This post is prompted by Paul VanderKlay’s short video response to the conversation between Rod Dreher and Jonathan Pageau.
-------------------------------------------------
Revelation 5: 4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.
5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
We know Jesus is the slain lamb. What of this Lion of the tribe of Judah?
Genesis 49: 8 Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; thy father's children shall bow down before thee.
9 Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?
10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
Both Matthew and Luke trace Jesus’s genealogy through Judah. In one being, we have both the lion and the lamb. How can this be? GK Chesterton describes one of the many paradoxes of Christianity in his book Orthodoxy, where Christianity is blamed both for not fighting (the lamb) and for fighting (the lion):
It was the fault of poor old Christianity (somehow or other) both that Edward the Confessor did not fight and that Richard Coeur de Leon did.
He then makes reference to the lion and the lamb:
It is constantly assured, especially in our Tolstoyan tendencies, that when the lion lies down with the lamb the lion becomes lamb-like.
To be clear, while we commonly picture the lion and the lamb lying together, I don’t believe the Biblical sources put it exactly this way.
Isaiah 11: 6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
So, the lion and the lamb are at least in the same scene. Continuing with Chesterton, and this image of the lion becoming lamb-like:
But that is brutal annexation and imperialism on the part of the lamb. That is simply the lamb absorbing the lion instead of the lion eating the lamb.
Is this the point – for the lamb to now consume the lion? Chesterton thinks not:
The real problem is—Can the lion lie down with the lamb and still retain his royal ferocity? THAT is the problem the Church attempted; THAT is the miracle she achieved.
Jesus achieved that miracle.
We are coming to a time where Christianity is being moved to the fringe of the society. The center is being filled by something else. Christianity has been at the center in the West, losing ground with the Enlightenment, and finally giving way in the First World War. It has been living on fumes since then.
While Christianity was at the center, there was at least the objective of love, which left room at the margins. Everything of love and respect to all in society can be found in Christianity and only in Christianity. Sure, never perfect, never progressing fast enough, but undeniably so.
Something other than Christian love is moving to the center. It is hate; there is no doubt about this.
I am troubled by this direction, as many are; the monologue by VanderKlay troubled me more. For example, VanderKlay offers:
Don’t despair about being moved to the margin. Christ didn’t belong there either, yet Christ always wins.
I know Christ always wins. Christ knew this also. Yet it didn’t prevent Him from despair:
Matthew 26: 38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.
39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
I have often found myself wondering about the survival of Christianity over the centuries, under attack in Europe by the Vikings, the Huns, the Muslims. For this, I consider Chesterton’s comments above: in Christianity (and in Christ) we find both a lion who retains his ferocity and a lamb who is ready to be sacrificed.
Where would Christianity be without a few lions: Charles Martel, King Otto I the Great, or King John III Sobieski?
Charles Martel led the Frankish forces at the Battle of Tours on 10 October 732. Charles was victorious, stopping what had been to that point a continuous string of Muslim victories in Europe. Had Charles fallen, many believe Europe would have been lost, for example:
The first wave of real "modern" historians, especially scholars on Rome and the medieval period, such as Edward Gibbon, contended that had Charles fallen, the Umayyad Caliphate would have easily conquered a divided Europe.
Gibbon was echoed a century later by the Belgian historian Godefroid Kurth, who wrote that the Battle of Poitiers "must ever remain one of the great events in the history of the world, as upon its issue depended whether Christian Civilization should continue or Islam prevail throughout Europe."
German historians were especially ardent in their praise of Charles Martel; Schlegel speaks of this "mighty victory", and tells how "the arm of Charles Martel saved and delivered the Christian nations of the West from the deadly grasp of all-destroying Islam."
Next, King Otto I and the Battle of Lechfeld, in August 955. By this point, Europe had suffered perhaps 150 years of Hungarian invasions:
The Battle of Lechfeld was a series of military engagements over the course of three days from 10–12 August 955 in which the German forces of King Otto I the Great annihilated a Hungarian army led by harka Bulcsú and the chieftains Lél and Súr. With this German victory, further invasions by the Magyars into Latin Europe were ended.
Finally, King John III Sobieski. He led the Christian forces in the Battle of Vienna in September 1683. The Ottoman Empire had been making advances into Europe and conquering much of southeastern Europe, looking to Vienna as a valuable prize.
The king of Poland, John III Sobieski, prepared a relief expedition to Vienna during the summer of 1683, so honoring his obligations to the treaty (he left his own nation virtually undefended when departing from Kraków on 15 August).
