|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kingdom not of this world?
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
This thread is an escapee from Hell, and I'll express the hope that participants here will leave the 'hellish' aspects behind.
In the course of the 'Aaaargh!' thread on hell I was asked by John Holding to suggest an NT text in support of my overall case about state and church. I suggested John 18 v36 where Jesus says his kingdom is 'not of this world'. On that I made the following comment;
quote:
Not just the one line, but take account of the context in which Jesus is on trial before Pilate on a charge, in effect, of seeking to establish a 'Christian country' in the most direct way possible. His response there results in Pilate finding him innocent and seeking to release him. I at least can't think of any way Pilate could have done that if Jesus had proposed any of the kinds of Christian country we have seen since Constantine.
This brought forth a response from Alan Cresswell;
quote:
...there are alternative, equally valid, interpretations to put on that passage. The most obvious being that Jesus is saying that the judgement from Pilate (or, the Sanhedrin) isn't important to Him, he stands before another King who will judge Him and that's the one that counts. Nothing to do with government or Jesus establishing a kingdom (in this world or elsewhere). Jesus isn't establishing Himself as a king, He's stating His credentials as a citizen of another Kingdom and hence not accepting the authority of earthly powers to judge Him.
I wasn't quite happy with this interpretation, and made the point that;
quote:
Except of course that only a few verses later he does explicitly say "You say correctly that I am a king". After that, Pilate really had to be convinced that this meant a different kind of kingship to the kind that he, as Roman Governor, was meant to squash. And since he went out to Jesus' Jewish accusers and said "I find him not guilty at all", I think it fair comment he was convinced.
John Holding got a bit dismissive
quote:
I'll just say with respect to your answer on the first point that your interpretation seems to me to be highly idiosyncratic, going well beyond normal understanding and highly depending on those presuppositions I asked you to avoid.
After a bit of further discussion on an issue Eutychus raised, John got even more dismissive
quote:
As I said, presuppositions and special pleading. Sorry -- that just doesn't wash as a point of view worth consideration.
I wouldn't mind but he's not exactly explaining what presuppositions he thinks I'm making, which makes it difficult for me to even know what the fault is supposed to be, let alone answer it....
So here goes with a bit of exposition;
First, what's the situation here? Jesus has been arrested by the Jewish authorities, the High Priest's people, using Judas as guide and what appears to have been in our terms 'Temple Security' as the arresting force. Jesus is then put on trial for blasphemy, and convicted. They want him dead – and they take him to Pilate for execution.
Why? One reason is given in the text; v31 “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death”. This seems reasonable enough; a client king like one of the Herod family would have the right of capital punishment over his own people, but the priests in Jerusalem were in a very subsidiary position in Pilate's assigned part of Jewish land and were probably lucky even that they were allowed to put to death a Gentile who strayed into the 'Jews only' bit of the Temple. There would be other reasons too.
It could be difficult for the Jewish authorities to kill a popular teacher like Jesus; and having him killed by the Romans would not only shift the problem to Pilate, but also if Jesus died at Roman hands it would discredit his Messianic claims – as in, surely God would not allow his anointed to suffer such a death. They may even have consciously depended on a point Paul raised later – that by OT law a person hanged on a tree was cursed.
Whatever the reason, the Jewish authorities passed Jesus on to Pilate. Pilate wanted to refer it back to them, he didn't want to deal with an internal Jewish religious crime, so they changed gear, in effect, and said “He's a Messianic claimant, he's a threat to Rome's order which you, Pilate, are charged to uphold.
John Holding hasn't given me any criticism I can actually engage with – just vague assertions about my supposed 'presuppositions' and 'special pleading'. Alan Cresswell has made more effort – but is he right?
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
“Jesus isn't establishing Himself as a king”
Really?? As I see it, whatever interpretation we give the text has first of all to be consistent with context. And on Jesus as King, there's both a big context and at least one small immediate context which rather contradict Alan's contention here. I agree that I'm making a presupposition that the NT is the product of a church founded on Jesus' resurrection witnessed by the Apostles; but after all, without that presupposition or assumption, there basically isn't a Christian interpretation worth bothering with anyway.
It is one of the major themes of the NT as a whole that Jesus is the Son of David, God's anointed, the Messiah, in short, the King. This goes all the way from Davidic genealogies to portraying Jesus as ultimately the King of kings to whom in the end 'every knee shall bow'. That's the big context, and what happens at Jesus' trial has to be consistent with that big context. How likely is it that Jesus on trial for his life is going to contradict that big context of the message he commissioned his apostles to take to the world?
The lesser incident is 'Palm Sunday'; in that episode, less than a week before the encounter with Pilate, Jesus puts down a very public “I AM THE KING!!” marker by entering Jerusalem on an donkey. That was interpreted as a deliberate fulfilment of the OT Scripture Zech 9; 9, which says
quote:
“Behold , your king shall come to you, righteous and victorious, humble and riding on a donkey”
The Passover pilgrim crowd 'got' that connection, applauding him with such comments as “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord!” or “Blessed be the coming kingdom of our father David!” Are we really to believe that a Jesus who made that very public demonstrative gesture comes before Pilate less than a week later and what he says to Pilate is merely
quote:
“... stating His credentials as a citizen of another Kingdom and hence not accepting the authority of earthly powers to judge Him”.
No, the context tells us very loudly that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, the KING. An interpretation which denies that – well, must involve some very special pleading and some very odd presuppositions, surely?
There's a further context point here as well - in interpreting John 18-19, whatever interpretation we come up with has to be consistent with the outcome. And we read in all the gospels that Pilate finds Jesus 'not guilty at all'. But surely if there would be one thing calculated to bring about a verdict of 'Guilty!' it would be “not accepting the authority of earthly powers to judge Him”. We've all seen this kind of thing in recent years – freedom fighter or terrorist, “I don't accept the authority of your court”. And it doesn't work even with a civilised democratic nation such as the UK; it would get even less sympathy from the kind of imperial governor Pilate was. Pilate's likely reaction would be on the lines of “Keep telling yourself that while you die on the cross”. Pilate finding Jesus 'not guilty' speaks very loudly against Alan's interpretation.
And by the way; Jesus didn't reject the authority of this particular earthly power. Look at this – John 19; 10-11
quote:
Pilate said to him, “...Do you not know that I have power (Gk 'exousia'/authority) to liberate you and I have power to crucify you?” Jesus replied, “You have no power whatever of your own, but only what is granted you from above”.
That is, Jesus accepts the authority of Pilate as from God; he doesn't reject it, he 'submits to the governing authorities' just as Paul taught in Romans 13.
So as I said, the issue is not as Alan portrays it; the issue is Jesus does claim to be king, but what kind of king and kingdom is he claiming to be? And the answer, the kind of king who gets a 'not guilty' verdict from Pilate. And that is not a king who is advocating 'Christian countries' in any shape or form that might lead to the kind of uprising which it is Pilate's job to prevent....
Discuss.....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In the course of the 'Aaaargh!' thread on hell I was asked by John Holding to suggest an NT text in support of my overall case about state and church. I suggested John 18 v36 where Jesus says his kingdom is 'not of this world'.
And I repeat my contention, which you haven't repeated here, that this verse says nothing whatsoever about the church and its relationship to the State.
quote:
Not just the one line, but take account of the context in which Jesus is on trial before Pilate on a charge, in effect, of seeking to establish a 'Christian country' in the most direct way possible.
