Coming to Conclusions
April 14th, 2008 by JohnO
All along the big comments on this “Politics of the Message” series has been, “What does this mean for us today?”. And I want to outline some of the major points, and ask some questions in order that we can arrive at just what this means for us:
- In the atonement series I outlined what Jesus’ offense to both Rome and the Jewish leaders was: namely, that Jesus’ messianic authority challenged both parties use and abuse of power. Therefore, if Jesus uses power correctly they use power incorrectly and stand in the judgment of God for it.
- Jesus also stood against the common notion that Rome was the problem for Israel. Through his ministry he proclaimed that the demonic powers that be was the real problem. Jesus meets Satan’s temptations head on. He does not seek to violently overthrow Rome. He instead seeks to foil the kingdom of Satan in the world today by healing and forgiving in compassion.
- Paul’s choice of words when proclaiming the Christian message is stolen straight from Roman Imperial language. In effect, Jesus is the reality of which Caesar is the parody in NT Wright’s words. Caesar of course being the representative of that time. And any leader which claims to offer peace, salvation, and justice is therefore merely a parody of Jesus.
- Paul continues to tell us that we wrestle against these powers in high places, not against people.
- Jesus as the true Messiah is the one in whom true justice, peace, and salvation lie - and he is the one who wields the power of God as a ruler perfectly. However, God has ordained human government to enforce order, and Christians are not above it and submit to governmental rule.
With those three points we can add other ideas that we have also picked up along the way, namely:
- The Anabaptist tradition of separation from the world, including governmental authority. That to be a Christian implies a separation from the things of this age, and a clinging to the things of the next age.
- The idea that in Christian conversion we are truly transformed to show God to the world, and God’s Kingdom plan to the world in advance of its coming. That is to say, in God’s kingdom there will be no poverty, there will be justice, etc. Therefore to a degree the Christian mission includes these things.
- The Christian mission must have at the forefront the preaching of the Gospel message, that people turn from their sins in light of the lordship of Jesus Christ and his sacrifice. But it cannot neglect people’s needs.
Now the questions:
- How can we effectively work against the powers, while not alienating the people we believe those powers work through?
- How do we hold in tension the idea that we are to submit to a governmental authority behind which lies, to some degree, the power of Satan, and to some degree the ordination of God?
- What level of co-operation can we bear with other groups, of faith or government, which also seek justice in the world today?
- How can we distinguish between a “justice of the world”, and “justice that comes from God”?
- What will it take on our part to raise up people capable of expressing the saving Gospel of Jesus and work to reflect the Kingdom today?
There are some of the thoughts on my mind…
Hi
a few short thoughts on one of your questions
Could the answer be related to Jesus’ instruction of “Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s …” ? I suppose what is implied but not directly stated would then be “Don’t give to Ceasar what is not Ceasar’s”?
Is there any worldly government that is actually “ordained of God”? I would say that there was such in the case of OT Israel where God instructed the prophet to anoint the king whom God had ordained, and then on in the line of David which had been ordained by God to be the royal line on to finally the Messiah who was of the house of David … but can any worldly government today be said to be “ordained of God”?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Hi,
Is there such a thing as “justice of the world”? If so, what is it and who determines what is just?
Especially if one holds to the idea that we live in an evil age, how could one even think that there was “justice of the world” in such an age?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Hi
I would say it takes teaching people to indeed make the gospel message their own … that is, teach people to employ critical and independent thinking and taking personal responsibility for their convictions (rather than hiding behind a preacher, scholar, group dogma, etc).
In pursuing such a course, it seems to me that it is more important to teach people about the “proper tools and technique” for understanding the Scriptures which they then would need to utilize to arrive at their own understanding and convictions, rather than serving them one’s own understanding or a church’s dogma as a “pre-cooked” and “pre-chewed” understanding as if it were the “unquestionable, untouchable” truth.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
As to the ordination of governments:
Rom 13.1 - Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Dan 2.21 - And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:
As to the “justice of the world”, there are many non-faith, secular, humanist groups who seek to eliminate disease and poverty, increase education, and get rid of injustice/racism/prejudice.
Hi John O.,
would Rom 13:1 not indicate that ALL governments are ordained of God, and none behind which lies Satan … cp. “NO power but of God” ?