The European forces would be victorious, ultimately bringing an end to any further threat from the Ottomans:
The Ottomans fought on for another 16 years, losing control of Hungary and Transylvania in the process before finally desisting. The Holy Roman Empire signed the Treaty of Karlowitz with the Ottoman Empire in 1699. The battle marked the historic end of Ottoman imperial expansion into Europe.
As Chesterton offers, the lion does not lose its ferocity. The miracle is that he knows when his ferocity must be held back and when it must be brought forth. Sure, we know “Christ always wins,” as VanderKlay offered. What if Christ “won” in those times through Christians such as these?
Conclusion
Jonathan Pageau often speaks about the necessity of leaving room at the margin. Christianity has done this, perhaps better than any other religion known on earth. Christians do not fight wars against those who live on the margins of society: grain is left in the field for the poor; advice and counsel, not stoning, is offered to the adulteress; dinner is accepted with the tax collector.
VanderKlay suggests not to despair about being pushed to the margin. I might not despair, if I knew that room would be left for me there. Pageau also offers that the system which we are being driven toward does not offer anyone survival at the margins. It is an attempt to form a totalizing system, a system of total inclusivity. The only people to be excluded are those who do not accept total inclusivity. Pageau considers that the mark of the beast is near.
I know Christ wins. It doesn’t mean I have to like what is happening around me today; Christ certainly wasn’t looking forward to the experience of being sacrificed like a lamb.
There is no doubt that it takes more courage to go out like a lamb (who could be a lion if he chooses), than out like a lion (who is counseled to be like a lamb).
I doubt I will have enough courage to go out like that type of lamb.
Amen
ReplyDeleteThis comment isn't worthy of your post, but it reminded me of the animated movie that came out several years ago called "Zootopia," wherein you have a lion running the city but there is a conspiracy orchestrated by a lower official, who is a sheep, which would organize the political power of all prey species (90% of city) against all predators.
ReplyDeleteThe assistant mayor, the lamb, in very unChrist-like fashion, creates a potion which causes predators to go wild and attack. She uses this potion to cause a number of incidents in order to sow fear and division, helped unwittingly by the police departments newest diversity hire, a female bunny. The purpose of the fear is to ultimately unseat predators from positions of political authority and to land herself in the top spot.
In Zootopia, the lion and the lamb coexist in peace, but the envious lamb, drunk on the progress of no longer being prey to the lion, uses deception to unseat the peaceful lion from his position of natural authority. I guess the moral of the story I get is: don't try to 'Kingdom of God' it here on earth without Christ's help and guidance. Otherwise you get cowardly lions dominated by devious lambs, or you just get lions and lambchops.
In today's world, it is clear we are being run by atheist lambs run amok (all with a messiah complex), and the few remaining lions who remember what it is to be a lion sit and wait for the right moment when their fangs and claws will be put to use to create a more natural order once again.
Sooner or later, your last paragraph will come to pass.
DeleteIf we are to be "led" by men on earth, better to be led by a lion that knows how to love than a lamb who doesn't know how to fight! One day, the "lambs" (in your example and in our world today) will come to learn this lesson.
If I had to choose one or the other, I'd certainly go with the lion, unless of course the lamb in question is Jesus (who is both lamb and lion). I guess this duality is what is required of any truly good and Godly leader. He must be humble in spirit, so that his pride and wrath do not lead him to become a tyrant, and yet he must still be ferocious in action when the invading hordes are at the gates. Pageau had a discussion about Christianity and the reconciliation of opposites that I thought was interesting, but I can't recall which video it was.
DeleteAs for Dreher, I mostly like him, but he does, from time to time, prove that he hasn't quite gotten rid of all the remnants of his Leftist mindset from his college days. He is a bit prone to follow the mainstream narrative (like Covid), but he is good on most things.
His comment section on American Conservative is dominated by Leftist posts and Lefty upvoting. I'm not sure why exactly.
I think mot many think much of Dreher and that is why so few comments on him.
DeleteContext decides lion or lamb.
I think of Jim Elliot, Nate Saint, Ed McCully, Pete Fleming, and Roger Youderian. They were called to be lambs, to reach the Hourani in Ecuador.
As lions, the military examples given are sufficient.
It drives me crazy when in the arena of expressing ideas we have, IMO misguided, Christians that are rather quick to throw the "do not judge, I am not judging you" as a way to not confront. Cowards! I am not one to promote being offensive to others but neither do I endorse cowering from confrontation when appropriate - John Kasich I am looking at you.
Remember Jesus was a lamb in that he died to pay for the sins of all mankind for ever. He was a sacrificial lamb. Maybe that also represents His kindness and gentleness and submission to the Father, maybe. But even in His days on the earth, He wasn't passive and vulnerable to others. He was strong and wise at all times.
