La Iglesia y las Autoridades: Romanos 12–13

Mi compromiso con la no violencia cristiana no significa estar en contra de las “autoridades” gobernantes, como la policía. Recurrir a estas autoridades es totalmente coherente con lo que he llamado el ABC de la No Violencia del NT: Actuar, Buscar alternativas creativas, Contactar a las autoridades para pedir ayuda. La verdadera pregunta en Romanos 12–13 es cómo distinguir entre lo que Dios asigna a las “autoridades” gobernantes y lo que Jesús manda personalmente a sus seguidores.

En primer lugar, los cristianos no estamos llamados a un “cristianismo de no hacer nada”. Se nos manda amar tanto a nuestro prójimo como a nuestros enemigos. Esto último significa no hacer de la muerte intencional de tu enemigo la única solución predeterminada. Jesús nos llama a ser pacificadores (Mat. 5:9), Pablo nos manda vencer el mal con el bien (Rom. 12:21), y Pedro nos dice que sigamos el ejemplo de sacrificio personal de Jesús, si fuera necesario (1 Ped. 2:21–23).

La pregunta, entonces, es si Jesús también da a sus seguidores “el poder de la espada” para actuar como “vengador que castiga al que hace lo malo” (Rom. 13:4), es decir, contra tus enemigos.

La respuesta es clara en las enseñanzas de Jesús en el Sermón del Monte: amen a sus enemigos, oren por quienes los persiguen y hagan bien a quienes los odian (Mat. 5:39–44; Luc. 6:27–36). Jesús también advirtió: “Todos los que tomen la espada, a espada perecerán” (Mat. 26:52). Estos mandamientos no desaparecen repentinamente por lo que Pablo dice en Romanos 13.

En pocas palabras, los cristianos pueden reconocer a las “autoridades” gobernantes y su mandato de “llevar la espada” como “vengador” contra el mal (Rom. 13:1–4; véase también 1 Ped. 2:13–14), mientras que, al mismo tiempo, reconocen que en el capítulo inmediatamente anterior a los cristianos mismos se les dan varios “No hagas” muy claros:

• “No maldigan” (Rom. 12:14).
• “No paguen a nadie mal por mal” (Rom. 12:17).
• “No se venguen ustedes mismos” (Rom. 12:19).
• “No sean vencidos por el mal” (Rom. 12:21).

Y fíjense que Pablo da todos estos mandamientos inmediatamente antes de hablar de las “autoridades” gobernantes en Romanos 13. En Romanos 13 no les dice de repente a los cristianos que se conviertan en el “vengador” que acaba de prohibirles ser en Romanos 12. Más bien, asigna ese papel a las “autoridades” gobernantes, distinguiendo la función que Dios les ha asignado de la conducta requerida de la Iglesia cristiana.

Por lo tanto, leer Romanos 12–13 en todo su contexto es fundamental para entender esta distinción.

Una vez más, Romanos 13 describe el papel de las “autoridades” gobernantes, mientras que Romanos 12 describe la conducta que se espera de los cristianos. Lamentablemente, durante muchos siglos esta distinción se ha confundido, cuando no se ha borrado por completo.

Tal vez, entonces, sería útil preguntarte no simplemente: ¿Qué pueden hacer las “autoridades” gobernantes?, sino más bien: ¿Qué me mandó Jesús a mí que hiciera?

The Church and the Authorities: Romans 12-13

My commitment to Christian nonviolence does not mean being against the governing “authorities,” such as the police. Calling on these authorities is entirely consistent with what I have termed the ABCs of NT Nonviolence: Act, Be creative, Call for help. The real question in Romans 12–13 is how to distinguish between what God assigns governing “authorities” to do and what Jesus commands his followers personally to do.

