Post Edited (Sahid) : 4/9/2007 3:21:40 PM (GMT-5)

J: Notice they are not asking to coerce anyone forcefully. They're just wanting the prestige of relative superiority.

Z: Two things: I think the desire for prestige and superiority is only a less developed form of the attitude which eventually results in coercive and unloving behavior.

J: I think that's definitely true. But they can be distinctly experienced. A person can desire prestige without desiring to be coercive. But since one typically leads to the other, Christ cautions against the desire itself. A desire for authority can only be good if the authority is seen as a means to a greater benevolent end than can be attained otherwise. Obviously his disciples were not viewing it that way. And neither do they who lord over the gentiles. But again, they weren't even asking to exercise authority over anyone prior to his kingdom. Christ's caution is about the cost of true greatness, which they were as oblivious to as gentile authorities.

Z: Second, if they are arguing about something which is not tied to coercive authority, then Jesus' response is a non sequitur. They argue about what color an apple is and Jesus replies by saying his favorite team is the Colts. For us to make sense of Jesus' response within the context I think we must take his words as having something to do with their question.

If they are arguing about noncoercive prestige and superiority, why does Jesus instruct them to not be rulers and lords? If they aren't seeking to do that anyway, why bring it up?

J: Christ knew that they didn't appreciate the cost of the prestige they were requesting. He reminds them, therefore, that unlike those lording over the gentiles who are deemed as benefactors because of their wielding of power, those who will be deemed great in his kingdom will be so because of their service.

The contrast makes perfect sense. We see it all the time even today. Those who love "their" president shudder at the thought that he would be held accountable for his breaches of the law. Whether Clinton or Bush, the constituents want "their" president to be unaccountable to the law. It's nuts.

In short, Christ doesn't, to my mind, "instruct them to not be rulers and lords." He says whereas the gentile rulers are deemed as benefactors merely for exercising authority independent of any personal cost, it would not be thus with them. "Thus" is an adverb. It can apply to how prestige is attained as well as whether it is attained. You read it one way. I read it the other. The way I read makes the talk about suffering relevant. Your view seem to make that talk superfluous.

By your view, Christ's response about drinking his cup doesn't even fit, to my mind. Moreover, Christ ends up saying that they actually will receive the prestigious role of judging the twelve tribes of Israel because of their sacrifice and service. So the emphasis seems to be on the "how" as opposed to the "whether."

Z: I don't think John was a false prophet. There is some space between false prophet and advocate of the "truth without any mixture of error." Moses preformed a prophetic act in error. Does that make him a false prophet? Jonah, Peter, and Jacob all screwed up. If this is the way we use the term "false prophet," then only Christ is a true prophet. I believe that everyone except Jesus makes mistakes, but for the purpose of making language a little less cumbersome, I still allow the category of "true prophet" to include sinners.

J: Here's the way I look at it. The gospel writers choose material for their accounts. They say little about John. What they do say seems to be pertinent to his role as the divinely appointed fore-runner who was to prepare the way. I don't see the account where John is calling people to bring forth works "meet for repentance" as an occasion to show that John is a sinner. If you do, fine. I don't see it. On the other hand, the Sermon on the Mount has been as controversial as all get out for centuries precisely because it seems to be radically hyperbolic or contradictory to other scripture (including Christ's other recorded statements).

E.g., Christ warned against calling people fools in the Sermon, but he pretty much did that in other places himself. I don't see this as problematic. I think Matthew is intentionally using an eastern, wisdom literature style in the Sermon. Judgment is required to make sense out of it as well as whether John was intended to be portrayed as a sinner in his comments. You judge one way. I judge the other way. And I do so because I do the best I can to see Christ as non-contradictory. When I do this, I don't see him as necessarily contradictory to John.

J: But you just recently said you didn't know what to make of Christ saying his disciples would receive if they believed. Because it constitutes a contradiction for your view. So I don't see the difference.

Z: They are different sorts of contradictions. My failure to understand the ask and you shall receive idea is the result of an existential contradiction. I assume there is a reasonable way to take the instruction that does makes sense of the world we live in. But when they Old Testament in one place records David as the killer of Goliath and in another place gives credit to a different person, I don't see how an reconciliation is even possible. How many sheep were on Noah's ark? Two? Seven? Are we to add them up and say nine? Did God create humans before plants or plants before humans? The Old Testament says both. I have a great deal of respect for the Old Testament, but I cannot take it to be authoritative or fully reliable in what it claims it makes. There is no way that I can plead ignorance to get it off the hook for its internal contradictions.

J: People will take what you call "existential" contradictions (I don't even know the difference) to be evidence that the gospels are just as unreliable as the OT. I don't know about the cases you're talking about. But a historical error here and there is not as problematic as saying that the whole tenor of the OT is wrong--which is what you are saying, to my mind. To say that government is evil is to say the TORAH is radically anti-God. I don't see any prophet even hinting at such an idea (including Christ). Unless of course, that one phrase in a non-literal passage should be taken in only one way to trump every thing else.

J: Where are Christ's statements to the opposite effect about the OT? I know of none.

Z: Luckily Jesus is not recorded as naming Goliath's killer or revealing how many doves were on Noah's ark. I think the Old Testament is very good. It is of higher status than any other document outside of the New Testament. It is highly valuable for Christian teaching. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

J: You seem to be saying that Paul is saying the OT is profitable only for those post-Christ who can now know where it is woefully erroneous. I don't assume that. I don't see any statements by any NT writer that indicates they thought that way.

