HappyEnding
February 19th 2006, 04:25 PM
Hey Jawadude! Thanks for opening this up. I appreicate your desire to listen to what I've got to say rather than setting up assumptive strawmen. :smile: You've given some good starting points for this discussion so I'll replay t what you've given here, and if you're interested in reading where I've discussed this elsewhere, I can provide a few links.
Qualify that statement with "for the believing community that confesses YHWH/Jesus as Lord" and you've got a reasonable approximation. :teeth:
I dare to make the audacious claim that Christian morality is for... *gasp* Christians :shocked:, and that I have no interest in holding the nonbelievers of the world to the Christian standard of morality unless they too are willing to take up their cross and follow Jesus.
I'd actually never thought of it in those terms, but now that you mention it, there's a pretty good reason it's called 'spiritual warfare.'
After all, it's not for nothing that Paul said, 2I beg you that when I come I may not have to be as bold as I expect to be toward some people who think that we live by the standards of this world. 3For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.
You'll find similar sentiments echoed all throughout the pre-Constantinian Church Fathers as well.
I'd counsel you against taking this argument from silence and reading too much into it. John's word to the soldiers was excellent moral advice for new converts given what Law he knew at the time.
The incident you refer to took place before Jesus' baptism, and thus, before the beginning of his public ministry. He had not yet begun the teaching of renuncuation of vengeance, violence, and loving one's enemy that would so strongly characterize His later teaching. John was operating under the Law he knew at the time- the Mosaic one. There is no prescription for loving one's enemies written into the Mosaic law and, as you rightly point out, the Law contained hundreds of provisions in which the application of violence in the name of God's justice is not only encouraged, but mandated as well. It would be extremely uncharitable to hold John to a standard of morality he had not yet heard, don't you think? :eh:
Consider the source, Jawadude! :teeth: The Roman army was in Palestine why? The same reason they were in Africa, Germany, Spain, and almost everywhere else in the known world... to extend Roman domination over any and all peoples they might encounter. Yes, this involved violently putting down rebellions as well as ruthless conquest.
Perhaps you're familiar with the incident recounted in Luke 13:1- "Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices."
This nasty little incident is used by Jesus to teach a great lesson about the consequences of unrepentant sin while at the same time critiquing the "retribution theology" that was common at the time- but that's another matter entirely. I'm getting off track. Anyway, that incident is the same one Josephus describes in Antiquities, Book XVIII 3.2, and which gives a really interesting perspective on just how the Romans went about "stopping rebellions" as you put it:
2. But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.
You can read the rest of this delightful story as well as other acounts of how the Romans treated the Jewish people here (http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm), if you're interested. :eww:
Anyway, my point is that the Roman soldiers were not just there acting as a benign police force, enforcing laws and there in case of rebellion- they were there as foreign occupying forces usually are- brutally oppressing the Jewish people and crushing their will for independence, national pride, and even life itself.
Ah, I knew this one might come up! The passage in Romans 13:1-7 is indeed very important for this discussion, and is one which informs my understanding of how God uses human forces for his own purposes. There are several key points I think are important when reading this passage.
1.) If you'll forgive a little Greek here, I'd like to use it to illustrate a point. Romans 13 cannot be read apart from Romans 12- together, they form a cohesive literary unit, rather than Romans 13 being an off-topic interlude interrupting Paul's line of argumentation about love and forgiveness. Paul uses a form of the very same word to describe the government's role in Romans 13:4 (ekdikoV, translated in the NIV as "an agent of wrath", or "an avenger") as he does earlier in the very same literary unit to describe what Christians must not do (ekdikounteV, Romans 12:19, translated in the NIV as "take revenge," also can be translated as " 1) to vindicate one's right, do one justice 1a) to protect, defend, one person from another 2) to avenge a thing 2a) to punish a person for a thing" according to greekbible.com).
To quote from John Howard Yoder's The Politics of Jesus (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802807348/qid=1137094294/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-3079120-3285553?n=507846&s=books&v=glance),
Christians are told, (12:19) never to exercise vengeance but to leave it to God and to wrath. Then the authorities are recognized (13:4) as executing the particular function which the Christian was to leave to God. It is inconceivable that these two verses, using such similar language, should be meant to be read independently of one another. That makes it clear that the function to be exercised by government is not the function to be exercised by Christians.
And this is one of my key points- Christians must not participate in governmental activities that are contrary to God's will for his covenant people, the Church.
But how, you will probably ask, can warfare be wrong for Christians when Paul specifically says that the "governing authorities" and "rulers" are God's servants for wrath? :shrug: And that's a good question, which leads me to my second observation on this passage:
2.) When Paul called the "ruler" and "governing authorities" God's servants, he was following a long line of Jewish thought. Throughout the Old Testament, a surprising litany of people are called God's "servants." Sure, we have the usual suspects we might normally think of as God's servants, like Moses, David, Samuel, etc. But we also find another cast of characters who we would normally be shocked to discover that they too are God's "servants."
