Perhaps everyone knows the story of Daniel being thrown into the Lion's Den. But why did he receive that negative sanction? What crime did he commit? Here's the explanatory passage from Daniel Chapter 6:
"Then this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king thought to set him over the whole realm. Then the presidents and princes sought to find occasion against Daniel concerning the kingdom; but they could find none occasion nor fault; forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him. Then said these men, We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God.Then these presidents and princes assembled together to the king, and said thus unto him, King Darius, live for ever. All the presidents of the kingdom, the governors, and the princes, the counsellors, and the captains, have consulted together to establish a royal statute, and to make a firm decree, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any God or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions. Now, O king, establish the decree, and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not. Wherefore king Darius signed the writing and the decree. Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime."
Daniel 6:3-10.
Jealousy among other officials in the Persian Empire was the impetus behind the decree, but Daniel could have closed his window. He would have still been able to worship the God of Israel, for no one would have known he was defying the King's decree. But if he had done so, he would have acknowledged the King's decree as legitimate. And he knew it wasn't. That's why he explained to the King after the lions did not harm him the following: Then said Daniel unto the king, O king, live for ever. My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt." Daniel 6:21-2.
Daniel said, "and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt." In other words, my defiance of your decree was not wrong. The only way that could be true would be if the king's decree was void ab initio, meaning it was invalid in its very inception. And it was. It attempted to place the king in the place of God Almighty, determining to whom any individual can pray - when and how often. Even a king does not have that authority. If Daniel had not kept his window open, then he would have allowed a void decree that divinized the king to remain in effect.
Someone might say, "He could have appealed to the king to change his decree." However, that ignores the Persian legal system which tended toward divinization of the king by stating that once a decree is issued by the king, then it cannot be revoked, not even by the king himself. Therefore, Daniel could not have appealed the king's decree to anyone, including the king himself. It is also similar to the present day legal profession's view of the U.S. Supreme Court, which can reverse itself but which normally reverses itself toward a different, less Christian view of the world and the law. In other words and perversely, the only "legitimate" jurisprudence among much of the political world and legal system in the U.S. is the removal of biblical sources of law. The King of Persia at least acknowledged the reality of Daniel's God and faith when he saw it in action. In the modern mind, the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the legal experts, does not even allow the intrusion of reality in its interpretation.
Another character from scripture was Mordecai, the uncle of Esther, and one of the two heroes of the Book of Esther. Chapter 3 contains several keys to understanding the Book of Esther. First, it tells about the King promoting "Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanc[ing] him and set[ting] his seat above all the princes who were with him." Esther 3:1, NKJV. Second, it tells what the King commanded to all the king's servants: "And all the king’s servants who were within the king’s gate bowed and paid homage to Haman, for so the king had commanded concerning him. But Mordecai would not bow or pay homage." Esther 3:2, NKJV. There is nothing in this passage that indicates Mordecai was ordered to "worship" Haman; bowing was typically an act of respect or homage paid to someone in authority. Third, Mordecai did not simply disrespect Haman; he defied the King's command. Fourth, Mordecai's disrespect toward Haman caused Haman to obtain the King's decree to destroy all the Jews in the Persian Empire. In other words, Mordecai's failure to bow before Haman was the opportunity that Haman used to seek the destruction of all the Jews; it was not merely Haman's hatred of the Jewish race.
"When Haman saw that Mordecai did not bow or pay him homage, Haman was filled with wrath. But he disdained to lay hands on Mordecai alone, for they had told him of the people of Mordecai. Instead, Haman sought to destroy all the Jews who were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus—the people of Mordecai."
Esther 3:5-6, NKJV. In fact, you could possibly call Haman's actions preemptive - if he understood the law of Moses in the Hebrew scriptures. God had told the Jewish people to wipe out the Amalekites. Deuteronomy 25:19, NKJV. Notice this command was separate from the command to wipe out the inhabitants of Canaan. Unlike any other people group outside of the seven nations of Canaan, the Amalekites were singled out by God for genocide, whether they were in Canaan or not. Agag was the King of the Amalekites at the time of King Saul's rule over Israel. See I Samuel 15. If Haman was an Agagite, then he was descended from King Agag and most likely an Amalekite. His status as an Amalekite is also the only explanation we have for Mordecai's failure to bow to him in respect. Therefore, Mordecai saw no need to obey the King's command even though he was not being ordered to violate his conscience as to worshipping another god or told to not pray, as Daniel was. Mordecai stood against Haman and defied the King because Mordecai was a Jew who knew an Amalekite deserved death not respect or promotion.
According to the modern idea even among Christians - that we are to always obey the civil authority - would not Mordecai's failure to respect Haman violate that thinking. He disobeyed a King's command, and he did not apologize nor change his actions toward Haman. No, he continued to not bow to him even after the King's decree to destroy the Jews was issued at Haman's urging to the King. In other words, Mordecai saw nothing wrong with his disobedience of the King, nor felt any responsibility for the danger to the Jews of Persia because of the decree. Yet, that decree was issued as a direct consequence of his refusal to obey the King's command. A modern Christian should have educated Mordecai that if he had only been obedient, there would have been no danger caused in the first place. Mordecai's disobedience caused the Jews to be threatened with genocide.
But the message of Esther is that Mordecai and Esther were heroes. Esther appealed to the King for her people after revealing Haman's plot to him, and Mordecai ended up being placed in Haman's place, after Haman was hung on the gallows he had built for Mordecai. God caused a total reversal of consequences. And Mordecai's disobedience of the King, though it caused the whole debacle which God had to unravel was never rebuked. On the contrary, Mordecai was honored. How does that fit in with the modern explanation of Romans 13 and obedience to civil authority?
Daniel's three friends, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, also disobeyed the King of Babylon, but he was requiring actual worship of the idol which he had built. Hopefully, a modern Christian would agree with their disobedience in that circumstance - command to explicitly defy God Almighty. However, where they would violate the modern interpretation of Romans 13 was in their answer; it was not respectful. It was contemptuous of the King.
"Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, 'O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.'"
Daniel 3:16-8. Therefore, not every leader is deserving of respect, nor is every law or command due to be obeyed. Authority comes from God according to Romans 13. We Believers have a responsibility to honor the law, but we do not have a responsibility to honor those who despise or undermine the law. Those people might be in positions of authority, and they may be utterly lawless and despisers of authority themselves. Just because the saboteur works in management for the company owning the vandalized factory does not mean he can do damage. If the policeman pulls you over and tells you to drive your car at double the speed limit, must you obey? And if the highest court in the land tells everyone to pervert the law, are we all, particularly public officials, obligated to go along?
Therefore, in light of the above passages, the Church needs to examine the teaching that all must obey "the authority" no matter what that so-called authority is saying or doing and in spite of the position of authority of those being ordered to obey. Questions to ask: What is the position of the authority and its lawful boundaries? What does God's law say about what is being commanded? What is the position and lawful responsibility of the public official(s) who are being ordered by a higher authority, when told to violate the law by that higher authority?