Z: But I also believe it presents different theological and historical viewpoints which cannot always be reconciled to eachother. Jesus is the full revelation. He is a prophet greater than Moses. Where the are clearly cultural preconceptions and moralities mixed with the word of God in the Old Testament, the New Testament seeks to illuminate the difference between the word of God and it's particular application. I believe Jesus brought revelation in an unprecedentedly unadulterated way.

J: Besides, God is said to have instituted the punishments in the Torah. And Christ never argues against the Torah.

Z: He never argues for its authoritativeness (for those who are not part of the Jewish covenant) either.

J: OK, so if God honors the Torah punishments for those who believe it, why would he not honor my view of the State (i.e., not judge me for it) so long as it is the best I can honestly come up with for now?

Z: I think the Torah was good and that it had been twisted from its original spirit. I do think the Torah is God-breathed. I do think God communicated and still does communicate through it.

J: Private revelation is one thing. I'm not talking about that. I don't argue with one's private revelation. I'm arguing about authorial intent, only, which is the only way we can get at the historical Jesus. Authorial intent is inductively discovered.

J: Besides, isn't that account one of the most debatable accounts of the canon? I don't see why you would make much of it for that reason alone.

Z: Does an event's late relatively late authorship imply its falsity? I say no. If you say yes, you must deny the truthfulness of most of the Old Testament including at least half of the Torah.

J: If you say that half the Torah was given by someone other than it claims, then yeah, I would reject it. I would also assume Christ was wrong if he said Moses said something he didn't actually say. That's just being logical.

J: My only point was that consent is not required in either case.

Z: But there is consent in the case of Church discipline. The convert subjects himself to Jesus, and therefore his instruction, and therefore Church discipline. There may not be consent with the specific action, but there is meaningful and informed consent.

J: By that definition of consent, everyone who agrees that State action is legitimate in some instances automatically consents to its actions upon them. I don't see the difference. For the state is either legitimate as an institution or not. No one is arguing that it is right in all its actions. The church isn't either.

J: Your view takes one phrase ("resist not evil" ) one particular way to trump other statements by people Christ recognized as prophets.

Z: Yes, but I also take all of Jesus' words to trump others. He is Lord after all. And I assume you would agree that all those people Jesus recognized as prophets, he also recognized as sinners who occasionally get things wrong. Inerrancy, even a soft version only made in reference to theological matters, is a claim which the scripture does not make of itself. On the other hand the scripture does claim inerrancy for Jesus.

J: That depends on what one takes as scripture. If you take the whole traditionally accepted NT, then yeah, it claims it is authoritative. But you still have "existential" contradictions with Christ's own words. So I don't see how your epistemologically in a superior position than those you oppose.

J: I think that word (resist) can mean retaliate. The "anti" in resist can have that idea. Especially since the example of "turning the other cheek" is just such an example. It's about not retaliating. And even the example is not literal. Escaping and saving life and limb are permissible in some circumstances.

Z: I can agree with all of this. I would keep the word resist or "stand or set against." And depending on how we use the slippery word "literal," we might disagree. I think that one can follow this teaching in ways other than turning one's head.

J: Flesh that out a bit. What does it mean to "stand against?" Can Christ be saying that we are not to stand between a would-be murderer's bullet and his intended victim? Or what?

J: Resting on the Sabbath is a good. But the "evil" (lack of rest) that results from a little work on the Sabbath is not "greater" than the evil (the suffering) of an ox stuck in the ditch for the whole Sabbath day.

Z: From the very beginning, the Sabbath was about God's caring for and releasing of the oppressed and his people's cooresponding rest.

J: Where does Christ say that? Why can't it be about greed and the evil consequences of it?

Z: (If you want to talk about the chronology of canonical passages, the exodus accounts came first, and the six-day version of creation came later. The idea of a primordial watery chaos is relatively early, but the composition of the Genesis 1 account is relatively late.)

J: I don't know what the chronology of extant passages has to do with anything. So long as they are true, what difference does it make if they were redacted a hundred times or put in written form after long periods of oral tradition?

Z: There is no contradiction between loving God and loving neighbor in rescuing an ox on the Sabbath.

J: I agree.

Z: There is not even a contradiction between the original intention of Sabbath law and the act of freeing an ox on the Sabbath.

J: Exactly. The intents are not contradictory. Authorial intent is what is relevant in exegesis. Words can actually be contradictory so long as the intent is not contradictory. Indeed, sometimes words are juxtaposed as seeming contradictions just to emphasize that there are two senses in which they are meant.

Z: I do not believe that Jesus gives contradictory instructions.

J: Yes, but you live with "existential" contradictions. So what difference does it make? All one can do is be as intellectually honest as one knows how with interpreting according to authorial intent.

Z: I think that both your and my viewpoints on the matter of Christian ethics are plausible, but I think that mine requires a simpler set of unfounded (or faith-based) assumptions.

J: I agree. I just agree with Einstein when he said "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

In short, I find your view so simple that it entails "existential" contradictions about theological themes in addition to requiring my judging people (as you do) about matters I'm not even remotely full persuaded of. It also seems to entail very difficult implications like, e.g., disallowing me to resisting evil by getting in the middle of my child harming another child. You seem to be saying that even as a parent I must sit and watch my dependent (even at, say, 11 years old) beat up another 11-year old. It is really hard for me to believe that was Christ's intent.

Z: To my mind it also makes the life of Jesus and particularly the passion story more understandable and coherent.

J: Refresh my memory on how that connection works. How is the passion incoherent if the State is a legitimate institution?

Post Edited (jefscott) : 4/15/2007 2:43:56 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 4/19/2007 11:29:00 PM (GMT-5)