Anti capitalistic verses in the Bible

[Tree of Life]

Yes, it is not a command.

I think what Jesus is saying in that parable is that "your ways are not my ways"

Maybe so. And if an employer wanted to emulate the generosity of the Father by paying equal wages to all his employees regardless of what they did or how hard they worked then that would be his prerogative. But the main point of the parable is to demonstrate God's generosity in including the Gentiles in the inheritance promised to Abraham. Any application of this to modern economics or employer/employee relations would be not an "A" application but several steps removed from the text - C, D, or E application.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

That does not support a claim that there was a separation between religion and politics - all it shows is that two different people had two different roles. The Old Testament clearly stitches the domains of religion and politics tightly together - the laws of the land for the Jews were the edicts of the Law of Moses. I think no scholar will dispute that the Old Testament does not separate the domains of religion and politics.


Not sure how you see this as supporting a separation, at least in the relevant sense. The Romans allowed the Jews to exercise a certain degree of freedom to follow the Law of Moses in how they ordered their world - and the Law of Moses is decidedly "political" in the sense that it prescribes how the society is governed. I do not know enough to comment on your claim that some cases were resolved by "secular" Romans authorities. But even if that's true, that does not affect what the Old Testament prescribes - the complete integration of "religious" and "political" spheres. You almost seem to be arguing that since the Romans did not allow the Jews to follow what the Law of Moses prescribes that this is "the way it is supposed to be".

Both the Old and the New Testaments advocate for a clear integration of the domains of we now call "religion" and "politics". The fact that the Romans interfered with this does not change the prescriptive message of Scripture.

I think there is a misunderstanding for which I am largely responsible.

While I might dispute that the Romans really separated "religion" and "politics" (after all, their Caesars were arguably "deified"), my point is about the model that is prescribed in the Scriptures, not what is actually done in the real world. Both testaments explicitly and implicitly advocate no separation between "religion" and "politics". I hope that clarifies things.

Not really. While church and state are technically integrated in Britain, they are effectively completely separate.


Huge translation problem with this verse. The better translation is "My kingdom is not from this world" (I can provide the detailed argument later). Jesus is certainly not denying kingship over this world - something he clearly affirms elsewhere (again, I will give details later); no, He is simply saying the principles of His kingdom come from "above".

I disagree with your contention that they are clearly integrated in the old and new Testaments. I also disagree that there is no implicit or explicit separation. My reading is the opposite. So this is at best a difference of opinion. While Politics always has an element of religion and vice versa, which we still see today, that does not mean they are integrated. The very fact of different roles illustrate this nicely.

Now if you read the book The Religion of the Semites by the Anthropologist William Smith, he goes into long descriptions of clear differentiation between sacred spaces and secular ones and between pure individuals that can attend to the gods and the rest of the population in these groups.

If they were fully integrated, we would have had Priest Kings like the Maya or the Pharoahs of Egypt. Separate titulature denotes separation.

As to the Church of England, they are still a state church. Even if culturally you would contend they are separated, in actual fact they are not as you admit.

As to the Romans, there is always a lot of confusion here. No Emperor was deified except crazy ones that deified themselves and were obviously thus insane in Roman eyes. There was a tradition of offering for the Genius of the Emperor however, which was a concept sort of like a guardian angel, which people always confuse with worshipping the Emperor himself. They might be deified after death though.
Also as you see there was separate canon laws throughout the middle ages, which was a continuation of the Roman separation.

Your contention on the passage in John does not make sense to me. Not from this world essentially means the same in my opinion. Please provide the detailed explanation, I would like to know more as perhaps I am merely misunderstanding things.
Also, based on the textual events, as mentioned, Pilate found Jesus innocent which he would not have done if Jesus' kingdom was also in a political sense.
Jesus said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, but give to God what is God's. Is this not explicit separation?
Therefore, based on events in the gospel, this seems unlikely to me.

 

[expos4ever]

Jesus said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, but give to God what is God's. Is this not explicit separation?

Quite the opposite, I believe. This text is deeply misunderstood, I think. To give appropriate credit, the following is substantially the ideas of theologian NT Wright:

Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax." And they brought Him a denarius. 20And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" 21They said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's.”

