I've been having a very engaging dialogue with Michael Westmoreland-White, in the comments
here and
here. If you have the time, I'd encourage you to read both threads in their entirety. I've been enjoying it very much, and some of you might as well.
It began in good fun with Michael's critiques of some of the guys (and lack thereof) on my Flash banners above. But it has quickly become a very important dialogue about the nature of church and state, particularly about the nature of the state. I have had a few concerns about Michael's theology of the state, and the way it shapes his praxis. (I must point out that Michael and I agree, I think, on much more than we disagree.) In order to help clarify my concerns about Michael's thought, I gave this confession, to clear the path a bit: "Proposition: The church is a truer body of people than the state (and that is the way it should be)." It could be said that my questions about Michael's theology have revolved around this point. I said to Michael that
I get the impression sometimes that you think the church's existence is in a way subservient to that of the state, that the church's task is to help the state to become a true body of people. Put in Yoderian terms (which will probably make things much clearer), sometimes it sounds to me like you see the state as the bearer of the meaning of history, more-so than the church, and that the church's function is to help the state to be that bearer.
Now I suspected that this didn't properly represent Michael's thinking, but I haven't been able to put my finger on why I still got that impression from him. Michael responded in a brief comment that (I think) put most of the pieces together for me. He wrote:
The "bearer of history" is neither church nor state, but Jesus Christ as the agent of God's inbreaking Rule. The church is the witness to the Rule of God.
The state is one of the Powers and Authorities, created by God, fallen and rebellious, but still created to serve God's purposes--and those are preserving purposes.
In older language, the state is not an "order of creation," much less an "order of redemption," but it is an "order of preservation."
These three clear statements cleared up a great deal for me, and I think they helped me to see where our differences are coming from. For the record, I love what Michael has said here, even though I disagree with each of his three claims.
Point 1: I agree with Michael, absolutely, that Christ himself and Christ alone is the meaning of history. When we look at Christ, we see exactly where history is headed, as well as where it has been. Christ is the meaning of history, and the church is therefore the
bearer of that meaning. Michael and I agree that the state is neither the meaning nor the bearer of the meaning. I wonder if this is a point on which Michael consciously differs from Yoder, who frequently said that the church was the bearer of the meaning of history, over against the state.
Point 2: I don't think it's biblically accurate to say that the state is "created by God." I suppose historically this is a matter of debate, but I would make a scriptural case for the view that consolidated human government arose out of rebellion against God, and that God in response often commandeers the state for his own purposes, at times setting up certain people in certain positions of "power." I think it is a big mistake to see the state as something God created, as something he intended.
Michael says that the state is fallen and rebellious, but that implies logically that there was a time when the state was not fallen and rebellious. There clearly are historical/chronological problems with this view. Rather, the state arose logically out of humanity's fallenness, out of its rebellion. The first consolidated government was Nimrod's, and that is the story of Babel.
Point 3: To call the state "an order of preservation" over against an "order of creation" or an "order of redemption" is certainly a giant leap in the right direction. While I think the early Anabaptists were very close on this one, they were not sufficiently Jewish here. (Michael wants an account of the state informed by the OT. He's got it.) The Prophets, I believe, did not have as solidified a view of "the state" (anachronisms aside) as do the Anabaptists. The Prophetic view, I would argue, is that human lust for power is ever making chaos in the world, but YHWH is moving through the midst of it, in an
ad hoc sort of way, having his way in this or in that place, in this or in that time, for this or that purpose. To call the
state (as something clearly demarcated) an "order" of preservation is too strong a statement. Rather, God orders the chaos, or "an angel directs the storm."
Obviously I don't think Michael and I are worlds apart, but (if we do indeed differ on these points) I think these are significant differences that result in further disagreement down the way a little. I'd like to hear from Michael whether he thinks these are real differences between us, or whether we might be closer than our prior formulations have suggested. And I would like to hear from anybody and everybody else about where they would land on these questions.
Is Christ the bearer of the meaning of history, and not the church or state, or is Christ the meaning of history while the church (and not the state) is the bearer of that meaning? Furthermore, how is this question significant?
Did God create the state, did he establish it as an order, or did humanity create the state as a way of usurping God? If the latter, did God "reign in" the state under the lordship of Christ at the crucifixion/resurrection/ascension (as Yoder believed following Cullmann and others), or did the state only delve deeper into its "original sin" (as I believe)?
Is calling the state an "order" (of preservation) justifiable scripturally? Is the biblical view of "the state" concrete enough that "the state" is seen as something clearly demarcated from the gentile nations in general, or is the biblical view rather more fluid, less rigidly defined? What bearing does our answer to this question have on our practical theology?
27 Comments:
I would like to see you cite chapter and verse to back up the claim that Yoder says that the church bears the meaning of history. I don't believe Yoder says that anywhere. He is far too much a student of Barth to say that.
The meaning of history is the Reign/Rule of God which has been inaugurated in and through the life, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. What else could it mean to "bear the meaning of history" than this? The Church's task is most assuredly NOT to bear the meaning of history and it usurps the role of Christ (as in medieval Christendom and the idea of the pope as Vicar of Christ on earth!!!) when it attempts to do so. The church's task is to bear witness to Jesus Christ and to the inbreaking Rule of God. Period. When the church tries to be the "bearer of the meaning of history" it too becomes a Fallen/Rebellious Power--Christendom or mini-christendoms.
I admit that I was returning from Yoder to the Anabaptists in calling the state "an order of preservation." Yoder interprets Rom. 1 as simply saying that God "ordered" or "made order" out of the governing authorities. I went with that for years, but I have not found a single N.T. scholar or Greek grammarian(in 20+ years of looking for confirmation) who agrees with that exegesis, so I have recently backed off. Even Yoder can and did make mistakes.
But in my original note to you, lost in cyberspace, I placed "the state" in quotation marks and immediately switched to the language of Powers and Authorities. Here Yoder is on firmer ground. To speak abstractly of "the state" as you were doing is to reify something which is merely one of the Governing Powers. In using your language, but in quotes, and then switching terminology, I was following a very Yoderian method: Begin with the terms set by the other dialogue partner, but, if they are inadequate, redefine. :-) (The only place where Yoder referred to "the state" in the abstract was The Christian Witness to the State. Every place else, he refers to the Powers and Authorities of which governments are one. This is my preferred terminology, too.
In claiming that the Powers are created by God, I am going not with Yoder, but with Berkhof's Christ and Power which Yoder translated from Dutch to English and then cited as support in Politics of Jesus as well as with the further studies on the Powers done by Jacques Ellul and Walter Wink.
You say nothing about my Bonhoefferan argument about the Ultimate and the Penultimate which I think crucial to understanding why relative goods like (relatively) better government, relatively just laws, etc.
BTW, Yoder did not completely agree with Cullman. Cullman contrasted the view of "the state" in Romans 13 with the view of "the state" in Revelation 13. Stringfellow follows Cullmann. Yoder points out that there is nothing called "the state" in either passage. That's where he switches to Berkhof's language of the Powers.
But I do think that one must see governing authorities in some cases as reigned in by God--otherwise one has no way to distinguish between governments that are purely evil (e.g. Nazi Germany) and some that are better--often performing their purposes under God--in broken, fallen fashion.
One reason I have been so alarmed these last 7 years is that I have seen the U.S. government, which had been growing steadily more imperial since the late '70s, suddenly take a VERY imperialistic, even Beast from the Sea, turn.
Chapter and verse:
"Yet, it is clear in the New Testament that the meaning of history is not what the state will achieve in the way of a progressively more tolerable ordering of society but what the church achieves through evangelism and through the leavening process. This 'messianic self-consciousness' on the part of the church looks most offensive to the proponents of a modern world view, but it is what we find in the Bible."
John Howard Yoder, "Peace without Eschatology" in The Royal Priesthood (Eerdmans, 1994) p. 163. Emphasis mine.
Yoder was indeed a student of Barth, but as you pointed out in your tribute to Yoder, he was also a professor at Notre Dame. But neither of these influences account for this quote. This is precisely where he took Barth to task in Karl Barth and the Problem of War. Barth's Christology wasn't Christological enough, because ultimately it disengaged Christology from ecclesiology. Yoder consistently refused to separate the two, and that is why he can rightly say that the church is the bearer of the meaning of history without being a papist or whatever.
Regarding Yoder's preference for "ordered/directed" over "created/established," Kittel supports him. But the point isn't that God isn't setting people up as rulers. (At least, that's not my point.) My point is that God didn't do it to begin with, as though the principalities and powers started out as something good. That's not biblical. It's been a while since I've read Berkhof, but I would just flatly disagree with him there. Moltmann would flatly disagree with him too (cf. The Politics of Discipleship and Discipleship in Politics, p. 127), probably for slightly different reasons than me.
Regarding the problem of referring to "the state" as an abstraction, we seem to agree with each other on this point. My early use of it as an abstraction was just that, an early use of it. I agree with you that it can be unhelpful. But it can also be helpful to get the ball rolling. I could have just substituted "states" for "the state" and the problem would have been largely avoided.
Finally, you're right. I have said nothing till now about your Bonhoefferan argument. I have said nothing about it because for the most part I'm in agreement with it. The only problem I see with it (and I don't think this is insignificant) is that dichotomizing the ultimate from the penultimate (where the ultimate corresponds to the kingdom and the penultimate to worldly governments) creates the potentiality of an overemphasis on the latter, the potentiality of slowly relegating the ultimate to the land beyond time. We must insist that the church itself is the true political community. This does not deny that we should work to make a relatively better world through relatively modest demands of worldly governments. It's only meant to sternly remind us that our first, best, most important, and most political work is the work of building up the Body of Christ. And I think Yoder would say that if we are more focused on the "penultimate" than the "ultimate" (I don't think he'd ever use that language; it's too indebted to Enlightenment politics) we're ultimately not doing justice to the penultimate.
