Ave rex Judaeorum (Hail, king of the Jews)

King of the Jews (Dirck van Baburen, 1623)

Evangelium Secundum Matthæum 27: 24-29

Videns autem Pilatus quia nihil proficeret, sed magis tumultus fieret: accepta aqua, lavit manus coram populo, dicens: Innocens ego sum a sanguine justi hujus: vos videritis. Et respondens universus populus, dixit: Sanguis ejus super nos, et super filios nostros. Tunc dimisit illis Barabbam: Jesum autem flagellatum tradidit eis ut crucifigeretur. Tunc milites praesidis suscipientes Jesum in praetorium, congregaverunt ad eum universam cohortem: et exeuntes eum, chlamydem coccineam circumdederunt ei, et plectentes coronam de spinis, posuerunt super caput ejus, et arundinem in dextera ejus. Et genu flexo ante eum, illudebant ei, dicentes: Ave rex Judaeorum.

The Gospel According to Matthew 27: 24-29

And Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing, but that rather a tumult was made; taking water washed his hands before the people, saying: I am innocent of the blood of this just man; look you to it. And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children. Then he released to them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, delivered him unto them to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the governor taking Jesus into the hall, gathered together unto him the whole band; And stripping him, they put a scarlet cloak about him. And platting a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand. And bowing the knee before him, they mocked him, saying: Hail, king of the Jews.

England's Jews and Protestants

Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector, in a painting by Samuel Cooper, 1656 

At any rate, the thirteenth century saw in England a rapid decline of Jewish financial power and at the same time an official animosity toward them… The final step came when their special license to practice usury was withdrawn by Edward I in the earlier part of his reign; and at last, in 1290, after increasing severities, they were all expelled from the country under pain of death…They returned, as everybody knows, under Cromwell. Their numbers, and still more their wealth, increased at the end of the seventeenth century and concomitantly with this, partly as an effect of it (but here we must not exaggerate), a number of novel financial features appeared in the English State each of which shows the increased power of the Jews. The institution of the Bank, of the National Debt, of speculation in Exchange, and in fluctuation of stock… There were, of course, many other causes contributory to the peculiar position which the Jews came to enjoy in modern England, a position which he has not yet lost in external circumstance, though it is so badly shaken morally. There was the fact that England was the Protestant power of the West. This religious motive played a great part. Between the Catholic Church and the Synagogue there had been hostility from the first century. In so far as it was possible to take sides in that quarrel it was natural for the Protestant power to take sides against the Catholic tradition and therefore in favour of the Jews. Again the English were not only Protestant, their middle classes were steeped in the reading of the Old Testament. The Jews seemed to them the heroes of an epic and the shrines of a religion. You will find strong relics of this Provincial England to this day.

Hilaire Belloc, The Jews  (pp.185-187)   

Pictures of hell set before our eyes

Undoubtedly modern philosophy, psychology, and psychoanalysis have firmly contested the idea of human sin, guilt, or responsibility in an effort to “liberate” us. A strange thing has happened, then, for we have ended up by being convicted that sin (especially original sin) no longer counts, that there is no responsibility, that we can do as we like with no limits, and the result is not conduct that is open to the good or liberated for it, but frantic egoism, scorn for others, a desire for aggrandizement and domination. Once we begin to attain to the conviction that we are not sinners, what do we see around us? What is brought to us by the thousands of pictures transmitted by television? Epidemics, famines, massacres, genocides, revolutions, everywhere leading to innumerable executions even when the intentions are the best, the installation of bloody and capricious dictatorships, socialism transformed into an instrument of oppression, of murder, and of hatred, the spoliation of the planet by technology. Pictures of hell are set before our eyes every day. 

Jacques Ellul, The Subversion of Christianity (p. 144)

The horrifying uncertainty of love and grace

The uncertainty of fluctuating things like love and grace horrifies us. Saying that God loves us grants us no reassurance. We would prefer it if he gave us fifty things to do, so that when we had done them we could be at peace. We do not want an ongoing relationship with God. We prefer a rule. It does not satisfy us that God shows grace to us or frees us. We prefer to bind him by our virtues and to be sure that he has no freedom to do with us as he chooses… We have set up sovereignties (ecclesiastical or political) that represent God on earth and with which we can have a clear relationship. We have overvalued law, making it an expression of God’s will. We have replaced the sovereignty of love with that of politics, and liberty with duties.

