Divine Right

[Charles]

Look up the term "high-context culture". Stop reading the Bible like it's a modern-day newspaper

So asking for the words to actually represent the actual points amounts to reading it like it's a modern-day newspaper? Asking for it to be consistent amounts to reading it like a newspaper? Really? Is this the best you can do in order to avoid the problem Mr. Mountain Man?

If a single verse contains expressions that have led to the killings of people and contradicts what you want to be seen as the context you can point to "high-context culture"? It would be fun reading the rest of the Bible in the context of that. But again, that's what theologians do all the time.

[Mountain Man]

So asking for the words to actually represent the actual points amounts to reading it like it's a modern-day newspaper? Asking for it to be consistent amounts to reading it like a newspaper? Really?

Yes, really, because you're ignoring the cultural context within which the scriptures were written and demanding explicitness and precision that was not expected or needed by the writers or their audience.

I've given you what you need to understand this passage, but as the saying goes, you can lead a fool to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

[Charles]

Yes, really, because you're ignoring the cultural context within which the scriptures were written and demanding explicitness and precision that was not expected or needed by the writers or their audience.

I've given you what you need to understand this passage, but as the saying goes, you can lead a fool to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

I am not at all ignoring cultural context, I am asking some rather basic questions and I fail to see how they can depend to a very significant degree on cultural context.

Culture has a significant impact on quite many aspects of human life, but certain facts of language and logic never seem to change. In which "high-context culture" does "every person" mean "some persons but not all"?

Give me a cultural explanation, please. Don't just point to it, show how and why it applies. In what "high-context culture" can it be true that "For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." when authorities not instituted by God exist?

And are we to use the same method when reading other parts of the Bible? Jesus died for all sinners but in "high-context culture" we know it is really not everyone. All sins can be fogiven, unless in "high-context culture" we know that some sins cannot. And so on. Remember, when you want to cover the words up in "high-context culture" and context in order to avoid difficult parts it will cast shadows on the understanding of other parts as well. How if you misunderstood the parts about salvation due to it being "high-context culture"?

So show me exactly how those interpretations apply. Don't just use words like "high-context culture" and context to avoid the difficult questions. If by doing so you can answer the basic question as to why the Bible says "every person" when it does not go for every person I would be rather impressed.

[Mountain Man]

I am not at all ignoring cultural context, I am asking some rather basic questions and I fail to see how they can depend to a very significant degree on cultural context.

I've told you exactly how it's significant and even referenced other parts of scripture that are instructive for the proper interpretation of this passage, but you're more intent on playing "Gotcha!" than you are actually becoming informed and learning how to resolve this question. Another concept worth exploring - and this is directed at other people reading the thread since you are stubbornly and willfully ignorant - is known as graded absolutism which describes how to resolve two apparently contradictory absolute moral commands.

[tabibito]

In which "high-context culture" does "every person" mean "some persons but not all"?

First: 1st century Hellenistic culture - the word πασα, translated as "all," (or "every") doesn't preclude the occasional exception, "all" is simply a line-of-best-fit translation
Second: "all" refers to people who should submit to the higher authorities.
Third: Either there are exceptions to "all" who should submit, or
Fourth: with "higher authorities" not being defined - there is an ambiguity that needs to be resolved.

[Charles]

I've told you exactly how it's significant and even referenced other parts of scripture that are instructive for the proper interpretation of this passage, but you're more intent on playing "Gotcha!" than you are actually becoming informed and learning how to resolve this question. Another concept worth exploring - and this is directed at other people reading the thread since you are stubbornly and willfully ignorant - is known as graded absolutism which describes how to resolve two apparently contradictory absolute moral commands.

I am not playing any gotcha game. It seems more like this claim and your calling me ignorant or claiming I read the Bible like a newspaper are tricks you do to avoid the issue.

You try to avoid the difficult question as to why the verse gives the impression that there are no exceptions when seemingly, based on the entire context there is to be one. You have not even aproached a detailed answer. I feel quite certain that if we were discussing parts of any other text you would not allow for the context to cover up like that.

And there are quite many other questions you seemingly cannot answer. What role does this play for your interpretation of the rest of the Bible? The talk about salvation and so on. You forgot to answer.

[tabibito]

In what "high-context culture" can it be true that "For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." when authorities not instituted by God exist?

And again - it would be well to pay attention to possible alternative meanings for this text, particularly given that "except from God" translates "ει μη υπο θεου": direct wooden translation "except under God"

[Charles]

First: 1st century Hellenistic culture - the word πασα, translated as "all," (or "every") doesn't preclude the occasional exception, "all" is simply a line-of-best-fit translation
Second: "all" refers to people who should submit to the higher authorities.
Third: Either there are exceptions to "all" who should submit, or
Fourth: with "higher authorities" not being defined - there is an ambiguity that needs to be resolved.

First: I would very much like to see a source pointing to that because every source I can find translates πασα into "all, every, each" or words along those lines with no exceptions mentioned. Here is just one example but I actually did some searching and I found nothing to support your claim: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%80%E1%BE%B6%CF%82

Second: Yes, but what does that explain?

Third: Maybe but as I said I haven't been able to find any sorce allowing for that. I am interested if you have got one.

Forth: That could be the case. However it could also be the case that the text simply says what you get the impression it says by reading it in the translated version. It seems you presuppose that it cannot be the case. That seems a bit biased.