I just read your second comment:
Yes. You're right about the distinction between Yoder and Cullmann. Obviously I'm influenced by Yoder on this point, but my readings in Horsley, Elliott, and even Wright (in certain spots) have supported Yoder's thesis that Romans 13 and Revelation 13 are saying pretty much the exact same thing. Cullmann (The State in the New Testament) and Stringfellow (Conscience and Obedience) and most NT scholars see the two texts in tension. They're wrong.
On your last two points I agree with you, especially the last one. On governments being "reigned in" in certain cases (like modern day Switzerland or Japan?), there's nothing specifically Christological about the fact that some governments are not so monstrous. There were times before Christ when governments were not so monstrous. Never the big ones, and even then only rarely and for not very long periods, but there are examples. So basically I guess I agree with you that it's right to make a distinction between monstrous and not so monstrous governments (you might like to call them halfway decent), I don't agree with the Germans who saw that as a kind of direct metaphysical result of the work of Christ. Revelation 12 says the opposite. It was precisely the work of Christ that really pissed off the beast, and sent it headlong into rebellion. Before that, Satan was more substantially "reigned in."
Great discussion. Thanks for all your input.
I'd be interested in hearing the exegesis of Romans 13 which supports this view. Paul certainly seems to view government as divinely appointed (or is that just in my translation?). I would grant that in light of Romans 12, Christians should not partake in (at least) the parts of government which are responsible for retribution (and here "God's wrath" and 'governmental wrath' seem to be in step)--however, Paul's logic for not pissing off the governing authorities seems to be that they are 'ordained' by God (whatever that may concretely mean).
Surely I have gone awry. Please, set me straight. :-)
Daniel, the question turns on how to translate the term usually translated "ordained." That's what Thom and I are disputing--but both of us agree that Rom. 13 is not endorsing blind obedience to whatever government is in power (the Nazi reading).
Thom seems to think that government as one of the Powers was never created by God. But that denies the basic doctrine of creation itself: There IS NOTHING "visible or invisible" as Colossians puts it which God did not create!!!!! The Powers were created good and fell/rebelled and therefore can be redeemed. Anything else is a Manichaean view of creation and heretical.
Ultimate and penultimate are terms Bonhoeffer draws from theology, Thom, not from Enlightenment politics. I'd be interested in seeing Locke, etc. using any such terms.
Your opening quote, Thom: "Yet, it is clear in the New Testament that the meaning of history is not what the state will achieve in the way of a progressively more tolerable ordering of society but what the church achieves through evangelism and through the leavening process. This 'messianic self-consciousness' on the part of the church looks most offensive to the proponents of a modern world view, but it is what we find in the Bible."
John Howard Yoder, "Peace without Eschatology" in The Royal Priesthood (Eerdmans, 1994) p. 163. Emphasis mine.
Did you notice that it does not prove what you claim it proves??Nothing in that quote calls the church the bearer of the meaning of history. If that's as close as you can come, you've lost your case--at least as far as having Yoder as an ally. What Yoder says is that the church will achieve through evangelism and through the "leavening process" (i.e., through being salt and light--through influence in society). That does not make the church the bearer of anything--it makes it the elect witness (and, by grace, invited participant in) God's redeeming work in the world--i.e., the elect witness to Jesus Christ.
And Barth never separated Christology and ecclesiology as Yoder himself says in his essay, "Karl Barth: How His Mind Kept Changing," in How Karl Barth Changed My Minded., Donald K. McKim (Eerdmans, 1986). Just as Barth saw election centered in Christ, so also he saw the church, if it was to be truly the Church of Jesus Christ, centered in Jesus Christ.
I have also just noticed a note you write elsewhere that is a clue as to why you are misreading me in a Constantinian direction that I do not support: You write about confession that I find Stout more helpful than MacIntyre, you put in parentheses Stout's most recent book, Democracy and Tradition. But I didn't cite that book because I have yet to read it. I was thinking of Stout's Flight from Authority as a better account of the problems stemming from the Enlightenment than MacIntyre's After Virtue and Stout's Ethics After Babel:The Languages of Morals and Their Discontents as a superior account of how moral traditions evolve and communicate with each other than either MacIntyre's After Virtue OR his Whose Justice? Which Rationality?. I will probably like the latest book, too, but I don't know how much since I haven't yet read it. (Cf. also Michael Walzer's Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad.) I know there will be some points of disagreement because Stout is a self-professed agnostic who values some kinds of religious voices, whereas I am a Christian.
I am not an enlightenment liberal nor a closed communitarian, but an open communitarian with liberal sympathies. :-)
You also state somewhere (I'm tying up loose threads) that I want OT insights on "the state." While nice, I didn't say that. My comment on the Old Testament was to be horrified that MacIntyre could be so dismissive of the entire Hebrew tradition--his Aristotelian/Thomism is a form of Marcionism--and violent and Constantinian to boot.
I also do not claim that drawing out the biblical view of justice gives an untraditioned definition--It gives a NORMATIVE tradition for Christians.
Hey, Daniel.
Have you not read that far in Politics of Jesus yet? The gist of it is this: When a Jew says that God establishes pagan rulers, he is saying at least two things: 1) God is the boss of him and 2) God will throw them down just as surely as he set them up. Read Isaiah 10, Jeremiah 27-29, and then go back and read Romans 13. This time, don't stop at verse 7, and pay special attention to verses 11 and 12.
And yes, "ordained" is a bad translation. So is the NIV's "established." That's too permanent. In the Jewish mind, God sets 'em up and knocks 'em down. He never sets 'em up and doesn't knock 'em down. If he were to set them up permanently, he wouldn't be fulfilling his covenant promises. The word is tasso, which is the root of hupotassesthai in verse 5. It does not mean submission, but subordination. It means "place yourselves under."
The governments are put in their place in the scheme of things by God. So too we also ought to stay in our place in the scheme of things, which is only temporary. God has not made us master over anyone, we ought not to make ourselves master. We are to be subordinate. It does not call for unquestioning obedience to the government. It does not even call for a positive attitude toward government. It calls for us to stay in our place, awaiting the deliverance of the Lord (vv. 11-12).
Ephesians 5:21 says "place yourselves under" one another out of phobos (fear) of Christ.
Romans 13:3-5 says we ought to "place ourselves under" the authorities because of phobos. Our submission to the authorities is not something different from our submission to one another. We are to subordinate ourselves impartially to all men, brothers and rulers. This should be read in light of Romans 12:3-5. 13:1-7, then, would just be an extension, showing that our responsibility to love one another extends beyond the borders of the ekklesia and into the terrain of our enemies.
Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:17. The NIV translates it: "Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king." Here is another gross incidence of the NIV's conservatism. The Greek says "pantas timesate, ten adelphoteta agapate, ton theon phobeisthe, ton basilea timate. Translation: "Revere everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Revere the emperor." Peter tells us to show the emperor the same respect we show everybody else. The word in both instances is timeo. The NIV translates the first one "proper respect" and the second one "honor." But Peter is saying something else entirely. He's saying that our obligation to honor everybody means everybody, yes, even the idolatrous emperor.
Peter goes on to show that the reason we treat kings and masters with honor is not because they deserve it but because we are to suffer as patiently as Christ did. He gives the example of the unjust master, and the point is clearly that we are to treat these tyrants with respect regardless of their tyranny.
Neither Paul nor Peter have a very favorable view of Rome.
Thom seems to think that government as one of the Powers was never created by God. But that denies the basic doctrine of creation itself: There IS NOTHING "visible or invisible" as Colossians puts it which God did not create!!!!! The Powers were created good and fell/rebelled and therefore can be redeemed. Anything else is a Manichaean view of creation and heretical.
Michael,
I realize you don’t have the time to be in this dialogue, but your responses are growing more impatient, and less attentive. And now you’ve implied that I’m a Manichaean dualist (the absurdity of which I’ll get to in a moment) and thus a heretic. (I won’t respond to that.)
First, I gave a scriptural argument which you haven’t addressed. The first consolidated human government (organized by Nimrod) was an outright act of rebellion against God that God opposed and broke up. I am not denying the fall, Michael. I am denying that consolidated human government existed before the fall, and I am saying that consolidated human government itself is a symptom of the fall.
Moltmann doesn’t believe the powers ever fell. Is he a Manichaean? Is he a heretic? The powers didn’t fall. Humanity made the powers powers when we gave them power over us (that’s Moltmann’s point on p. 127). Before the fall there was only one power, and after the redemption of creation there will only be one power. The powers will not be redeemed. They will be dissolved. They will either be snuffed out, or they will cease to be powers. This is hardly Manichaeanism, Michael.
Ultimate and penultimate are terms Bonhoeffer draws from theology, Thom, not from Enlightenment politics. I'd be interested in seeing Locke, etc. using any such terms.
You skipped over most of the much more important stuff in that paragraph. Nonetheless, what I obviously meant was that it creates the potential (I used that word) of separating the kingdom of God from the governments of the world on a chronological timeline. Calling it “enlightenment liberalism” was just sloppy. I could have called it Greek.
Regarding the Yoder quote, you said:
Did you notice that it does not prove what you claim it proves?? Nothing in that quote calls the church the bearer of the meaning of history. If that's as close as you can come, you've lost your case--at least as far as having Yoder as an ally. What Yoder says is that the church will achieve through evangelism and through the "leavening process" (i.e., through being salt and light--through influence in society). That does not make the church the bearer of anything--it makes it the elect witness (and, by grace, invited participant in) God's redeeming work in the world--i.e., the elect witness to Jesus Christ.
