Erika Kirk’s forgiveness
[NOTE: I haven’t watched most of the speeches at the Charlie Kirk memorial yesterday, but I’ve seen short clips and read excerpts plus Erika Kirk’s entire speech.]
Erika Kirk is clearly a remarkable woman, but one would expect that because she was married to a remarkable man.
To even be able to give a public address so soon after her husband’s murder shows tremendous fortitude, especially for a young widow with two small children. But it’s not just that; the content of her speech was also impressive.
You can read the full transcript here. You can find a video here. The speech focuses on many things – religion and one’s purpose in the world, for example – but a goodly portion is devoted to her marriage with Charlie and his message, which is now her message, of what such a marital relationship can and should be. A relevant excerpt on that subject:
The greatest cause in Charlie’s life was trying to revive the American family. When he spoke to young people, he was always eager to tell them about God’s vision for marriage — and how, if they could just dare to live it out, it would enrich every part of their life in the same way it enriched ours.
Someone once asked me how Charlie and I kept our marriage so strong when he was busy traveling.
And our little secret? It was love notes.
Every Saturday, Charlie wrote one for me. He never missed a Saturday.
In every single one of them, he’d tell me what his highlight was for the week, how grateful he was for me and our babies.
And always, at the end, he would ask the most beautiful question:
“Please let me know how I can better serve you as a husband.”Charlie perfectly understood God’s role for a Christian husband: a man who leads so that he can serve.
To all the men watching around the world — accept Charlie’s challenge and embrace true manhood.
Be strong and courageous for your families.
Love your wives and lead them.
Love your children and protect them.
Be the spiritual head of your home.But please — be a leader worth following.
Your wife is not your servant.
Your wife is not your employee.
Your wife is not your slave.She is your helper.
You are not rivals. You are one flesh—working together for the glory of God.
That’s an ideal worth striving for, and isn’t limited to Christian believers. Erika Kirk clearly wants that message to reach young people.
But probably the part of her speech that got the most coverage was this:
Charlie passionately wanted to reach and save the lost boys of the West—the young men who feel like they have no direction, no purpose, no faith, and no reason to live.
The men wasting their lives on distractions.
The men consumed with resentment, anger, and hate.Charlie wanted to help them. He wanted them to have a home with Turning Point USA.
When he went onto campus, he was looking to show them a better path—a better life that was right there for the taking.
My husband, Charlie, he wanted to save young men just like the one who took his life.
That young man.
That young man.
On the cross, our Savior said: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
That man—that young man—I forgive him.
I forgive him because it’s what Christ did.
And it’s what Charlie would do.The answer to hate is not hate.
The answer—we know from the gospel—is love.
Always love.Love for our enemies.
Love for those who persecute us.
The idea of forgiveness that she is demonstrating in extremely impressive and not the least bit easy. But it is not about law. It is her personal choice, informed by her religion and probably also her desire to set an example of love and not be consumed by hatred. But earthly justice follows different rules – and must.
For many years I have thought deeply about forgiveness. Long before my political change, I balked (and still balk) at the idea that forgiveness is required towards a person who has not apologized or shown any understanding of his or her offenses or desire to change. But yes, forgiveness can nevertheless be given, as a religious or personal choice.
NOTE: I wrote a previous post on the subject of forgiveness that’s very relevant; you can read it here.
I watched a video of the speech, and felt a tear or two welling up.
In a cynical age, one might wonder how much is orchestrated.
No!
I put any such thoughts in the dust bin of my mind where they belonged.
I wish everyone would watch; especially those who feel hate and expect hate from others.
God Bless Erika.
Erika’s speech was amazing, and so were many others who went before her and the President’s afterwards.
Sure there are places to go back and see them.
Giving and receiving are two separate things. They are not two sides of the ‘same coin’ because they are composed of two separate parties.
Extending forgiveness is for the giver, so that resentment and/or hate doesn’t consume the victim. To receive forgiveness, the offender must be sincerely repentant. To ‘receive’ forgiveness we have to acknowledge having offended, otherwise the offender isn’t embracing the core of forgiveness, which is recognition of having sinned and thus, of being in the wrong. Charlie’s killer can only ‘receive’ Erika’s forgiveness when he truly recognizes that he became ‘Cain’ to Charlie’s ‘Abel’.