This is reading into the text. As far as I can see from John's gospel, the charge against Jesus is not clear at all. Pilate asks the Jews what the charge is and they say "if he was not an evildoer we wouldn't have brought him before you". It's quite a leap from that non-response to a charge of "establishing a Christian country in the most direct way possible".
quote:
His response there results in Pilate finding him innocent and seeking to release him. I at least can't think of any way Pilate could have done that if Jesus had proposed any of the kinds of Christian country we have seen since Constantine.
It is fallacious to argue that Pilate's attempts to release Jesus must mean "he was not trying to establish a Christian country". My own take is that he sought to release Jesus because he began to suspect he might actually be who he said he was, but that this fear was overruled by his fear of the mob and of Rome. quote:
Jesus is then put on trial for blasphemy, and convicted.
Please note this is not the same offence as "seeking to establish a Christian country". quote:
But surely if there would be one thing calculated to bring about a verdict of 'Guilty!' it would be “not accepting the authority of earthly powers to judge Him”. We've all seen this kind of thing in recent years – freedom fighter or terrorist, “I don't accept the authority of your court”.
This is nonsense. A court is there to decide whether or not the defendant has broken the law it seeks to uphold. A refusal on the part of the defendant to recognise the authority of the court may be prejudicial to them, but it has no bearing on whether they are guilty of the offence with which they are charged. quote:
Jesus didn't reject the authority of this particular earthly power. Look at this – John 19; 10-11
quote:
Pilate said to him, “...Do you not know that I have power (Gk 'exousia'/authority) to liberate you and I have power to crucify you?” Jesus replied, “You have no power whatever of your own, but only what is granted you from above”.
That is, Jesus accepts the authority of Pilate as from God; he doesn't reject it, he 'submits to the governing authorities'
I somehow don't think Pilate heard Jesus' declaration as a ringing endorsement of his authority. quote:
And the answer, the kind of king who gets a 'not guilty' verdict from Pilate. And that is not a king who is advocating 'Christian countries' in any shape or form that might lead to the kind of uprising which it is Pilate's job to prevent....
Even if it were assumed (and it is an assumption) that this passage shows Pilate finding Jesus not guilty of establishing a rival kingdom to Rome, or not guilty of being "the wrong sort of king" it says nothing at all about the relationship between church and state. That is an anachronism.
[ 24. November 2014, 05:36: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
“Jesus isn't establishing Himself as a king”
Really?? As I see it, whatever interpretation we give the text has first of all to be consistent with context. And on Jesus as King, there's both a big context and at least one small immediate context which rather contradict Alan's contention here. ...
It is one of the major themes of the NT as a whole that Jesus is the Son of David, God's anointed, the Messiah, in short, the King.
I don't think it's entirely clear that the Bible teaches that the Messiah would be, as you put it, "in short, the King". Though, it's quite possible that the crowds on Palm Sunday thought that. I think it's much safer to say that the Bible teaches that the Messiah will bring in the Kingdom of God, which is not (necessarily) the same thing at all.
Of course, the kingship over Israel starting with Saul and David could be seen as an aberration, a step away from the calling of the people that they have one king, God Himself. The Messiah could easily be the fulfilment of the Davidic kingly line not as a final king in that line, but as the person who brings it to an end by returning the kingship to God where it belongs.
In Revelation, we don't see Christ on the throne. It is the Lamb, Christ, who approaches the throne to open the seals on the scroll.
So, I don't see it as automatically obvious that the Christ is King. It is, of course, a reasonable reading of Scripture. But, it's not the only one.
But that all leaves the bigger question unanswered. Whether Christ is the King, or just heralds in the Kingdom, what exactly is the nature of the Kingdom of God? Is it purely spiritual, or does the Kingdom extend into the whole of life? The repeated statements in Scripture, including within this passage of John, that the rulers of the earth are in their positions of authority by the decision of God who is the true King over all would certainly imply that the Kingdom of God extends beyond Heaven into the Earth.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Thanks Eutychus and Alan for at least dealing with me seriously and to the point. You've given me a lot to consider and I'll take my time to try and do it justice.
by Alan C;
quote:
The Messiah could easily be the fulfilment of the Davidic kingly line not as a final king in that line, but as the person who brings it to an end by returning the kingship to God where it belongs.
One query; I thought that the title 'Messiah', meaning literally 'the anointed' is actually synonymous with 'the king'.
My other comment - as far as I'm concerned, Jesus 'fulfils' the Davidic kingship in both ways you mention. He is the final king in the line,not least because he is eternal; but he also, as incarnate Son of God and a member of the Divine Trinity, returns the kingship to God, repairing the breach between divine and human kingships which God allowed in the days of Samuel, Saul, and David.
by Eutychus;
quote:
... it says nothing at all about the relationship between church and state. That is an anachronism.
As I think we covered briefly back in Hell, I guess that depends on how you view the Church. I'm currently reading Scot McKnight's book 'Kingdom Conspiracy' in which he devotes a major chapter to this point. Jesus' kingdom is not just a future still to come abstract, nor is it a kingdom empty of subjects in the here and now. The Church is the kingdom precisely because it consists of the subjects of the king, the people described in John 18 as 'Everyone who loves the truth (and) listens to my voice'.
I'll leave it there for now. You have both been rough but fair; thanks.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
Just a hostly reminder that, now that this discussion has moved to Kerygmania, all points made and discussed must be firmly rooted in what the Bible says about the topic, and analysis of relevant Biblical passages.
Trudy, Scrumptious Kerygmania Host
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The Church is the kingdom precisely because it consists of the subjects of the king.
While it may be argued, disputably, that kingdoms consist of subjects of the king, I submit that you cannot infer from that assumption that the Church equals the Kingdom, still less substantiate that from Scripture. Consider, for instance, the Kingdom parables of the net and the wheat and the tares.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Eutychus;
quote:
While it may be argued, disputably, that kingdoms consist of subjects of the king, I submit that you cannot infer from that assumption that the Church equals the Kingdom, still less substantiate that from Scripture. Consider, for instance, the Kingdom parables of the net and the wheat and the tares.
Or indeed the parable of the sheep and goats where, in effect, people find out they were members of the Kingdom unawares!
However, when Pilate asks, in v33, “Are you the king of the Jews?” he isn't bothered about all that subtlety, is he? His concern is whether this king, this Jesus, is gathering an army to come banging on the gates of Jerusalem, and set up a kingdom of his own in a part of the Roman Empire.
It's not necessary to deny all kinds of other aspects of the Kingdom to appreciate that at that moment, there in Pilate's court this one issue is the most important; and that what Jesus says about it in this literally life-and-death moment must surely have implications for the people who, through faith, become the kingdom's voluntary members and it's workers – indeed its army, but maybe not quite in the usual sense. Those for whom “Jesus is Lord” will want to recognise his Lordship over this matter and not rebel against him over it or kid themselves they know better.
I picked John 18 as my example because it raises the issue most sharply in the context of the then leading worldly power. Obviously my total position is far more widely based.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
John 18 provides evidence that Jesus' Kingdom is not of this world.
Do you concede that neither this passage nor any other establishes a direct parallel between the Kingdom and the Church? Because if you do, then you cannot use it as evidence of what the relationship between Church and state should be.