Now this is a cryptic statement whose meaning is not obvious. For some reason, it has been taken to mean that the world is split into two spheres, one in which God rules and the other in which secular human governments rule. However, this is not what Jesus is trying to tell us. And if it was, then Paul would be contradicting Jesus when, in Romans 1, Paul announces the “gospel” of Jesus Christ.

Of what relevance is Romans 1? Well, in Paul’s world the term “gospel” was frequently used to denote the news that a new emperor has ascended to the throne in Rome. So when Paul uses this same term to refer to Jesus, his point could not be more clear – Jesus supplants Caesar as lord of this present world.

Back to the account of the coin. Just as it is important to know something about what the term “gospel” meant in that time and place, it is also important to know the echoes that Jesus might be eliciting when He makes his coin pronouncement.

The double command Jesus makes (give x to Ceasar and y to God) can be argued to draw on material found in 1 Maccabees 2.68. In that text, Mattathias is telling his sons, especially Judas, to get ready for revolution. ‘Pay back to the Gentiles what is due to them,’ he says, ‘and keep the law’s commands’. And clearly, “paying back” the Gentiles was not meant to refer to money. Instead, it is a subtle suggestion that the Gentiles are about to be overthrown. And I suggest that Jesus is making a cryptic allusion to this account to make a similar point. Remember - the Maccabean revolution was fairly recent to Jesus’ own time.

So while Jesus is, on the surface, saying “pay the tax”, His more fundamental point is that Caesar’s regime is a blasphemous nonsense and that one day God would overthrow it.

Jesus’ teaching about the Roman coin, understood in it context, is not advocating a separation between the spheres of Caesar and God, with secular human governments ruling in one domain and God in the other. Given the overall context of Jesus’ life and ministry – entailing the revolutionary announcement that the Kingdom of God has already broken into history – and given the arguable allusion to 1 Maccabees, Jesus is probably saying, albeit cryptically, that God’s dominion extends to all spheres. One can almost see Jesus wryly smiling as he says “give Ceasar the things that are His” – suggesting that there really is nothing that falls into that category.

I do not think I am reaching when I suggest that when Jesus holds up the coin and inquires about the image and the inscription, He knows the Jews will be reminded of the graven image to Caesar that it contains. Any Jew familiar with the Torah should have rightly been angered at such blasphemy. And remember, the emperor in Rome did indeed set himself up as a god. Jesus is being very shrewd here. The holding up of the coin and the question about its image constitutes a critique of the blasphemy that it expresses. And so Jesus’ clever answer is effectively this: “Pay the tax, but remember who is the real Lord, the one who says ‘You shall have no other gods before me’”.

 

[com7fy8]

@timewerx Didn't Jesus say something about how the servants with talents should invest them? But do not do it for greed, but in order to do people good.

This would be Biblical capitalism. But selfish and greedy capitalism would be wrong.

And God "gives us richly all things to enjoy." (in 1 Timothy 6:17) We don't have to own or control something in order to enjoy it

 

[expos4ever]

While Politics always has an element of religion and vice versa, which we still see today, that does not mean they are integrated.

From Wikipedia:

Many societies in antiquity had imperial cults where heads of state were worshiped as messiahs, demigods or deities. Ancient history is replete with examples of political leaders who derived legitimacy through religious titles. Sargon of Akkad was referred to as the "deputy of Ishtar"[3] and many ancient Kings of Judah claimed to rule with a mandate from Heaven. Julius Caesar was elected as Pontifex Maximus, the chief priest of the Roman state religion before he became the consul of Rome.[4] Caligula referred to himself as a god when meeting with politicians and he was referred to asJupiter on occasion in public documents.[5][6]

The mixing of religion and state can be seen throughout antiquity, including in the Edict of Thessalonica, whereby Nicene Christianity was made thestate religion of the Roman Empire, and in the execution of Socrates, sentenced to death by the Athenian state for among other things, "not believing in the gods of the state"[7]

Among ancient philosophies, Epicureanism is in favor of an early version of the separation of religion and state as can be seen in the writings ofLucretius and Epicurus.

 

[expos4ever]

While Politics always has an element of religion and vice versa, which we still see today, that does not mean they are integrated.

