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.
Did Christ Change the Judicial System? 3
In the eyes of Christ, there are only two groups of people on earth after Christ's coming. Race, heritage, nationality - none of these things matter. But loyalty to Christ's authority as King and Judge of the universe does matter. You can divide the world into those who repent and believe in Him and those who refuse. The normal everyday judgment of the latter is suspect because they suicidally continue in opposition to the true God in spite of the fact that He sent Christ as Savior and King. They are operating upon another foundation of thought to determine right and wrong in life. They are still under Adam and Eve, who determined that God's word was insufficient, even erroneous, and needed correction by Adam and Eve. See also the difference between the spiritual man and the natural man described in Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, chapters 1-3. At first glance, it appears that in Corinthians Paul is referring only to the doctrine of salvation, but because salvation encompasses the redemption of the entire man, not just his soul and preparing it for the afterlife, the failure of the natural man to discern God's will for one's life in the most important matter - salvation - means failure to be able to do so with respect to the smallest material matters of life.
See also I Corinthians 6 and judgment by heathen as to disputes between believers. One can use the entire epistle of I Corinthians to explain how man fails in his judgment of matters of this life and of eternity. See Gary North, "Judgment and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on I Corinthians" (Point Five Press: Dallas, GA), 2012; and the writings of Cornelius Van Til on the lack of neutrality in all human thought. While the law of God requires equal treatment of all people before the law, that does not mean that anyone can act as a judge. Only New Men can adequately judge in the affairs of men. See I Corinthians 6:1-11, wherein Paul explains the shame of submitting to a judge who is an unbeliever instead of allowing believers to act as judges of disputes.
So what did Christ bring in order to improve the human judicial system. He brought new men with new thought and new loyalty, a loyalty to the scripture and a desire to think God's thoughts after Him. These new men have replaced their humanistic thought on all subjects with theistic thought: "Would the God of the bible be pleased with this judgment?" should be the new man's first thought. What does God's law say to this matter? The new man is a man under authority; he does not claim original inspiration or infallibility in his own mind. However, the unbeliever does claim such for his thoughts; such arrogance is only logical, for he has no authority to submit to but himself. But it gets worse, for the unbeliever hates the God of the bible and will do all in his power and thought to eject Him from his presence, an impossible goal that man attempts continually. Therefore, giving such a person the authority to act as a judge in other people's lives is like giving a flame thrower to an arsonist. He can't resist destroying the remnants of biblical thought from all of life and civil government. He is completely unfit to serve as a judge.
The fact that America presently takes a "neutral" view on all candidates for judgeships indicates either a tremendous naivete toward the threat existing or a tremendous antagonism toward biblical truth. All intelligent and educated lawyers are considered good candidates for being judges. No one asks (and if they do they are castigated for it) what faith the person holds. Such candidates could believe they are god himself . . . or herself, and that religious faith would not disqualify that person from being a judge. Popular election of judges is the only way that Americans presently have of avoiding this problem. They can choose a person of faith freely. Any other method of appointment would expose to the greatest criticism the official who attempted such. But the people can err also. See the people's choice of Abimilech to rule in Judges 9. Yet God in His sovereignty righted that situation, just as Christ can do today.
Therefore, we are forced to accept "qualified" heathen as judges, who take an oath to the U.S. Constitution then go about doing away with Christian civilization and the U.S. Constitution in the cleverest ways of which they are capable. Higher education helps prepare them for this "mission" in life, this hunt for the white whale, this pursuit of "Rationalism" at the expense of the rule of the loving and living God, this perseverance of the wicked unto destruction - of themselves and of the republic they serve. And Christians wonder why and how this nation has declined from its previous pinnacle as a great nation and its refuge in the world for those who loved the faith of our fathers. We gave it away.
Therefore, who should have the authority to judge? Those who submit to authority - the authority of the true God as demonstrated in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Allowing a rebel against the true God to rule is asking for trouble. It is asking the lawless to legislate and administer and interpret the laws. It is asking for destruction.