First, Christians are not called to a “Do-Nothing Christianity.” We are commanded to love both our neighbors and our enemies. The latter means not making the intentional killing of your enemy the sole predetermined solution. Jesus calls us to be peacemakers (Matt. 5:9), Paul commands us to overcome evil with good (Rom. 12:21), and Peter tells us to follow Jesus’ own self-sacrificial example (if need be, 1 Pet. 2:21–23). The issue, then, is whether Jesus also gives his followers “the power of the sword” to act as “an avenger who brings wrath on the one who does wrong” (Rom. 13:4)—that is, against your enemies.

The answer is clear from Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount: love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, and do good to those who hate you (Matt. 5:39–44; Luke 6:27–36). Jesus also warned, “All who take up the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt. 26:52). These commands do not suddenly disappear because of what Paul says in Romans 13.

Simply put, Christians can recognize the governing “authorities” and their mandate to “bear the sword” as an “avenger” against wrongdoing (Rom. 13:1–4; see also 1 Pet. 2:13–14), while at the same time recognizing that, in the immediately preceding chapter, Christians themselves are given many clear Don’ts:

• “Don’t curse” (Rom. 12:14).

• “Don’t repay anyone evil for evil” (Rom. 12:17).

• “Don’t avenge yourselves” (Rom. 12:19).

• “Don’t be overcome by evil” (Rom. 12:21).

And notice that Paul gives all of these commands immediately before discussing the governing “authorities” in Romans 13. He does not suddenly tell Christians in Romans 13 to become the “avenger” he has just forbidden them to be in Romans 12. Rather, he assigns that role to the governing “authorities,” distinguishing their God-assigned function from the conduct required of the Christian church.

Reading Romans 12–13 in its full context is therefore central to this understanding.

Once again, Romans 13 describes the role of governing “authorities,” while Romans 12 describes the conduct expected of Christians. Unfortunately, for many centuries that distinction has often been blurred, if not erased altogether. Perhaps it would therefore be helpful to ask yourself not simply, What may governing authorities do? but, What did Jesus command me to do?

Cremación y Entierro en la Biblia

por carlos@thehumanjesus.org

Para la Biblia, la manera preferida de disponer de los muertos es el entierro, mientras que quemar o cremar con frecuencia se asocia con prácticas paganas y/o con la ira y el juicio de Yahvé, el único Dios de Israel. Sin embargo, esto no significa que la cremación sea un pecado en sí misma, mucho menos que determine tu salvación personal en el día de la resurrección.

En el AT, la práctica bíblica normal para el pueblo de Dios era el entierro: Abraham, Sara, Isaac, Jacob, José, Moisés, David y otros fueron sepultados. En cambio, quemar un cuerpo o huesos suele asociarse con el paganismo o con el juicio divino. Por ejemplo, Acán y su familia fueron quemados después del juicio (Josué 7:25). Josías quemó los huesos de sacerdotes idólatras sobre altares paganos como acto de profanación y juicio (2 Reyes 23:16–20). Y en Amós 2:1, Yahvé condena a Moab:

“Por tres transgresiones de Moab y por cuatro no revocaré su castigo, porque quemó hasta convertir en cal los huesos del rey de Edom.”

Una posible excepción aparece después de que Saúl y sus hijos fueron muertos y sus cuerpos maltratados por los filisteos. Los hombres de Jabes de Galaad recuperaron los cuerpos, los quemaron y luego enterraron sus huesos (1 Samuel 31:11–13). Pero esta es una excepción al patrón bíblico habitual del entierro.

El fuego y el acto de quemar también tienen una fuerte asociación bíblica con el juicio divino, especialmente en el lenguaje profético y apocalíptico.

Uno de los ejemplos más fuertes y claros se encuentra en Isaías 66:15–16, 24. Yahvé viene “en fuego” para ejecutar juicio, y los rebeldes son descritos como cadáveres cuyo “fuego no se apagará”. En Malaquías 4:1–3, “viene el día, ardiente como un horno”, y “todos los soberbios y todo el que hace maldad” serán quemados como rastrojo. Después, los justos heredarán la bendición de la era venidera. Y en Sofonías 3:8, Yahvé dice que reunirá a las naciones para juicio y que “toda la tierra será devorada por el fuego de Mi celo”. Imágenes semejantes de juicio aparecen en Daniel 7:9–11 y Salmo 21:8–9.