Jacques Ellul, The Subversion of Christianity (p. 152)

20 Signs You've Made Politics an Idol

Let’s look at a root cause of all our political strife: idolatry. We’ve given politics and government a role they were never meant to play: solver of all our problems, provider of security, happiness, equity, and meaning. In other words, god. How do you know if you’ve made politics your god?

Here are signs:

1. Your hope in life is inextricably tied to a politician or your political party ‘winning.’

2. You look to a politician or party as a perfect savior who can’t do or say anything wrong.

3. You think a utopia is possible in this world if your side would only get their way.

4. You side with your party on every issue by reflex without thinking through a biblical perspective.

5. On issues Scripture doesn’t speak directly to, you claim God’s tacit approval for your party.

6. Your speech and tone in political discourse lean more toward harsh and angry than kindness and honorable (1 Peter 2:12; Titus 3:1–2).

7. You forget that your political opponents are eternal souls destined for hell without the saving grace of Christ.

8. You let politics steal your joy.

9. You would rather sacrifice truth and integrity than be out of step with what your side believes.

10. You think God trembles and His hands are tied when politicians impose anti-Christian policies. (He actually laughs; cf. Psalm 2.)

11. You are tempted toward violence to get your point across.

12. You never seek to understand how your political opponent thinks. (Why do that when you can call them a bigot [or a Cultural Marxist]?)

13. You blame all societal ills on your political opponent.

14. You can’t admit when the other party does something right.

15. You fail to acknowledge the false idols of your political party.

16. You look to politics to heal your deepest wounds.

17. You find your meaning for life in politics.

18. You hate the sin of the other political party but excuse it for those you support (or even in your own life).

19. You justify evil in the name of what works [or what’s right].

20. You think every one of your opponents is as bad as their party’s worst example.

Source: 20 Signs You've Made Politics an Idol https://www.kevinhalloran.net/signs-youve-made-politics-an-idol/ 

Holy War: The Influence of Islam on Christianity

For three centuries Christianity spread by preaching, kindness, example, morality, and encouragement of the poor. When the empire became Christian, war was hardly tolerated by the Christians. Even when waged by a Christian emperor it was a dubious business and was assessed unfavorably. It was often condemned. Christians were accused of undermining the political force and military might of the empire from within. In practice Christians would remain critical of war until the flamboyant image of the holy war came on the scene. In other words, no matter what atrocities have been committed in wars waged by so-called Christian nations, war has always been in essential contradiction to the gospel. Christians have always been more or less aware of this. They have judged war and questioned it.

 Jacques Ellul, The Subversion of Christianity (p. 101) 

The Freedom of Love

As Genesis shows us, the origin of sin in the world is not knowledge, as is often said (as though God were interdicting our intellectual development, which would be absurd); it is the knowledge of good and evil. In this context knowledge means decision. What is not acceptable to God is that we should decide on our own what is good and what is evil. Biblically, the good is in fact the will of God. That is all. What God decides, whatever it may be, is the good. If then we decide what the good is, we substitute our own will for God’s. We construct a morality when we say (and do) what is good, and it is then that we are radically sinners. To elaborate a moral system is to show oneself to be a sinner before God, not because the conduct is bad, but because, even if it is good, another good is substituted for the will of God. 

This is why Jesus attacks the Pharisees so severely even though they are the most moral of people, live the best lives, and are perfectly obedient and virtuous. They have progressively substituted their own morality for the living and actual Word of God that can never be fixed in commandments. In the Gospels Jesus constantly breaks religious precepts and moral rules. He gives as his own commandment “Follow me,” not a list of things to do or not do. He shows us fully what it means to be a free person with no morality, but simply obeying the ever-new Word of God as it flashes forth. Similarly, Paul attacks what might seem to be morality in Judaism, rules and precepts laid down by men and not coming from God at all. The great mutation is that we have been freed in Jesus Christ. The primary characteristic of free people is that they are not bound to moral commandments. “All things are lawful,” Paul twice proclaims. “Nothing is impure,” he teaches. We find the same message in Acts. We are as free as the Holy Spirit, who comes and goes as he will. This freedom does not mean doing anything at all. It is the freedom of love. Love, which cannot be regulated, categorized, or analyzed into principles or commandments, takes the place of law. The relationship with others is not one of duty but of love.