Michael, how do you define bearer? I’m appealing to a dictionary:
1. someone whose employment involves carrying something; “the bonds were transmitted by carrier” [syn: carrier]
2. a messenger who bears or presents; “a bearer of good tidings”
To bear the meaning of history is precisely to be a witness to it. We come bearing what—the meaning of history, which is what—Jesus Christ. I am not disagreeing with you. You are disagreeing with me.
As for your reading of Yoder’s quote, I think you’re missing it just a bit. Let me cut out the subordinate clause and give you the basic sentence:
“Yet, it is clear in the New Testament that the meaning of history is . . . what the church achieves through evangelism and through the leavening process.”
Okay. You’re right. He doesn’t say in so many words that the church is the “bearer of the meaning of history.” What he says is that the church achieves the meaning of history in what it does. He goes on to say that the church has a “messianic self-consciousness” which means Yoder believes that the church is supposed to see what it does as the work of Jesus, which is the meaning of history. If that’s not good enough for you, how about this one:
“In the Bible, the bearer of the meaning of history is not the United States of America, nor Western Christendom, but a divine-human society, the church, the body of Christ.”
John Howard Yoder, “Reinhold Niebuhr and Christian Pacifism,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 29 (April 1955), p. 113.
If that’s not good enough I’m sure I’ve read him saying the same thing in a couple of other places. (But several of my Yoder books are loaned out right now.) Anyway, here we have in no uncertain terms Yoder saying that the church is the bearer of the meaning of history. Now either you can concede that we’re saying very similar things with different language, or you can disagree strongly with Yoder (and me).
And Barth never separated Christology and ecclesiology as Yoder himself says in his essay, "Karl Barth: How His Mind Kept Changing," in How Karl Barth Changed My Minded., Donald K. McKim (Eerdmans, 1986). Just as Barth saw election centered in Christ, so also he saw the church, if it was to be truly the Church of Jesus Christ, centered in Jesus Christ.
That book’s on my shelf and I’ve read the essay a couple of times. But Karl Barth and the Problem of War is an extended argument that Barth fails to be properly Barthian (i.e. Christological) precisely in his ecclesiological ethics. This was the single exception in Barth to his marriage of Christology and Ecclesiology, an exception that only someone with the patient reading skills of Yoder could pick up on.
I have also just noticed a note you write elsewhere that is a clue as to why you are misreading me in a Constantinian direction that I do not support: You write about confession that I find Stout more helpful than MacIntyre, you put in parentheses Stout's most recent book, Democracy and Tradition. But I didn't cite that book because I have yet to read it. I was thinking of Stout's Flight from Authority as a better account of the problems stemming from the Enlightenment than MacIntyre's After Virtue and Stout's Ethics After Babel:The Languages of Morals and Their Discontents as a superior account of how moral traditions evolve and communicate with each other than either MacIntyre's After Virtue OR his Whose Justice? Which Rationality?. I will probably like the latest book, too, but I don't know how much since I haven't yet read it. (Cf. also Michael Walzer's Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad.) I know there will be some points of disagreement because Stout is a self-professed agnostic who values some kinds of religious voices, whereas I am a Christian.
Cool. Thanks for pointing that out.
I am not an enlightenment liberal nor a closed communitarian, but an open communitarian with liberal sympathies. :-)
Yes indeed. And I’ve never accused you of being an out and out liberal. Like I said above, we agree on a lot more than we disagree. I am just trying to probe you to see exactly what you think, and I’m slowly finding out.
You also state somewhere (I'm tying up loose threads) that I want OT insights on "the state." While nice, I didn't say that. My comment on the Old Testament was to be horrified that MacIntyre could be so dismissive of the entire Hebrew tradition--his Aristotelian/Thomism is a form of Marcionism--and violent and Constantinian to boot.
I also do not claim that drawing out the biblical view of justice gives an untraditioned definition--It gives a NORMATIVE tradition for Christians.
Yes, we’re in full agreement here. And I realize(d) I was being a wee bit unfair with that OT statement, but it was meant to be slightly humorous, not precise.
Thanks for keeping up the pace! Grace and peace.
By the way, Michael, I've added two new banners:
Banner 1: Toyohiko Kagawa, Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., James Hal Cone, Desmond Tutu
Banner 2: Hannah Arendt, Simone Weil, Dorothy Day, Joan Baez, Nancey Murphy
Thanks for the push. I'm proud to show off these faces.
Congrats on the new banners! Er--Joan Baez, the agnostic?
Yes, I was growing impatient. Sorry. See why I never believed in perfect sanctification?
I agree with the set up and knock down pattern, but still believe government is not just a result of the fall. I have that Moltmann book and will relook at it. I can't imagine him saying the Powers are uncreated. To admit that anything is uncreated except God is Manichaean--whether one wants that to be the case or not.
You are right about Yoder's argument in KB and the Prob. of War, of course. And your further quotes from Yoder are provocative. But I am still very wary of this "bear history" idea. If I had John here, now, we'd be having a vigorous discussion, I can tell you. We are the followers of the Messiah, but, it seems to me that the Church has had far too many times in history when it had a "messianic self-consciousness"--and usurped the role of Christ.
Yoder once said in a speech I heard that Church had the potential of being the only unfallen (or fully redeemed) Power. But, he agreed that it didn't often live up to this.
While I am very aware of the potentials of governments to become demonic--and think ours is very much along those lines, now--I am also aware of the Church's similar potential. (Or why would there be Confessing Church moments?) And when a demonic-leaning church teams up with the state, we have REAL problems.
We are closer to agreement than many. Arguments between siblings can be fierce, no? :-)
The Bible doesn't say the Powers will be dissolved in the eschaton, but transformed: "The Kingdoms of this World will become the Kingdom of our God and of His Christ."
Thanks for your good response. One quick point of clarification.
I have never said that the powers are uncreated. I have been saying that they were not created as "powers," but that human sin empowered them. (I actually agree with Moltmann here, which isn't rare, but it ain't common neither.)
Obviously God created everything. But that doesn't mean he created human government as such or that he created the supernatural beings behind human governments precisely as powers behind governments. I am saying that after the fall things changed for all creation. All kinds of creatures took on roles they weren't created to fulfill, roles no one but God was meant to fulfill. The "principalities and powers" were something else beforehand, until we empowered them. Moltmann rightly sees that the "fall of Lucifer" myth is hard-pressed for biblical validation.
I guess the point is, what I am saying is not Manichaean. If you think it's a heresy, you need to call it by another name. :)
You're right to point out the danger of messianic self-consciousness. But it's only a slippery slope once certain errors are in place. If we properly grasp the nature of Jesus' messianity, seeing ourselves as continuers of his work is nothing but good for the world. I see that as the thrust of Yoder's entire project.
You are also right, of course, to remain focused on the fact that the church has been just as unfaithful as the rest of the world. That wouldn't necessitate, however, that we should change what it's called when the church is faithful to the way of the Messiah.
Regarding your last statement, wherein you quote Revelation 11.15 in support of your view that the powers will be transformed, not dissolved, I would just say that the text is open to being read either way. It could very easily mean (and I believe it does mean) that the powers will be replaced by the Power, the kingdoms of the world will become (i.e. be replaced) by the kingdom of God and his Messiah. In other places Revelation goes into graphic detail about the destruction of the powers in the "lake of fire." The kingdoms of the world will become the kingdom of God because all those who have opposed God (which is the whole history of human government, according to apocalyptic literature) will either cease to be powers and become something else or they will cease to exist.
We might not ever agree on this, but I hope I'm making myself clearer. I don't mind being disagreed with, I just don't like being disagreed with because I'm misunderstood.
This is one of those cases where if an outsider came in and eavesdropped, she'd have no idea why the hell our disagreements mattered in the face of our more substantial agreements. That doesn't mean I don't think they matter. It just means I'm glad this is an in-house debate.
Okay, I understand why your view (and possibly Moltmann's) is not Manichaean. I still don't agree, but at least I see you don't believe a huge heresy. This was a big point because I believe that Hauerwas and many disciples have too undeveloped a doctrine of Creation and its goodness.
One reason why I am surprised by the Yoder quotes which seem to support your "bearer of history" view is that Yoder warned constantly that "it's not our job to make history come out right." That's God's job. Believing that it is ours (whether "we" are the church, the nation-state or some other "we") involves the temptation to violence. If, instead, our job is to bear witness to GOD's redeeming work in history, then we, the church, have the possibility of remaining faithful. If "messianic self-consciousness" means we are followers of the Messiah, o.k. If it means we think WE are the messiah--NO WAY. That's the road of imperial fantasies and much bloodshed.
In fact, I am convinced that you must be misreading Yoder to think that the church is to "continue the work of Jesus" because he was such a constant critic of the "building the Kingdom" theme in the Social Gospel and he was a huge critic of similar impulses in liberation theology. That way leads violence and burnout and unfaithfulness. We don't bring in the Kingdom--God does and we announce it joyously. Of course, God may use our faithful actions in this work--but that in itself is an act of grace.
Yoder's constant theme of worrying more about faithfulness than effectiveness is relevant here.
Now, about the destruction of the kingdoms in Revelation. Notice that the kings of the earth who are destroyed by the "sword of his mouth" of the Rider on the White Horse (Whose Name is Word of God!) come into the New Jerusalem in the next chapter "bringing their glory with them." That is, every Power, including every State is against Christ (there are no Christian nations) but they are conquered by evangelism and then redeemed. Each culture, stripped of its sinful elements and glorified, becomes part of the Heavenly City.
You are right that this is an inhouse debate, but things are still important. I worry about temptations to neglect penultimate things, to neglect relative goods (including good governance). I also worry that overemphasis on the Powers as always demonic amounts to "all cats are grey at midnight" and keeps us from making good judgments about relative goods and evils--things that are not simply demonic or divine.
I worry about churches blinding themselves to correction from pagan voices because "we are a truer body of people." We need rather to be open to great surprises, "I have not found such faith in all Israel."