Those questions are fundamental to the ultimate question and could lead to an unorthodox answer for our day, that is, defy the authority and remain firm in that defiance, no matter the consequences. And these questions are not always simple to answer. The Church of our day is not even training people on the questions.
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
Friday, December 9, 2016
Does God Want His Kingdom to Succeed?
"The Late Great Planet Earth," a book published in the 70's stating essentially, "The End is Near!" Many Christians believe that the end is near, and that things will get worse before the end. Is that a biblical view of the future? Such a viewpoint could determine whether people even attempt to improve life in our society from a Christian perspective. It needs to be examined.
We as Christians all believe that God's kingdom succeeds, but the question is when. Some of us say, "I know who wins; I've read the end of the book." What about the rest of the book? What about before Christ's second coming? What happens during that period of time? I submit that His kingdom will not only succeed but win in history, and that such success need not wait until Christ's actual second return. His first coming was what the earth needed, and it is all we need to continue the process he started. But will he find faith in us to do so?
I heard an interesting news item a few years ago that was very telling. An organization called "The Long Now" was building a 10,000 year clock on the border of New Mexico and Texas. Such a construction is an unusual thing, and I used to live on the border of New Mexico and Texas, so it got my attention quickly. The clock was intended to show people how to have a long-term perspective on time. The radio interviewer asked the representative of the organization why he had even conceived of the project.
The fellow told a story that he had heard about New College in England. New College is not new; it's about 900 years old. It's a part of Oxford University. New College's main building was built using huge, 50-foot long beams of oak as cross beams for the ceiling. But something had happened to these beams. I forget whether a bug had gotten to them or if they had simply rotted with age, but they needed to be replaced. The administration of New College asked each other: "Where are we going to get huge, 50-foot long oak beams in 20th century England?"
Someone told them to talk to the College Forester. They responded with: "We didn't even know there was a College Forester." They asked the College Forester if he could fix the problem. He said, "Oh sure, that's no problem. I'll get right on it." The New College admin people were surprised and asked how he intended to find the beams. He said, "Well, you see, the folks who founded this College and had the building built knew that one day the beams would need replacing, and they planted a forest for that very purpose. . . . 900 years ago. So we'll just go cut down the trees we need and have them cut for the building."
That's a long-term perspective on the future. Do we have that kind of perspective in our modern world? Some do. Do Christians? Are they preparing for a long future? Or are they preparing for the alleged, "soon-to-occur rapture?" Or are they preparing for things to just get worse and worse, no matter when "The End" arrives? These are important questions, and they could explain why Christians face a society which often considers them irrelevant to the conversation about the future and how best to arrive there.
If you're like many Christians, you have been taught just one way to look at the future biblically. And it is: "Things go downhill and get worse and worse, then the end comes when Jesus returns." If that's all you know, how will you plan for the long-term future as a member of God's kingdom? Did you know that the scripture teaches something entirely different? Did you know that perspective on the future can make a huge difference in your outlook on life, how you view your children, and how you view your calling, career and life? Stick around for future posts on this topic, and you'll be edified and hopefully encouraged, "knowing your labor is not in vain in the Lord." I Corinthians 15:58.
You can learn more about the bible's view of eschatology from my blog called "The Last Days of the Old Covenant," which can be found at https://thelastdaysoftheoldcovenant.blogspot.com/ My future posts on "Biblical Judicial System" will apply that eschatology, that is, an eschatology of victory, to the judicial system.
We as Christians all believe that God's kingdom succeeds, but the question is when. Some of us say, "I know who wins; I've read the end of the book." What about the rest of the book? What about before Christ's second coming? What happens during that period of time? I submit that His kingdom will not only succeed but win in history, and that such success need not wait until Christ's actual second return. His first coming was what the earth needed, and it is all we need to continue the process he started. But will he find faith in us to do so?
I heard an interesting news item a few years ago that was very telling. An organization called "The Long Now" was building a 10,000 year clock on the border of New Mexico and Texas. Such a construction is an unusual thing, and I used to live on the border of New Mexico and Texas, so it got my attention quickly. The clock was intended to show people how to have a long-term perspective on time. The radio interviewer asked the representative of the organization why he had even conceived of the project.
The fellow told a story that he had heard about New College in England. New College is not new; it's about 900 years old. It's a part of Oxford University. New College's main building was built using huge, 50-foot long beams of oak as cross beams for the ceiling. But something had happened to these beams. I forget whether a bug had gotten to them or if they had simply rotted with age, but they needed to be replaced. The administration of New College asked each other: "Where are we going to get huge, 50-foot long oak beams in 20th century England?"
Someone told them to talk to the College Forester. They responded with: "We didn't even know there was a College Forester." They asked the College Forester if he could fix the problem. He said, "Oh sure, that's no problem. I'll get right on it." The New College admin people were surprised and asked how he intended to find the beams. He said, "Well, you see, the folks who founded this College and had the building built knew that one day the beams would need replacing, and they planted a forest for that very purpose. . . . 900 years ago. So we'll just go cut down the trees we need and have them cut for the building."
That's a long-term perspective on the future. Do we have that kind of perspective in our modern world? Some do. Do Christians? Are they preparing for a long future? Or are they preparing for the alleged, "soon-to-occur rapture?" Or are they preparing for things to just get worse and worse, no matter when "The End" arrives? These are important questions, and they could explain why Christians face a society which often considers them irrelevant to the conversation about the future and how best to arrive there.
If you're like many Christians, you have been taught just one way to look at the future biblically. And it is: "Things go downhill and get worse and worse, then the end comes when Jesus returns." If that's all you know, how will you plan for the long-term future as a member of God's kingdom? Did you know that the scripture teaches something entirely different? Did you know that perspective on the future can make a huge difference in your outlook on life, how you view your children, and how you view your calling, career and life? Stick around for future posts on this topic, and you'll be edified and hopefully encouraged, "knowing your labor is not in vain in the Lord." I Corinthians 15:58.
You can learn more about the bible's view of eschatology from my blog called "The Last Days of the Old Covenant," which can be found at https://thelastdaysoftheoldcovenant.blogspot.com/ My future posts on "Biblical Judicial System" will apply that eschatology, that is, an eschatology of victory, to the judicial system.
Saturday, September 24, 2016
Judging Ourselves & Witnesses in Court
Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians states:
"But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God."
I Corinthians 4:3-5.
When was the last time you heard this statement in the media regarding a secular event? "The reminder by the prosecutor that the witness would face God in the final judgment seemed to cause the witness to change his story." This future event - the final judgment before God - was one of the reasons that the oath required of a witness in court included the requirement that the witness swear that he believes in a future afterlife of reward and punishment. This belief helps keep people honest. Biblically, the principle is termed the fear of God.