De manera similar, 2 Pedro 3:10–13 advierte que en el Día del Señor “los cielos pasarán con un estruendo terrible, los cuerpos celestes se derretirán con intenso fuego, y la tierra y todo lo hecho en ella quedará al descubierto. Puesto que todas estas cosas han de derretirse de esta manera, ¡qué clase de personas deben ser ustedes en una conducta santa y piadosa, mientras esperan y apresuran la venida del Día de Dios! Ese Día hará que los cielos ardientes se disuelvan y que los cuerpos celestes se derritan con intenso fuego. Pero, conforme a Su promesa, esperamos con anhelo cielos nuevos y una tierra nueva, donde habitará la justicia”.

Más adelante, Apocalipsis 20:14–15 dice que la muerte y el Hades, es decir, la tumba, son arrojados al lago de fuego, y que todo aquel cuyo nombre no fue hallado en el libro de la vida también es arrojado allí. Apocalipsis 21:8 igualmente relaciona el lago de fuego con el destino de los malvados.

Estos ejemplos no prueban que la cremación común sea en sí misma pecaminosa, mucho menos que una persona cremada esté condenada para siempre. Las imágenes de fuego y de quemar hablan del juicio de Dios sobre los malvados, mientras que la cremación hoy en día es simplemente uno de los métodos para disponer de un cuerpo muerto. El patrón bíblico da buenas razones para preferir el entierro, pero no debe convertirse en una doctrina de condenación donde la propia Escritura no lo hace.

Burning and Burial in the Bible

 by carlos@thehumanjesus.org

For the Bible, the preferred way of disposing of the dead is burial, while burning or cremation is frequently associated with pagan practices and/or divine judgment. Nevertheless, this does not mean cremation is a sin in and of itself, let alone that it determines your personal salvation on resurrection day.

In the OT, the normal biblical practice for the people of God was burial: Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, and others were buried. By contrast, burning a body or bones is often associated with paganism or divine judgment. For example, Achan and his household were burned after judgment (Joshua 7:25). Josiah burned the bones of idolatrous priests on pagan altars as an act of desecration and judgment (2 Kings 23:16–20). And in Amos 2:1, Yahweh condemns Moab:

“For three transgressions of Moab and for four I will not turn back its punishment, because he burned the bones of the king of Edom to lime.”

One possible exception comes after Saul and his sons were killed and their bodies abused by the Philistines. The men of Jabesh-gilead recovered the bodies, burned them, and then buried their bones (1 Samuel 31:11–13). But this is an exception to the otherwise standard biblical burial pattern.

Burning and fire also carry a strong biblical association with divine judgment, especially in prophetic and apocalyptic scripture.

One of the strongest and clearest examples is found in Isaiah 66:15–16, 24. Yahweh comes “in fire” to execute judgment, and the rebels are pictured as corpses whose “fire will not be quenched.” In Malachi 4:1–3, “the day is coming, burning like a furnace,” and “all the arrogant and every evildoer” will be burned like stubble. The righteous then inherit the age of blessing. And in Zephaniah 3:8, Yahweh says He will gather the nations for judgment, and “all the earth will be devoured by the fire of My jealousy.” Similar judgment imagery appears in Daniel 7:9–11 and Psalm 21:8–9.

Similarly, 2 Peter 3:10–13 warns that on the Day of the Lord, “the heavens will pass away with a terrific noise, the heavenly bodies will melt in intense fire, and the earth and everything done on it will be laid bare. Since all these things are to melt in this way, what sort of people should you be in holy and godly living, as you look out for and hasten the coming of the Day of God? That Day will cause the burning heavens to be dissolved, and the heavenly bodies to melt with intense fire. But, according to His promise, we are expectantly waiting for new heavens and a new earth, where uprightness will live.”

