The Disciple and Politics

[Pizzaguy]

P:

I really wouldn't discount the power of prayer in favor of the power of politicians.

I didn't. I was making two points in that sentence:

1) Trusting in politicians is mostly a dead-end, as you indicated.
2) Just praying and not GETTING UP AND DOING SOMETHING is ALMOST a waste of time.


As AirDancer said

It is our responsibility, as Christians, to pray for our governments and those in charge. No doubt about that.

But to say that, as Christians, we are to remain separate from politics?

Well, we in the US have seen the results of Christians staying separate from politics for decades.

 

[farouk]

Pizzaguy:

Trusting God, and then proving that we really do, is never a waste of time.

I guess I should bow out of this, though.

 

[Asyncritus]

Those are some very select verses. That Jesus did not perhaps directly involve himself in politics, which may nor may not be the case, in no way whatsoever means that Christians are not to be involved in politics.

This is the problem with proof-texting, most people can't see the forest for the trees.

Come on Free.

If it was a single passage, then maybe you might have a point.

But it is not.

It is the whole tenor of the New Testament, and you (or I) cannot show otherwise. There are so many passages saying that disciples are 'not of this world'. James 4.4 says: Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. ESV

Isn't involvement with politics being friendly with the world? Participating in, and having fellowship with it? Sort of 'one of the boys' idea,

What do you think the above quoted passages are telling us?

Should we participate, or not? And where's your scriptural example that shows otherwise?

 

[Asyncritus]

True, but politics can be a tool used to suppress the gospel and muzzle those trying to spread it.

Of that there can be no doubt.

And that very fact establishes the enmity of the world and its systems to the gospel.

People everywhere are shouting about 'fighting' for their rights. Politically and otherwise.

Is that how the disciple should conduct him/herself?

Which rights did Jesus fight for, or recommend fighting for? I can't think of any, myself. Meek and lowly are His descriptors.

He opposed corruption and evil in the RELIGIOUS system of His day, by turfing out the moneychangers from the temple. He made no attempt to expel the Romans militarily or politically.

That's a serious example, I'd say.

 

[Asyncritus]

I disagree, and believe the Biblical case is strong that Christians should be involved in politics.


These words have been greatly misunderstood:

In verse 36, Jesus seems to be saying "My kingdom has nothing to do with earthly kingdoms, so there is no 'political' dimension to my kingdom".

As it turns out, there is a huge translation issue here. Here is the rendering of verse 36 as per the NET Bible:

Jesus replied, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would be fighting to keep me from being 1 handed over 2 to the Jewish authorities. 3 But as it is, 4 my kingdom is not from here.

The NET version is, my sources indicate, true to the original Greek. The greek word that is rendered “from” (above in the bolded and underlined cases) has the following definition:

“a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause; literal or figurative; direct or remote)”

When the word is used properly, we see that the “not of this world” reading is misleading. The intended meaning is that the Kingdom that has been brought to earth is from Heaven - that is, Heaven is the point of origin for the Kingdom that has been initiated.

Jesus is a King. Jesus' kingdom, while not from this world, is rather clearly for this world.

Drew

Your reliance on the NET translation is somewhat fragile.

The expression 'of this world' is in the Greek, ouk ek tou kosmou.

You are insisting that it be taken literally, and that it really means 'from heaven', literally.

That is not the case, because:

John 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world (ouk ek tou kosmou), but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

The disciples come from heaven literally? Unlikely.

John 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world(ek tou kosmou)

Same again.

John 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

John 17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
John 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

So we have to assume that 'my kingdom is not of this world' does not mean that it is from heaven. It means exactly what it says: it has nothing to do with the current systems of religion and politics.

After all, the parable says Luke 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

In other words, His kingdom was not yet come.

I see no escape from that view. Not that you'd want to, of course.

Incidentally, if His servants were NOT to fight to get Him released, then it follows that they ought NOT to fight for lesser causes.

If ever there was a just cause to fight for, here it was, right in front of the disciples. The meekest, lowliest, most innocent person on the planet was to be brutally done to death in the most unjust and painful way possible.

Every disciple ought to have gone to war for His release.

But:
1 Pet 2.21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

That's the example we must follow, no matter how contrary it may be to our natural inclinations.

