Feudal language of Christianity

[Brianlear]

Here is one issue I have found while exploring Christianity. I was listening to a song today in which Jesus is described as a King and as a Lord...and I began to think that this doesn't really fit how I see God and Jesus. The words "King" and "Lord" imply a person who is above you, that has power over you and makes you bend to their will by force.

Whereas in my understanding so far, God will not force us to do anything...we have free will and that is the greatest gift he gave us. I thought that God was kind of like a combination of a loving parent, friend, and creative partner. Not anything I would associate with a King or a Lord, as those terms were used in the day. So why the feudal language?

I feel like I'm not seeing this from the right perspective. I think I understand the concept of re-orienting my self to serving God and his original intention, but the language is a stumbling block for me. Even referring to God as a masculine entity, for example, using the pronoun "him"--feels strange to me. In my dealings with God so far, it appears that gender is something that "he" completely transcends. See?

 

[ElijahW]

He is meant to be understood as a King, because that is what he is combating ideologically. You are correct that usually implies someone who has control over our lives but that is because you are basing that understanding on earthly rulers, while Christ is trying to establish a spiritual King, whose yoke is gentle, because he isn't physically here to impose his will upon you. And he can also act as a point for humanity to unify around, knowing that it is the earthly rulers who divide humanity up for their own gains.

[FONT=&quot]John 12:31 [/FONT]Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.

Applying gender to spiritual elements like God has nothing to do with human sexuality but about being passive and active, which were defining characteristics of what is masculine and feminine at that time. A panenetheist understanding of God would be considered active and masculine while a deist understanding of God could be considered passive and feminine.

 

[hedrick]

Here is one issue I have found while exploring Christianity. I was listening to a song today in which Jesus is described as a King and as a Lord...and I began to think that this doesn't really fit how I see God and Jesus. The words "King" and "Lord" imply a person who is above you, that has power over you and makes you bend to their will by force.

Whereas in my understanding so far, God will not force us to do anything...we have free will and that is the greatest gift he gave us. I thought that God was kind of like a combination of a loving parent, friend, and creative partner. Not anything I would associate with a King or a Lord, as those terms were used in the day. So why the feudal language?

I feel like I'm not seeing this from the right perspective. I think I understand the concept of re-orienting my self to serving God and his original intention, but the language is a stumbling block for me. Even referring to God as a masculine entity, for example, using the pronoun "him"--feels strange to me. In my dealings with God so far, it appears that gender is something that "he" completely transcends. See?

Jesus' most common image for us is servants. But he also said he wanted us as friends. Jesus also used Father as an image.

I suspect if the Bible's only concern was our personal service to God, Father might be the only image that we need. However the Bible clearly sees God as having authority in the political realm as well. The prophets held Israel as a nation responsible for obeying God. God was ultimately the King of Israel. The human king was his agent. This is expressed in different forms today, but even in the US the principles behind our government says that the government has only authority as delegated to it by the people. People have rights over against the government, because our rights come from God, and do not depend upon the State. This doesn't mean that God, or worse, the Church, intends to establish a theocracy in the US. But it does mean that we are responsible to him for how the country operates, and there are obligations that follow from the Bible, such as caring for people such as widows, orphans, and immigrants (the typical examples from the prophets), i.e. people who are vulnerable and need protection.

Jesus spoke of his mission being to establish a kingdom. Of course he cares about individuals, and wants God to be our father. But we aren't isolated individuals. We are the hidden beginning of his plan to rule all of creation. The image of God as father catches his leadership of individuals and families, but to do justice for his intention of being sovereign over nations and the world as a whole we need something like King.

In the NT, there's good reason to think the King language was intended as a direct challenge to Caesar. Not to the existence of a Roman state, but to their pretensions to being nearly divine. the same challenge exists to governments today that overstep their bounds.

I agree that God isn't male. When the Bible was written, government were typically ruled by kings, not queens. I've never taken God's gender in the Bible as being very significant.

 

[an oddity]

I think the problem here is in the fact that the kings and lords you are familiar with have a sin nature. God does not have that sin nature you know, he is benevolent. He does not even force the Salvation he has provided us on us. We decide for our self whether we want it. That is not force.

Frankly I have never thought of the language as feudal. Seems we think differently on this one. I believe he is my friend and I am always talking out my thoughts, thanks and petitions to him. I often get answers or resolutions to these conversations with Him.

The language used is referred to as an anthropomorphism which means an attribute of human characteristics so that we can better understand. God is Spirit and we are made in his likeness, which we do not yet know exactly what that is, and it would seem that Jesus had a resurrected body that still looked like our human body, and he is a HE.

If you are searching I can tell you that God alone can satisfy you. He made each of us with a place in us that yearns for him, and he is all that can fill that space and give us satisfaction.