I balked (and still balk) at the idea that forgiveness is required towards a person who has not apologized or shown any understanding of his or her offenses or desire to change.
Perhaps the Christian duty to forgive regardless of what the wrongdoer does is rooted in the idea that it is more meritorious for being difficult and not making sense.
The duty to love one’s enemies as expressed in the Sermon on the Mount is related along with many other moral duties that seem to be made extra hard. For example, not only are you not to kill, you are also not even to be angry or say something mean. You are not only not to commit adultery, you are not even to want to. After some other examples he goes on to say:
No, it doesn’t really make sense, from an earthly perspective, to forgive someone who isn’t even sorry, or hasn’t even acknowledged they’ve done anything wrong, but the earthly perspective is not, of course, the only one.
Charlie Kirk was a man whose spiritual development was unusual for a man so young. He was a missionary to young people in our schools. Only a visionary touched by deep faith could have accomplished what he did.
And Erika, who has a doctorate in religious leadership, is deeply evolved spiritually as well. A match made in Heaven? It would certainly seem so.
Her speech was moving and memorable. Her heart is broken, but she had the strength to do what most of us couldn’t. Only someone touched by God could have given that speech. She truly lives her faith. I am in awe.
Christian forgiveness in one’s heart for the person who is a habitual liar, abuser, addict, etc. does not necessitate exposing oneself again to that person’s harmful habits. The habitual abuser and his many accomplices and enablers (including many who occupy a pulpit on Sundays) want you to think it is, but it’s not.
Erika is magnificent.
One of the themes from commentary around the web was how positive and uplifting was the memorial for Charlie Kirk. At the core, the eternal nature of man– evidenced by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Contrast that to the funeral/memorials for people who haven’t accepted the gift of eternal life. There is nothing to celebrate, merely mourn. Our physical death isn’t the end. A new beginning in the presence of the Lord.
Erika forgave the assassin of her husband as Jesus forgave those in the midst of subjecting him to on of the most painful deaths possible. He is our example.
There is forgiveness and there is also reconciliation. The former may lead to the latter.
In Christianity forgiveness generally doesn’t require repentance by the forgiven.
In Judaism, as I understand it, forgiveness does require such repentance.
Contrast with Wellstone Memorial Event – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wellstone_memorial_event
Her forgiving him as she choked on her tears is way more than I could ever do in similar circumstances.
It does another thing perhaps – it may relieve her of part of the pain rather than letting it eat her from the inside out.
I pray the rest of her life is blessed by The Lord.
She is a better person than I am.
One may forgive an embezzler. One is not required, then, to hire him as your bookkeeper. This part of the lesson is not entirely absent when the left tells us what to do with various criminals.
In fact, we’re not even required to let him out of prison. “mercy to the guilty….”
If I am required to love those who persecute me, that’s one thing. But do I have a duty to the next person he’s going to persecute? Asked that of a religious PhD who stuttered and then said, well, police and soldiers have rules. Best he could do.
I can’t get over her comment to the NYT: she imagined meeting Jesus and hearing him say, “An eye for an eye? Is that how we do things?”
I find it incredibly hard to forgive someone who’s not sorry. The best I can do is guard against enjoying rancor against him, while remaining committed to opposing his wrongdoing. I don’t believe forgiveness requires willful blindness to the danger that he’ll offend again, against me or some other victim. But the part about avoiding enjoying rancor is big, and not easy.
In Rinzai Zen Buddhism the teacher gives the student a question that doesn’t have an obvious answer to meditate upon. “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” is a classic known to Westerners. It is called a koan.
Meditating upon a koan usually requires a struggle. Occasionally a student goes mad from the effort.
I call forgiveness a Christian koan.
