Politics of the Message[6]: Who is “Caesar” Today?
May 28th, 2007 by JohnO
When we first started talking about these issues that “Jesus is Lord and not Caesar”, one of Sean’s first questions was about us today, who is Caesar? (I use the phrase “Jesus is Lord and not Caesar” as a catch-all for all that we’ve posted about in these last five posts). Obviously at the time of the writing of the NT this wasn’t a question that needed asking. At the time I said I wasn’t sure, and I wasn’t worried about that. If we can find the truth behind the expression “Jesus is Lord and not Caesar” in the NT we can apply it to our own situations today. This topic sprung back into my mind since I was listening to NT Wright, who was asked this very same question.
His reply is very similar to what has been running around my head. He said that not one person embodies all that Caesar represented to the ancient world. Caesar represented and proclaimed peace and preached to the world that he was the Saviour, the one in whom they could trust for security and prosperity. Even writing that makes me think of our own country. Wright said that it isn’t just one person, but rather the collection of Western government/politicians, and non-governmental bodies like the IMF (International Money Fund, they fund governments and companies in third-world operations in an attempt to create economic growth and equality).
He further went on to say that the Christian political outlook is rooted in the fact that even governments are to be submitted to Christ who has all authority in heaven and earth (Mt 28). I think this leaves us with a couple of questions:
- What does it mean to not trust in our own government welfare processes but rather trust in Jesus for our welfare? (or similar government programs…)
- If the governments have declared they want nothing to do with Jesus (through separation of church and state), how are we as Christians to express their need of submission?
I take Jesus statement in Mat 28.18 “all authority has been given to me in heaven an earth” in the same sense that I take his statement “the ruler of this world has been judged” (John 16.11). In both cases the sentence has been passed but not yet carried out. Remember from the parable of Luke 19 that Jesus goes to a far away country to receive a kingdom and then return (to execute the authority he received). Satan has been judged and in the Christian community he no longer holds any authority. Likewise, in the covenant people we perceive Jesus as the “head of the body,” our lord, the one who has authority over us all. Even so, Satan is rampant in the world and Jesus is not excercising authority over the kingdoms of this world. That happens when the kingdom comes:
In conclusion, I’m not sure in this present age that Christ has anything to do with governments yet of course governments (if they punish the wicked) are sanctioned by God.
I agree he isn’t ruling over the governments, but we look to him for all in our lives. Shouldn’t governments who wish to “kiss the Son, lest he be angry”?
Just a quick thought… One political leader that we may be able to put the Caesar label onto is the future anti-christ. He will be scene as a saviour to the world and will proclaim himself as such. It’s during that time I think that these analogies will hit home the most.
This situation seems to be a sort of two-edged sword.
I seem to remember the point I’m about to make has been touched on before and I hope I’m not just being repetitive…
But doesn’t Romans 13 imply that although we believe that Jesus is lord, as opposed to Caesar, the fact that the ‘powers that be’ are allowed to continue means that we should not attempt to oppose them, unless obedience to them constitutes disobeying the commands of God?
Even more so in view of the fact that the believers Paul wrote to in the letter to the Romans were Roman citizens in… er… Rome, and therefore Caesar’s subjects.
In this case should we not continue to acknowledge and obey the continuing temporal system whilst recognising the points in which its claims are excessive and even blasphemous?
I believe that we should render to “caeser” (our gov’t) what is due to them. I believe that in the context of what Jesus was going through during his ministry was to try to reach the people no matter what or they were or represented. He didnt care if the roman soldier was a soldier, he said “never have i seen much faith in all of isreal!”, he didnt care if the person opposed him such in the garden of gesenme when he healed the soldiers ear.
I can see that Him obeying the laws of God, over the laws of the govt yet yeilding to them what “material and worldly” things they ask. But never submitting them above God almighty.
Trusting in Jesus over the welfare and other govt programs is a topic that should really be based on what situation is at hand. Hurricane Katrina for example. People needed help from the govt. Its the govts job because of the taxes it collects. Do you think?
On your question about the seperation of church and state, i think it is just one block that falls into place leading us further into the end times and nothing we can do will ever stop it. maybe slow it down, but it is ultimately Gods plan; As I stated before, we should be about reaching the people themselves that work in the govt as Jesus did….
Alex,
Glad you joined the party! I think Romans 13 has to be seen in light of the context of the time. I don’t think the people of the time would have seen this as a call to be buddy-buddy, in league, supportive, or defending their government. Keep in mind, the Roman government would be persecuting these Christians, killing them, running them out of their homes, refusing to let them speak. It seems to me that Paul’s words, in light of the first century context, should be taken to pacify the Christians to remain passive apocalypticists, and not to become active as the Sicarii and Zealots before them. Furthermore, to look at the criticisms of John the Baptist and Jesus of their respective leaders (Herod, Pharisee, Saducee) as perhaps common? Would I be out of step to suggest that if the Roman leaders were to step into the daily life of either of them they would not have criticized with theologically pointed statements (i.e. not humanistic political reasoning)?
Joshua,
The government should feel an amount of responsibility for supplying the need of the people in Katrina. But where should Christians who have this terrible event look? Should they trust in the government? Should they praise the government for supplying money? Should they look to God for their supplication and salvation? It seems in the *least* Paul’s suggestion that Jesus is Lord and not ‘Caesar’ that Jesus deserves this placement of Saviour and supplication.
I too would have liked to have seen God part the waters from new orleans. It wouldve boosted my faith greatly. But i still think the US govt has a job to do as well. You and your tax dollars pay the govt to supply recovery needs.
If you have seen such praise that should have gone to God instead of the govt. Then i can verify that this is another reason for the current disgust of lacking faith in our nation.
