Christianity & Pacifism

[Drew]

My brother, after reading post 111 (and I say this kindly and without any rancor or insult intended) I fear that you are splitting hairs...because contextually "of this world" and "from this world" mean precisely the same thing.

Jesus is telling Pilate that the origin of His (Jesus') kingdom, the point of authority for His kingship, His power as a King is not to be found in any worldly government or system...it is not to be found in force of arms.

I think we still have a fundamental point of disagreement. I am asserting that Jesus is indeed claiming to be a King over this very world - the same world that Caesar claims to king over.

In so doing, He is indeed a threat to Caesar. If I am right about this, your explanation of what Jesus is saying to Pilate does not work, since, if I understand you properly, you are saying that Jesus is telling Pilate that His (Jesus's) kingdom is not one that threatens Ceasar (since is not a "political" kingdom with jurisdiction in this present world).

Again: Jesus is not denying being a king over this present world, He is denying that the principles that apply in that Kingdom are the same as those that apply in Caesar's kingdom.

 

[Drew]

I would respectfully disagree with the second part of your assertion here...the word Kurios (Lord) was specifically a term of deity. The Romans when deifying Caesar referred to Caesar as Kurios.

I don't think so. I think that the term lord was primarily a political term in that culture, although I do agree that the Romans did "deify" their emperors.

But we are just trading assertions about this - neither of us has made a real case about how the word "Kurios" would be understood in that time and place.

In fact when Paul writes to the church in Rome, we see him saying in Romans 10:9-10 "that if you will confess with your mouth the Lord {Kurios} Jesus...." Literally that if you will confess with the mouth that Jesus Christ is God....

Isn't this a circular argument? How do you know that Paul isn't saying "if you confess that Jesus is ruler over all the world, you will be saved"?

 

[Drew]

Pilate understands that Jesus, who has been brought to him under a charge of sedition, is not trying to overthrow Caesar. Jesus is not trying to establish a kingdom in Israel, nor is Jesus fomenting rebellion against Rome....

I disagree - Jesus very much sees Himself as a King who is effectively overthrowing Ceasar, and I suggest that Paul sees Him in the same light. And therefore I interpret what Jesus says to Pilate differently than you do.

I want to be clear about something. John 18:36 by itself does not establish this, but lots, and I mean a whole whack, of other scriptures do establish that Jesus is to be understood as a King of this present world. Not least of these is Daniel 7: Jesus invokes Daniel 7 and places Himself in the son of man role. What happens to the son of man in Daniel 7? He is made king over all nations.

It is only because we have arbitrarily introduced a "this world" vs "spirit world" distinction - unknown to the first century Jew - that we somehow make Jesus king of some "other-worldy" realm.

Now to be sure: Jesus is not becoming king through force of arms. So He is not threatening to topple Caesar by force.

But topple Him He does, as I suggest the entire corpus of scripture clearly testifies.

 

[Drew]

By the middle to late 1st Century the Greek Kurios had acquired the same meaning synonymously as the Hebrew "Yahwey"

From wikipedia (I recognize the limitations of citing wikipedia). I added the bolding:

In antiquity, in general use, the term 'lord' was a courtesy title for social superiors, but its root meaning was 'ruler'. Kings everywhere were styled 'Lord' and often considered divine beings so the word acquired a religious significance.

Note that to assert that the word acquired a "religious" significance does not necessarily mean that it lost is "kingship" significance.

 

[mcgyver]

I don't think so. I think that the term lord was primarily a political term in that culture, although I do agree that the Romans did "deify" their emperors.

But we are just trading assertions about this - neither of us has made a real case about how the word "Kurios" would be understood in that time and place.

I'm glad that you brought this up, because upon reviewing my sources I found that I had made a mistake...the use of Kurios as the name of God actually goes back to the 3d Century BC; and the Septuagint.

When the Septuagint (Greek) was written, when the name YHWH occurs it is in every case translated as Kyrios (common usage Kurios) in every case. From your own link we see that the Hellenistic (Greek speaking) Jews would not accord Caesar the title Kurios...reserving it to Almighty God alone. (Josephus: Jewish Wars...I checked )

The account of the Martyrdom of Polycarp (one of the few genuine accounts from the great persecutions) an incident is mentioned:

It was a great Sabbath. And there the chief of the police, Herod, and his father, Nicetas, met him and transferred him to their carriage, and tried to persuade him, as they sat beside him, saying, "What harm is there to say `Lord Caesar,' and to offer incense and all that sort of thing, and to save yourself?" At first he did not answer them. But when they persisted, he said, "I am not going to do what you advise me." (emphasis mine) It would be hard to argue that this is not in reference to the use of Kurios as deity...especially if one looks at the method used to determine whether one was a Christian or not:

• Declare that Caesar is Kurios
• Offer wine or incense to the bust of Caesar
• Curse Christ

All matters of deity here....