We watched the Memorial and even now every time I hear the words of forgiveness uttered by Erica, I feel emotional. As a Catholic I am glad that the justice that is due will be enacted (I pray!) by the State. My husband and I read the Gospel passage of the Mass in the morning as part of our prayer time together. The day after Charlie Kirk’s assassination that passage was:
Luke 6:27-38
Jesus said to his disciples: “To you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic. Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same. If you lend money to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, and get back the same amount. But rather, love your enemies and do good to them, and lend expecting nothing back; then your reward will be great and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as also your Father is merciful.
“Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven. Give and gifts will be given to you; a good measure, packed together, shaken down, and overflowing, will be poured into your lap. For the measure with which you measure will in return be measured out to you.”
I wept through the entire reading.
Sharon W:
Lovely!
When I read such verses, when I wrestle with Jesus’s exhortations to forgive, I find myself wondering, Who was that Masked Man?
One can find hints of such forgiveness in the Old Testament, but little more. Hindus and Buddhists have entirely different frameworks for forgiveness.
So where did Jesus’s forgiveness come from?
If one believes, as the Creed tells us, that Jesus is the Son of God, it’s not such a problem.
If Jesus was just a man, then he created a revolutionary moral breakthrough for handling injury in relationships.
Niketas:
Do Christians have a DUTY to forgive enemies – in other words, if they don’t forgive enemies, as they committing a sin? Or is it a goal, a strong suggestion? Or is there little or no difference between the two?
Also, I don’t see loving one’s enemies as being at all the same as forgiving one’s enemies. The first is part of the love and compassion a person should have for all human beings. The second is a specific act of forgiveness towards someone who has committed a specific offense against the person the forgiving. To me they are very different, and achieving the first is easier than the second.
Lastly, you write, “No, it doesn’t really make sense, from an earthly perspective, to forgive someone who isn’t even sorry, or hasn’t even acknowledged they’ve done anything wrong,” Actually, I differ on that, too – or at least many therapists of long ago, back when I was in school, would differ with what you wrote. They were very secular but recommended forgiveness as part of mental and emotional healing, because harboring hate was considered harmful in that sense. But there was nothing religious in their recommendation; they saw a very earthly benefit.
A personal observation…
Forgiveness for the follower of Jesus is less a duty and more a privilege. As someone reconciled to God by a forgiveness I don’t deserve it’s a weighty honor to imitate Christ by forgiving those who’ve wronged me. Forgiveness doesn’t erase the past or eliminate the need for earthly justice, and certainly doesn’t restore what’s lost, but it redeems the future… opens a path toward healing at a deep level.
Anybody can be “John Wick” and draw blood for blood over their “dog.” It’s a very different set of heart to be and do like Jesus.
Erika’s forgiveness is just simply amazing.
Seeing how strong she appears to be I have no doubt that this forgiveness truly comes from her heart.
I also cannot help but wonder if her forgiveness will also prevent others from “taking revenge” for her husband’s murder. After all, if his widow is willing to forgive, why shouldn’t others follow her lead?
She is truly an amazing woman.
I also cannot help but wonder if her forgiveness will also prevent others from “taking revenge” for her husband’s murder. After all, if his widow is willing to forgive, why shouldn’t others follow her lead?
She is truly an amazing woman.
charles:
Amen and amen.
huxley:
Far be it from me to say where Jesus came from in the larger sense. But on the earthly plane, he came from the Jewish tradition, and then he built on that foundation.
For example, we have Leviticus 19:18, “Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.”
Also Proverbs 19:11, “The discretion of a man deferreth his anger; and it is his glory to pass over a transgression.”
Also there are powerful examples of forgiveness, such as Joseph forgiving his brothers.
Wendy K Laubach:
Please read this post of mine on “an eye for an eye.”
Wendy K Laubach:
Please read this post of mine on “an eye for an eye.”
huxley:
This is the way I understand it (not that I’m an expert) –
In Judaism, forgiveness doesn’t require repentance. As I believe I wrote in my older post, Judaism says it’s okay to forgive someone who doesn’t repent, if you choose to do so.
Judaism does say these two things, however:
(1) If the transgressor does repent and follows certain rules of repentance, the offended person is supposed to forgive the wrongdoer.
