Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Casey, Feb 22, 2005.
Shoot! I was HOPING to take your breath away with the breadth of my knowledge but NOW you claim it was all a mistake.
Well, I'm crushed. I just what you to know that.
The root is rastzah? Qal form?
ratzah, I mean. I note that it is in the imperfect which, in bible Hebrew, is really a future tense. Literally, "You won't..."
Is it qal? I'm away from my bookshelf.
No God is not barbaric, he can command (or speak) what he wills and by His will it is "good." If God truly commands death, then that death is justified and good.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for man. For we may have been made in the image of God, we are not.
I love this quote from Rabbi Plaut --- "Man was, in the end, "condemned" to be human"
God has my permission to make decisions about life and death anytime he wants. I do not have His permission to do the same, for I am human and subject to mistakes.
Isn't Plaut great?
He makes more things clear to me than the nearest six of his competitors put together.
You're on your own, Nosborne. My command of the loshn koydesh is more like a suggestion than a command, or maybe a shrug.
And when He grants that authority to humans, as He has done, it is an extension of His authority.
Are you suggesting that the 12 men and women sitting on a jury are acting on the authority of God.
I mean let's set the record straight. God speaking to man in direct revelation about anything is extremely rare, much less asking man to act on his befalf in terms of execution.
But to directly answer you comment. IF (and that is a very big IF) God speaks a direct revelation for a jury to ask on His behalf and His authority to return a verdict of guilty and to ensure the punishment was the death penality. I would 100% support that outcome.
Originally Posted by nosborne48
I don't know that I will ever agree with his theological interpretations, but his style, thematic approach, and ability to clearly articulate his position are fascinating.
I knew I would respect his opinion when I opened the commentary to the first page of preface and read, "Our work reflects a liberal point of view". I find it refresing when a person speaking from a position of authority is not afraid to state upfront the framework from which he writes.
I then went on to read after he states that he will diverge from the liberal when discussing Leviticus to state what is practically my thesis statement, "We would like to think that, in the spirit of the traditional phrase, both opinions reflect the search after the Living God.
You don't need a ThD to understand that!
And one does not need a ThD to prefer to look for truth in, oh, Gunther Plaut or Torah or the Constitution or the New Testament or natural law or case law or your Aunt Hripsime's cooky jar instead of stool samples. But, hey, suum cuique, as they say in the old country.
Janko, I like you, but I have to admit sometimes I don't have the slightest idea what you are saying
Help me understand how "to each his own" is relevant to my comment? All I was doing was making a hyperbolic comment about the simplicity of Plaut's statement ---
Vah! Denuone Latine loquebar? Me ineptum. Interdum modo elabitur.
No, I'm suggesting that God allows secular governments to "bear the sword" (Rom. 13:4-5), and that they act as His agents in punishing those who do evil.
No, you are wrong there. I think you are very serious about Lutheranism. Now, if we could only get you to be serious about Christianity we will have made a much more positive step.
What in Romans 13:4-5 (or more completely 13:1-7, the complete unit) grants the government the right to execute punishment.
It is a unit directing submission to government authority WHEN that government ACTS AS an agent of God. Paul, as he always did, was telling Christians to act as good citizens and should not fear the wrath of governments WHO RULE WITH JUSTICE.
Douglas Moo ends his 20 page exegesis of these seven verses (where he explores seven possible interpretations) with the conclusion that Paul's central theme is "the Christian must recognize and submit to governmental authority because it is an institution established by God to accomplish SOME of his purposes, BUT we should refuse to give TO government any absolute rights and should evaluate all its demands in the light of the Gospel."
I can't find anyone, liberal or conservative, that believes these verses grant the government the RIGHT to act on God's behalf, by His authority, in executing judgment.
Please help me with your exegesis.
Still slandering, eh? Pity.
It was meant to be funny. Guess it didn't work.
It's funny how you can say anything you want about me or others and it's fine, but the first time anything is said about you the whining begins....
Why are you focusing so much on what it doesn't say, rather than what it does? Are you telling me that the passage does not grant governments the right to use the sword when appropriate? If so, I think I'd fire your hermeneutics teacher.
It turns out that there are two verbs in Torah Hebrew for killing. Either one, apparently, can mean "kill" or "murder". Rabbi Plaut tells us that translating "ratzach" (my transliteration) as "kill" is not incorrect but in light of the entire Torah and its other commandments, it is better translated as "murder". Plaut says that this commandment cannot be used as an argument against capital punishment.
The other verb is "harag" and it will take a scholar with better skills than mine to explain whence these two different words came.
Well, I asked you politely for the basis of your exegesis which you willfully ignored. If you want to attack my exegesis (or that of Douglas Moo's, how about providing some evidences of your own interpretation)
To answer your question, it absolutely does. The government has the right to punish those who do wrong -- no question about that -- our constitution establishes that, BUT does the Christian have to submit to the authority of that government, that is what Paul is addressing.
Here is what some of those sub-par hermeneutics teachers conclude about verses 4-5:
Witmer (Associate Professor Emeritus Systematic Theology, DTS) -"A Christian has two reasons to be submissive to civil authorities, avoid punishment and heed his conscience."
Harrison (Professor Emeritus New Testament, Fuller) - "Paul advances two reasons why the Christian must be in submission to the state; the threat of punishment and to have an understanding of the government equal to that of the governing representative."
Moo (NT professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and authoring Romans commentaries for 25 years) - "Christians should give thanks for government as an instutution of God; we should pray regularly for our leaders and we should be prepared to follow the orders of our government. But we should refuse to give to government any absolute rights and should evaluate all its demands in the light of the Gospel."
Edwards (Professor of Religion, Whitworth) - "Paul's question was simply this: given Rome's supremacy, what should be expected of Christians....the church should be inobedience to the state, but not conformed to it."
Borchert (Professor of NT Interpretation, Southern Baptist TS) - "Christians are to be faithful citizens and should not need to fear either the wrath of God or that of political authorities who rule with justice. Even when the state is unjust, the assumption by Paul is that suffering Christians will still remain steadfast in their faith"
Need I go on. And pardon me if I disagree with you, but I believe these guys make pretty good hermeneutics teachers.
I will ask again, do you have a single resource that interprets this passage as giving man the authority to execute judgment on the on God's behalf?
Separate names with a comma.