Do theocracies violate gods will?

[Jew]

And these theocracies were sanctioned by God himself, God wanted them. So you can't say theocracies are sinful.

If you're talking about the Old Testament theocracies, that doesn't strictly fall under Christian ethics. That's Jewish. It's part of the old covenant that has been wiped away by the Jesus's miraculous death and resurrection. Jesus takes the place of all the Old Testament ritual and sacrifice and government. Jesus's Kingdom on earth is a spiritual kingdom, not a physical one. So while there may have been titular theocracies in the pre-Christ era, they are definitely not biblically sanctioned by the New Testament.

[General Zod]

And these theocracies were sanctioned by God himself, God wanted them. So you can't say theocracies are sinful.

If you're talking about the Old Testament theocracies, that doesn't strictly fall under Christian ethics. That's Jewish. It's part of the old covenant that has been wiped away by the Jesus's miraculous death and resurrection. Jesus takes the place of all the Old Testament ritual and sacrifice and government. Jesus's Kingdom on earth is a spiritual kingdom, not a physical one. So while there may have been titular theocracies in the pre-Christ era, they are definitely not biblically sanctioned by the New Testament.

by that reasoning the ten commandments don't fall under christian ethics either. after all, they're apart of the old covenant.

[Jew]

Nine of the ten commandments are repeated in the New Testament and are therefore still in effect. The lone exception is the keeping of the Sabbath.

[Darth Wong]

Nine of the ten commandments are repeated in the New Testament and are therefore still in effect. The lone exception is the keeping of the Sabbath.

Does Jesus ever say that God was ever wrong about anything? No? Does Jesus ever say that the concept of right and wrong has changed? No? Then OT "ethics" still apply to Christians.

[wolveraptor]

In fact, i remember him making some statement about how he was not hear to take away the old law, but just to provide a different path, or something. Probably to appeal to the Jewish masses around him. Don't remember which book it was. Maybe Peter?

[Lord Zentei]

In fact, i remember him making some statement about how he was not hear to take away the old law, but just to provide a different path, or something. Probably to appeal to the Jewish masses around him. Don't remember which book it was. Maybe Peter?

Matthew. Observe:

Mt 15:17 'Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law of Moses or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them!'

Mt 15:18 'In truth I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even the smallest stroke of a letter will pass away from the Law.'

Mt 15:19 'So anyone who breaks the least of these commandments, or teaches others to do so, will be called "least" in the kingdom of heaven.'

Mt 15:19 'But whoevever practices and teaches these commandments will be called "great" in the kingdom of heaven.'

Mt 15:20 'I say to 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!'

Leave it to Matthew to be a royal asshat.

[Jew]

Nitpick: those verses are from Matthew 5, not Matthew 15. Been reading too much Brick Testament, eh?

[Lord Zentei]

Nitpick: those verses are from Matthew 5, not Matthew 15. Been reading too much Brick Testament, eh?

True. But the point remains valid.

[wolveraptor]

It was brick testament that made me envious of Jacob, who got laid every other sentence.

[Rye]

If you're talking about the Old Testament theocracies, that doesn't strictly fall under Christian ethics. That's Jewish.

Christianity was a product of 1st century Judaism, and specifically messianism in that era. He was indeed supposed to sit on an actual throne of David, build an actual temple and fulfill prophecy, when he didn't, both in his life and after, rationalisations were formed.

It's part of the old covenant that has been wiped away by the Jesus's miraculous death and resurrection.

No, it was an everlasting covenent.

Jesus takes the place of all the Old Testament ritual and sacrifice and government.

Bzzt. Wrong. Christians, like jews, don't sacrifice animals because it's an archaic, cruel practise that society has outgrown.

New American Standard Bible: Acts 21:26: 'Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the Temple, giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.' - Proves that the christians were still sacrificing animals after Jesus had gone.

Jesus's Kingdom on earth is a spiritual kingdom, not a physical one. So while there may have been titular theocracies in the pre-Christ era, they are definitely not biblically sanctioned by the New Testament.

Nonsense, Revelation 20 has Jesus and his 1000 year earthly kingdom returning.