(2) Not only that, but if the offended person doesn’t forgive the wrongdoer if the wrongdoer has properly repented (certain rules have to be followed), then the wrongdoer can consider his duty of trying to get that person to forgive him to be over. He doesn’t have to keep asking for forgiveness over and over past that.
Also, forgiveness is an interpersonal thing and not a legal thing. How the law deals with an offender is separate.
Far be it from me to say where Jesus came from in the larger sense. But on the earthly plane, he came from the Jewish tradition, and then he built on that foundation.
neo:
I am aware of that and I did grant there were hints of Jesus’s forgiveness in the Old Testament.
But what Jesus said in the New Testament I consider a substantial jump. Verified by the current divergence in the understanding of forgiveness between Christians and Jews today.
Is there an example like Erika Kirk’s among Jews today or yesterday? Why do Jews still emphasize the importance of repentance by the forgiven? What Jewish teachers spoke of forgiving 70 x 7?
Of course Jesus was a Jew mostly speaking to Jews from within that tradition. I still say he was a revolutionary, unpredicted by that tradition. Hence, Christianity.
A particularly generous definition of “forgive” might seem to the left like a free-play invitation.
Unless we have a corps of outcasts who are allowed to do the hard stuff on our behalf, to protect us. But we’d have to pretend not to know they exist and can’t pay them from our taxes.
One may find hints of calculus in Archimedes and other ancient mathematicians.
What Newton and Leibniz did with calculus was still a revolutionary breakthrough, taking math to a new place.
I see Jesus’s forgiveness that way.
“unpredicted by that tradition”
C’mon hux…you know better than that.
The Hebrew Bible (aka Old Testament) points uniquely & specifically to Jesus as the fulfilment of hundreds of its promises. He was simultaneously continuous with the Hebrew Scriptures & discontinuous from the Jewish tradition into which he was born because he was a fulfilment different from what post-exilic Jews expected.
“Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” The Lord’s Prayer
“But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8
For the Christian, the demands of forgiveness are depicted in all its pain and sorrow by the crucifix.
“If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.” Jesus (Luke 9:23)
And the promise is, “He who the Son sets free, is free indeed.”
One of the most powerful films I ever watched was Dead Man Walking. It was masterfully filmed and so fairly dealt with the subject of sin, forgiveness and justice. I am a death penalty proponent and my mind wasn’t changed but I did feel compassion for the murderer. The final scene involves the quest for offering forgiveness and is so very moving.
Erika Kirk’s magnificent words left me speechless and weeping. I was and continue to be humbled by her action, which honors her and her husband (though neither, I think, sought such honor) and which inspires the rest of us mortals. I know that in my life I have struggled at times to forgive, and will again (and again); but now I have Erika’s example to help me do the Christian thing. Every time I face that choice, I can look to the gift —and the challenge—she has given each of us.
Murder is a sin against God, Erika is better than I would be. I want him executed and dead. Let God decide what you do then.
Two things: One, contrast the Christian ideal of marriage with that of islam. Then decide which of these ideals is preferable to you and society in general. (To anyone who picked islam, please reconsider.) Marriage is meant to be a type of our relationship to God. He is our protector, the lover of our soul and the head of our personal household. We are under His protection, receive His love and reflect it back in worship. And second, as far as the Sermon on The Mount, it provides an ideal which we can never achieve and thus is meant to inform us of our inability to attains salvation through our own efforts. It is only because Jesus–God’s uniquely begotten Son–has atoned for our sinfulness that we can hope to achieve forgiveness. Accepting that Truth is the only means of salvation. I am sorry if this exclusivity offends, but it remains true whther you accept it or not. Live accordingly.
On the cross Jesus said “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” I believe that was a request or intersession – not an order. Jesus was making the case for God showing mercy to those who were crucifying him because they were acting out of ignorance much as a lawyer in our court argues for clemency for a mentally incompetent client because he is incapable of understanding his crime. This is not a request that all who commit crimes should be absolved or shown clemency.
Erika offered her forgiveness to Charlie’s assassin in the same vein. She recognized – I think correctly – that he was “one of Charlie’s lost boys of the West” whom Charlie was on a quest to find and save.
