This is an interesting argument, not so much the Biblical interpretation as the basic claim that Ancient Israel represents an anarchy made possible by the moral law codified by Moses et al. He goes on to suggest a religious interpretation of history in which having a king is a kind of divine punishment made necessary by the lack of the internal moral code that would enable society to function without a king; and having 'the stranger among you rise up to rule over you' is an even harsher punishment arising from an even deeper rejection of the moral law.
So the thing to aspire to is something close to anarchy; and the way to get there is through genuinely moral behavior, so that internal restraints take the place of externally imposed controls. I certainly like the idea. I wonder how plausible it is, however. My internal moral restraints won't stop a foreign army from rolling over me. Internal moral restraints might, if they are held widely by the population rather than by an individual, enable the kind of political friendship that would allow us to pull together to defy a foreign invader without needing a powerful government to direct the effort.
Of course, the kind of resistance that would enable would be insurgent, and therefore would resemble a slow repulse of a conquering power rather than the ability to prevent the conquest. Consider Scotland in its war of independence from 1286-1320s, say: think of the army that knelt at Bannockburn before Edward II: "They ask mercy, king, but not of you." So you still end up with the ultimate punishment of being ruled by the stranger, but with a means to restore the blessed condition of independence.
The Scots happened to do this in part by choosing a king, rather than accepting the one they were told was appointed over them: and that idea that a people had the right to choose a king was revolutionary in itself, at the time. It was an important step on the road to America, and to wherever the road leads after America.
Just today I heard someone (I think it was Hugh Hewitt) talking about the rise of the strongman in the world today, and certainly there is truth in that.
ReplyDeleteIt seems as we dismiss our Western religious traditions (the Judeo-Christian ethic) we leave ourselves vulnerable to the coming of Kings again, eh?
Israel didn't need an army, they had a god on the battlefield.
ReplyDeleteThis is a quantum manifestation, quite beyond the technological of current modern day humans.
There are different methods to deal with a hostile army. One can fight it and win tactical victories. One can opt for a strategic victory at the expense of various other things sacrificed. One can avoid the tactics and strategic strengths in favor of a logistical win.
Or, we can just skip this dimension entirely, summon up a god that is outside of time, and have it launch a significant strike against lower dimensional entities that cannot even see, let alone sense, the strike. It's like getting rid of ants using orbital nukes. Problem solved. Coincidentally, there won't be any planet alive left afterwards either. That could be a side effect.
Jacques Ellul had some points related to this.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jesusradicals.com/uploads/2/6/3/8/26388433/anarchism-and-christianity.pdf
Jesus does not represent a-poliricism or spiritualism. His is a fundamental attack on political authority. It is not indifference concerning what politics canbe orcando.It isa refusal of politics. Jesus is not a tender dreamer gliding in the sky "above politics." He challenges every attempt to validate the political realm, and rejects its authority because it does not conform to the will of God. Indeed, this is given precise confirmation by the account of the Temptations. The third temptation in Matthew's account is the one in which the devil shows Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and tells him, "I will give you all these things if you prostrate yourself and adore me." Jesus responds with a refusal to adore him. [Excursus: I am in complete disagreement with the exegetes who wish to reduce this text to the problem of adoration: that is, whatJesus rejects is notpoliticalpower butadoration0/Satan....The text isclear:Jesus does not shatter the rapport between authon':y and adoration. He implicitly admits that tf he would adore Satan, Satan would give him all the kingdoms of the earth. Consequently he does not challenge the satanic character of authon':y. ] He does not refute what Satan says. He does not tell him that these kingdoms and political authorities are not Satan's. No. On the contrary, he is in implicit agreement. Satan can give political authority but the condition for exercising political authority is adoration of the power of evil. That is the consistent and unique teaching of the Gospels.
ReplyDeleteThat looks very much like my own position in people's Red vs Blue.
It is interesting this human Jesus/Yeshua came to the same conclusion after awhile.
Until people understand the difference between human law and Divine Law, between state law and federal law, looking at anarchy as a god's law is going to be very misleading.
A good view of the ancient knowledge on this matter concerns Psalm 82, Deuteronomy 32 (the non Masoretic, non corrupt version), and Daniel concerning Nebu. A lot of Western knowledge is a kind of regurgitation of the Authorities and secular powers. They have problems interpreting the scriptures in the same fashion as Americans have conflicts over interpreting the US Constitution (as scripture too).
Satan can give political authority but the condition for exercising political authority is adoration of the power of evil.
ReplyDeleteThe price for being saved from the Leftist alliance is to adore the Savior King, Trum. That is the price in secular power. If others want to pay it fine, but in no way would I tolerate their contagion near me.
People misinterpret this to be about Trum or Hussein. It was never about your weakling US Presidents, AMerica. Never.