ReplyDeleteI like this discussion of the margin. I agree with the concern Christians have shown to the margins, but also the concern Christians have to being in the margin.
This is where I think Christianity and Libertarianism have parallels. Christian Libertarians are those who now should be creating perimeters around those margins in preparation for being put there. Gray markets and black markets will have to be erected for the day when refusing the mark of the beast will mean we can't buy or sell in the white market anymore.
And when Jesus returns, it ain't gonna be pretty.
DeleteHow is this for kindness:
Matthew 23:27-28
27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
Or (read the whole chapter. Funny way to gain converts):
John 6
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
Redd Harper used to sing about a circuit-riding preacher who traveled "with a rifle on his saddle and a Bible in his hand." Hard to misinterpret the meaning.
ReplyDelete"Christianity has been...living on fumes since then."
ReplyDeleteChristianity has already retaken its spotlight position in the world, thanks to this researcher who, for the first time, has actually analyzed the [political] dynamics of the four Gospels, thereby discovering...
THE DEFT POLITICAL MANEUVERINGS OF JESUS AND JEWISH OFFICIALS UNDER A PRECARIOUS ROMAN SHADOW
"For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open. Therefore consider carefully how you listen. Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what they think they have will be taken from them."
"Some of the people of Jerusalem therefore said, “Is not this the man whom they seek to kill? And here he is, speaking openly, and they say nothing to him! Can it be that the authorities really know that this is the Christ?"
The existence of a Roman occupation throughout the Levant circa 30 AD precluded Jewish authorities in Judea and Galilee-Perea openly accepting Jesus as the Messiah. If Jesus was realized to be the Messiah, the Jewish authorities in Judea and Galilee would have played a game of feigned hostility towards Jesus, thereby placating an always watchful Rome that dealt swiftly with even perceived threats to Roman rule. We see then that the Gospels’ narrative of Jewish officialdom hostility towards Jesus’ ministry is behavior one would expect from those officials. Is there, then, within the Gospels themselves evidence of Jewish officialdom’s acceptance and knowledge of Jesus’ claim to the Messiah? In fact, there’s direct evidence.
When Jesus was in Jerusalem on His first mission there at the beginning of His ministry, the Pharisee named Nicodemus paid Jesus a discreet visit at night informing Jesus that the Temple leaders knew Jesus was sent from God. Nicodemus admits, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with Him."
IMMOBILIZATION l
The miracle that would have clearly directed the Sanhedrin’s attention to Jesus’ divine nature while He cleared the Temple courtyards of man and beast, would be the immobilization of the Roman garrison located within the adjacent Antonia Fortress and the immobilization of Roman soldiers lining the Temple's four cloisters. As Josephus informs us:
"But on the corner, where it [Antonia Fortress] joined to the two cloisters of the temple, it had passages down to them both: through which the guards (for there always lay in this tower a Roman legion) went several ways among the cloisters, with their arms, on the Jewish festivals; in order to watch the people, that they might not there attempt to make any innovations."
...and...
"Now while the Jewish affairs were under the administration of Cumanus, there happened a great tumult at the city of Jerusalem, and many of the Jews perished therein. But I shall first explain the occasion whence it was derived. When that feast, which is called the Passover, was at hand, at which time our custom is to use unleavened bread, and a great multitude was gathered together, from all parts to that feast, Cumanus was afraid lest some attempt of innovation should then be made by them; so he ordered that one regiment of the army should take their arms, and stand in the temple cloisters, to repress any attempts of innovation, if perchance any such should begin: and this was no more than what the former procurators of Judea did at such festivals."
You should read better materials. Your post does not reflect well on you.
DeleteMathew 27
15 Now it was the governor’s custom at the festival to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd. 16 At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was Jesus[b] Barabbas. 17 So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” 18 For he knew it was out of self-interest that they had handed Jesus over to him.
19 While Pilate was sitting on the judge’s seat, his wife sent him this message: “Don’t have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him.”
20 But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.
21 “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor.
“Barabbas,” they answered.
22 “What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” Pilate asked.
They all answered, “Crucify him!”
23 “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”
24 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”
25 All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”
26 Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.
continued...
DeleteOne of the reasons Rome had a military presence at the Temple was to control outbursts of religious zeal that could lead to riots/rebellion. In the western wall was the main gate named the Gate of Coponius after the first procurator; it was decorated with the golden eagle as a sign that the Temple had been placed under the protection of Rome. The Roman garrison’s inaction in arresting Jesus and bringing Jesus before Pilate for adjudication stemming from the melee1 Jesus caused in the Temple courtyards convinced the Sanhedrin of Jesus’ divine origins; the signs Jesus performed in Jerusalem after the clearing of the Temple could have been clever tricks for all the Sanhedrin knew, but the immobilization of the Roman garrison in the Antonia Fortress could not be explained away.
