Witch hunting

[rjs330]

Luke 19:27.

Another fine example of scripture removed from context to support a preconceived notion. Please do not do that. It is beneath you.

 

[rjs330]

The parable was quite clearly pointing to himself:

"he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear ... A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return ... when he was returned, having received the kingdom ... 'But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.'"

The nobleman who goes "into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom" can only refer to Jesus himself.

Jesus was addressing a crowd who believed the kingdom of God ruling the earth was coming then with the Messiah. Jesus parable was refuting that idea and pointing to a future where God judge's everyone. His enemies will one day appear before the king will judge his enemies and will have them slain. It was not a command for us to go out and kill God's enemies. But I have a suspicion that you know that and was just trying to provoke. That's why I said it's beneath you.

 

[ananda]

... the king will judge his enemies and will have them slain. It was not a command for us to go out and kill God's enemies ...

The verse says "slay them before me" - not "I shall slay them". Although I do not agree with it (obviously), I'm merely pointing out how some can potentially interpret the verse to support a "Christian jihad" - like witch hunting.

 

[Soyeong]

What do you think of the witch hunting that Christians practiced for centuries?

Supposedly, witches were condemned in the Bible. If that is true, why do Christians no longer practice it?

You might find this article interesting:

The Decline of Witch Trials in Europe

There are also some other good articles at that site too.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What do you think of the witch hunting that Christians practiced for centuries?

Supposedly, witches were condemned in the Bible. If that is true, why do Christians no longer practice it?

I think witches' broom-sticks make for excellent kindling. I'm not so sure about the witches themselves, however..................

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Jesus did affirm that every aspect of the law remains valid.

(Well, according to Matthew anyway)

Not ... quite.

 

[durangodawood]

Not ... quite.

Seems that way when I read it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Seems that way when I read it.

... a lot of our individual understanding of the Bible depends on what, if any, hermeneutical principles we each take with us into the reading process. Otherwise, if we don't keep this in mind, we'll have a hard time explaining why not one single early Christian depicted in the New Testament is reported as having ever slain a witch (or adulterer, or drunkard, or homosexual, or apostate, etc., etc., etc).

 

[durangodawood]

... a lot of our individual understanding of the Bible depends on what, if any, hermeneutical principles we each take with us into the reading process. Otherwise, if we don't keep this in mind, we'll have a hard time explaining why not one single early Christian depicted in the New Testament is reported as having ever slain a witch (or adulterer, or drunkard, or homosexual, or apostate, etc., etc., etc).

How much mention of individual instances of that sort of "justice" are reported in the OT, when the law is presumed to be fully in effect? Very few. So many laws. Precious few examples of actual instances of the law in effect.

I dont see the Bible as some sort of police blotter.

 

[ViaCrucis]

What do you think of the witch hunting that Christians practiced for centuries?

Supposedly, witches were condemned in the Bible. If that is true, why do Christians no longer practice it?

The practice of witch-hunting was explicitly condemned in the middle ages, both by civil and ecclesiastical law. The Council of Paderborn (785 AD) was a civil council headed by Charlemagne which addressed the Christianization of the Saxons, it also made witch-hunting a capital offense that resulted in the death penalty.

Belief in witches/witchcraft was regarded as superstitious and heretical in the middle ages, both in the East and the West; as Christianity made inroads into Northern Europe and the Northern European pagans were converted, a belief in witchcraft and witches remained part of the folk beliefs. This was condemned by both the Church and Christian rulers as superstitious heresy.

It wasn't until the publication of the Malleus Maleficarum in the late 15th century that attitudes began to change; one of the primary tasks of the MM was to argue that witches exist and belief in witches and their witchcraft was not superstitious heresy. And it really is only in the centuries following--chiefly by Protestants--that we start to see organized witch trials and witch hunts. The Salem Witch Trials were not some weird remnant of medieval practice continuing until the early modern period, they were representative of the departure from the medieval rejection in witches/witchcraft as superstitious heresy and an acceptance of them.

Continued belief, among modern Christians, in witches/witchcraft are representative of pagan folk superstitions which were rejected and condemned in the middle ages and which only asserted itself in the last five hundred years.

What the Bible condemns isn't "witchcraft" (as per modern imagination), but divination, things like trying to foretell the future, or act as a medium for spirits. Not because fortune tellers and mediums can do anything--they can't tell the future or any of that--but because these things should have no place in God's people.

