Interpreting Old Testament law, coercion and violence through the lens of the cross (part 4)

The most important teaching we have on the relationship between the New Testament and the Old Testament comes from the Jesus himself in the Sermon on the Mount:

 ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practises and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Mat 5:17-20)

This teaching again shows the tension of the Christian interpreter of the Old Testament: Jesus is about to apparently repudiate significant parts of the Old Testament including its legalised coercion, death and violence yet he claims to be doing no such thing. The above disclaimer prefaces the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus taught:

‘You have heard that it was said, “Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.” But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.‘You have heard that it was said, “Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.” But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,  that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Mat 5:38-48)

So how does Jesus approach the issue? What does he actually say about it, and what does it all mean?

He did not come to abolish -- dissolve -- the Old Testament, but to fulfil -- to make complete, full, perfect, complete -- it.

To abolish is simply to discard and get rid of something, to make it null and void, cancelled. Jesus did not come to do this, even to the violence, coercion and death of the Old Testament. Instead, Jesus came to fill up the measure of violence, to make violence complete and full, to make the violence and retribution pass by taking it not only onto his mortal physical body on the cross, and also onto the immortal spiritual body of his martyred saints.

Yet he indeed did come to make pass the Old Testament law and its death and violence, however it was to be preserved in its entirety until heaven and earth disappeared.  But at the time when heaven and earth disappear everything is accomplished. The Old Testament, and the Old Covenant system would remain in force until heaven and earth disappeared, and the New Covenant fulfilled the Old Covenant promises, including obviously the new heaven and earth.

Filling up the measure of violence

The New Testament contains a considerable amount of teaching about the filling up of the measure of the violence of the Old Covenant people, and the storing up of wrath against them, and the pending judgement on Old Covenant Jerusalem. Indeed there is a considerable amount of reference to it in the Old Testament also, however we will start with the words of Jesus:

 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! See, your house is left to you desolate. (Mat 23:29-38)

Here we see that Jesus taught that the measure of violence was in the process historically of being filled up, or fulfilled, specifically the violence of shedding the blood of the prophets, of Jesus himself, and the apostles of Jesus. That process, Jesus prophesied, would be filled up in his generation, and that the judgement avenging that righteous blood would come through the desolation of Jerusalem and the temple.

Paul also taught that Jerusalem (Judea) was filling up the measure of her sin by killing the prophets, Jesus, and his apostles, and that judgement was coming on them:

For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God's wrath has come upon them at last! (1 Thes 2:14-15)

In his second letter to the Thessalonians, Paul explained further the connection between the sins of the persecutors (the Jews) and the resulting judgement on the persecutors, vindication of the persecuted, and relief for those then suffering the persecution:

Therefore we ourselves boast about you in the churches of God for your steadfastness and faith in all your persecutions and in the afflictions that you are enduring. This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering— since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. (2 Thes 1:4-10)

Note that Paul wrote that this coming against the Jewish persecutors was to provide relief to those then suffering was still not quite ready, in the early 50s, because the rebellion had not yet occurred:

Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 

The 'Great Revolt', also known as the rebellion, did not occur until 66, some 15 years later. However, Paul makes it clear that the forces that were ultimately going to cause the rebellion were already at work. The temple reference geographically locates the events foretold in Jerusalem. Paul and Peter taught that the restraint on the end was God's patience (see below).

In the letter to the Romans, Paul presents the same teaching:

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realising that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God ‘will repay each person according to what they have done.’  To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honour and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honour and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favouritism. (Rom 2:1-11)

In the context of Paul's letter to the Romans, he has opened with a rhetorical trap for the Jews: by condemning the sin of the Gentile world in chapter 1, he then addresses the Jewish comparative self-righteousness. In the opening section of chapter 2, therefore, Paul addresses primarily the Jew: first for the Jew, then the Gentile. It is the Jews who pass judgement on the Gentiles and who think they are to escape God's wrath because they have the law, yet Paul warns them they are storing up wrath against them for the day of God's wrath, and his righteous judgement will be revealed and Jesus will repay each person according to what they have done.

Jesus identified the time when he would render this judgement:

For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (Mat 16:27-28)

Peter refers to Paul's writing in connection with the judgement also:

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him. (2 Pet 3:15)

Paul also makes a reference to his own sufferings (primarily at the hands of the Jews) being to fill up what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, showing that he did not consider the suffering and death of Jesus Christ to be yet providing the complete fulfillment of the measure of violence and death necessary to accomplish fulfillment:

Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. (Col 1:24)

The final place in the New Testament where we can see teaching about Jerusalem filling up the measure of violence is in the book of Revelation under the code name Babylon the great prostitute. However we can start in chapter 6:

When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice, ‘How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?’  Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the full number of their fellow servants, their brothers and sisters, were killed just as they had been. I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red, and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig-tree when shaken by a strong wind. The heavens receded like a scroll being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and everyone else, both slave and free, hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. They called to the mountains and the rocks, ‘Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can withstand it?’ (Rev 6:9-17)

In this part of the book of Revelation we see the judgement on the inhabitants of the 'earth' in the form of opening seals. Normally in the book of Revelation, the 'earth' refers to the land of Israel. Note also that the avenging of the blood of the martyrs was to be by way of the judgement of the inhabitants of the 'earth' -- and as we have seen above Jesus identified the responsible people as the Jews and the responsible city the city of Jerusalem. Note also that the martyrs are under the altar -- a reference to the temple in Jerusalem. However, they are told that they are awaiting until the 'full number of their fellow servants, their brothers and sisters, were killed just as they had been.' What are they waiting for? For Jerusalem to fill up the measure of her violence, just as Jesus has prophesied.

When the judgement arrived the people would call for the mountains to fall on them. We are not in the dark about what this refers to because Jesus told us the city it related to and when it would happen:

Jesus turned and said to them, ‘Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. For the time will come when you will say, “Blessed are the childless women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!” Then ‘“they will say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us!’    and to the hills, ‘Cover us!’” For if people do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?’ (Luke 23:28-31)

Now we move to the image of 'Babylon' the great prostitute:

One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, ‘Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits by many waters. With her the kings of the earth committed adultery, and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries.’

Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a desert. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries. The name written on her forehead was a mystery: babylon the great the mother of prostitutes and of the abominations of the earth. I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of God’s holy people, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus. (Rev 17:1-6)

This character can be identified by her improper relationship to the kings of the earth: she is is a prostitute, but one who turned from a covenant relationship with God into adultery with the world powers. She is dressed in the clothing of the Levitical priests, and she rides the beast which is the Roman Empire. She is responsible for the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And her cup of sin and violence is full, and she is drunk with blood.

