Is Jesus for “Law & Order?”

[Szdfan]

I think that Christ is for law and order. I don’t think he is for the kind of rioting that we witness where people get hurt.

I want to dig into this a bit. Is Jesus really for “law and order” or did his life, death and resurrection challenge the laws and orders of the world he was born in? Does the Kingdom of God confront or comfort worldly power and society’s hierarchies?

Which scriptures point in either direction?

While this is an inherently political discussion, I’d like this thread to stick to theology and not partisan politics. I think this is a topic much bigger than US politics.

I can't think offhand of any instances where Jesus violated civil law in the country where he lived. He advocated compliance with taxation laws, and when brought to trial there seemed to be no civil or criminal case against him. In general, New Testament teaching about our relationship with civil government seems to be that we should obey unless God's command is clearly different.

I agree with you that we are to generally to follow civil laws unless they conflict with God's laws. But I also think that what you're describing is a contemporary understanding of the separation between "civil" and "religious" law that wouldn't have existed during the 1st Century.

In occupied Israel, Jewish and Roman law were overlapping systems. The Sanhedrin was a political and religious body. The Torah contained both religious and civil regulations. When Jesus healed the sick on the Sabbath or chased the moneylenders out of the Temple, he wasn't just defying religious law in the way we understand it, he was also challenging the civil order built around those laws. After all, when the Romans posted "King of the Jews" on Jesus's cross during the crucifixion, they weren't just making a theological or spiritual accusation, but also a political one -- they effectively accused Jesus of treason.

This doesn't mean I think that Jesus calls us to anarchy -- the double love commandment is also a kind of divine order. But like the Old Testament prophets, Jesus also demonstrates that divine order's concern for justice, not just compliance to civil law.

[GaryK]

I want to dig into this a bit. Is Jesus really for “law and order” or did his life, death and resurrection challenge the laws and orders of the world he was born in? Does the Kingdom of God confront or comfort worldly power and society’s hierarchies?

Which scriptures point in either direction?

While this is an inherently political discussion, I’d like this thread to stick to theology and not partisan politics. I think this is a topic much bigger than US politics.

I can't think offhand of any instances where Jesus violated civil law in the country where he lived. He advocated compliance with taxation laws, and when brought to trial there seemed to be no civil or criminal case against him. In general, New Testament teaching about our relationship with civil government seems to be that we should obey unless God's command is clearly different.

I agree with you that we are to generally to follow civil laws unless they conflict with God's laws. But I also think that what you're describing is a contemporary understanding of the separation between "civil" and "religious" law that wouldn't have existed during the 1st Century.

In occupied Israel, Jewish and Roman law were overlapping systems. The Sanhedrin was a political and religious body. The Torah contained both religious and civil regulations. When Jesus healed the sick on the Sabbath or chased the moneylenders out of the Temple, he wasn't just defying religious law in the way we understand it, he was also challenging the civil order built around those laws. After all, when the Romans posted "King of the Jews" on Jesus's cross during the crucifixion, they weren't just making a theological or spiritual accusation, but also a political one -- they effectively accused Jesus of treason.

This doesn't mean I think that Jesus calls us to anarchy -- the double love commandment is also a kind of divine order. But like the Old Testament prophets, Jesus also demonstrates that divine order's concern for justice, not just compliance to civil law.

I would suggest that Jesus was attempting, in both His teachings and in the way he lived, to bring about a separation between religious law and civil law that you seem to be suggesting is a contemporary misunderstanding. I believe that is one reason you see Him coming down so hard on the religious leaders (they had gotten away from promoting the righteousness of God's Law) while saying very little, if anything, about Rome.

[JimFoxvog]

The best way to avoid any kind of police brutality is to follow the law and comply if you are pulled over or sought after. Things won’t go well with you if you try to resist, it makes you look guilty.

You can't avoid brutality by just following the law. You have to be white without a foreign accent, and not protest against the government.

[ken_sylvania]

I want to dig into this a bit. Is Jesus really for “law and order” or did his life, death and resurrection challenge the laws and orders of the world he was born in? Does the Kingdom of God confront or comfort worldly power and society’s hierarchies?

Which scriptures point in either direction?

While this is an inherently political discussion, I’d like this thread to stick to theology and not partisan politics. I think this is a topic much bigger than US politics.

I can't think offhand of any instances where Jesus violated civil law in the country where he lived. He advocated compliance with taxation laws, and when brought to trial there seemed to be no civil or criminal case against him. In general, New Testament teaching about our relationship with civil government seems to be that we should obey unless God's command is clearly different.

I agree with you that we are to generally to follow civil laws unless they conflict with God's laws. But I also think that what you're describing is a contemporary understanding of the separation between "civil" and "religious" law that wouldn't have existed during the 1st Century.