The belief in a world in the next life where good is rewarded and evil is punished has a significant effect upon the mind of the one testifying. First, truth as a fundamental good is a given. Second, the witness must use his imagination and place himself in front of God on His throne explaining what he's about to do. Third, this thought process can get complicated. Consider the testimony of a witness about their brother on trial for murder and facing the death penalty. You are the only witness who can corroborate his alibi. You're his blood. If you cannot honestly testify that his alibi is true, you must weigh your loyalty, affection, and the after-effect of basically telling a court of law that your brother is a liar, whether he committed the underlying crime or not. Even so, the lie by your brother could call into question his innocence as to the underlying crime; therefore, the effect of your testimony that he's lying could be the "final straw" that results in his conviction.
Standing before the God of the universe in your imagination, you realize that there's no place to hide and that no rationalization of a lie can be justified. You must use the law of this God to accurately judge how you will respond to a question about this testimony and to determine what would be the right thing to do and the wrong thing to do. You remember that one of the ten commandments is "Thou shalt not bear false witness." Fundamentally, it means that you shall not lie as a witness in court. Your lie would indicate not just a violation of a commandment but a greater loyalty to your brother than to God because he's a blood relative and you love him. You would be violating the greatest commandment if you lie for your brother: "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment." Matthew 22:37-8. You ask yourself the question: "Do I risk it? Maybe God will forgive me, and my brother won't have to face punishment for his crime, at least, not in this life. Besides what if his punishment is severe? What if it's death?"
What about the witness who does not believe in an afterlife or a final judgment? What holds him to the truth in the same circumstance? You could lie and save your brother's life. Or you could tell the truth and essentially doom him to death. Which do you do? It's possible the law of perjury would subject you to several months or a year in jail. But you may not get caught. Even if you were caught, what's a few months in jail compared with your brother's life? Weighed in the balance of this life and this life only, your lie could appear to be a greater good to you than telling the truth. What would be the incentive to tell the truth? Some principled commitment to an orderly society that punishes criminals, even if they're my blood relative? Is that all? What else would there be to outweigh the love, loyalty, and commitment to my brother? What about other relatives who would hold me responsible for his death because I didn't lie? What about the loss of a companion, a human being who may have been my soul-mate, someone I could talk to and laugh and cry with? What could possibly be weighty enough to cause me to tell the truth? A commitment to individual conscience? I allowed my brother to be executed so I could keep a clear conscience, then die one day myself? Sounds practically narcissistic in the world of the atheist. What about living with a bad conscience? As an atheist, seeing there's no other consequence than feeling bad about one lie, the consequences of telling the truth - causing my blood relative's death, losing my brother's companionship, getting the ire of my other relatives, appearing selfish to myself and everyone else - why not live with a bad conscience if it means saving my brother's life?
Therefore, the society with no fear of God also has little justice, if the godless society even knows how to define justice. "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done" means, in part, that our society seek God's justice and truth in the judicial system. Without the fear of God's justice after this life, there will often be lies in the judicial system. Man needs to know that he will suffer negative consequences or be rewarded something good in order to do right. It is how we are made, and it is especially important after the Fall, when sin infects every aspect of our lives. To assume that people will tell the truth in court because they're "honest, upstanding citizens" is quite naive. Without a commitment to God's justice, all the judicial system has is an arbitrary standard of justice to which a witness may or may not be loyal. If we judged ourselves rightly, considering what could be the consequences in the afterlife, we would be more committed to God's justice than man's. It takes a combination of imagination about what could happen in the future and the factual truth of God's word and law to create the correct perspective for such judgment.
"But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God."
I Corinthians 4:3-5.
When was the last time you heard this statement in the media regarding a secular event? "The reminder by the prosecutor that the witness would face God in the final judgment seemed to cause the witness to change his story." This future event - the final judgment before God - was one of the reasons that the oath required of a witness in court included the requirement that the witness swear that he believes in a future afterlife of reward and punishment. This belief helps keep people honest. Biblically, the principle is termed the fear of God.
The belief in a world in the next life where good is rewarded and evil is punished has a significant effect upon the mind of the one testifying. First, truth as a fundamental good is a given. Second, the witness must use his imagination and place himself in front of God on His throne explaining what he's about to do. Third, this thought process can get complicated. Consider the testimony of a witness about their brother on trial for murder and facing the death penalty. You are the only witness who can corroborate his alibi. You're his blood. If you cannot honestly testify that his alibi is true, you must weigh your loyalty, affection, and the after-effect of basically telling a court of law that your brother is a liar, whether he committed the underlying crime or not. Even so, the lie by your brother could call into question his innocence as to the underlying crime; therefore, the effect of your testimony that he's lying could be the "final straw" that results in his conviction.
Standing before the God of the universe in your imagination, you realize that there's no place to hide and that no rationalization of a lie can be justified. You must use the law of this God to accurately judge how you will respond to a question about this testimony and to determine what would be the right thing to do and the wrong thing to do. You remember that one of the ten commandments is "Thou shalt not bear false witness." Fundamentally, it means that you shall not lie as a witness in court. Your lie would indicate not just a violation of a commandment but a greater loyalty to your brother than to God because he's a blood relative and you love him. You would be violating the greatest commandment if you lie for your brother: "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment." Matthew 22:37-8. You ask yourself the question: "Do I risk it? Maybe God will forgive me, and my brother won't have to face punishment for his crime, at least, not in this life. Besides what if his punishment is severe? What if it's death?"
What about the witness who does not believe in an afterlife or a final judgment? What holds him to the truth in the same circumstance? You could lie and save your brother's life. Or you could tell the truth and essentially doom him to death. Which do you do? It's possible the law of perjury would subject you to several months or a year in jail. But you may not get caught. Even if you were caught, what's a few months in jail compared with your brother's life? Weighed in the balance of this life and this life only, your lie could appear to be a greater good to you than telling the truth. What would be the incentive to tell the truth? Some principled commitment to an orderly society that punishes criminals, even if they're my blood relative? Is that all? What else would there be to outweigh the love, loyalty, and commitment to my brother? What about other relatives who would hold me responsible for his death because I didn't lie? What about the loss of a companion, a human being who may have been my soul-mate, someone I could talk to and laugh and cry with? What could possibly be weighty enough to cause me to tell the truth? A commitment to individual conscience? I allowed my brother to be executed so I could keep a clear conscience, then die one day myself? Sounds practically narcissistic in the world of the atheist. What about living with a bad conscience? As an atheist, seeing there's no other consequence than feeling bad about one lie, the consequences of telling the truth - causing my blood relative's death, losing my brother's companionship, getting the ire of my other relatives, appearing selfish to myself and everyone else - why not live with a bad conscience if it means saving my brother's life?