Finally, I worry that some Hauerwas influenced folks collapse the doctrine of the Church and the doctrine of the Kingdom of God. The Church is NOT the Kingdom. In some ways the Kingdom will be wider and others narrower. We pray not for the triumph of the church, but for the coming of the Kingdom. The church, the People of the Way, are the pilgrims traveling to the Kingdom, the witness of it, those who receive it with joy--but they do not rule it and they do not bring it--except by God's grace in Jesus Christ.
This will be my last post for awhile, friend Thom. I have to finish some things this week for the upcoming summer meeting of the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America. Yoder used to visit sometimes and Jim McClendon often came and I miss them both. But Glen Stassen will be there and many others whom I see once a year.
Grace and peace,
Michael
Thanks for the great response, Michael. I’m grateful that you got this much said before you had to go. Here are some piecemeal responses:
This was a big point because I believe that Hauerwas and many disciples have too undeveloped a doctrine of Creation and its goodness.
Perhaps. But I don’t want you to read me as a Hauerwas disciple. I once considered myself such, but I’m more interested in Yoder now, mostly because being a “disciple of Yoder” leaves me a lot more room to be a biblicist. (Although, Hauerwas is coming around slowly here. At a conference in K.C. I actually heard him commend the audience to read the Bible!)
One reason why I am surprised by the Yoder quotes which seem to support your "bearer of history" view . . .
Point of clarification: The “church as bearer of history’s meaning” concept wasn’t something I came up with that I found support for in Yoder. I learned it originally from Yoder. He taught me to think that way.
. . . is that Yoder warned constantly that “it’s not our job to make history come out right.” That’s God’s job.
True. But this is only a problem for the “bearer of history’s meaning” statement if you’re reading something into the “bearer of history” statement that isn’t there. (Point of correction: “bearer of history” is your phrase, not Yoder’s or mine. Yoder’s phrase is “bearer of the meaning of history.” By reducing it to “bearer of history” you’re opening it up to constantinian construal.) Obviously Yoder isn’t saying that being the bearer of the meaning of history means it’s our job to make history come out right. I suspect that if that’s how it sounds to you, the problem is with your understanding of Yoder’s claim, not with the claim itself. In local context, he’s saying that the church and not the state possesses the mystery of cosmic redemption/salvation/liberation. He’s simply saying that America is not the messiah as it often claims to be, nor does it represent a messianic hope, but that (you could put it this way if you need to) the work of the church is the God’s work for the redemption of the world. (Obviously Yoder is not here denying the broader work of God in history, through human institutions and governments. He is not excluding God from working with or through America. Rather he is reminding us that the church, and not America, has the resources America needs to be transformed, and further, that even when God is working through America, it is not the kind of work capable of transforming the entire cosmos, or any part of it for that matter. Only the church has been entrusted with that power—the gospel is the transforming power of God when it is embodied in an ecclesial politics.)
Secondly, you are of course right that Yoder insisted that God and God alone would make history come out right. But one needs to be careful not to read that in any Lutheran sense, as though Yoder is making a claim (a la the Lutheran reading of Paul) about grace versus works, or the like. You know that for Anabaptists that dichotomy is almost unintelligible. But for Yoder in particular, when he insists that God and not any particular nation-state or constantinian adventure is directing history, he is not saying (as you know) that God is determining history apart from human activity. What Yoder means when he insists that it’s God’s job to make history come out right is not that we shouldn’t try to make history come out right but rather that we shouldn’t try to make history come out right some way other than God’s way. Of course Yoder insisted that the criterion of “success” for Christians is not success but faithfulness, but ultimately, Yoder believes that our faithfulness will be used by God successfully. Our crosses will become resurrections, and slowly, bit by bit, the world will be renewed, until the consummate hour. All this is to say, Yoder’s insistence that history is God’s not ours is rather an insistence that when we try to save the world we do it like Jesus did it and not some other way. Yoder would never say that it is not our business to save the world. He did see the work of the church as a continuation of the work of Jesus (I know you say you’re convinced otherwise, but it was Yoder who taught me to see the church in this way). To Yoder, we are in the same position as Jesus, prior to the cross. We are to witness to the kingdom just as Jesus witnessed to the kingdom. We are to deliver the kingdom in the exact way that Jesus delivered it. And just as he did with the work of Jesus, God will do with our work whatever he will. It’s just that he wills to use a certain kind of work (the kind commensurate with his character) to transform the world. Thus Paul says that insomuch as we are participators with Christ in his sufferings, we are participators with him in New Creation (resurrection).
Believing that it is ours (whether "we" are the church, the nation-state or some other "we") involves the temptation to violence.
Well, it should. If the kind of work we’re involved in does not tempt us to use violence, then we must not be doing God’s work, because Jesus’ work brought him directly into exactly that temptation on multiple occasions. Our task is not to avoid the temptation to use violence, for that could easily wind up being a form of withdrawal or quietism (which you certainly don’t want). Our task rather is to do the kind of work that inevitably brings us into contact with the violent option. Our task when we are faced with that option is to reject it, in favor of real revolution.
Now, I understand that Yoder’s statement makes it sound like there’s only two choices, between us letting God have history or us taking it as our own. But I think in his broader argument Yoder represented a third option: us giving up history to God not by not working toward the outcome we want but by working for it in a particular kind of way, which we could call messianism, or cruciformity, whatever short-hand terminology gets the Yoderian point across. Faithfulness itself is not our mission. Our mission is to participate with YHWH in the New Creation of the cosmos. Faithfulness is our means. From Yoder’s view, we can never know that our means “aren’t working,” because our means entails our abandoning success to the sovereignty of God. This way everything we do is infused by faith, and everything we achieve is achieved by "grace," because the kind of work we do requires sovereign direction and empowerment. That, I am convinced, is what Yoder means when he insists that the outcome of history is God’s. And that is why his language of the “church as bearer of the meaning of history” is perfectly consistent with his insistence that it is up to God to make history come out right. For the church (and only the church) has received via the pattern set by Jesus the only kind of political activity that truly brings glory and announces the lordship of God, namely, the kind that can't win the day apart from "divine intervention." (I put divine intervention in quotes because I don't want it to suggest that God was uninvolved up until the point of "intervention.")
If, instead, our job is to bear witness to GOD's redeeming work in history, then we, the church, have the possibility of remaining faithful. If "messianic self-consciousness" means we are followers of the Messiah, o.k. If it means we think WE are the messiah--NO WAY. That's the road of imperial fantasies and much bloodshed.
Again, the road of imperial fantasies and much bloodshed is not the result of a messianic self-consciousness; it is the result of a false messianic self-consciousness. To be a "follower" of the Messiah, Michael, is to do what the Messiah did. Being conscious that we are continuing the work of the Messiah is not the same thing as saying that we are the Messiah himself. However, we recognize that by following him we are doing his work, which makes us "little-messiahs," which is precisely what we're calling ourselves when we call ourselves Christians. (More on continuing the work of Jesus in a bit.)
In fact, I am convinced that you must be misreading Yoder to think that the church is to "continue the work of Jesus" because he was such a constant critic of the "building the Kingdom" theme in the Social Gospel and he was a huge critic of similar impulses in liberation theology. That way leads to violence and burnout and unfaithfulness. We don't bring in the Kingdom--God does and we announce it joyously. Of course, God may use our faithful actions in this work--but that in itself is an act of grace.
Yoder's constant theme of worrying more about faithfulness than effectiveness is relevant here.
First of all, liberation theology doesn't have to be constantinian, as I'm sure you know. It doesn't have to be about being on the winning side, and the best of it is not at all about that. See for instance this quick quote.
Secondly, we are in large agreement here. I disagree with you that I'm misreading Yoder, as outlined (not in detail) above, but your constructive content is correct. However, "continuing the work of Jesus" does not imply "building the Kingdom" in the Social Gospel sense, or in the sense of certain brands of Liberation Theology. This is a hugely important point, one on which Yoder was exactly right. Yoder could have bolstered his position by further exegesis on relevant texts, but the fact is, Jesus himself wasn't "building the kingdom" in the kind of senses Yoder critiqued. Jesus was a thoroughgoing realist, as well as a thoroughgoing idealist (kind of like fully-Man/fully-God). He called his people into an alternative society, that threatened the power-structures of the status-quo, without threatening violence or coercion, except eschatologically by God's own hand. (He made that clear!) He healed. He forgave sins. He disciplined. He taught. He prophesied. He chose poverty. He stood in solidarity with the poor, the oppressed, the sinners. He challenged the system that produced such people by building a system of love and equality (yes, that's a shady term sometimes) that was capable of both withstanding and engaging systems of injustice. In all of this, he did only what the Father told him to do. In all of this, he acknowledged that not he but the Father was doing it through him. Ultimately, he abandoned himself and thus his work to the Father's determination by doing exactly what he called his followers to do by taking up the cross. The success or failure of his life's work would be the determination of God and God alone. In short, Jesus himself did nothing, in the same sense you are saying we can do nothing. Anything and everything that Jesus accomplished, it was God the Father who actually accomplished it.
Thus there is no contradiction between "continuing the work of Jesus" and letting history belong to God. There is no contradiction between the church's having a "messianic self-consciousness" and the church's anti-constantinian commitment to God's sovereignty in human history. There is no contradiction because the Messiah himself is the model of proper participation in cosmic redemption. In fact, the Messiah himself told his followers that they would do the same and greater works. He charged them with the divine power to forgive sins, and even to withhold forgiveness of sins.
If you are still convinced that I am misreading Yoder, I can try to round up some more quotes to illustrate what I'm arguing is his view. Again, the fact is, I did not think this way about the church until I read Yoder, so while it may be the case that I am "reading into" him a prior conception, I can give no account of where this idea would have come from apart from my reading of Yoder. (Yoder was my first real foray into theology.) It was a conscious paradigm shift for me induced by my reading of him. It began with the second half of the The Politics of Jesus where he argues that the apostles taught that we were to continue the sufferings of Jesus and that God makes our suffering also in some way efficacious for the world. I've found this theme to be recurrent throughout Yoder's corpus.