The "rend unto caesar" parts are not unexpected, since the christians were not in control. There's no part of the bible that says they can't control a country, though. They could get around the whole "don't judge" part by killing all the unbelievers for God, as luke 19:27 teaches.

[Durandal]

How the Hell could Paul have "intended" to outlaw a form of government that wasn't even conceived of until over a thousands years later?

Wha? Weren't there already theocracies by the time of ancient OT Israel?

Ugh, sorry. Replace "outlaw" with "endorse." In that time period, there was no such thing as a secular government, so it'd be kind of hard for Paul to endorse the concept.

[Jew]

Revelation 20 has Jesus and his 1000 year earthly kingdom returning.

I agree the Bible does sanction this sort of theocracy. If the Son of God himself is running the show then it is biblical. But I rather thought we were discussing present-day possibilities a la an Iran-style government.

Wha? Weren't there already theocracies by the time of ancient OT Israel?

We may need to define exactly what a theocracy is. For example, take ancient Israel. The ruling King was not the religious leader; that distinction belonged to the high priest. So in a strict sense, Israel was not a theocracy. In practice, the priests and prophets had so much influence over the King and his generals that Israel was often ruled by religion. It was a de facto theocracy.

Fast-forward to Rome. The Roman emperors claimed to be gods, but in practice religion had no strong grip on the government. Religions were persecuted, the government was autocratic, and there wasn't much religious freedom, but it wasn't a theocracy.

[General Zod]

We may need to define exactly what a theocracy is.

Main Entry: the·oc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: thE-'ä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Greek theokratia, from the- + -kratia -cracy
1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
2 : a state governed by a theocracy

Fast-forward to Rome. The Roman emperors claimed to be gods, but in practice religion had no strong grip on the government. Religions were persecuted, the government was autocratic, and there wasn't much religious freedom, but it wasn't a theocracy.

rome was actually fairly open minded about other religions. they merely had to proclaim the roman pantheon to be superior to their own, iirc. so long as other religions didn't make a stink about the state of things they were largely left on their own.

[Rye]

Revelation 20 has Jesus and his 1000 year earthly kingdom returning.

I agree the Bible does sanction this sort of theocracy. If the Son of God himself is running the show then it is biblical. But I rather thought we were discussing present-day possibilities a la an Iran-style government.

That's not what I was addressing, I was addressing you saying that Jesus' kingdom was spiritual, not physical.

Would a human-run theocracy violate the NT? Not as far as I can see. Jesus never said that should Judea/wherever fall into the hands of jews again, or christians, it must not be like the OT city/state of israel with the new doctrine factored in.

[Darth Servo]

In fact, i remember him making some statement about how he was not hear to take away the old law, but just to provide a different path, or something. Probably to appeal to the Jewish masses around him. Don't remember which book it was. Maybe Peter?

Matthew. Observe:



Leave it to Matthew to be a royal asshat.

Ah, but "true" Christianity is far more concerned with the Paul's epistles which explicitly state that you don't need to work. Just believe!!!

[wolveraptor]

rome was actually fairly open minded about other religions. they merely had to proclaim the roman pantheon to be superior to their own, iirc. so long as other religions didn't make a stink about the state of things they were largely left on their own.

Which is a key point. You only had to proclaim it. In all likelyhood, most Roman citizens went on practicing religion more-or-less the same way before Rome's invasion. This only applied to those that surrendered without a stink, though. The Romans weren't afraid to crush rebellion thoroughly.

[Darth Servo]

As for the original topic of the thread. It depends on which Christian you ask. For a Catholic or most protestants, the answer is clearly 'no'. For a JW, they think ALL governments are created by the devil so clearly their answer is 'yes'

[Pick]

I have no idea, but the Jehova's Witnesses seem to think it's Jesus' destiny to come down to earth and to rule. Yippee.

No. They beleive he arrived invisibly in 1914. I kid you not.

Actually, my bad. I knew that. I forgot that WWI was the beginning of the end. The Judgement, they believe, is at hand.

.... HA HA HA!