Isaiah describes the pagan armies of Assyria that were bent on wiping out the northern kingdom of Israel as God's "instrument" in Isaiah chapter 8. The pagan king Nebuchadnezzar who would destroy Jerusalem and take Judah into captivity is described as God's "servant" in Jeremiah 27:6 among other places. Finally, and perhaps most shockingly of all, the pagan king Cyrus of Persia is described as God's "annointed one" (literally, messiah! :stunned:) in Isaiah 45:1. It seems clear that in the Old Testament, God frequently uses the pagan armies of wicked, foreign nations when he wants to accomplish his "vengeance" or "wrath." This is precisely the function Paul is alluding to here. This leads me to my last point on this passage:
3.) Think for a moment about just who Paul has in view in Romans 13. Who is the one described as God's "servant" and "agent of wrath"? Why, it's the pagan emperor Nero! :dizzy: Yep, the very same one who lost his mind shortly after Paul wrote Romans, burned down half of Rome, blamed the fire on the Christians, and carried out some of the most horrible persecutions against the Christians that the Church has ever known. Paul himself eventually lost his life at the hands of God's "servant" Nero's bloodthirsty tirades.
A brief summary of the three observations: 1.) The state is given an authority to do something that is strictly forbidded for Christians to participate in earlier in the very same passage, 2.) God frequently uses pagan armies and rulers to accomplish his purposes, with the inspired writers going as far as describing them as his "servants," "instruments," and even "messiahs," and 3.) The terrible emperor Nero is described in these very same terms in Romans 13.
Anyway, in light of these three observations as well as the balance of Jesus' teaching on nonretaliation that was picked up by the apostles in such places as Romans 12, I've come to the conclusion that God uses the state for the legitimate function of "wrath" or punishing evil, but that Christians, the Church, and all disciples of Jesus must not be a part of it.
Anyway, I've written far too much as it is. :b_rotten: I hope that's given you a bit of insight into my thinking on the matter. Don't feel obligated to respond to everything I've written, only as much as you'd like to. I'm interested in your thoughts! :smile:
Randy,
When you say that Christians should not be involved in the machinations of the state (assuming such actions violate Christian principles), would you extend this prohibition to the financing of proscribed actions?
This thread was originally split off from a Basketball Court discussion located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=68956).
Qualify that statement with "for the believing community that confesses YHWH/Jesus as Lord" and you've got a reasonable approximation. :teeth:
I dare to make the audacious claim that Christian morality is for... *gasp* Christians :shocked:, and that I have no interest in holding the nonbelievers of the world to the Christian standard of morality unless they too are willing to take up their cross and follow Jesus.
I'd actually never thought of it in those terms, but now that you mention it, there's a pretty good reason it's called 'spiritual warfare.'
After all, it's not for nothing that Paul said, 2I beg you that when I come I may not have to be as bold as I expect to be toward some people who think that we live by the standards of this world. 3For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.
You'll find similar sentiments echoed all throughout the pre-Constantinian Church Fathers as well.
I'd counsel you against taking this argument from silence and reading too much into it. John's word to the soldiers was excellent moral advice for new converts given what Law he knew at the time.
The incident you refer to took place before Jesus' baptism, and thus, before the beginning of his public ministry. He had not yet begun the teaching of renuncuation of vengeance, violence, and loving one's enemy that would so strongly characterize His later teaching. John was operating under the Law he knew at the time- the Mosaic one. There is no prescription for loving one's enemies written into the Mosaic law and, as you rightly point out, the Law contained hundreds of provisions in which the application of violence in the name of God's justice is not only encouraged, but mandated as well. It would be extremely uncharitable to hold John to a standard of morality he had not yet heard, don't you think? :eh:
Consider the source, Jawadude! :teeth: The Roman army was in Palestine why? The same reason they were in Africa, Germany, Spain, and almost everywhere else in the known world... to extend Roman domination over any and all peoples they might encounter. Yes, this involved violently putting down rebellions as well as ruthless conquest.
Perhaps you're familiar with the incident recounted in Luke 13:1- "Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices."
This nasty little incident is used by Jesus to teach a great lesson about the consequences of unrepentant sin while at the same time critiquing the "retribution theology" that was common at the time- but that's another matter entirely. I'm getting off track. Anyway, that incident is the same one Josephus describes in Antiquities, Book XVIII 3.2, and which gives a really interesting perspective on just how the Romans went about "stopping rebellions" as you put it:
2. But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.
You can read the rest of this delightful story as well as other acounts of how the Romans treated the Jewish people here (http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm), if you're interested. :eww:
Anyway, my point is that the Roman soldiers were not just there acting as a benign police force, enforcing laws and there in case of rebellion- they were there as foreign occupying forces usually are- brutally oppressing the Jewish people and crushing their will for independence, national pride, and even life itself.