IMMOBILIZATION ll
When Jesus immobilized the Roman garrison in the Antonia Fortress, He also had to immobilize those in the Temple who were about to revolt against Rome. You see, when those present inside the Temple witnessed the immobilization of the Roman garrison they would have known immediately that Jesus was the Messiah and therefore would have revolted there and then against Rome but they too were immobilized. The Roman garrison at the Antonia Fortress was situated within that fortress to stamp out the periodic religious themed revolts/rebellions that took place at the Temple, so when the crowd in the Temple witnessed Jesus’ 'violent' actions and the Roman refusal to intervene and stop Jesus, the crowd would have revolted, but they couldn’t. This second immobilization - immobilization of the Jewish revolt within the Temple upon witnessing the conspicuous absence of Roman soldiers in the courtyards - would have been one of the "signs" Nicodemus was referring to when he told Jesus "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with Him.”
IMMOBILIZATION lll
As Jesus cleared the Temple courtyards, outside the Temple gates, and throughout Jerusalem, Jews are rioting, believing Rome is preventing them from entering the Temple - naturally no one who hadn’t been evicted by Jesus from the Temple courtyards would believe that one Jewish lunatic had cleared the Temple courtyards of both man and beast. These Jews new on the scene are witnessing Roman patrols outside the Temple walls similarly immobilized as the Roman soldiers are within the Antonia Fortress, proving that the first Jewish revolt would have taken place at this time, not in 66 AD, if it weren't for a third immobilization, an immobilization of the Jews in Jerusalem.
JaimeInTexas replies, “You should read better materials. Your post does not reflect well on you”, then quotes Mathew 27.
DeleteAs I said, Christianity has already retaken its spotlight position in the world, thanks to this researcher who, for the first time, has actually analyzed the [political] dynamics of the four Gospels.
That observation flew over your head(!)…
For three years Pilate can’t touch Jesus and disciples when they enter Judea, agitating (a crime under Roman administration that otherwise witnesses the immediate execution of the agitator and followers, but not Jesus and disciples), and the Sanhedrin only hands Jesus over to Pilate AFTER Jesus has informed His disciples that He will be leaving them soon. As John tells us, the Sanhedrin was supposed to execute Jesus and disciples three years earlier for gross blasphemy:
"Some of the people of Jerusalem therefore said, “Is not this the man whom they seek to kill? And here he is, speaking openly, and they say nothing to him! Can it be that the authorities really know that this is the Christ?"
Herod Antipas also wanted to kill Jesus, but when he got the chance He sent Jesus back to Pilate!
Got it now?
It is called passing the buck. Rome did not look kindly on provinces that were not kept "at peace." Governors were afraid of their removal, often in the extreme.
DeleteThat "For three years Pilate can’t touch Jesus and disciples when they enter Judea" is nonsense. Pilate could have at any time done it had anyone provided with evidence of Jesus promoting of kicking the Romans out of Palestine. Heck, Pilate did not need any reason. Pilate was concerned with one thing, keeping the Jews for causing concern in Rome. Nothing more, nothing less.
BTW, who is this researcher yo speak of?
"Pilate could have at any time done it had anyone provided with evidence of Jesus promoting of kicking the Romans out of Palestine."
DeleteWhen did IQs sink? Once again, on Day 1 of Jesus' mission, He took over the Temple complex from its Roman controllers*(!)...
"Jesus would have represented a kind of activist and resister in Pontius Pilate's experience that he had been dealing with for years, and with varying degrees of success and effectiveness, obviously. Jesus would have been a blip on the screen of Pontius Pilate, because the unrest and the uprisings were so common, part of daily life for the Roman administration of Judea, that Jesus would have been seen, I think, as very little out of the ordinary." (Fast-forward to 49:00 minutes in Part 1 of the PBS Frontline documentary, From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians).
https://www.pbs.org/video/jesus-christ-first-christians-part-one-uosmze/
...and...
"Now I don't for a moment think that Pilate would have been worried that Jesus could have challenged the power of the emperor. That's not the point. The point is, any challenge to Roman authority...any challenge to the peace of Rome would have been met with a swift and violent response." (Fast-forward to 49:36 minutes in Part 1 of the PBS Frontline documentary, From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians).
https://www.pbs.org/video/jesus-christ-first-christians-part-one-uosmze/
-------------
* And the province was called Judea, not Palestine. Palestine (Latin for Philistine, the classical arch enemy of the Israelites) wouldn't exist until 135 AD when the whole territory was re-named by Emperor Hadrian after the Second Revolt.