John continues:

When I saw her, I was greatly astonished. Then the angel said to me: ‘Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns. The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and yet will come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come. ‘This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while. The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction. (Rev 17:6-11)

Now we have the explanation of the woman. The beast is the Roman Empire, and the heads are the Emperors, the first Emperor being Augustus, the fifth, therefore, being Nero, who is fallen.The beast has hardly survived the fatal wound of Nero's suicide ('now is not' -- a reference to the unstable year of four emperors), yet it will survive and come back to strength ('yet will come'). So from this, we see that the woman rides on the Roman Empire and the time of writing is 68 A.D under the sixth Roman emperor Galba (see List of Roman Emperors).

They will wage war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will triumph over them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings – and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.’

The woman and the beast are in partnership to persecute the saints, as happened under Jewish influence of Nero.

The explanation of the vision continues:

Then the angel said to me, ‘The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages. The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to hand over to the beast their royal authority, until God’s words are fulfilled. The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.’ (Rev 17:15-18)

The Roman Empire will turn on Jerusalem and destroy her, which was completed in 70 A.D. The Woman's position as ruling over the 'kings of the earth' may refer to Jerusalem ruling over the kings/rulers of Israel (the 'earth' normally refers to Israel in the book of Revelation), or it could be hyperbole to describe Jerusalem as the senior partner in the relationship even though she was a vassal state, in regard to her role in instigating the persecution of Christians by Nero.

The book continues:

Then I heard another voice from heaven say:

‘“Come out of her, my people,”
    so that you will not share in her sins,
    so that you will not receive any of her plagues;

for her sins are piled up to heaven,
    and God has remembered her crimes.
 Give back to her as she has given;
    pay her back double for what she has done.
    Pour her a double portion from her own cup.

Give her as much torment and grief
    as the glory and luxury she gave herself.
In her heart she boasts,
    “I sit enthroned as queen.
I am not a widow;
    I will never mourn.”

Therefore in one day her plagues will overtake her:
    death, mourning and famine.
She will be consumed by fire,
    for mighty is the Lord God who judges her. (Rev 18:4-8)

Note that the instructions given to the saints is exactly the same as Jesus told his followers concerning leaving Jerusalem to avoid her judgement:

‘When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. For this is the time of punishment in fulfilment of all that has been written. (Luke 21:20-22) 

Note that the phrase that 'God remembered' in this context is hugely significant because it is the language of covenant: God was in covenant with Jerusalem and he remembered his covenant with her when he let her suffer the curses of the covenant following her filling up the measure of her breaches.

The language of judgement includes for not just the Old Testament prophets, but also the apostles and God's holy people:

‘Rejoice over her, you heavens!    Rejoice, you people of God!    Rejoice, apostles and prophets! For God has judged her with the judgment she imposed on you.’

In her was found the blood of prophets and of God’s holy people,
    of all who have been slaughtered on the earth.’ (Rev 18:20,24)

The Old Testament contains a significant amount of material foretelling Israel's last days and her judgement in the last days, and the salvation of the remnant, and Jesus and the writers of the New Testament stated that their teachings of judgement against Jerusalem were 'the time of punishment in fulfilment of all that has been written' and quoted Old Testament prophecies of the same when teaching on the topic.

For example, when Jesus quoted Hosea 10:8 to the women of Jerusalem, he did not just pick a random quote for the colourful language of people calling for the mountains to fall on them, rather it was a reference to the national judgement of God's people through a foreign power:

The high places of wickedness will be destroyed –
    it is the sin of Israel.
Thorns and thistles will grow up
    and cover their altars.
Then they will say to the mountains, ‘Cover us!’
    and to the hills, ‘Fall on us!’ 

‘Since the days of Gibeah, you have sinned, Israel,
    and there you have remained.
Will not war again overtake
    the evildoers in Gibeah? When I please, I will punish them;
    nations will be gathered against them
    to put them in bonds for their double sin. (Hos 10:8-10)

Even Moses prophesied that in her last days Israel would fill up the measure of her sin and become Sodom and that God would avenge the blood of his servants:

You deserted the Rock, who fathered you;
    you forgot the God who gave you birth.

The Lord saw this and rejected them
    because he was angered by his sons and daughters.
 ‘I will hide my face from them,’ he said,
    ‘and see what their end will be;
for they are a perverse generation,
    children who are unfaithful.

They made me jealous by what is no god
    and angered me with their worthless idols.
I will make them envious by those who are not a people;
    I will make them angry by a nation that has no understanding.

For a fire will be kindled by my wrath,
    one that burns down to the realm of the dead below.
It will devour the earth and its harvests
    and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

 ‘I will heap calamities on them
    and expend my arrows against them.
 I will send wasting famine against them,
    consuming pestilence and deadly plague;
I will send against them the fangs of wild beasts,
    the venom of vipers that glide in the dust.
 In the street the sword will make them childless;
    in their homes terror will reign.
The young men and young women will perish,
    the infants and those with grey hair.
 I said I would scatter them
    and erase their name from human memory,
 but I dreaded the taunt of the enemy,
    lest the adversary misunderstand
and say, “Our hand has triumphed;
    the Lord has not done all this.”’

 They are a nation without sense,
    there is no discernment in them.
 If only they were wise and would understand this
    and discern what their end will be!
 How could one man chase a thousand,
    or two put ten thousand to flight,
unless their Rock had sold them,
    unless the Lord had given them up?
 For their rock is not like our Rock,
    as even our enemies concede.
 Their vine comes from the vine of Sodom
    and from the fields of Gomorrah.
Their grapes are filled with poison,
    and their clusters with bitterness.
 Their wine is the venom of serpents,
    the deadly poison of cobras.

 ‘Have I not kept this in reserve
    and sealed it in my vaults?
 It is mine to avenge; I will repay.
    In due time their foot will slip;
their day of disaster is near
    and their doom rushes upon them.’

 The Lord will vindicate his people
    and relent concerning his servants
when he sees their strength is gone
    and no one is left, slave or free.
 He will say: ‘Now where are their gods,
    the rock they took refuge in,
 the gods who ate the fat of their sacrifices
    and drank the wine of their drink offerings?
Let them rise up to help you!
    Let them give you shelter!

 ‘See now that I myself am he!
    There is no god besides me.
I put to death and I bring to life,
    I have wounded and I will heal,
    and no one can deliver out of my hand.
 I lift my hand to heaven and solemnly swear:
    as surely as I live for ever,
 when I sharpen my flashing sword
    and my hand grasps it in judgment,
I will take vengeance on my adversaries
    and repay those who hate me.
 I will make my arrows drunk with blood,
    while my sword devours flesh:
the blood of the slain and the captives,
    the heads of the enemy leaders.’