A general comment on Luther and translating the problem away
Remember when it comes to translating the original text: Martin Luther who held the interpretation already pointed to actually translated the Bible into German language. This translation is regarded as of very, very high quality even in modern time. So even if you can point to some nuances in ancient Hellenistic language it still does not get us beyond the point where that point was seemingly lost on someone why certainly did not lack the skill of understanding the language. I am not disputing that he lacked quite many other skills and generally is a disgrace (which is why one wonders why he is so highly regarded in the Church).

[Mountain Man]

You try to avoid the difficult question...

I've not avoided anything. I've directly answered your questions - that each passage in the Bible has to be understood within the context of the entire Bible, not just textually but culturally and historically. This is a substantive response and is my approach to all Biblical interpretation. I don't pick and choose like you imply, and you have not shown how this approach creates problems for other passages.

Look, just because you're too focused on playing "Gotcha!" to understand the answer and contemplate its implications is not my concern. I've given you all the information you need. What you choose to do with it is your responsibility.

That's my last response to you in this thread.

[Charles]

I've not avoided anything. I've directly answered your questions - that each passage in the Bible has to be understood within the context of the entire Bible, not just textually but culturally and historically. This is a substantive response and is my approach to all Biblical interpretation. I don't pick and choose like you imply, and you have not shown how this approach creates problems for other passages.

Look, just because you're too focused on playing "Gotcha!" to understand the answer and contemplate its implications is not my concern. I've given you all the information you need. What you choose to do with it is your responsibility.

That's my last response to you in this thread.

You have given me all the information you think I need. I go for a higher standard. It may be that others can answer, but you could not. You have consistently avoided the rather obvious answers as to why it refers to "every person" when it does not imply every person in the greater context according to you and others. One last time: Why does it say EVERY person when it does not go for every person. Even if the context tells you it does not go for every person then why does it say so when it could have said most or many?

You gave no explanation as to how this question could be answered and why this seeming inconsistency exists.

Tabibito may come up with something. I am looking forward to reading that.

That's my last response to you in this thread.

If that was the only thing you had written, I would have given you an AMEN. (Just a bad joke, sorry ).

[Teallaura]

The Bible seems to suggest that earthly rulers have been appointed by God and it is wrong to disobey them. See Romans 13:1-6


This all seems to suggest that God has given authority to national leaders today and in the past, and even if they do things we think is wrong, it is right to obey them. So did God appoint people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Genghis Khan, King George III, King Leopold, etc. to rule over the people's they did, and would those people have been wrong to protest and rise up against them? As a deist, I think the notion of divine right is bunk because I don't believe God intervenes directly in human affairs, but it seems to me that the Christian position would support it. In which case things like the American Revolution go against Christian teaching. But somehow I never hear the religious right saying anything about that. What are your thoughts on divine right?

Plan B - stop reading hyper-literally. God's appointment of authority does not give that authority the right to do wrong - quite the opposite.

Divine right of kings is not in view here - that's a later interpretation and a bad one. Read the Old Testament - if God's appointment were also license, why does He keep disposing of the ones that do wrong?

In the case of the American Revolution, the argument was that KC wasn't fulfilling his end of this bargain - the 'for he is God's servant for your good' bit. The ruler is subject to God - and if he fails obviously to keep God's laws, he loses the right of rule.

[KingsGambit]

In the case of the American Revolution, the argument was that KC wasn't fulfilling his end of this bargain - the 'for he is God's servant for your good' bit. The ruler is subject to God - and if he fails obviously to keep God's laws, he loses the right of rule.

And for my part, I think that's hardly a viable argument (though I recognize it was popular among clergy in the 18th century) when one considers the Roman emperors Paul would have had in mind. Even though there was no outright persecution of Christians at the time Romans was written, the promotion of cultural paganism and various other vices seem worse than whatever King George would have been doing.

[Teallaura]

And for my part, I think that's hardly a viable argument (though I recognize it was popular among clergy in the 18th century) when one considers the Roman emperors Paul would have had in mind. Even though there was no outright persecution of Christians at the time Romans was written, the promotion of cultural paganism and various other vices seem worse than whatever King George would have been doing.

I think there were better arguments for the Revolution - but here I don't see context invalidating it. 'He did something worse' has never been much of a defense. Also, I'm not sure Paul is referring to both individual and aggregate - I do not know - but it reads to me like the former, not the latter. If so, a legitimate opposition is a viable possibility - but one lone malcontent isn't.

[KingsGambit]

I think there were better arguments for the Revolution - but here I don't see context invalidating it. 'He did something worse' has never been much of a defense. Also, I'm not sure Paul is referring to both individual and aggregate - I do not know - but it reads to me like the former, not the latter. If so, a legitimate opposition is a viable possibility - but one lone malcontent isn't.

I don't think it's unsound in this case. Paul's homily doesn't seem to leave any room for opposition, at least not explicitly. If the situation in the colonies was no worse, that seems to leave no contextual justification for "overturning" Paul's instructions.

(To lay my cards on the table, I think the American Revolution was quite obviously unbiblical.)

[Teallaura]

I don't agree - but let me think about it for a while. I am having one of those 'I think I know the argument and answer but what I type keeps sounding stupid' moments.