Further according to the writings of the ancient fathers Christians have no business using violence to address sin or to punish sinners. The use of violence was unanimously condemned in the ancient Church, including "legal" violence such as the soldier in battle or a magistrate sentencing a person to death. With the transition of the Roman Empire from pagan to Christian the question of how an ostensibly Christian empire was to behave became a serious one. When heresy and paganism became criminal offenses in the late fourth century under the edicts of Theodosius church leaders staunchly condemned the use of violence against heretics and pagan. But in time the Church grew comfortable with the civil authorities using violence. This comfort with violence was a fundamental departure from the ethical teachings of Christian antiquity; and while it was not everywhere the same as the struggle between Church and State became fairly definitive themes of the middle ages, both in the East and the West; there would be those in the Church who wholesale approved of state violence, and there were those in the Church who called for leniency. This problem didn't disappear in the modern era, or with the Protestant Reformation in the West--it became even more complicated and more problematic. While early republicanism, such as seen in the United States, sought to put an end to sectarian violence by refusing to have an established religion and for the newly formed republic to have an entirely hands-off approach to religion to ensure religious liberty, it has continued to be a complicated issue.

It is made increasingly more complicated by the conflation of nation and religion as an ideological synthesis, a problem frequently seen here in the United States.

As for me? I maintain that the Church has no business wielding the sword. Ever. Tertullian of Carthage tells us that when Christ disarmed St. Peter he disarmed us all.

The Church has no business being in bed with the State, the Christian has allegiance to one King, and that's Jesus, and to one Kingdom, the kingdom of God.

The Christian does well to remember that she or he is a pilgrim stranger in a strange land.

The Law of the Christian is found in the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ who commanded us to turn the other cheek, to give freely without demanding anything in return, to love our enemies, to bless those who curse us, and to love our neighbor as our self.

"For when God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits us from open violence, which is not even allowed by the public laws, but he warns us against the commission of those beings which are esteemed lawful among men… Therefore, with regard to this precept of God, there ought to be no exception at all, but that it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred animal." - Lactantius, late 3rd/early 4th century

"Shall we carry a flag? It is a rival to Christ." - Tertullian of Carthage, early 3rd century

"We Christians cannot endure to see a man being put to death, even justly." - Athenagorus, 2nd century

"Say to those that hate and curse you, You are our brothers!" - Theophilus of Antioch, 2nd century

“Above all Christians are not allowed to correct by violence sinful wrongdoings.” - Clement of Alexandria

"I am a soldier of Christ; it is not permissible for me to fight." - Martin of Tours, late 4th century

-CryptoLutheran

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How much mention of individual instances of that sort of "justice" are reported in the OT, when the law is presumed to be fully in effect? Very few. So many laws. Precious few examples of actual instances of the law in effect.

I dont see the Bible as some sort of police blotter.

So, do you think it is a possibility that Peter, Paul, John, and James, among other apostles and leading church leaders mentioned in the book of Acts and in various epistles might actually have put people to death for witchcraft (or other sins)? Is this the implication you're wanting me to take away from your "police blotter" comment?

 

[radhead]

ViaCrucis, I definitely think it was more of a Protestant thing. Whatever issues Luther might have had with the Catholic church in his day, the same issues were amplified and made worse and taken to new depths of evil by Protestants.

 

[durangodawood]

So, do you think it is a possibility that Peter, Paul, John, and James, among other apostles and leading church leaders mentioned in the book of Acts and in various epistles might actually have put people to death for witchcraft (or other sins)? Is this the implication you're wanting me to take away from your "police blotter" comment?

I'm simply refuting your idea that if law is in effect then we'd expect law enforcement incidents to show up in scripture. Largely we dont see this in the OT. Why would we expect to in the NT?

As for the apostles, I have no idea if they would be the sort of people who enforced OT laws amongst Jews (or extended them to others) in NT times.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm simply refuting your idea that if law is in effect then we'd expect law enforcement incidents to show up in scripture. Largely we dont see this in the OT. Why would we expect to in the NT?

As for the apostles, I have no idea if they would be the sort of people who enforced OT laws amongst Jews (or extended them to others) in NT times.