 Rejoice, you nations, with his people,
    for he will avenge the blood of his servants;
he will take vengeance on his enemies
    and make atonement for his land and people. (Deut 32:18-43)

A careful reading of the Song of Moses shows that, in Israel's last days:

1. She would reject God and that there would be a perverse generation (a Jewish generation Jesus positively identified as his own)
2. God would make her envious by those who were not a people, a passage Paul quotes as applying to the gospel going to the Gentiles in his day (Rom 10-11), and that his people would rejoice with the nations.
3. That Israel would sin and that God would accumulate her sin in a vault, and reserve it for the day judgement when he would avenge the blood of his servants against his enemies by repaying Israel for her sin (which Jesus identified as happening in his generation with numerous emphatic time statements). 

So, both Old and New Testaments are in harmony about this: God's Old Covenant people were the ones filling up the measure of violence and blood, and that in her last days her cup would be full, and she would be repaid, fulfilling all the violence and blood of the Old Testament. There is no cancellation of the violence and blood, it is instead fully filled up and fulfilled, and passes as fulfilled and accomplished.

The Passing of Heaven and Earth 

The second part of the teaching of Jesus about the fulfillment of the Old Testament, including its violence, is the passing of heaven and earth, which is obviously also associated with the promise of the New Heaven and Earth.

Following the destruction of the earthly Jerusalem, the new Jerusalem came down from heaven:

Then I saw ‘a new heaven and a new earth,’ for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Look! God’s dwelling-place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. “He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death” or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.’ (Rev 21:1-4)

Note the close connection between the destruction of the earthly Jerusalem, and the coming of the New Jerusalem, and the passing of the heaven and the earth, which is the same thing as the 'old order of things.'

In the judgement of Jerusalem, the measure of violence and blood and death was filled up, and fully avenged. The victory over death is when sting of death is removed, but the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law (1 Cor 15:56). The term 'the law' Paul is referring to is the law of Moses, the Old Covenant 'ministry that bought death, engraved in letters on stone' (2 Cor 3:7).

Now the connection is with the judgement on Jerusalem, that would destroy her, and destroy her temple, and end the Old Covenant and its legal administration, is concerning the significance and meaning of the passing of heaven and earth in Mat 5:18. Although it is not immediately obvious that this refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and her temple in A.D. 70, this is what is signified by the phrase.

In Matthew's account of the Olivet Discourse, Jesus said:

Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. (Mat 24:34-35)

So Jesus promised all the things he has prophesied against Jerusalem would take place in his generation, and he equates the passing of Jerusalem and her temple as heaven and earth passing away -- in contrast to his own words which would endure.

Mark 13:30-31 and Luke 21:32-33 record the same time statement and the same heaven and earth passing wording in the same context.

The writer of Hebrews discusses the Old and the New Covenants in terms of the pending removal of the Old Covenant heaven and earth:

 You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them,  because they could not bear what was commanded: ‘If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned to death.’ The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, ‘I am trembling with fear.’
But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,  to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven? At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, ‘Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.’  The words ‘once more’ indicate the removing of what can be shaken – that is, created things – so that what cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our ‘God is a consuming fire.’ (Heb 12:18-29)

 The context of the discussion is clearly the Old Covenant and its pending removal by way of 'shaking' and the unshakable New Covenant kingdom that was being received. As the main topic of the book of Hebrews is about the relationship between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, the following time statement shows what the shaking is referring to:

By calling this covenant ‘new’, he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. (Heb 8:13)

Of course the disappearance of the heavens and the earth implies the arrival of the new heaven and earth prophesied by Isiah:

‘See, I will create
    new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
    nor will they come to mind.

But be glad and rejoice for ever
    in what I will create,
for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight
    and its people a joy.
 I will rejoice over Jerusalem
    and take delight in my people;
the sound of weeping and of crying
    will be heard in it no more.

 ‘Never again will there be in it
    an infant who lives but a few days,
    or an old man who does not live out his years;
the one who dies at a hundred
    will be thought a mere child;
the one who fails to reach a hundred
    will be considered accursed.
 They will build houses and dwell in them;
    they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
 No longer will they build houses and others live in them,
    or plant and others eat.
For as the days of a tree,
    so will be the days of my people;
my chosen ones will long enjoy
    the work of their hands.
 They will not labour in vain,
    nor will they bear children doomed to misfortune;
for they will be a people blessed by the Lord,
    they and their descendants with them.
 Before they call I will answer;
    while they are still speaking I will hear.
 The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
    and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
    and dust will be the serpent’s food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
    on all my holy mountain,’
says the Lord. (Is 65:17-25)

We should note the following points from Isiah's prophecy of the new heavens and new earth:

1. In the New Heavens and New Earth there would still be death -- the language of the good times is hyperbolic and should not be taken literally
2. The language of the New Heavens and the New Earth are Hebraic expressions of great political risings and fallings or changes - it refer to a new era, a new age (as, incidentally, are references to mountains being removed, thrown into the sea, made low, the falling of stars, darkening of the sun, moon to blood etc.).

The context of Isiah's prophesy is also very important, we have both the salvation of Jerusalem (v 18-19 above) the judgement unfaithful and unbelieving of Jerusalem:

‘But as for you who forsake the Lord and forget my holy mountain, who spread a table for Fortune and fill bowls of mixed wine for Destiny, I will destine you for the sword, and all of you will fall in the slaughter; for I called but you did not answer, I spoke but you did not listen. You did evil in my sight and chose what displeases me.’(Is 65:11-12)

Now this salvation of the remnant, and judgement of unfaithful and unbelieving Jerusalem is at the time when the salvation is extended out to the Gentiles also, even though Israel is rejecting the gospel:

‘I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me;
    I was found by those who did not seek me.
To a nation that did not call on my name,
    I said, “Here am I, here am I.”
All day long I have held out my hands
    to an obstinate people,
who walk in ways not good,
    pursuing their own imaginations –
a people who continually provoke me

    to my very face (Is 65:1-3)

Of course Paul applies this prophesy to Israel of his day in Romans 10:20-21.

The timing of the destruction of the Old Covenant heaven and earth is also clear from Isiah: it is the time when Jerusalem would be judged for her and her ancestor's sins and slain, and God's people would be known by a new name:

‘See, it stands written before me;
    I will not keep silent but will pay back in full;
    I will pay it back into their laps –
both your sins and the sins of your ancestors,’
    says the Lord.
‘Because they burned sacrifices on the mountains
    and defied me on the hills,
I will measure into their laps
    the full payment for their former deeds.’

‘But as for you who forsake the Lord
    and forget my holy mountain,
who spread a table for Fortune
    and fill bowls of mixed wine for Destiny,

I will destine you for the sword,
    and all of you will fall in the slaughter;
for I called but you did not answer,
    I spoke but you did not listen.
You did evil in my sight
    and chose what displeases me.’

 Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says:

‘My servants will eat,
    but you will go hungry;
my servants will drink,
    but you will go thirsty;
my servants will rejoice,
    but you will be put to shame.