In occupied Israel, Jewish and Roman law were overlapping systems. The Sanhedrin was a political and religious body. The Torah contained both religious and civil regulations. When Jesus healed the sick on the Sabbath or chased the moneylenders out of the Temple, he wasn't just defying religious law in the way we understand it, he was also challenging the civil order built around those laws. After all, when the Romans posted "King of the Jews" on Jesus's cross during the crucifixion, they weren't just making a theological or spiritual accusation, but also a political one -- they effectively accused Jesus of treason.

This doesn't mean I think that Jesus calls us to anarchy -- the double love commandment is also a kind of divine order. But like the Old Testament prophets, Jesus also demonstrates that divine order's concern for justice, not just compliance to civil law.

No, I used the language I did intentionally, referring to the legal system of Jesus' time. As you mentioned, the Sanhedrin did enforce both religious and civil law. But neither the Sanhedrin nor the Romans nor Herod convicted Jesus of violating any civil or criminal law. The only charge that "stuck" was for blasphemy, a very distinctly religious charge - because he claimed to be the Messiah.

You mention the sign "King of the Jews" - Pilot very clearly did not believe that Jesus had committed treason against the Romans. In fact, being "King of the Jews" wouldn't have necessarily been an act of treason - unless you want to try to convince me that King Herod and King Agrippa were committing treason by taking the title of "King."

When Jesus healed the sick, cleansed the temple, etc, he wasn't violating the law. Sure, what he was doing bothered the Pharisees, but it all appears to have been legal.

[ken_sylvania]

The best way to avoid any kind of police brutality is to follow the law and comply if you are pulled over or sought after. Things won’t go well with you if you try to resist, it makes you look guilty.

You can't avoid brutality by just following the law. You have to be white without a foreign accent, and not protest against the government.

Nor can you avoid all auto accidents just by following the law, but following the rules greatly reduces the chance of getting injured in an auto accident. Valerie is correct that if you resist or try to flee chances of getting injured increase substantially.

[temporal1]

OP:

.. I’d like this thread to stick to theology and not partisan politics.
I think this is a topic much bigger than US politics.

P.10:

I can't think offhand of any instances where Jesus violated civil law in the country where he lived. He advocated compliance with taxation laws, and when brought to trial there seemed to be no civil or criminal case against him. In general, New Testament teaching about our relationship with civil government seems to be that we should obey unless God's command is clearly different.

Because the phrase “law and order” is such a common contemporary secular phrase, not connected to Christianity, it’s helpful (to me) to reverse the words to ORDER AND LAW, to “bump” my brain to reach for Jesus’ and scriptural direction.

i can’t think of an example of Jesus directing resisting arrest, breaking earthly or godly laws, attacking/killing officers of law, or promising rewards for law breakers (to be paid with taxpayer funds). Promising rewards for law breaking guarantees law breaking.
Jesus didn’t discriminate based on faith, culture, color, language, geography, government.

Sometimes good intentions of human reasoning causes suffering.

On forum, Ken Miller modeled Jesus’ way of response to earthly law and order, while not forgeting Jesus’ way of order and law.
His was a major test. i’m pretty sure most of us have more minor interactions, then responded in similar ways.

The same principles apply, whether for minor or major matters.
Respect for others, self respect. Self restraint. Respect for order, and law.

It’s an insult to a person’s intelligence to tell them they are incapable of respecting order and law. Jesus didn’t do that.
He empowered, He didn’t insult.

Victim mentality is a self-sabotaging trap that’s not of Jesus Christ. Jesus empowers, no crippling traps.

- - - - - - -

Unfortunately, our current secular legal system encourages and rewards victim mentality. Not healthy.


This is a brief example of Jesus-level personal empowerment in an unlikely situation:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DQXyO9AgKhx/

[Szdfan]

I would suggest that Jesus was attempting, in both His teachings and in the way he lived, to bring about a separation between religious law and civil law that you seem to be suggesting is a contemporary misunderstanding. I believe that is one reason you see Him coming down so hard on the religious leaders (they had gotten away from promoting the righteousness of God's Law) while saying very little, if anything, about Rome.

I wouldn't characterize it as "contemporary misunderstanding." I think we're reading scripture from our own post-Enlightenment context, which has very clean lines between faith and politics. But the ancient and medieval worlds didn't have this clean separation between church and state that we do. Our Anabaptist forbears weren't persecuted just because rebaptism was spiritual defiance. It was a political threat. Lutheranism didn't spread just because the German princes were theologically persuaded -- they also saw it as an opportunity to claw back political power from Rome. This strict separation between civil state and church is our division, not theirs.

I do like Two Kingdom theology. It's a bulwark against theocracy and the abuses of a tight union between Church and State. It's a good way for a minority faith to survive Empire. But I think that its insistence that Jesus life, death and resurrection was completely apolitical and only spiritual, misses its political dimensions.