When I was young I would see something and I could not be satisfied until I found a way to buy it. The odd thing was that once I had it, it did not satisfy me for long, then I was off looking for something else to satisfy me. It took a while to learn that only God could satisfy what I was in need of.

 

[GrayAngel]

Here is one issue I have found while exploring Christianity. I was listening to a song today in which Jesus is described as a King and as a Lord...and I began to think that this doesn't really fit how I see God and Jesus. The words "King" and "Lord" imply a person who is above you, that has power over you and makes you bend to their will by force.

God is above us, and His plans always work out. He is infinitely powerful, thus making Him worthy of "fear"/respect as an authority figure.

Whereas in my understanding so far, God will not force us to do anything...we have free will and that is the greatest gift he gave us. I thought that God was kind of like a combination of a loving parent, friend, and creative partner. Not anything I would associate with a King or a Lord, as those terms were used in the day. So why the feudal language?

Unfortunately, I'm always finding myself combating this common view on Christian theology. There is no free will. It's not anywhere in the Bible. It's one of the many misconceptions that plagues the religion today.

See this list here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7623233/

The only "evidence" for free will is scarce and either weak (not speaking on the topic) and/or "implied" (i.e. non-existent, imagined). But as you can see from the scripture references in the link above, the evidence for predestination is strong (speaks directly on the subject), not taken out of context, and there is a lot of it.

Now one of the misconceptions on the topic of predestination is that it makes us "robots." Determinist proponents do not deny that we make choices, but we believe that those choices are predetermined by things outside of ourselves. We do what we want because we want to, but we want what we want because something else made us want it.

There is no free will gland in the body that allows us to break the laws of physics, but our every decision is based on our physical design (especially of the brain) and by the influences of the world around us.

Unfortunately, some people seem to hold on more dearly to their free will than to their own God. They want to believe in something that is physically and logically impossible, and they'll defend it more strongly than they would their faith in God.

As for seeing God as a loving parent, this is compatible with the view of God as King. Our fathers have authority over us as children, and His every decision is toward their benefit in the end, even if we have to go through something unpleasant for a while.

This is the same as a good king. You're under His authority whether you like it or not, but a king cares about the well-being of His people, even if it means going to war.

I feel like I'm not seeing this from the right perspective. I think I understand the concept of re-orienting my self to serving God and his original intention, but the language is a stumbling block for me. Even referring to God as a masculine entity, for example, using the pronoun "him"--feels strange to me. In my dealings with God so far, it appears that gender is something that "he" completely transcends. See?

If it makes you feel better, the Bible also compares Him to a mother hen.

Matthew 23:37 - “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.”

God is neither male or female. Each one is half of a whole, and God is not half. But it's more appropriate to think of Him as masculine as it's closer to His nature.

 

[Brianlear]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies!

This is kind of going off topic but I do have one question about the free will issue that was raised. I was under the impression that free will was the central tenet of faith--that God gave us a spirit, a consciousness, that we are in control of...to use for whatever end we wish. And that this is what allows us to be creative, influence the universe, and ultimately, find God through our own volition.

For example, you said "we want what we want but only because something else made us want it." So, we want to find God but only because God designed us to do exactly that. But if he ONLY designed us to find him, then why does it appear that humans can (and do) choose not to?

I admit, my search for God did feel pretty inevitable, looking back. And I doubt I could "go back" on it all now. Almost like I no longer have that choice anymore. So I see what you are saying--that we are all "wired" to find God and nothing will really stop us unless we are interfered with by an outside agent, something like, say...a complicated lie to convince me that there is no God. But how does that square with my first assumption that God created us specifically to HAVE free will to choose him, and that the spirit, the gift to us, is some of his power--his intent, his will, for us to play with, learn how to use, and, ultimately use for it's intended purpose.

 

[Radagast]

The words "King" and "Lord" imply a person who is above you, that has power over you and makes you bend to their will by force.

Jesus is over us. He owns the Universe, and tells us what to do. The NT frequently refers to Christians as servants of Christ. We also have verses like Ephesians 1:22: "And God placed all things under his {Christ's} feet" and of course Revelation 5:6-14:

"Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne... Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. In a loud voice they sang 'Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain...' ... Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing 'To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!"

 

[an oddity]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies!
This is kind of going off topic but I do have one question about the free will issue that was raised. I was under the impression that free will was the central tenet of faith--that God gave us a spirit, a consciousness, that we are in control of...to use for whatever end we wish. And that this is what allows us to be creative, influence the universe, and ultimately, find God through our own volition.

I quiet agree with you on free will, and I believe that is why humans were created, after the rebellion of Lucifer. Not to go to far astray of your op, I suggest you do a search on the angelic conflict for further information.