My servants will sing
    out of the joy of their hearts,
but you will cry out
    from anguish of heart
    and wail in brokenness of spirit.

You will leave your name
    for my chosen ones to use in their curses;
the Sovereign Lord will put you to death,
    but to his servants he will give another name. (Is 65:6-7, 11-15)

Jesus stated that this new heaven and earth messianic feast time, where some go hungry and others get to eat, would be when the subjects of the kingdom would be cast out:

I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Mat 8:11-12)

If it is not clear above that the messianic new heaven and earth wedding banquet relates to judgement on Jerusalem in A.D. 70 as to the timing and application, the parable of the wedding banquet makes it incontrovertible:

 ‘The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come. ‘Then he sent some more servants and said,  “Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and fattened cattle have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.” ‘But they paid no attention and went off – one to his field, another to his business. The rest seized his servants, ill-treated them and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. (Mat 22:2-7)

So, in conclusion:

• The violence, coercion and death of the Old Testament was filled up and finally avenged on Jerusalem in A.D. 70 as per the teaching of Jesus and the history of that cataclysmic event.
• When Jerusalem was seized and the temple was destroyed, the law, as a system, an order and covenant, passed away, and that is what Jesus and the New Testament writers referred to by the concept of heaven and earth passing away or being shaken.
• The Old Testament violence and coercion and bloodshed has been fulfilled in Christ and his body - there is a new order of things with no death that has been instituted in place of the old. The power of legalised sin has been broken.

Interpreting Old Testament law, coercion and violence through the lens of the cross (part 3)

He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant – not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was,  will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?  If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!
Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. Therefore, since through God’s mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ.

But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. (2 Cor 3:6-4:6)

 This third example from Paul addresses the same issue of the law and the approach is much the same.

The Old Testament contains killing, bondage, condemnation, coercion and death. Paul shows us how we should approach those issues as New Testament interpreters, and he does not disappoint.

When those reading the Old Testament without benefit of the New Testament revelation of Jesus Christ it is locked, obscured, veiled, and so it and they are under the control of sin and is a ministry of death, coercion etc.

The New Testament surpasses the Old Testament, and it re-frames it, and it unlocks it, to the effect that it is liberated from the death, coercion, bondage etc. enjoined by the face value of the Old Testament texts. As a result of that re-framing, we have, not death but life, not coercion but freedom, and we have a ministry of life and truth.

This interpretation method renounces secret and shameful ways, including the coercion, death and violence of the Old Testament, but is not distortion or deception. However, to those who do not accept the truth of Jesus Christ on the topics of coercion, death and violence will make such charges because the truth is veiled to them by the god of this age.

The revelation of God in Jesus Christ surpasses the face value of the Old Testament and requires a radical liberation and re-interpretation of it.

Interpreting Old Testament law, coercion and violence through the lens of the cross (part 2)

Another example is a different passage also from Paul on the same topic:

'Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.

 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.' (Gal 3:19-25)

Again we see the reason for the law was because of transgressions -- although the concept of increase of transgressions is not at first visible. But the law could not impart life, and the Scriptures locked up everything under the control of sin. So there are two aspects of this:

1. The locked up aspect -- the Scriptures are encrypted and require faith in Jesus Christ to decipher (i.e. the face value of the text does not necessarily carry the true significance), and
2. The control of sin -- the Scriptures under the control of sin and are in need of liberation from the face value that involves what we see through faith in Jesus Christ as sin. 

The Scriptures being referred to are, in this context, the law. The law itself, holds us in slavery. 

However, the bondage of the law is broken by new revelation. The new revelation is the key to unlocking the control of sin and unlocking the Scriptures themselves, and this new revelation is in the teaching, example and death of Jesus on the cross. 

The guardian concept also suggests something of a progressive revelation approach: the Old Testament is a vehicle not just for sin and death, but also a vehicle to bring us to the source of life, and ultimate freedom from coercion and sin and death. 

Our task, as Christian interpreters of the Old Testament, based on this example of Paul, is to have been brought to and to have faith in Jesus Christ, and to use the faith of Jesus Christ to break it free from its shackles, its slavery, its death, its condemnation, its retribution, its violence, its coercion, its sin. 

Interpreting Old Testament law, coercion and violence through the lens of the cross (part 1)

This is the first part of a series to look at the New Testament interpretation Old Testament law, coercion and violence. The purpose of the series is to examine and develop the approach or method to be used when the Old Testament portrays God as instituting, regulating or commanding punishments, coercion, the death penalty and violence.

The approach will be to look at the examples where a New Testament author writes about such topics as the law, judgement, condemnation, death etc. as provided for in the Old Testament and to identify and develop the distinctively Christian approach to such provisions of the Old Testament.

The first example is:

The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Rom 5:20-21)

In this place Paul makes an unexpected statement about the purpose of the law: it was brought in to increase trespass. Now the conventional theory is just the opposite: the law was brought in to control trespass. However, Paul does not see it that way at all, on his accounting:

To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. (Rom 5:13-14)

So the difference the law made was:

1. The law charged law-breakers for their law-breaking, and took coercive enforcement action against the lawbreakers.
2. The law was brought in to increase sin (and its fruit, death).

On this view, the law's charging and enforcement action against lawbreakers has the opposite purpose and effect of what the law says about itself:

Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. (Deut 21:21)

The deterrent effect of fear and the purging effect of punishment lawbreakers is a myth. Paul does not accept the myth of redemptive violence / coercion at the level of 'the law' even though 'the law' expressly states it!

The teaching of Paul is that the law arouses sinful passions in us and bears the fruit of death (Rom 7:5).

The discussion of Paul in the book of Romans contains competing elements: the law is good and holy, but it is also a vehicle for sin and bondage. This is the Christian interpreter's tension to resolve when looking at the Old Testament law: upholding its inspiration while arguing for a superseded administration that renders the old administration sinful and repudiates its original justification and rationale. Based on Paul's grappling with the law in the book of Romans, that tension is a difficult one, but one required by the perfect revelation of God in Jesus dying on the cross for the forgiveness of the sins of his enemies.

Lifestyle impacts of no swearing

Imagine if Jesus really meant what he said about not swearing any oaths at all. What would be the real impact today if we refused all swearing?

We will take a quick look at the state law about swearing oaths to assess the impact today.

First we need to look at the definitions. Swearing is the verb, the action, and the oath is the noun, the result of swearing. Thus one swears an oath.

Secondly, let's look at the standard and traditional wording used and manner of administration of oaths.