See also I Corinthians 6 and judgment by heathen as to disputes between believers. One can use the entire epistle of I Corinthians to explain how man fails in his judgment of matters of this life and of eternity. See Gary North, "Judgment and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on I Corinthians" (Point Five Press: Dallas, GA), 2012; and the writings of Cornelius Van Til on the lack of neutrality in all human thought. While the law of God requires equal treatment of all people before the law, that does not mean that anyone can act as a judge. Only New Men can adequately judge in the affairs of men. See I Corinthians 6:1-11, wherein Paul explains the shame of submitting to a judge who is an unbeliever instead of allowing believers to act as judges of disputes.
So what did Christ bring in order to improve the human judicial system. He brought new men with new thought and new loyalty, a loyalty to the scripture and a desire to think God's thoughts after Him. These new men have replaced their humanistic thought on all subjects with theistic thought: "Would the God of the bible be pleased with this judgment?" should be the new man's first thought. What does God's law say to this matter? The new man is a man under authority; he does not claim original inspiration or infallibility in his own mind. However, the unbeliever does claim such for his thoughts; such arrogance is only logical, for he has no authority to submit to but himself. But it gets worse, for the unbeliever hates the God of the bible and will do all in his power and thought to eject Him from his presence, an impossible goal that man attempts continually. Therefore, giving such a person the authority to act as a judge in other people's lives is like giving a flame thrower to an arsonist. He can't resist destroying the remnants of biblical thought from all of life and civil government. He is completely unfit to serve as a judge.
The fact that America presently takes a "neutral" view on all candidates for judgeships indicates either a tremendous naivete toward the threat existing or a tremendous antagonism toward biblical truth. All intelligent and educated lawyers are considered good candidates for being judges. No one asks (and if they do they are castigated for it) what faith the person holds. Such candidates could believe they are god himself . . . or herself, and that religious faith would not disqualify that person from being a judge. Popular election of judges is the only way that Americans presently have of avoiding this problem. They can choose a person of faith freely. Any other method of appointment would expose to the greatest criticism the official who attempted such. But the people can err also. See the people's choice of Abimilech to rule in Judges 9. Yet God in His sovereignty righted that situation, just as Christ can do today.
Therefore, we are forced to accept "qualified" heathen as judges, who take an oath to the U.S. Constitution then go about doing away with Christian civilization and the U.S. Constitution in the cleverest ways of which they are capable. Higher education helps prepare them for this "mission" in life, this hunt for the white whale, this pursuit of "Rationalism" at the expense of the rule of the loving and living God, this perseverance of the wicked unto destruction - of themselves and of the republic they serve. And Christians wonder why and how this nation has declined from its previous pinnacle as a great nation and its refuge in the world for those who loved the faith of our fathers. We gave it away.
Therefore, who should have the authority to judge? Those who submit to authority - the authority of the true God as demonstrated in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Allowing a rebel against the true God to rule is asking for trouble. It is asking the lawless to legislate and administer and interpret the laws. It is asking for destruction.
Did Christ Change the Judicial System? 2
Someone attempted to bring Christ into a judgment to act as judge, but it really wasn't a court situation. It was a politically motivated public relations stunt. The Scribes and Pharisees brought to him a woman caught in the very act of adultery and tested Him seeking to get something against him. By the way, if they caught her in the "very act" of adultery, then we have to ask, "Where was the man?" The "trial" was already clearly biassed against the woman. Also, we don't even know how long it had been since she was caught. It could have been a long period of time, and her crime came to the notice of the authorities after gossip circulated. The authorities may have even known about her for a period of time and done nothing, bringing her to Jesus for the sole purpose of obtaining "dirt" on Jesus.
They demanded he answer a question: "Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him." John 8:5-6a. If he opposed Moses, then they could accuse Him of just that. If he said, "Stone her," then he'd be subject to scrutiny by the Roman authorities and appear like someone who had not brought good news. If nothing else, the leaders could perhaps divide the masses that seemed to be so favorable toward Him. This is because the Roman Empire had reserved the sentence of capital punishment for itself. When the leaders of the Sanhedrin brought Jesus to be tried by Pilate, he told them to try Him themselves, but they wanted the death penalty, so they took Him to Pilate. "Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: . . . ." John 18:31.
In answer, "But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not." John 8:6b. He ignored them. This was the appropriate response because He was not a judge. No one had elected or appointed him to the position, there had been no trial with evidence and witnesses, and He understood just what they were up to.
