is going on in terms of how Jesus fulfilled the law for possession of the land.
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask what Jesus' words meant to the original hearers, or to think that Matthew and Luke would have respected that in some way. Matthew's theme of incorporating gentiles into Israel can encompass the suggested reading comfortably enough ('the light of the world' quite probably picking up on Isaiah's 'light to the gentiles') . It also seems unlikely to me that the Magnificat at least doesn't refer to the Romans (cf. Acts 1: 'When are you going to restore the kingdom to Israel?'). Jesus used the wrong methods and failed by a literal reading of the law... Not the messiah anyone was expecting, even if the prophets were clear he had to suffer. Vengeance is ultimately God's prerogative (Deut. 32:35), and so He can hold back and be merciful *through His people* for a time if He wishes - we have 'the ministry of reconciliation'. There are degrees of love (the gospel offer itself is more merciful than no offer at all), even if greater damnation results in the long run for those who reject it.
From what I've read, the Qumran Community Rule provides the closest parallels to 'hate your enemy', which comprehends the gentiles as the hated Sons of Darkness as well as 'apostate' Jews in that document. Not that Jesus was necessarily speaking against that document, but such ideas were possible at least. The question on taxes, at least, plays on antagonisms already existing, not just whether the people want to pay taxes to any sort of state or not.
ReplyDeleteGen 9's prescriptions are undercut by mankind falling into grave sin again... The nations are parcelled off to the sons of God, who all fail in psalm 82 to achieve justice. Since that psalm is likely to be eschatological (1 Cor 16) and about all the nations, it does seem that overall failure and sin is inevitable, regardless of some relative successes, due to the powers *behind* worldly government (e.g. The Allies beat the Nazis (a relative good) at the cost of handing over much of Eastern Europe to Stalin); as Qoheleth preached, the rich will always oppress the poor in this age. God, being God, is not guilty of evil for ordaining and using them for some relative good as in Habakkuk, but we would be by using their authority and pursuing their Babel-like projects. So vertical and horizontal righteousness can't really be separated in the final analysis. The death penalty of Gen 9, like all God's works, can be seen to have its fulfilment in Christ, the church, and the judgement.
Taking the bullet was a metaphor for a number of situations - no second amendment here in the UK! It fits with the general focus of the NT of the need to suffer with and for Christ, with our glorification and judgement of the world taking place after the eschaton (1 Cor 6) rather than before.
Any number of articles on law code comparisons with Hammurabi's can be found around the net.
"You're a few degrees more theonomic (loosely speaking) than I thought. . . Then I had to ask whether the NT really presents the magistrate as essential to the church's health by punishing heretics (which would be for the ultimate good of society if true).
ReplyDeleteNot at all. I think it was necessary for the physical lives of the Christians involved in their day. I would not apply that today in our context, as heresy does not physically threaten anyone in our context.
"As for the Western nations, our long history to the present of imperial sin against the rest of the world, often in the name of Christ, makes us more than ripe for judgement from the sceptre of God's wrath or however John of Damascus phrased it."
Sure. I agree, but that's arguing abuses again.
"As with eating pork, killing someone isn't neutral, moral or immoral in itself. The broader context of the action determines whether it's murder or not. Stoning an adulterer in the OT wasn't murder for Israel, but would be now for the church as the nature of its internal government (which still exists in the form of elders and parents) has changed, even while Paul draws on the same execution text in 1 Cor 5. As I've said, even you limit the possibilities for self-preservation for the average believer against other kingdoms' authorities. So certain moral principles of the Old Law have been republished, but the splendor of the Old Law has faded and so isn't the primary point of reference for the church in how they're worked out."
No, they haven't been. I've already stated that the church doesn't perform them because it is not the fulfillment of Israel's physical government, but of its spirituality. The physical government aspect is not unique to Israel, as evidenced in the Prophets (i.e., God requires the nations to do what is just to and for their people, including executing murderers, defending the weak, etc.). So literally nothing has changed in that regard. When one is in physical government, he has government responsibilities to those over whom he governs. As a Christian he has Christian responsibilities in all things. The two are complementary, not contradictory. So I completely reject anything close to dispensational view. The difference is not how God works in the world and through what means. The difference is whether the church, as the church, is still a physical nation in this age. It is not, so it no longer carries those responsibilities. An individual Christian, however, can carry both.