As Neo points out in the earlier post she cites, in Jewish – Christian thought effective forgiveness is like a lock and key. The person trespassed against can offer the key but forgiveness is only effective if the trespasser uses that key to open the lock through acknowledgement and contrition.
In the spiritual realm only God can decide whether that contrition is sincere or, in the case of Jesus on the cross or Charlie’s “lost boy assassin” weather contrition should be waived because the trespasser truly “knows not what he does.” In the legal realm only the state can grant that waiver. And, those realms are not the same. I note that Erika did not ask the State to waive punishment. It remains to be seen whether at some point in future legal proceeding she will plead for the State to withold the death penalty. I would not but she might, but nothing in her grant of her forgiveness would require that. Similarly, unlike Jesus she did not ask God to waive the sin. I assume she believed that – unlike Jesus – she did not have “standing” to try to influence God’s decision.
There is, I believe, a practical spect to all of this. By offering her forgiveness Erika is doing everything she can do. The rest is up to God and the State. By preemptively granting her forgiveness she is releasing herself and her children from this horrible sin. She is saying “thy will be done” to both God and the State and saying whatever that will is I will not be angry or hateful. I think that is a good thing for her and her children. The burden of the loss of Charlie is something she will always carry with her mitigated by carrying on the mission she shared with Charlie and softened by her faith. That is more than enough burden for her to carry – she does not need the further burden of anger and hate.
Finally, there are other sinners her whom neither Erika nor we should forgive because they most certainly knew what they did and what they continue to do. Those in academia and politics and the media – our modern day Pharisees – who created Charlie’s “lost boys of the West” and continue to exploit them for their own corrupt ends. I think Erika is correctly pointing out to all of us that these are the sinners from whom we should withhold our preemptive forgiveness or toward whom we should direct our righteous anger.
God bless Erika and her children and give them the strength to endure in the face of this evil.
Sharon W,
As a Catholic, I was also blown away by the Gospel reading (on forgiving our enemies) on the day following Kirk’s murder. Truly Providential, and no coincidence.
I recommend this short but powerful essay by Bishop Robert Barron, “Many Things Are Not Permitted; Everything Can Be Forgiven.”
https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/barron/many-things-are-not-permitted-everything-can-be-forgiven/
Charlie Kirk was scheduled to do a sit-down interview with Bishop Barron a couple of weeks after his visit to that Utah college campus. He was also reportedly very close to converting to his wife Erika’s faith, Catholicism.
A better Christian than I could ever hope to be. Though I am unable to emotionally connect with people.
“She is your helper.”
I have a doctorate in Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near East and a Master of Divinity from a moderate Baptist seminary. Was a Baptist minister for twenty-one years then served in the United Methodist church for five.
The reason I bring that up is I have spent much of my adult life in among conservative, moderate, and more progressive Christians. Conservative evangelical Christians tend to speak more of the husband as the head of the family, the wife submits to her husband (which when they unpack the verb isn’t as bad as it sounds), she is his “help meet” (borrowing from the King James Version rendition of `ezer k-negdo(w) in Genesis 2:8 et passim).
My intent is not to dunk on this view. But I find what Erika Kirk said interesting because in the excerpt from her speech she offers an implicit exegesis of that expression from Genesis 2. She doesn’t necessarily attack more conservative understandings of the husband-wife (or wife-husband) relationship. But she outlines an arguably more egalitarian and complementarian view.
At our moderate Baptist seminary our Old Testament professor (an excellent scholar) encouraged us to see how (1) both man and woman image God in Genesis 1, and (2) in Genesis 2 the man is somehow incomplete without the woman. As for `ezer that term is elsewhere used to describe God (although the form is a bit different, and one can debate how significant that is).
“Your wife is not your servant.
Your wife is not your employee.
Your wife is not your slave.
She is your helper.
You are not rivals. You are one flesh—working together for the glory of God.”
You know someone will present a paper on this at the next meeting of the Society for Biblical Literature.
I appreciate the exchange between Huxley and neo on forgiveness and repentance in Judaism.
I can’t speak to Judaism so much as to the Hebrew Bible (not to set one against the other but to distinguish). In the Hebrew Bible there is a strange tension on the relationship between forgiveness and repentance (as there is on a host of issues).
