Oaky Zach, you might have hit on something that can be pertinent to this conversation. Please expound on what the “King of the Jews” denotes.  Does it differ from what the “King of Kings” denotes?   At this time I don’t think we need to delve into our connotation of the term, being in either the form of a spiritual sense or as poetic literature.   I would first like to explore the denotation of the term in the context of the original authors and audience of the time.  

So what do you think, can you unpack this and flush it out a little bit?   Thanks!

Z: I, on the other hand, think Jesus was in the business of turning many of our ideas upside-down, including our idea of political authority.

J: First of all, it seems like there were believing Jews who believed just what Jesus and Paul say about political authority. It serves as a ministry unto the good of well-doers in at least a statistical sense. Consequently, we are to pay taxes. We have no reason to believe Jesus meant anything different than that in saying "Render unto Caesar what IS Caesar's." Paul makes that very point--that we are to pay "Caesar" for the divinely-appointed service rendered.

None of this contradicts the OT. On the other hand, Christ doesn't have much positive to say about the particular office-holders IN government. No surprise, there. It doesn't take revelation to come to that conclusion ourselves.

Likewise with the Sermon, Christ does, indeed, swing the pendulum the other way from the hypocritical interpretations of the scribes and pharisees. But there is no reason to suppose he is trying to contradict the OT. We know that "give to him who asks" can not be literally applied in every case. I could be asked for what I don't even have to give, e.g. We also know that God doesn't give to all who ask. Likewise, I may not have two cloaks to give to him who takes one. And so on...

Why then should I assume that Christ means, by "resist no evil," that I am not to attempt to pull a bully off his victim? IOW, why should that phrase be unconditional if the other isn't?

It makes just as much sense to see Christ as swinging the pendulum to the opposite direction of the pharisees (and using paradoxical hyperbole to do so), not contradicting the law. Paul seems to take him just this way. For he quotes out of the Proverbs when talking about vengeance. He agrees with Christ and the OT that we are not to avenge ourselves. But unlike the pharisees, he agrees with Christ in believing that, in some cases, feeding your hungry enemy can overcome their evil by that good. We see this with Saul and David.

But it doesn't follow that trying to feed every starving enemy in every conveivable situation is wise or capable of overcoming their evil. Rather, Christ may have said such things to illustrate the principle about HOW to affect the greatest good in the world in cases where justice/judgment is not superior. We are not to suppose that judgment always boasts over mercy. In many cases, mercy boasts over judgment in the sense that it literally results in a GREATER GOOD.

This gets back, in part, to the fact that all people do better with positive motivation than negative motivation in certain matters. Paul says that government both PRAISES and TERRIFIES. Both kinds of motivation are necessary for optimal results, though civilians are never authorized to avenge for what can be known to be very practical reasons.

Wise civilians recognize that there are both kinds of motivation and, thus, appeal to positive motivations in those cases where these motivate people to the optimum good. But since there is plenty of evidence that some people will only or more probably be motivated by negative consequences, there are also cases where the government, by applying God's delegated vengeance upon evil-doers, achieves a LESSER EVIL.

Since there are so many OT verses that speak to the propriety of non-retaliation and mercy in certain cases, it is perfectly rational that Christ end his sermon by saying "do unto others as you would have them do unto you, for THIS IS THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS." Note, he doesn't say, "for THIS IS MY OWN DOCTRINE THAT TURNS THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS ON IT'S HEAD." Most people would have their neighbor help them get a violent bully off of them. So the golden rule works reciprocally when they are on the "other side of the table." So people are not being hypocritical or irrational for not being absolute non-interventionists.

The fact is, there is no way, if both postive and negative motivations are best in different cases for different people, that Christ could have enumerated every appropriate action for every conceivable circumstance. Rather, Christ gave us principles to apply and demonstrated how they should have been applied in certain specific cases. The other NT writers did the same. As such, they are not contradicting each other.

To take your view of the Sermon, they MUST be contradicting each other. For by your view, it makes no sense at all for Paul to say we OWE taxes BECAUSE the government bears the sword to execute God's vengeance. Indeed, by your view, God Himself doesn't avenge, therefore He couldn't possibly have delegated any such power to goverment, and government could not possibly, therefore, be executing it. But Christ himself said God DOES avenge. Therefore, there is NO logical problem with God delegating to government the power to execute it for a ministry of good to well-doers.

Post Edited (Similtude) : 4/19/2008 5:55:47 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 4/20/2008 4:45:23 AM (GMT-5)

The Old Testament Speaks:

"Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as "the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that it was indestructible: "Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18). Notice that he mentions even the words and letters!

When dealing with the people of His day, whether it was with the disciples or religious rulers, Jesus constantly referred to the Old Testament: "Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?" (Matthew 22:31); "Yea; and have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes thou hast prepared praise for thyself'?" (Matthew 21:16, citing Psalm 8:2); and "Have you not read what David did?" (Matthew 12:3). Examples could be multiplied to demonstrate that Jesus was conversant with the Old Testament and its content. He quoted from it often and He trusted it totally.

He confirmed many of the accounts in the Old Testament, such as the destruction of Sodom and the death of Lot's wife (Luke 17:29, 32), the murder of Abel by his brother Cain (Luke 11:51), the calling of Moses (Mark 12:26), the manna given in the wilderness (John 6:31-51), the judgment upon Tyre and Sidon (Matthew 1-1:21), and many others.

Not only did Jesus confirm the historicity of these accounts, He also authenticated some of the passages that are most disputed today. Many modern scholars do not believe that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament, but Jesus did (see Matthew 19:8, 9; John 7:19; Mark 12:29-31).
Some modern scholars also assume the existence of more than one Isaiah, but Jesus believed in only one. In Luke 4:17-21, He cites Isaiah 61:1, 2 (the so-called second Isaiah or Deutero-Isaiah) while in Matthew 15:7-9 He refers to the first part of Isaiah's work (Isaiah 6:9) without the slightest hint of more than one author.

The account of Daniel is rejected today by many as actually coming from the pen of Daniel, but the Lord Jesus believed him to be a prophet (Matthew 24:15). The account of Adam and Eve often is ridiculed today as legend, but Jesus believed the story to be true (Matthew 19:1-6).

Likewise, the narrative of Noah and the great flood not only is authenticated by Jesus (Matthew 24:37), it also is used as an example of His second coming. Finally, the most unbelievable of all-the account of Jonah and the great fish-is used by Jesus as a sign of His resurrection (Matthew 12:39ff).

It almost seems as though Jesus was anticipating 20th century biblical criticism when He authenticated these accounts. The conclusion is simple. If a person believes in Jesus Christ, he should be consistent and believe that the Old Testament and its accounts are correct. Many want to accept Jesus, but also want to reject a large portion of the Old Testament. This option is not available. Either Jesus knew what He was talking about or He did not. The evidence is clear that Jesus saw the Old Testament as being God's Word; His attitude toward it was nothing less than total trust."

Post Edited (Truth Aficionado) : 4/26/2008 8:15:37 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Truth Aficionado) : 4/27/2008 2:33:30 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 4/29/2008 4:13:54 PM (GMT-5)