Section 3 of the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957 (NZ) states:

3Form in which oath may be administered

An oath may be administered and taken in any of the manners following:

• (a)the person taking the oath may, while holding in his hand a copy of the Bible, New Testament, or Old Testament, repeat the words of the oath as prescribed or allowed by law; or

• (b)the person administering the oath may repeat the appropriate form of adjuration commencing with the words“You swear by Almighty God that,” or words to the like effect, and concluding with the words of the oath as prescribed or allowed by law, and the person taking the oath shall thereupon, while holding in his hand a copy of the Bible, New Testament, or Old Testament, indicate his assent to the oath so administered by uttering the words “I do”, or other words to the like effect; or

• (c)the oath may be administered and taken in any manner which the person taking it may declare to be binding on him.

So we see from here that oaths involve an appeal to divine authority -- the use of the name of God and of the bible -- and are intended to create binding obligations or declarations.

Now let's look at the state response to Jesus's prohibition of oaths:

4Right to make affirmation instead of oath

• (1)Every person shall be entitled as of right to make his affirmation, instead of taking an oath, in all places and for all purposes where an oath is required by law, and every such affirmation shall be of the same force and effect as an oath.
  (2)Every such affirmation shall be as follows: “I, AB, solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm,” and shall then proceed with the words of the oath prescribed by law, omitting any words of imprecation or calling to witness.
  (3)Every affirmation in writing shall begin, “I, AB, of [specify], solemnly and sincerely affirm”; and the form instead of jurat shall be, “Affirmed at [place, date] before me.”

The state's response is semantic move of no legal effect. The state treats the issue of refusal to take oaths to be a matter of private or spiritual or religious belief, rather than as a form of legal or real spiritual or economic power against the power of the state itself. This can also be seen by the way the state law treats religious belief:

5Oath not affected by absence of religious belief

• Where an oath has been duly administered and taken, the fact that the person to whom the same was administered had at the time of taking the oath no religious belief shall not for any purpose affect the validity of the oath.

So the state's stance is very clear: believe whatever you like, and we can even accommodate your religiously-motivated refusal to use particular words in particular ways, but the mechanisms of legal and state power are unchanged, and we expect Christians to participate and engage with coercive state power in exactly the same way as anyone else, that is to say they must accept and act on it as legitimate and unchallenged, and furthermore this shows there is no conflict between Christianity and state power and legitimacy. Jesus is Lord and so is Caesar. But Jesus rules the world of private, religious, personal and emotional beliefs, not the world of money and power and law and justice and public policy.


However, we shall examine the nature of oaths more closely to see what is their real nature and the kind of power that they invoke and uphold.

The state-created technical right to affirm instead of swear identifies the problematic elements of oaths that drove the objections and that is inherent in oaths (refer section 4, Oaths and Declarations Act 1957):

1. The 'words of imprecation', and
2. The 'calling of witness'  (i.e. the calling of God as witness)

The words of imprecation refer to the calling down on the jurat (the person swearing the oath) of a curse.

What is the nature of the curse and the purpose of using God as witness? Although on its face it would appear to be a reference to God's punishment after death, supposedly as a motivation to tell the truth and to discharge one's obligations, the reality is legal, political and ideological:

1. The one who swears and oath, and yet gives false testimony invites the court to impose generally severe punishments on him.
2. The calling God as witness is not only an appeal to God and his ultimate knowledge and justice, but the giving of divine imprimatur on such earthly punishment and enforcement action against him in this life.
3. Thus the oath purports to bring God's ultimate sanction to the earthly litigation, prosecution, judicial and coercive action involved in the promises or proceedings. And administration of the state power apparatus here on earth. 

What if this were exactly what Jesus came to challenge and overturn? A closer look at his life and teaching reveals exactly this: Jesus came to challenge the coercion of the court and to teach a non-coercive alternative. Jesus came not to die as the ultimate sacrifice to the myth of redemptive violence, but to shatter that myth by giving his life to ransom us from slavery to the cycle of coercion and violence.

Swearing oaths is an essential input to the power, ideology and sanction of social coercion and the power of the state. The state doesn't mind if we change the words from swear to affirm, because the state is not about words but about power. The state is the systematic and organised institution of coercion that is upheld both by propaganda/ideology, and by the application of coercion. So the state doesn't mind if a good minority of the people want to change the wording of their coercive power exercise instruments, so long as they have the same coercive effect the state loses nothing! In fact, by making coercive instruments compatible with the teachings of Jesus on oaths, the state neutralises its enemy.

So what is the real use of oaths today? What could not be done without the oath? What occupations would be off limits to the one who would not swear?

Firstly and most obviously the one who will not swear an oath cannot file a law suit against anyone for anything. Filing law suits requires swearing affidavits giving evidence of the complaint and presenting that evidence as sworn testimony in open court:

77Witnesses to give evidence on oath or affirmation

• (1)A witness in a proceeding who is of or over the age of 12 years must take an oath or make an affirmation before giving evidence.

(Evidence Act 2006)
 
The High Court Rules require cases to be heard and decided in accordance with such witness evidence given under oath.

Secondly, one who will not swear an oath cannot take up many occupations involving state power. These include:

The Chief Justice

The Judges of the High Court

The Judges of the Court Martial

The appointed Judges of the Court Martial Appeal Court (other than retired High Court Judges)

The Judges of the Arbitration Court

The Judge of the Compensation Court

District Court Judges

The Judges of the Maori Land Court

Associate Judges of the High Court

Justices of the Peace

Community Magistrates

Coroners

Sheriffs

Referees of the Disputes Tribunals established under the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988

Lawyer/Barrister/Solicitor

Constable

Every person who is appointed to, or is enlisted or engaged in, the Navy, the Army, or the Air Force

Member of Parliament

(refer Oaths and Declarations Act 1957, schedules referring to other Acts)

Thirdly, one cannot take up citizenship by grant. 

So, it is clear that one who took Jesus teaching about oaths seriously would indeed be a foreigner and exile, the one whose citizenship is truly in heaven is excluded from the exercise of coercive state power, and from enlisting it to vindicate their causes and to collect their debts. Now when you look at the New Testament description of the plight of Christians and their place in this world and approach to debt collection you may find that it may have been what Jesus was talking about when he prohibited his followers from swearing oaths after all!

Christian teaching and Romans 13, part 7

Recognising the tension

In reading Romans 13:1-7 we should be honest that there is a significant tension between it and Christian teaching. It does not seem to fit with the Christian teaching on redress of wrongdoing, commendation, the state, submission, payment of taxes or God’s wrath. Do we harmonise Romans 13:1-7 with the Christian teaching, or do we harmonise Christian teaching with Romans 13:1-7? How is it legitimately possible to harmonise such a stark contrast and such a strong tension? Whatever we shall do with Romans 13:1-7 we mustn’t pretend that the tensions do not exist or simply ignore the passages that don’t agree with our preferred result.

