First of all, I don't want to give the impression that I oppose coercion because it doesn't work.  That's close but not quite what I'm saying.  Humble submission certainly does work better in the long run.  I primarily oppose coercion, because Jesus tells me to wash feet, to love my enemy, to stay awake and wait for him.  I have no way to prove that servanthood will change more hearts than coercion.  I hope so, but I can't be sure.  Rather I attempt to embrace servanthood, because it is the life to which I have been called by my Savior.  Even if it hardens more hearts than it softens, I must remain faithful.  We, as God's people, may support work that happens to correspond to our calling, but we cannot give our loyalty to another.  That is the very definition of what it means to be God's.

Now to the point...  Off the top of my head, there is the issue of God not wanting a monarchy in the first place.  The acceptance of human government was one of the ways the Israelite people sold out to God.  The crazy thing about God is that he doesn't just drop them like a bad habit.  He tries to make the best of their poor decisions.  When we get to Jeremiah God punishes their unfaithfulness by disolving their government, but it's more than that.  He restores them to a way of life closer to their original calling.  In other words, he removes the distraction of struggling to find the best way to use coercion.  There may be a "best way" and I think liberal democracy (of which America is the prime example) is pretty close.  But the question misses the point.  God's people should not be in the business of making everyone "be holy or else."  I think this has to be the context.  Jeremah (who probably had a significant role in forming the scriptures) sees the monarchy as the dark ages, the detour in God's plan, not the exile.  In the exile we are finally back on track spreading God's light to the nations.

Now to Josiah.  I'm no expert, this is what it looks like to me.  Josiah was a good guy before the book of the law was found.  He was fixing up the temple and giving its money to its workers.  Then they find it and he tears his clothes.  Huldah tells him that the people have sinned through idolatry, and that Josiah will be spared because of his humility.  Then Josiah tears down all places of worship except the temple and reinstitutes Pasover.

There are a lot of threads to tie together here.  First, the whole story is primarily about idolatry and faithfulness.  Josiah destroyed the places of idolatry that belonged to him.  It wasn't a commonwealth; it was a kingdom.  Eminent domain on steriods.  Kings own everything.  The people take care of what he owns.  There is no parliament or constitutional restriction.  The people are loyal to the king and to the kingdom only by extention.  So assuming that the kingdom belongs to Josiah (it doesn't; it belongs to God), then I have no problem with him destroying his pagan temples.  I applaud the fact that he doesn't go around arresting or killing the pagan priests.  That was ahead of its time (or maybe politically necessary).

Another thread is Josiah's humility.  Kings should not be humble.  It's not smart.  It is thought that kings should be strong.  The Middle East was a dog-eat-dog world just as much then as it is now.  Servants are the ones who should be humble.  By his humility Josiah states with his posture that God is the true king.  If there is a "best way" for a monarchy to work, this is it: to realize that the monarchy is really an illusion, that, in fact, God is Lord.  A monarchy (or any other human government) puts an idol in God's place.  So, short of disolving the monarchy (as God would latter do), the best alternative is for the king to submit to God.

God works through bad people.  In fact he loves them.  So, he is willing to make the best of bad situations.  He doesn't do things all at once.  He took six days to create the universe when he surely could have done it in one (whatever your reading of Genesis, the point stands).  For some reason he seems to take the long way.  He will get around to everything, but he might use his own timing.  God finally did fix the mistake begun in Samuel's time, but the issue of idolatry was apparently more pressing.

The only other issue I see is the Passover.  Josiah commanded that it be celebrated.  The thing is, under that system, Josiah owned even the people themselves.  They were effectively his slaves.  The best thing would be to free them (disolve the government), but they were not ready and/or monotheistic faithfulness was more important.