Jacques Ellul, The Subversion of Christianity (pp. 70-71)   

Erasmus and Luther: The Holy Spirit and the Bible Translator

Erasmus' New Testament edition of 1516

If it is possible and desirable to translate the Scriptures into different languages, who should be the translators? Is translation merely a work of scholarship, or is special insight required? Two answers are possible and these two answers are represented by the work of two translators: Erasmus and Luther. Erasmus, the humanist, translated the New Testament into Latin; Luther, the Reformer, translated the whole Bible into German.

Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) was a Christian humanist from Rotterdam. He opposed the view that translators should be theologians and church leaders. This view was exemplified by the belief that the Septuagint translators were inspired in some way and in the ecclesiastical authority that had been granted to the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus wished to liberate the church from the dominion of Scholastic theologians and lead it back to the simplicity of the old church. According to Erasmus, translating was primarily the work of the philologist or linguistic scholar. As an impartial scholar reads and translates the ancient texts, he mediates between the modern age and antiquity. He frees people from scholastic speculation so that they may read the original truth in the writings of the ancient world. The scholar well versed in text and languages may tell the church what is written. Only after the linguist has done his work may the theologian begin his reflections upon meaning. Philology can be compared to Jethro, theology to Moses. Moses (theology) needs the help of Jethro (philology) to do his work. The root of the matter is the distinction between philology and theology. Christian scholarship has always held that a knowledge of the language was necessary for one to translate, but knowledge was not held to be neutral. It was also believed that a spiritual insight into Scripture was required.

No one objected to Erasmus’ publishing the Greek text of the New Testament. Much exception was taken, however, to the fact that Erasmus did not print the Vulgate translation alongside the Greek. He offered instead his own Latin translation. Erasmus thus gave the impression that a philologist could determine on his own how to read Scripture.

Luther opposed Erasmus precisely at this point: That the pure philologist should be the translator of Scripture. Luther also translated the Bible, but he did not ground his right to act as translator on his knowledge of the original languages, but rather on the theological insight into Scripture that the Lord had given him. Luther believed that the translator needed grace to understand the Bible. For example, the scholar who does not necessarily understand certain Psalms to be Messianic or prophetic of the Lord Jesus Christ may choose alternative readings that obscure the Messianic meaning. It is Christ who opens the eyes of the translator to the meaning of Scripture. This does not mean that the translator receives an inspiration similar to that received by the original authors, but it does point up the fact that philology alone is not enough. Translators invariably must interpret, and godly interpretation requires the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Luther did not oppose Scholasticism by means of philology, but by means of a better and more scriptural theology. He did not depreciate the value of linguists—Melancthon assisted him in Greek and Aurogallus in Hebrew—but theology was his battlefront. Luther respected the gifts of the Holy Spirit; each scholar in his circle used the gift or gifts God had given him in the common task. In practice, Luther’s translation is an accomplishment of fellow-workers in the Spirit, but Erasmus’ is the work of an individual linguist. Luther treasured the work of linguists, but he believed that Bible translating demands faith and a deep understanding of the Scriptures as a whole.

The viewpoints of Erasmus and Luther were really an intensification of those held before by Jerome and Augustine. Erasmus extended Jerome’s position to a belief in an antidogmatic and independent philological translation. Luther emphasized Augustine’s belief that spiritual insight must underlie a translation. The differences between Erasmus and Luther are important. Erasmus offered a translation in the language of scholars, but Luther provided a translation for the German people and for the church, and for centuries his translation has helped many find the way to God.

Jakob Van Bruggen, The Future of the Bible (pp. 44-46)

[Note: I believe these (two) views also apply to text criticism.]