Is “the higher powers” in Rom 13 necessarily a reference to worldly government? I wonder if a Chinese or Saudi-Arabian Christian would have that opinion of their current government which will throw them in prison and/or even execute them for having come to believing in Christ?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
To your point about pagan governments it should be noted that Rom 13 was addressed originally to the capital of an empire that fiercely persecuted Christians.
Hi Sean,
indeed, we find this section about “higher powers” in an epistle addressed to believers living in the caputal of an empire that was very opposed to Christians …perhaps at the time of writing the adversity was not quite as open and to the extent as it was shortly afterwards, beginning with Nero …
Nevertheless, how can it be determined if Paul in this passage does — of necessity — mean “political government” when he uses the term “higher powers”?
Does perhaps the context from Rom 12:4-8 prove helpful where, among other services inside the church, “governements” are mentioned? should one perhaps consider that there was vocabulary used in the church which described overseers, etc as “higher” powers, such as in “power over you” (1Co 9:2; 1Th 5:12)?
In contrast, where can we read about covil government being said to be a “higher power” over believers? Is the idea of understanding “higher powers” being a reference to the civil/political government (or emperor / king) perhaps of much later origin, when political powers were intricately aligned with (sometimes bishop and civil authority being united in the same person, or like now where the Pope is a leader of both a church and a state)?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Hi John O.,
Does this statement mean that all political changes (such as setting up of / removal of kings) are God’s doings?
I think this is certainly what many kings in so-called “Christian countries” of Western Europe have happily claimed throughout the last 2000 years as long as things went well … and then they become rather quiet in their boasting when things didn’t go as well and they were de-throned or executed
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
Rom 13.2-3 clearly show that Paul is talking about government:
Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
And there is the power of Satan behind these powers:
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places]. - Eph 6.12
Hi John O.,
the real question is, About what type of “government” is Paul talking?
I did mention in my note before that in the context in Rom 12, governments are mentioned … but are they the “political state/country government”, “Emperor”, “King”, “Dictator”?
Your understanding seems to say that God does ordain Satan-empowered and Satan-directed political governments … is this really the case? or is such an idea incorrect and reflects an incorrect understanding of the “higher powers” mentioned in this passage?
Yes, I do know that God has used civil governments (and even evil ones) to be the instruments by which He carried out His judgments (cp king of Assyria who came and took the Northern kingdom of Israel, or Babylon who executed the judgment predicted on Judah, or Roman armies by whom the judgment of Judah and Jerusalem was executed) … but does that mean, that God was responsible for setting up and ordaining the government/kings of those empires / countries as such?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
What type of government.. hmm, well to add to what Sean said before… the name of the epistle is Romans.. so more than likely Paul is talking about Rome.
Hi John O.,
was “Rome” a “type of government” ? I suppose you meant to say God is responsible for setting the civil / political governments of countries and states. Perhaps you could let us know then why you think God would set up such a government as Rome which persecuted and killed those who believed in Him? Could one therefore say it was actually God’s will for Christians to be beheaded, since God could have set up a government where such would not happen but He supposedly didn’t?
Also, do you think then that “governments” in the context of Rom 12 is talking about civil/political government of a country?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
Rome was a government, yes. And yes, God put Rome in power. No, God did not sanction what they did - hence his own judgment on Rome by taking them out of power later. None of the Christian witness in history blames God for putting Rome in power which killed Christians. Yet, as I’ve established so far - God puts governments in power.
As far as Rom 12.4-8 goes, no “the body” is a specific Christian reference to the church, as established by every other epistle. And as far as Rom 13 goes, Christians are never referenced as “rulers”.
John O,
the question was not about whether or not God has put some governments in power, but whether or not God puts ALL political / civil governments in power. And as far as that is concerned, you have made claims but not established anything.
You are right, that none of the Christian witnesses in history blamed God for putting Rome in power and being killed by them … a simple reason would be because they — contrary to many modern day Christians — did not think that it was God’s ordinances that were carried out by that government. If they had thought that resisting Rome’s ordinances of bowing to false gods was resisting the ordinance of God, I don’t think they would have resisted but rather would have done what Rome asked them to do … I mean, Rom 13 does make clear that whosoever resisted the ordinance of the higher power referred to there was resisting the ordinance of God …
The use of the term “governments” in reference to some in the church may well be an indication of who the higher powers in Rom 13 are … because those higher powers are indeed supposed to proclaim and carry out God’s ordinance, and when they do, anyone resisting their leading would be resisting the ordinance of God.