Jesus said to them: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." John 8:7b. He understood the position of the accusers pursuant to biblical law. For capital offenses, "The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you." Deuteronomy 17:7. In other words, if you're going to take responsibility to report a crime that leads to the death penalty, then you must take part in the execution. But what are the qualifications of the witnesses? Are they honest? There are examples of people framing someone for a capital offense. See the framing of Naboth by King Ahab's wife in I Kings 21. The law of Moses even explicitly addressed the crime of framing another person. See Deuteronomy 19:15-21. Christ did not critique the law of Moses, He criticized those attempting to misuse it.
Instead of condemning the accused whom the Pharisees and Scribes brought to Him for judgment, Christ ended up condemning the accusers. He condemned them for being hypocrites. They themselves were as guilty as the woman, yet they set out to accuse her without coming under judgment themselves. He critiqued the men who were making the accusation and acting as prosecutors. They were responsible as witnesses for whatever punishment they sought to impose on the adulterous woman. While their testimony as to the woman's guilt may have not been false, their self-appointed position as witnesses seeking "justice" was false. Christ exposed the falsity in their judgment, showing again how Christ's sophisticated judgment could expose whatever lie was hidden by the appearance of matters.
The only other instance where Christ had direct contact with a civil or judicial action was His own trial, wherein He was defendant. He did have something to say to Pilate about being a judge and ruler. See Post "Jesus' Not So Subtle But Gentle Rebuke of Pilate." My conclusion from that exchange is that if a man does not know the truth, that is, God's word as to right and wrong, he is not fit to be a ruler or a judge. Pilate's action also condemns those who advocate for a democratic determination of right and wrong. The crowd can be fickle about that, and innocent men can perish as a result.
Remember that in the Luke 12 passage (See post "Who Made You a Judge?") where a man wanted Him to perform the function of a judge, He told the man to examine himself as to his covetous heart. In both examples, Christ's concern went beyond the surface and dealt with the character of the people seeking to obtain judgment. This perspective fits with Christ's mission of New Creation. Christ wants new men, not new systems.
"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." II Corinthians 5:17-19.
The revolutionary ignores the man and seeks new systems. Christ did not come to abolish the law of God as found in the the Mosaic Code. He wanted it applied honestly and equitably. Christ was not a revolutionary; He was a transformer, an example, and the Creator of the New Man. If Christ considered the principles undergirding the Mosaic system of justice to be adequate (and what could be more adequate than equal treatment before the law for all people?), and if His main concern was with New Men, then there should be no change in the judicial system established through Moses. Why would there be any need for change, seeing that Christ gave Moses those principles?
Therefore, how does Christ change the judiciary?
They demanded he answer a question: "Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him." John 8:5-6a. If he opposed Moses, then they could accuse Him of just that. If he said, "Stone her," then he'd be subject to scrutiny by the Roman authorities and appear like someone who had not brought good news. If nothing else, the leaders could perhaps divide the masses that seemed to be so favorable toward Him. This is because the Roman Empire had reserved the sentence of capital punishment for itself. When the leaders of the Sanhedrin brought Jesus to be tried by Pilate, he told them to try Him themselves, but they wanted the death penalty, so they took Him to Pilate. "Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: . . . ." John 18:31.
In answer, "But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not." John 8:6b. He ignored them. This was the appropriate response because He was not a judge. No one had elected or appointed him to the position, there had been no trial with evidence and witnesses, and He understood just what they were up to.
Jesus said to them: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." John 8:7b. He understood the position of the accusers pursuant to biblical law. For capital offenses, "The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you." Deuteronomy 17:7. In other words, if you're going to take responsibility to report a crime that leads to the death penalty, then you must take part in the execution. But what are the qualifications of the witnesses? Are they honest? There are examples of people framing someone for a capital offense. See the framing of Naboth by King Ahab's wife in I Kings 21. The law of Moses even explicitly addressed the crime of framing another person. See Deuteronomy 19:15-21. Christ did not critique the law of Moses, He criticized those attempting to misuse it.
Instead of condemning the accused whom the Pharisees and Scribes brought to Him for judgment, Christ ended up condemning the accusers. He condemned them for being hypocrites. They themselves were as guilty as the woman, yet they set out to accuse her without coming under judgment themselves. He critiqued the men who were making the accusation and acting as prosecutors. They were responsible as witnesses for whatever punishment they sought to impose on the adulterous woman. While their testimony as to the woman's guilt may have not been false, their self-appointed position as witnesses seeking "justice" was false. Christ exposed the falsity in their judgment, showing again how Christ's sophisticated judgment could expose whatever lie was hidden by the appearance of matters.