Here is respected theologian NT Wright on the matter of separation of church and state:

The problem should be clear to anyone who knows the world of the first century - or for that matter any century until the eighteenth, and any country outside so-called Western civilization. It is simply this: the implicit split between 'religion' and 'politics' is a rank anachronism, and we read it into the NT only if we wish not to hear anything the NT is saying, not only about what we call 'the state' but about a great many other things as well.

 

[expos4ever]

As to the Romans, there is always a lot of confusion here. No Emperor was deified except crazy ones that deified themselves and were obviously thus insane in Roman eyes.

Well, not really, at least for a time. From Wikipedia

As the Roman Empire developed the Imperial cult gradually developed more formally and constituted the worship of the Roman emperor as a god. This practice began at the start of the Empire under Augustus, and became a prominent element of Roman religion.....The deification of emperors was gradually abandoned after the emperor Constantine I started supporting Christianity.

 

[expos4ever]

Your contention on the passage in John does not make sense to me. Not from this world essentially means the same in my opinion. Please provide the detailed explanation, I would like to know more as perhaps I am merely misunderstanding things.

Here is some greatly condensed material that expresses the views of a number of theologians on what "of this world" really means in John 18:36

What did our Lord mean when He said His kingdom “is not of this world?” Well, as the Amplified Bible explains it, what this means is that Christ’s Kingship, His royal power, is not from this world. It has no worldly origin or source. And I have run across no other commentary which indicates otherwise.

What Christ means in John 18:36 is that His kingdom does not derive its origin or its support from earthly sources. In other words Christ’s kingdom is not derived from this world, because it is of God and is over this world. To deny that Christ’s kingdom is in this world is to alter the faith to either a neo-Platonic idealism or a Manichean dualism. In either case, the world and history are rejected and are handed over to the devil.

“The words ‘of this world’ translate ek tou kosmou toutou, that is, out of this world. Source rather than realm is the sense. . . . The future consummation of the kingdom of Christ cannot rightly be said to be beyond history. No indeed! It will occur in history and is history’s goal….So Jesus very clearly is making no comment on either the nature of his kingdom or His realm, rather on the power source of its establishment.

A final observation. The often heard assertion that Christ’s ministry was devoted only to “meeting spiritual needs” and He “never tried to reform worldly institutions” is a truly astounding statement that ignores the fact that, among other things, God’s becoming flesh in the person of Christ was the most powerful, reforming political event in the history of the world!

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Well, not really, at least for a time. From Wikipedia

As the Roman Empire developed the Imperial cult gradually developed more formally and constituted the worship of the Roman emperor as a god. This practice began at the start of the Empire under Augustus, and became a prominent element of Roman religion.....The deification of emperors was gradually abandoned after the emperor Constantine I started supporting Christianity.

Please don't quote wikipedia. It is often wrong, especially about history.
I have explained about the Emperors not being deified. Please read Suetonius and Tacitus or any Roman writer for that matter and you will see this.
The Imperial cult was for the Genius of the Emperor and they were only deified after death. Please look it up in a credible source if you don't believe me, like Adrian Goldsworthy's biography of Augustus for instance.

From Wikipedia:

Many societies in antiquity had imperial cults where heads of state were worshiped as messiahs, demigods or deities. Ancient history is replete with examples of political leaders who derived legitimacy through religious titles. Sargon of Akkad was referred to as the "deputy of Ishtar"[3] and many ancient Kings of Judah claimed to rule with a mandate from Heaven. Julius Caesar was elected as Pontifex Maximus, the chief priest of the Roman state religion before he became the consul of Rome.[4] Caligula referred to himself as a god when meeting with politicians and he was referred to asJupiter on occasion in public documents.[5][6]

The mixing of religion and state can be seen throughout antiquity, including in the Edict of Thessalonica, whereby Nicene Christianity was made thestate religion of the Roman Empire, and in the execution of Socrates, sentenced to death by the Athenian state for among other things, "not believing in the gods of the state"[7]

Among ancient philosophies, Epicureanism is in favor of an early version of the separation of religion and state as can be seen in the writings ofLucretius and Epicurus.

