[Greek] στάσις (stasis), [Latin] seditio, [Latin] dissensio, [Latin] status: standing up, strife, political unrest, riot, civil war, sedition, revolt, Mk.15:7, Lk.23:19,25, Acts 15:2, Acts 19:40, Acts 23:7, Acts 24:5, Heb.9:8
CHAZ (Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone) becomes a disaster (and failure) as a result of a woke Seattle mayor acquiescing to the political demands of occupiers.
Background information:
Greek Hellenism: This term means standing firm, taking a stand, rebellion, civil strife, political unrest, position, and state of affairs. Some of the more interesting meanings include paying the doctor’s fees, constipation, weighing, prickling of the ears, and a boxer’s position. Plato’s Republic 470b states “We have the two terms, war and faction. The two things I mean are the friendly and kindred on the one hand and foreign on the other. Now the term employed for the hostility of the friendly is faction.” Herodotus’ The Histories 9.21 states “We cannot alone withstand the Persian calvary, although we we have till now held our ground with patience and valor.” Polybius’ Histories 10.33.6 states “So much for those who fall into such errors from foolish vanity, childish parade, ignorance, or contempt.” Aeschines’ Against Ctesiphon 3.206 states “As in gymnastic contests, you see boxers contending with another for position, so do you for the city’s sake fight with him the whole day long for position as regard argument.”
Old Testament: This term means resting state, repose, stronghold, entrenchment, taking one’s stand, column, decree (statute), defending, striving, and to make a complaint. Let us worship at His footstool (Psa.132.7). And where is a place that may rest?(Isa.132.7). God is my strong fortress (2Sam.22:33). And He is a saving defense to His anointed (Psa.28:8). In my dream, behold, I was standing on the bank of the Nile (Gen.41:17). The Lord was going before them in a pillar of cloud (Exo.13:21). They have consulted together that the king should establish a statute (Dan.6:7). Let Baal contend against him (Jdg.6:32).
New Testament: This term means criminal activity, earnest discussion, quarreling, resistance, dissension, and a standing in place. Barrabbas, along with rebels, had committed murder in a rebellion. The new Christian followers, faced with the important matter of Gentiles and the Mosaic Law, debated and argued among themselves. It was determined that a council (Council of Jerusalem) was needed to respond to (and develop a doctrinal position concerning Gentiles’ responsibility to the Mosaic Law. The Pharisees and Sadducees argued among themselves regarding Paul’s actions. In Ephesus, the town clerk was very concerned that the Roman authorities would take notice of the silversmiths’ riotous actions. At Paul’s trial, Paul was accused of being an instigator of dissent among the Jews and a ringleader of the Christian sect of the Nazoreans.
Scripture:
“Because there arose not little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others would go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.” Acts 15:2
The leaders of the Christians were faced with the issue of whether or not Gentiles must observe the Mosaic Law. It was decided a council in Jerusalem was needed to address these issues.
“For, as it is, we are in danger of being charged with rioting because of today’s conduct. There is no cause for it. We shall not be able to give a reason for this demonstration. With these words he dismissed the assembly.” Acts 19:40
The town clerk was concerned that the Roman authorities would hear word of the silversmiths’ rioting in Ephesus. The Roman authorities exacted harsh penalties for disturbing the peace.
“We found this man to be a pest; he creates dissension among Jews all over the world and is a ringleader of the sect of Nazoreans.” Acts 25:4
The high priest’s legal advocate accused Paul of being a disrupter of the Jews and a leader of the Christian sect.
Problems in Corinth:
What problems did Paul see in Corinth? Paul saw schism, sedition, divided parties, open sexual immorality, doctrinal heresy, liturgical abuses, problems with the state of marriage, and Christians settling disputes in pagan courts.
What problems did Pope Clement see in Corinth? The congregation had disobeyed and deposed their elders (presbyters). Pope Clement stated that the Apostles had appointed the church leaders and directed them on how to perpetuate their ministry. Pope Clement also addressed sedition, dissent, and paganism.