Therefore, the society with no fear of God also has little justice, if the godless society even knows how to define justice. "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done" means, in part, that our society seek God's justice and truth in the judicial system. Without the fear of God's justice after this life, there will often be lies in the judicial system. Man needs to know that he will suffer negative consequences or be rewarded something good in order to do right. It is how we are made, and it is especially important after the Fall, when sin infects every aspect of our lives. To assume that people will tell the truth in court because they're "honest, upstanding citizens" is quite naive. Without a commitment to God's justice, all the judicial system has is an arbitrary standard of justice to which a witness may or may not be loyal. If we judged ourselves rightly, considering what could be the consequences in the afterlife, we would be more committed to God's justice than man's. It takes a combination of imagination about what could happen in the future and the factual truth of God's word and law to create the correct perspective for such judgment.
Monday, September 12, 2016
Did Christ Change the Judicial System? 7
How do Christ's people exercise judicial authority in the era of the New Covenant? Like everything else - through faith. They have faith in His word to give them guidance on how to judge and rule. Deuteronomy 4:5-8. They have faith in his sovereign power, choice, and timing as to when, who, and where they rule. John 19:11. They have faith in His protection of them when they are attacked for exercising their faith in the civil sphere. II Samuel 7:8-9. They have faith in His Word - that it is good, that it will show them what a judiciary should look like, and that it shows us what law should look like. Deuteronomy 4:8; Psalm 19:7-11. It's worth quoting extensively from Gary North's comments in his economic Commentary on Luke, "Treasure and Dominion," on the question of what "Social Theory" was taught by Jesus.
"In a review of a book by Robert Royal, The Catholic Martyrs of the Twentieth Century (Crossroad Publishing, 2000), libertarian and Catholic columnist Joseph Sobran wrote: “Unlike most spiritual leaders and moral leaders, Jesus of Nazareth offered no formula for worldly happiness and social order. Just the opposite: he told his disciples to take up their crosses (an image he used well before the Crucifixion) and to expect suffering. He warned them that the world would hate them as it hated Him; it was their destiny as Christians.” His view is shared by most Christians today.
"The problem for those who hold this view of Jesus’ ministry arises as soon as any society embraces Christianity. This happened under the emperor Constantine and his successors, as Sobran noted. Martyrdom for Christians ceased. It reappeared with a vengeance in the twentieth century—the most militantly anti-Christian century since the fall of Rome. In the intervening centuries, how were Christians supposed to discover God-given answers for the multitude of social and political issues that confront leaders in every era?
"If Jesus really offered no social theory, then how could He have expected His followers to have known how to rule society from 325 A.D. to, say, 1700, when the moral art of casuistry began to disappear in the West? Without casuistry—the application of Christian principles to specific cases—the church becomes dependent on promoters of one or another nonchristian social theory. The twentieth century revealed where this voluntary defection by Christians ends: either in the persecution of Christians, which is the left wing Enlightenment’s answer to Christianity, or in their political marginalization, which is the right wing Enlightenment’s answer.
"It is true that Jesus did not teach a comprehensive social theory. He did not have to. He taught from the Old Testament. He said that He was the fulfillment of the Old Testament (Luke 4:16–21). In His divine nature as the second person of the Trinity, He co-authored the Old Testament. Why would any Christian believe that Jesus annulled this judicial heritage? Why would He have done this? He did not say that He did this. Where is the evidence from Scripture that Jesus annulled the social theory that had been taught from Moses to Malachi?
"If Jesus did annul all of the Old Testament law, His followers have a major problem: He did not explicitly replace it with anything. He has therefore seemingly left His people culturally impotent. The old political slogan, “You can’t beat something with nothing,” haunts all Christians who maintain this view of the Old Testament. They must defer socially and politically to anti-Christians, and do so in the name of Christ.
"Ask these pro-annulment Christians if they believe in the Ten Commandments, and they say that they do. Then ask: On what basis? Ask them if they think that bestiality is immoral, and they assure you they do. Then ask them if they think that bestiality should be made illegal. They begin to get nervous. Finally, ask them if they think that bestiality should be made a capital crime, and they back off. Yet the passages in the Bible where bestiality is condemned as morally evil call
for the death penalty for those who practice it.
"'And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast (Lev. 20:15).'
"'And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast:
they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them (Lev. 20:16).'
"The New Testament is silent on the practice of bestiality. So, in order to make a biblical case against the practice, a Christian must appeal to Leviticus. But most Christians do not want to have anything to do with Leviticus. That book is just too . . . too theonomic! Theonomy in turn is too theocratic. Christians prefer legalized bestiality to theocracy. Step by step, this is what they are getting.
"This judicial schizophrenia of modern Christians has led to their political and cultural paralysis. Their paralysis has led either to their persecution or their marginalization politically. In the case of marginalization, most of them have praised the result. They have joined with humanists in an alliance called political pluralism. They cry out, “Equal time for Jesus!” But equal time for Jesus has steadily become no time for Jesus in the public arena. Millions of pietistic Protestants prefer it this way. They believe that their retreat from public issues in the name of Jesus reduces their level of personal responsibility. It doesn’t. It merely increases their vulnerability.
"Mammon and Jesus cannot make a permanent alliance. Jesus taught: “No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Luke 16:13). Mammon’s followers are increasingly consistent: they seek to remove Jesus from the public arena. Christians are not equally self-conscious. They still seek to achieve in politics what Jesus said is impossible anywhere in the universe. Then they wonder why they have so little influence. They invent eschatological systems to explain and even justify such a lack of influence."
North, Gary, "Treasure and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Luke" (Point Five Press: Dallas, GA) 2012, pp. xiv-xvi.
Theonomy in its essence means the law of God. Christians teach - rightly - that salvation from sin and its consequences, the just judgment of God, is by faith alone in Christ alone by grace alone to the glory of God alone. It cannot be by the works of the law. See King James Bible, Galatians 2 and Ephesians 2. But salvation involves turning from a lack of faith in God to faith in God. If we have faith in the God of the universe to save us, then shouldn't we also have faith in Him to guide us? If you believe you're saved by Jesus Christ, but you don't trust His words, then do you really have faith in Him. And if you do have faith in Him but don't have faith in the Father who gave the law to Moses, then don't we have a consistency problem. Is Jesus Christ the second person of the Trinity or not? Does He disagree with the law given to Moses? That would be mighty strange.
Yes, Christ's primary mission was not to give us law. In fact, the opposite. "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." John 1:17. The argument from silence - that Christ didn't address certain sins; therefore, He didn't think them important - ignores the context in which Christ came to earth. He could not stand for the law because He came to show the grace and mercy of the Father. And He need not bring the law again, for it had already been given. Those two reasons alone are adequate to explain why Christ did not present an argument against specific sins, like homosexual sodomy, something the law of Moses already addresses. It also explains why he didn't set forth a comprehensive legal or judicial system. That also would have implied that He came to bring us a new law or that His main purpose was that of a lawgiver. He was much more than that. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Matthew 5:17.