I don't understand the relevance of this quote. A state church is not the same as integrated concepts of Politics and Religion. I also said that there was always some integration.
I said nothing on the Akkadians as this was one of those Priest-kings I mentioned above and not Jewish or Roman who separated the two somewhat.

Also the fact that Julius Caesar was Pontifex Maximus shows that the writer here had no idea what he wanted to say.
Caesar became Pontifex Maximus long before he was even Consul so this has nothing to do with unity between the concepts, in fact it supports their separation. Later Marcus Lepidus was made Pontifex at the same time as he was sidelined from the second Triumvirate, so the Political power in fact ignored the religious as even a factor, at least in Late Republican Rome.
Caligula was one of the insane Emperors I referenced above, again showing nothing.

The last sentence actually argues for separation and we see this not only in Epicurianism, but also to a lesser extent in Stoicism, which were the two most popular philosophical schools in the first century.

So I really don't understand why you posted this. Again, Wikipedia is a poor source, please refrain from using it, it hurts your argument by making you look amateurish and not very serious.

As to the rest you posted, you are quoting one man's opinion, a quite liberal christian I might add, which is not definitive. Other historians differ on this question as I referenced above. Also, as I pointed out, the fact of different offices denotes separation.
Jesus referencing the Maccabean Revolt is unlikely, although possible, if we take into account His other theology and the Sermon on the Mount. Which leaves the traditional meaning the most probable in my view.
Your explanation of the passage in John in no way implies that Jesus considered His message to be a kingdom in this world. That is an opinion you are reading into the words. It is an interpretation, but it is not the only interpretation by a long shot.

As to it becoming Manichaen or Neo-Platonic, you clearly have no idea what those terms mean. I suggest you look them up.
Manichaenism does not mean crude dualism, it has to do with separating good caught within Evil and returning two realms of Good and Evil to their original states. This in no way implies this theology.
Neo-Platonism is a history term for Philosophy from roughly Plotinus through Porphyry down to Iamblichus. It would not exist until about 200 years after Jesus, is not a complete school of any form, just a simple catch-all history term.
There are no doctines that are specifically neo-platonic. You can think of the demiurge or heavenly sheres or the One or whatever, but these are specific philosopher's thoughts. Neo-Platonism is not a system of thought. You might as well say that the US Constitution is "American thought". It says nothing to call something neo-platonic without referencing a philosopher or explaining the beliefs you would imply.

I see you are adamant on your point, which is probably commendable, but I do not think you are correct. We shall have to agree to disagree.

 

[com7fy8]

What Jesus thought about saving money:

Well, if they had a money bag, instead of right away giving to needy people . . .

It gives emphasis on radical generosity, radical acts of selflessness.

And yet that money stayed in the bag long enough for Judas to pilfer it?

So, then we could feed into whether or not Jesus' kingdom is really involved with this world. You could argue that He let Judas have time to get at the money; and so may be He does not care about controlling this world's money.

But I consider that God's grace is spiritual, and His grace gets His thing done, in us. Jesus does say the kingdom of God is in us > Luke 17:21. And Jesus told Pontius Pilate, "if My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight," in John 18:36. So, this can show that Christ's kingdom is in us, spiritual . . . how God rules us in His own peace > Colossians 3:15 < in the theocracy of His own peace, under Jesus who is our King.

But what God does in us can have us doing things to effect the world around us. And, at times, God has people in history do things for His purpose. But the real kingdom is "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit," Paul says in Romans 14:17.

 

[expos4ever]

Please don't quote wikipedia. It is often wrong, especially about history.

I doubt the error rate is really that high. And it is certainly a more reliable source than my opinion, or yours. At least on average.

I have explained about the Emperors not being deified. Please read Suetonius and Tacitus or any Roman writer for that matter and you will see this.
The Imperial cult was for the Genius of the Emperor and they were only deified after death. Please look it up in a credible source if you don't believe me, like Adrian Goldsworthy's biography of Augustus for instance.