"My point with Jesus and the legions of angels is that, in and of itself, it would not have been unrighteous for the Father to have sent them, or that wouldn't have even been a possibility - if not for Jesus' sacrificial mission it wouldn't have been unrighteous rebellion but a legitimate action of the true king of Israel by Lawful means. So something unusual is going on in terms of how Jesus fulfilled the law for possession of the land."
That's because He is the King of Kings, i.e., their government, which is why He destroys them with legions in the end. But you're speaking about another universe and trying to make an analogy from that as though it was our universe. Jesus could not have rebelled because it would have been rebellion against the Father, so He absolutely cannot rebel.
"I don't think it's unreasonable to ask what Jesus' words meant to the original hearers, or to think that Matthew and Luke would have respected that in some way."
ReplyDeleteActually, it is. You're attempting to exegete an event and words we don't have. We only have the interpreted event in the context of its purpose in Matthew and Luke, and so that is the only relevant meaning we must pursue. It's much like asking how the original Greeks would have heard Paul quoting their poems about Zeus. It doesn't matter. He is quoting it to refer to YHWH, and that is what is recorded in the Scripture for the purpose of our theological and ethical understanding. The event and how they would have heard it, which is also speculative btw, is irrelevant and lends itself to the abuse of Scripture in the sense that it bypasses its context and creates another for what is said. That's much like Thom Stark's methodology in ignoring the literary context and looking for some historical context behind it as the primary context. We don't know how His hearers took what. We only know that according to Matthew and Luke, He didn't mean to refer to pagans. Since they are the apostolic interpreters of Christ, we have no right to ignore their interpretation of what He said and choose one more fitting to our Western, inclusive folk religion.
"Matthew's theme of incorporating gentiles into Israel can encompass the suggested reading comfortably enough ('the light of the world' quite probably picking up on Isaiah's 'light to the gentiles')."
No, it can't because it's about believing Gentiles within the covenant community, i.e., those who are already in the community. You're once again trying to expand it to all people by arguing for all people as possible Christians in the future. That's not what Matthew is arguing about, so again, it's context replacement for the purpose of supporting the zeitgeist.
"Jesus used the wrong methods and failed by a literal reading of the law... Not the messiah anyone was expecting, even if the prophets were clear he had to suffer."
ReplyDeleteThat's backwards. Actually, Jesus had the right reading of the Law according to the Prophets. The Jewish leaders read the law wrong, also according to the Prophets. He doesn't say anything that the Prophets don't already say. He doesn't do anything different. He fulfills the Law completely, and all of the prophecies concerning physical Israel that the Jews are expecting are exactly that, physical. What was missed was the spiritual need to be cleansed before the world is physically cleansed in the renewed world. Hence, the physical kingdom of God is delayed until the spiritual kingdom has gathered all of His people. This doesn't negate anything concerning the physical kingdoms that remain until that time performing their work of holding chaos at bay through physical means, and the fact that this is a good that government does, and thus a good that Christians should do.
"Vengeance is ultimately God's prerogative (Deut. 32:35), and so He can hold back and be merciful *through His people* for a time if He wishes - we have 'the ministry of reconciliation'.
We, as Christians have that job. We also many other jobs in life that work against chaos, since we are the image of God in Christ. That means we protect others from physical chaos in governmental roles. You just want to argue that violence against a human in order to protect is inherently evil for a Christian to perform, implying that God changed His mind about government in the NT. God has the same mind about it, doesn't change His mind or creative activity in the world, which is to deal with chaos the same way He always has (i.e., transform or remove it), and doesn't tell Christians to no longer do good in that area through those means anymore because now they need to try and save everyone spiritually. The one does not negate the other, and in Calvinism, there is no reason to think that they ever would.