Christians live by faith in their personal lives. Why not in their civic lives also? I must go further and answer one of the first assertions of this post: "They have faith in His Word - that it is good, that it will show them what a judiciary should look like, and that it shows us what law should look like." So, if we walk by faith in our personal lives, shouldn't we also walk by faith in our political and judicial lives? And shouldn't we believe that the good God who sent Jesus Christ for our salvation also sent us the law for our guidance? In fact, it is the law, which shows us our faults, which leads us to see our need for Christ as our savior.
"In a review of a book by Robert Royal, The Catholic Martyrs of the Twentieth Century (Crossroad Publishing, 2000), libertarian and Catholic columnist Joseph Sobran wrote: “Unlike most spiritual leaders and moral leaders, Jesus of Nazareth offered no formula for worldly happiness and social order. Just the opposite: he told his disciples to take up their crosses (an image he used well before the Crucifixion) and to expect suffering. He warned them that the world would hate them as it hated Him; it was their destiny as Christians.” His view is shared by most Christians today.
"The problem for those who hold this view of Jesus’ ministry arises as soon as any society embraces Christianity. This happened under the emperor Constantine and his successors, as Sobran noted. Martyrdom for Christians ceased. It reappeared with a vengeance in the twentieth century—the most militantly anti-Christian century since the fall of Rome. In the intervening centuries, how were Christians supposed to discover God-given answers for the multitude of social and political issues that confront leaders in every era?
"If Jesus really offered no social theory, then how could He have expected His followers to have known how to rule society from 325 A.D. to, say, 1700, when the moral art of casuistry began to disappear in the West? Without casuistry—the application of Christian principles to specific cases—the church becomes dependent on promoters of one or another nonchristian social theory. The twentieth century revealed where this voluntary defection by Christians ends: either in the persecution of Christians, which is the left wing Enlightenment’s answer to Christianity, or in their political marginalization, which is the right wing Enlightenment’s answer.
"It is true that Jesus did not teach a comprehensive social theory. He did not have to. He taught from the Old Testament. He said that He was the fulfillment of the Old Testament (Luke 4:16–21). In His divine nature as the second person of the Trinity, He co-authored the Old Testament. Why would any Christian believe that Jesus annulled this judicial heritage? Why would He have done this? He did not say that He did this. Where is the evidence from Scripture that Jesus annulled the social theory that had been taught from Moses to Malachi?
"If Jesus did annul all of the Old Testament law, His followers have a major problem: He did not explicitly replace it with anything. He has therefore seemingly left His people culturally impotent. The old political slogan, “You can’t beat something with nothing,” haunts all Christians who maintain this view of the Old Testament. They must defer socially and politically to anti-Christians, and do so in the name of Christ.
"Ask these pro-annulment Christians if they believe in the Ten Commandments, and they say that they do. Then ask: On what basis? Ask them if they think that bestiality is immoral, and they assure you they do. Then ask them if they think that bestiality should be made illegal. They begin to get nervous. Finally, ask them if they think that bestiality should be made a capital crime, and they back off. Yet the passages in the Bible where bestiality is condemned as morally evil call
for the death penalty for those who practice it.
"'And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast (Lev. 20:15).'
"'And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast:
they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them (Lev. 20:16).'
"The New Testament is silent on the practice of bestiality. So, in order to make a biblical case against the practice, a Christian must appeal to Leviticus. But most Christians do not want to have anything to do with Leviticus. That book is just too . . . too theonomic! Theonomy in turn is too theocratic. Christians prefer legalized bestiality to theocracy. Step by step, this is what they are getting.
"This judicial schizophrenia of modern Christians has led to their political and cultural paralysis. Their paralysis has led either to their persecution or their marginalization politically. In the case of marginalization, most of them have praised the result. They have joined with humanists in an alliance called political pluralism. They cry out, “Equal time for Jesus!” But equal time for Jesus has steadily become no time for Jesus in the public arena. Millions of pietistic Protestants prefer it this way. They believe that their retreat from public issues in the name of Jesus reduces their level of personal responsibility. It doesn’t. It merely increases their vulnerability.
"Mammon and Jesus cannot make a permanent alliance. Jesus taught: “No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Luke 16:13). Mammon’s followers are increasingly consistent: they seek to remove Jesus from the public arena. Christians are not equally self-conscious. They still seek to achieve in politics what Jesus said is impossible anywhere in the universe. Then they wonder why they have so little influence. They invent eschatological systems to explain and even justify such a lack of influence."
North, Gary, "Treasure and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Luke" (Point Five Press: Dallas, GA) 2012, pp. xiv-xvi.
Theonomy in its essence means the law of God. Christians teach - rightly - that salvation from sin and its consequences, the just judgment of God, is by faith alone in Christ alone by grace alone to the glory of God alone. It cannot be by the works of the law. See King James Bible, Galatians 2 and Ephesians 2. But salvation involves turning from a lack of faith in God to faith in God. If we have faith in the God of the universe to save us, then shouldn't we also have faith in Him to guide us? If you believe you're saved by Jesus Christ, but you don't trust His words, then do you really have faith in Him. And if you do have faith in Him but don't have faith in the Father who gave the law to Moses, then don't we have a consistency problem. Is Jesus Christ the second person of the Trinity or not? Does He disagree with the law given to Moses? That would be mighty strange.
Yes, Christ's primary mission was not to give us law. In fact, the opposite. "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." John 1:17. The argument from silence - that Christ didn't address certain sins; therefore, He didn't think them important - ignores the context in which Christ came to earth. He could not stand for the law because He came to show the grace and mercy of the Father. And He need not bring the law again, for it had already been given. Those two reasons alone are adequate to explain why Christ did not present an argument against specific sins, like homosexual sodomy, something the law of Moses already addresses. It also explains why he didn't set forth a comprehensive legal or judicial system. That also would have implied that He came to bring us a new law or that His main purpose was that of a lawgiver. He was much more than that. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Matthew 5:17.
Christians live by faith in their personal lives. Why not in their civic lives also? I must go further and answer one of the first assertions of this post: "They have faith in His Word - that it is good, that it will show them what a judiciary should look like, and that it shows us what law should look like." So, if we walk by faith in our personal lives, shouldn't we also walk by faith in our political and judicial lives? And shouldn't we believe that the good God who sent Jesus Christ for our salvation also sent us the law for our guidance? In fact, it is the law, which shows us our faults, which leads us to see our need for Christ as our savior.
Did Christ Change the Judicial System? 4
Can Christ judge in history? Or must He wait until the Final Judgment? To say No to the first question implies a limit to His sovereign authority. Is this possible? The following are some statements that contradict such a limitation on His part.
"Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." Matthew 26:64. Jesus spoke this in answer to the high priest's demand: "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." Matthew 26:63. In other words, the high priest would see Christ ruling at the right hand of God and coming in the clouds to judge the high priest and all of Jerusalem.