Then we have the Bible as its own best commentary:

"And everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance, as the LORD has said, among the survivors whom the LORD calls." Joel 2:32 Here LORD is translated in the LXX as "Kurios"...and we are told to call upon Him to be saved. In the NT we confess that Jesus Christ is Kurios in order to be saved.

Isn't this a circular argument? How do you know that Paul isn't saying "if you confess that Jesus is ruler over all the world, you will be saved"?

Keeping in mind what I just wrote...it would make no sense contextually:

that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

Every single time, Lord is Kurios...

Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved...Confess that Jesus Christ is Lord...

If Paul meant: "If you confess that Jesus is ruler over all the world..." Why use Kurios? Why not a conjugation of basileus? Basileus denotes kingship and world rulership much more effectively than Kurios...

In fact, Revelation 19:16 reads: βασιλευς βασιλεων και κυριος κυριων...basileus basileon kai kurios kurion...KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

Revelation 11:15 reads: Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdoms (basileiai) of this world have become the kingdoms (basileusei) of our Lord (kurio) and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!”

Note here that Kurio (conjugation of kurios) refers specifically to YHWH (of our Lord and of His Christ).

Consistency of application would seem to preclude the use of Kurios (in an ecclesiastical; i.e. "religious") setting as meaning anything other than deity, especially in the Romans application.

Considering that Paul wrote his letters prior to AD 67 (his death) and John wrote the Revelation after Patmos 96-97 AD, the evidence that Kurios was used in the same manner as YHWH and was commonly understood as such within the church is pretty solid.

 

[Butch5]

Hey Butch...thanks for your replies.

I'd like to talk about the phrase: "I tell you do not resist the evil" as a matter of universal application.

First of all, we both know that the definition of "anthistemi" (translated here ''resist") means:

1.to set one's self against, to withstand, resist, oppose. 2.to set against


So then...


On one hand Jesus tells us not to resist the evil, but then He Himself resists and opposes evil at every turn. He opposes the Pharisees, dumps over tables in the temple, withstands temptation in the wilderness, and sets Himself against the works of the Devil.



His Disciples set themselves against and withstand the ruling authorities when they are commanded not to proclaim the name of Christ...though beaten for it they proclaim Jesus boldly.



If we are not to resist the evil in the manner that you seem to be using it, why then does the Holy Spirit tell us to resist the very personification of evil: Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. James 4:7


Obviously there is a problem with consistency of application evident.


Let's say that one looks out their window at 3:00 am and sees someone setting fire to their neighbor's house. I submit that in calling 911 that they would in fact be resisting evil. It may be the Police that "do the dirty work" yet the individual who made the phone call is the reason they show up in the first place.


I submit then, that the possibility exists that within the context of the passage, Jesus was speaking in a narrow range and did not intent His words to be a universal rejection of resistance to all evil. Furthermore, within Greek anthistemi can carry with it a shade of meaning or the idea of speaking to vengence/revenge.


If I say that:"I'm blue today because I lost my job" I think it safe to say that you aren't going to think that I'm reflecting a certain spectrum of light, nor am I suffering oxygen deprivation (though some might argue that point )...but as an American English speaker you'd understand that I am depressed.


Take that same sentence, write it down, then sometime in the future translate it into a language that won't exist for a thousand years...and we'd have to look at the context to figure out what I meant.


This is what I am saying where the phrase: I tell you do not resist the evil is concerned. Otherwise we can't help but run into problems in applying this principle in a consistent manner.


What are your thoughts?

Hi mcgyver,

I'm sorry it took so long to get back to you. I'm not sure why you think I'm using the phrase "do not resist the evil" universally. In context we can see that Jesus said, 'You have heard that it was said an eye for an eye, but I tell you...' Also in that context is the statement if someone smites you on the right cheek turn the other to him also. I think it's pretty clear that the issue is seeking vengeance and using violence. As you pointed out Jesus and the apostles sought neither when they were beaten and abused.

Paul said the powers that be are established by God that they are the revenger of God to punish those who do evil. So, calling the police in you example is nothing more than God's minister applying justice, the purpose for which God has appointed them. The question is, is this the place for the Christian? I would submit that it is not.