Solution

Firstly, we shall note that it is Romans 13:1-7 that requires an alternative approach to make it consistent with Christian teaching. We can’t reasonably make the entire Christian teaching depend on this one passage and force numerous other passages to breaking point to conform to it.

Secondly, we must make sense of the passage as rhetoric: it must fully mesh with the context and it must be plausible and persuasive as an argument. Paul is not, I submit, simply asserting propositions on the basis of his apostolic authority, rather there is a line of argument that must be followed. The interpretation must truly make sense rather than torture the passage until it confesses what we require of it. It must make sense in its historical, cultural and political context, and Paul should have a reasonable basis to use the technique he does.

Thirdly, I submit that irony is the only rhetorical technique that can make sense of this passage. The element of tension is intentional, and Paul expects his readers to apply their knowledge of Christian teaching to recognise it, and to take it in an opposite sense.

Preceding context

 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord. On the contrary:

‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
    if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom 12:17-21)

The alternative to revenge is explained by Paul with reasonable clarity here.

Firstly the response is to do generous good to enemies, in order to promote shame and guilt in the conscience of the enemy and to promote his repentance – the reference to heaping burning coals on his head is to this. The passage Paul quotes also adds the following ending ‘and the Lord will reward you’ (Pr 25:22) – as we have already documented, the reward of our Father in heaven is not earthly judicial vindication.

Secondly, the response is to do good rather than evil to wrongdoers. This is obviously inconsistent with the concept and practice of invoking the power of the state to help us extract financial compensation by force or threat of force, or to punish him in the name of God, justice or keeping social order. This can also be seen from the way the early Church fathers understood the Sermon on the Mount, as prohibiting litigation, for example, Athenagoras, writing in around 180 A.D.:

we have learned, not only not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us, but to those who smite us on one side of the face to offer the other side also, and to those who take away our coat to give likewise our cloak (A plea for the Christians, Ch 1)

Likewise the early Church fathers understood that the Sermon on the Mount and other Christian teaching applied absolutely:

Hence arose, very lately, a dispute whether a servant of God should take the administration of any dignity or power, if he be able, whether by some special grace, or by adroitness, to keep himself intact from every species of idolatry; after the example that both Joseph and Daniel, clean from idolatry, administered both dignity and power in the livery and purple of the prefecture of entire Egypt or Babylonia. And so let us grant that it is possible for any one to succeed in moving, in whatsoever office, under the mere name of the office, neither sacrificing nor lending his authority to sacrifices; not farming out victims; not assigning to others the care of temples; not looking after their tributes; not giving spectacles at his own or the public charge, or presiding over the giving them; making proclamation or edict for no solemnity; not even taking oaths: moreover (what comes under the head of power), neither sitting in judgment on any one's life or character, for you might bear with his judging about money; neither condemning nor fore-condemning; binding no one, imprisoning or torturing no one--if it is credible that all this is possible. (Tertullian, on Idolatry, Ch XVII)

Regardless of whether one accepts or rejects Tertullian’s argument that idolatry and other breaches of Christian teaching are inescapable activities of offices of the state, a review of Tertullian’s argument shows that he takes for granted that the Christian teaching against idolatry, oaths, judgment etc. in the Sermon on the Mount etc. were fully applicable even under colour of state office and state law. Needless to say the same approach would be taken to the question of revenge and redress of wrongs. For example the same Church father elsewhere wrote:

Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? And shall he apply the chain, and the prison, and the torture, and the punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs? (The Chaplet, Ch XI)

Had Paul been referring solely to private and informal revenge, the obvious alternative to direct the wronged to use is the ‘proper’ legal process in the ‘proper’ forum of the law courts or the law enforcement department of the state. The alternative Paul actually mandates suggests that he is not solely referring to private and informal revenge but is proscribing the use of legal process as well. Needless to say, the legal process seeks to overcome evil with evil, as it dispenses asset seizures, debtor’s prison, bankruptcy, debt-slavery, jail, the death penalty and similar evils.

As noted above, the meaning of ‘It is mine to avenge, I will repay’ in its context in Deuteronomy, refers not to judicial punishment (whether directly or through an agent), but to allowing the poison of sin to corrupt and kill as its natural consequence.

The prohibition on private informal revenge is so obvious that it goes without saying. The standards of this world prohibit it as much as does the Gospel of God. If this was all Paul and Jesus were teaching, why make a big deal out of it? It’s not at all radical or even remarkable.

In addition, there is no suggestion that doing good to an enemy is merely a preliminary step in the process, and that should it fail to produce the desired shame and repentance, that the lawsuit or the law enforcement complaint is the next step in the process.

Submission injunction

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities

This injunction can be accepted at face value. There is no conflict with Christian teaching on this point at all. Being subject is the refusal to resort to violence to overthrow oppressive powers, it does not imply any endorsement or acceptance of oppressive powers.

Reason for injunction

for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

This is where things get interesting. This proposition is found nowhere else in scripture, certainly not in the sense it is used here. Although there are scriptures teaching the ultimate sovereignty of God over political kingdoms and empires, God’s permission for them to exist or his use of them for his purposes falls short of instituting them as legitimate authorities. For example:

Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words, I will summon all the peoples of the north and my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants and against all the surrounding nations. I will completely destroy them and make them an object of horror and scorn, and an everlasting ruin. I will banish from them the sounds of joy and gladness, the voices of bride and bridegroom, the sound of millstones and the light of the lamp. This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon for seventy years.

‘But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians, for their guilt,’ declares the Lord, ‘and will make it desolate for ever. I will bring on that land all the things I have spoken against it, all that are written in this book and prophesied by Jeremiah against all the nations.  They themselves will be enslaved by many nations and great kings; I will repay them according to their deeds and the work of their hands.’ (Jer 25:8-14, emphasis added)

It is clear from this example that notwithstanding that Nebuchadnezzar was expressly described by scripture as God’s servant, and doing God’s work, the style of power wielded was nevertheless evil.

However, Paul strays significantly beyond this in his argument.

Even today we find this claim absurd and unacceptable. Pol Pot was ordained by God? Stalin? Nero? Mere existence as a power is a low bar. The one invading, betraying, overthrowing, killing or cheating his way into power most successfully is the one ordained by God simply because he came out on top and God allowed it?

So, it is here, I submit, that the irony enters the passage (refer T. L. Carter,  The Irony of Romans 13, Novum Testamentum XLVI 3, 2004, for an exposition of the basis for finding irony in this passage, albeit not specifically in this claim).