The money changers were in the outer court of the Temple. That was a religious issue as far as Rome was concerned.
DeleteDo You know what was the racket with the money changers in the Temple?
RE. IQ drop, the moment you started posting here.
Yes, Dean, like Jaime, I want to know who this researcher is. And I agree with him that Pilate could have killed Jesus at any time for any reason or for no reason at all.
DeleteOn my own initiative, I don't pay much attention to what PBS documentaries say about Jesus. Anything like that should be taken with a grain of salt.
"The money changers were in the outer court of the Temple."
DeleteWhere did I say otherwise?
Jesus took control of the Temple courtyards by throwing everyone out, including the animals. The Temple courtyards belonged to Rome, and anyone who tried to rest it from Rome was immediately arrested, as Josephus tells us.
Once again:
"But on the corner, where it [Antonia Fortress] joined to the two cloisters of the temple, it had passages down to them both: through which the guards (for there always lay in this tower a Roman legion) went several ways among the cloisters, with their arms, on the Jewish festivals; in order to watch the people, that they might not there attempt to make any innovations."
Got it now?
"Yes, Dean, like Jaime, I want to know who this researcher is."
DeleteI'm the researcher, of course. Who else would it be?
"On my own initiative, I don't pay much attention to what PBS documentaries say about Jesus. Anything like that should be taken with a grain of salt."
PBS? The New Testament academicians are quoting from Josephus, not themselves! Didn't you read my initial comment?
Nope. Temple was allowed to be managed by the Jewish leaders and Rome stayed out of their way as long as the any problem stayed in the Temple and did any action did not exceed allowed limitations, like executions. Jesus's actions, whether once or twice in the outer courtyard, Court of the Gentiles, was the actions of one man. My guess is that it caused chuckles among the Romans.
DeleteWhy Roman authorities would not be concerned about a man upset at the crooked Temple priests ... You do not mention; it did not affect the peace of Jerusalem but just good gossip, though.
Dean,
Delete"I'm the researcher, of course. Who else would it be?" Of course, silly me!
You wrote:
"Christianity has already retaken its spotlight position in the world, thanks to this researcher who, for the first time, has actually analyzed the [political] dynamics of the four Gospels, thereby discovering..."
Some questions, though, because your language is unclear.
1. Has Christianity already retaken its spotlight position in the world, thanks to this researcher...?Said researcher being you, of course
2. Did you mean that you are the very first person in history who has discovered this dynamic through your own critical analysis and that no one else has ever touched on it before?
3. Did you mean that you have actually analyzed this in your own research for the first time, although others have explored it before you?
Be careful how you answer.
"Nope. Temple was allowed to be managed by the Jewish leaders and Rome stayed out of their way as long as the any problem stayed in the Temple and did any action did not exceed allowed limitations..."
DeleteFor the THIRD time:
"But on the corner, where it [Antonia Fortress] joined to the two cloisters of the temple, it had passages down to them both: through which the guards (for there always lay in this tower a Roman legion) went several ways among the cloisters, with their arms, on the Jewish festivals; in order to watch the people, that they might not there attempt to make any innovations." - Josephus
Rome policed the Temple complex, not the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin only controlled the rectangular [inner] Temple, where the Holy of Holies resided...
...and...
"In the western wall was the main gate named the Gate of Coponius after the first procurator; it was decorated with the golden eagle as a sign that the Temple had been placed under the protection of Rome.
Anyone was allowed to enter the outer area, which was therefore called the Court of the Gentiles. The actual Temple was enclosed by a balustrade, and at the entrances to it were warning notices, one of them is now in a museum in Istanbul. It says that foreigners have freedom of access provided they do not go beyond the balustrade which went all around the central edifice and which no uncircumcised could cross without incurring the death penalty."
https://www.bible-history.com/jewishtemple/
You're confusing the Temple complex for the Temple.
“1. Has Christianity already retaken its spotlight position in the world, thanks to this researcher...?Said researcher being you, of course”
DeleteYes.
“2. Did you mean that you are the very first person in history who has discovered this dynamic through your own critical analysis and that no one else has ever touched on it before?”
No, these facts were well known when Jesus walked the Earth, obviously…everyone knew who Jesus was when He immobilized the Roman auxiliary legion at the Antonia Fortress, immobilized one-hundred Roman sentries within the Temple complex cloisters; and immobilized the Roman patrols in the street of Jerusalem. Even John touches on it:
"Some of the people of Jerusalem therefore said, “Is not this the man whom they seek to kill? And here he is, speaking openly, and they say nothing to him! Can it be that the authorities really know that this is the Christ?"