So, if Christ was about to ascend to sit at His Father's right hand, the most powerful position in the universe, and if God Himself has sovereign sway over the heavens and the earth, then Christ rules the earth now. To assert that he has to physically return in order to exercise his authority is to place a serious limit upon the sovereign God. What He does in heaven right this moment is rule for us, as the Son of Man, thereby nullifying not only Satan's power but man's loss of rule to Satan in the Garden of Eden. We are in the process of advancing that rule over the earth and in our own lives. That is why we pray, "Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."
Christ is also head of His Church. What does that mean for the judicial system? Christ has special care for His Church, just as He had special care for his disciples, who heard that which others did not. They learned more because they, like Mary, sat at His feet to learn His word. They had special access to His presence, as well as His words. These two things alone would be significant, but the Church also has the sacraments, in which Christ is specially present and nourishing and in which covenant promises reside. Christ leads His Church into all righteousness and makes her the example for the world, if the Church will obey Him. The Church does not obey Him at her peril. Revelation chapters 2 and 3.
But if she does obey fully, she is raised up to rule and reign with Him. But the Church must not truncate its message and limit it to just the individual. It has a message for the family, the civil government, all aspects of life, for God rules over all of life. The Church must lead the world into the truth, thereby making it jealous for her truth, its orderly arrangement of life and all the institutions of life, its guidance it gives to man. To limit itself is to fall short in its duty and leave the world without guidance. Time for the Church, the pillar and ground of the truth, to prophesy to the nations and the institutions of society, showing them the way. In that way, the world becomes jealous and wants to hear all of the gospel message, not just that which pertains to institutions and law.
The world may come into the kingdom through the back door. We must not limit our message to the individual only, as if God could not speak through His law to guide people to Himself and His grace and His only Son. If we can follow Christ and His law and thereby change the justice system for the better, could we not show the world that grace which saves from the condemnation of the judicial system and point them to the true Judge and Savior of all men?
"Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." Matthew 26:64. Jesus spoke this in answer to the high priest's demand: "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." Matthew 26:63. In other words, the high priest would see Christ ruling at the right hand of God and coming in the clouds to judge the high priest and all of Jerusalem.
So, if Christ was about to ascend to sit at His Father's right hand, the most powerful position in the universe, and if God Himself has sovereign sway over the heavens and the earth, then Christ rules the earth now. To assert that he has to physically return in order to exercise his authority is to place a serious limit upon the sovereign God. What He does in heaven right this moment is rule for us, as the Son of Man, thereby nullifying not only Satan's power but man's loss of rule to Satan in the Garden of Eden. We are in the process of advancing that rule over the earth and in our own lives. That is why we pray, "Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."
Christ is also head of His Church. What does that mean for the judicial system? Christ has special care for His Church, just as He had special care for his disciples, who heard that which others did not. They learned more because they, like Mary, sat at His feet to learn His word. They had special access to His presence, as well as His words. These two things alone would be significant, but the Church also has the sacraments, in which Christ is specially present and nourishing and in which covenant promises reside. Christ leads His Church into all righteousness and makes her the example for the world, if the Church will obey Him. The Church does not obey Him at her peril. Revelation chapters 2 and 3.
But if she does obey fully, she is raised up to rule and reign with Him. But the Church must not truncate its message and limit it to just the individual. It has a message for the family, the civil government, all aspects of life, for God rules over all of life. The Church must lead the world into the truth, thereby making it jealous for her truth, its orderly arrangement of life and all the institutions of life, its guidance it gives to man. To limit itself is to fall short in its duty and leave the world without guidance. Time for the Church, the pillar and ground of the truth, to prophesy to the nations and the institutions of society, showing them the way. In that way, the world becomes jealous and wants to hear all of the gospel message, not just that which pertains to institutions and law.
The world may come into the kingdom through the back door. We must not limit our message to the individual only, as if God could not speak through His law to guide people to Himself and His grace and His only Son. If we can follow Christ and His law and thereby change the justice system for the better, could we not show the world that grace which saves from the condemnation of the judicial system and point them to the true Judge and Savior of all men?
Saturday, July 2, 2016
Did Christ Change the Judicial System? 6
"O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day." Psalm 119:97.
The Psalmist sees great value in God's law and considers it worthy of meditation all the day long. There are many verses that argue against dismissing the idea that Christ came to do away with law as a necessity of society, governance, and life. Typically, such texts are used as proof texts against antinomianism (anti-law), but I don't want to go that route. And I need only one short passage to prove the error of such thinking.
Some would argue that Christ had nothing to say about law and governance and society, that all he cared about was the individual's soul and eternal things. But what about the earth that He created? See John 1. What about His rule as David's heir over all things? II Samuel 7:12-7. What about His giving of His Father's law to Israel and Moses on Mt. Sinai to show how to govern society? Exodus chapters 20-23. Does He not care for man in this life? Does He not have guidance to give to His Creation whom He loves now, while we live on His earth now? According to some, He does not, and He has abandoned the earth and the mission that His Father gave to man in Genesis 1:26-31.
Here is the one verse needed to prove those wrong who claim man doesn't need law. "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Genesis 2:16-7. This command, or law, was given by God before the Fall, while Adam and Eve, newly created in God's image, still had all the faculties given to them by God for ruling and subduing the world in accordance with God's plan for the earth. They had endless lives and could have lived forever if they had chosen to eat from the Tree of Life instead of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. But even if they had eaten from the Tree of Life, that other Tree, including the command to not eat from it, would have always been present in the Garden. If God had issued no other law and even if Adam and Eve had never sinned, that law would have existed for all time for mankind to obey. In other words, the true God is a God of law. It's the Tree of Life or the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil; you can't have both. Christ said that He was the way, the truth, the Life! And the truth is that good and evil is determined by Almighty God, not weak, pitiful, sinful man. The obedient Christ shows the way to that Life and that Truth.
What does that mean? A God of law? It means that God, when He created beings in His own image, created law-oriented persons, that is, law-obeyers. It is part of the very make-up of man to obey. That's why when he sinned, he merely transferred his allegiance and obedience from God to another being - the serpent. He didn't cease obeying. If Adam thought he was becoming independent by disobeying God, he was simply deceived. Even in a sinless state, God apparently never wanted to create some kind of "super man," who would be perfect in his own self and independent of God, judging for himself what is good and evil. That type of "good" human is not what God considers good, for He judged Adam and Eve for seeking such status. Without a law, there is little to prove that man trusts and is loyal to his creator. Thus law is essential to our existence because it was not invented by God after the Fall merely to guide us or teach us what civil policy should be or even demonstrate our need for Christ. Law is part and parcel of the God of the universe, thus obeying His law is part and parcel of the humans He creates. How else would we prove our faith in Him? We live by faith, but if we were perfect in the sense of having unblemished character without even needing a law to lead us, we would have no way of showing our love and faith in our Creator. In fact, we would not need Him at all; we would be our own gods equal to Him who created us. An impossible circumstance.