Ah, I knew this one might come up! The passage in Romans 13:1-7 is indeed very important for this discussion, and is one which informs my understanding of how God uses human forces for his own purposes. There are several key points I think are important when reading this passage.
1.) If you'll forgive a little Greek here, I'd like to use it to illustrate a point. Romans 13 cannot be read apart from Romans 12- together, they form a cohesive literary unit, rather than Romans 13 being an off-topic interlude interrupting Paul's line of argumentation about love and forgiveness. Paul uses a form of the very same word to describe the government's role in Romans 13:4 (ekdikoV, translated in the NIV as "an agent of wrath", or "an avenger") as he does earlier in the very same literary unit to describe what Christians must not do (ekdikounteV, Romans 12:19, translated in the NIV as "take revenge," also can be translated as " 1) to vindicate one's right, do one justice 1a) to protect, defend, one person from another 2) to avenge a thing 2a) to punish a person for a thing" according to greekbible.com).
To quote from John Howard Yoder's The Politics of Jesus (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802807348/qid=1137094294/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-3079120-3285553?n=507846&s=books&v=glance),
Christians are told, (12:19) never to exercise vengeance but to leave it to God and to wrath. Then the authorities are recognized (13:4) as executing the particular function which the Christian was to leave to God. It is inconceivable that these two verses, using such similar language, should be meant to be read independently of one another. That makes it clear that the function to be exercised by government is not the function to be exercised by Christians.
And this is one of my key points- Christians must not participate in governmental activities that are contrary to God's will for his covenant people, the Church.
But how, you will probably ask, can warfare be wrong for Christians when Paul specifically says that the "governing authorities" and "rulers" are God's servants for wrath? :shrug: And that's a good question, which leads me to my second observation on this passage:
2.) When Paul called the "ruler" and "governing authorities" God's servants, he was following a long line of Jewish thought. Throughout the Old Testament, a surprising litany of people are called God's "servants." Sure, we have the usual suspects we might normally think of as God's servants, like Moses, David, Samuel, etc. But we also find another cast of characters who we would normally be shocked to discover that they too are God's "servants."
Isaiah describes the pagan armies of Assyria that were bent on wiping out the northern kingdom of Israel as God's "instrument" in Isaiah chapter 8. The pagan king Nebuchadnezzar who would destroy Jerusalem and take Judah into captivity is described as God's "servant" in Jeremiah 27:6 among other places. Finally, and perhaps most shockingly of all, the pagan king Cyrus of Persia is described as God's "annointed one" (literally, messiah! :stunned:) in Isaiah 45:1. It seems clear that in the Old Testament, God frequently uses the pagan armies of wicked, foreign nations when he wants to accomplish his "vengeance" or "wrath." This is precisely the function Paul is alluding to here. This leads me to my last point on this passage:
3.) Think for a moment about just who Paul has in view in Romans 13. Who is the one described as God's "servant" and "agent of wrath"? Why, it's the pagan emperor Nero! :dizzy: Yep, the very same one who lost his mind shortly after Paul wrote Romans, burned down half of Rome, blamed the fire on the Christians, and carried out some of the most horrible persecutions against the Christians that the Church has ever known. Paul himself eventually lost his life at the hands of God's "servant" Nero's bloodthirsty tirades.
A brief summary of the three observations: 1.) The state is given an authority to do something that is strictly forbidded for Christians to participate in earlier in the very same passage, 2.) God frequently uses pagan armies and rulers to accomplish his purposes, with the inspired writers going as far as describing them as his "servants," "instruments," and even "messiahs," and 3.) The terrible emperor Nero is described in these very same terms in Romans 13.
Anyway, in light of these three observations as well as the balance of Jesus' teaching on nonretaliation that was picked up by the apostles in such places as Romans 12, I've come to the conclusion that God uses the state for the legitimate function of "wrath" or punishing evil, but that Christians, the Church, and all disciples of Jesus must not be a part of it.
Anyway, I've written far too much as it is. :b_rotten: I hope that's given you a bit of insight into my thinking on the matter. Don't feel obligated to respond to everything I've written, only as much as you'd like to. I'm interested in your thoughts! :smile:
Randy,
When you say that Christians should not be involved in the machinations of the state (assuming such actions violate Christian principles), would you extend this prohibition to the financing of proscribed actions?
This thread was originally split off from a Basketball Court discussion located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=68956).