I don't see that the obverse would be true, i.e. that we'd expect law enforcement incidents to show up in the NT if the Law 'isn't' in effect, either.

My view on the overall puzzle of the relationship between the OT and the NT is one that would suggest that the Apostles knew very well what the OT called for, but because of the entrance of Christ into the eschatological and theological framework, they knew that the death penalty was to be abrogated and no longer effectuated by the 'hands' of God's people, at least on a Church level.

Additionally, I aver that the OT is STILL in effect...but only for those who do not enter into the "exception clause" provided by the New Covenant instituted by Jesus through His fulfillment of OT requirements regarding righteousness before God.

It's that simple really............................................................................

 

[durangodawood]

I don't see that the obverse would be true, i.e. that we'd expect law enforcement incidents to show up in the NT if the Law 'isn't' in effect, either....

Sure. But no one is making this absurd obverse claim.

...My view on the overall puzzle of the relationship between the OT and the NT is one that would suggest that the Apostles knew very well what the OT called for, but because of the entrance of Christ into the eschatological and theological framework, they knew that the death penalty was to be abrogated and no longer effectuated by the 'hands' of God's people, at least on a Church level.

Additionally, I aver that the OT is STILL in effect...but only for those who do not enter into the "exception clause" provided by the New Covenant instituted by Jesus through His fulfillment of OT requirements regarding righteousness before God.

It's that simple really............................................................................

I prefer your view to the notion that OT law remains generally in effect. But its hard to get around the plain words Matthew ascribes to Jesus.

I've heard that Matthew may have inserted that quote himself (explaining why it doesnt occur in the other gospels) because his particular "flock" was largely Jewish, and he feared alienating them in their transition to faith in Jesus. This makes sense to me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sure. But no one is making this absurd obverse claim.

Ok. My point is simply that what we expect Jesus' followers to do is affected by multiple contexts within the N.T. corpus, and in taking these things into consideration, I don't see how any Christian can come to the conclusion that Witch Hunts, Inquisitions, Crusades, or any similar application of the death penalty via social potencies of the "Christian Church," are in any way valid Christian expressions of Jesus' mandate to extend love and mercy even to one's spiritual enemies until God should Himself intercede in Final Judgement.

I prefer your view to the notion that OT law remains generally in effect. But its hard to get around the plain words Matthew ascribes to Jesus.

I've heard that Matthew may have inserted that quote himself (explaining why it doesnt occur in the other gospels) because his particular "flock" was largely Jewish, and he feared alienating them in their transition to faith in Jesus. This makes sense to me.

And your point makes sense to me as well, which is why I think it is important to interpret the overall context(s) of the theme of fulfillment (by Christ) that Matthew actually presents within the confines of his entire gospel account. And in the link below is a basic tally of those other points at which, I believe, Matthew presents additional contexts that we have to incorporate into our hermeneutical evaluations about Jesus' valuing or revaluing of the OT Law, all of which will in turn apply to how Christians should evaluate the legitimacy of Witch Hunts or similar actions.

BibleGateway - : fulfill

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sure. But no one is making this absurd obverse claim.


I prefer your view to the notion that OT law remains generally in effect. But its hard to get around the plain words Matthew ascribes to Jesus.

I've heard that Matthew may have inserted that quote himself (explaining why it doesnt occur in the other gospels) because his particular "flock" was largely Jewish, and he feared alienating them in their transition to faith in Jesus. This makes sense to me.

...it probably also helps to consider the theological interplay between the OT Law and the NT Gospel by reading a book like this:

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The Bible plainly says to kill witches, and yet nearly all Christians not only refuse to obey the command but also do not even believe that witches exist.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The Bible plainly says to kill witches, and yet nearly all Christians not only refuse to obey the command but also do not even believe that witches exist.

It also says to kill the sexually immoral, but....what do we find? We find Paul revising the provisions of the OT penalties regarding death for sinners and simply advising they be temporarily ex-communicated from the local church for a provised amount of time. Paul, of all wonders "refused to obey the command" to kill the spiritual perps. Go figure!

 

[rjs330]

The verse says "slay them before me" - not "I shall slay them". Although I do not agree with it (obviously), I'm merely pointing out how some can potentially interpret the verse to support a "Christian jihad" - like witch hunting.

No one has as far as I know. Do you have evidence otherwise?