And finally, the application today (this one's for free).  Our liberal democracy is no different.  We are not owned by a king;  we are owned in theory by the majority and in practice by the American ruling class.  Sorry if it sounds too "conspiracy theory."  But the simple fact is that a poor farmer has little chance in our national government even though the system was designed for him.  As Christians and people of God, we should not sign a blank check and pledge allegiance to whatever the majority says.  Christians have already written a blank check to God, and he won't be happy when it bounces.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 5/1/2005 3:50:11 AM (GMT-5)

If I were in Josiah's shoes, having been formed into what I am today, I think I would try to work to dispell the notion that the king is any more important than anyone else.  I hope I would do something like encourage individuals and "volutanry associations" or families to take care of important matters on their own.  I hope that I would be generous with the money intrusted to me and give most of it to the needy.  I hope that I would still have the courage to intervene when an individual, voluntary association, or family mistreated someone, but I hope that I wouldn't demand the lives or posessions of others to do so.  I wouldn't have a problem with people calling me king, just so long as I made it clear with my example that a king no longer was one who "lords it over them," as Jesus said.  Controlling people for their own good is not what a servant does, and it is my belief that if someone wants to be a big-shot, they should act as a servant.

To get to what I think is your point, I too would tear down my pagan temples and stop paying their priests and prostitutes money that would be better given to the poor.  After the temples were destroyed there is a good chance (I hope) that I would give some of the lands to the people.  In fact, if Josiah is acting according to the book of the law, land distribution is something he must do.  (Even if it was only Deuteronomy, there are still Sabbath year rules, which are closely tied in Leviticus with the year of Jubilee.)  I don't think I'd command Passover.  I think it's going too far to command religious service.  It's not like he's king in reality.  But, still, I think it's a demonstration of God's mercy to work with Josiah despite his not being absolutely perfect.  He was definitely a guy who had humbled himself to God.  Maybe he didn't have all the details right, but who does?

Josiah's version of blue laws are not primarily what the Bible commends him for.  His humility and repentance were what the Biblical writer finds impressive.  It's also notable that the people whom he commanded to celebrate were said to have entered into the same covenant as he had (and it doesn't say he forced them).

In short, the only "legislative" action I see Josiah taking is the command to celebrate Passover.  The other things are the man doing what God commands be done with his personal property.  Commanding God's covenant people to celebrate Passover is redundant.  They'd agreed to follow the book already.  But even if Josiah made incorrect decisions, I don't think it's above God to work with him.

I don't know if that helps or not.  If I think of a hole, I'll say so.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 5/4/2005 6:27:01 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 5/4/2005 7:36:43 PM (GMT-5)

Hey Sahid, glad that you’re interested in continuing with the discussion. 

Sahid: I would consider a carrot persuasion.  The whip is coercion.  To me coercion implies force.  Harsh words are not coercive if they do not promise force.

VFG: Ok, I think I’m starting to see what you mean with coercion… but I now have the question of what would you consider “force” to be?  I’m not trying to be nit-picky… I just want to make sure we’re using terms in the same way.  “Force” can mean a couple of things: there’s (1) physical maneuvering (such as putting your hands over a child’s hands and forcing the child to clap, for example), there’s (2) “forcing a move” (such as a mouse in a maze and you block all routes except the one you want the mouse to take), there’s (3) force by harm, and other forms of force I haven’t thought of.  I’m gathering you mean the last one, #3?

 -----------

"Why not throw out just about all of Paul’s writings, Peter’s writings, John’s writings, most of Psalms, all of Ecclesiastes, or Song of Solomon, for example?"

Two things: What do we mean by "throw it out?"  And what is your reason?

VFG: Back on 4/24/05 you had asked why not throw out Proverbs and it seemed that your line of reasoning seemed to say that since God didn’t give us Proverbs on tablets like the 10 Commandments, that we’re allowed to throw it out if we wish.  I was following that line of reasoning as a reductio ad absurdum, or showing where the reasoning leads.  So essentially, I don’t agree with throwing any of it out.  There are passages that I view as “fulfilled” (such as the ceremonial commands found in the Pentateuch) and other things that are specifically for the person or persons to whom passages were clearly addressed (such as in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles). 

-----

Sahid: If by "throw it out" we mean to say "regard it as no longer authoritative", then I would argue that almost every Christian has already thrown it out.  If we really considered the Bible authoritative then God's people would be committing genocide against all the uncircumcised in the promised land (wait... that is what is happening).  My point is that there is plenty in the bible that we explain, interpret, and exegete away.  We imitate Jesus when we do this.  It's not necessarily bad to consider the Bible unauthoritative or throw some of it out.  Jesus did it too.