What is the significance of Pope Clement’s first letter to the Corinthians? His letter establishes the doctrine of apostolic correction (to Christian communities) and apostolic succession. Scholars say that this letter was composed around 70 AD. Scholars say that is letter was released to the Corinthians around 96 AD.
Until this time, apostolic succession had not yet been publicly or explicitly stated. Why? It was not necessary to explicitly state this practice (tradition). Apostolic succession was already part of oral Tradition. Even the New Testament was silent on this. Apostolic succession allowed for the orderly continuation of the Church.
Conclusion:
Standing, stand, statue, statute, dissension, dissent, sedition
It is interesting to note that standing up can apply to both sides of the political argument (authorities or protesters). These actions can in part determine the success (or failure) of a dispute. Plato makes an important distinction between external and internal conflict. A faction comes from within the political system. This term can be likened to a political position. I suppose one cannot be surprised a how a ‘standing still’ can lead to sluggishness and constipation.
In the Old Testament, this term takes on several meanings. These meanings can range from a stronghold, entrenchment, to a place of rest.
In the New Testament, the Jewish authorities and Roman authorities both had to contend with the Jewish insurrectionists and criminals. It was oftentimes a challenge to keep the peace. The Pharisees and Sadducees argued among themselves about their beliefs about the resurrection. Paul was accused of being an instigator of the the Jews and a leader of the Christian sect. In Ephesus, the town clerk was very fearful of the Roman authorities hearing of the silversmiths’ riotous actions. The Roman authorities exacted severe penalties for disrupting the peace.
The small group of Christians were confronted with the important matter concerning whether the Gentiles had to observe the Mosaic Law. There was heated and earnest discussion between them. It was determined that a council in Jerusalem was needed to address and to form a doctrinal statement about this matter. (As of yet, there was no formal Christian position regarding Gentiles’ obligation to the Mosaic Law). In the future, later church councils (Nicea, Trent, Vatican, etc.,) will be convened in order to provide clarification of doctrine and to respond to heresies.
Paul and later Pope Clement responded to the problems of dissension and sedition in Corinth. Pope Clement I, the fourth pope, reigned from 88-97 AD. In response to the removal of church leaders in Corinth, Pope Clement formally stated the doctrine of apostolic succession. His letter also developed the notion of apostolic correction to a church community.
In contrast to the serious issues in Corinth, the Synod on the Amazon was formed in response to the supposed need for priests in the Amazon. Rather being initiated by Amazonian Church leaders, this synod was started by the German cardinals and bishops, who had their own agenda (married priests and removing celibacy). These German Church efforts ultimately resulted in causing further dissension(division) in regards to the traditional Church teachings on the priesthood.
CHAZ (City Hill Autonomous Zone) in Seattle occurred as a result of the woke Seattle mayor acquiescing to the demands of occupiers. The police were removed so that war lords could lead this city block. This ‘experiment’ failed resulting in murder, property damage, crime, destruction, and lawsuits.
And now there are those who would rather use a modern moral and cultural litmus test to judge the past. Binary thinking: if the past doesn’t meet our current standards, then it must be cancelled, removed, or torn down. In their historical ignorance, they do not understand that men and woman in history were often ‘products’ of their contemporary culture, attitudes, and prejudices. For brevity’s sake, let’s discuss slavery and women suffrage. In the past there was a world wide entrenched cultural acceptance of slavery. Do we condemn the past because it took longer (than we wanted) to remove slavery over time? There was a world wide entrenched cultural acceptance of restricting the rights of women in history. Do we also condemn the past because it look longer (than we wanted) to give women equal rights? It took constitutional amendments to correct these ‘unenlightened cultural attitudes’ (how we would view it). History must be viewed by how cultural values have changed (evolved) over time rather than being viewed by binary thinking. This binary thinking would mean: “we must condemn history because it does not meet our current standards.” This binary thinking also creates division and confusion.
We as a country are now living in a time being confronted with dissension and factions who want to destroy our political system. There are also those who claim that we live in a systemic racist society (while cherry-picking actual history [1619 Project] or removing fathers from family support systems [BLM]https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/ ). This also creates further division.
I think this term illustrates that division, strife, factions and sedition could occur in any time of history. There is no disputing that!