But, resisting the ordinance of the Roman Ceasar to be worshipped as God was most certainly NOT an ordinance of God …. how then could those resisting such an ordinance be said to be resisting the ordinance of God?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
This subject reminds me of the time of the prophet Jeremiah
when God’s people were given over into the hand of the king
of Babylon.
God gave the king of Babylon power over the Jews because of
their disobedience to his ways. It was for judgment that this
happened.
Jeremiah told the people that if they were to fight against the
king of Babylon, that God would not deliver them.
I know God gives kings their power, and they are responsible for
what they do with it.
Q. Did God instruct the king of Babylon to take Jerusalem and it’s
people, or was that something God simply allowed to happen?
I think it was something God simply allowed to happen, for he was
not for the disobedient ways of his people at that time, nor will he
ever be for the ways of people that go against his will.
I think too, of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.
Higher powers (men who hold offices) in the church are still men
and as such might often sin. If one touches their sin, calling it into
question, or calling them into account concerning a matter, one will
likely suffer some kind of result that may be felt in the spiritual realm, or suffer some kind of treatment by others, or find either favor with God, or find his disfavor, depending of their actions.
There are right ways to deal with higher powers that have gone
off the path of life in Christ. Just because we deal with them in right
ways, doesn’t mean we will not suffer. There are forces of evil which
are by nature against God that will be against us even when we do
good.
I believe principalities or powers in the church may be good or bad.
I believe also that there are principalities and powers in the heavenly realm that are always evil, but God often uses them for good. Everything in creation belongs to God.
God used the power of the king of Babylon to bring judgment to
his people for correction and instruction for the whole world, at the
time of Jeremiah.
An interesting book on the subject of higher powers and institutions
is Bob Mumford’s ” Dr. Frankenstein and World Systems”, available through MorningStar Ministries. I remember how he said in effect that when we touch a principality
or power, we are to suffer as Christ did, outside the city.
Oftentimes there are few men who will stand in the gap, and intercede. There seem to be few who will plead the cause of any
who have been treated unjustly, and stand against the evil in the
armor of God.
I think some powers are often taken down by many, and rarely just
by one man. Some burdens are often too much to be carried by one
man alone, yet God may be raising up some Samsons who will push
on the pillars with all their might and bring down the whole house of
the enemy, though I think they may suffer for doing so.
That didn’t stop Samson.
What is to be taken down are the systems, or strongholds of evil.
When we touch those things, men often think we are against them.
They might think we are trying to destroy them or their ministry, or
might want you to think that your motives are to destroy what God
has blessed when in fact you are only wanting to take down the works of the devil as he has been working through a man and his
ministry.
God often allows systems of evil to prevail for a time, and God wants wise men who can be sensitive to the times which God has
put in his plans.
This is an interesting subject.
Wolfgang,
I only have to respond with what I already have. The entire Danielic story tells us that God sets up the beasts before the Kingdom of the Messiah. And before that, God set up Babylon to judge Israel. And before that God set up Israel to take the land from the Cannanites for their sin as well. Nearly all of Isaiah tells us that Israel will be vindicated in the face of the Gentile nations that will be judged for their sin, and will be in service to Israel as a result. This is hardly an obscure claim I’m making. It is well established here, and within Christian witness ever since the time of Jesus, and Jewish witness before it!
As far as “governments” and “rulers” being a reference, please give me one example (outside of the text in question) where the Church is ever referenced as such. I’ve already put forth that as the very beginning linchpin of your argument. It seems to have been loosed.
Hi John O., and all
while searching on something on “google”, I just came across the following interesting article on the subject of Romans 13 … admittedly, this is quite different from what we’ve been talking about, but perhaps something we should take into consideration …
http://www.hisholychurch.org/study/bklt/romans1307.pdf
I am not affiliated with this group nor have checked out what else they believe and preach … Nevertheless, this take on Rom 13 could add a few things to a correct understanding of the passage in Rom 13, where “higher powers” are so often and almost exclusively understood as a reference to civil / political government
Cheers,
Wolfgang