I will try to address the question about the powers and the book of Revelation in the near future. (I'm going to do some more exegetical study of Revelation 21.24. The four commentaries I've consulted so far do not support your use of it, but I'm going to keep looking to see if I can find one that does.)
Regarding your list of worries and concerns about tendencies you may be perceiving in my theology, let me say that I share all of those concerns with you.
I worry about temptations to neglect penultimate things, to neglect relative goods (including good governance).
I share this concern with you. I have not been attempting to reject a theology that produces the kind of disciples you and Bonhoeffer are concerned to produce. I absolutely agree that we should be active in trying to draw the world toward more relative goods. I certainly am not advocating a theology that neglects our responsibility in that regard. I have been probing you to try to understand the nuances of your theological motivations to engage in such activity. I have had concerns (probably mostly based in ignorance) about the theology driving you, not necessarily about where you're being driven itself. Our disagreement about the origin of the principalities and powers is significant in this regard. But we should let exegesis of the Scriptures determine what we believe here, and not the end we already have in sight. (The latter alternative is one of the things that so frustrates me about some of Hauerwas's theology. He "no longer trusts the distinction between exegesis and eisegesis," except of course when it serves his theology to have scriptural support.) Don't hear me wrong. I'm not saying that I have exegetical support and you don't. Especially for the interpretation of Revelation 21.24, that remains to be seen.
(By the way, you sound like a postmillennialist. Would you describe yourself as such, at least in general terms? And if not, how is your view that the powers will be evangelized and transformed before the end distinguishable from postmillennialism?)
I also worry that overemphasis on the Powers as always demonic amounts to "all cats are grey at midnight" and keeps us from making good judgments about relative goods and evils--things that are not simply demonic or divine.
Yup. Me too. I'm just also very concerned to make sure we're not over-hastily labeling relatively good what could be a potentially destructive subversion of Christianity.
I worry about churches blinding themselves to correction from pagan voices because "we are a truer body of people." We need rather to be open to great surprises, "I have not found such faith in all Israel."
I absolutely agree with you here, and my claim that the church is a "truer body of people" was certainly not meant to be construed as a denial that we have anything to learn from other bodies of people. I certainly believe that we do. But we can't make any general claims about that. We have to be talking specifics. But I'm all in favor of mutually-illuminating dialogue with other traditions. That's actually part of what's entailed in being that "truer body of people." There are certain conversations in which a capitalist democracy must refuse to engage a priori, in order to safeguard the grounds upon which it claims to be a legitimate authority. That is part of what makes capitalist democracies false bodies.
Finally, I worry that some Hauerwas influenced folks collapse the doctrine of the Church and the doctrine of the Kingdom of God. The Church is NOT the Kingdom. In some ways the Kingdom will be wider and others narrower. We pray not for the triumph of the church, but for the coming of the Kingdom. The church, the People of the Way, are the pilgrims traveling to the Kingdom, the witness of it, those who receive it with joy--but they do not rule it and they do not bring it--except by God's grace in Jesus Christ.
We are in complete agreement here. Conflating the church with the kingdom is something I have always opposed. I have opposed it ever since I was a freshman in college (back in 1999) and my professor (the one who I mentioned earlier who has Stassen as a reader on his dissertation) taught us that it was a big mistake. He was particularly influenced by Kung's famous line, "Jesus Christ came to build a Kingdom, and all we gave him was a church."
Have a great time at the Baptist Peace Fellowship meeting! Thanks for all the effort you've expended on this dialogue. It has helped me out a lot! I look forward to some future ones.
Grace and peace,
Thom
Perhaps the conversation has petered out a bit, but I'll throw my 2 cents in.
Is Christ the bearer of the meaning of history...or is Christ the meaning of history while the church (and not the state) is the bearer of that meaning? ...how is this question significant?
While I'm not entirely familiar with the specific writings you guys have discussed in such detail, on a surface read, I'd have to say that Christ is the meaning of history and that the church, as the body of Christ, bears Him. Not just bears witness to Him, though that frequently seems well beyond our reach here in America, but actually bears him out into the world - reaching out, healing, serving, restoring; all are manifestations of Christ through us, by us, in us. Apart from OT Israel, I don't think any state could possibly lay claim to that kind of activity.
Did God create the state, did he establish it as an order, or did humanity create the state as a way of usurping God?
At first blush, I would say man created the state. I understand why you point to Nimrod and Babel as the first example of the state (or consolidated government), but even before that, the first city mentioned in the OT is one built by Cain; a person of rebellion if ever there was one. But I've been reading through Ezekiel and came to ch 28 yesterday after reading through this conversation. I point specifically to verses 12-19. God begins the chapter by referring to the leader or ruler of Tyre, but then in verse 12, references the "king of Tyre" who is obviously a divine being. Whether this is specifically Satan or not, he is clearly tied to Tyre in some way. I think this might support Michael's contention that the state was God's creation due to their linkage with these obviously supernatural entities. But I'm still fairly undecided on the matter.
If the latter, did God "reign in" the state under the lordship of Christ at the crucifixion/resurrection/ascension (as Yoder believed following Cullmann and others), or did the state only delve deeper into its "original sin" (as I believe)?
I think its a mixture of both. The supernatural aspects of state power were obviously put in their place well before the Incarnation, as seen in Ezekiel. But given that the control & power of the state has only increased since the time of Christ, and with the introduction of non-state actors like transnational corporations that are essentially beyond & above the state, I tend to think they've only entrenched themselves deeper into original sin, as you suggest.
Hey, Nathan. Thanks for keeping it going. I really would like it to be more of an open conversation.
Your comments are great, and I want to give them the response they deserve. I'm writing this note just to say that I'm sorry it's taking me so long, but I hope to reply soon. I've been engaged in a couple of projects this past week that have taken up most of my time and energy.
Anyway. Thanks again! I'll write soon.
Nathan,
Thanks again for keeping the discussion going. I’ll just reply piecemeal to your great comments. You said:
While I’m not entirely familiar with the specific writings you guys have discussed in such detail, on a surface read, I’d have to say that Christ is the meaning of history and that the church, as the body of Christ, bears Him. Not just bears witness to Him, though that frequently seems well beyond our reach here in America, but actually bears him out into the world - reaching out, healing, serving, restoring; all are manifestations of Christ through us, by us, in us. Apart from OT Israel, I don’t think any state could possibly lay claim to that kind of activity.
I think you’re right that “bearing” is more than just witnessing. To bear the meaning of history is to bring the work of Christ to bear upon the poor, the captive, the sick, the oppressed. Bearing “the meaning of history” is sacramental, for as we act on Christ’s behalf, as Christ to the weak, we find that the weak too have become Christ to us. The real presence of Jesus is discovered not merely in the sacraments of eucharist and baptism, but in their original broader significance of transclass and transethnic human solidarity.
At first blush, I would say man created the state. I understand why you point to Nimrod and Babel as the first example of the state (or consolidated government), but even before that, the first city mentioned in the OT is one built by Cain; a person of rebellion if ever there was one. But I’ve been reading through Ezekiel and came to ch 28 yesterday after reading through this conversation. I point specifically to verses 12-19. God begins the chapter by referring to the leader or ruler of Tyre, but then in verse 12, references the “king of Tyre” who is obviously a divine being. Whether this is specifically Satan or not, he is clearly tied to Tyre in some way. I think this might support Michael’s contention that the state was God’s creation due to their linkage with these obviously supernatural entities. But I’m still fairly undecided on the matter.
I appreciate your perspective here, but I’m afraid I must pointedly disagree with this interpretation of Ezekiel 28. I have long opposed this reading, long before I knew it would come up in a conversation like this one (long before I knew conversations like this one were possible). A similar passage in Isaiah 14 has also been construed through post-Nicene church history as a reference to the fall of “Lucifer.” In fact, it is from the Isaiah 14 passage that we get the idea that “Lucifer” was Satan’s name before his fall. (In reality, God is calling the king of Babylon “the morning star” sarcastically, mocking him for thinking of himself more highly than he ought. The word is not actually a proper noun, and was only first translated as such based on the Vulgate. The only other person ever called “the morning star” in scripture is Jesus. If anybody’s name is properly Lucifer, it’s Jesus. ) This “fall of Lucifer” is a myth that finds no basis in the scriptures (OT or NT). Revelation 12 does talk about the day the dragon was thrown out of heaven because he was no longer able to accuse the people of God. This “fall of Satan” was cosmically connected to the crucifixion of Jesus. Prior to that time, obviously Satan had full access to “God’s throne room” as the Officer of Accusations, so to speak.
You suggest that Ezekiel 28 might not be a direct reference to Satan, but to a lesser principality somehow associated specifically with Tyre. Without denying that the existence of spiritual principalities behind governments, I do not think the addressee in vv. 12-19 is “obviously a divine being,” as you claim. I suppose I should avoid using the “obvious” to describe my position, even though I think it is obvious, because obviously it’s not obvious, otherwise it would be obvious to both of us.
Here’s why the addressee in vv. 12-19 is still the same ruler of Tyre addressed in v. 2:
1) Unlike in verse 2, the word used is “king” not simply “ruler,” which is more specifically human than “ruler.” I’ve never seen an instance of a satanic angel being called “king,” although there are plenty of instances in which they referred to as rulers. The fact that the addressee is the same in both vv. 2 and 12 goes against a spiritual reading of vv. 12-19. (More on the reason for the split between vv. 11 and 12 in a moment.)