(I am the other Alex!)
I cannot help but muse how different “Christ is Lord, not Ceasar”would feel if we lived in, say, Iran, where the repercussions would be immediate and severe. Perhaps some of you remember those two journalists capturered by the Palestinian Authority and released only when they “converted” to Islam. We thankfully do not face such stark choices and so perhaps they seem a little academic. But I do feel Scripture indicates we are to pray for “Ceasar” and all those in authority, something I need to do more of.
JohnO, I just reread your post, and I too have listened to NT Wright on this subject so I know where you are coming from. The problem is that NT Wright truly believes in a mild form of preterism (the kingdom has already been fulfilled in the resurrection/ascension of Jesus). In his view, the church is to bring about the kingdom through its critique of empire and by speaking truth to power (remember Jesus vs. Pilate). I fear that this form of active apocalypticism (bringing about the kingdom by doing good in the world) is not exactly in tune with the message of Jesus. It is our chore to always listen with discretion and be careful to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Having said that, I think it is unquestionable that NT Wright is correct regarding Paul’s intentional usage of political terminology to express the Christian gospel in the Roman imperial context. However, what this means is different for those of us who are futurists (i.e. see the kingdom as a primarily future event). NT Wright wants to submit all governments to the lordship of Christ (a noble ideal) and he may succeed in moving governments to do more Christ-like actions (like canceling the 3rd world debt, etc.). BUT, this has a tendency to ignore the doctrine of separation from the world AND the understanding that when Christ comes in glory he will have to take over world governments by violence (Revelation 19; Mat 25.31-34; Psalm 110; Psalm 2.8ff).
Does this mean that we should ignore social action? Should our kingdom Christianity have no effect on the world around us? Should we not love our neighbors even if they are secular humanists? No, No, No.
Sean,
Right, I feel that we are able to critique actions in the world based on the actions of Jesus Christ. We don’t debate political policy, we speak about the way we (Christians) help people in the world (This also assumes that we help people in the world through material and faith). Remember the Christians in Rome during the plauge, they were the only ones to remain helping the sick while the government left the people to die.
Wright’s ideal of submitting governments won’t work – they’ve already refused it through the seperation of church and state, and we should take that as a sign that we are unwelcome in these matters. Wright definitely has the preterist/post-mil leanings.
Sean,
While I agree that he has some partial preterist leanings, Wright doesn’t believe that the Kingdom has already come completely, nor that we are we the ones who will bring it about. In fact he spends much of his time writing and speaking about the new heavens and new earth which are to come in the future (one of my favorite lines of his is “Heaven is important, but it’s not the end of the world.”)
What he also writes a great deal about is the fact that as Christians we are called to live as personal embodiments of the Kingdom, as Jesus did, not only in word but also in deed, not only on a personal but also on a political level. How that works out practically is, of course, dependent on one’s politics.
From Mathew 21:
19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?” 21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
If you want to know who is Caesar today, take a $1 bill out of your wallet and look at the front AND the back.
From revelation 13:
16 He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, 17 so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.
18 This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man’s number. His number is 666.
But isn’t George Washington on the $1 bill? Certainly he is not nor ever claimed to be Caesar. He wouldn’t even take the title “king.” I think the analogy fails with contemporary leaders (except for maybe a few egocentrics in dicatorships) because they are not claiming to be “lord of all,” “savior of the world,” “the son of God,” and so on. However, your point about the antichrist is right on because the antichrist will definitely set himself up politically and religiously in a way that will be a direct affront to God and his true Messiah.
Please, look at the other side of your $1 bill.
Furthermore, a “Beast” is used by both Daniel and John as a symbol for a kingdom, it is not a symbol for the Anti-Christ.
“Please, look at the other side of your $1 bill.”
Do you mean the eagle? Or the conspiracy theorists’ favorite, the other side of the Great Seal of the US, with the “New Order of the Ages” pyramid and the all-seeing eye?
(Charles Thomson, who helped to design the Seal, is one of my heroes: he did the first translation of the Septuagint into English, after retiring from his post as Secretary of the Continental Congress and devoting the rest of his life to studying the Bible. He also did his own translation of the NT.)
Ferdinand,
The beast in Daniel is the little horn, and the little horn refers to a king which comes out of the 4th beast. The 4th beast is a kingdom, but the horn refers to a king, as is clearly revealed to us in Dan. 7:24.
The beast is a king and not a kingdom. He is the antichrist.
Dustin
Hi everyone.. This is an interesting topic. I’ve never heard of NT Wright before reading this article. After reading this article I did a search and found his webstie, but I haven’t had a chance to read or to listen to much of his material yet. What are his beliefs and what do you all think about him?
JohnO wrote: What does it mean to not trust in our own government welfare processes but rather trust in Jesus for our welfare? (or similar government programs…)
Ro. 13:4 “for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.”
Paul says that the civil government (the state) is a minister of God for the punishment of evil doers. It does not say that the state is a minister of God for the care of the poor. The church is the minister of God to the poor and the needy. (Acts 6:1-3) So to answer the question: “What does it mean to not trust in our own government welfare processes but rather trust in Jesus for our welfare?” It means that the churches should take the responsibility of welfare back from the state. The churches should set up their own welfare programs that would be much more efficient than the bureaucratic systems of the state anyways. Then christians should fight (through political process) to get their tax money back from the government that is wasting their money. This money then could be better used, through the tithes and offerings of God fearing people to christian ministies caring for the poor, the orphans, the widows, the elderly, etc…
2 If the governments have declared they want nothing to do with Jesus (through separation of church and state), how are we as Christians to express their need of submission?
