From henceforth and forever

[dolfan]

Isaiah 9:6, 7

6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:
and the Government shall be upon His Shoulder:
and His Name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor,
The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7Of the increase of His Government and peace there shall be no end,
upon the throne of David, and upon His Kingdom, to order it,
and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of The LORD of Hosts will perform this.

The baby boy whom we worship and serve was born the head of state. His state is the kingdom of God. His is the only state there is. All others are already doomed, destined for failure, destined to fall. They are already consigned to a hostile takeover. Rev. 11:15.

N.T. Wright gets it wrong when he insists that this means, in practical effect, that we are to simply influence the world with the way of Jesus. He writes, "With the story of the Christ-child in our hearts, and the Spirit of Jesus giving us energy and direction, we are called to be kingdom-bringers in whatever sphere we can. We have to think globally and act locally, campaigning for the big issues like debt remission and climate change, and working on the local issues like housing, asylum and unemployment. Isaiah spoke of the authority of the child growing continually, spreading justice and peace throughout the world, and it is through the work of Jesus’ followers that this is to come about, upheld and directed by what the prophet calls ‘the zeal of the Lord of hosts’."

The government of the world is already His. The ultimate end of the kingdoms of this world is not co-option and welcoming input from the kingdom of God, but to wholly surrender to it. There is no instance in the past or future history of the kingdom where any power hostile to God simply yields to His input or to the input of His people.

To the extent that we follow any other government but His, to the extent that we even acknowledge them, we reject Him. This is hard to accept. It is even harder to know what to do about it. But, it is so.

I can personally think of no other time where it is more blatantly obvious that the kingdoms of the world are arrayed against Christ, wholly so. Even America, the so-called "Christian nation", is against Him. Meanwhile, areas that have been patently atheist or pagan by policy and practice for decades see people ever turning to Christ and abandoning the ways of their own less-formal metacultures. The inscription of American republicanism and constitutionalism, as admirable as those ideals are and as well as they have served us, has, in the demise of those ideas at the hands of the anti-God kingdom it lends structure to, left a scar tissue in our hearts that now needs excision. It is His kingdom alone to which we owe allegiance. There simply is no other. It is a reality which me must come to terms with, the only one that provides any actual hope for us.

[Russell Roberts]

To the extent that we follow any other government but His, to the extent that we even acknowledge them, we reject Him. This is hard to accept. It is even harder to know what to do about it. But, it is so.

Dolfan, do you pay taxes?

[Russell Roberts]

I would be interested to see how you reconcile your statements with Paul's theology (you can't, really, but it would be fun to see you try).

[dolfan]

Russell, sure I do. Look, I am honest when I say I don't know what to do about this. I'll admit that I have all sorts of angst about paying even a licensing fee to a government that is hell-bent on destroying everything that is right and good in America. But, when I stop and think, "Hey, you know, America is not 'right' and 'good' anymore. It is hostile to God, just like every other nation on the planet," I don't feel angst. I feel anger.

Reconcile this with "Paul's theology"? I'm not interested in Paul as a theologian so much, to be frank. I'm highly interested in him as an apostle of Christ, though. Reading Romans 13:1-3, Paul assumes that government does what is right. "For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you." That is patently NOT so that government will commend the right. It condemns it routinely because it is hostile to God.

Look at our own government. Paul's theology, as it were, was to condemn in Romans 13 those who would, in light of the truly "good" government, engage in sexual immorality (see verse 13) and other debauchery. Our government has a "czar" (a Caesar) who would teach children sexual practices I won't even mention here.

There is one government that does what is right -- the kingdom of God as expressed through the church. There simply is no other. It was uniquely established by God. And, to the extent of its own failures and shortcomings, there is a promise to it and inapplicable to all other governments. It will be the last one standing.