The only other instance where Christ had direct contact with a civil or judicial action was His own trial, wherein He was defendant. He did have something to say to Pilate about being a judge and ruler. See Post "Jesus' Not So Subtle But Gentle Rebuke of Pilate." My conclusion from that exchange is that if a man does not know the truth, that is, God's word as to right and wrong, he is not fit to be a ruler or a judge. Pilate's action also condemns those who advocate for a democratic determination of right and wrong. The crowd can be fickle about that, and innocent men can perish as a result.
Remember that in the Luke 12 passage (See post "Who Made You a Judge?") where a man wanted Him to perform the function of a judge, He told the man to examine himself as to his covetous heart. In both examples, Christ's concern went beyond the surface and dealt with the character of the people seeking to obtain judgment. This perspective fits with Christ's mission of New Creation. Christ wants new men, not new systems.
"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." II Corinthians 5:17-19.
The revolutionary ignores the man and seeks new systems. Christ did not come to abolish the law of God as found in the the Mosaic Code. He wanted it applied honestly and equitably. Christ was not a revolutionary; He was a transformer, an example, and the Creator of the New Man. If Christ considered the principles undergirding the Mosaic system of justice to be adequate (and what could be more adequate than equal treatment before the law for all people?), and if His main concern was with New Men, then there should be no change in the judicial system established through Moses. Why would there be any need for change, seeing that Christ gave Moses those principles?
Therefore, how does Christ change the judiciary?
Did Christ Change the Judicial System? 1
"And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Luke 1:30-35.
We don't know all the details. The Lord gives us the information we need, not comprehensive information. When Christ came to earth to become a man, he was born of a virgin, the fitting entrance for the One who never knew sin. His followers left all immediately to take up the commission of following Christ. Wherever he went, Christ performed miracles of healing, even raising the dead. Crowds would flock to Him to hear Him, to experience His power, to just touch Him. It is obvious, particularly from the history related by the Apostle John, that the most damnable sin of the Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees was not their hypocrisy, their stealing from widows, or their kowtowing to the Romans; it was their rejection of Christ as their teacher, leader, and savior.
Christ spoke in the starkest terms of Himself as the most important object of life. He spoke unapologetically and seemingly without selfish or narcissistic motives. He allowed Himself to be the object of worship and asserted that He was equivalent to God Himself. He even spoke of Himself as the bread of life itself. "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:53-4.
Yet, one is hard pressed to find any example of Christ acting in a civil or judicial capacity. In fact, when demanded to act as a judge in a private estate matter between two brothers, he said, "Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?" Luke 12:14. When crowds sought to take him and make him king, he avoided by withdrawing.
Clearly, He knew His calling and mission as savior of the world and not that of political ruler. And He knew the separation that must exist between civil rule and ecclesiastical ministry. His own trial epitomizes a midnight, farcical denial of due process, yet he said little to critique it. See John 18:33-40. So, what effect would His coming to earth have on the judicial system?
Judges are needed in the world of man after the ejection from the Garden of Eden because of laws and the breaking thereof. But for the Fall in that Garden, would there be a need for law or judges? Even if there had been a need for judges had there been no Fall, the need would surely have been minimal in a sinless world. Christ was the second Adam, the new Man, the initiator of the New Creation, a world of men adopted into His family, freed from sin and given new hearts and spirits to love the law of God and righteousness. Yet, we do not see the full manifestation of that work accomplished by Christ. We still have sin. We still need judges. If for no other reason but to remind sinful man of the fact of a coming judgment before the Divine Judge of all, we need judges.
The question remains: Considering all His significance, all His commanding presence, all His wise words, all His divinity come to earth, what effect did Christ's coming have on the judicial system? Should it have any?
We don't know all the details. The Lord gives us the information we need, not comprehensive information. When Christ came to earth to become a man, he was born of a virgin, the fitting entrance for the One who never knew sin. His followers left all immediately to take up the commission of following Christ. Wherever he went, Christ performed miracles of healing, even raising the dead. Crowds would flock to Him to hear Him, to experience His power, to just touch Him. It is obvious, particularly from the history related by the Apostle John, that the most damnable sin of the Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees was not their hypocrisy, their stealing from widows, or their kowtowing to the Romans; it was their rejection of Christ as their teacher, leader, and savior.