As I see it, we humans do have a choice and must make a decision.



In 2 Kings 5 the King who had leprosy was healed, even after he first refuced to do what the man of God instructed him to do. His first reaction was refusal but when his servant spoke with him he changed his mind ad did as he was bid to do. This is free will.
2 Kings 5 NASB - Naaman Is Healed - Now Naaman, captain - Bible Gateway


Deuteronomy 30
19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,
20 by loving the LORD your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.”
Deuteronomy 30 NASB - Restoration Promised - “So it shall - Bible Gateway




2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
2 Peter 3 KJV - This second epistle, beloved, I now - Bible Gateway

 

[an oddity]

Jesus is over us. He owns the Universe, and tells us what to do. The NT frequently refers to Christians as servants of Christ. We also have verses like Ephesians 1:22: "And God placed all things under his {Christ's} feet" and of course Revelation 5:6-14:

"Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne... Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. In a loud voice they sang 'Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain...' ... Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing 'To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!"

Since God so loved the world this in its self implies a love we can not yet understand. Perhaps the bending of our will be be in the fact that being near our King we will be so overwhelmed with love that we will not need that force. I believe this love is all consuming and we would not want to stray from it.

 

[Mr Dave]

Every word we use to describe God is a metaphor, as by it's very nature, language cannot describe God without making some limits somewhere. I'm not a Roman Catholic, but their catechism says it well,

Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God (CCC §42).

To describe God as King and Lord is only the best we can to describe an aspect of God's nature, whilst not being able to encompass the fullness of God's nature.

A King, in human terms, in modern day monarchies, is someone who has ascended to the throne from the death of their parent who was monarch (in the vast majority of cases), who then rules as figurehead whilst devolving most governance to their Government. The King is the point of focus who represents the entirety of his subjects. Whilst not reigning autocratically, the King retains some ultimate power of the state, powers which are temporary as they truly rest in the crown, which for a temporary period rests with that King. All people in the realm are subjects of the King, who upon taking any office swear allegiance to the King and as the King serves the people, the people may serve the King.
By nature of the position, the King is the figurehead over all and thus is in an elevated position. When one meets the King, one does so with all respect that is due the King, and doesn't act in an undignified manner. Eventually the King will die and his Son or daughter will ascend to the throne.

Only some of these aspects are ones which we ascribe to God as King over all creation. The term is a metaphor because not every aspect of Kingship is one which we would say is true of God (he didn't ascend the throne after the death of his mother or father for example), but does encapsulate a variety of aspects of God's nature in one word (He is someone who we come to with respect, He is above all else in His Kingdom, He is someone we ally ourselves to etc...).

As this isn't the fulness of God, other metaphors are equally valid; friend, Lord, Father, Creator etc...

None of these describe fully who God is, but they do in one word speak of a variety of attributes which are true to God. To neglect any would be to neglect a part of God is and thus limit Him further than our language has done already.

 

[chilehed]

Here is one issue I have found while exploring Christianity. I was listening to a song today in which Jesus is described as a King and as a Lord...and I began to think that this doesn't really fit how I see God and Jesus. The words "King" and "Lord" imply a person who is above you, that has power over you and makes you bend to their will by force....why the feudal language?

The feudal language perfectly describes an aspect of our relationship to hom.

A King certainly has the power to make you bend by force. But if you're adhering properly to how you're supposed to behave then there's absolutely no reason for him to use it.

I feel like I'm not seeing this from the right perspective. I think I understand the concept of re-orienting my self to serving God and his original intention, but the language is a stumbling block for me. Even referring to God as a masculine entity, for example, using the pronoun "him"--feels strange to me. In my dealings with God so far, it appears that gender is something that "he" completely transcends. See?

God has revealed himself to us as masculine. If we don't like that then it's still our responsibility to bring our emotions and will in line with it. That's how a relationship with one's King works.

We are called to radical obedience.

 

[drich0150]

Here is one issue I have found while exploring Christianity. I was listening to a song today in which Jesus is described as a King and as a Lord...and I began to think that this doesn't really fit how I see God and Jesus. The words "King" and "Lord" imply a person who is above you, that has power over you and makes you bend to their will by force.

Whereas in my understanding so far, God will not force us to do anything...we have free will and that is the greatest gift he gave us. I thought that God was kind of like a combination of a loving parent, friend, and creative partner. Not anything I would associate with a King or a Lord, as those terms were used in the day. So why the feudal language?

I feel like I'm not seeing this from the right perspective. I think I understand the concept of re-orienting my self to serving God and his original intention, but the language is a stumbling block for me. Even referring to God as a masculine entity, for example, using the pronoun "him"--feels strange to me. In my dealings with God so far, it appears that gender is something that "he" completely transcends. See?