As for the "deified after death" bit, I do not doubt you. But the important thing for the purposes of this discussion, at least as I understand it, is the matter of integration of religion and state. And even if you wait till after death to deify an emperor, I cannot see how that changes the clear message that religion and state are deeply integrated. Please do not ask me to "look things up" - to make your case, you have the responsibility to provide the documentary evidence. Here is a citation from an online article from the BBC, which I take to be a reasonably reliable source:

Another element in the Roman state religion was what is generally referred to as the imperial cult. This cult regarded emperors and members of their families as gods.

My point is that if emperors are regarded as gods, that effectively means that religion and state are effectively integrated.

And another from "Anodos. Studies of the Ancient World":

Roman emperors were gods or at least many of them were proclaimed as such after their death. As far as we know, in the period from 14 C.E. until 337 C.E., of the 60 60 emperors ever ruling over the Roman Empire 36 were deified, together with 27 members of their families.

Again, the fact that deification took place after death surely does not change the clear implication of an integration of church and state.

And, last from the Encyclopedia Brittannica (I added the emphasis):

A broader foundation for the divinity of the king is the view of the king as the son of a god, which can take on different forms. The first king has been regarded as a god and his successors as sons of the god in a number of societies—in Africa, Polynesia, Japan (where the emperor, until the end of World War II, was revered as a descendant of the sun goddess), Peru (where the inca, or ruler, was believed to be a descendant of the sun god), Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Canaan. Because he personifies the divine national hero (as among the Shilluk in Africa), the king can demand divine status, a practice that was taken up in the Greco-Roman world by Alexander the Great and by the Roman emperors.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I doubt the error rate is really that high. And it is certainly a more reliable source than my opinion, or yours. At least on average.


As for the "deified after death" bit, I do not doubt you. But the important thing for the purposes of this discussion, at least as I understand it, is the matter of integration of religion and state. And even if you wait till after death to deify an emperor, I cannot see how that changes the clear message that religion and state are deeply integrated. Please do not ask me to "look things up" - to make your case, you have the responsibility to provide the documentary evidence. Here is a citation from an online article from the BBC, which I take to be a reasonably reliable source:

Another element in the Roman state religion was what is generally referred to as the imperial cult. This cult regarded emperors and members of their families as gods.

My point is that if emperors are regarded as gods, that effectively means that religion and state are effectively integrated.

And another from "Anodos. Studies of the Ancient World":

Roman emperors were gods or at least many of them were proclaimed as such after their death. As far as we know, in the period from 14 C.E. until 337 C.E., of the 60 60 emperors ever ruling over the Roman Empire 36 were deified, together with 27 members of their families.

Again, the fact that deification took place after death surely does not change the clear implication of an integration of church and state.

And, last from the Encyclopedia Brittannica (I added the emphasis):

A broader foundation for the divinity of the king is the view of the king as the son of a god, which can take on different forms. The first king has been regarded as a god and his successors as sons of the god in a number of societies—in Africa, Polynesia, Japan (where the emperor, until the end of World War II, was revered as a descendant of the sun goddess), Peru (where the inca, or ruler, was believed to be a descendant of the sun god), Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Canaan. Because he personifies the divine national hero (as among the Shilluk in Africa), the king can demand divine status, a practice that was taken up in the Greco-Roman world by Alexander the Great and by the Roman emperors.

As I stated, they acted in each others spheres, but the very fact of separate titles and practioners and not Priest-Kings denotes separation.
The question is whether they were separated in thought, considered separate spheres, which they were. Even Aristotle separated politics and religion. The fact that the Emperors instituted state religion as a method of control or garnering favour from the gods, does not diminish this.

It is the same as Britain today. It still has a state Church and only a Anglican may legally become Prime Minister as to the wording of the Catholic Emancipation Act which prohibits anyone but an Anglican from advising the Monarch on appointments. No one would say that Britain has a unified religio-political make-up, they are divided, even though the above is the case.
Another example is France under Louis XIII which was ruled by Cardinal Richelieu and then Mazarin, but this did not mean union of religion with the state.
Rome was similar, with separate priesthoods and magistracies that were related, but not unified.
I think our disagreement is merely a function of differing interpretations of what is meant by separation of Religious and Political spheres.

Wikipedia is very wrong on a lot of historical topics. Also it references things where people said "it is possible that" that then becomes "it is" in Wikipedia. Also poor sources get amplified by being associated with other sources as any source is acceptable.