Christ spoke in the starkest terms of Himself as the most important object of life. He spoke unapologetically and seemingly without selfish or narcissistic motives. He allowed Himself to be the object of worship and asserted that He was equivalent to God Himself. He even spoke of Himself as the bread of life itself. "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:53-4.
Yet, one is hard pressed to find any example of Christ acting in a civil or judicial capacity. In fact, when demanded to act as a judge in a private estate matter between two brothers, he said, "Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?" Luke 12:14. When crowds sought to take him and make him king, he avoided by withdrawing.
Clearly, He knew His calling and mission as savior of the world and not that of political ruler. And He knew the separation that must exist between civil rule and ecclesiastical ministry. His own trial epitomizes a midnight, farcical denial of due process, yet he said little to critique it. See John 18:33-40. So, what effect would His coming to earth have on the judicial system?
Judges are needed in the world of man after the ejection from the Garden of Eden because of laws and the breaking thereof. But for the Fall in that Garden, would there be a need for law or judges? Even if there had been a need for judges had there been no Fall, the need would surely have been minimal in a sinless world. Christ was the second Adam, the new Man, the initiator of the New Creation, a world of men adopted into His family, freed from sin and given new hearts and spirits to love the law of God and righteousness. Yet, we do not see the full manifestation of that work accomplished by Christ. We still have sin. We still need judges. If for no other reason but to remind sinful man of the fact of a coming judgment before the Divine Judge of all, we need judges.
The question remains: Considering all His significance, all His commanding presence, all His wise words, all His divinity come to earth, what effect did Christ's coming have on the judicial system? Should it have any?
Saturday, May 28, 2016
Oaths 9 - Does God Forget?
As mentioned in a previous post on Oaths (Oaths 2), the first colonists arriving on the shores of the American continent were Christians, some more explicit in their commitment to a biblical system of civil government than others. The forms of government ranged from that of the Puritans, who explicitly sought to set up a biblical commonwealth, to that of the Pilgrims, who also sought to set up a civil government on Christian principles, to the Virginia settlement, which simply sought to continue the political Christianity of Great Britain. The most compromised of versions would put modern, 21st century America to shame with respect to commitment to the true God of the bible.
So, when those Christian colonists arrived on these shores with radical, as well as somewhat watered down, commitments to the God of the bible, was He watching? Did he see their faith in Him? Did He bless them because they sought the God of the bible? Did He hold future generations to the original covenantal commitments? Does He still do so? Or does He forget about those original vows to serve Him and not the creation? Can man write a new document and say, "Almighty God, we're done with your ancient, old-fashioned precepts and have come up with something more modern, more suited to our tastes these days. We've unilaterally revoked any requirement you have over us as Creator or which you might seek to impose based on covenants that are now centuries old. We divorce you, divorce you, divorce you!" What does God think of that?
First, it is safe to assert that the U.S. Constitution, as originally drafted, did not require that that generation or that later generations forsake, despise, and disobey the God of the bible. However, it is also safe to say that there are elements of American society which interpret it that way. Their position is that no aspect of the bible can order or even influence public policy, on the state or federal level. Their publicly stated goal is to expunge every aspect of the bible from civil government. They are the Jeroboams of our time.
Second, it is also safe to assert that the U.S. Constitution does not contain the explicit covenantal commitments and aspirations of the original colonists who sought to implement societies modeled upon the biblical covenant. See earlier posts (Oaths 3, Oaths 4) on the oaths required for those serving in civil government in the colonies and under early State Constitutions.
Critical questions: Why wouldn't God hold the descendants of the original colonists to those original commitments? Does the U.S. Constitution represent a failure of faithfulness to those commitments, or is it merely a modification, allowing for liberty of the States and Federal entities to operate within those original covenantal commitments? If the latter, can we still remain faithful to those original covenants, as modified by the U.S. Constitution and the amendments to that document? Or has the predation of our modern Jeroboams accomplished too much damage to even retain the minimum faithfulness needed to fulfill the original covenants? If the U.S. Constitution is an utter failure to continue the original covenants, what is the path forward for the nation? For the Church? For a thorough historical criticism of the U.S. Constitution as utter failure, see Gary North's "Political Polytheism."
