"Principalities and Powers"

[A brief excerpt from my book on engaging power abuse]

[Walter] Wink[1] proposes that “’principalities and powers’ are the inner and outer aspects of any given manifestation of power. As the inner aspect they are the spirituality of institutions, the ‘within’ of corporate structures and systems, the inner essence of outer organizations of power. As the outer aspect they are political systems, appointed officials, the ‘chair’ of an organization, laws.”[2] He arrives at this conclusion by surveying and analyzing the whole range of New Testament usage of the language of Power with corroborating support from the contemporaneous literature. He concludes that the Biblical writers employed interchangeable terms of Power which can refer either to the visible or invisible aspects of any given manifestation of Power, or even both together, as the context required.[3] The language employed indicates that, in the Biblical view, the Powers are both visible and invisible, both earthly and heavenly, both spiritual and institutional.[4] Wink notes the following:

The clearest statement of this is Col. 1:16 which should have been made the standard for all discussions of the Powers: “For in him [the Son] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones (thronoi) or dominions (kyriotētes) or principalities (archai) or authorities (exousia) – all things were created through him and for him.” The parallelism of the Greek, ably rendered here by the RSV, indicates that these Powers are themselves both earthly and heavenly, visible and invisible.[5]

                In this view, the Biblical thought is that there is a spirituality behind (or within) physical manifestations of power. Behind every ruler, behind every nation, behind every administrator, institution, church, and pastor, there is a spirituality at work.[6] The Powers possess simultaneously both an outer, physical manifestation and an inner, spiritual essence, or gestalt corporate culture, or collective personality.[7] The spiritual Powers, specifically, then are not to be understood as separate “heavenly entities” but as “the inner aspect of material or tangible manifestations of power.”[8]  They do not have a separate, spiritual existence independent of their material counterpart but are inextricably connected to the physical.[9] In this sense, there is no matter-spirit dualism but one united, indivisible reality in which both the physical and the spiritual exist co-dependently.[10] These Powers must manifest themselves physically, become embodied and institutionalized, in order to be effective. However, it is the inner, invisible spirit that provides the Power with legitimacy, regulation, and compliance.[11] Every business, corporation, club, organization, school, government, denomination, and church have this combination of both outer and inner, visible and invisible, physical and spiritual. The Powers are both spiritual and institutional.

Importantly, these Powers are not fundamentally bad but the good creation of a good God. However, all of them have fallen into corruption, having turned towards idolatry, becoming more or less evil in intent.[12] It is when a Power turns towards idolatry, placing its own will above that of God’s, however consciously or unconsciously, that the Power becomes demonic.[13] In John Howard Yoder’s analysis of the fallen Powers,

[W]e find them seeking to separate us from the love of God (Rom. 8:38); we find them ruling over the lives of those who live far from the love of God (Eph. 2:2); we find them holding us in servitude to their rules (Col. 2:2); we find them holding us under their tutelage (Gal. 4:3). These structures which were supposed to be our servants have become our masters and our guardians.[14]

“Demons” are the psychic spiritual Powers emanated by organizations, institutions, individuals or sub-aspects of individuals whose energies are bent on overpowering others in a radical rejection of and idolatrous estrangement from God.[15] And in all its manifestations, the demonic is simultaneously spiritual and physical, invisible and visible, heavenly and earthly, inner and outer.

Wink notes the two seemingly contradictory views of the origin of the demonic. One view sees the demonic as stemming not from a flawed personal psyche but from oppressive power structures. The other, while acknowledging the contribution of such structures and systems, nevertheless sees the demonic as the consequence of the breakdown of individual personal development.[16] “The one sees demons as outer, the other as inner.”[17] Wink states that both positions are correct, but only in tension with the other.[18] While the alienating structures and ideologies of institutional power can have profound social influence upon the individual, it cannot explain why some people of similar systematic oppression become dysfunctional while others are able to transcend their environment to live productive lives.[19] Nevertheless, the individual and society are linked, with the spirituality of the one affecting the spirituality of the other. They have a unity that runs deep. The unity of the inner and outer demonic and its influence upon the individual and institution run even deeper. As Wink notes,

The social demonic is the spirit exuded by a corporate structure that has turned its back on its divine vocation as a creature of God and has made its own goals the highest good. The demonic is not then merely the consequences that follow in the wake of self-idolizing institutions; it is also the spirit that insinuates itself into those whose compliance the institution requires in order to further its absolutizing schemes.[20]