2) The precious stones listed in v. 13 were the standard garb for wealthy kings in that period in Mesopotamian culture. (See the IVP Bible Background Commentary: OT). They were normal for a human king, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense why an angel would be so adorned.
3) V. 16 refers to the king of Tyre’s “widespread trade,” v. 18 to his “dishonest trade.” These seem pretty clearly to be referring to human acts. If the addressee is a spiritual being Ezekiel is hiding that fact from us rather well.
4) V. 17 says that the Lord “made a spectacle” of the king of Tyre, “before kings.” This doesn’t make sense if we’re talking about an hidden principality, but makes perfect sense if we’re talking about a great military defeat.
5) V. 18 speaks of the destruction (death) of the king of Tyre. If this is referring to an angelic creature, this would be the only instance in all of scripture (prior to the eschatological destruction of Satan and his angels) of the death of such a being.
6) V. 19 refers to “all the nations who knew you.” Again, if we are talking to or about a hidden spiritual power it does not make a lot of sense how it can be said that all the nations knew who he(it?) was. It makes a lot of sense if we’re talking about the historical king of Tyre.
Those are the indications I find in the text that the “king of Tyre” addressed in v. 12 is actually the same “ruler of Tyre” addressed in verse 2, the human, historical figure. However, there seem to be a few indications in the other direction, found in vv. 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17 in particular. The “king of Tyre” was “the model of perfection,” he was “in Eden, the garden of God.” He was “anointed as a guardian cherub.” He was “on the holy mount of God.” But after he became proud he was thrown “to the earth.”
My answer here is simple: we’re dealing with sarcasm and hyperbole, a common device in prophetic literature. Ezekiel is building up the king of Tyre’s glory in order to make his defeat all the more devastating. The king of Tyre wasn’t literally in Eden. Ezekiel is taunting him, calling attention to the greatness of his failure. Ezekiel says that God “anointed” the king of Tyre (kings are anointed, not angels) as a “guardian angel,” in much the same way as Paul says in Romans 13 that the Roman authorities were “ministers of God.” In neither case are either of the prophets being literal. This is actually a way of keeping in check the divinizing pretentions of kings. To have been created by God, put in power by God, and put in power by God for a specific purpose is to have severe limits set upon one’s power. Ezekiel is simply saying (using hyperbole) that God had intended for the king of Tyre to protect Israel, but instead the king of Tyre did his own thing. That God “threw him to the earth” means literally that, to the grave. He was haughty, he thought himself a god but he was not, so God gave him a reality check by taking away everything he had and utterly destroying him. The earth is not to be contrasted with “heaven” as though heaven were some place else where the “guardian angel” resided before his fall. Remember that according to the metaphor he fell from Eden which is still very much the earth. His fall was not from “heaven” to earth, as though it were a geographical statement, but from divine pretentions to death.
Finally, I promised earlier to give an explanation of the multiple addresses. If I’m reading you correctly you’ve interpreted the split between vv. 1-10 and vv. 11-19 as change in addressee. Problems with that aside (that the addressee is explicitly the same in both cases), it is curious why the two addresses were necessary. In vv. 1-2 read, “The word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, say to the ruler of Tyre. . .” V. 12 reads, “Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him. . .”
The question is, why the multiple addresses? Ezekiel isn’t speaking to anybody else in between vv. 1-10 and 11-19. Why break it up with another address? The answer is simple: they were written at different times, or at least they were written from the perspective of two different points in time. The first address is written prior to the fall of the king of Tyre from his throne. In it God details what he is about to do. The second address is written post de facto, as a lament of sorts. This address is written to the king of Tyre posthumously. It is his dirge. Ezekiel is rubbing it in, as it were.
That’s my take on Ezekiel 28. I’ve been convinced about it for some time, and I’ve never read an exegetical argument (or any other kind of argument for that matter) that has convinced me otherwise. Thus, I don’t think Ezekiel 28 gives any support at all to Michael’s position. It doesn’t explicitly support my position vis-à-vis Michael either; I just don’t think the text is really related to our question at all, but it’s important to talk about nonetheless because so many people (influenced by Roman Catholic mythology) do.
I think its a mixture of both. The supernatural aspects of state power were obviously put in their place well before the Incarnation, as seen in Ezekiel. But given that the control & power of the state has only increased since the time of Christ, and with the introduction of non-state actors like transnational corporations that are essentially beyond & above the state, I tend to think they've only entrenched themselves deeper into original sin, as you suggest.
Obviously I agree with you that it is a mixture of both. I agree with you that “supernatural aspects of state power were . . . put in their place well before the Incarnation.” Obviously I’m not in full agreement with your reading of Ezekiel 28, so I don’t think that’s an example of God “reigning in” the powers to his will. If anything it’s an example of God punishing the powers for not being reigned in. But as I’ve argued above I think this is an example of God overthrowing a human king for being violent and oppressive instead of peaceable and protective. But we are in full agreement with each other that the state has gone haywire since Christ. That is actually the point in Revelation 12. Before Christ, the Jewish understanding of Satan was that he had an office to fulfill. His office was that of enemy, to be sure. But he fulfilled it only within the limitations set upon him by God, and only with God’s permission (exactly as in Job). But after Satan loses this position (on account of the work of Christ), that is when the real rebellion occurs. The work of Christ just pissed Satan off, and sent him on a rampage. (At least, this is how John explains the persecutions under Domitian). Nevertheless, the point is, we agree here. And I admit I’m somewhat confused by the claim that the powers have been “reigned in” by the work of Christ. I fully understand the claim that Jesus is Lord. And I think that the image of Jesus “reigning from heaven” was not an apolitical statement but a thoroughly political statement, since all nations in their own way believed that true political power was wielded by the gods. But how that means that demonic powers have been “reigned in” and brought under the lordship of Christ in any real political sense is beyond me. If this is true of one power, why is it not true of all of them?
I don’t think the claim is very biblical, and I suspect that it arises from a conflation of diverse uses of the “powers” terminology in different Pauline letters and contexts.
Thanks, Nathan, for taking the time to write. I hope I’ve read you correctly and given satisfactory answers. I’d love to hear more of your thoughts on this.
Revelation 12 does talk about the day the dragon was thrown out of heaven because he was no longer able to accuse the people of God. This “fall of Satan” was cosmically connected to the crucifixion of Jesus. Prior to that time, obviously Satan had full access to “God’s throne room” as the Officer of Accusations, so to speak.
What's your take on Luke 10:18?
1) Unlike in verse 2, the word used is “king” not simply “ruler,” which is more specifically human than “ruler.” I’ve never seen an instance of a satanic angel being called “king,” although there are plenty of instances in which they referred to as rulers. The fact that the addressee is the same in both vv. 2 and 12 goes against a spiritual reading of vv. 12-19.
A brief word-study bears this out; king is used about 2500 times and all but a handful would seem to refer to nothing but a human king or his power. There is an interesting fact that in Amos, the Hebrew word for 'king' is also used to describe Moloch, but that really doesn't prove anything. However, if we take cherub to be a reference to a human being here as you suggest, there is only one other time in the OT where this happens but in that instance it is a proper name (in Ezra 2:59 and the parallel Nehemiah 7:61, both referring to the same person). So either we have the odd occurrence of a king who is not human or a cherub that is not an angel.
2) The precious stones listed in v. 13 were the standard garb for wealthy kings in that period in Mesopotamian culture. (See the IVP Bible Background Commentary: OT). They were normal for a human king, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense why an angel would be so adorned.
Given the way the various images of God have been described in the OT (in Daniel for instance) and the way the OT temple was decorated, it would seem to make perfect sense to me that an angel would be richly adorned.
3) V. 16 refers to the king of Tyre’s “widespread trade,” v. 18 to his “dishonest trade.” These seem pretty clearly to be referring to human acts. If the addressee is a spiritual being Ezekiel is hiding that fact from us rather well.
Not necessarily. If this divine being is somehow directing the human leadership of Tyre or is responsible in some way for their conduct, then a reference to the human activity that results from this is understandably attributed to the fallen angel.
4) V. 17 says that the Lord “made a spectacle” of the king of Tyre, “before kings.” This doesn’t make sense if we’re talking about an hidden principality, but makes perfect sense if we’re talking about a great military defeat.
It does make sense as a sound military beat-down, but if you take the possibility that "king" may also refer to the principality or power beyond the human figurehead, then it still makes sense to think vs 12-19 refer to an angelic rather than merely human being. The other hidden principalities can certainly see the defeat of a being like themselves through the temporal, physical defeat of a human counterpart, as can surrounding, human kingdoms.
5) V. 18 speaks of the destruction (death) of the king of Tyre. If this is referring to an angelic creature, this would be the only instance in all of scripture (prior to the eschatological destruction of Satan and his angels) of the death of such a being.
Actually, verse 18 only says that this being has been "turned to ashes on the earth in the eyes of all who see [him/it]". Taken alone, yeah, it would seem to refer to the death or destruction of this individual. But going into verse 19, the writer refers to the being in the present and then says "you will cease to be forever." The entire lament up to this point has been made in the past tense or references past events. A plausible reading is that this being has been brought low, humiliated and rendered powerless until the day of his ultimate destruction with Satan and the rest of the fallen powers.
6) V. 19 refers to “all the nations who knew you.” Again, if we are talking to or about a hidden spiritual power it does not make a lot of sense how it can be said that all the nations knew who he(it?) was. It makes a lot of sense if we’re talking about the historical king of Tyre.
But, many cultures of the ancient Near East had tribal deities that they believed watched out for their particular patch of ground or ethnic group. It we allow for the possibility (and I will certainly admit the possibility that this may be incorrect) that demons were behind at least some of these false religions, then surrounding human populations would likely have regarded the defeat of Tyre as a corresponding spiritual defeat of Tyre's (false) deity/ies.
"My answer here is simple: we’re dealing with sarcasm and hyperbole, a common device in prophetic literature."