VFG: I think it is important to consider the Bible as authoritative, but there are sections under which we are no longer subjugated.  The sections related to genocide were authoritative for the specific time it was addressed; I can’t find anything in the text that even implies that those commands were to be ongoing commands (versus being time-, place-, and people-specific) for God’s people.  Regarding explaining away the OT, I would argue that Jesus did not disregard the OT or change it to being un-authoritative.

----------

Sahid: The reason you gave for not "throwing it out" (if you meant this as your reason) was "it’s all still necessary to our faith, either in understanding history, culture, who God is, his moral law and guidance for how to carry out our lives, etc."  This is essentially utilitarianism applied to the canon.  Basically, what is canon is what is useful.  Following that line of reasoning I think that certain portions of Timothy and Galatians should be removed (and Galatians is one of my favorite books).  Both books use what we would consider today bad reasoning or interpretations.  If professors at certain seminaries played as loose with the scriptures as these authors did, they would be fired in a heartbeat.

The utilitarian argument makes one very big assumption: we know what is "necessary to our faith... understanding... and guidance."  I would argue that we do not have the capacity to judge the canon well.  I would also argue that many of our church fathers did not think of the Bible as authoritative in that same sense that many do today.

VFG: I’m not sure what you mean by utilitarianism.  I’m not familiar with this term.  Is it: The end justifies the means? Before I answer this last part, let me know if this is what you mean.

Anyway, I appreciate the dialog.  This helps me clarify my understanding on OT v. NT a bit.

Sahid: You’re right about force and coersion.  They have many meanings.  I think I want to apply all three of your meanings.  Basically, I use force and coersion to mean that all other options are made unavailable.  This can be physical or pyschological.  But this may not technically be the case all the time.  Maybe the mouse could just sit in the maze and starve or maybe one could just endure physical harm to the point of death.  So I guess what I mean is the intention.  When I whip a horse I am doing (practically if not techically) all I can to make every alternative but running unavailable.  I do use the words more loosely than I'd like to.

VFG: One question then comes to mind: Are you against all forms of coercion in all circumstances?  Personally, I’m not.  There are certain types of coercion I definitely oppose such as constantly beating something until it moves.  But in the circumstances in blocking all options except the one desired, I think in certain circumstances it is necessary, such as when the health of the child is the issue.  We want (ideally) our children to be healthy. Sometimes they get sick, they don’t know why, and they don’t know how to cure themselves.  (For example) The doctor prescribes medicine, but the child doesn’t want to take the medicine (for whatever reason) while not realizing the medicine will make him/her better.  If the child doesn’t take the medicine, the child will die (for example, pneumonia).  I think the parents should force the child to take the medicine even though the child really doesn’t want to. 

 ------------------

Sahid: There are things that Christians throw out.  Luther threw out James.  Protestants threw out the Apocrypha.  Calvin didn't "throw out" Revelation, but he ignored it so that it amounted to the same thing. 

VFG: If we are to use these circumstances as support for throwing out certain books from the canon, we’d first need to see the surrounding circumstances and evaluate their reasons for doing so before we say, “they did it, so can I.”  Some of them may have had good reasons for their decisions; some may have had shaky/not-so-good reasons.  We first need to evaluate that.  I’m also curious why the Apocrypha was not accepted by the early church or the Protestants as well.  Do you know their reasoning for that?  Also about Luther and Calvin, they may have been big names, but that doesn’t mean all of their decisions were of sound judgment.

 ------------------

Sahid: Whether we formally throw something out or not seems to me to be beside the point.  What matters is whether we live under its authority. 

VFG: I think it is the point.  If x is thrown out, x can not possess the possibility of being authoritative to the person or persons who are the thrower outers.  That statement in itself doesn’t necessarily mean that keeping something included automatically assumes it as being authoritative.  Keeping something = having the possibility of being authoritative.

 ------------------

Sahid: I've been pulled over, but I've never bribed the officer.  By acting this way I have proven that certain parts of the scripture are not authoritative over me.  By eating pepperoni, I've proven that I don't hold other parts as authoritative.  When David took the consecrated bread he showed that he did not consider all of the law as authoritative.  David was following some higher law. 