Since the Sanhedrin knew who Jesus was, therefore everyone knew who Jesus was, and knowing was easy thanks to the Roman presence and its involuntary immobilization.
“3. Did you mean that you have actually analyzed this in your own research for the first time, although others have explored it before you?”
No one “explored” this before me. Before me individuals KNEW, not explored, who Jesus was when He walked the Earth.
"Temple was allowed to be managed by the Jewish leaders and Rome stayed out of their way as long as the any problem stayed in the Temple and did any action did not exceed allowed limitations"
Delete"For the temple was a fortress, that guarded the city; as was the tower of Antonia a guard to the temple. And in that tower were the guards of those three (14). -- Josephus
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/war-5.html
Dean,
DeleteYou said that, ""Christianity has already retaken its spotlight position in the world, thanks to this researcher..."
Allow me to paraphrase that just a little so that I can understand exactly what you mean.
"Christianity was once in the spotlight position, lost that position at some time in the past, but now, due to your efforts, research, and analysis, has been restored to it."
Is this what you mean?
'"Christianity was once in the spotlight position, lost that position at some time in the past, but now, due to your efforts, research, and analysis, has been restored to it."
DeleteIs this what you mean?'
Exactly.
chapter 5
Delete(snip)
Now as to the tower of Antonia, it was situate at the corner of two cloisters of the court of the temple:21 of that on the west, and that on the north.
(snip)
But on the corner, where it joined to the two cloisters of the temple, it had passages down to them both: through which the guards (for there always lay in this tower a Roman legion) went several ways among the cloisters, with their arms, on the Jewish festivals; in order to watch the people, that they might not there attempt to make any innovations. For the temple was a fortress, that guarded the city; as was the tower of Antonia a guard to the temple. And in that tower were the guards of those three (14). There was also a peculiar fortress belonging to the upper city, which was Herod’s palace. But for the hill Bezetha, it was divided from the tower of Antonia, as we have already told you.23 And as that hill on which the tower of Antonia stood, was the highest of these three, so did it adjoin to the new city:24 and was the only place that hindred the sight of the temple on the north. And this shall suffice at present to have spoken about the city, and the walls about it: because I have proposed to my self to make a more accurate description of it elsewhere.25
============
To read Josephus is cumbersome but your plucking that bit of text the way you did means you must not have comprehended the writing. The Temple has the form of a tower, like the Antonia, but the guards are in the Antonia. Romans soldiers were allowed to access the outer court to keep an eye on rebellious zealots - it was the court of the gentiles, part of the Temple and it's operation under Temple control to the degree allowed. The Antonia and the Temple are separate structures although sharing a portion of a wall.
Your point ????
https://i.stack.imgur.com/4n4RG.jpg
Bionic Mosquito,
DeleteMy discussion with Dean Jackson is done. I have nothing more to say on this subject. May God judge between my words and his. Thank you for the opportunity to present my viewpoint.
Thanks, Roger. I let it run because both you and Jaime, long-time commenters here, wanted to explore the topic.
DeleteI won't publish anymore comments on this. Dean has said enough to convince readers, one way or another, regarding this unique position - one that, apparently, no other Christian theologian or philosopher has noticed for close to 2000 years.
Roger, I also apologize - I accidentally approved a further comment from Dean, but immediately deleted it as his words were less than helpful.
You are very gracious.
DeleteYes, complicated.
ReplyDeleteI find myself in agreement with much VanderKlay has to say, except his Calvinism.
I think, though, that Tolstoy is closer to Center with respect to the Kingdom than Chesterton. It is not the paradox of ferocity and love that is central to Christianity, but rather, the paradox of victory in defeat. There is no ferocity in Christianity. The ferocious aspect of the lion is attributed to the devil.
“Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”
(1 Pet. 5:8 ESV)
It is the regal aspect of the lion that belongs to Jesus, the stateliness.
Jesus conquered by going to a cross. Well, how does that work? And what is it, exactly, that he conquered? Is it not the “will to power”? the impulse to force? the resort to violence? the desire “to be like god” according to a human (Calvinistic) notion of what god should be like?
The kingdom of heaven is real, like the US government is real. But it is categorically different. It is the upside down kingdom. The kingdoms of this world use violence to gain power and keep it. The kingdom of heaven receives violence, but may not use it. The history you recounted is simply so many tribes of Babylonians having at one another, some of them calling themselves “Christian”. There are Christian communities in Iran that are older than Islam. It is the Sermon on the Mount that is the constitution of the Kingdom, not Clausewitz or Sun Tzu. This I take to be the fundamental distinction between the City of Man and the City of God; the recourse to violence.
“God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.”