Later, Revelation 20:14–15 says that death and Hades, the grave, are thrown into the lake of fire, and anyone not found in the book of life is thrown there as well. Revelation 21:8 likewise associates the lake of fire with the fate of the wicked.

These examples do not prove that ordinary cremation is itself sinful, let alone that a cremated person is permanently condemned. The fire and burning imagery speaks of God’s judgment on the wicked, whereas cremation today is simply one method of disposing of a dead body. The biblical pattern gives good reason for preferring burial, but it should not be turned into a doctrine of condemnation where Scripture itself does not do so.

Does God Ever Change His Mind?

 By Anthony F. Buzzard

The art of Bible study is not to find one verse and use it to silence all the others. People say, “Well, there’s my verse, and that’s the only one that counts.” That’s not the way to study the Bible. The task is to let all the relevant passages speak and then harmonize them. Scripture can express truths in different ways, depending on the context.

Numbers 23:19 says, “God is not a man, that He should lie,” and, “Nor a son of man, that He should repent.”

Absolutely.

God never lies.

Does He speak and then fail to act?

No.

In the context, Balaam is saying that when God has determined to bless Israel, Balaam cannot reverse that blessing. The very next verse says that God has blessed and Balaam “cannot revoke it” (Num. 23:20). That’s absolutely clear. However, it’s not the whole truth on this subject, because other passages say that God regretted something or relented from what He had said He would do. So don’t start pitting one verse against another. Simply harmonize them.

There are situations in Scripture where Yahweh regretted that He had made man and was grieved in His heart. He determined to wipe mankind from the earth, while Noah and his family were preserved—eight people in all (Gen. 6:6–8; 7:13; 1 Pet. 3:20).

There are also verses where God relented in response to what human beings did. After Moses interceded for Israel, “Yahweh relented concerning the harm which He said He would do to His people” (Exod. 32:14). 

Nineveh turned from its evil and God relented from the judgment He had announced (Jonah 3:10). 

Jeremiah 18:7–10 actually gives this as a principle: if a nation turns from its evil, God may relent concerning the calamity He had planned.

Remarkably, you even get both ways of speaking in the same chapter. Yahweh says, “I regret that I have made Saul king” (1 Sam. 15:11), and yet later Samuel says that the Eternal One of Israel “will not lie or have regret; for He is not a man” (1 Sam. 15:29). So clearly we have to pay attention to context rather than making one verse cancel out another.

That’s the kind of biblical material open theism takes seriously. God does not make vague promises and then simply fail to keep them. That’s absolutely out of the question. He speaks the truth. But there are situations where He can respond differently when human beings respond differently. And so free will is everything here. None of us has free will to do absolutely anything. For example, I’m not free to be the President of the USA; I’m not even a citizen. There are certain things outside the realm of free will. I cannot decide to be God. That’s out of the question.

Calvin was horribly wrong, I suggest, in teaching a system in which all events are governed by God’s decree—in effect, set in concrete from the beginning. That’s a horrible doctrine. Calvin explicitly taught that all events occur by God’s ordination, so this is a fair summary of the position being criticized rather than a quotation from Calvin himself.

We must allow, then, for genuine choice, because Jesus says it, Paul says it, and the Old Testament says it. Jesus speaks of people being unwilling (Matt. 23:37). Paul speaks of people presenting themselves in obedience (Rom. 6:16). And Moses says plainly, “I have set before you life and death” and then, “choose life” (Deut. 30:19; cf. Josh. 24:15).

You make a choice. That’s free will. You choose, and God can then react to what you do, which may, in some cases, involve a change in His announced course. I don’t think that’s a difficulty.

A beautiful example of this is Isaiah 38. Hezekiah becomes seriously ill, and God sends Isaiah to tell him, “Thus says Yahweh, ‘Set your house in order, for you shall die and not live’” (Isa. 38:1).

