Comments on: Give them a king http://sodsbrood.com/pilgrim/2005/08/27/give_them_a_king Comeday morm and, O, you're vine! Sendday's eve and, ah, you're vinegar! Fri, 09 Jan 2009 03:39:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Matthew http://sodsbrood.com/pilgrim/2005/08/27/give_them_a_king/comment-page-1#comment-1351 Matthew Thu, 01 Sep 2005 07:00:05 +0000 /?p=498#comment-1351 I thought I'd get some comments, not wholly positive, on this one as well. I'll be sure to check out your post on this chapter. I'm still puzzled by it, but it seems in accord with the strained relationship between religion and politics throughout the Bible. Probably the next most overtly political statement in the Bible is Jesus' comment "Render unto Caesar, etc." which is often read as a commandment to be loyal to your government and pay your taxes. I tend to read that passage as asserting an essential seperateness between Christians and the State. "Let Caesar have these few coins, and instead devote yourself to obeying God." I would also point out that though Israel was immoral before the time of the Kings, they weren't a whole lot better during and afterwards. The kings themselves were not necessarily moral men. We all have our faults, but it is shockingly bad to send the husband of a woman you covet to the front lines of battle so he will be killed, freeing you to take his wife. Essentially, the bad things that God predicts for Israel if they choose to have a King all come to pass. However, as usual, God lets us choose our own path in life, usually to our detriment. I thought I’d get some comments, not wholly positive, on this one as well. I’ll be sure to check out your post on this chapter. I’m still puzzled by it, but it seems in accord with the strained relationship between religion and politics throughout the Bible. Probably the next most overtly political statement in the Bible is Jesus’ comment “Render unto Caesar, etc.” which is often read as a commandment to be loyal to your government and pay your taxes. I tend to read that passage as asserting an essential seperateness between Christians and the State. “Let Caesar have these few coins, and instead devote yourself to obeying God.”

I would also point out that though Israel was immoral before the time of the Kings, they weren’t a whole lot better during and afterwards. The kings themselves were not necessarily moral men. We all have our faults, but it is shockingly bad to send the husband of a woman you covet to the front lines of battle so he will be killed, freeing you to take his wife. Essentially, the bad things that God predicts for Israel if they choose to have a King all come to pass. However, as usual, God lets us choose our own path in life, usually to our detriment.

]]> By: Scott http://sodsbrood.com/pilgrim/2005/08/27/give_them_a_king/comment-page-1#comment-1350 Scott Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:50:02 +0000 /?p=498#comment-1350 I'm astonished no one has commented on this yet, for it seems to me to strike to the heart of one of the few permananent "themes" i see among the Brooders, namely: to what extent can an act be Christian and political? I addressed this very episode in Samuel in the Scribblings back in the beginning of January but for a far different purpose. I have no easy answer for the questions that you pose, because the Bible itself seems ambiguous on these points. On the one hand, you have Samuel's dire warning, which you quoted, about what a king would mean to the Israelites. On the other, Israel wasn't having a very good time of things before the establishment of the Kings, and not just politically, either. "Every man did what was right in his own eyes," says Judges, and that doesn't seem to me to be a statement of how virtuous everyone was, either. Morally, Israel was often in bad shape. Is it possible that the moral conduct of the Israelites as individuals was less important to God than their corporate trust in Him, rather than in a State, for their political well-being? A challenging thought, to say the least. . . I’m astonished no one has commented on this yet, for it seems to me to strike to the heart of one of the few permananent “themes” i see among the Brooders, namely: to what extent can an act be Christian and political? I addressed this very episode in Samuel in the Scribblings back in the beginning of January but for a far different purpose.
I have no easy answer for the questions that you pose, because the Bible itself seems ambiguous on these points. On the one hand, you have Samuel’s dire warning, which you quoted, about what a king would mean to the Israelites. On the other, Israel wasn’t having a very good time of things before the establishment of the Kings, and not just politically, either. “Every man did what was right in his own eyes,” says Judges, and that doesn’t seem to me to be a statement of how virtuous everyone was, either. Morally, Israel was often in bad shape.
Is it possible that the moral conduct of the Israelites as individuals was less important to God than their corporate trust in Him, rather than in a State, for their political well-being? A challenging thought, to say the least. . .

]]>