(Rom. 11:2–5 ESV)
I understand Isaiah 11 to be talking about categories of people. There are various sorts of predators in society; wolves, snakes, lions, etc., and various sorts of prey for them; the innocent, naive, guileless, weak. In the kingdom of God, the predatory types cease to exploit the weak.
“But that is brutal annexation and imperialism on the part of the lamb. That is simply the lamb absorbing the lion instead of the lion eating the lamb.”
This seems to me uncharacteristic nonsense from Chesterton. Perhaps he is rationalizing Briton’s involvement in the Great War in his mind. I don’t know when he wrote that. But the bank robber and the rapist haven’t been victimized because they choose to cease robbing banks and raping people. A foundational characteristic of the kingdom of God is the absence of coercion. This can be seen from 1 Samuel 8. Israel rejects God as their king, but he doesn’t act violently against them. He allows them to have a king like the other nations, but warns them of the cost.
If you saw your Christian brother being brutalized by a gang of thugs, to the point of death - but you had the means to prevent this outcome by using force - deadly force, if necessary, would you do it? What if it was your son, or daughter, or wife - being raped, perhaps?
DeleteA short answer will suffice. I don't mean for the question to be difficult; it is not a trick.
"1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
Delete2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace." - Ecclesiastes 3
War can be just, but only if its a defensive war.
"This I take to be the fundamental distinction between the City of Man and the City of God; the recourse to violence."
I would agree with a significant caveat. I think it is first violence, initiated violence, or as libertarians have termed it, 'aggression' that is the distinction, and not violence per se. Defensive violence and righteous anger both have their place in life and scripture.
"12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
13 And said unto them, "It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."" - Matthew 21
It takes a fair amount of violence to overturn tables and cast people out of an area.
Your question, at the most fundamental level, reduces to the atheist’s favorite question. It is the problem of evil. With the atheist, the question self destructs in his inability to even define good or evil. For the believer, it is a different matter.
DeleteFirst, I would point out the obvious. What I would do is not the standard of Christian behavior. There is an unfortunate gap between in me ought and do. My past would not stand close scrutiny. So let’s think first about what God has done.
I am, in the larger scheme of things, rather weak. I once fancied myself strong, but was mostly deluding myself. The older I get, the less the delusion is sustainable. God, on the other hand, is powerful, and yet, he permits his people and others to suffer and die and be raped. What does it mean? His orientation toward this life is different than ours.
“Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.” (Psa. 116:15 ESV)
Our sense of propriety is informed by John Wayne movies and such.
Peter answered your first question in the affirmative, but Jesus told him to put his sword up. “But,” you might say, “he was Jesus. And he came to die.” Yes, but he is the head and we are his body. And, take up your cross and follow me. And, whoever looses his life for my sake will find it.
Then we can turn to other examples. Of John the Baptist, did Jesus take up arms to save his head? He could have requested twelve legions of angels to rescue him. Though, probably, only one angel would have been required, as with Peter, Acts 12. What of Stephen? Did any of the brothers standing by take up arms? Did they to protect Paul? I find the story of Lazarus interesting. What did Jesus have to shout at him to get him to come out of the tomb? He didn’t want to come back?
So if I take up arms to protect a brother, what have I done? If God has decided to “rapture”, to use the term loosely, someone home, and I intervene, what have I done to him? Paul said, “to live is Christ, to die is gain.“ What is, “is Christ”, but suffering. Jesus said to the thief next to him on the cross, “today you will be with me in paradise”. What have I done? Will he not be angry with me for prolonging his suffering?
And what of God? If he has decided to “rapture” one of his faithful out of this world of suffering, and in his name I raise my fist to heaven to defy and prevent him? Will he not take me to task for it? Do I not believe that he has power to save? Is he powerless to protect those he would protect and bring home those he would bring home? I think of the story of Shadrach and his companions.
“Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.”” (Dan. 3:16–18 ESV)
Do we have that kind of faith? Do we believe that God will intervene in history on our behalf? I know that he will, because I know that he has. Even in my wickedness, he has intervened to protect me from my own folly.
So the answer to your first question is almost certainly not.
The answer to your second question is much more difficult. Which is why I pray each day for God’s protection. If someone was to threaten my wife, or children, or mother, I would act to defend them. I think two swords among no less than thirteen men, might mean that much. Even though in the only recorded attempt to use one of them it was condemned. But how could I know if it was God’s intent to rapture them out of suffering and test my faith, while leaving me to fulfill my own suffering? What if I was successful in preserving life, and yet, thereby condemned them to years of slavery and suffering here?
DeleteThere is no record of Christians taking up arms for any purpose, other than Peter’s aborted attempt in defense of Jesus, until long after that history was being written by those corrupted by syncretism.