On the one hand there is without doubt a consistent theme of G-d calling his people to repent. Note how often the verb shub shows up throughout the psalter. Turn (repent). And be restored to friendship with G-d.
But there are also occasions when G-d appears to say “my people messed up, they’ve experienced the consequences, they’ve suffered enough, and I’m going to restore them” and does this without the people clearly repenting. Nehemiah 9 might be an example of confession (repentance?) after the fact. “G-d brought us back from exile, we need to confess what we did which is why we went into exile in the first place”.
This tension might trace back to the first covenant in the Hebrew Bible which is the covenant after the flood in Genesis 9 after the flood. Humanity is no better than they were before the flood in Genesis 6. And yet G-d says “never again, never again, never again will I do this”. There is an unconditional quality to G-d’s mercy toward human beings *even though* “the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth” (Genesis 8:21).
As a matter of public policy, how do we protect ourselves and others from wrong-doers?
Does forgiveness preclude any form of prevention (confinement) or deterrence (any form of punishment)?
Am I commanded to allow the evildoer to wreak his will on me without resistance? Must I be similarly passive when the victim is an innocent third party?
While forgiveness is spiritually laudable, what are its real-world applications?
@ Richard Aubrey – If you haven’t already, take a look at CV’s link to the essay by Bishop Robert Barron, “Many Things Are Not Permitted; Everything Can Be Forgiven.”
That seems to be a one-sentence summary of this thread’s discussion.
The answer to your 2nd, 3rd, and 4th questions is “No; what the evil do is not permitted, but they do it anyway and have to be dealt with to protect others” and also
because the sinner needs to own up to the sin. Bishop Barron: “And this is all to the good, for if we never admit to sin, we will never be open to salvation.”
Also he says “can,” not “will” or “must.” Possibly there is a “should” implied in there, because of the corrosive effect of withholding forgiveness, well delineated by other commenters.
Your 1st and 4th questions, I think, are very close to being different facets of the same problem, and are where we find much of the debate over legislation, self-defense, government actions, and so forth.
Obviously, we are not going to come to a consensus anytime soon, given that there are so many people who can’t even agree that murder is a Bad Thing when it expresses what is clearly “vigilante justice,” regardless of any real or imputed reasons why the target “deserved it.”
And that is true whether the killer is from the Left or from the Right or directly from the Infernal Regions, movies to the contrary notwithstanding. Otherwise there is no law standing between us and “the winds that will blow then.” (From one movie that gets it right.)
Neo–I didn’t mean to be indulging in a simplistic caricature of an Old Testament precept. I agree with your argument that the rule was a corrective at the time.
But the common meaning these days is often not much more than a justification of the impulse to get our own back. It seems clear that’s what the short-hand notation means to Erika Kirk, and what she’s struggling against as she works through her duty to forgive. In fact she made it clear she’s OK with handing the assassin over to the state for appropriate trial and punishment. She just doesn’t want to indulge a spirit of angry retribution in herself.
I’m far from sure that turning someone over to the state is the same thing as escaping responsibility for what happens to him, but I agree that a belief in retributive justice is not the same as refusing to forgive. I believe it comes down to avoiding the spirit of spitefulness in which we actively enjoy an enemy’s comeuppance and pain. It also means believing that punishment is better for the wrongdoer than letting him get away with it and never grappling with his own guilt. None of this is easy.
Sometimes as a thought experiment I consider my own state of mind in disciplining a dog. I’m practically incapable of being angry with a dog. I’ll administer a correction only in a way that’s consistent with the dog’s long-term welfare. If, Heaven forbid, I ever had to put down a dangerous dog, I would have to be able to do it without spite or rancor. It’s an imperfect analogy; my duty to fellow human beings is different from my relationship with dogs. Still, it engages the part of me that’s strongly reluctant to blame or wish to inflict harm, and leaves only the need for difficult corrective action.
I have found to be useful Luther’s discussion of God’s work in this world as being manifested in “Two Kingdoms.”