I find your argument compelling, but not entirely convincing, because just as prophetic literature deals in hyperbole, so does it in double-meanings and metaphors. If we take the spiritual power behind temporal powers seriously, then it is no wonder that there may be some degree of overlap in discussing the intertwined realities present in the conceit and defeat of an earthly entity.
Granting your argument for a moment, I am still troubled by the difficult timeline your version presents - when was the king of Tyre (metaphorically) in Eden? when was he sealed in perfection? when was he on the holy mountain? Does the creation day in verse 15 refer to this particular king's birth or the start of his lineage? And does it even make sense for God to talk about a non-Hebrew being perfect, holy and blameless, particularly after the Law had been given? And how does a presumed pagan profane a pagan sanctuary?
"Problems with that aside (that the addressee is explicitly the same in both cases), it is curious why the two addresses were necessary."
It is indeed, particularly as Ezekiel does not utilize this double address in any of the other lamentations/accusations in these chapters. Pharaoh is addressed multiple times, but we are told of a specific change in the date between each. We are given no information on time change even though Ezekiel does so frequently. So at the very least, I think we can rule a different date for these revelations, though the possibility of a different time perspective for each still exists.
That’s my take on Ezekiel 28. I’ve been convinced about it for some time, and I’ve never read an exegetical argument (or any other kind of argument for that matter) that has convinced me otherwise.
Your reading is compelling and I'll likely spend the next couple of days re-reading the text with your ideas in mind to see if they make the most sense. Right now, I'm firmly undecided. :)
I'll have to address the rest of your post tomorrow.
Thanks for your great reply, Nathan. I’ll just get down to it.
What's your take on Luke 10:18?
Good question. Let me expand my earlier statement to include the whole work of Christ, from ministry, to death, resurrection and ascension. They are all one work and that one work is responsible for the fall of Satan. The disciples’ power over the demons was a foretaste of the victory over Satan won ultimately at the cross/resurrection.
A brief word-study bears this out; king is used about 2500 times and all but a handful would seem to refer to nothing but a human king or his power. There is an interesting fact that in Amos, the Hebrew word for 'king' is also used to describe Moloch, but that really doesn't prove anything. However, if we take cherub to be a reference to a human being here as you suggest, there is only one other time in the OT where this happens but in that instance it is a proper name (in Ezra 2:59 and the parallel Nehemiah 7:61, both referring to the same person). So either we have the odd occurrence of a king who is not human or a cherub that is not an angel.
Notice that the king of Tyre is not actually called a “cherub” until verse 16. In verse 14 he is anointed “as a cherub.” It’s what we call a simile. The verse 16 instance is just playing off of the simile in verse 14, as a taunt. It would be odd if an angel was called a king. But I don’t think it odd at all for Ezekiel to taunt a pretentious king by calling him a cherub.
Given the way the various images of God have been described in the OT (in Daniel for instance) and the way the OT temple was decorated, it would seem to make perfect sense to me that an angel would be richly adorned.
First, the point is, the commentators say that these stones were what historical human kings wore. I haven’t found a commentator who’s said this fits the garb of an angel, and I don’t recall any instance where an angel is said to be adorned with jewels.
If this divine being is somehow directing the human leadership of Tyre or is responsible in some way for their conduct, then a reference to the human activity that results from this is understandably attributed to the fallen angel.
Granted that this particular reading of this particular verse is possible, but I think it’s a stretch and unnecessary to explain the whole passage, as I’ve attempted to do.
It does make sense as a sound military beat-down, but if you take the possibility that "king" may also refer to the principality or power beyond the human figurehead, then it still makes sense to think vs 12-19 refer to an angelic rather than merely human being.
Right. But I don’t see good reason to take king in this way.
The other hidden principalities can certainly see the defeat of a being like themselves through the temporal, physical defeat of a human counterpart, as can surrounding, human kingdoms.
So now all the kings mentioned in the text are angels? I think we’ve gone a bit astray with this reading.
Actually, verse 18 only says that this being has been "turned to ashes on the earth in the eyes of all who see [him/it]". Taken alone, yeah, it would seem to refer to the death or destruction of this individual. But going into verse 19, the writer refers to the being in the present and then says "you will cease to be forever." The entire lament up to this point has been made in the past tense or references past events. A plausible reading is that this being has been brought low, humiliated and rendered powerless until the day of his ultimate destruction with Satan and the rest of the fallen powers.
Sorry, but I don’t think this reading is plausible. Verse 18 says he has been reduced to ashes, consumed with fire. Hardly a metaphor for mere humiliation. And verse 19 is still speaking in the past tense when it says that “you have come to a horrible end.” That’s past tense. The end is the end. To go on to say that he “will be no more” does not mean that his destruction is awaiting a future date, but that his destruction is accomplished.
But, many cultures of the ancient Near East had tribal deities that they believed watched out for their particular patch of ground or ethnic group. It we allow for the possibility (and I will certainly admit the possibility that this may be incorrect) that demons were behind at least some of these false religions, then surrounding human populations would likely have regarded the defeat of Tyre as a corresponding spiritual defeat of Tyre's (false) deity/ies.
This is true. But in that case I would expect Ezekiel to make reference to the defeat of Tyre’s god, as is frequently a practice of the prophets. The gods are named, not called kings. This reading just seems to me to make overly complex what is really rather simple.
I find your argument compelling, but not entirely convincing, because just as prophetic literature deals in hyperbole, so does it in double-meanings and metaphors.
I am saying that it is dealing in metaphor. The hyperbole is metaphorical. The king was meant to protect Israel and maintain justice and so he is “ordained as a guardian cherub.” That’s a metaphor. I find the “double-meanings” argument far less compelling. Are you referring to Isaiah 7, perhaps? The “double-meaning” of virgin? If so, then we need to have a discussion about rabbinic hermeneutics and why it was legitimate for Matthew to allude to Isaiah 7 in reference to Jesus even though Isaiah meant something else entirely back in context.
If we take the spiritual power behind temporal powers seriously, then it is no wonder that there may be some degree of overlap in discussing the intertwined realities present in the conceit and defeat of an earthly entity.
I’m not denying that there is sometimes overlap. And my reading of Ezekiel 28 is not one that doesn’t take “the spiritual power behind temporal powers seriously.” I’m just trying to get at the author’s intended meaning here, and I think the reading you’re suggesting isn’t it.
Granting your argument for a moment, I am still troubled by the difficult timeline your version presents - when was the king of Tyre (metaphorically) in Eden? When was he sealed in perfection? When was he on the holy mountain?
I don’t see the difficulty that you see. You yourself pointed out that this is a metaphor. Eden is the metaphor for good beginnings, because “God created it and it was good.” The reference to Eden is a way of reminding the king of the beginning of his reign, perhaps when the king’s aspirations were more noble and more nearly just. Like the descent from Eden to the world we now live in, the king of Tyre descended from upright intentions to dishonest trade, imperial expansion, violence and oppression. He began as an ally of Israel. Perhaps he stood on the temple mountain and made promises he never kept. Even if he never set foot in Jerusalem, the metaphor still makes perfect sense. Perhaps the metaphor is a reference to the giving of the Law, and it parallels the king’s early aspirations to be a king of justice and righteousness. He “stood on God’s holy mountain.” Obviously these are speculations but it’s seems to me that they can make good sense of the prophetic in-speak Ezekiel uses, as a code for the just intentions of the young king. As I have been saying, his “fall from Eden,” from “God’s holy mountain,” from “perfection,” was his fall from those noble aspirations to the standard fare.
Does the creation day in verse 15 refer to this particular king's birth or the start of his lineage? And does it even make sense for God to talk about a non-Hebrew being perfect, holy and blameless, particularly after the Law had been given?
Again, this is hyperbole. But the point is clear. It wouldn’t have been read so literally. It just means what I’ve detailed above. His beginnings were on the right track. Perhaps he was even better than most. Perhaps he was a great man. Maybe his rise to the throne was a popular ascendency. And then power corrupted him. No big mystery there.
And how does a presumed pagan profane a pagan sanctuary?
First, what use would a fallen angel have for a sanctuary? Second, the point Ezekiel is making is that the king of Tyre’s dishonest trade has made a mockery of his own religion/s. He hasn’t even lived up to his own standards.
Thanks, Nathan, for taking the time to keep this going. I think you’ve asked good questions. I hope my answers have been helpful. I look forward to your further comments!
Notice that the king of Tyre is not actually called a “cherub” until verse 16. In verse 14 he is anointed “as a cherub.” It’s what we call a simile.
Yeah, I know what a simile is. The problem is the verse doesn't actually say "as a cherub." The translation you're using may, but the actual verse doesn't. NASB, ESV, Young's literal translation and the Darby translation all render it literally as "anointed cherub" - no 'as' to be found. I'm no Hebrew scholar, but looking at the verse online doesn't seem to include 'as', either. And I have to stay, that last line - "Its what we call a simile" - comes off as rather condescending and inappropriate in a friendly discussion.
It would be odd if an angel was called a king. But I don’t think it odd at all for Ezekiel to taunt a pretentious king by calling him a cherub.
I do. Where else in scripture does God refer to any other human being as an angel, even in a taunt?
Your argument is hinging on whether or not God would use such exalted language (created in Eden, perfect in wisdom and beauty, etc) to refer to a merely human person or kingdom. From within Ezekiel 28, your argument really cannot be fully proven - those verses will always leave enough room for a fair degree of skepticism. Your point could have been made much clearer by moving forward into chapter 31, where God describes Assyria as a "cedar" and then (very) favorably compares that tree to the "trees in God's garden...[and]...all the trees of Eden." With that language in mind, Ezekiel's calling the king of Tyre a cherub makes perfect sense. And, moreover, the specific reference to a nation/ethnic group in ch 31 obviously precludes the possibility of divine or angelic origins, or a pre-existing presence at the time of temporal creation, which is a possible reading of the personal reference in ch 28 (a person could exist in Eden/heaven, but a nation could not).