At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I believe that the German Lutheran church in WW2 - a state church - believed firmly in matters temporal being separate from matters spiritual - in other words, in the Kingdom not being of this world, in line with your argument here - to the extent that they closed their eyes to Hitler's totalitarianism as being none of their business.
And why do you insist on seeing the Kingdom of God as something one can enjoy being a "member" or a "subject" of? Can you point to a verse in Scripture that says that? The only place I can find is Matthew 8:12, which has the good news that, according to Jesus, quote:
the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
As Host Trudy has said, Kerygmania is for the Biblical discussion. However it has occurred to me that the prior history of this thread has rather muddled some of the issues, and I hope for hostly indulgence to just clarify the broad background position I hold so that we won't go off on too many irrelevant tangents through misunderstandings.
(This was prepared earlier and ahead of Eutychus' last, which it partly answers).
Eutychus made the two following points;
quote:
And I repeat my contention, which you haven't repeated here, that this verse says nothing whatsoever about the church and its relationship to the State.
And that the passage, John 18...
quote:
...says nothing at all about the relationship between church and state. That is an anachronism.
And actually I pretty much agree. The church did just about exist at this point, but not in a form that Pilate knew anything about so he wouldn't exactly be considering it; at this stage none of our later ideas are fully developed. The modern constitutional idea of 'separation of church and state' is a multiple anachronism, not least because as the USA constitution frames it, it is a separation of 'religion' and state, not merely a church-and-state matter.
Indeed in many ways the problem of the USA/modern-liberal concepts of freedom of religion and that 'separation of church-and-state' is that it's a secular concept on an Enlightenment and rationalist basis. Given that most of the world's religions started out as either national in nature or like Islam with a decided concept of a religious state, why would they accept the concept at all? Why would they not prefer to take Peter's position of Acts 5; 29 that “We must obey God rather than men” and if they believe their God requires a religious state, go ahead and try eventually to set up such a state regardless of the constitution? They might well give lip service to the plural state in the meantime, as it would of course be useful to them while they were a minority, but.... Ultimately in most religions the notion of a plural state actually challenges the authority of their god(s).
The West has I believe only been able to develop its pluralism on the foundation of the different approach of Christianity, ironically made known even through the 'Constantinian' churches, even if what they've ended up with is not quite the Christian position as such.
The NT position rests on the following ideas;
First, that you don't become a Christian just by being born in the ordinary human way – you must be 'born again', which is apart from anything else something which can't be legislated for, nor does it happen 'magically' through acts like infant baptism. This makes a 'Christian nation' a difficult thing to have....
Second, that it is the Church itself which is “God's holy nation”, in continuity with the OT people of God Israel, but now worldwide and comprising all who have faith in Jesus. If the Church is God's holy nation, ordinary worldly nations can't claim that place.
Third, that Christians regard themselves as citizens of the kingdom of heaven; and so as 'resident aliens' on earth, who live peaceably among their neighbours. Peter, who actually uses a Greek word meaning near-enough 'resident aliens', doesn't expect this state of affairs to end this side of the Second Coming.
On this understanding Christians are not trying to impose anything on neighbours; rather they are content to live in any kind of states. The above is a summary. I'm trying to avoid misunderstandings, please don't nit-pick it but use it to understand where I'm coming from on the John 18 issues.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Eutychus;
quote:
At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I believe that the German Lutheran church in WW2 - a state church - believed firmly in matters temporal being separate from matters spiritual - in other words, in the Kingdom not being of this world, in line with your argument here - to the extent that they closed their eyes to Hitler's totalitarianism as being none of their business.
As a state church, German Lutheranism had all kinds of problems long before the Godwin's law matter arose; they had little in common with my position, brilliant as Luther was on lots of other things. As per my previous, I'm not advocating standard separation of church and state, but a distinctive biblical view - which is why we're doing this in Keryg.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
So what I take away from this is:
1) You concede John 18:36 has nothing to say to the respective roles of church and state (despite this being the basis on which you brought it to the table in the first place) and admit that to claim as much is an anachronism
2) That while you describe 'Constantinian' churches as holding "not quite the Christian position as such" (!), you concede that where it thrives, religious pluralism (as opposed in your mind to state churches and/or religions with aspirations to supplant worldly kingdoms) is at least in part indebted to the influence of 'Constantinian' practice, even if only through historical accident rather than divine first preference as you see it.
Before writing off 'Constantinian' practice wholesale as "not quite Christian", you might like to reflect on the degree to which modern-day anabaptists enjoy many of the benefits of its heritage.
quote:
I'm trying to avoid misunderstandings, please don't nit-pick it but use it to understand where I'm coming from on the John 18 issues.
The nature of Kerygmania is, verily, to nit-pick each others' understanding of Biblical texts. You were the one who loudly heralded your choice of this forum to debate a specific text, John 18:36, apparently in defence of your anabaptist views.*
You appear either implicitly or explicitly to have withdrawn all your key assertions about this verse, so unless you return to discussing specific Bible passages to support your views, I guess either this thread is over or it will get summarily moved to Purgatory.
*As mentioned in Hell, I actually have quite a lot of sympathy for the anabaptist position, but hardly any at all for the basis on which you choose to attempt to defend it, not least John 18:36, or for your summary dismissals of everyone else.
[x-post with Steve's most recent]
[ 24. November 2014, 18:32: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Eutychus;
quote:
1) You concede John 18:36 has nothing to say to the respective roles of church and state (despite this being the basis on which you brought it to the table in the first place) and admit that to claim as much is an anachronism
I concede nothing of the kind. I brought this to the table here on the basis that John 18;36, in its context of a real trial before a real Roman Governor, and in terms of how he would see the situation, is pretty determinative about certain views of the role of Jesus' followers in the world. Nit-picking academic distinctions over 'church' and 'kingdom' and 'state' are only relevant if they would have made a difference to Pilate's verdict.
And what difference would they make? Pilate could only find Jesus 'not guilty' if satisfied he and his followers would not be a military threat; and the grounds on which he was able to make that decision also apply to the real concrete modern church and its place in the world, not just to an abstract academic kingdom.
What is puzzling me here is why you are so keen to dissociate Church and Kingdom. What view of the kingdom do you positively hold that makes it such an issue for you?
The 'anachronism' is not in the understanding that the concept "My kingdom is not of this world" applies to the Church; the anachronism is to read backwards into the situation all the later ideas and understandings, including the modern 'separation of Church and State' idea where I am putting forward a different, biblical not secular view of the Christian approach. I brought the matter to Kerygmania precisely to be easier able to get that distinction across.
by Eutychus;
quote:
You appear either implicitly or explicitly to have withdrawn all your key assertions about this verse,
NO!!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Pilate is concerned about the possibility of a mob of Gallilean yokels storming his palace. His questions, and the answers he gets, confirm that Jesus is not going to lead such a politically disastrous (for Pilate) action. Thus, there is no charge for Him to answer under Roman law.
I think we safely draw from that the conclusion that Jesus would not want us to gain political advantage by violence. We're not to form an army and march on Westminster to impose Christian faith on the nation.
Does that relate to non-violent, gradual processes? If the population, freely, chose to follow Christ would not that faith be part of society? Would it not be part of the decision making process of our Parliaments? Would it not be right to call us a Christian nation? That is an entirely different set of questions that this passage in John doesn't even come close to answering, not even giving us a hint of what the answers might be. And, I can't think of any other Scriptures that would inform discussion of those questions either.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I still want to hear about that sunshine.
