In Matthew
6:1, Jesus urges, “Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be
seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in
heaven.” This notion that an action is less respectable and diminishes in value
when it is carried out to fulfill impure, ulterior intentions is a familiar one
in modern society, likely in large part because of this verse. However, this
warning against an action’s exhibition being something that eggs people on to
actually perform them comes shortly after Jesus appears to be urging people to
do close to do pretty similar to what he here condemns. In the section Matthew
5:14-16, Jesus compares people to lamps and claims that being a shining light
performing good works amongst men would bring glory to God. Based on the
general tenets of Christianity and the Bible, there does not necessarily seem
to be a significant difference between performing “good works” and “practicing
your piety,” since righteously spreading the faith could be considered both a
good work—since you would be bringing others into the light, so to speak—and a way
of practicing your piety. If there is a distinction to be made between “good
works” and “practicing your piety,” where in the realm of good behavior does
that dividing line fall? Is such a distinction necessary to the discussion of bastardizations
of superficially pious behavior? How do we, in modern society and at Columbia,
regard spiritual/intellectual/ethical exhibitionism? Surely, declarations of
support for a cause that are rooted in the desire to draw attention to oneself
are to be discouraged, just as Jesus says, but is it really so reprehensible
when a somewhat insincere public action can serve as the impetus for observers
to then themselves undertake the cause in earnest?
In Romans
13, Paul asserts that every person must give respect the human authorities in
life, for these human authorities are only so because God has given them their
position. Since this condenses into the claim that all authority is a
manifestation of God’s will and that all interpersonal obligation falls back
onto the moral behavior outlined by the Ten Commandments and in Romans 12. This
position seems to erase the possibility for corruption in governments whose
officials live by God. This issue brought to mind the concept of a person’s
innate nature as Aristotle and Plato presented it. If one leader, such as a
king, truly does live a good Christian life that excludes unrighteous behavior
by necessity, does that indicate that their heir will similarly avoid
corruption? Observation over centuries of monarchies claiming divine right
while disobeying key religious tenets would indicate that this is far from the
case. Additionally, leaders have often been hallmarked for their assertiveness
and command of respect, which leads to question whether is it possible to be a
figure of authority without exhibiting behavior that would fall in line with
Aristotle’s ruler/ruled dichotomy, and thus out of line with God. Is it
practical to accept authority without question in today’s society?
I do agree that history shows the limitations of a political system based on divine right. However, I wanted to extend more on the comparison that you drew between Paul’s and Plato's idea of how a political system should be. The similarity between the two system is the following: The leader is born a leader. For Plato, this distinction is made through the metal of that person (i.e. Gold). For Paul, it is actually through divine selection. Thus in both systems, the leader is appointed by this outside/ natural force that people have no access to and should simply believe in its existence.
ReplyDeleteThe major distinction between the two systems, however, is the force that guarantees harmony and cohesion within the society. For Plato, it is through myth, through believing that one should obey those who have a better metal and by accepting and adhering to one's position in the social hierarchy. Through this system of social cohesion, people start working together for the better good.
The force driving order and justice in society for Paul, however, is fundamentally different. He claims that it is by fear of the leader that people abstain from committing crimes. In this system, however, people have no incentive to be good. They just have an incentive not be bad. Moreover, if these rulers are meant to apply God’s law, it remains ambiguous what is the law in question here. In fact, the term law is very ambiguous since Paul never clearly defines it. For instance, in Romans and Galatians, the term law has been used multiple times but with different meanings: it could mean the Mosaic law (Romans 7:22,25 and Galatians 4:21), the old testament (Romans 3:19,21), the instinctive virtue of the Gentiles (Romans 2:14) or even the inclination to commit sins (Romans 7:21)
However, in referring to these different law, Paul makes contradictory statements. For example, Paul says that “we are discharged from the law” (7:6) only to say a few lines later that “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good” (7:12)
He then says “Christ is the end of the law” (10:4) only to contradict himself by saying that Jesus came in the likeliness of sinful flesh... so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us”
To conclude, this obscurity that surrounds Paul’s vision of the political system is similar to what we have seen in monarchies that are based on divine right over history. This, I believe is the fundamental reason that caused their deviation from Justice.