But, of course, the references to Eden in ch 31 somewhat undermine your contention that the Eden references in ch 28 refer merely to "good beginnings" for this particular king. The timeline for Assyria to become such a shelter for many nations is likely far greater than the lifespan of a single person. Also, the trees of Eden apparently co-exist with this cedar. So my take, then, would be that the king of Tyre in ch 28 is not a single person, but is either a line of kings or the personification of the city itself. Tyre is turned into a king while Assyria is turned into a cedar. This might actually explain the double-address problem. One referred to the line or to the city, and the other specifically to the king alive at the time God takes out his wrath upon the city.
If anything it’s an example of God punishing the powers for not being reigned in.
In some respects, this is exactly how I see that Christ has reigned in the powers. They can see that their end is destruction, which as you say, has put them on a rampage. But it is ultimately an impotent rampage because they know and can see where they are headed. Their fury and frustration shows that they have lost all confidence in themselves and their abilities and are simply trying to muck things up as much as they can before the axe falls. They're children throwing a wildly destructive tantrum, so like you, I don't see any overt political manifestations of a positive "reigning-in" by Christ. I would expect that to be evident in more peaceable, more just & less chaotic governments with less enmity between nations. If the nation is preserving order, as Michael suggests, I have to admit it is only internal to the nation and quite ineffective at that.
Nathan, I'm sorry you read that line ("It's what we call a simile") as condescending. You misread me, however. I wasn't suggesting that you didn't know what a simile was. I was saying that it is what we (as in, we English speakers) call a simile. It was a way of qualifying the appropriateness of the term as applied to an originally Hebrew text. I apologize for the confusion, but I had no intention of being unfriendly. I quite enjoy the discussion, and I certainly respect your intelligence.
I've got to run for now. I'll respond to the rest soon.
The problem is the verse doesn't actually say "as a cherub." The translation you're using may, but the actual verse doesn't. NASB, ESV, Young's literal translation and the Darby translation all render it literally as "anointed cherub" - no 'as' to be found. I'm no Hebrew scholar, but looking at the verse online doesn't seem to include 'as', either.
Yes, this is true. It was sloppy of me to use an English translation to make an exegetical point. Of course, when I said, “It’s what we call a simile,” that was a poorly worded attempt to qualify my own argument, and to point out the problem you yourself pointed out in response. However, my position isn’t affected by whether or not we can establish that verse 14 is linguistically a simile. It can still very well be a metaphor, and I am convinced that is precisely what it is. “Guardian cherub” is a metaphor for the role God had for Tyre to play in history.
Where else in scripture does God refer to any other human being as an angel, even in a taunt?
To my knowledge, nowhere else. But look at the similarities between the taunt against the king of Tyre here and that against the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14. We have the similarity of the audience of kings (14:9), the exalted language in verse 12 (“O Morning Star, Son of the Dawn”), the casting “down to the earth” in the same verse, a “fall from heaven,” which the next verse reveals is not really heaven but the “heaven” of the king’s own aspirations. Verse 13 also very interestingly refers to the king of Babylon “on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.” He did not really sit on the sacred mountain, but he said in his heart that he would achieve such a status. All of this ends with his being brought down to the grave, to the earth. The similarities between the two passages are impressive, and particularly in Isaiah 14 it is clear that the exalted language is a subversion of the king’s own thoughts and aspirations. Reading Ezekiel 28 in this light perhaps will remove some of the difficulties you’ve been having with the images of “perfection,” “standing on God’s holy mountain,” etc.
Your argument is hinging on whether or not God would use such exalted language (created in Eden, perfect in wisdom and beauty, etc) to refer to a merely human person or kingdom. From within Ezekiel 28, your argument really cannot be fully proven - those verses will always leave enough room for a fair degree of skepticism. Your point could have been made much clearer by moving forward into chapter 31, where God describes Assyria as a "cedar" and then (very) favorably compares that tree to the "trees in God's garden...[and]...all the trees of Eden." With that language in mind, Ezekiel's calling the king of Tyre a cherub makes perfect sense. And, moreover, the specific reference to a nation/ethnic group in ch 31 obviously precludes the possibility of divine or angelic origins, or a pre-existing presence at the time of temporal creation, which is a possible reading of the personal reference in ch 28 (a person could exist in Eden/heaven, but a nation could not).
This is great stuff! I admit I haven’t read Ezekiel in a while, and I am only going off of earlier studies. Your analysis certainly supports my position, and it’s much better than my feeble attempts.
But, of course, the references to Eden in ch 31 somewhat undermine your contention that the Eden references in ch 28 refer merely to "good beginnings" for this particular king. The timeline for Assyria to become such a shelter for many nations is likely far greater than the lifespan of a single person. Also, the trees of Eden apparently co-exist with this cedar. So my take, then, would be that the king of Tyre in ch 28 is not a single person, but is either a line of kings or the personification of the city itself. Tyre is turned into a king while Assyria is turned into a cedar. This might actually explain the double-address problem. One referred to the line or to the city, and the other specifically to the king alive at the time God takes out his wrath upon the city.
Yes, absolutely. I concede this point happily. I have no problem with this reading. I haven’t studied in depth enough to verify it, but immediately it sounds more like the prophets than what I had come up with.
“If anything it’s an example of God punishing the powers for not being reigned in.” In some respects, this is exactly how I see that Christ has reigned in the powers. They can see that their end is destruction, which as you say, has put them on a rampage. But it is ultimately an impotent rampage because they know and can see where they are headed. Their fury and frustration shows that they have lost all confidence in themselves and their abilities and are simply trying to muck things up as much as they can before the axe falls. They're children throwing a wildly destructive tantrum, so like you, I don't see any overt political manifestations of a positive "reigning-in" by Christ. I would expect that to be evident in more peaceable, more just & less chaotic governments with less enmity between nations. If the nation is preserving order, as Michael suggests, I have to admit it is only internal to the nation and quite ineffective at that.
We’re in full agreement here too. Michael and I do agree on much, and I don’t want to dwell on our quibbles (yet a conversation where all we do is agree is boring); but it is at precisely this point that I think he and I diverge the sharpest, and I think our views of the origins of the powers is the root of the matter. Thanks so much for your input, and for pushing me. I’ve learned a lot and I’m much indebted to your careful work.
Thom -
No worries about the misreading - tone never carriers online and I'm sorry I uncharitably took your words to be offensive when I should have given you the benefit of the doubt.
Moving back, momentarily, to the Eden statements in ch's 28 & 31 - I've been mulling this over all afternoon and have come to the conclusion that this may actually support the idea that God created the state or something similar. Since Eden is the beginning of man, Ezekiel's specific reference to the king of Tyre being in Eden and the comparison of Assyria to something in Eden...there may be something to the argument. Its tenuous, but in ch 31:1-9, if we accept that Ezekiel is comparing like to like - the state or government of Assyria (or the principality/power behind it) to other similar political or spiritual entities - it could indicate the contemporaneous creation of both man and the (eventual) government of man. Just kind of thinking out loud, here.
No worries back at ya.
Your thoughts on Eden and the state are interesting, and worth further consideration, but I would be very careful about deriving a theology or a doctrine of the origins of the state from a metaphor like that. We might be reading too much into it, and I suspect that we are. I'll have to consider it further, and if you have any further thoughts on it, I'd love to hear them. As it is, however, I think you're right when you say it's tenuous. I think the first city (as you pointed out) and the first consolidated human government (as I pointed out) are the most significant and the most relevant biblical narratives on the question.
Maybe you could write a post that specifically deals with your view on this question. I'm curious as to how you view God's plan for the Hebrew-people/OT-nation-of-Israel at the time of creation. It is clear that God gives Israel a king after the rule of the judges as a begrudging concession to their insolent desire to be like other nations - were they a state before they had a king? judges? a prophetic leader like Moses or Joshua? before all of that? And if God had a plan to raise his Messiah out of a specific group of people, does that foreknowledge indicate "creation" of the state in reference to that group? Or are they just an ethnic group? And finally, why is God creating the state a problem?
Indeed I will. Thanks, Nathan. These are great questions. I'll get to it as soon as I can.
Off Topic:
How is the baby doing?
Sleeping through the night yet?
Hey, JP.
Sorry, I must've missed your comment. She's doing great. Thanks for asking. She started out sleeping through most of the night, then she went through a small phase where she wasn't sleeping much. I think she's back to where she'll sleep for six or seven hours straight, but my wife would know better than me I'm sure. I sleep through it most of the time. :) Sleeping or crying, we're thoroughly enjoying her!
I come into this discussion fairly late, but I think I go along with G.B. Caird, in discussing the beast from the sea in Revelation 13, when he says:
"But it must not be thought that John is writing off all civil government as an invention of the Devil. Whatever Satan may claim, the truth is that 'the Most High controls the sovereignty of the world and gives it to whom he wills' (Dan iv. 17). In the war between God and Satan, between good and evil, the state is one of the defences established by God to contain the powers of evil within bounds, part of the order which God the Creator had established in the midst of chaos (cf. Rom xiii. 1-7). But when men worship the state, according to it the absolute loyalty and obedience that are due not to Caesar but to God, then the state goes over to the Enemy. What
Satan calls from the abyss is not government, but that abuse of government, the omnicompetent state. It is thus misleading
to say that the monster is Rome, for it is both more and less: more, because Rome is only its latest embodiment; and less, because Rome is also, even among all the corruptions of idolatry, 'God's agent of punishment, for retribution on the
offender' (Rom. 13. iv)."
I too have been blogging on related topics recently, and wondering how helpful it is to think of the state as an egregore.
Post a Comment
<< Home