These fallen, corrupted Powers, these demonic institutions and the individuals they mutually influence, all manifested in idolatrous businesses, corporations, governments, institutions, churches, leaders, administrators, pastors, laws, and constitutions, down through history, creating the ethos and Zeitgeist of the age, come together as both an inner and outer reality in the person of the Satan.[21] He is the interiority of an idolatrous society at fundamental odds with its Creator. He is the corporate personality of the world as the sum total of all humanity’s evil down through history.[22] He is “the god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4), “the archetypal representation of the collective weight of human fallenness, which constrains us towards evil without even being aware of it”, and “the symbol of the spirit of an entire society alienated from God.”[23]

This interpretation of the Biblical understanding of the Powers is neither to ignore nor to willfully reject the portrayal of some of those Powers (specifically the demonic and the satanic) as having personalities. If we are to take the Scriptures seriously, we need to accept that the Biblical conception of the demonic and the satanic Powers entails something approximating the human personality. We need to recognize that these Powers have a very different kind of ontological reality in which emergent personality oscillates with the ethos of corporate institutions. These Powers are not merely reducible to the products of human thoughts and actions, but are malicious systems with a semi-autonomous, gestalt reality.[24]

---

[1] Wink, Walter. Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1984), Unmasking the Powers: The Invisible Forces That Determine Human Existence (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1986), Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), and The Powers That Be: Theology for a New Millennium (New York: Double Day, 1998).

[2] NTP 5.

[3] Ibid., 118.

[4] ETP 3.

[5] NTP 11. Also, 1 Cor 2:6-8 and Col 2:14-15.

[6] He further notes concerning the various terms of Power, “The most frequent usage was for human incumbents-in-office, but there was also a pervasive awareness of the ways power is organized, which required a more abstract or structural usage of the terms. Thus archai could represent, like archontes, persons-in-roles, magistrates, governors, elders, and kings-in-office. But it could also denote the office itself, or the power the office represents. Thronos too seemed to emphasize not the occupant of the ‘seat’ of power but the ‘seat’ itself as the symbol of continuity, perpetuity, legitimacy, and popular consent. Kyriotes … seemed to point more to the sphere of influence or territory ruled by a kyrios than to the ruler as such. Exousia … most frequently denotes the legitimations, sanctions, and permissions that undergird or authorize the use of power … dynameis pointed more specifically to the situations or forces by which power is imposed. But all these could also be applied as the need arose to spiritual powers, good and evil” (NTP 101).

[7] NTP 104; UTP 2; ETP 3.

[8] NTP 104.

[9] Ibid.,105-106.

[10] UTP 2.

[11] NTP 5; 106; UTP 4. See also Yoder, John Howard. The Politics of Jesus, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994), 142.

[12] NTP 104.

[13] Ibid., 5.

[14] Yoder, 141.

[15] UTP 59; NTP 104-105.

[16] UTP 41-42.

[17] Ibid., 42.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid., 42-43.

[21] Ibid., 25.

[22] Ibid., 24.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Wink himself is somewhat ambivalent on the subject of the personal nature of the “demonic”. While he prefers to think of Powers as impersonal entities, he knows of no sure way of settling the matter (PTB 27-28).

Mature Servanthood in an Aggressive Age: How Jesus Redefines the Warrior-King

At the suggestion of a friend, I watched the videos of the lectures given by the various speakers of the Mature Manhood in an Immature Age event during the 2019 Southern Baptist Convention. My friend sat through the conference itself and gave what ended up being a gracious appraisal of its contents. I myself, as an egalitarian, was startled by his summary but even more startled to see how gracious his summary was. The conference itself is held within the context of a debate between what is referred to as “hard” (or “strict”) and “soft” complementarian positions. Should women be prohibited from preaching the gospel as well as prohibited from holding the position of leadership within the Church? As an egalitarian, I am outside this quibble though I hopefully understand and sympathize with both sides. The stricter complementarian is a swiftly dying breed, while the softer kind is diminishing only slower. For what it’s worth, I saw several problems with the rationales given by the speakers of the conference. Chief among them were the misinterpretations of Paul that were read back into the Genesis 1-3 account and then said as if that was what Genesis was teaching. At other points, there was a strange focus on masculine fecundity. In this, speakers emphasized the importance of male reproduction as highly significant, while oddly diminishing the role of the feminine. In my mind this was like reflecting upon the role of hands clapping and then stating that overall importance belonged to the left hand. Again, such strict complementarianism (and complementarianism as a whole) is a waning position in a time of greater gospel recognition. I will allow others to respond to the finer points of the strict complementarian arguments of this conference.