"From what I've read, the Qumran Community Rule provides the closest parallels to 'hate your enemy', which comprehends the gentiles as the hated Sons of Darkness as well as 'apostate' Jews in that document. Not that Jesus was necessarily speaking against that document, but such ideas were possible at least. The question on taxes, at least, plays on antagonisms already existing, not just whether the people want to pay taxes to any sort of state or not."
Or we can just let Matthew be the context and stop with the bad exegesis of context replacement. We don't have to guess with what Matthew is interacting. We know what is going on by using Matthew alone. It's a conflict between Jewish and Gentile believers within the covenant community. It has nothing to do with how one treats unbelievers, as that is not the subject throughout the teaching of Christ in the book. Any other interpretation, like the one above, ignores God's Word and twists it to his own.
"Gen 9's prescriptions are undercut by mankind falling into grave sin again."
So don't obey God because it can't be done perfectly? So you're implying that none of the law should have ever been obeyed because man will perform it imperfectly, or his obedience will not lead to all good things, since we're in a fallen world. That means we should never obey God whatsoever, as we never know the negative effects of that obedience. That's a God game you're playing there. The Bible doesn't teach a consequentialist ethic. Those are left up to God. The issue is whether God is to be obeyed and the work of the image is to be creational through physical means and work against chaos through physical means today, or whether it is evil to now obey the creation mandate as Genesis 9 expands and expresses it.
"God, being God, is not guilty of evil for ordaining and using them for some relative good as in Habakkuk, but we would be by using their authority and pursuing their Babel-like projects."
ReplyDeleteThat's assigning motive to Christians and arguing that they will abuse government. Again, it's an argument from abuse. Please stop using it. It's a fallacy. I'm arguing that if Christians use government for temporary good, as God does, then their hands are as clean as God's in the matter, and in fact, they are doing the work of God to keep temporary chaos at bay, which, again, is the role of the image (the image doesn't eternally hold chaos at bay through these means--that's gospel work--and neither does God, unless we're talking about the end). It's temporal chaos that God and the Christian fights through physical violence, utilizing the power of government (familial and beyond).
"There are degrees of love (the gospel offer itself is more merciful than no offer at all), even if greater damnation results in the long run for those who reject it."
This is doublespeak. It is not merciful to offer someone something that will do greater harm to him if one knows for a fact that he will be harmed by it. In what world is that love and mercy? Words have no meaning at that point then.
"So vertical and horizontal righteousness can't really be separated in the final analysis."
It's not separated. It's a distinction concerning what a believer and unbeliever can perform in this world. The believer has both. The unbeliever can have just the one. Hence, the death penalty is righteous/just even in pagan nations if used to kill murderers.
"The death penalty of Gen 9, like all God's works, can be seen to have its fulfilment in Christ, the church, and the judgement."
Everything has its fulfillment in those: Marriage, work, procreation, etc. That doesn't mean the temporal/partial fulfillment is negated by the eternal fulfillment, which again, seems like a very over-realized eschatology.
"Taking the bullet was a metaphor for a number of situations - no second amendment here in the UK! It fits with the general focus of the NT of the need to suffer with and for Christ, with our glorification and judgement of the world taking place after the eschaton (1 Cor 6) rather than before."
ReplyDeleteThrowing yourself in a vat of acid fits with the idea of suffering with Christ too. The problem is that Christ's suffering is at the hands of unjust authorities, which is the context for this type of conversation. To make yourself, or worse, your family, suffer because of some warped view that we need to suffer, and make others suffer, rather than protect the innocent, has nothing to do with Christ at all, as it is a blasphemy of His Person and character that is to be reflected rather than demonized among His people. Christ, the Protector and Destroyer of their destroyers should be emulated by those representing Him in their authority. To reject this reflection of Jesus is to replace it by reflecting an antichrist. Only when He is reflected as Lord (by Christians in government roles) and Savior (by Christians in redemptive roles) is He rightly emulated.
"Any number of articles on law code comparisons with Hammurabi's can be found around the net."