The separation of church and state is a biblical concept that comes from the Law of Moses. The judges and officers (i.e. the state) are given power over the courts to judge those guilty of crimes (Deut. 1:15:17). The priests and levites were given authority over: 1) the temple service, 2) instructing the people (i.e. education) and 3) care of the poor. In the new covenant, the church is to 1) serve the Lord’s table, 2) instruct the people and 3) care for the poor. The state has taken the authority away from the church and is trying to extend its authority over every aspect of life. This is why out government is becoming increasingly totalitarian. There are laws now controlling: what you can eat, what charities and organizations you fund (through taxation), what you can say, what you can teach your children, how you descipline your children etc… If people reject the simple law of God, they will have to deal with totalitarianism or anarchy.
So to answer the question: how are we as Christians to express their need of submission? Government must be put back into its proper place. First Christians much educate themselves as to what the proper place of government is. I think many Christians believe that the state bears the sword in order provide welfare. This is a false socialistic view of government. Once christians realize the proper role of government, we should set up out own welfare systems, and fight (through political process) to limit the goverment by the reduction of taxation and the abolition of certain government agencies. Christians should be voting along these lines and help set up christian canidates who understand the proper role of government.
God bless you
I don’t think we should be telling the state to get out. The state is free to define its boundaries as it chooses. But I do believe that the people of faith should not have faith in government – but rather in Jesus.
My biggest presupposition to relating to the state is Jesus’ commands to be separate from the world. I don’t wish to tell the state what to do – they have a lot more problems, in my opinion, than Christians do. Therefore, my stance towards telling the government of submission is – Repent, the Kingdom of God is coming!
JohnO wrote: The state is free to define its boundaries as it chooses.
I couldn’t disagree with you more, in fact I think this is a very dangerous idea. If the state is free to define its own boundaries the state will always come to the conclusion that it has no boundaries. (individual humans come to the same conclusion also) The state will then effectively be saying that it is God on earth and not bound by any law but its own. This is the precisely the line of reason taken by the philosopher Hegel in the 19th century:
Hegel wrote: “The State is the Divine Idea as it exists on earth.”
“all the worth which the human being possesses — all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State.”
“The State is the self-certain absolute mind which recognizes no authority but its own, which acknowledges no abstract rules of good and bad, shameful and mean, cunning and deceit.”
It was this line of philosophy that set the stage for other philosophers like Karl Marx and Frederick Nietzsche and ulimately for Hitler’s and Stalin’s totalitarian regimes of the 20th century.
Our founding fathers had a different view when it came to government. Jefferson wrote: Since “the natural tendency of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield,” let “no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
In other words the state does have a set of boundaries: the constitution. This is why we have had so much freedom in our country for so long. (The constitution, by the way, grants no powers to the federal government over welfare or education) But unfortunately, with so many people thinking that the government is free to make its own boundaries, I wonder how much longer that freedom can last.
God bless you
And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.” This means that Christ has authority over: the individual, the family, the church, business, and yes even the state. Re. 1:5 “Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.” Rulers and governments are under obligation to submit themselves to Christ just as much as individuals are.
God bless you
Hi everybody,
some thoughts on what Dustin wrote above:
From the explanations given in Daniel, I would conclude that the 4th beast is representative of the Roman empire, which followed as world power after the Greek empire of Alexander had been divided. The 11 horns represent the “rulers” of that empire (individuals ruling as absolute rulers, starting with Pompei, then Julius Caesar, and the caesars/emperors leading to Vespasian being the 11th horn. During the rule of the 11th horn, the final destruction of the nation of Israel ocurred, Daniel’s people being made desolate.
As for “THE antichrist”, I am wondering if the Bible actually even speaks of one particular individual as “THE antichrist” as it is propagated by many CHristian circles who paint a future scenario with one peraon as THE antichrist. John speask in his epistle that “antichrist” was already at work at the time when he wrote, and it was not just one antichrist but many antichrists. It seems to me that there were many antichrists, and that the various interpretations about “THE antichrist” that are heard today do not take into consideration the historical context of the NT writings.
Hi Karl,
“I’ve never heard of NT Wright before reading this article. After reading this article I did a search and found his webstie, but I haven’t had a chance to read or to listen to much of his material yet. What are his beliefs and what do you all think about him?”
Wright is the Bishop of Durham, and much of his theology is associated with the “New Perspective on Paul”, which has grown out of the work of EP Sanders, locating Jesus and Paul in their proper context of 2nd Temple Judaism. For a good overview of NTW’s thought, I’d suggest his books “The Challenge of Jesus” and “Paul: In Fresh Perspective”, both aimed at the educated layman. His three volumes (and counting) “Christian Origins” series will, IMO, be considered one of the great contributions to contemporary theology. If you’d like a précis of what those books contain, go here: http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/167.
Wright has been an outspoken critic of the Jesus Seminar, and has written many, many books on both the academic and layman’s level. He is trying to change the way people think about 1) who Jesus was; 2) what the Bible means when it talks about heaven and eternal life; 3) what ‘justification’ means in Pauline terms; and 4) what it really means to be a Christian in relation to the power structures of the world. I’m a big fan.
Wolfgang, I agree that the Roman empire is the 4th beast of Daniel 7, as described here:
http://www.openbibleforum.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=293
I do not, however, believe that the eleven horns are a consecutive list of Roman emperors. The first reason for this is that the ten horns appear simultaneously. This shows the division of the Roman empire into parts when it fell.
The little horn is a power which came up among the other 10, so they all had to be existing when it came. I believe this represents the power of the state church (which became the Roman Catholic Church), which emerged after the breakup of the empire in the 5th century:
http://www.openbibleforum.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=293&view=findpost&p=2698
It is worth noting that Roman Catholic historians acknowledge that the power of the church and its popes started from this time.