Interestingly, while I was surprised by what I thought was the extremism of the strict complementarian position,[1] I was far more scandalized by one particular lecture and one singular comment. Towards the very beginning of his lecture titled Mature Manhood and Sexuality, Owen Strachan makes the following comment: “Jesus came to do terrible violence to the prince of hell.” The immediate context of his comment was his interpretation of 1 John 3:8 which reads, “The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil” (NASB). The Greek word translated “destroy” here is lyō and can mean “to loose”, “to unbound”, “to untie”, “to break up”, “to dissolve”, or “to annul”.

The greater context of Strachan’s comment is his emphasis on what he believes to be a “warrior-king” motif running through Scripture. He believes that starting from the supposed protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15 and traced all the way through to Jesus who defeated the Satan, there is a theme of the warrior-king who defeats the enemies of God. Important to Strachan’s argument and this thematic strand is the importance of David, the consummate warrior-king who defeated the Philistines and was a prefigure of the Christ to come. Strachan notes that the first designation of Jesus Christ in Matthew’s Gospel (1:1) is “son of David”, supposedly emphasizing Jesus’ status as warrior-king. Strachan’s overall purpose in lecturing on this warrior-king motif in the Mature Manhood in an Immature Age event was to counter claims that traditional conceptions of masculinity are inherently toxic. He is attempting to argue that male “aggression” is biologically determined and a positive, biblical attribute which can be demonstrated as a running theme culminating in Jesus the Christ. Again, the overall context of the various lectures of this conference is about the supposed complementarian roles of women and men within the Church, the home, and the greater society.

While I believe the egalitarian cause is a gospel issue in the sense that Christ is subjecting fallen and abusive powers under his Lordship – one of which is patriarchy – I found myself more concerned by the (which I assume to be) rhetoric which equates the coming of Jesus the Christ with the methodology of violence. I want to squash such rhetoric here and now if I may and diminish any possible notions that the Kingdom of God, with Jesus as its king, is one which associates itself with “terrible violence”.

Certainly, there is a prominent biblical theme of the king defeating enemies and subjecting them under his lordship. The Davidic Psalm 110 is the paramount example and such an idea is frequently applied to Jesus himself throughout the New Testament (Eph 1:20-22; Phil 2:8-11; 1 Cor 15:24; Col 1:13; 2:10, 15; Jude 1:25; Rev 2:26-27; 12:10; Matt 9:8; 21:23; Mark 3:15; John 5:27; 17:2). And, indeed, Jesus is identified as a king. The Greek word “Christ” (Christos) is the translation of the Hebrew word Messiah. The Messiah/Christ was a term used for the King of the Jews. When Jesus is identified as the Christ, he is being identified as the King of the Jews (Matt 2:2; 21:5; 25:35, 40; 27:11, 29, 42; Mark 15:2, 9, 12, 18, 26, 32; Luke 19:38, 23:2-3, 37-38; John 1:49; 12:13, 15; 18:33, 37, 39; 19:3, 12, 14-15, 19, 21; Acts 17:7; 1 Tim 6:15). This is why Jesus is identified as coming from the line of King David (Matt 1:6; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30; 21:9; 21:15; 22:42; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35; Luke 1:27, 32, 69; 2:4, 11; 3:31; 18:38-39; 20:41; John 7:42; Rom 1:3; 2 Tim 2:8; Rev 5:5; 22:16).

However, while Jesus certainly is the king who defeated the enemies, it’s fundamentally important to understand how he did it. Jesus’ method was not through violence or force. Rather, it is a method which is counter-intuitive and truly counter-cultural. Instead of seizing power through violent aggression, Jesus became a servant (Mark 10:42-45; Luke 22:25-27; Matt 25:28; John 13:3-17; Phil 2:7) in order to be exalted (Phil 2:5-11).[2] This is why we read the first shall be last and the last shall be first (Matt 20:16, 26-27; Mark 10:31, 43-44; Luke 13:30; 22:26). This is why Christian leadership is about servant leadership (Mark 10:42-45; Luke 22:25-27; Matt 25:28; 1 Pet 5:2-3). This is why being a pastor is about equipping other believers (Eph 4:11-12). While the world may be run by the aggressive use of force and while governments may have a monopoly on violence,[3] the Christian pursues the Kingdom of God through the method of our king: humility, selflessness, submission, and sacrifice (Matt 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23). It is through the poor, the mourners, the meek, the justice hungry, the merciful, the pure, the peacemakers, and the persecuted that the Kingdom of God comes to fruition. This is a complete redefinition of power and of what it means to be the people of God.