Heartfelt though it was, this yearning of mine was best left unexpressed on this board. I apologize for it.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Just to finish some business with Alan Cresswell
By Alan Cresswell;
quote:
In Revelation, we don't see Christ on the throne. It is the Lamb, Christ, who approaches the throne to open the seals on the scroll.
Agreed that we don't see Christ/the Lamb on the throne (or at least not at that point - I'm still checking elsewhere); but what we do see is in Rev 17; 14 this;
quote:
"They will war against the Lamb and the Lamb shall conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings..."
and again in Rev 19; 16 this;
quote:
Then I saw heaven thrown open and a white horse appeared, Its Rider is called Faithful and True.... and his appointed title is; The Word of God. ... On his robe and on his thigh he has his name inscribed; King of kings and Lord of lords."
In light of those texts I'm struggling to understand Alan's further statement that
quote:
So, I don't see it as automatically obvious that the Christ is King. It is, of course, a reasonable reading of Scripture. But, it's not the only one.
And Rev 17 and 19 would seem also to provide a pretty decisive biblical answer to Alan's 'bigger' question as to "Whether Christ is the King, or just heralds in the Kingdom" .
The nature of the kingdom - that's what I've been exploring in relation to John 18-19 and 18; 36 in particular.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
John 18;36, in its context of a real trial before a real Roman Governor, and in terms of how he would see the situation, is pretty determinative about certain views of the role of Jesus' followers in the world.
As far as I can see it's pretty determinative of what Jesus' kingdom is not, and little more. It indicates his followers should not confuse his kingdom with worldly ones, but gives no indication as to what their precise roles should be. quote:
Nit-picking academic distinctions over 'church' and 'kingdom' and 'state' are only relevant if they would have made a difference to Pilate's verdict.
These are hardly nit-picking academic distinctions. The concepts in question are vastly different.
The word 'State' does not even appear in the Bible.
'Church' means an assembly of people and by implication in the NT, an assembly of believers.
In the NT 'Kingdom', to my mind, does not mean a set of subjects but the realm in which a sovereign's will is exercised. To equate it with the church is thus a category confusion.
quote:
And what difference would they make? Pilate could only find Jesus 'not guilty' if satisfied he and his followers would not be a military threat
You seem to think Pilate's decision was wholly impartial, founded in logic, and offers a definitive ruling on the nature of Jesus' kingdom and thus the Church (this is ironic not least in that you appear to be appealing to the authority of an earthly power to rule on what the Church is and isn't).
That is not the picture that emerges from the Scriptures in my view. We see Pilate torn between Jesus' testimony, the pressure of the crowd and the advice of his wife, dodging the issues by refusing to convict Jesus, yet handing him over to be killed, and (it can surely not have escaped your notice) arranging for him to be crucified as "King of the Jews" - not "King (not of this world)".
quote:
What is puzzling me here is why you are so keen to dissociate Church and Kingdom.
I, on the other hand, am not puzzled at all as to why you insist on conflating them - it's the only way you can justify putting forward John 18:36 in answer to a question about church and state. quote:
What view of the kingdom do you positively hold that makes it such an issue for you?
Anabaptists usually take the view that local churches should consist solely of professing believers to reflect the believing nature of the universal Church. As I have pointed out, the Kingdom parables of the wheat and the tares, and the net, give an entirely different picture of the Kingdom - a mixed bag until the end of the age. That alone suggests Church and Kingdom are not the same thing.
quote:
I am putting forward a different, biblical not secular view of the Christian approach. I brought the matter to Kerygmania precisely to be easier able to get that distinction across.
I think we can all agree Jesus said "my kingdom is not of this world". You have failed to prove, especially on Biblical grounds (rather than your rather huge inferences about why Pilate ruled as he did) your assertion that the Kingdom (bar, in your words, some academic nit-picking) is the same thing as the Church.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I don't think this is quite as clear cut as Steve would have us believe. The New Testament is written within the context of a pagan empire. It has nothing to say about what should happen if and when the emperor is a Christian, how he should conduct himself in relation to the empire etc. Steve has created, I would argue, somewhat of a straw man. No one is arguing that the Church or state should be equated with the kingdom or that the Church and state should be indistinguishable from one another. History shows that this was not the case, such as the incident between Theodosius and St. Ambrose. Christ's dialogue with Pilate only proves that the kingdom is not a threat to the temporal power of the emperor, not that the empire shouldn't be Christian.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Quick responses, more when I've considered the points;
by Eutychus;
quote:
These are hardly nit-picking academic distinctions. The concepts in question are vastly different.
They are pretty academic when you are Pilate worrying whether Jesus is aiming to lead an army and set up a Christian/Messianic state in opposition to you. "My kingdom is not of this world" at least includes the proposition that Jesus does not aim to have state churches in the sense that arose later.
by Eutychus;
quote:
The word 'State' does not even appear in the Bible.
Nor do many words which we nevertheless use in discussing biblical concepts. Actually the nearest equivalent used does seem to be 'kingdom', given that most of what we might call 'states' were in those days kingdoms or empires under human kings.
by Eutychus;
quote:
'Church' means an assembly of people and by implication in the NT, an assembly of believers.
It also appears, in Matthew 16, to mean the wider church, not just local assemblies; and in I Pet 2; 9, it is described as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a dedicated nation" - a description also applied to Israel, the OT kingdom of God and then of David, implying continuity of the church with that kingdom.
by Eutychus;
quote:
In the NT 'Kingdom', to my mind, does not mean a set of subjects but the realm in which a sovereign's will is exercised. To equate it with the church is thus a category confusion.
Clearly the concept of God's Kingdom is wider than just 'the Church' - I have no problem with that. However, John 18;36 is necessarily concerned with the manifestation of the Kingdom in terms of Jesus' followers and how they will behave relative to initially Rome and later other states. That God does indeed rule over everything whether or not it is recognised/acknowledged is not of Pilate's concern; how the earthly manifestation in the followers will behave is very much Pilate's concern.
Consider this - in the sense that God is always King and that even the wicked ultimately do his will and achieve his purposes, God's Kingdom is simply an always and everywhere fact. But if we only mean that, what need was there for Jesus to proclaim the Kingdom as 'coming'? Isn't that precisely about the exercise of God's will not just in the relatively abstract, but concretely in the lives of willing, dedicated subjects called out of the world into the Kingdom? And what is that but, in the present age, the Church?
by Eutychus;
quote:
You seem to think Pilate's decision was wholly impartial, founded in logic, and offers a definitive ruling on the nature of Jesus' kingdom and thus the Church (this is ironic not least in that you appear to be appealing to the authority of an earthly power to rule on what the Church is and isn't).
Credit me with some consistency, please! No, Pilate's decision does not 'offer a ruling' on the nature of the Kingdom/Church. Jesus makes the ruling in his statements to Pilate, and it is decidedly by his authority and not by Pilate's authority. But Pilate's response confirms and if you like concretely illustrates the meaning of Jesus' words.
by Eutychus;
quote:
As I have pointed out, the Kingdom parables of the wheat and the tares, and the net, give an entirely different picture of the Kingdom - a mixed bag until the end of the age.