I agree with you that there is no individual ‘AntiChrist’, contrary to popular Futurist expositions of Revelation. There are no Bible verses which say this.
JohnO, you wrote:
>
But I do believe that the people of faith should not have faith in government – but rather in Jesus.
My biggest presupposition to relating to the state is Jesus’ commands to be separate from the world. I don’t wish to tell the state what to do – they have a lot more problems, in my opinion, than Christians do. Therefore, my stance towards telling the government of submission is – Repent, the Kingdom of God is coming!
>
Excellent words. I find it very interesting that Unitarians almost invariably have a Biblical attitude to the church and state.
Karen,
I have been looking into the New Perspective on Paul a bit on over the last couple of months. It intrigues me and I do suspect that the Reformation got it wrong, saying that Judaism was a legalistic, nit picky, religion focused on earning salvation. I have read parts of The Misunderstood Jew by Amy-Jill Levine and she, herself a Jew, remarks that Judaism never was like that. As I read Deuteronomy and other parts of the Torah it is clear to me that the Law was based on love and obedience. The commands were for the people’s own good and the “rituals” (i.e. those commands that did not have immediate health benefits or societal benefits) provided a tangible way for one to physically encounter God. I like Wright’s statement that one becomes part of the covenant by faith alone and then stays in covenant through obedience to the terms of the covenant. This helps us to escape from the traditional Once-Saved-Always-Saved vs. Works Salvation dichotomy. Would you be willing to do a series on the New Perspective on Paul on the blog? For anyone interested Mark Mattison (an alum of Atlanta Bible College) has put together the most exhaustive page on the net regarding this…The Paul Page
“I like Wright’s statement that one becomes part of the covenant by faith alone and then stays in covenant through obedience to the terms of the covenant. This helps us to escape from the traditional Once-Saved-Always-Saved vs. Works Salvation dichotomy.”
Exactly. Wright and many of the New Perspective people approach Scripture from an entirely fresh angle, away from the traditional Reformed/Enlightenment paradigm. Doing so has breathed new life into my reading of both the OT and NT, for which I am profoundly grateful.
“Would you be willing to do a series on the New Perspective on Paul on the blog?”
I’m better at responding than generating.
If people want to discuss something they’ve read, via either Wright’s page (www.ntwright.com) or the NPP link you give, I’ll be happy to do so, though!
Sean and Karen wrote: I like Wright’s statement that one becomes part of the covenant by faith alone and then stays in covenant through obedience to the terms of the covenant. This helps us to escape from the traditional Once-Saved-Always-Saved vs. Works Salvation dichotomy.
I’ve been listening to some of Wright’s sermons lately. His view of “works of the Law” as signs of belonging to the covenant people makes a lot sense. I’ve studied some talmud and I never saw this idea of keeping the law in order to get saved in it.
I also very agree with his view that rulers need to be reminded that they are under Christ. Is Wright Postmillenial? Though I don’t know his exact views about the new heavens and the new earth, I agree with what he says about the resurrection Christ being the beginning of the new Creation. It seems like he believes that we are supposed to manifest that new creation on earth, “thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” I agree with that.
In our discussions on preterism I hear that our view of the kingdom is incredibly vague. Here is a clear view of the kingdom:
how are we as Christians to express their (that is, the government’s) need of submission? Government must be put back into its proper place. First Christians much educate themselves as to what the proper place of government is. I think many Christians believe that the state bears the sword in order provide welfare. This is a false socialistic view of government. Once christians realize the proper role of government, we should set up out own welfare systems, and fight (through political process) to limit the goverment by the reduction of taxation and the abolition of certain government agencies. Christians should be voting along these lines and help set up christian canidates who understand the proper role of government.
God bless you
So then Jesus comes to all the villages to announce “Repent, because the government needs to submit to me soon!” ?
“All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.” This means that Christ has authority over: the individual, the family, the church, business, and yes even the state. Re. 1:5 “Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.” Rulers and governments are under obligation to submit themselves to Christ just as much as individuals are.
Karl, what do you suppose we should do when the rulers and governments casually decline to submit to Christ?
But did Jesus come announcing this? “Repent, because the government needs to submit to me soon!” ? I find that very hard pressed to believe that is what the people understood at his words.
Hi Karl,
“Though I don’t know his exact views about the new heavens and the new earth, I agree with what he says about the resurrection Christ being the beginning of the new Creation. It seems like he believes that we are supposed to manifest that new creation on earth, “thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” I agree with that.”
One of Wright’s themes, which he hammers home at every opportunity, is that the Christian’s ultimate hope should *not* be to “go to heaven when you die”, but rather “new creation”, the fullness of the coming Kingdom, when God will remake the heavens and the earth and we will be bodily resurrected.
Wright believes (as do I) that the Kingdom had its beginnings with the first coming of the Messiah. He’s an ‘already/not yet’ person, who calls us to manifest the joy and love and works of the Kingdom, (as far we are able to in our earthly bodies) until Jesus returns. As far as Millennial ideas go, I think he’d be classified as a partial Preterist, although he eschews such labels, since people in the various camps always find something to argue with him about.
There are some strains of his thought with which I have difficulties, but overall he has given me a fresh appreciation and a deeper understanding of the Lord and his Kingdom, and for that I am profoundly grateful.