What about man? Who would fight against law? Men of lawlessness. It's interesting that the New Testament describes the most fearful situation we could face as the ruler who is without law - the man of lawlessness. II Thessalonians 2:3. It was also Christ's accusation which he flung at the Scribes and Pharisees. Matthew 23:28. The lawless man is of the spirit of anti-Christ, that is, he is someone who fights against Christ or substitutes something for Christ. What could substitute for Christ, the One who died for mankind's sin? Lawlessness. If there is no law, then we don't need Christ. It is Satan's salvation. No true Christian can promote lawlessness because that would be denying the very need for Christ's coming to earth and suffering death for our sins.
What about Christ? What was His attitude toward law? Think about the love, loyalty, and respect that is tied up in this one statement that Christ made in John 5:30. "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." Christ, perfect in every way, God in the flesh, without sin and without flaw, yet His greatest joy is to perfectly follow the will of the Father. Christ was and is always obedient to His Father. He is our example as to how to live. His image is that into which God is conforming the believer. The words every believer longs to hear on the Day of Judgment are: "Well done, good and faithful servant." We do not want to hear: "But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity." Luke 13:27. The word "iniquity" is defined as lawlessness. Thus, even in the administration of Christ's kingdom and a critical component of our eternal status is our law keeping, not our perfection in our natural selves.
The fact that we are not perfected in this life is actually a comfort to the believer, who longs for the day of freedom from sin and often wonders what is wrong with his life and the ever present attack of his sinful flesh. Yet, there is comfort in the fact that the believer still, in spite of all the attacks and all the failures of this life, still wants to obey the Lord. This is the perseverance of the saints, this is the love and loyalty of the faithful, and this is what distinguishes the believer from the most upright and honorable unbeliever, who knows not the believer's God or the loyalty and love that is wedded to the believer's obedience to his Lord. The "perfect" heathen is always imperfect, for the unbeliever can never learn to obey His true Creator-Father, can never know that relationship of love, suffering, and faithfulness. No matter how "perfect" the unbeliever lives before man, he is stunted as a human being because he knows not His own God and Maker. How terrible is the existence of the so-called "good" man who knows not his own God!?
The greatest evil is the man who continues in rebellion against his creator, who never understands or even desires to obey His God and King but lives in the darkness of his lawless love of his own way. This is the way of Cain, this is Judas' choice, this is, no matter how pristine the outward appearance, the way to Hell and the Lake of Fire. It is also the way a society disintegrates, whether quickly or glacially. The end is certain. God will not bless a nation or people who defy His law. Christ could never have come to bring lawlessness to humanity, for that would mean that He desired the alienation of man from God and the destruction of mankind itself. Of course, such a motive was the opposite of Christ and His purpose and motivation. His love and sacrifice was for man to be reunited to His Father and saved from destruction, both eternal and temporal. Therefore, Christ opposed the greatest evil with all His words and with everything He had while He walked the earth. He came to restore us to law-keeping and love for the Father and His law. Anyone who says otherwise is an apostle of the Satanic gospel, which says, "There is no law that condemns you, and there is no need for salvation. You are your own god."
Again, the believer willingly, even joyfully, submits to the rule of God in his own life and attempts to apply it equitably to the civil sphere. The unbelieving rebel mocks such attempts and would overturn all of God's rule in his own life and that of the entire world, if he could. But he can't.
The Psalmist sees great value in God's law and considers it worthy of meditation all the day long. There are many verses that argue against dismissing the idea that Christ came to do away with law as a necessity of society, governance, and life. Typically, such texts are used as proof texts against antinomianism (anti-law), but I don't want to go that route. And I need only one short passage to prove the error of such thinking.
Some would argue that Christ had nothing to say about law and governance and society, that all he cared about was the individual's soul and eternal things. But what about the earth that He created? See John 1. What about His rule as David's heir over all things? II Samuel 7:12-7. What about His giving of His Father's law to Israel and Moses on Mt. Sinai to show how to govern society? Exodus chapters 20-23. Does He not care for man in this life? Does He not have guidance to give to His Creation whom He loves now, while we live on His earth now? According to some, He does not, and He has abandoned the earth and the mission that His Father gave to man in Genesis 1:26-31.
Here is the one verse needed to prove those wrong who claim man doesn't need law. "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Genesis 2:16-7. This command, or law, was given by God before the Fall, while Adam and Eve, newly created in God's image, still had all the faculties given to them by God for ruling and subduing the world in accordance with God's plan for the earth. They had endless lives and could have lived forever if they had chosen to eat from the Tree of Life instead of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. But even if they had eaten from the Tree of Life, that other Tree, including the command to not eat from it, would have always been present in the Garden. If God had issued no other law and even if Adam and Eve had never sinned, that law would have existed for all time for mankind to obey. In other words, the true God is a God of law. It's the Tree of Life or the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil; you can't have both. Christ said that He was the way, the truth, the Life! And the truth is that good and evil is determined by Almighty God, not weak, pitiful, sinful man. The obedient Christ shows the way to that Life and that Truth.
What does that mean? A God of law? It means that God, when He created beings in His own image, created law-oriented persons, that is, law-obeyers. It is part of the very make-up of man to obey. That's why when he sinned, he merely transferred his allegiance and obedience from God to another being - the serpent. He didn't cease obeying. If Adam thought he was becoming independent by disobeying God, he was simply deceived. Even in a sinless state, God apparently never wanted to create some kind of "super man," who would be perfect in his own self and independent of God, judging for himself what is good and evil. That type of "good" human is not what God considers good, for He judged Adam and Eve for seeking such status. Without a law, there is little to prove that man trusts and is loyal to his creator. Thus law is essential to our existence because it was not invented by God after the Fall merely to guide us or teach us what civil policy should be or even demonstrate our need for Christ. Law is part and parcel of the God of the universe, thus obeying His law is part and parcel of the humans He creates. How else would we prove our faith in Him? We live by faith, but if we were perfect in the sense of having unblemished character without even needing a law to lead us, we would have no way of showing our love and faith in our Creator. In fact, we would not need Him at all; we would be our own gods equal to Him who created us. An impossible circumstance.
What about man? Who would fight against law? Men of lawlessness. It's interesting that the New Testament describes the most fearful situation we could face as the ruler who is without law - the man of lawlessness. II Thessalonians 2:3. It was also Christ's accusation which he flung at the Scribes and Pharisees. Matthew 23:28. The lawless man is of the spirit of anti-Christ, that is, he is someone who fights against Christ or substitutes something for Christ. What could substitute for Christ, the One who died for mankind's sin? Lawlessness. If there is no law, then we don't need Christ. It is Satan's salvation. No true Christian can promote lawlessness because that would be denying the very need for Christ's coming to earth and suffering death for our sins.
