Why aren't Mennonites Constantinian?

[barnhart]

I would have to ask, then, what is your view of Israelite kings? They were, after all, the civil leader over the assembly of Israel.

Unless I can draw this back to Constantine, I would say we should start a new thread...However, I will draw it back to Constantine by suggesting that he was essentially serving in the same rule as King David did. Did he do it perfectly? By no means! But neither did King David.

God made various covenants with people over time, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David... Each contained different content and was for different times and people. The book of Hebrews tells us God spoke this way in the past but now has spoken a better covenant through his son. We do not pine after the lesser since the greater has come.

Even the kingship position occupied by David was not God's plan, rather his temporary allowance for the faithlessness of his people. Yet under that allowance David was blocked from the construction of the temple because of his blood shed. The temple is specifically referenced in the new testament allegorically as the church where the presence of God meets his people. David's exclusion was no small thing. The nation state of ancient Israel was never presented as a model for the kingdom by Jesus or his apostles.

Constantine and his empire likely fall into a similar category as David except the allowance of an earthly king had expired, the New Covenant had come, the old covenants were "fading away" (Hebrews 4).

[Coifi]

In the end the two end up in opposite places, so yes.
No, God redeems individuals to His kingdom, a call to forsake those systems of the world.

2 Corinthians tells us to not be yoked with unbelievers. As a Christian does this he cannot participate with a government containing unbelievers. This is simple separation.

We are called to be ambassadors of Christ. Our allegiance is to Him and not to another country and flag.

Civil government is called to use force to contain evil while Christ commands that we resist not evil. Obedience is part of faithfulness. To not obey Christ is to deny Him in our actions.

I appreciate your clarifications, Ned, though I do not agree with the conclusion. I would like to understand more about your perspectives on government, religion, and participation in either, but I will save that for a different thread. At the very least, I do not think we can continue a productive discussion regarding Constantine and without first addressing these broader issues.

[Coifi]

I would have to ask, then, what is your view of Israelite kings? They were, after all, the civil leader over the assembly of Israel.

Unless I can draw this back to Constantine, I would say we should start a new thread...However, I will draw it back to Constantine by suggesting that he was essentially serving in the same rule as King David did. Did he do it perfectly? By no means! But neither did King David.

God made various covenants with people over time, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David... Each contained different content and was for different times and people. The book of Hebrews tells us God spoke this way in the past but now has spoken a better covenant through his son. We do not pine after the lesser since the greater has come.

Even the kingship position occupied by David was not God's plan, rather his temporary allowance for the faithlessness of his people. Even under that allowance David was blocked from the construction of the temple because of his blood shed. The temple is specifically referenced in the new testament allegorically as the church where the presence of God meets his people. David's exclusion was no small thing. The nation state of ancient Israel was never presented as a model for the kingdom by Jesus or his apostles.

Constantine and his empire likely fall into a similar category as David except the allowance of an earthly king had expired, the New Covenant had come, the old covenants were "fading away" (Hebrews 4).

This sounds like dispensationalism. Do Mennonites generally ascribe to this perspective of God's interaction with His people? You may be surprised, but I do not ascribe to such a view.

Shall we start a new thread on this topic?

[barnhart]

I subscribe to dispensationalism only to the extent it is specifically referenced in Scripture, but no further. I don't think actual dispensationalists would accept me. I suspect most mennonites accept some the past elements of dispensationalism but object to the present and future elements.

[Josh]

Most Mennonites aren’t dispensationalists. However, they do believe that pre-Christ’s resurrection and post are different, such as no longer needing to perform animal sacrifices.

[Bootstrap]

There are two kingdoms; St. Augustine is the best orator on this topic with his book The City of God. I do not think, though, that humans are universally incapable of participating in the kingdom of God when they participate in civil hierarchical structures. As an example of this, I present the Russian saints, the Passion-bearers Boris and Gleb. Being princes of Vladimir the Great and heirs to the throne, they were very political figures. Would you say that they are participating in the kingdom of God? Were they separate?

My point all along is that we should be wary when using modern categories to work out teachings of 2000 years ago.

In a lot of ways, Augustine was Constantine's best apologist.

Mennonites have a very different Two Kingdom theology than Augustine (with Marpeck and Sattler variations). Augustine's City of God very much assumes a Constantinian order. So when we refer to the Two Kingdoms, we are speaking a different language.

[barnhart]

I would have to ask, then, what is your view of Israelite kings? They were, after all, the civil leader over the assembly of Israel.

Unless I can draw this back to Constantine, I would say we should start a new thread...However, I will draw it back to Constantine by suggesting that he was essentially serving in the same rule as King David did. Did he do it perfectly? By no means! But neither did King David.

God made various covenants with people over time, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David... Each contained different content and was for different times and people. The book of Hebrews tells us God spoke this way in the past but now has spoken a better covenant through his son. We do not pine after the lesser since the greater has come.

Even the kingship position occupied by David was not God's plan, rather his temporary allowance for the faithlessness of his people. Even under that allowance David was blocked from the construction of the temple because of his blood shed. The temple is specifically referenced in the new testament allegorically as the church where the presence of God meets his people. David's exclusion was no small thing. The nation state of ancient Israel was never presented as a model for the kingdom by Jesus or his apostles.

Constantine and his empire likely fall into a similar category as David except the allowance of an earthly king had expired, the New Covenant had come, the old covenants were "fading away" (Hebrews 4).

This sounds like dispensationalism. Do Mennonites generally ascribe to this perspective of God's interaction with His people? You may be surprised, but I do not ascribe to such a view.

Shall we start a new thread on this topic?

From my perspective this progression of covenant is a key reason Anabaptists cannot accept Constantinian synthesis. I don't see it needs a new thread, that is the subject of this thread.