Indeed, NT Wright’s control text for new creation is found in Romans 8 where it is clear that the cosmos is linked to the human race. When mankind fell from glory through sin in the Garden, all of the cosmos took on futility. Now creation groans waiting for the day when the sons of God are revealed–resurrected. New creation begins when someone is regenerated/born again and exists within someone primarily in the moral sphere. However, when Christ comes then he will begin the consumation of the ages, the restorative program spoken about by all the prophets (Acts 3.21), and creation itself will be made new. Those who already experience this newness in the here and now will be the leaders of this coming age (Rev 2.26-28). This, of course, is the good news!
Fortigurn: Karl, what do you suppose we should do when the rulers and governments casually decline to submit to Christ?
If they refuse, they refuse. What do we do when individuals refuse the Gospel. You can’t make someone belief. But we also don’t stand by and say: “The president is free to do whatever he wants and I’ll continue to vote for him anyways.”
JohnO: But did Jesus come announcing this? “Repent, because the government needs to submit to me soon!” ? I find that very hard pressed to believe that is what the people understood at his words.
Surely this idea isn’t stranger than: “Repent for the kingdom of Heaven is more than 2000 years away!”
I don’t believe “at hand” to refer to a timetable. Jesus clearly says that he doesn’t know when, neither the hour, nor the day, nor the season, when the Kingdom will arrive. The restoration of the earth (as Sean mentioned) and of the Davidic Kingdom and coming judgment has meaning for every person. Whereas with “Repent, because the government needs to submit to me soon!” could only bother a politician.
JohnO: I don’t believe “at hand” to refer to a timetable.
But that is what those words mean. “Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand” Means that it’s about to take place, with reference to time. I definately doesn’t mean: “Repent for the kingdom of God is going to come in more than 2000 years.”
Karl,
What is your take on all of the “day of the LORD is at hand” language in the OT?
Nt Wright has a very good idea of the kingdom. Check out his sermon on “Jesus and the Kingdom” here: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/#ntw
Its the first audio file in the audio section. In it he also correctly states that Matthew 24 is about Destruction of Jerusalem, not the end of the world.
Hi Karl,
>
If they refuse, they refuse. What do we do when individuals refuse the Gospel. You can’t make someone belief.
>
I agree with that.
>
But we also don’t stand by and say: “The president is free to do whatever he wants and I’ll continue to vote for him anyways.”
>
I agree with that, but I would add that we shouldn’t be voting for anyone anyway.
Hi Sean,
you wrote: What is your take on all of the “day of the LORD is at hand” language in the OT?
I believe that the day of the LORD is a term used to describe God coming in judgement on a nation or people that had sinned against him. The day of the LORD can come upon a gentile nation (like Egypt: Jeremiah 46:10-11) or upon his own people Israel. (Joel) God often uses gentile nations to judge his people whether it be the Assyrians, the Babylonians or the Romans. The sinners are judged and the righteous are vindicated. For example: Jeremiah was locked up in prison by Zedekiah for teaching the coming destruction of Jerusalem. After Nebuchadnezer takes the city, Zedekiah is forced to watch all 70 of his sons killed before his eyes are gouged out. Then he is taken in chains to Babylon. (Je. 39:6-7) Whereas Jeremiah is released from prison and told that he is free to go anywhere he wishes. (Je. 40:4)
More could be said about all of this for sure. But, What is your take on all of the “day of the LORD is at hand” language in the OT?
God bless you
Fortigurn wrote: “we shouldn’t be voting for anyone anyway.”
I would respectfully disagree with this point of view. I think Christians should get involved with politics. What does everyone else think about this?
Wright believes that we should be involved in politics also. He says that keeping the gospel out of this world and confining it to individual salvation and some future existence is more of a gnostic idea. I think he has a point here.
God bless you
Karl,
Do you think there is yet a “day of the Lord” to come?
The gospel needs to go into the world, and we need to bring it there. But we have to be separate from the world. This includes government and civil action. That is my position.
I think I’m on decent standing to say that at hand can also mean near. When Jesus sends out the disciples to preach, he tells them:
And again:
The parallels of 11.20 have “come near” as Luke has in chapter 10 as well.
Yet, when asked when the Kingdom will come, Jesus replies I don’t know, over and over. I believe there is a closeness of the Kingdom that relates to distance, not time.
Hi Karl,
>
I think Christians should get involved with politics.
>
On what Scriptural basis?
>
Wright believes that we should be involved in politics also. He says that keeping the gospel out of this world and confining it to individual salvation and some future existence is more of a gnostic idea. I think he has a point here.
>
Aside from the fact that it’s common practice for any idea another Christian has which we don’t like to be labeled ‘Gnostic’ (usually for no other reason than that we don’t like it), no one here is talking about ‘keeping the gospel out of this world and confining it to individual salvation and some future existence’.
Karl,
Did you say that we are supposed to “disciple the nations?” Doesn’t Matthew 28.19 say, “make disciples of all nations?” or in other words “make disciples of [the people of] all nations?” Imperial Christianity has consistently failed (cp. Constantinian Christianity and Pre-Enlightenment Euroupe). The idea is that when the kingdom comes then we will reign with Christ over the nations.
When the kingdom comes then we will reign. Until then we will prepare by preaching the gospel and making disciples.
Fortigurn wrote: it’s common practice for any idea another Christian has which we don’t like to be labeled ‘Gnostic’ (usually for no other reason than that we don’t like it)
lol. I agree. I would guess that unitarianism would be gnostic to Wright also.
Fortigurn wrote: no one here is talking about ‘keeping the gospel out of this world and confining it to individual salvation and some future existence’.
That’s good. Then what command is there to stay out of politics?
JohnO wrote: But we have to be separate from the world. This includes government and civil action.
Art and music today are very worldy. Business is very worldly. Should Christians be separate from those fields as well?
To everyone: Please forgive if I have been argumentative on this blogsite.