Would you, like Augustine and others, push that to the point of affirming the state church idea and its necessarily extremely mixed status? The Kingdom and the Church are indeed a mixed bag till the end of the age - but it is still important to be clear on the difference between church and world.
by Eutychus;
quote:
your assertion that the Kingdom (bar, in your words, some academic nit-picking) is the same thing as the Church.
I am not simplistically asserting that Kingdom = Church. I am asserting that the concept "My Kingdom is not of this world" implies and includes, especially in the specific context of a trial before Pilate with Jesus' kingship at issue, that the church does not/should not aim at any of the kinds of worldly authority claimed in the various versions of the concept of a 'Christian country', and that the church must not be confused with the world in that area, whatever terminology of states etc. may be used.
by Ad Orientem
quote:
I don't think this is quite as clear cut as Steve would have us believe.
I don't think it's all that 'clear-cut'; So many different versions of 'Christian country' have been tried that little about the concept is clear at all! What I think is clear-cut, on the basis of the NT as a whole, is that the whole 'Christian country' concept is misguided and the Church is meant to operate in the world and in relation to the world, in a very different and much humbler way. And BTW we now have some 1600 years of experience of how misguided the idea of the 'Christian country' was and is.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
It also appears, in Matthew 16, to mean the wider church, not just local assemblies; and in I Pet 2; 9, it is described as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a dedicated nation" - a description also applied to Israel, the OT kingdom of God and then of David, implying continuity of the church with that kingdom.
So, the Church is the continuity of the kingdom of Israel, a nation state with all entails. Why, then, on the basis of Peters description of the Church as a nation do you reject the Church being a nation?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In light of those texts I'm struggling to understand Alan's further statement that
quote:
So, I don't see it as automatically obvious that the Christ is King. It is, of course, a reasonable reading of Scripture. But, it's not the only one.
And Rev 17 and 19 would seem also to provide a pretty decisive biblical answer to Alan's 'bigger' question as to "Whether Christ is the King, or just heralds in the Kingdom"
I know I introduced Revelation, but it's also probably the hardest part of the Bible to use to support an argument. A central theme of the Revelation is that Christ is in charge, that He will defeat all the forces that seek to destroy the Church, as an encouragement to the persecuted Church. So, portraying Christ as King is consistent with that, which might be used as a contrary argument when it sometimes puts Christ into a subordinate position rather than as sitting on the throne.
The point I was trying to make with the statement you are struggling to understand is, I'd hoped, quite simple. The point is that there are alternative understandings of Scripture that are as valid as the ones you are presenting.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
They are pretty academic when you are Pilate worrying whether Jesus is aiming to lead an army and set up a Christian/Messianic state in opposition to you.
I repeat my assertion that this is a massive assumption about what's driving Pilate's thinking and rulings.
As far as I can see the text suggests Pilate simply wanted to, um, wash his hands of Jesus. His decisions were based on expediency, not some thought-out appraisal of Jesus' political ambitions or otherwise. And he hung up a sign calling him "King of the Jews". quote:
"My kingdom is not of this world" at least includes the proposition that Jesus does not aim to have state churches in the sense that arose later.
I'm increasingly convinced (see my current signature) that Jesus did not intend to have churches that look anything like we see today. He promised to build his universal Church.
State and non-state churches alike have a tendency to want to exist as an end in themselves instead of a means to a greater end.
Churches should be service stations on the motorway of life: functional, somewhere for a comfort break, pleasant enough but not somewhere you choose to stay long term or visit as a destination. Instead, many church leaders seem intent on turning their churches into Disneyland.
But we can't turn back the clock and undo church history nor what it's done in society. We need to find our various ways forward from where we find ourselves, not pine after a mythical anabaptist paradise lost.
quote:
But if we only mean that, what need was there for Jesus to proclaim the Kingdom as 'coming'? Isn't that precisely about the exercise of God's will not just in the relatively abstract, but concretely in the lives of willing, dedicated subjects called out of the world into the Kingdom? And what is that but, in the present age, the Church?
You must have a different Bible to me. In mine it says not that we are called out of the world but that we are sent into it. quote:
So many different versions of 'Christian country' have been tried that little about the concept is clear at all!
Unless you can provide some clarity, one might be forgiven for thinking you're attacking a straw man.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
So, the Church is the continuity of the kingdom of Israel, a nation state with all (that) entails. Why, then, on the basis of Peter's description of the Church as a nation do you reject the Church being a nation?
Precisely because we are talking 'New Covenant' and the preaching of the gospel and kingdom outside and beyond Israel, and an NT understanding that being a Christian is not about your human once-birth into a human nation but about being 'born again' which is not 'by the will of man' and certainly not by the legislation of a normal human country.
The point of what Peter says is precisely that the Church itself IS a nation; but that nation is the kingdom of heaven and we are on earth, in our various nations, as 'resident aliens' (Peter does use a Gk word meaning almost exactly that in the early verses of chapter 1). Though many have tried, no ordinary human geographic or ethnic nation can make claim to be that nation, only the international body of the born-again, the 'Body of Christ', the Church.
The continuity with Israel is very important - but so are the 'New Covenant' differences!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by leo;
quote:
Translation-wise, it should be 'FROM this world' - the values aren't worldly ones.
It could be possible to have an earthly kingdom which adopts transcendent values.
And indeed the word 'basileia' can alternatively be translated 'kingship' rather than 'kingdom'. Jesus is still claiming to be a king and Pilate still has to consider what that implies in this world, and therefore what kind of king Jesus is and what kind of kingdom he proposes.
Yes, it is theoretically possible to have an earthly kingdom that adopts transcendant values; but I refer you to Eutychus' signature phrase for how it's worked out so far in practice....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Eutychus;
quote:
I repeat my assertion that this is a massive assumption about what's driving Pilate's thinking and rulings.
I accept most of what you say about Pilate's other concerns/motivations; but nevertheless, is it really so massive an assumption that when Pilate's first question to Jesus is "Are you the king of the Jews?" he's got a very significant concern about what was normally meant in those days by people making that claim? - and indeed was meant not so far in the future in the Bar Kokhba revolt.
by Eutychus;
quote:
I'm increasingly convinced (see my current signature) that Jesus did not intend to have churches that look anything like we see today. He promised to build his universal Church.
I had noticed your signature! And I broadly agree with the sentiment. But by and large the churches we see today are the product of the 'Constantinian' shift or of (sometimes only partial) reactions against it. That is, the Church Loisy is thinking of is not by a long way the Church Jesus intended!
I don't rule out the idea that like the questionable Israelite choice of a human king, God may overrule and use our bad decisions - but that doesn't make them into actually good decisions! To be more like the Kingdom requires understanding and reversing/repenting-of the bad decisions and returning to biblical faithfulness.
by Eutychus;
quote:
But we can't turn back the clock and undo church history nor what it's done in society. We need to find our various ways forward from where we find ourselves, not pine after a mythical anabaptist paradise lost.
Not arguing; and I wouldn't think that a 21stC church needs to be just a replica of the NT church. But it does need to be built from a 'rock'foundation of NT principles and not on the 'sands' of trying to keep rags of Constantinianism going. The modern Anabaptist movement is much more than just the traditional Anabaptist groups, and does recognise faults as well as the good in the Anabaptist past.
by Eutychus;
quote:
You must have a different Bible to me. In mine it says not that we are called out of the world but that we are sent into it.
