of course good cops would kill Jesus....so would bad cops....it's who cops are; it's what cops do. why wouldn't cops kill Jesus? after all, that killing would be part of the salvation plan.
cops killing the Savior would be carrying out the will of the Father, who planned the whole thing before creating.
"Good cops kill Jesus," says Dom Scarcella, author of "Good Neighbor, Bad Citizen: Reflections on the core social conflict revealed by Jesus Christ's Way of the Cross."
Thanks for everything, Bretigne! This was a thought-provoking conversation for me. I think I'm going to write about something from our conversation this coming Wednesday, and I'll certainly return the favor of linking to "On the Banks" from my Substack post. Merry Almost-Christmas!
Hi, Bretigne Shaffer! Thank you for this interview of author Dominic C. Scarcella. People might be able to discern my position on this issue based upon my following article:
My foregoing article demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis.
Jesus was and is the incarnation of God's Word and God's Law. Accordingly, it is not possible for Him to be an anarchist. Rather, He was an advocate of the highest law.
Indeed, Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 9:6-7:
"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this."
He cannot be an anarchist when He is the embodiment of God's government.
AND YET
Jesus is also the subversive reminder that God's Law is always superior to man's laws. The closing line of Judges has always struck me as a subtle reminder of this concept:
"In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes."
We should remember also the warning God told Samuel to give to the Israelites when they asked for a king to rule over them. Samuel warned them of all the burdens and injustices a king would inflict upon them.
Indeed, the Israelites CHOSE to have a king. Which is perhaps the earliest documented instance of the truth Thomas Jefferson would restate in the Declaration of Independence: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". All governments, even totalitarian ones, rest on the willingness of the people to obey the edicts of that government. History is replete with examples of what happens when the people are no longer willing to obey--the government falls, no matter how brutal or authoritarian it is.
Jesus was not an anarchist. He was and is a none-too-subtle reminder that government among men is first, foremost, and always a CHOICE we make every day. And He is a reminder that we are all called to choose wisely.
It's a fair point that Jesus is not an anarchist in the divine realm. However, here on earth, I believe one can make the argument (and I think Dom has done it well here) that Jesus does not support coercive power systems, that he does not support humans ruling over other humans.
Yes, we discussed Samuel in the episode. But I disagree that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. I do not consent to be governed by the federal govt. of the US, nor by my state or local govts., yet here we are. Sure, if enough people decide that they no longer consent, then the government has a problem. But it is not true to say that everyone who is ruled over has consented to it.
of course good cops would kill Jesus....so would bad cops....it's who cops are; it's what cops do. why wouldn't cops kill Jesus? after all, that killing would be part of the salvation plan.
cops killing the Savior would be carrying out the will of the Father, who planned the whole thing before creating.
from http://tinyurl.com/3z3zdebj a podcast by Bretigne Shaffer
"Good cops kill Jesus," says Dom Scarcella, author of "Good Neighbor, Bad Citizen: Reflections on the core social conflict revealed by Jesus Christ's Way of the Cross."
Thanks for everything, Bretigne! This was a thought-provoking conversation for me. I think I'm going to write about something from our conversation this coming Wednesday, and I'll certainly return the favor of linking to "On the Banks" from my Substack post. Merry Almost-Christmas!
Thank you! And Merry Almost-Christmas to you too!
Hi, Bretigne Shaffer! Thank you for this interview of author Dominic C. Scarcella. People might be able to discern my position on this issue based upon my following article:
* James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), 60 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761, https://archive.org/download/JesusIsAnAnarchist/Redford-Jesus-Is-an-Anarchist.pdf .
My foregoing article demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis.
Enjoy, everyone!
Jesus was and is the incarnation of God's Word and God's Law. Accordingly, it is not possible for Him to be an anarchist. Rather, He was an advocate of the highest law.
Indeed, Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 9:6-7:
"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this."
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+9%3A6-7&version=RSV
He cannot be an anarchist when He is the embodiment of God's government.
AND YET
Jesus is also the subversive reminder that God's Law is always superior to man's laws. The closing line of Judges has always struck me as a subtle reminder of this concept:
"In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes."
https://blog.petersproverbs.us/p/no-king-in-israel-no-king-required-then
We should remember also the warning God told Samuel to give to the Israelites when they asked for a king to rule over them. Samuel warned them of all the burdens and injustices a king would inflict upon them.
Indeed, the Israelites CHOSE to have a king. Which is perhaps the earliest documented instance of the truth Thomas Jefferson would restate in the Declaration of Independence: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". All governments, even totalitarian ones, rest on the willingness of the people to obey the edicts of that government. History is replete with examples of what happens when the people are no longer willing to obey--the government falls, no matter how brutal or authoritarian it is.
Jesus was not an anarchist. He was and is a none-too-subtle reminder that government among men is first, foremost, and always a CHOICE we make every day. And He is a reminder that we are all called to choose wisely.
It's a fair point that Jesus is not an anarchist in the divine realm. However, here on earth, I believe one can make the argument (and I think Dom has done it well here) that Jesus does not support coercive power systems, that he does not support humans ruling over other humans.
Yes, we discussed Samuel in the episode. But I disagree that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. I do not consent to be governed by the federal govt. of the US, nor by my state or local govts., yet here we are. Sure, if enough people decide that they no longer consent, then the government has a problem. But it is not true to say that everyone who is ruled over has consented to it.
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Render unto God that which is God's.
The question of consent comes down to the choices we make.
Do we pay taxes? Do we buckle out seatbelts? Do we keep our driver's licenses current?
How can we say we do not consent when we submit and comply?
There is a reason why the maxim of the law is "qui tacet consentire videtur"--he who is silent has consented.
"Consent" under duress is not consent. Even our legal traditions recognize this.