“When the servant of the man of God rose early in the morning and went out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was all around the city. And the servant said, “Alas, my master! What shall we do?” He said, “Do not be afraid, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them.” Then Elisha prayed and said, “O LORD, please open his eyes that he may see.” So the LORD opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw, and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.”
(2 Kings 6:15–17 ESV)
Can you see them?
Mike, thank you for this. I address some of your points in today's post:
Deletehttp://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2020/12/living-by-sword.html
As to VanderKlay, I have benefited much from his videos. I think he is an excellent pastor - and I say this without getting into his Reformed theology. I try to stay pretty silent or neutral about such theological issues and differences at this blog.
DeleteJohn 3
ReplyDelete4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”[d]
9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.
10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.[e] 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,[f] 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”
====
John 10
22 Then came the Festival of Dedication[b] at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23 and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. 24 The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”
25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[c]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
40 Then Jesus went back across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing in the early days. There he stayed, 41 and many people came to him. They said, “Though John never performed a sign, all that John said about this man was true.” 42 And in that place many believed in Jesus.
Fear not.
ReplyDeleteTake no thought for yourself.
Resist ye not evil.
Give (release) vengeance to the Lord.
The uncovering of truth is not IN the world but a transcendent Creation that has witness in the world.
Unconflicted strength is not IN conflict with, but aligned integrity.
Unselfconscious joy is free of inhibition or embarassment as living love - without taking thought to think or present in the forms of 'love' acted out hypocritically as the masking over fears or shame.
What we resist, persists, and what we choose NOT to use, fades from non use.
Guilt in grievance drives a usurping mind of hate given moral justification.
Strength and innocence are of our true being - released from the shadows of a past made in anger.
The attempt to fit truth into a world of framed illusion, is backwards. Fear cannot understand, see or recognise Christ (in anyone) but only 'sees' what fear cast out as if to get rid of sins on the other, on the world and onto life. Such is the mind of judgement in the measure of its own returns, and so the Holy Spirit's 'Judgement' of the Christ is the Last or undoing of judgement as resonant recognition.
I am having difficulty understanding your meaning. Could you please clarify:
DeleteIf someone is raping your daughter, and you could stop it with physical force - even if killing the rapist was necessary - would you do it?
Or would you wait until the rapist finished his deed, and then have your day in court?
Please make your answer simple enough for me to comprehend.
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5558/in-the-time-of-jesus-were-the-jewish-authorities-allowed-to-execute#19721
ReplyDelete(snip)
Josephus explicitly states that it was illegal for the high priest to assemble a Sanhedrin without the consent of the prefect. If we assume that a stoning could not take place without the permission of a Sanhedrin, and if no Sanhedrin could be held without the consent of the prefect, it would appear that stonings could not take place without the approval, direct or indirect, of the Roman authorities. This agrees with the account provided by Josephus: it is plainly the case that Ananus wasn't deposed simply because he stoned someone; he was deposed because he stoned someone without the imprimatur of the Roman prefect. This makes it fairly clear that, regardless of whether stoning was still officially condoned by the Jewish authorities, it was still legally possible, but only if the Roman prefect had already given his consent.
===
The only way to fulfill the prophesized death of the Messiah, up on a "tree," was for Israel not be able to stone Jesus to death and for the death sentence to be the death of an enemy of Rome. The Sanhedrin would have stoned Jesus to death somewhere in John chapter 5.
16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working. 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
Excellent timing for the times, bionic!
ReplyDelete"Aslan is not a tame lion!"- Vox Day
Your analysis meshes well with Gary North's narrative of the Kingdom of God - which Jesus referred to constantly - described in parables and North begins with the wheat and tares.
Book - "Unconditional Surrender."
I used excerpts from his book to build many of my CAP Lessons in DaLimbraw Library. Word searching 'wheat tares' should find them. CAP is my acronym for Christian Action Project - the Lessons are grouped separately.
The point is that the KoG is not some ethereal netherworld - we're living in it NOW - there is no mistaking the clear comparison of wheat and tares existing at the same time. If so, we need the wisdom of God - not only to exist - but to advance as also clearly instructed by Jesus Himself in the Great Commission - being wise as serpents and harmless as doves.
How far have we strayed, eh?
When you wrote in another post that we are ruled by servants of Satan - you said a mouthful - and we Christians allowed it.
We withdrew inside our private sanctuaries and forgot our mission - https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2020/11/are-we-governed-by-humans.html?m=0 - and we wonder why we're persecuted!
"we're living in it NOW"
DeleteYes, since the Resurrection, or, at the latest, Pentecost. At least that's how I see it.
Oops. My replies are to Dean Jackson.
ReplyDelete