Such an approach is hardly novel in Christian teaching, for example Tertullian taught that the state power was not of God but of the devil:

Now by this time, you who argue about "Joseph" and "Daniel," know that things old and new, rude and polished, begun and developed, slavish and free, are not always comparable. For they, even by their circumstances, were slaves; but you, the slave of none, in so far as you are the slave of Christ alone, who has freed you likewise from the captivity of the world, will incur the duty of acting after your Lord's pattern. That Lord walked in humility and obscurity, with no definite home: for "the Son of man," said He, "hath not where to lay His head;" unadorned in dress, for else He had not said, "Behold, they who are clad in soft raiment are in kings' houses:" in short, inglorious in countenance and aspect, just as Isaiah withal had fore-announced. If, also, He exercised no right of power even over His own followers, to whom He discharged menial ministry; if, in short, though conscious of His own kingdom, He shrank back from being made a king, He in the fullest manner gave His own an example for turning coldly from all the pride and garb, as well of dignity as of power. … Therefore what He was unwilling to accept, He has rejected; what He rejected, He has condemned; what He condemned, He has counted as part of the devil's pomp. For He would not have condemned things, except such as were not His; but things which are not God's, can be no other's but the devil's. If you have forsworn "the devil's pomp," know that whatever there you touch is idolatry. Let even this fact help to remind you that all the powers and dignities of this world are not only alien to, but enemies of, God.  (On Idolatry, Ch XVIII)

Corollary 1

Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 

This corollary follows naturally from the reason for the injunction. However, the warning against rebellion would also apply if the state were evil and an enemy, as Paul has prohibited repaying evil for evil and required overcoming evil with good. This corollary does not provide any hint of irony in the reason for the submission, rather it acts as cover to conceal it with valid logic and an acceptable conclusion.

Corollary 2

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 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. 

This is where the argument loses plausibility. Although the logic is flawless, the conclusions fly in the face of experience and Christian teaching. John the Baptist and Jesus both died at the hands of the rulers who supposedly held no terror to those who do right. Barabbas, the murderer, was released. Christian teaching on revenge prohibits the putting on the hat of the state or using its power to avenge wrongs. God’s wrath, in Christian teaching, is not at all represented by judicially imposed terror punishments. This part therefore, in its implausibility and clash with Christian teaching, suggests irony in the reason for submission to the governing authorities.

This part also contains an allusion to Nero’s propaganda of his idle sword – instead of saying rulers ‘bear the sword for a reason’, Paul uses a double-negative to refer to the idle sword. Nero claimed to be so merciful and benign that his sword was idle, so civilised was his rule. Paul appears to ask his readers to see through the propaganda and see the brutal reality of state power – something that would not have been difficult for them to do.

In the Christian tradition, the claim that the authorities actually punish those who do wrong and commend those who do good is not accepted uncritically, for example, Tertullian:

Let even this fact help to remind you that all the powers and dignities of this world are not only alien to, but enemies of, God; that through them punishments have been determined against God's servants; through them, too, penalties prepared for the impious are ignored. (On Idolatry, Ch XVIII)

Corollary 3

Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

Often the conscience does conflict with the ‘laws’ and actions of rulers, and this shows that the source of the corollary is false. We should do what is right even if we are punished for it – in fact Jesus told us to expect punishment from the authorities for obeying his commands. This is another sign of irony in the reason for the submission.

Corollary 4

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 

Of course the reality is precisely the opposite: we pay taxes because they are levied on us, and we wish to avoid the consequences of being caught failing to pay them, not because we assess them as fair in relation to the ‘services’ they procure.

The phrase translated in the NIV ‘give their full time to governing’ is literally ‘are devoted to this thing’ and refers back to the commending of the good and punishing of evildoers. The authorities spend a great deal of public money doing other things (wars, bread, circuses, canals etc.), and many they punish are innocent and many they commend are well-connected rather than good.

As a moral argument for payment of taxes in full, it does not work: at best it requires us to pay a modest proportion of the taxes levied on us.

The reference to tax collectors as God’s servants is highly provocative. How can Jesus say to treat those who spurn discipline of the assembly as you would a tax collector (Mat 18:17) if tax collectors are in fact to be honoured as God’s servants?

Conditional injunction

Give to everyone what you owe them: if you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honour, then honour.

This does sound like an injunction to pay taxes as they are morally owed, but ultimately it is merely a tautology. This is very much like Mat 22:21: although it sounds like an endorsement of taxation, in context to the enlightened it means the opposite. If we each were to calculate how much we owe based on our moral assessment of the activities of the state we are very unlikely to agree we owe the full amount levied, if any at all.

Contrast with the Law of Christ

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not covet,’ and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ Love does no harm to a neighbour. Therefore love is the fulfilment of the law.

Although it appears to be a topical break, it is actually a paradigm contrast, the same contrast Jesus made:

Jesus called them together and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant’ (Mat 20:25-26)

Paul’s exposition of the law of Christ is instructive: debts of money and of money’s worth should be paid, and payment discharges the debt. However, the obligation to love is never discharged, and it has no exceptions. Even if your debtor’s debt to you is due and payable, and he refuses to pay, your obligation to love him remains. You may not do or threaten to do any harm to your debtor to make him pay. You may not threaten to sue, you may not sue, you may not swear an oath to give testimony against him, you may not sit as a judge and award a judgement against such a man, and you may not use a court judgement against a man as the basis for taking his life, liberty or property by force. The ‘do no harm to a neighbour’ rule is absolute, notwithstanding the validity of unpaid debts, the formality of the ‘legal’ procedures and the presence of safeguards.

The contrast is also a contrast about the kind of moral and social obligations: under the law of the state, for the ‘services’ of the state taxes are levied and purport to be moral and social obligations. But there are no taxes to pay under the law of Christ, instead the light burden (Mat 11:28-30) of ‘do no harm to a neighbour.’ This one obligation fulfils the entire law, makes us children of our Father in heaven (Mat 5:44-45) and exempts us from taxation (Mat 17:26).

Political Reality 

After an adventure into political fantasy land, a teaching on the real law of Christ concerning debts and social order, Paul addresses political reality in Rome under cover of pastoral advice:

 And do this, understanding the present time: the hour has already come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armour of light. Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh.

There is no pastoral reason for this material in this place. The deeds of darkness do, however, match Nero’s night time adventures around Rome quite well, and the references to ‘the present time’ and ‘waking up’ suggest Paul could be referring to the sensitive political reality in Rome. The armour language also suggests spiritual warfare against the state (compare Eph 6:10-20).

Conclusion

The sensitive topic of power negotiation does justify the cover of irony in this case. Provided the readers are familiar with Christian teaching on revenge, litigation, commendation, the state, submission, payment of taxes, and God’s wrath, and have reasonable political and social and legal awareness, the sub-text is reasonably clear. Even today we know that the words ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help’ are, as Ronald Regan famously said, the nine most frightening words in the English language. Isn’t Paul meaning the same thing when he says ‘the one in authority is God’s servant for your good’?