I might wonder about your Bible; in mine it says both that we are called out of the world AND that we are sent into it. If we remain 'of the world', if we refuse the call out of it, we are of no use; but our calling out is also clearly a calling to work in the world, to take to the world the things we have been called to.
The word 'ekklesia' actually conveys that meaning of 'called out', doesn't it?
by Eutychus;
quote:
Unless you can provide some clarity, one might be forgiven for thinking you're attacking a straw man.
Don't fall for any of the various attempts to have a 'Christian country' is pretty clear, I'd have thought! The lack of clarity is not on my side but from all the manoeuvres and obfuscations used on the other side to keep their dodgy idea going.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
is it really so massive an assumption that when Pilate's first question to Jesus is "Are you the king of the Jews?" he's got a very significant concern about what was normally meant in those days by people making that claim?
If he was satisfied that was not the case, why do you think he wrote what he wrote?
quote:
I wouldn't think that a 21stC church needs to be just a replica of the NT church. But it does need to be built from a 'rock'foundation of NT principles and not on the 'sands' of trying to keep rags of Constantinianism going.
I don't think it needs to be 'built' by us at all, because Jesus promises he will build it. It's when we attempt to do so that the emphasis goes all wrong. Our job is to seek the Kingdom
quote:
I might wonder about your Bible; in mine it says both that we are called out of the world
Really? Where?
quote:
The word 'ekklesia' actually conveys that meaning of 'called out', doesn't it?
That might be its literal meaning, but I wouldn't read too much into that. It just means a specific group or assembly, I think.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
As a quick response for now;
by Eutychus;
quote:
SL;
I might wonder about your Bible; in mine it says both that we are called out of the world
Eutychus;
Really? Where?
Is II Corinthians 6; 14-17 strong enough for you? Or John 17; 9-19 which taken as a whole conveys exactly the balance I had in mind, of Christians not being 'of the world' but nevertheless sent into it? I'm sure I can find more if I really try....
by Eutychus;
quote:
quote:
SL:
The word 'ekklesia' actually conveys that meaning of 'called out', doesn't it?
Eutychus;
That might be its literal meaning, but I wouldn't read too much into that. It just means a specific group or assembly, I think.
In those days such 'assemblies' were very much 'called out' - see one of the non-church uses of the word, in Acts 19 at Ephesus. Actually three non-church uses in one chapter, according to my concordance, to only one use as 'church' where, as students of the KJV will tell you, Tyndale preferred 'congregation' anyway. The church congregates together precisely as 'called out' of the world.
by Eutychus;
quote:
I don't think it (the Church) needs to be 'built' by us at all, because Jesus promises he will build it.
Agreed; As Anabaptists go I have some decided Calvinistic tendencies. But nevertheless the building is done through us, we are commissioned to preach the word and to do the discipling, and surely the rock and sand parable applies.
If we are to do our job properly we must properly preach the relationship between church and world, and the 'Constantinian' view, in whatever shade or permutation, definitely ain't that proper relationship.
On your other point about the 'INRI' placard, I know pretty much what the answer is; making sure I express it properly will take a bit longer so I'll come back later.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Is II Corinthians 6; 14-17 strong enough for you?
It doesn't mention the "world". Elsewhere in Corinthians Paul specifically says that he does not intend believers to leave the world but rather not to associate with those who call themselves believers but who show no signs at all of sanctification. quote:
Or John 17; 9-19 which taken as a whole conveys exactly the balance I had in mind, of Christians not being 'of the world' but nevertheless sent into it?
That is not at all what you said, you claimed we were called out of the world whereas this very passage has Jesus sending us in to the world. quote:
In those days such 'assemblies' were very much 'called out' - see one of the non-church uses of the word, in Acts 19 at Ephesus. Actually three non-church uses in one chapter, according to my concordance, to only one use as 'church' where, as students of the KJV will tell you, Tyndale preferred 'congregation' anyway. The church congregates together precisely as 'called out' of the world.
As you helpfully point out, the word applies also to non-church assemblies, which cannot be "called out of the world" in the same way as you are claiming the Church is. You cannot have your etymological cake for ekklesia and eat it. "Called out", yes, "Called out of the world", no.
quote:
If we are to do our job properly we must properly preach the relationship between church and world, and the 'Constantinian' view, in whatever shade or permutation, definitely ain't that proper relationship.
So what is the proper relationship in your view?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Eutychus;
quote:
It (II Cor 6) doesn't mention the "world".
Given what it does mention, from "Don't be yoked up unequally with unbelievers" onwards, does the text need to use the exact word 'world'? Does "come out from their midst and be separate" actually need to specify what is come out of as that one word?
by Eutychus;
quote:
That is not at all what you said, you claimed we were called out of the world whereas this very passage has Jesus sending us in to the world.
Sending into the world from where, please? From having first been called out of it to join Jesus, surely? They/we are not called out in an 'Exclusive Brethren' kind of sense; they/we are nevertheless clearly stated to be 'not of/from (ek) the world', and to be sent into the world precisely as not themselves/ourselves 'worldly' as the Berkeley translation phrases it.
quote:
You cannot have your etymological cake for ekklesia and eat it. "Called out", yes, "Called out of the world", no.
I'm a bit surprised that you didn't pick up my hasty misread, arising partly because of the way my concordance's index is arranged; there are actually of course 112 uses of ekklesia as 'church'! Ooops! Nevertheless, I think it significant that a word meaning basically 'called out' is used. Other words for 'assembly' are also available - James even uses the word 'synagogue'.
Colossians 1; 12-14 and I Thess 2;12 again carry a similar idea; in Colossians of delivery from the authority of darkness 'into/eis' the kingdom of the Son, and in Thessalonians just of being called into the kingdom of God.
Right now, however, I'm getting a feeling similar to dealing with believers in a certain theory about rapture and tribulation and such, who to maintain their bizarre idea of two comings of Jesus, one for the Church and one actually in judgement, will insist on distinguishing "Oh but here it says 'parousia' which means 'appearing', and here it's this other word meaning 'coming', so these are clearly separate events and not the same...."
The essential of the argument on John 18 is whether the claim "My kingdom/kingship is not of this world..." is relevant to the issues we now call 'church-and-state', whatever terminology the Bible uses or was used generally at the time. I'm saying it is relevant, you're trying to say it isn't on the basis apparently of a distinction between 'kingdom' and 'church'.
My claim it is relevant doesn't rest on the single sentence that Jesus' kingdom is not of this world, but on the context as well.
That's a context in which Jesus points out how if his kingdom were of this world, his disciples would be fighting (indeed, if you think about it, he's implying, whether Pilate realised it or not, that if he had that kind of kingdom in mind, he'd have raised a proper army instead of a bunch of muddled fishermen!).
It's a context in which Jesus is on trial for his life and is asked "Are you the king of the Jews?" in a situation where that rather has to be a question about this-worldly kingdoms and possible military intentions.
It's a context in which Jesus affirms his kingship only to go straight into "For this purpose was I born, and for this I entered into the world, that I might testify to the truth. Everyone who loves the truth listens to my voice".
And I would point out that we're having this discussion because I was asked for 'a text', and chose one which seems relevant because it deals with the issue precisely in relation to the worldly kingdom of Rome, and the resolution, of Pilate declaring Jesus innocent, is hardly possible if Jesus were intending any version of 'Christian country' claim as usually put forward by 'Constantinians'.