God bless you
Dear John O.,
you wrote:
Jesus DID KNOW the approximate time when the kingdom would come, and he expressed it with the terms “soon, near, some stnading here will not die, this generation, etc.” What he did not know was “day and hour”.
In speaking about the coming of the Son of man and the end of the age, he alluded to the situation of a woman in pregnancy …. she as well as anyone else does not know “day or hour”, but surely she and others do know the approximate time when the birth will occur.
I would say, that your premise of “Jesus replies ‘I don’t know’” is only true in regards to “day, hour, season”, BUT it is not true regarding the approximate larger time frame
Sean wrote: Did you say that we are supposed to “disciple the nations?” Doesn’t Matthew 28.19 say, “make disciples of all nations?” or in other words “make disciples of [the people of] all nations?”
Unfortunately “make disciples of all nations” is not the best translation because the word “of’ is put in there to have it make more sense in English. With “of” it implies that “all nations” is in the genitive. If it is in the genitive then it might be tempting to see as saying “make disciples of the people of, or of a part of the nations.” Therefore implying that not the whole of the nation should be discipled. This would be hard to prove even if it were in the genitive but it is not. It is in the accusative. Here it is in greek:
πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη
literally read: “going therefore disciple all the nations”
The nations are simply the direct object of the command “disciple.” Disciple whom? the nations. Part of them? All of them. At least that’s how I understand it. I see no reason to think that this does not apply to every part of the nations.
Even if it refers only to the people of the nation, aren’t politicians and government workers people too? What if someone is called to be a politician like the way people are called to be doctors or teachers or pastors etc…
Imperial Christianity has consistently failed (cp. Constantinian Christianity and Pre-Enlightenment Euroupe).
I believe that the enlightenment and modernism failed also. I think that the biblical model of Law and government is better than any worldy model. With regards to Imperial Christianity, that is not what I am advocating. I am not advocating a church-run state that imposes religious belief upon the population. Rather, a government in it’s proper place under God and his Law.
The sins of past “Christian” dictators doesn’t make me reject the fact that Christ currently rules over heaven and earth. Nor should the false predictions of many futurists who have been wrong in the past cause you to give up your beliefs concerning eschatology without first searching the scriptures.
Sean wrote: TO HIM I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS; 27 AND HE SHALL RULE THEM WITH A ROD OF IRON, AS THE VESSELS OF THE POTTER ARE BROKEN TO PIECES, as I also have received authority from My Father;
This verse says that he already has authority to rule over the nations. “as I also HAVE RECEIVED from my father.” At least that’s how i understand it.
I am currently writing I commentary on Matt. 19:28-29. Can I post it as a topic on here?
God bless you
Hi Karl,
>
That’s good. Then what command is there to stay out of politics?
>
You could start with Romans 13:1-7. We are to be subject to the state (to the extent congruent with the law of God), we are not to run the state.
If you believe that Christ is currently reigning in his Kingdom, then I suggest you should leave him to it. I’m sure he doesn’t need your input. Such power as government provides is an inevitably corrupting influence on Christianity. I would have thought 1,700 years of history would have taught us that.
I believe Christ has received authority to rule the nations with a rod of iron, but I don’t believe he’s doing that yet. Do you?
Fortigurn wrote: You could start with Romans 13:1-7. We are to be subject to the state (to the extent congruent with the law of God),
I agree with what you say here but I asked if there was a command to stay out of politics?
Fortigurn wrote: we are not to run the state.
This may be so but Romans 13:1-7 doesn’t say anything about that.
Hi Karl,
>
I agree with what you say here but I asked if there was a command to stay out of politics?
>
I believe the commandment to be *subject* to the existing regime, which has been put in place by *God* is a commandment to stay out of politics. You cannot obey Romans 13:1-7 if you are involved in politics.
Hi Fortigurn,
why would it be that you cannot obey Rom 13:1-7 if you are involved in politics? On the other hand, does there need to be first a determination IF the current government is even placed there by God … or is every goivernment placed in its place by God and must be obeyed by those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Karl,
You are not being too argumentative. I believe that through reason and comparison we are able to discover truth together. This seems to be what we are doing.
As to the “disciple the nations” comment, my concern is that the way you say it, it sounds like Christians should be out there conquering the nations (by violence?). At least, that is just how it sounds to me. Thanks for pointing out the Greek. It is always nice to have someone on here who knows the languages.
Regarding your desire to post on Mat 19.28-29, please email it to me and I’ll work it in when there is an opportunity. (sean@kingdomready.org).
You said that Christ has authority now. I agree, this is clear from Mat 28.18 and Rev 2.28, but he is apparently not excercising that authority. The world is a complete mess. The world is unjust, the violent are in charge of many third world countries, children are regularly abused, abandoned, neglected, etc. Women are raped every day. People are murdered constantly. Property is stolen and destroyed because of greed and jealousy. We would have to agree that if Jesus is ruling now, he is not doing a good job. Could it be that Jesus has gone to the Father to receive authority (Dan 7.13-14; Luke 19) and then when he comes in power then the kingdoms of the world will submit to him?
Fortigurn wrote: I believe the commandment to be *subject* to the existing regime, which has been put in place by *God* is a commandment to stay out of politics.
I believe the commandment to be *subject* to the existing regime, which has been put in place by *God* is a commandment not to overthrow the currrent regimes by force. It says nothing about christian involvement in government. Actually, if a Christian were to be placed into a high position in the government, we would have to conclude from Romans 13 that he has been put in that position by God.
You cannot obey Romans 13:1-7 if you are involved in politics.
Sorry I don’t see the connection. “Submit to governments” does not equal “stay out of governments.”