 

[expos4ever]

As to the rest you posted, you are quoting one man's opinion, a quite liberal christian I might add, which is not definitive.

I hardly think anyone would call NT Wright "liberal". Be that as it may, he is, I suggest, very highly credentialed and arguably an expert in the relevant history.

 

[expos4ever]

I think our disagreement is merely a function of differing interpretations of what is meant by separation of Religious and Political spheres.

Perhaps. But I certainly think that Jesus saw Himself as a king over this present world, and it is only through radical redefinition of relevant terms and concepts in use at the time - for which I see no justification - can this be denied (Biblically). I plan to post more about this.

 

[timewerx]

Well, if they had a money bag, instead of right away giving to needy people . . .

And yet that money stayed in the bag long enough for Judas to pilfer it?

My understanding is radical generosity but not stupid levels of generosity, and also not greedy levels of generosity where whom God entrusts His riches gets the most benefit from it.

and so may be He does not care about controlling this world's money.

As the verses in my OP, money in the Greek context is termed as "unrighteous wealth".

I don't think Christ meant money that you stole as unrighteous wealth but basically, money in general is unrighteous wealth.

So Christ does care about money....but He sees it as something evil. So maybe, it would count for something if God sees us with significant amount of worldly wealth in excess of what we really need.

 

[timewerx]

Perhaps. But I certainly think that Jesus saw Himself as a king over this present world, and it is only through radical redefinition of relevant terms and concepts in use at the time - for which I see no justification - can this be denied (Biblically). I plan to post more about this.

Not today, because today, the devil rules our world 1 John 5:19

But in the future, yes, Christ will rule our world with an iron scepter.

 

[expos4ever]

Not today, because today, the devil rules our world 1 John 5:19

But in the future, yes, Christ will rule our world with an iron scepter.

I disagree - the text certainly declares that the devil wields power - and may well be in substantial control over the world - but it certainly does not place him in the role of legitimate King. We may only disagree on terminology here - I am saying that God has installed Jesus as the true King over this world; the fact that many, if not most, people do not recognize that authority does not change Jesus' status as rightful King. Suppose 80 % of Americans suddenly decided to disobey the government over which Mr. Obama presides. Does that mean he is not President? No - he is still President.

I believe the church has largely been mistaken in that many, again perhaps most, Christians believe Jesus has yet to be installed as King. I think the Scriptures clearly indicate otherwise.

 

[expos4ever]

Through a cryptic statement made to Caiaphus, Jesus declares He will very shortly become King. Note what Jesus says to Caiaphus when the latter ask if He is “Christ” (this means “king”, although readers may dispute this):

"Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" 62And Jesus said, "I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."

The reference to sitting at the right hand of power comes from Psalm 110:

The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand…”

The “coming with the clouds of heaven” statement is an allusion to this material from Daniel 7:

I kept looking
Until thrones were set up,
And the Ancient of Days took His seat;
His vesture was like white snow
And the hair of His head like pure wool
His throne was ablaze with flames,
………
"I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed.

From both these references, it is clear that Jesus intends Caiaphus to see Him (Jesus) in the role of the Son of Man figure who gets presented to the Ancient of Days (YHWH) and takes the other of the two thrones (note the multiplicity of thrones in the Daniel material).

Among the many rich implications of this passage we have this: In this scenario, YHWH gets seated (apart from what happens to the Son of Man figure). This is a clear allusion to the enthronement of YHWH, fulfilling the deeply held, and scripturally sustained, Jewish expectation that YHWH will, at some point, become King of all the world.

Is Jesus king over the earth? Yes - we have clear allusions to Jesus as one who, having already been seated, is now ruling over all nations and peoples.

 

[timewerx]

I disagree - the text certainly declares that the devil wields power - and may well be in substantial control over the world - but it certainly does not place him in the role of legitimate King. We may only disagree on terminology here

The devil being as illegitimate king of this world. I think that maybe right.

 

[expos4ever]

The devil being as illegitimate king of this world. I think that maybe right.

I am happy to agree that it is Biblically correct to see the devil as an illegitimate king over this present world.