As I've repeatedly said, my overall position is far more widely based than the single text anyway.
by Eutychus;
quote:
So what is the proper relationship in your view?
In simplest form, that the Church is to be separate from whatever state, tyranny or democracy, as the international people of God operating by the power of God's Spirit, and citizens of a kingdom 'not of this world'.
And right now, with an obligation to have a model railway ready for an event on Saturday, I've something else to do before bedtime... back tomorrow.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
Hosting
While Kerygmania is the home for discussion of Biblical passages and themes, this thread has strayed well beyond its original lively conversation about John 18-19. At this point, nine separate books of the Bible have been referenced, and that's not counting multiple references per book. Pulling in Biblical verses to shore up a theological or political (or other such) argument does not make a Kerygmania thread.
Hang onto your colored ribbon markers. We're headed to Purgatory.
Mamacita, Kerygmania Host
[ 26. November 2014, 04:14: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In simplest form, that the Church is to be separate from whatever state, tyranny or democracy, as the international people of God operating by the power of God's Spirit, and citizens of a kingdom 'not of this world'.
But that says nothing of how the Christian ruler should conduct matters of state unless, that is, you are arguing that Christians should have nothing to do with the state and/or that the Christian ruler is not accountable to God for his acts of state.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I would point out that we're having this discussion because I was asked for 'a text', and chose one which seems relevant because it deals with the issue precisely in relation to the worldly kingdom of Rome, and the resolution, of Pilate declaring Jesus innocent, is hardly possible if Jesus were intending any version of 'Christian country' claim as usually put forward by 'Constantinians'.
And I await your explanation of how you can be so sure this resolution means "Pilate was fully satisfied Jesus was not aiming to be an earthly king" when he stuck up a sign designating him as "King of the Jews" over his cross.
I would still also like to have an example of these 'Constantinians' who are putting forward Jesus' intent to establish a 'Christian country' are.
quote:
As I've repeatedly said, my overall position is far more widely based than the single text anyway.
Which begs the question of why you chose to take the discussion to Kerygmania.
quote:
In simplest form, that the Church is to be separate from whatever state, tyranny or democracy, as the international people of God operating by the power of God's Spirit, and citizens of a kingdom 'not of this world'.
This sounds alarmingly like a non-listed multinational company to me. If you take this imagery too literally, I think a cult with no regard for secular law is one likely result.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye leo, it's THAT simple.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Eutychus;
quote:
This sounds alarmingly like a non-listed multinational company to me. If you take this imagery too literally, I think a cult with no regard for secular law is one likely result.
No, what is likely to result is a church which is bound by its own teachings to be 'subject to' the earthly authorities. As has always been the case, the church will aim to 'obey God rather than men' (Acts 5; 29 ); but when that brings conflict with the state, we follow the example of Jesus - as demonstrated in John 18 inter alia - and instead of violent rebellion face martyrdom.
If you are alarmed by that I think you have a problem with Jesus and the apostles before you have a problem with me.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Eutychus;
quote:
I would still also like to have an example of these 'Constantinians' who are putting forward Jesus' intent to establish a 'Christian country' are.
You might look one post before yours to Ad Orientem's comments. Or a bit further back to some of Alan Cresswell's statements/suggestions, which you surely must have noticed.
And given that it is still hanging on to the rags of its former more totalitarian establishment, the Church of England, which can only justify its case in 'Constantinian' rather than biblical terms.
Then there are huge parts of Eastern Orthodoxy, many of Ulster's Protestants, the USA 'Religious Right', and many more - the real question here is how 'out of this world' are you if you need me to supply you such a list....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
GreeK, leo? I had a double take and thought why have the Greens (or the Green party) suddenly appeared here.
(Not that I fully understand this thread yet. Oh my, what a lot of reading to do)
B62, Purg Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by leo;
quote:
But it (ekklesia) was also the standard word for a Green assembly of citizens (who were very much of THIS world).
I'd never noticed the Green party using that word...? That was a bit of a 'throwaway' comment on my part initially anyway, and we did it to death earlier - move on please....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I'm struggling here to determine whether the problem is the co-option of the Church's authority by the State, the State's authority by the Church, or simply by the Church's involvement with the State's authority - having legislators who are members of the Church.
The first is Constanianism, the second is Theocracy, and the third is democracy. ISTM that in your fervour to attack (1) and (2), you're also condemning (3). If the majority of your nation is Christian, isn't this likely to be reflected in your laws and your customs?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If you are alarmed by that I think you have a problem with Jesus and the apostles before you have a problem with me.
I'm alarmed because despite my anabaptist sympathies, experience has taught me that such churches can think of themselves as above the law and answerable to nobody.
What is more, in their quest for spiritual purity and lack of formal relations with the state they have a tendency to withdraw and become cut off from the world they are supposed to be serving.
It also tends to inhibit the existence of a fringe membership, which I think is a healthy thing.
As has often been said, you can take the people out of Egypt, but you can't take Egypt out of the people, and anabaptists, with their assumption that their community is by and large "pure", forget this at their peril.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Eutychus;
quote:
I would still also like to have an example of these 'Constantinians' who are putting forward Jesus' intent to establish a 'Christian country' are.
You might look one post before yours to Ad Orientem's comments. Or a bit further back to some of Alan Cresswell's statements/suggestions, which you surely must have noticed.
No, I'd like to know what you mean by these terms. As Doc Tor has just pointed out, there seems to be some confusion there.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by leo;
quote:
But it (ekklesia) was also the standard word for a Green assembly of citizens (who were very much of THIS world).
I'd never noticed the Green party using that word...? That was a bit of a 'throwaway' comment on my part initially anyway, and we did it to death earlier - move on please....
As B62 points out, I think leo meant GreeK, and is reiterating my point earler.
Your minimisation and injunction to leo to move on is your classic response when a weakness in your argument is highlighted.
The point is that, as leo correctly points out, you cannot argue that "ekklesia" means "called out from the world" (which you did, and not at all in a throwaway fashion), because the word is applied equally to decidedly worldly gatherings, be they of Greens or Greeks.
[ 26. November 2014, 11:23: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Eutychus;
quote:
As B62 points out, I think leo meant GreeK, and is reiterating my point earlier.
I also realised he meant 'Greek' and saw it for the typo it was - and attempted to have a bit of fun about it to which it seems, you were totally insensitive. We did do 'ekklesia' to death earlier and we should move on. Even better, let's get back to John 18....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Eutychus;
quote:
I'm alarmed because despite my anabaptist sympathies, experience has taught me that such churches can think of themselves as above the law and answerable to nobody.
And what has that to do with whether my interpretation of the Bible there is correct??
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
What I originally said alarmed me was not your interpretation of the Bible so much as this: quote:
In simplest form, that the Church is to be separate from whatever state, tyranny or democracy, as the international people of God operating by the power of God's Spirit, and citizens of a kingdom 'not of this world'
particularly the "international people of God", "operating by the power of God's Spirit" as though no other agency came into things, and the bit about "being separate". I'm suspicious of churches that hype their claims to purity, the Holy Spirit and separateness, because in my experience they tend to be blind to their worldly aspects.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
We did do 'ekklesia' to death earlier and we should move on. Even better, let's get back to John 18....