Hi Karl,
>
I believe the commandment to be *subject* to the existing regime, which has been put in place by *God* is a commandment not to overthrow the currrent regimes by force.
>
The moment people start making qualifications of the text which are not in the text, I start to think someone has approached the text with an agenda.
>
It says nothing about christian involvement in government.
>
Exactly. It says that’s God’s business. Let’s leave Him to it, shall we? I think He knows what He’s doing.
>
Actually, if a Christian were to be placed into a high position in the government, we would have to conclude from Romans 13 that he has been put in that position by God.
>
A Christian Could not be placed into a high place in the government without their consent.
>
Sorry I don’t see the connection. “Submit to governments” does not equal “stay out of governments.”
>
You can’t be submitting to governments if you’re trying to overthrow them or change them, whether you’re using political force or any other means.
Sean wrote: it sounds like Christians should be out there conquering the nations (by violence?). At least, that is just how it sounds to me.
I’m sorry if it sounds like that. I am certainly not advocating the use of the sword to spread the gospel. I believe that the conversion of anything must first begin with the regenating power of the gospel in the life in an individual. Then that individual can work together with others to advance the kingdom into every area of life.
Sean wrote: “You said that Christ has authority now. I agree, this is clear from Mat 28.18 and Rev 2.28, but he is apparently not excercising that authority.
I think that we can agree that Christ is exercising his authority in his people today right? I also believe that God uses evil people and governments to accomplish his will often too. Some would use all of the problems in the world as an excuse not to believe in God at all. They would say: “a good God could not have created such an evil world.” This would then lead us into a discussion on the nature of evil and of human free will. I believe that God is not going to force us to beleve in him or to obey him. Since you mentioned violence earlier, do you believe that Christ will use violence to set up his future millenial reign? Also, if we are to be co-rulers with christ in the millenium, will we use violence in order enforce his rule?
Sean wrote: The world is a complete mess.” The world is unjust, the violent are in charge of many third world countries, children are regularly abused, abandoned, neglected, etc. Women are raped every day. People are murdered constantly. Property is stolen and destroyed because of greed and jealousy.”
I believe that the bible has answers to all of these problems in our day. Not just for the future. The gospel has the power to transform individuals, communities and even nations.
Sean wrote: “Could it be that Jesus has gone to the Father to receive authority (Dan 7.13-14; Luke 19) and then when he comes in power then the kingdoms of the world will submit to him?”
I believe that he indeed went to the Father and received authority. I also believe that the kingdom of God has not been fully manifested on earth to this day. But I do believe that the kingdom is manifest through his people now also.
Sean wrote: “Do you think there is yet a “day of the Lord” to come?”
Yes I do.
God bless you
Fortigurn wrote: “You can’t be submitting to governments if you’re trying to overthrow them or change them, whether you’re using political force or any other means.”
This is nonsense. It is not rebellious to participate in government. There is no law preventing christians from participating in government either in the US constitution nor in the bible. Unless of course there is a law in the bible that I’m not aware of. Then I would be interested to see it.
Fortigurn wrote: The moment people start making qualifications of the text which are not in the text, I start to think someone has approached the text with an agenda.
Romans 13 says nothing about participating in government. If it does, quote which verse specifically says this. You are approaching the text with an agenda. You are trying to derive a command from Romans 13 that is not there. If you don’t want to participate in government because of your consciense thats fine. I can’t show you verse that says: “You must participate in government.” But I still await the verse that says: “you shall not participate in any government.”
Fortigurn wrote: Exactly. It says that’s God’s business. Let’s leave Him to it, shall we? I think He knows what He’s doing. A Christian Could not be placed into a high place in the government without their consent.
What if a consenting Christian is called to be a politician or hold a government position? God can appoint anyone he wishes over the government: Christian or not.
Hi Karl,
>
This is nonsense. It is not rebellious to participate in government.
>
I didn’t say it was rebellious. I said it’s not submitting to the government. Paul says we should submit to the government. He said nothing about us changing it. Can you find me a single example in the New Testament of the apostles agitating for political change?
>
There is no law preventing christians from participating in government either in the US constitution nor in the bible. Unless of course there is a law in the bible that I’m not aware of. Then I would be interested to see it.
>
It’s quite simple. We’re members of Christ’s kingdom, not the kingdom of men. We have no allegiance here. We don’t set up and throw down kings, God says that’s His job. Paul tells us to submit to the governments, because they are ordained by God. You say we should become involved with the governments, and ordain them ourselves. How can you reconcile these positions?
>
Romans 13 says nothing about participating in government.
>
That’s my point – Romans 13 says it’s God’s job to participate in government (not ours). The message is so clear that you had to modify it by suggesting a qualification which isn’t in the text.
>
What if a consenting Christian is called to be a politician or hold a government position? God can appoint anyone he wishes over the government: Christian or not.
>
Called by whom? Do you mean asked by the government?
The Bible don’t talk about ‘participating’ in government because there was no such thing as representative democracy at the time. You can’t take the power structures of 1st c. Palestine (i.e. the autocratic authority of Rome) and translate them to a modern Western democracy. (If we do, then we should never have gotten rid of slavery, since it’s at least tacitly accepted in the NT.) Instead, we have to look at general principles from Scripture.
The Bible tells us that we are to embody and show forth the faith, hope, and above all the love, of God in Christ Jesus. Why should we exclude the political realm from that? ‘Politics’ isn’t something that’s separate from who we are, and doesn’t just consist of pulling a lever in a voting booth. It means being involved in what goes on in our communities, our country, and in the wider world. The choices we make politically, especially for those of us who are American, affect individuals all over the world. Shouldn’t we at least attempt to be on the side of the angels, so to speak?