 

[Asyncritus]

+1

The literal interpretation of every word in the Bible has done more to discredit Christianity and Christ Himself than all the persecution in the world.

If you don't try to find out exactly what is being said in any given piece of scripture, or if trying to do so is to be condemned, then what is the point of having scripture anyway?

And if you abandon scripture, as you seem to be suggesting, then who or what do you listen to?

Your priest? Your subconscious? Your crystal gazer? What?

Jesus' own example is crystal clear. Here's a classic example:

Mat 22.31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

The whole doctrine of the resurrection from the dead hinges on that word AM. Just one word, taken literally by the Lord.

His own resurrection; His disciples' resurrection hanging on one word.

And you object to interpreting the Bible that way? Tut tut, man.

 

[reba]

The first and larger halve of the Bible is very much political.

 

[Asyncritus]

The first and larger halve of the Bible is very much political.

Absolutely true.

Israel was the kingdom of God, whose constitution and legal system were given by God, and which they were enjoined to obey. They had a king, a land, and a Law.

The situation under Christ is, at the moment, entirely different.

We are not in a land, and the Law we have tells us to do things and act in ways that are contrary to natural inclination and political expediency.

The description is that 'you are not of this world', that 'friendship with the world is enmity with God', 'strangers and sojourners', our 'citizenship is in heaven', that we are waiting for our King to return and take up the reins of government of the whole world - all those are major differences with Israel as a kingdom in the OT.

There is no parallel at all.

 

[reba]

I remember the 50s i was old enough to hear the talk around the coffee cup... The war was over Israel was a State and The Lord was going to return NOW! We dont need to be involved... He is coming back etc... I heard my parents discussing education for my brothers down these lines....He is returning they wont have use of higher education... We are heading to Gloryland this ol world wont see us any more...that generation was looking for the same type of escape the Jewish folks were 2000 years ago... They should have cared, as we should... Mom is soon to be 89 and wishes she had thought different about her world. She sees her great grand children growing up in a world 'well meaning Christians' left behind.

Please take the time to read the whole parable..and check out all the meanings for the word occupy
Luk 19:11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
Luk 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
Luk 19:13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.

 

[reba]

Absolutely true.

Israel was the kingdom of God, whose constitution and legal system were given by God, and which they were enjoined to obey. They had a king, a land, and a Law.

The situation under Christ is, at the moment, entirely different.

entirely ? well i have land under my feet we (USA) have a president and we have laws.

We are not in a land, and the Law we have tells us to do things and act in ways that are contrary to natural inclination and political expediency.

you pay taxes on what? you said above it is entirely different here you say we have laws

The description is that 'you are not of this world', that 'friendship with the world is enmity with God', 'strangers and sojourners', our 'citizenship is in heaven', that we are waiting for our King to return and take up the reins of government of the whole world - all those are major differences with Israel as a kingdom in the OT.

I dont buy the idea we are to set and wait. God gave us minds He gave us abilities talents I dont believe He gave them to us so we could sit and wait..

There is no parallel at all.

Rom 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

 

[Butch5]

I disagree, and believe the Biblical case is strong that Christians should be involved in politics.


These words have been greatly misunderstood:

In verse 36, Jesus seems to be saying "My kingdom has nothing to do with earthly kingdoms, so there is no 'political' dimension to my kingdom".

As it turns out, there is a huge translation issue here. Here is the rendering of verse 36 as per the NET Bible:

Jesus replied, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would be fighting to keep me from being 1 handed over 2 to the Jewish authorities. 3 But as it is, 4 my kingdom is not from here.

The NET version is, my sources indicate, true to the original Greek. The greek word that is rendered “from†(above in the bolded and underlined cases) has the following definition:

“a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause; literal or figurative; direct or remote)â€

When the word is used properly, we see that the “not of this world†reading is misleading. The intended meaning is that the Kingdom that has been brought to earth is from Heaven - that is, Heaven is the point of origin for the Kingdom that has been initiated.

Jesus is a King. Jesus' kingdom, while not from this world, is rather clearly for this world.

Hi Drew,

That isn't the only passage that attests to the Christian's avoidance of worldly governments.

 

[reba]

Any use of government is is not an avoidance of government.

Use of the roads, the police, social security, water or power from the dams, use of the laws to protect persons and property...

 

[Butch5]

Any use of government is is not an avoidance of government.