Whatever of civil government may be untrue in my own musings or misplaced misgivings, it remains true that simply being "kingdom bringers into whatever sphere", etc. we find ourselves is a futile theory of Christianity. Wright would have us clothe ourselves to fight for causes made great by those who hate Christ ("climate change", for instance; housing policy championed by the likes of ACORN, for another). Wright's answer is simple: be politically liberal in the name of Christ. Or, put another way, Christ's values are expressed best through solutions devised by those who would cut His throat before listening to a word He says.

If Wright and Paul are on the same page, you and he are the only ones who know it.

[Russell Roberts]

I wonder, Dolfan, who was in charge when Paul wrote that?

You might be astonished to find out. LOL

I wonder if HIS government, NERO, was better or worse than our own?

[Russell Roberts]

Notice where we find Paul at the end of the book of Acts. He is confronting Caesar's household. That is why I contend that we are obligated to submit to God's appointed government WHILE STILL CONFRONTING THEM with the fact that Jesus is the true King of this world and that they will someday answer for their actions.

[dolfan]

Notice where we find Paul at the end of the book of Acts. He is confronting Caesar's household. That is why I contend that we are obligated to submit to God's appointed government WHILE STILL CONFRONTING THEM with the fact that Jesus is the true King of this world and that they will someday answer for their actions.

I understand, really. But, here's the upshot of what you're saying: Paul taught to subject oneself to government because government is good and Godly and acts without evil to those who do good. But, that is flatly contradictory to Paul's own experience, isn't it? Five times he was beaten by the government for doing good. Three times, the caned him or beat him with rods or whatever. He was frequently imprisoned. There's no way he could've intended to mean in Romans 13:1-7 that government is good (he knew better, and described the actual evil that it did) OR that evil government is to be submitted to (his admonition is to the government which is good).

So, we arrive at the end of Acts to find Paul preaching to Jews and anyone who would hear while he was under house arrest. If he confronted Caesar's household in this process, it is no wonder, since he endured everything they could dish out to that point. And, then they killed him according to the best scholarship on what became of Paul.

There is, indeed, one King and one Kingdom. I submit to you that there is no way and that it is not God's intention that we act as "kingdom bringers" in the sense of confronting government. Jesus did, indeed, teach us to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", but that begs the question in our time of what is Ceasar's?

That is the central question I put to you. What is Caesar's? Because, with government as that which Caesar stands as a figure to represent, claims are being ever more made upon our lives as property and servants of the civil governments. We cannot belong to both. They are inherently and immutably hostile to one another and we cannot serve the two nor reconcile them.

[Russell Roberts]

Dolfan,

Paul and Jesus submitted to the civil authorities.

Joh 19:11 Jesus replied, "You would have no authority over me at all, unless it was given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of greater sin."

Our submission to civil government is not predicated on our agreement with their policies. That's pretty clear my dearly beloved brother.

Pilate's policies sucked as did Nero's (moreso than Obama's). Jesus conquered evil by allowing it to exhaust its power against him on the cross. We are to do the same. This doesn't mean that we don't confront these policies where they are in error.

That's the paradox brother. Winning LOOKS like losing.

Apparently, Paul believed that government plays a legitimate role in God's current work to redeem creation however faulty they might, and we might be in fulfilling that role.

[dolfan]

Dolfan,

Paul and Jesus submitted to the civil authorities.

Joh 19:11 Jesus replied, "You would have no authority over me at all, unless it was given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of greater sin."

Did He submit to Pilate? Well, yes, if submission equals refusal to resist. Jesus' reply was to Pilate's goading Jesus --

John 19:9 "....he entered into the Praetorium again and said to Jesus, 'Where are You from?' But Jesus gave him no answer."

Did Jesus submit then? If so, why did He not answer Pilate's question? Indeed, He did not answer because He was not accountable to Pilate. Then, Pilate's tactic became a power play, see v. 10: "So Pilate said to Him, 'You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?'"

Then, Jesus replied, mockingly in one sense and perhaps even offended at the insolence of this heathen in another, in v. 11. It wasn't submissive. It was precisely a refusal to resist. (Isa. 53:7). The submission, as it was, was to the Father. (Isa. 53:6).