So, when those Christian colonists arrived on these shores with radical, as well as somewhat watered down, commitments to the God of the bible, was He watching? Did he see their faith in Him? Did He bless them because they sought the God of the bible? Did He hold future generations to the original covenantal commitments? Does He still do so? Or does He forget about those original vows to serve Him and not the creation? Can man write a new document and say, "Almighty God, we're done with your ancient, old-fashioned precepts and have come up with something more modern, more suited to our tastes these days. We've unilaterally revoked any requirement you have over us as Creator or which you might seek to impose based on covenants that are now centuries old. We divorce you, divorce you, divorce you!" What does God think of that?
First, it is safe to assert that the U.S. Constitution, as originally drafted, did not require that that generation or that later generations forsake, despise, and disobey the God of the bible. However, it is also safe to say that there are elements of American society which interpret it that way. Their position is that no aspect of the bible can order or even influence public policy, on the state or federal level. Their publicly stated goal is to expunge every aspect of the bible from civil government. They are the Jeroboams of our time.
Second, it is also safe to assert that the U.S. Constitution does not contain the explicit covenantal commitments and aspirations of the original colonists who sought to implement societies modeled upon the biblical covenant. See earlier posts (Oaths 3, Oaths 4) on the oaths required for those serving in civil government in the colonies and under early State Constitutions.
Critical questions: Why wouldn't God hold the descendants of the original colonists to those original commitments? Does the U.S. Constitution represent a failure of faithfulness to those commitments, or is it merely a modification, allowing for liberty of the States and Federal entities to operate within those original covenantal commitments? If the latter, can we still remain faithful to those original covenants, as modified by the U.S. Constitution and the amendments to that document? Or has the predation of our modern Jeroboams accomplished too much damage to even retain the minimum faithfulness needed to fulfill the original covenants? If the U.S. Constitution is an utter failure to continue the original covenants, what is the path forward for the nation? For the Church? For a thorough historical criticism of the U.S. Constitution as utter failure, see Gary North's "Political Polytheism."
Oaths 8
So, how can we process this history of religious test oaths in America? We must use the bible. Conservatives accuse liberals of regularly departing from, even forgetting, the principles of the U.S. Constitution. And rightly so. However, what if the U.S. Constitution were not the founding document of America? You ask, "What do you mean? Of course, it's the founding document!" Remember, we decided we must look at this issue biblically.
After Solomon's reign, his son was unwise and started his reign as king with oppression. Upon being petitioned by the people for relief from the oppression of the high taxes they had been living under, King Rehoboam promised to impose even higher taxes. This threat from the new King resulted in a revolt by the northern tribes and the creation of a new political and religious jurisdiction, separate from the jurisdiction of the descendants of King David, which encompassed the land of Judah and Benjamin in the South.
The tax issue was merely a symptom of a deeper problem.
"And it came to pass at that time when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, that the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him in the way; and he had clad himself with a new garment; and they two were alone in the field; And Ahijah caught the new garment that was on him, and rent it in twelve pieces: And he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee: (But he shall have one tribe for my servant David's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel:) . . . " I Kings 11:29-32.
Why? ". . . Because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father. Howbeit I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand: but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servant's sake, whom I chose, because he kept my commandments and my statutes: But I will take the kingdom out of his son's hand, and will give it unto thee, even ten tribes." I Kings 11:33-35.
Therefore, forsaking the true God leads to division and higher taxes in society. See post, "The Connections Between Forsaking God & Higher Taxes," in the Blog, "Toward a Biblical Politics." But with respect to faithfulness to the covenant God, Jeroboam ended up being much worse than Solomon.
"And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David: If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the LORD at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall kill me, and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah. Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan. And this thing became a sin: for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan." I Kings 12:26-30.
Thus, for political reasons, Jeroboam set up a totally different worship for the Israelites in the northern kingdom. This worship was like that form adopted by the Israelites after the exodus from Egypt and while Moses was receiving the Ten Commandments centuries earlier. The judgment of God was grievous at that time. See Exodus chapters 32-33. "And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made." Exodus 32:35.
