Steven Carr

The earthly powers 'do not bear the sword for nothing'. That means people executed by them are executed ,purposefully, for a reason, not just blindly.

They 'hold no terror for the innocent'. Blind people waving swords hold terror for everybody.

And it is perfectly possible for Paul to regard killings as malicious, and also the forces behind the killing not knowing what they were doing, and they would not have done it if they had realised the effects of the killing.

Al_Qaeda might well start claiming that the American would not have killed Osama bin Laden if they had only known the effects of the whirlwind of revenge that killing would unleash. American ignorance of the effects of creating martyrs would not turn them into God's agents...

andrewcriddle

It is highly unlikely that Paul's claims that the earthly powers are God's agents meant that earthly powers do not (sometimes) make grave mistakes.

Human mistakes are, I think, regarded by Paul as under God's providential control and as serving God's purposes but that is another issue.

I don't think you have replied to my point about whether it is plausible that Paul could have both regarded the heavenly rulers as malicious and regarded the earthly rulers as benevolent.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr

Like killing the Son of God? Contrast how Paul talks about people who make 'mistakes' when eating the cultic meal?

The Roman authorities hold no terror for the innocent. They did whip, beat, mock and crucify Jesus but that was an innocent mistake....

It doesn't sound right coming from the pen of somebody who claimed that people should eat before going to church, otherwise he will write letters chastising them for eating too much at church 'So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.'

If going to church on an empty stomach incurs the wrath of Paul, why not sticking a spear into Jesus?

judge

Good luck with that...

Solo

Out of curiousity, Andrew, is there anything you see in Paul's writing that would support the view that he thought authorities capable of doing wrong ? Because I don't. It may seem strange but Paul - the spiritual homo novus - did not think AFAICS the 'powers-that-be' as 'appealable'. They were invested with power by God, and whatever they did was accounted for by God.

This may seem incomprehensible, but it isn't really a view that is unique. The renowned islamic jurist ibn Taymiyyah said famously that 'sixty years of of an unjust ruler is preferrable to one day of civil disorder'. Paul strikes me as coming from a similar mystical philosophy of 'the big tent'.

Best,
Jiri

Steven Carr

To answer your point , that certainly seems to be the case, as Paul writes as if the earthly rulers (ie the Roman authorities) were God's agents who do not bear the sword for nothing and who held no terror for the innocent.

Whereas Paul was battling against 'archons' and other powers, and received messages from the Lord in his battles against Satan.

judge

How do you equate ibn Taymiyyah's view quoted above with the view that the ruler can't cant do wrong?

Steven Carr

I agree with Judge.

Once I see al-Qaeeda explain that the Americans are God's agents, who do not bear the sword for nothing, and hold no terror for the innocent, after they killed Osama bin Laden, then I will be in a better position to understand Paul's writings.

As Judge points out, Paul's view cant be equated with ibn Taymiyyah's view.

Solo

Exactly where do you see a problem ? Sixty years vs one day not a strong enough statement for you ? the rulers are not God-appointed ? :huh:

Jiri

Solo

Not in the school where you learned philosophy, that's for sure. :huh:

Best,
Jiri