Pilate, to Jesus, was incidental as an authority figure. There was nothing about Pilate that merited, and nothing that drew, Jesus' submission to him as a governor. The one, however, who betrayed Jesus, who had befriended and followed Him, who had been treated as a brother of the Lord and given the most precious of standing among the living in being allowed to be among the 12 --- his action was truly sinful, truly purposeful and hostile and adverse to God.

The book of Revelation speaks of martyrs who are beheaded. They don't resist. Is that submission to legitimate authority? No. If so, those authorities have a funny way of rewarding their good works.

Our submission to civil government is not predicated on our agreement with their policies. That's pretty clear my dearly beloved brother.

Pilate's policies sucked as did Nero's (moreso than Obama's). Jesus conquered evil by allowing it to exhaust its power against him on the cross. We are to do the same. This doesn't mean that we don't confront these policies where they are in error.

Submission is predicated on legitimate authority. Authority, as Jesus described it, is from above. As Paul described it, it is from above. My point is that authority is illegitimate if it is adverse to or hostile to God, to Christianity. It can't be any other way, or that which is "from above" is hostile to itself, a kingdom divided against itself. Now, which of these two things did Jesus say cannot stand: A house divided against itself, or a house that does not concern itself with the powers of civil government?

I think it misses the point to argue whether we should agree or confront. There is only one Way. The dilemma for the world is not agree/confront, but to follow the Way or reject it. You don't follow it by better policy. You follow it by being born again and living in obedience to Christ. Naturally, people who actually take Jesus seriously would be better policy-makers, but people who actually take Him seriously would be better business owners, better politicians, etc., if they actually sought to give power away instead of seeking to exercise it. I've yet to see that in operation at all in civil government of any kind, ever, anywhere. Period.

There is a nation, a people --- one that you even adamantly insist upon its existence --- the church of Jesus Christ. It has a head of state. It is very well populated. It exists now. It will exist forever. It is unique in that it, alone, is given authority by God to perform His works in this world. There is one entry point into it. There is no serious question about what those who live in His nation do to live according to its purposes, but there remains a serious lack of commitment to the government that rests upon His shoulders.

My own opinion, and that's all it is, is that there is no way to move from no or less commitment to actual, genuine commitment to Him and His government by being a voice TO civil government about His purposes and about His ways. Why not? Because governments do not yield to Him in trust; the only indication we have is that they will yield to Him in destruction. The redemption of creation, as you like to refer to it, lies not in its reclamation because there is nothing in this fallenness to reclaim except people. Their devices and instruments are meaningless to God, useless and hopeless. Rather, it is the destruction of all the devices of men and the ultimate restoration of those whom He chooses that will be the realization of redemption, from our perspective.

So, submission to civil government, and following its instruction due to its position as governor, is futile. The only government with hope is that of Christ, the only nation of hope is the church of Christ, the only submission due is to the authority of Christ, and the only policies to pursue are those exercised by the church of Christ in accomplishing the purposes of Christ.

That's the paradox brother. Winning LOOKS like losing.

That is a paradox. I just don't agree with you that it is THE paradox, the one that best describes the nature of God's government in a fallen world. Losing is not the point. We can beat at the air and lose and still not win. That, as I understand and see it anyway, is what Wright is really advocating.

Apparently, Paul believed that government plays a legitimate role in God's current work to redeem creation however faulty they might, and we might be in fulfilling that role.

Humbly and sincerely, I just don't see that.

[Russell Roberts]

Dolfan, we will agree, my brother, to disagree. It is always fun to converse with you. Bless you friend.

[beckrl]

A paradox isn't it?

On one hand we are to submit to their authority and on the other hand is to what extent!?

Should have Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego just submitted to the king?

Honor Authority

Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men

[Russell Roberts]

My presumption has been submit to the degree that their directives to us personally don't violate loving God and loving our neighbor.