Karen,
I’m not sure I agree completely with your first paragraph. You are right that democracy was not the government in place in 1st century Judea. However, there were political systems in affect at the time in which Jews could participate. For example, the Saducees were quite succesfull in gaining Roman authority to govern their own people and manage the Temple (the center of religious and economic life). Jesus could have opposed them and set up his own competing party to gain Roman authority and wrest it from the Saducees. He could have tried to join them (the Saducees may have liked that considering Jesus’ popularity with the masses). Another example of Jewish participation in government would be the so called fourth philosophy. These Jews were tired of waiting for God to act and so picked up the sword with the belief that as they revolted and began to fight that God would empower them. Jesus could have easily lent his authority to this movement which at his time was largely underground and subervise (but became manifest in 66ad). Jesus was proclaiming a very political message after all. He was saying that the kingdom was near. But the question is, then what should one do? The answer is the Sermon on the Mount.
Sean is correct. The sect know as the ‘Herodians’ in the gospel were a Jewish political group which supported Herod and sought to influence the local community for Herod’s ends. The Sadducees had plenty of opportunities for political involvement, and took them.
But long before that, during the intertestamental era, the experiment had already been tried by the Jews. They put together their own independent state, with their own king. Of course, their king was not anointed or sanctioned by God. They thought they could restore the kingdom on their own, in their own strength.
The result was an increasingly corrupt and savage regime which ended up with Jewish blood on its hands, and finally sold out to the Romans, who later turned around and stabbed them in the back, removing power from the Jews and setting up the Herodian dynasty.
I don’t know how many times people have to go through this fiasco before they learn it’s always going to end in disaster.
Hi Karen,
>
You can’t take the power structures of 1st c. Palestine (i.e. the autocratic authority of Rome) and translate them to a modern Western democracy. (If we do, then we should never have gotten rid of slavery, since it’s at least tacitly accepted in the NT.)
>
The Christians undermined the institution of slavery with the most powerful weapon they had – the teachings of Christ.
Long before Christians came to power in the 4th century, hundreds of Christians had already made significant inroads into the Roman slavery culture, freed thousands of slaves, and ensured a better life for many who remained in slavery.
Throughout history, we find that Christians who were *not* in positions of power were *almost always* those who fought longer and harder against slavery, and more successfully.
Look at the Quakers, for example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers), who were arguably the spearhead of the modern anti-slavery movement (starting in the 17th century when many of the ‘Reformed’ churches were happy keeping ‘the Negro’ underfoot). They achieved more against slavery, for longer, than many of the churches who held political power.
I don’t think we can equate the slavery of the ancient eastern time with the more recent western form of slavery that we knew here in America.
Slaves were paid in the ancient east. The main restriction they had was they were not free to move about. They were not held to lifelong slavery – they could buy themselves out. They were not mistreated either. Yes they were owned and could be bought and sold and traded – but their masters knew well not to mistreat slaves. Unfortunately that lesson never got to Europe and here to the Americas.
JohnO, you make a valid distinction there. Of course there were still many slaves in the Roman empire who were not paid, and some were cruelly treated ‘chattel’ slaves or ‘gang’ slaves (analogous to the New World ‘plantation’ slaves), but they were usually owned either by the very wealthy or by the state (as keeping them was expensive, though purchasing them wasn’t).
But even that’s beside the point, which is (as you say), that the Christian lesson was effectively preached in the Roman world, changing the lot of slaves forever. It was not, unfortunately, preached as effectively in the New World (though it did manage to make a difference to England very early on).
This massive social reform did not require political agitating and jockeying for power. It just required personal dedication from every day Christians. We underestimate the evangelical power of the Christian life.
Fortigurn: This massive social reform did not require political agitating and jockeying for power. It just required personal dedication from every day Christians. We underestimate the evangelical power of the Christian life.
I agree. But this or Romans 13 does not preclude christian involvement in government.
God bless you
You all make valid points, but they still don’t equate to the political power that every citizen of a democracy has in the 21st c. Yes, the ordinary Jew in the 1st c. could express himself politically…but only by taking up the sword; that was the one way he *might* have influenced his rulers. We can vote, write letters, demonstrate peacefully, give money to the organizations we believe in, etc.
Think of the Civil Rights movement. The Montgomery bus boycott, the lunch counter sit-ins, and the Freedom Rides were all profoundly political acts. Those brave souls called the world’s attention to the injustice of segregation…and changed the government and power structure of the US forever. And on that note, I’ll leave you with a quote from Martin Luther King, Jr:
“There are always those who say legislation can’t solve the problem. There is a half-truth involved here. It is true that legislation cannot solve the whole problem, but it can solve some of the problem. It may be true that morality can’t be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. It may be true that legislation cannot change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.”
Hi Karen,
>
Yes, the ordinary Jew in the 1st c. could express himself politically…but only by taking up the sword; that was the one way he *might* have influenced his rulers.
>
Actually other options were available. Neither the Herodians nor the Sadducees took up the sword. Paul, as a free born Roman citizen with every legal right available to him, could have obtained a political position. In those days it was arguably easier than it is today – you didn’t need campaigns and voting, you just needed money and a patron. Paul had that option. Luke, writing to his patron Theophilus, had that option. A number of the apostles and 1st century Christians had that option, but they didn’t take it.
>
We can vote, write letters, demonstrate peacefully, give money to the organizations we believe in, etc.
Think of the Civil Rights movement. The Montgomery bus boycott, the lunch counter sit-ins, and the Freedom Rides were all profoundly political acts.
>
I agree with you 100%. This is why I believe that we don’t need to vote or become political animals in order to effect change. The greatest and most profitable changes have come from people outside the system, not within.