Use of the roads, the police, social security, water or power from the dams, use of the laws to protect persons and property...

I believe the subject under consideration is participation in government, not lving within the iunfluence of government.

 

[WIP]

The problem with this thread is that in the United States we are the government. The government is not appointed or inherited and if we are it should we not be taking an active roll in what we are?

 

[Butch5]

The problem with this thread is that in the United States we are the government. The government is not appointed or inherited and if we are it should we not be taking an active roll in what we are?

I guess the question I'd ask is, are we it? When we became Chrsitians didn't we become citizens in the kingdom of God?

 

[WIP]

Hmmm....I see where you're going. We are to put off worldly things but are we to put off the world? Give to Caesar what is Caesar's could apply to more than just money I suspect.

 

[Elijah674]

Absolutely true.

Israel was the kingdom of God, whose constitution and legal system were given by God, and which they were enjoined to obey. They had a king, a land, and a Law.

The situation under Christ is, at the moment, entirely different.

We are not in a land, and the Law we have tells us to do things and act in ways that are contrary to natural inclination and political expediency.

The description is that 'you are not of this world', that 'friendship with the world is enmity with God', 'strangers and sojourners', our 'citizenship is in heaven', that we are waiting for our King to return and take up the reins of government of the whole world - all those are major differences with Israel as a kingdom in the OT.

There is no parallel at all.

There is a parallel as seen in Rom. 13. This is what we need to seperate. The therocray of God is as stated by the O.T. & changed by the N.T. (as Reba states) And we find as you say also, there is to be complete seperation of church & beast.

(State/government) Rom. 13 does that! We find the Church seperate with the Complete Eternal Covenant to be Obeyed by the church, & then the Government with his jurisdiction over just the second table of the 10's duty to mankind.
Never does God teach for BEAST to get involved in the Worship side of the First Four Commandments. As seen in Acts 5

[22] But when the officers came, and found them not in the prison, they returned, and told,
[23] Saying, The prison truly found we shut with all safety, and the keepers standing without before the doors: but when we had opened, we found no man within.
[24] Now when the high priest and the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these things, they doubted of them whereunto this would grow.
[25] Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people.
[26] Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned.
[27] And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,

[28] Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.
[29] Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, [[We ought to obey God rather than men.]]

(also remember that the church had no power to execute Christ, they stated that.. 'they' had no king but Ceasar)

Never will the saved violate God's Law for Beasts Governmet! And we find that the LAST 'LAMBLIKE' BEAST TURNS INTO A DRAGON ONE! 666

--Elijah

 

[Asyncritus]

[28] Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.
[29] Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, [[We ought to obey God rather than men.]]

Interesting and valuable quote.

Here are the politicians telling the apostles to act contrary to the command thay had received from the Lord.

Did they vote on the matter? Did they join up with the Sanhedrin?

Or did they give excellent reason why they shouldn't?

As I said before, we obey the laws of the land as far as possible, until they demand that we contravene the law of God.

We do not participate in the making of those laws, by voting for the politicians. We politely but firmly refuse to participate in the process, always bearing in mind that we are citizens of another kingdom.

Yes we are given privileges, yes, there may be godly reasons at the back of the laws, yes many fought and died that we may have those privileges (think of Martin Luther King, for example, and Mahatma Gandhi).

But the NT is categorically against such rebellions and protests.

1 Corinthians 7:21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
1 Corinthians 7:22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant.

If we are oppressed, we cry unto the Lord, not to the politicians:

James 5:4 Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth.

 

[Butch5]

Hmmm....I see where you're going. We are to put off worldly things but are we to put off the world? Give to Caesar what is Caesar's could apply to more than just money I suspect.

Agreed, however, I don't think one can make the case for dual citizenship when Jesus said, unless a man is willing to forsake all he cannot be my disciple. I think many Christians don't realize that participation in the kingdom of darkness is frowned upon by God. Paul said to the Corinthians,

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,​

18 And will b (2Co 6:14-18 KJV)

Paul quotes God's words to Israel, His people, notice the receiving comes "after" the coming out from among them.

 

[WIP]

So then, does God want or expect us to hide our heads in the sand and not be a participating member of the society He has placed us? Is it wrong or undesirable for us to do our best to influence our governing bodies in the hope that they will turn toward Godly principles?