Crenshaw is also asserting a distinction between "public" and "private" moral ordering that is largely meaningless in a New Testament context.
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
I don't think accepting the existence of state powers and the theoretical legitimacy of their authority - and the idea that CHRISTIANS would exercise that authority is impossibly remote to the NT - is the same as operating within anything like a modern public-private framework.
In the context of 1st cent. Judaea, the Temple itself quite directly wielded power through the Sanhedrin. They come off poorly in the gospels. The efforts of the Pharisees to institutionalize and legally codify temple donations (e.g. Matt 23:16-24) also come off quite poorly.
-
-
I think this example operates at cross purposes to the rest, as it suggests that *some* authorities are *not* to be honored - and surely we can't assert that some kind of "secular v. religious" dichotomy explains the gulf between the different cases. Another anachronism, no?
-
I'm not convinced we have to dismiss it as anachronism. Take John 18:36, contrasting secular and spiritual power. On the same theme, James 4:4, Romans 12:2, or 1 John 15-17.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.