Hezekiah then turns his face to the wall, weeps, and prays to Yahweh (Isa. 38:2–3). Before Isaiah has gone far, God sends another word to him. In effect, the announced outcome changes: “I have heard your prayer; I have seen your tears; behold, I will add fifteen years to your life” (Isa. 38:4–5).

That’s a marvelous example. Go back to the beginning of the passage. Yahweh had said, “You shall die and not live.” But after Hezekiah prayed, Yahweh added fifteen years to his life.

Did God lie?

Of course not. God cannot lie (Num. 23:19; Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18). God responded to Hezekiah’s prayer and changed the announced outcome. That’s a beautiful story.

Relax, I say to people. Have a life. Enjoy the Bible. Let the whole Bible speak. Don’t make one verse fight another. Read the context, hold the passages together, and let Scripture harmonize with Scripture.

Credos conciliares que cambiaron el cristianismo

De mi entrevista con el Dr. Richard E. Rubenstein, historiador judío, autor y Profesor Emérito Universitario de Resolución de Conflictos y Asuntos Públicos en la George Mason University, quien posee títulos de la Universidad de Harvard, la Universidad de Oxford (como Becario Rhodes) y la Harvard Law School.

Si contamos únicamente los concilios relacionados con la controversia arriana —antes de considerar siquiera todas las controversias posteriores estudiadas por historiadores como Philip Jenkins—, calculé que hubo aproximadamente sesenta y cinco concilios entre los años 325 y 380. Eso significa que hubo más de sesenta concilios en un período de sesenta años. ¿Cómo llegaron esos concilios a sus conclusiones?

Mucho dependía de quiénes asistían al concilio, quién lo había convocado y, lo más importante, quién era el emperador en ese momento.

El emperador Constantino, quien convocó el Concilio original de Nicea en el año 325 d. C., fue sucedido por su hijo Constancio, quien favorecía la posición arriana. Constancio fue sucedido posteriormente por un emperador que apoyaba la posición nicena. Como resultado, el respaldo imperial alternaba entre las partes enfrentadas.

Finalmente, Teodosio apareció hacia el final de la controversia como un cristiano niceno bastante militante. Sin embargo, inmediatamente antes de él, el emperador había sido Valente, quien apoyaba la posición arriana.

Valente estuvo relacionado con el que probablemente fue el concilio más grande y representativo de aquel período. Se celebró simultáneamente en Rímini, Italia, y en Seleucia, Asia Menor. Asistieron cientos de obispos, y el credo resultante reflejó una posición arriana o no nicena. Fue el concilio con mayor asistencia de toda la controversia.

Si se combina la asistencia de Rímini y Seleucia, es posible que estuvieran presentes entre seiscientos y setecientos dirigentes de la Iglesia.

Lo que sucedió entonces fue que, al principio, los líderes eclesiásticos buscaron una fórmula doctrinal que pudiera satisfacer de algún modo a todos. Sin embargo, llegado cierto momento, dejaron de preocuparse por complacer a todos. Cada partido quería que sus propias opiniones fueran oficialmente aceptadas y legitimadas.

El propio Concilio de Nicea no fue verdaderamente ecuménico en el sentido moderno de la palabra. Casi todos sus delegados procedían de la parte oriental del Imperio y de un número relativamente reducido de regiones. No fue un concilio particularmente numeroso, y muchos obispos ni siquiera asistieron.

Una fuente calcula que entre trescientos y cuatrocientos obispos participaron en los concilios combinados de Rímini y Seleucia. Cualquiera que haya sido la cifra exacta, el mayor de los concilios conocidos de aquel período adoptó un credo no niceno, es decir, uno que no afirmaba que Jesús fuera “plenamente Dios” o “Dios verdadero” en el sentido trinitario posterior.