VFG: I agree.  Jesus also supported this by quoting Hosea 6:6.  This means Jesus rendered it as authoritative.  It states “I desire [steadfast love, compassion, mercy, loyalty] rather than sacrifice.”  (The words in the brackets are from a few different translations for the Hebrew word “khesed”.)  The law that David broke was a ceremonial law.  The higher law he deferred to was the moral/ethical law: the law of the heart, the intention.  David’s troops were starving (as I understand it).  Which would be worse: to let his men starve and save the bread or to take the bread and save the men?  Jesus emphasized over and over that the moral law is the higher law.  The ceremonial law was fulfilled by Jesus.  The ceremonial law was necessary for those who had already sinned and needed the ceremonies for atonement, but it was later understood that these ceremonies were a faded picture of the true atonement done by Jesus.  It is because of Jesus’ sacrifice that we are no longer under the ceremonial law, because he fulfilled it. The moral law is still valid.

 ------------------

Sahid: I think our disagreement is semantic.  When I say authoritative, I mean the thing that all others are judged by.  If a law can be ethically broken, then it's not authoritative, it's not the highest authority. 

VFG: Hmm… I’ll have to think about this.  How would I define authoritative? hmm.. I’ll let you know.  I agree some of our disagreement refers to this, but also how we determine something to be authoritative.  Reminds me of another thread on this board, but can’t remember the name of it.

 ------------------

Sahid: You said that Jesus did not make the law unauthoritative, but I can only wonder what you mean by this.  What did Jesus do with the divorce law if not show it to be unauthoritative?

VFG: I hope my distinction between ceremonial law vs. moral law clarified this.  Regarding divorce: Matthew 5:31, Jesus didn’t throw out divorce.  He said divorce isn’t allowed except in the case of infidelity.  Otherwise the divorcer would be causing himself and his spouse to commit adultery.  This is restated in Matthew 19:3-9.  Verse 10 seems to show us that divorce in that time was rampant, and that people in general did not divorce on grounds of infidelity. 

I’ll get to the rest later.  Until then, thanks for the discussion! 

Post Edited (Violin for God) : 5/21/2005 6:33:46 PM (GMT-5)

Ok, this is sad... it took me two hours to write this response.  (Y'all had better like it!  haha, just kidding! ;) )

Sahid: I'm fine with a distinction between Moral and Ceremonial Law, but there is a variety of places to draw the line.  For example, you put the 10 commandments on the Moral side, but relatively few Christians keep the Sabbath. 

VFG: Majority “consensus” doesn’t make something right.  Christians are breaking the Moral Law.  The purpose of the Sabbath was to remember the Lord.  Even if people “did” nothing on the Sabbath and also did not remember the Lord, the Moral Law would still be broken.  The Sabbath (7^th day) is on a Saturday for the Jews, Christians moved it to Sunday.  The American weekly calendar has Sunday as the first day and Saturday the last.  For the European calendars that I’ve seen (Germany, Austria, Switzerland), Monday is the first day of the week and Sunday is the last.  Does the heart of the issue deal with the exact day we have the Sabbath or simply that we take a day off to remember the Lord?

 -------------

Sahid: I agree with you that there are many genres in the Bible, but there are still some parts that I don't consider authoriative. … I too think we should keep the Bible, but not all of it should be authoritative.

VFG: Tell me your reasons for that decision.

 ------------

Sahid: A psalm about desiring one's enemies to die painfully is (I would argue) directly anti-Christian, and therefore not authoritative. 

VFG: What makes it “anti-Christian”?  What is “anti-Christian”?

 ------------

Sahid:  You spoke of the Bible revealing God's will.  Is it in God's will to command people to commit genocide? 

VFG: First, we have to come to the understanding that God’s command for the Israelites to wipe out a tribe is not a law for us to follow.  This is an historical record (i.e. applicable to only those to whom it was commanded… not applicable to us) of a command that God gave to the Israelites.  We can’t deny that God commanded it.  Now the reasons why God commanded it are debatable. 