My statement was meant to say that they aren't any different than the Mosaic Law code in terms of their vertical justice. I've translated Hammurapi and a few of the others like Lipit Ishtar and Eshnunna. Their forms of justice are the same, and the laws are good laws in general.
I'll bow out after a few briefer points. I think part of the difficulty has been that we're conceptualising words like 'government' differently, as well as the physical/spiritual nature of different kingdoms. I don't think the ways you're conceptualising these things are self-evident from Scripture - as you may well say of me. I also haven't always been making the points you think I have... e.g. my examples of abuse weren't necessarily 'arguments for' my view, but possible illustrations. A quirk of internet communication, perhaps, or (south-eastern) English understatement getting lost in translation.
ReplyDelete- God the Father wouldn't have sent the angels even in theory if that was an unrighteous thing for Him to do *in itself*... but, if not for his sacrificial mission, Jesus could have asked and the Father would have sent them without it being unrighteous rebellion.
- Gen 9 can be seen in a similar light to the Law itself - good, but a shadow, unable to make anyone righteous. Israel could theoretically carry it out righteously as God's people, but the other nations (always led to futility by the demonic 'rulers of the age' (Psalm 82; 1 Cor 2:8)) would and will abuse and misuse it by omission and commission. It's a Catch-22 situation for them.
- I brought up the Community Rule because I presumed the Rabbinic context you meant was from the Mishnah or something. So I don't place great stock by the CR as such, just an example on that broader context of how hating the Gentiles was a concept of the time. As for the 'original hearers' of the sermons, even in the world of the text the inclusion of gentiles in the New Covenant is not revealed to (some of) Jesus followers until after the sermons by Matthew or Luke with the healing of the centurion's servant. I think that's important for what the sermons are supposed to signify to the disciples at a particular stage of their knowledge.
- Seeking to help someone escape destruction is still loving, even if they end up with greater destruction... any level of hell will not be pleasant. We don't know who the eternally elect are, in or out of the church, and yet God is still kind in some way to all (Rom 2:3-5). Even Jesus and Paul could weep over the unsaved Jews. If you search for them, Proto has written some interesting things on the Five Points in these regards.
- I was taking about suffering for Christ in terms of attacks from others. That's one of the central paradoxes of the NT: we are like sheep to the slaughter, and yet more than conquerors even in that apparent defeat. That attack comes from those with and without worldly authority, and there's no example in the NT of Christians fighting back against either. We're not masochists, but to seek systematic political or martial attempts to prevent this is to try and escape the reality that all who seek to live godly lives will be persecuted.
- I don't think my views can be described as a manifestation of the zeitgeist given that they're in accord with the marginal pre-Nicene church and other marginal churches throughout history, as well as being atypical of the evangelical church and general society now.
Many thanks for your time. It's been useful for me, at least.
p.s. Sorry, I'm going to do a Columbo here and mention one last thing.
ReplyDeleteI've been revisiting Sider's book, which gathers every extant pre-Nicene Christian text on warfare, abortion, and capital punishment. Interestingly, every writer from the Didache onwards usually uses 'love your enemies' and 'turn the other cheek' to argue against military involvement and personal engagement in violence against any sort of attacker. Maybe they'd gotten the wrong end of the stick from the apostles (whom some of them had personally met), but it seems unlikely.
I'd also forgotten that Irenaeus appeals to Isaiah 2:3-4 (or Micah 4:2-3) to justify this change in method. Isaiah could plainly conceive of the law being fulfilled among the gentiles in a new, pacific way. That fits the traditional view of the Sermon rather well.
"I don't think the ways you're conceptualising these things are self-evident from Scripture - as you may well say of me."
ReplyDeleteI obviously think they are very much so, but they become confused in a dispensational paradigm. I see no difference between the OT and NT, only the package in which things are communicated and the fullest expression brought about in the NT thereof. Any other view has a changing god with conflicting messages to His people, which I reject.
If God decided to send the angels He would not be sinning because He's the highest authority. The issue is Jesus calling for the angels when He is to submit to the authorities and be put to death as a man. So I agree. There would be no sin if the Father sent them. It would be sin if Jesus had sent for them in light of His mission.