This is the ethic found predominately in the New Testament and is spelled out in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, particularly Matthew 5:38-5:42. However, its antecedents are found in the Old Testament. In the second century BCE, the Jews were engaged in a violent struggle against the Seleucid Empire for political and cultural control over Palestine. In this time of cultural persecution and violent resistance, we have the production of the Book of Daniel teaching a response to governmental persecution through prayer, service, and non-violent resistance. This is a later, higher ethic than found in the earlier books of the Bible like that of Esther with its retributive justice. At the same time, the Book of Daniel predicts that God will deal with these persecuting nations and governments through a “Messiah” and through resurrection. You can see much earlier in the Old Testament that God will establish his Kingdom through a Messiah (Isa 11) and that a time and ethic of peace will follow where the wolf will lie down with the lamb and people will no longer need their swords (Isa 2:4; Joel 3:10, Mic 4:3). It will be a time of freedom (Isa 61:1) and forgiveness (Jer 31:34). This is an ethic of forgiveness, non-violence, and non-retribution. And it flows from the character of God himself. In the first case of human violence recorded in the Bible, God gives Cain grace for murdering his little brother even when Cain deserved death (Gen 4). This is who God is. And this is who Jesus is. And Jesus taught an ethic where abuse, persecution, and violence are to be dealt with by love, forgiveness, and non-violence. Again, you can see this prominently in the Sermon on the Mount, but it is the ethic Jesus took all the way to the cross where he rejected violence (Matt 26: 52-54; Luke 22:51) and proclaimed forgiveness (Luke 23:34). The power exhibited and unleashed on the cross is that of self-giving love and forgiveness. This is the heart of the gospel. 

With references to Davidic kings, please take as your proof texts that of 1 Chronicles 22:8 and 28:3. David was prevented from building the Temple of God because he was a man of war and violence. Yes, Jesus was the Son of David, but the son of David was also Solomon. And it was Solomon (a non-warrior) who built the Temple which housed the presence of God. Jesus was a man of submission, sacrifice, and non-violence who built the Temple - his body (John 2:19-22; Rev 21:22). We have voluminous references throughout the New Testament of people being “in Christ” (Rom 8:2, 39; 12:5; 1 Cor 1:2, 30; 15:18, 22; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 2:4; 3:28; 6:15; Eph 1:3, 10, 12, 20). Indeed, the followers of Jesus - the Church itself - are frequently called the “body of Christ” (Rom 12:5; 1 Cor 12:12-27; Eph 3:6; 5:23; Col 1:18, 24). Not only that, Christian believers as a group are referred to as a Temple (1 Cor 3:16, 17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). To put this altogether: believers are in Christ, they are the body of Christ, they are a Temple, Jesus is a Temple, and believers are a part of that Temple body.

When David was promised that his son would build the Temple to house the presence of God (2 Samuel 7), this was later understood (along with Psalm 110 and Daniel 7) as Messianic prophecies predicting that the Christ would not only defeat the enemy but build the Temple. Jesus as the Christ did build the Temple, but it was the temple of his body made up of all believers in him. And in both tasks (defeating the enemy and building the Temple), Jesus accomplished them through non-violent submission and sacrificial servanthood. If one wants to argue for Jesus as the consummate and ultimate fulfillment of the warrior-king figure, one must recognize that, like most everything else Jesus did, he radically redefined what it meant to be a warrior-king by establishing the role as one of peace, submission, servanthood, non-violence, and non-aggression.

While I sympathize with Strachan’s concern about arguments denigrating some aspects of traditional masculinity as toxic, I nevertheless feel strongly that we should understand both masculinity and femininity in terms of the revelation of Jesus Christ and in the methodology of the gospel. Both men and women are expected to take part in the process of defeating the enemy by subjecting the fallen Powers of the world to Christ’s Lordship (see 1 Corinthians 15, Ephesians, Philippians 2, and 1 Peter). However, it is absolutely fundamental that we do so by the methodology of our King, Jesus the Christ. And as we subject those Powers under Christ, we must also be careful to subject our own rhetoric so that it properly reflects that of the gospel. If the strict complementarians wish to be truly counter-cultural, then they could find no greater starting point than developing warrior-kings and warrior-queens in the Church who embrace the radically redefined gospel methods of submissive non-aggression and mature servanthood.

---

[1] Please understand that I do not think those who hold these positions are bad people. They are brothers in Christ. I just disagree with them.

[2] The book 1 Peter is an excellent examination and application of how the sufferings of Christ (1:11; 2:7, 21-24; 4:1; 5:1) led to his glory (1:11, 21; 3:22; 4:13; 5:1, 4, 10).

[3] See Rom 13:1-3 for a brief reference to this concept.