Paul’s argument is a logical and persuasive reductio ad absurdum of the proposition that the governing authorities are ‘of God.’ Paul works through a chain of implications to show its absurdity in light of Christian teaching on redress of wrongdoing and God’s character and law. He also covertly refers to several aspects of the operation of state power that we can observe and experience that undermine the proposition. The result is that Paul affirms and upholds Christian teaching rather than legitimising the powers of this dark world. The boldness and tension are fully explained in favour of Christian teaching.

Christian teaching and Romans 13, part 6

Comparison with the Christian teaching on God’s judgement, wrath and punishment

Romans 12:19-13:7 contains a discussion on leaving room for God’s wrath and vengeance, and introduces the governing authorities as wielding the sword and as God’s servants and agents of wrath. The apparent implication is that God’s wrath is expressed by the sword of the state, and that God legitimises the state’s use of the sword for redress of wrongs.

Before accepting this at face value, we should examine the Christian teaching on God’s judgement, and wrath, and the relationship between wrongdoing and God’s punishment of it and check for consistency with the apparent implications of this passage in Romans.

From the beginning it is the presence of God that gives and sustains life. Living in the presence of God is paradise, the garden of Eden where God’s presence is the tree of life. But God warns men that if they do evil, that they shall suffer not to be slayed by God but to be forsaken by God and left to return to the dust. God will hide his face from us and to hand us over to corruption and ultimate death (Gen 2:8-17; 3:1-19).

When Cain killed Abel, God heard Abel’s blood crying out from the ground for justice and vengeance. God’s response, however, is to warn Cain:

Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground. Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.’ (Gen 4:10-12)

Cain understands that God is not judicially imposing a punishment on him, but removing his mercy and grace from him by withdrawing his presence:

Cain said to the Lord, ‘My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.’

But the Lord said to him, ‘Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.’ Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. (Gen 4:13-15)

Paul in Romans 12:19 quotes Deut. 32:35 concerning God’s repayment of evil: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay.’ This comes from the song of Moses, where Moses teaches the people of Israel about the consequences of breaking the covenant and rejecting God and his laws:

And the Lord said to Moses: ‘You are going to rest with your ancestors, and these people will soon prostitute themselves to the foreign gods of the land they are entering. They will forsake me and break the covenant I made with them.  And in that day I will become angry with them and forsake them; I will hide my face from them, and they will be destroyed. Many disasters and calamities will come on them, and in that day they will ask, “Have not these disasters come on us because our God is not with us?” And I will certainly hide my face in that day because of all their wickedness in turning to other gods. (Deut 31:16-18)

Note the consistency: God’s wrath is expressed passively, by the withdrawal of his presence, just as with Cain. Moses teaches the people that sin is like poison and that God’s repayment of sin consists of him allowing them to drink it:

Their vine comes from the vine of Sodom
    and from the fields of Gomorrah.
Their grapes are filled with poison,
    and their clusters with bitterness.
Their wine is the venom of serpents,
    the deadly poison of cobras.

‘Have I not kept this in reserve
    and sealed it in my vaults?
It is mine to avenge; I will repay.
    In due time their foot will slip;
their day of disaster is near
    and their doom rushes upon them.’ (Deut 32:32-35)

Jesus suffered the cup of God’s wrath in his death (Mat 26:39) for our sins. The contents of the cup are the poison of sin referred to above. Jesus was judged and died for our sins. But the penalty of sin is not a judicial penalty, imposed as an external evil visited on the sinner by God, rather it is the evil of the sin itself corrupting and harming. The wrath of God is the withdrawal of God’s protecting presence (Mat 27:46), or God’s mercy, and his allowance for sin to take its course. For example, it was violent human beings who judged and crucified Jesus, the Father did not slay his son, rather he forsook Jesus and allowed him to be handed over to sinful men (Mat 26:45). The death of Jesus was not to appease the wrath of his merciful Father, who is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked (Luke 6:35). Nor was it to satisfy cosmic justice, or a judicial result that the Father was compelled to carry out on the sinner or someone in the sinner’s place, and that could not be forgiven. The scriptures are explicit on this: God does not desire blood to appease his wrath against sin (Is 1:11-17; Heb 10:4-8). The Father simply releases the debt (Mat 18:27), receiving payment from no one. The Son’s life was a ransom paid to the one who held us captive to purchase our freedom (Heb 9:15), and it was not the Father holding us as captives, rather it is sin and Satan who held us in slavery (John 8:34; Acts 26:18; Rom 6-8, Heb 2:15, 2 Pet 2:19).

The wrath of God is God withdrawing his protective and merciful presence from us and handing us over to the sins we have done and their fruit. For example, Paul writes that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven, rather than judicially imposed (Rom 1:18). Therefore God ‘gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity’ and ‘gave them over to shameful lusts’ and ‘gave them over to a depraved mind’ (Rom 1:18-32). The punishment of sin is not imposed as a judicial execution, rather it is the natural product of the sin, for ‘the wages of sin is death’ (Rom 6:23). Paul also taught:  ‘A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction’ (Gal 6:7-8).

God’s heart towards sinners who are suffering his judgement and wrath can be seen from the heart of Jesus towards Jerusalem as he prophesied its destruction:

As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, ‘If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace – but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognise the time of God’s coming to you.’  (Luke 19:41-44).

Note that the wrath of God was carried out by the brutal Roman army, and that it pained God’s heart to withdraw his protection and allow this bloodbath. God did not approve of or impose the bloodbath, it was the will of sinful men to oppress, to rebel, to fight and to kill. In allowing this evil God’s character is not impugned by willing it or approving it or legitimising it. God is but giving us a taste of our own evil, rather than engaging in it himself by proxy.

Even in God’s church, it is by withdrawal that sin is judged: For example, Paul teaches that serious sin in the church can lead to a person being shunned by the church, but he describes the action as handing the person over to Satan (1 Cor 5:5, 1 Tim 1:20). It is not God’s will to allow Satan to torment his children, rather it is the will of the sinful to cut themselves off from God’s grace and from communion with his church that leads to them being tormented by Satan, and it is the will of Satan to accuse, to torture, to kill and destroy .

So the concept of God setting up a legitimate earthly agent of his wrath to judge and punish those who do evil judicially is inconsistent with the Christian teaching on God’s wrath. Judicially imposed punishment as a means of creating social order through fear is not a demonstration of the character of God at all. God is love, and ‘there is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment.’ (1 John 4:18) Judicially imposed social control is, as Paul wrote, ‘the lion’s mouth’ (2 Tim 4:17), a symbol of the devil and the devil-controlled beastly state (1 Pet 5:8; Rev 13:2).

We should heed the warning of James about attributing to God what belong to ourselves and to the devil, also his teaching about the organic rather than judicial relationship between sin and death:

When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.’ For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;  but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers and sisters. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. (James 1:13-17)