"Gen 9 can be seen in a similar light to the Law itself - good, but a shadow, unable to make anyone righteous. Israel could theoretically carry it out righteously as God's people, but the other nations (always led to futility by the demonic 'rulers of the age' (Psalm 82; 1 Cor 2:8)) would and will abuse and misuse it by omission and commission. It's a Catch-22 situation for them."
This is an argument supporting why Christians should be in the government. If the issue is that unbelievers who are governed by the demonic will abuse government, and God's people can do what is right, then it is better for everyone that God's people be involved.
I of course reject the notion that the creation mandate is just a shadow like ritual laws are. It is a moral law given in creation, and therefore, a good for this entire age that is a means to the final creation of that age to come.
The dss are actually not a part of the rabbinic tradition with which Jesus is interacting. However, I would completely agree that the Jews hated Gentiles. This is the problem. That hatred and viewing the Gentiles as their enemies makes its way into the church, and it is this context that Matthew is addressing, i.e., believers at odds with one another over the Jew-Gentile conflict. Matthew isn't talking about the general conflict among unbelievers. He's not addressing how they behave toward one another, or how believers behave toward them.
"Seeking to help someone escape destruction is still loving, even if they end up with greater destruction... any level of hell will not be pleasant."
But some will be worse, and our preaching the truth is not only to save the elect but to condemn the non-elect further, as God does with Ezekiel or Jeremiah to Israel. That doesn't mean we can't weep over those who perish. It just means that our activity is not ultimately loving toward them, nor is God's.
I think the zeitgeist of your generation is to overreact to abuses of the previous one, so I'm not sure if it's quite out of step; but either way, as you've argued, many of the Fathers have your view (sort of). Praying for the secular government to have success is defeating the Barbarian hordes is choosing to involve oneself in government and their success against a greater chaos. So I think the Fathers are inconsistent within themselves, and certainly in discontinuity with the Bible. I only use the Fathers to show when they are in continuity with it, but they were in discontinuity on many things. None of them I know of had contact with the apostles except Polycarp, and from the persecutions of Diocletian on they tend to be negative toward government involvement because they see the government as the enemy. Indeed, as led by wicked rulers it is.
The law is fulfilled among the Gentiles this way when they repent and receive Christ. God slaughters them otherwise.
ReplyDeleteThe real issue is whether government is a neutral thing that can be used for good or evil depending upon who directs it. I obviously think it is and can be. Government includes everything from the individual to family to tribal direction to state direction. It includes judgments for the orphan and widow, the oppressed, and for anyone needing a wrong made right in order to survive. It includes the physical protection of a person or people. Praying, advising, etc. is involvement in it, and if one can be creational by directing it to God's goals in this life (I never said it made anyone righteous--that isn't its purpose), and preserve human life, then a Christian should absolutely be involved. He is already at the familial level, and it is a matter of him doing his job or forsaking it to the destruction of those over whom he governs. The larger state is simply a bigger pond in which he would do this. I don't see any change in terms of what a righteous government should do, and instead, see Jesus telling them to buy a sword, since they will need to be in this age and doing good in it a little longer than they might have expected.
Thanks for the conversation, Ben.
And thank you. It occurs to me that I see the Bible presenting these things more dialectically, broadly speaking, whereas I think you're seeing them more... synthetically(?), to use an inexact word.
ReplyDeleteYes, sloppy of me with the Fathers' personal connection... I should say that some of them had more of a personal connection at a remove through e.g. Polycarp.
With the zeitgeist... in the UK, at least, most younger people of the middle classes, Christian or non, identify abuses of past governments, but then put a lot of stock in the potential for new, leftish policies to sort things out. The key difference is that, while thinking many of their criticisms (and indeed Marx's criticisms) are valid, I place no hope in any sort of political project in this fallen world. They'd largely see me as an apathetic defeatism, although it has led to some great gospel conversations in terms of the kingdom and so on.
ReplyDeleteOkay, that really is it now.