One—a kingdom of grace—is shown by Erika Kirk’s statement. She is to forgive, even as she has been forgiven.
The other—the Kingdom of Power—is shown in the proper function of government. Part of that function is to punish criminals.
I doubt that President Trump was thinking in these categories when he commented on hatred. Yet, that would be his required duty as a government official.
Anyway, I’ve found this view to be useful.
CBI
Those worlds are relevant to the criminal who is caught and in the power of the government.
What about the individual under threat?
Rick67 on September 23, 2025 at 1:29 pm:
“I have a doctorate in Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near East and a Master of Divinity from a moderate Baptist seminary. Was a Baptist minister for twenty-one years then served in the United Methodist church for five.”
This is off topic to this thread, but if you are willing and (I presume) able, can you clarify if the translation resulting in giving Adam and mankind “dominion” over the animals could alternatively be translated to mankind having “stewardship” of the animal and plant kingdom? That is a slightly different flavor to the relationship. This is a minor question I have had for a while now.
Thanks.
R2L, thanks for the question. I don’t want to hijack the comments but want to respect the give and take we sometimes enjoy on neo’s blog.
Here are my Hebrew Notes on Genesis 1:1-2:4. https://plenumcreaturis.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/hebrewnotes_genesis-1.1-2.4-ac-1.pdf. Scroll down to pages 19-20.
The crucial verb in 1:26 is rd(h) which BDB defines as “have dominion, rule, dominate”. Ah but words don’t have meanings so much as uses. I worked with internationals for 18 years, there was a Chinese scholar (professor/researcher in environmental science) who suggested we translate (or interpret) the verb as “manage”. Also since humans represent (or “image”) G-d within creation, there is a sense in which we manage creation with and for G-d. I rather like that and it became a theme in my teaching and preaching. The vocabulary alone has more of a “rule, dominate, subdue (1:28)” ring but in the context of the narrative a good case can be made for “steward, manage” on behalf of the Creator.
We see this also in the second creation narrative Genesis 2:4b-9, 15-17 (https://plenumcreaturis.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/hebrewnotes_geness-2.4-17-3.1-7_13-18.pdf). Where the “man” (or sexually undifferentiated human, there’s a Jewish interpretation along those lines) is placed in the garden (to) l`obdah u-l-shomrah often translated as “till and keep”. Which isn’t wrong but those common verbs `bd and sh-mr elsewhere express “serve” and “keep, protect, guard”. We were placed in an unfinished creation (see 2:5) to “serve and protect” it. As humans who image G-d within creation we are park rangers and environmental scientists.
@ Rick67 – thank you for the insights into the alternatives to “dominion” that have more resonance with our current feelings and thoughts about the relationship of humans to the environment. Translations are always dicey, but I wonder if the KJV scholars were influenced by then-contemporary concepts of the monarch having not only control of his “dominion” but also a responsibility to manage it mindfully for the benefits of his subjects. The position of “steward was of course well understood in the 17th century.
I think it may be one of those meaning-shifts that vocabulary undergoes that led to attaching the connotation of “domination” to the physical meaning of “dominion” (a geographical entity over which a monarch etc. has control) and thus created the generally negative view of the Genesis commandment.
Somewhat like “argument” now almost always connotes “fight” rather than the original neutral “debate,” and “criticism” is often used to mean a negative opinion rather than a neutral analysis, while “apologetics” seems to carry a whiff of submissiveness rather than the correctly-used meaning of “explanation of and justifications for religious doctrines.”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argument
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criticism
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apologetics
There seems to be a trend here for neutral terms to evolve into negative ones.
Just coincidence, or an infernal plot to corrupt our language?
But I digress. 😉
Rick67 > “I don’t want to hijack the comments but want to respect the give and take we sometimes enjoy on neo’s blog.”
The give and take discussions, and (most of) the digressions, are one of the things I like best about Neo’s commenters.
Quick reply to AesopFan who wrote, I think it may be one of those meaning-shifts that vocabulary undergoes that led to attaching the connotation of “domination” to the physical meaning of “dominion” (a geographical entity over which a monarch etc. has control)
That’s excellent. Thanks.