[Szdfan]

I can't think offhand of any instances where Jesus violated civil law in the country where he lived. He advocated compliance with taxation laws, and when brought to trial there seemed to be no civil or criminal case against him. In general, New Testament teaching about our relationship with civil government seems to be that we should obey unless God's command is clearly different.

I agree with you that we are to generally to follow civil laws unless they conflict with God's laws. But I also think that what you're describing is a contemporary understanding of the separation between "civil" and "religious" law that wouldn't have existed during the 1st Century.

In occupied Israel, Jewish and Roman law were overlapping systems. The Sanhedrin was a political and religious body. The Torah contained both religious and civil regulations. When Jesus healed the sick on the Sabbath or chased the moneylenders out of the Temple, he wasn't just defying religious law in the way we understand it, he was also challenging the civil order built around those laws. After all, when the Romans posted "King of the Jews" on Jesus's cross during the crucifixion, they weren't just making a theological or spiritual accusation, but also a political one -- they effectively accused Jesus of treason.

This doesn't mean I think that Jesus calls us to anarchy -- the double love commandment is also a kind of divine order. But like the Old Testament prophets, Jesus also demonstrates that divine order's concern for justice, not just compliance to civil law.

No, I used the language I did intentionally, referring to the legal system of Jesus' time. As you mentioned, the Sanhedrin did enforce both religious and civil law. But neither the Sanhedrin nor the Romans nor Herod convicted Jesus of violating any civil or criminal law. The only charge that "stuck" was for blasphemy, a very distinctly religious charge - because he claimed to be the Messiah.

You mention the sign "King of the Jews" - Pilot very clearly did not believe that Jesus had committed treason against the Romans. In fact, being "King of the Jews" wouldn't have necessarily been an act of treason - unless you want to try to convince me that King Herod and King Agrippa were committing treason by taking the title of "King."

When Jesus healed the sick, cleansed the temple, etc, he wasn't violating the law. Sure, what he was doing bothered the Pharisees, but it all appears to have been legal.

I think it’s telling that while Jesus may not have been accused of any specific Roman crime, he was executed by civil authorities, not religious ones. In the Torah, punishments for religious transgressions -- like stoning -- were handled internally, but here it’s not just the state, but an unpopular occupying power that does the dirty work for the religious leaders.

Pilate may not have believed that Jesus did not do anything wrong, but still has him executed. Isn't it an injustice -- a failure of the legal system -- to execute someone you believe is innocent? Jesus’s crucifixion becomes an indictment of both the legal and religious authorites who are working together. They are two sides of the same coin.

Scripture repeatedly links faith and justice together. For example, in Amos 5:21–23, the prophet condemns empty worship:

I hate, I despise your religious festivals; your assemblies are a stench to me… I will not listen to the music of your harps.

And then in verse 24 comes the counterpoint:

But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!

Amos insists that worship is meaningless when it takes place within an unjust system. Earlier in the chapter (vv. 10–15), he describes that injustice:

There are those who hate the one who upholds justice in court… Those who oppress the innocent and take bribes and deprive the poor of justice in the courts.

For Amos, worship and civil justice are not separate spheres. Worship is hollow precisely because it coexists with exploitation and inequity.

I believe this connection between faith and justice carries all the way into Revelation. There, Jesus the slaughtered lamb, is revealed as the only legitimate power in creation, and not just in a spiritual or religious sense. His crucifixion and resurrection inaugurate the new reality of New Jerusalem, where humanity finally lives in redeemed relationship with its creator.

[Szdfan]

OP:

.. I’d like this thread to stick to theology and not partisan politics.
I think this is a topic much bigger than US politics.

P.10:

I can't think offhand of any instances where Jesus violated civil law in the country where he lived. He advocated compliance with taxation laws, and when brought to trial there seemed to be no civil or criminal case against him. In general, New Testament teaching about our relationship with civil government seems to be that we should obey unless God's command is clearly different.

Because the phrase “law and order” is such a common contemporary secular phrase, not connected to Christianity, it’s helpful (to me) to reverse the words to ORDER AND LAW, to “bump” my brain to reach for Jesus’ and scriptural direction.

i can’t think of an example of Jesus directing resisting arrest, breaking earthly or godly laws, attacking/killing officers of law, or promising rewards for law breakers (to be paid with taxpayer funds). Promising rewards for law breaking guarantees law breaking.

How do you see Jesus violently driving the moneylenders out of the Temple fit into your formulation of "order and law?"

Matthew 11:15-18

On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’[a]? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.'"

The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.

To me, this passage complicates the idea that Jesus always modeled quiet submission to earthly powers and authorities. How do you interpret it?

[JohnH]

How do you see Jesus violently driving the moneylenders out of the Temple fit into your formulation of "order and law?"

Because what they were doing was not lawful.

To me, this passage complicates the idea that Jesus always modeled quiet submission to earthly powers and authorities. How do you interpret it?

Because Jesus was, and is, the ultimate authority.