He oído que hubo más de doscientos concilios de diversos tamaños durante el desarrollo más amplio de la controversia. Aunque quizá no conozcamos el número exacto, ciertamente hubo cientos de concilios.

Por ejemplo, el artículo de Wikipedia que analiza el Concilio de Rímini contiene una afirmación interesante. Describe aquel concilio como una derrota para el trinitarismo y luego cita las famosas palabras tradicionalmente atribuidas a Jerónimo:

“El mundo entero gimió y quedó asombrado al descubrirse arriano”.

Esa cita es bien conocida, aunque resulta un tanto engañosa.

Difícilmente podría haberse sorprendido el mundo, puesto que el arrianismo ya era una tendencia importante y ampliamente extendida dentro del pensamiento cristiano. Por lo tanto, su éxito en un concilio tan numeroso no debería haber resultado completamente sorprendente.

Unequally Yoked

 In 2 Corinthians 6:14, Paul commands: 

“Do not be bound together with unbelievers. For what partnership does right have with wrong? What fellowship does light have with darkness?” 

Paul reminds Christians that they are “a temple of the living God,” and concludes, “Let us purify ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit.”

Although Paul nowhere uses the word “marriage” in this passage, it is commonly applied to marriage because of the context, the biblical usage of “yoke,” and Paul’s marriage teaching elsewhere.

First, the imagery comes from animals being joined under one yoke to pull together. In Deuteronomy 22:10, God commands Israel: “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.” That is not because donkeys are useless let alone evil, but simply because two unequal creatures joined in one harness cannot pull properly together. Marriage is one of the clearest examples of such a binding yoke. Genesis 2:24 says: “They shall become one flesh.” In Matthew 19:6, Jesus repeats this and adds: “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Second, in 2 Corinthians 6, Paul asks about “partnership,” “fellowship,” and “agreement.” He applies the principle of unequal partnership to the believer and the unbeliever, who do not walk in the same obedience of faith. Marriage is certainly a partnership and fellowship. So if Paul warns Christians not to enter binding spiritual partnerships with unbelievers, marriage cannot be excluded from  the passage.

Third, Paul gives a similar rule in 1 Corinthians 7:39 when he says that a widow is free to remarry, but “only in the lord.” That means a Christian’s marriage choice should remain within loyalty to the lord Messiah Jesus. 

While it is right to say that 2 Corinthians 6 can be used to exhort Christians to marry within the biblical, New Testament faith, that does not mean Christians may never speak with, work with, or love their unbelieving neighbors. For example, earlier in 1 Corinthians 7:12–16, Paul says that if a Christian is already married to an unbeliever, and the unbeliever is willing to live with the believer, the believer should not leave. That means Paul is not saying, “Run away from every unbeliever.” He is warning against voluntarily entering a binding unequal yoke. After all, he adds that we would have to “go out of the world” to avoid all such contact (1 Cor. 5:10). The issue, then, is the “yoke” of marriage as a binding arrangement in which two lives must pull in the same direction. This is the most obvious case because marriage joins worship, monogamy, money, home life, children, and, of course, one’s religious priorities.

Yet reality shows that mixed marriages are certainly common. A recent 2023–24 Pew study found that 26% of married U.S. adults have a spouse with a different religious identity, including Christians. Earlier data also found that among people married since 2010, 39% had a spouse from a different religious group. But the existence of mixed marriages does not prove that they produce better parents, more fulfilling spouses, or more successful professionals. In fact, the data does not support the claim that religiously mixed marriages strengthen Christian foundations. Couples in mixed marriages tend to be less religious than those married within the same faith. Other research links religious service attendance with stronger marital bonds, happiness, stability, and lower divorce or separation risk in some cases.

But even if a mixed marriage is loving, educated, financially stable, and raises well-adjusted children, that still does not answer Paul’s question: “What partnership does right have with wrong? What fellowship does light have with darkness?” 

The world may measure success by careers, income, and well-adjusted children. In contrast, the New Testament measures Christians by their obedience to the faith.