If by "do to death" you mean you are admitting it cannot possibly mean "called out of the world" (as you asserted), on the grounds that the same word is used for worldly gatherings, then yes we can move on.
But before we get back to John 18, perhaps you'd like to enlarge on what, precisely, you mean by 'Constantinians' and 'Christian country' in your words, especially in the light of Doc Tor's post above.
[ 26. November 2014, 21:41: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
First, catching up for a while with what Alan said earlier; a longish response to part of his comments to bring out something extra about the text, a bit brusque on the later part because I want Alan to think again about several category mistakes he's making here.
by Alan Cresswell
quote:
Pilate is concerned about the possibility of a mob of Galilean yokels storming his palace. His questions, and the answers he gets, confirm that Jesus is not going to lead such a politically disastrous (for Pilate) action. Thus, there is no charge for Him to answer under Roman law.
I think we safely draw from that the conclusion that Jesus would not want us to gain political advantage by violence. We're not to form an army and march on Westminster to impose Christian faith on the nation.
SL Response;
It does sound as if, in your first couple of paras, you broadly agree with me here, though I might want to say it a bit more strongly. I'd also for completeness want to point out a couple of extra points;
1) Pilate finding Jesus innocent has implications for Gentile Romans who might want to join the church. As in, they wouldn't be joining a rebel but a person wrongly executed for other political reasons. And furthermore, the Christians didn't threaten violent response to Rome even when Rome did get round to persecuting.
2) Pilate finding Jesus innocent has implications about Jesus' status as an innocent victim in an atoning sacrifice. On the Jewish blasphemy charge, he had appeared guilty but the truth of his claim to divinity was demonstrated by the resurrection, therefore he was innocent. But if he was actually guilty in Roman terms, that at the very least muddies the waters; not only of his innocence but also about what kind of King/Messiah he was.
Jews might well accept that even if he did plan violent rebellion against Rome, he was innocent in their terms; but at the same time that would make him the standard Messiah which he rejected being. For his message to the Jews, he needed to die in a way that made clear his message as peaceable and as now reconciling Jew and Gentile, as Paul describes at length in Ephesians. And of course to Gentiles, his innocence in Jewish eyes would be irrelevant compared to his death as a rebel; they wouldn't follow him as outlined above.
But what actually happens leaves no doubt of his innocence either way, and makes clear the message that he brings the New Covenant of reconciliation, the fulfilment of the promise that Abraham would be a father of many nations, and so on. It does that precisely by establishing the peaceable nature of his kingdom.
As regards your last paragraph....
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
Does that relate to non-violent, gradual processes? If the population, freely, chose to follow Christ would not that faith be part of society? Would it not be part of the decision making process of our Parliaments? Would it not be right to call us a Christian nation? That is an entirely different set of questions that this passage in John doesn't even come close to answering, not even giving us a hint of what the answers might be. And, I can't think of any other Scriptures that would inform discussion of those questions either.
You probably think that's making a case for the 'Christian country' as a 'good idea'; actually it is just showing why and how it is such a terribly plausible temptation, and I fear, also showing how much of the biblical presentation of the church you haven't yet taken on board. Thinking like that is how the Constantinian mess started... The passage in John does contain at least the seeds of the answer.
by Eutychus;
quote:
If by "do to death" you mean you are admitting it cannot possibly mean "called out of the world" (as you asserted), on the grounds that the same word is used for worldly gatherings, then yes we can move on.
'cannot possibly mean...' is far too strong here and I absolutely do not concede it. The word even in its use about worldly gatherings conveys that idea of 'called out' to the gathering place - why can't it include that overtone in its use in relation to the Church?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm struggling here to determine whether the problem is the co-option of the Church's authority by the State, the State's authority by the Church, or simply by the Church's involvement with the State's authority - having legislators who are members of the Church.
The first is Constanianism, the second is Theocracy, and the third is democracy. ISTM that in your fervour to attack (1) and (2), you're also condemning (3). If the majority of your nation is Christian, isn't this likely to be reflected in your laws and your customs?
The notion of the majority Christian nation is problematic, though, because the label tends to hide a whole range of pluralities beneath itself. There may be exceptions, such as piously Orthodox Romania (perhaps), but Christianity in most countries is normally represented in a range of forms and competing understandings. And many democratic countries will contain growing minorities of non-Christians (or of sectarian Christians) against whom they may choose not to discriminate.
The laws of a democratic nation will always be playing catch-up in a postmodern, disjointed society. (Of course, in a non-democratic nation the lawmakers hardly care what the people think.)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Let's get back to John 18....
Eutychus, you are misconceiving the conversation between Jesus and Pilate. You are treating it as if it were a Rabbinic or Christian theological college argument with that kind of meaning of all the terms long established and well-known to the participants. And it ain't like that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is a conversation between a Galilean artisan who happens to be claiming to be 'king of the Jews' and a Roman governor who is worried about what that might mean in practice for his gubernatorial position - whether, as Alan C pointed out, this 'king' poses the risk of a stereotypical Messianic rising. And they are talking not in precise academic theology terms but doing their best in their common language of 'koine' Greek – a bit like the “English as everybody's second language round here” in which the 'Good News' Bible translation was written. ( have you ever realised that Jesus probably spoke most of his recorded teachings in Aramaic, and this passage is one of the few where it is likely we actually have Jesus' original GREEK words rather than a translation?)
This means you can't bring in extraneous presuppositions from what the words mean in your academic theology. Obviously they have a basic meaning as Greek words – beyond that, the context and the use of the words in the context is what determines their meaning. Pilate and Jesus aren't discussing your developed idea of 'The Kingdom' and the way you've somehow (and a bit oddly in my opinion and as mentioned earlier, Scot McKnight's) excluded the church from the concept – they are just discussing, well, what Jesus means by 'kingdom' and his kingship, and how it is relevant to Pilate.
And I think before I go on to expound further, I'll leave you to digest that.....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Like others, I'm wondering exactly what a Christian country is that's so bad.
Imagine a group of NT Christians who decide to build houses next to a monastery, in a remote corner of the Roman Empire, so that they can live good Christian lives in a place of prayer. Over time, the village grows, the Empire falls, some of the children and the later immigrants are less devout than the original founders, but the place retains its Christian culture, even as it grows slowly into a city-state.
At what point is it going against the gospel ?
When the elders of the community agree their first bye-law ? When they hold their first election of a governing council ? When they appoint their first paid official ? Their first law enforcement officer ? Raise their first taxes for a worthwhile project like a public well ? Pay their first soldier/guard to defend the place against bandits ? Or when they pass their first law against blasphemy or Sunday trading or bigamy or public immorality ?
What is the essence of the wrongness of a Christian state ?
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Eutychus;
quote:
If by "do to death" you mean you are admitting it cannot possibly mean "called out of the world" (as you asserted), on the grounds that the same word is used for worldly gatherings, then yes we can move on.
'cannot possibly mean...' is far too strong here and I absolutely do not concede it. The word even in its use about worldly gatherings conveys that idea of 'called out' to the gathering place - why can't it include that overtone in its use in relation to the Church?
That's really stretching it. Or contrariwise, it makes "called out" meaningless. If I'm called out to have a beer with my buds, then "called out" doesn't mean anything more than "doing something at a particular time that precludes doing some other things." Which is to say, "doing something."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