I think it has been mentioned already that Christ referrs to us as servants more often than not (in the English translations.) In the Greek the word is better translated "Slave."
δοῦλος
Transliteration
doulos:
1) a slave, bondman, man of servile condition
a) a slave
b) metaph., one who gives himself up to another's will those whose service is used by Christ in extending and advancing his cause among men
c) devoted to another to the disregard of one's own interests
2) a servant, attendant




Being a slave would put God in the position of Master, Lord and or King over us.

It is not till we humble ourselves before the Lord are we lifted up by His good grace. If we approach God on our feet expecting to be treated as full share sons then He will humble us one way or another.

 

[Brianlear]

God has revealed himself to us as masculine. If we don't like that then it's still our responsibility to bring our emotions and will in line with it.

Actually God has not revealed anything to me that I would characterize as masculine or feminine. "He" feels genderless to me. Which is why I find it interesting that we humans have attributed masculine attributes to "him" (even going as far as to assign him the male pronoun). I just am interested in how this happened, historically and linguistically. As a new believer I'm also acutely aware of how this all looks from the outside, so I'm interested in how it evolved from within.

 

[GrayAngel]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies!

This is kind of going off topic but I do have one question about the free will issue that was raised. I was under the impression that free will was the central tenet of faith--that God gave us a spirit, a consciousness, that we are in control of...to use for whatever end we wish. And that this is what allows us to be creative, influence the universe, and ultimately, find God through our own volition.

Free will isn't the central tenet of faith, although a lot of people have tried to make it that way. It shouldn't even have anything to do with our faith at all.

We do have a spirit and consciousness, but we are created beings, so free will is impossible. We were designed, so we behave according to the design God gave us. And God knew all of our history before He created the world, so our every decision is a result of God's choice.

Even without God, our actions are all determined by things outside of our control, which is why atheists don't typically believe in free will. The only sense of freedom of the will that we have is in the sense that our decisions are not forced on us. God doesn't force us do things we don't want to do.

For example, you said "we want what we want but only because something else made us want it." So, we want to find God but only because God designed us to do exactly that. But if he ONLY designed us to find him, then why does it appear that humans can (and do) choose not to?

It's sounds like you're talking about the God-shaped hole concept, which is a little different from what I've described. The people who do come to God do so because God had enabled them to. He provides the right life situations and the inward desire to seek Him to make it happen.

I admit, my search for God did feel pretty inevitable, looking back. And I doubt I could "go back" on it all now. Almost like I no longer have that choice anymore. So I see what you are saying--that we are all "wired" to find God and nothing will really stop us unless we are interfered with by an outside agent, something like, say...a complicated lie to convince me that there is no God. But how does that square with my first assumption that God created us specifically to HAVE free will to choose him, and that the spirit, the gift to us, is some of his power--his intent, his will, for us to play with, learn how to use, and, ultimately use for it's intended purpose.

All people aren't wired to find God. Those who have been predetermined to find God are called the elect, the chosen people of God. Some people were not chosen, and so they either don't find God or they try it and fall away.

 

[Radagast]

Actually God has not revealed anything to me...

I think people here mean that God has revealed Himself in the Bible.

 

[chilehed]

Actually God has not revealed anything to me that I would characterize as masculine or feminine. "He" feels genderless to me.

It's important to separate subjective feelings from objective facts.

Which is why I find it interesting that we humans have attributed masculine attributes to "him" (even going as far as to assign him the male pronoun). I just am interested in how this happened, historically and linguistically. As a new believer I'm also acutely aware of how this all looks from the outside, so I'm interested in how it evolved from within.

We didn't attribute masculinity to him. Historically, he identified himself to us as such.

 

[Mr Dave]

The masculine patristic language again is only a metaphor that doesn't encapsulate the fulness of God.

God sometimes portrays himself in a masculine way. Sometimes he does not (Isa. 49:15; 66:13, Hos. 11:3-4, Ps. 131:2).

God is neither male nor female. God is God. Masculine language is a useful metaphor for describing some of God's nature. So to is feminine language.

 

[an oddity]

John 4:24
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

I do not know if God is indeed male, but the typical Biblical language implies that is the case. I do know that Jesus is male because of the Biblical evidence we have. If we are made in the image of Him, then perhaps He is male.

 

[an oddity]

Is God Male? What Does the Bible Say?

See: Is God in heaven male?

 

[Emmy]

Dear Brianlear. You say: " free will is the greatest gift which God gave us." I cannot resist pointing out: " Do you know what that implies?" Unless you change, and I do pray that you will, you will end up in Outer Darkness, without God`s Love or Light, from where can be heard loud wailing and gnashing of teeth. You also will be with those our Lord was pleading for, while suffering on the Cross, " Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are saying." I say this with love, Brian. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.