This passage is abused. It is not a blanket approval of all human governments (as if they are all ordained by God). It is an approval of the concept of human government during the present age. Given the fallenness of mankind, God endorses the concept of human government over total anarchy. It is an allowance and a lesser evil.jriccitelli wrote:Rich before you steal anything you might be warned;
For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:14)
This is an either/or fallacy. Why should I have to choose between violence and doing nothing? I could step between the attacker and the potential victim. I could also attempt to physically restrain them. Neither of these options necessitates violence. Indeed, Bruxy Cavey once told a story about seeing some men chasing a woman. Instincts caused him to follow them in support of the woman. He found them in a circle threatening to beat her to death. Cavey simply stood in front of her and said something like, "You'll have to kill me first." They left. His rendition was much more moving, but you get the basic plot.And Rich, are you saying amen to allowing someone to assault a woman or child?
(as in; How do you plan to stop such an attack?)
I didn't advocate for the total pacifism you speak of.Matt, Jesus means for us to ‘refuse’ aggressive behavior, and to not be aggressive. We don’t invoke violence, but we can stop an aggressor from violence. And we should neither use excessive force or violence on an attacker, but still total pacifism would be illogical.
I agree he would not stand by. That's exactly why I agreed that just standing by is not an option.Jesus would not stand by as someone attacked a child in his presence, the situation may not have presented itself but I think a lightning bolt or a millstone would be an option although I prefer to imagine Jesus showing some good grappling or restraint holds (maybe a quiet takedown or a hip throw with a wrist locklift)
(Remember; all judgments not rendered here ‘will be rendered’ postmortem by Jesus, but Jesus did not come to put an end to civil society, but he advocated a nonviolent peaceful ‘lifestyle’ and attitude)
.Matt are you saying we should not have police or a military?
No. I think government/military/police are fallen conditions. God ordains that the concept exists in the interim.
God's Holy Nation, the Kingdom of God.What nation (that possesses anything worth taking) does not have a military or a police?
Unbelievers, atheists (and Christians who equate the U.S. with the Kingdom of God) have a vested interest in the preservation of their earthly nation for its own sake. It makes sense for them to defend it. I enjoy benefits of their defending it and am thankful. What's more, it is quite possible, in a host of scenarios, for military men and police to never have to use violence (except restraint) during their careers.Are you saying we should expect unbelievers and atheists to defend and man police stations for all us Christians?
They shouldn't be. They're just the only ones willing to do so via violence. I'm not sure it is the best method.Why should only unbelievers be expected to help protect and keep society civil?
The police.Who do you call when your car gets stolen?
Why do you think my position means I don't think 'police' are a legitimate entity?Do you think the peace officers are just going to go find the stolen car and politely ask the thief to give back the car?
I never said Jesus was against governments/military/police in 'this world'This thinking does not work in this world, Jesus is not unknowledgeable or uninterested in order and rule. God puts a high respect on military and Jesus shows no dissatisfaction with the services of police and soldiers in scripture (and neither will I).
I said violence is not something HIS PEOPLE are ever called to utilize. In fact, they are specifically told not to.