My answer is: A command is a will.  If it’s commanded, it’s willed.  But here it’s obviously not sovereign because the Israelites had the option to not follow the command.  It was willed, and God permitted the choice to obey or not.

 -----------

Sahid: Is it God's will that we hate our enemies? 

VFG: Where do you see this, issued as a command, in the Bible?

 -----------

Sahid: Jesus thought we were to love our enemies.  Both cannot be authoritative without some very creative interpretation. 

VFG: Can you point out my “creative” interpretation? 

 -----------

Sahid: You also spoke of God's sovereign will.  I think we should remember that it is God's place to command people and not ours. 

VFG: I’m not sure if you understand what I mean by “God’s sovereign will”.  I did state it was God’s, not ours; so your second sentence here doesn’t make much sense to me.  Sovereign means “unalterable; it will happen no matter what”.

 ------------

Sahid: I also have a low opinion of the book of Mormon.  But that some guy wrote it is a histoical fact.  I would also argue that the Bible does not stand up to historical criticism.  The flood is probably the best example.  I've never heard any historical criticisms of the Koran, but I'll look.  My point is that historical accuracy does not help a book's case for authority.  Inaccuracy certainly hurts it though.

VFG: Sorry, but that guy was wrong.  There is nothing historical in the BoM.  Nothing has been irrefutably supported by archaeological evidence.  For example, there is no such language as “reformed Egyptian”, the supposed areas where the Lamanites and Nephites lived show no archaeological evidence that these tribes ever existed.  Some Mormon apologists have created some pretty weak links to some things in their BoM.

How does the flood not hold up to historical criticism? 

-------------- 

Sahid: The acceptance of the Apocrypha was nearly identical to the acceptance of the rest of the canon (as far as I know).  Slow and gradual.  If just happened a few centuries latter.  It was rejected (I think rightly so) by the church later. 

VFG: Did you read the link I supplied?

I’m still thinking about authority/authoritative.

Post Edited (Violin for God) : 5/22/2005 7:23:52 PM (GMT-5)

Sabbath - the Sabbath is saturday.  It has not been moved to Sunday.  Sunday is the Lord's Day.  Maybe some would disagree.  But the only thing they have in common is that they are days of the week.

Authority - If one is not under the authority of a passage (such as a passage to kill children), then it is not authoritative for that one.

Anti-Christian Psalms -

"O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us- he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137:8,9

"Love your neighbor." Matthew 22:39

We can’t deny that God commanded it.-  Now you give me your reason.  Why?  I think we should put such troubling passages under the most scrutiny possible, especially since they conflict with the nature of God revealed to us in Christ.

Hating Enemies- Deut 23:6; 2Ch 19:2; Ps 31:6; 119:113; 139:21,22  None of this is Christian.  Jesus taught us to love our enemies.

I'm not saying your interpretation is "creative."  When Jesus talks about hating one's family, I think he is talking about an act.  I find it very hard to see Jesus condoning the hateful attitudes displayed in these passages.

Sovereign Will- I didn't realize you were talking about determinism.  I thought you meant sovereign like the sovereign of a nation is sovereign.  Still, Jesus is lord.  That means the position is filled.  Only God has a place giving orders.

Book of Mormon- I agree that much in the Book of Mormon is not historical, but the book itself is.  That's all I meant.

Flood- The fossil record and the sheer mass of water needed for water to cover the earth in the way Genesis describes make the odds nil.  about the same as "reformed Egyptians."  I don't doubt that there was a flood.  I just doubt that the author of the biblical account took the time to check Everest.  Perhaps the biblical account was never meant to stand up to historical and scientific criticism at this point.

Your link- I read it but I take issue with it at a few key points. 

By this standard the New Testament is not canonical.  Does it really matter when the books were accepted.  Has a "canonical period" been revealed to us by God?  Does it have to be accepted by Jews in Babylonian exile for it to be Christian canon?  The greater portion of the western church accepted it, then rejected it.  We can't "annul" it rather than divorce it.  The cannon is created by the community.  It is not dropped from heaven.  The community accepted it, and so it really was canon.  Then the Protestants rejected it and thereby really did remove it from canon.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 5/22/2005 10:34:05 PM (GMT-5)