What about Christ? What was His attitude toward law? Think about the love, loyalty, and respect that is tied up in this one statement that Christ made in John 5:30. "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." Christ, perfect in every way, God in the flesh, without sin and without flaw, yet His greatest joy is to perfectly follow the will of the Father. Christ was and is always obedient to His Father. He is our example as to how to live. His image is that into which God is conforming the believer. The words every believer longs to hear on the Day of Judgment are: "Well done, good and faithful servant." We do not want to hear: "But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity." Luke 13:27. The word "iniquity" is defined as lawlessness. Thus, even in the administration of Christ's kingdom and a critical component of our eternal status is our law keeping, not our perfection in our natural selves.
The fact that we are not perfected in this life is actually a comfort to the believer, who longs for the day of freedom from sin and often wonders what is wrong with his life and the ever present attack of his sinful flesh. Yet, there is comfort in the fact that the believer still, in spite of all the attacks and all the failures of this life, still wants to obey the Lord. This is the perseverance of the saints, this is the love and loyalty of the faithful, and this is what distinguishes the believer from the most upright and honorable unbeliever, who knows not the believer's God or the loyalty and love that is wedded to the believer's obedience to his Lord. The "perfect" heathen is always imperfect, for the unbeliever can never learn to obey His true Creator-Father, can never know that relationship of love, suffering, and faithfulness. No matter how "perfect" the unbeliever lives before man, he is stunted as a human being because he knows not His own God and Maker. How terrible is the existence of the so-called "good" man who knows not his own God!?
The greatest evil is the man who continues in rebellion against his creator, who never understands or even desires to obey His God and King but lives in the darkness of his lawless love of his own way. This is the way of Cain, this is Judas' choice, this is, no matter how pristine the outward appearance, the way to Hell and the Lake of Fire. It is also the way a society disintegrates, whether quickly or glacially. The end is certain. God will not bless a nation or people who defy His law. Christ could never have come to bring lawlessness to humanity, for that would mean that He desired the alienation of man from God and the destruction of mankind itself. Of course, such a motive was the opposite of Christ and His purpose and motivation. His love and sacrifice was for man to be reunited to His Father and saved from destruction, both eternal and temporal. Therefore, Christ opposed the greatest evil with all His words and with everything He had while He walked the earth. He came to restore us to law-keeping and love for the Father and His law. Anyone who says otherwise is an apostle of the Satanic gospel, which says, "There is no law that condemns you, and there is no need for salvation. You are your own god."
Again, the believer willingly, even joyfully, submits to the rule of God in his own life and attempts to apply it equitably to the civil sphere. The unbelieving rebel mocks such attempts and would overturn all of God's rule in his own life and that of the entire world, if he could. But he can't.
Did Christ Change the Judicial System? 5
". . . That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Matthew 19:28.
"Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." Matthew 26:64.
"Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Luke 22:28-30.
"Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God." Luke 22:69.
"Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." John 18:37.
"And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus." Ephesians 2:6-7.
"But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." Acts 7:55-6.
"And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." Colossians 1:17-8.
"Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth." Revelation 1:5a.
"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." Revelation 19:11-16.
"And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.' " Matthew 28:18.
"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Philippians 2:9-12. Notice the effect of Christ's exaltation to kingship upon believers: The beloved obey.
These are not statements of Christ's reign in some future heavenly kingdom. The above are verses speaking to His present reign over heaven and earth from His position at the right hand of God right now and ever since His ascension nearly 2,000 years ago. There's room for debate as to a few of them, but all we really need is one if we're talking about the word of God, right?
Ever heard anyone say that Christ didn't come to rule when he walked the earth; that wasn't what he was about. That's like saying that the son of the King, who goes out to survey his father's domain and see which citizens are loyal or not, is not about reigning. Christ wasn't about reigning when he walked the earth; he was preparing for it. He was calling people back to the true King, and he was showing them who the true King is and what kind of rule he exercises. As reward for willingly giving his life for the redemption/salvation of mankind, Christ received ultimate honor of the highest order. Philippians 2.
Yet people continue to interpret the above scripture passages to apply only to a future one-time event at the end of history. Where is Christ seated right now? At the right hand of the Father in Heaven. Is there any other place in the universe more powerful and authoritative than that. "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Matthew 28:18. The two questions that all persons, believer and unbeliever, must ask themselves is this: If he is reigning now and I am loyal to Him, how shall I serve the government of the true King, the increase of which shall have no end? Second, will I obey the true king or remain a rebel?
And how does that affect the judicial system and the rule of society now? We know Christ brings eternal life to man, but what about the judicial system? Through His people, that's one way Christ acts judicially now. The other way is through His sovereign authority and power as second member of the Trinity. He used the Roman army to destroy Jerusalem in 70 A.D., just as He prophesied that He would. See Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21.
"Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." Matthew 26:64.
"Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Luke 22:28-30.
"Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God." Luke 22:69.
"Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." John 18:37.
"And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus." Ephesians 2:6-7.
"But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." Acts 7:55-6.
"And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." Colossians 1:17-8.
"Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth." Revelation 1:5a.
"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." Revelation 19:11-16.
"And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.' " Matthew 28:18.
"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Philippians 2:9-12. Notice the effect of Christ's exaltation to kingship upon believers: The beloved obey.
These are not statements of Christ's reign in some future heavenly kingdom. The above are verses speaking to His present reign over heaven and earth from His position at the right hand of God right now and ever since His ascension nearly 2,000 years ago. There's room for debate as to a few of them, but all we really need is one if we're talking about the word of God, right?
Ever heard anyone say that Christ didn't come to rule when he walked the earth; that wasn't what he was about. That's like saying that the son of the King, who goes out to survey his father's domain and see which citizens are loyal or not, is not about reigning. Christ wasn't about reigning when he walked the earth; he was preparing for it. He was calling people back to the true King, and he was showing them who the true King is and what kind of rule he exercises. As reward for willingly giving his life for the redemption/salvation of mankind, Christ received ultimate honor of the highest order. Philippians 2.
Yet people continue to interpret the above scripture passages to apply only to a future one-time event at the end of history. Where is Christ seated right now? At the right hand of the Father in Heaven. Is there any other place in the universe more powerful and authoritative than that. "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Matthew 28:18. The two questions that all persons, believer and unbeliever, must ask themselves is this: If he is reigning now and I am loyal to Him, how shall I serve the government of the true King, the increase of which shall have no end? Second, will I obey the true king or remain a rebel?
And how does that affect the judicial system and the rule of society now? We know Christ brings eternal life to man, but what about the judicial system? Through His people, that's one way Christ acts judicially now. The other way is through His sovereign authority and power as second member of the Trinity. He used the Roman army to destroy Jerusalem in 70 A.D., just as He prophesied that He would. See Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)