It didn't matter that King Jeroboam set up a new, revised politico-religious foundation for the society. God still held the northern kingdom to the original covenant, sending that kingdom prophets regularly to rebuke the kings and people for their failure to live up to the original covenant which Moses had mediated between God and the Israelites. The northern kingdom is where the prophets Elijah and Elishah worked. Eventually, the failing of the northern kingdom to adhere to the original covenant, enacted on Mt. Sinai and mediated by Moses, was utter defeat and annihilation at the hands of the Assyrians, who scattered the survivors across the Assyrian empire. After the disaster of 722 B.C., the northern kingdom was no more.
See Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26 for the punishment/sanctions which apply to a people who forsake the true God. It's not pretty. And God holds the generations that follow the original covenant-making generation to the original covenant. Thus, we see the operation of the fourth and fifth elements of the covenant - sanctions for disobedience and discontinuity, instead of preservation and continuity, for those future generations who forsake that covenant.
How does this scenario apply to the United States of America?
After Solomon's reign, his son was unwise and started his reign as king with oppression. Upon being petitioned by the people for relief from the oppression of the high taxes they had been living under, King Rehoboam promised to impose even higher taxes. This threat from the new King resulted in a revolt by the northern tribes and the creation of a new political and religious jurisdiction, separate from the jurisdiction of the descendants of King David, which encompassed the land of Judah and Benjamin in the South.
The tax issue was merely a symptom of a deeper problem.
"And it came to pass at that time when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, that the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him in the way; and he had clad himself with a new garment; and they two were alone in the field; And Ahijah caught the new garment that was on him, and rent it in twelve pieces: And he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee: (But he shall have one tribe for my servant David's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel:) . . . " I Kings 11:29-32.
Why? ". . . Because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father. Howbeit I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand: but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servant's sake, whom I chose, because he kept my commandments and my statutes: But I will take the kingdom out of his son's hand, and will give it unto thee, even ten tribes." I Kings 11:33-35.
Therefore, forsaking the true God leads to division and higher taxes in society. See post, "The Connections Between Forsaking God & Higher Taxes," in the Blog, "Toward a Biblical Politics." But with respect to faithfulness to the covenant God, Jeroboam ended up being much worse than Solomon.
"And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David: If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the LORD at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall kill me, and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah. Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan. And this thing became a sin: for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan." I Kings 12:26-30.
Thus, for political reasons, Jeroboam set up a totally different worship for the Israelites in the northern kingdom. This worship was like that form adopted by the Israelites after the exodus from Egypt and while Moses was receiving the Ten Commandments centuries earlier. The judgment of God was grievous at that time. See Exodus chapters 32-33. "And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made." Exodus 32:35.
It didn't matter that King Jeroboam set up a new, revised politico-religious foundation for the society. God still held the northern kingdom to the original covenant, sending that kingdom prophets regularly to rebuke the kings and people for their failure to live up to the original covenant which Moses had mediated between God and the Israelites. The northern kingdom is where the prophets Elijah and Elishah worked. Eventually, the failing of the northern kingdom to adhere to the original covenant, enacted on Mt. Sinai and mediated by Moses, was utter defeat and annihilation at the hands of the Assyrians, who scattered the survivors across the Assyrian empire. After the disaster of 722 B.C., the northern kingdom was no more.
See Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26 for the punishment/sanctions which apply to a people who forsake the true God. It's not pretty. And God holds the generations that follow the original covenant-making generation to the original covenant. Thus, we see the operation of the fourth and fifth elements of the covenant - sanctions for disobedience and discontinuity, instead of preservation and continuity, for those future generations who forsake that covenant.
How does this scenario apply to the United States of America?
Oaths 7
The decision to switch from a Trinitarian oath to an oath to the Constitution must have been based on a fundamental change in beliefs. The colonies had recognized that a Christian oath is essential to a Christian republic. Unless the authors of the Constitution didn't really understand the importance of the oaths, why would they have inserted them into their founding documents? If they were committed to a Christian form of government before the debates at the Constitutional Convention, then something must have changed at some point. How did it happen? What fundamental change had occurred in their thinking, their faith, their philosophy?
Ellsworth's opinion (see Oaths 3) seems to represent the naive view that one can reconcile radical rationalism and faith in the authoritative word of God. In other words, we can keep our Christian morals and culture, even if it means use of the civil power to enforce such, but we need not require that those using the civil power be actual confessors of the Christian faith and a biblical system of law and justice. Such a viewpoint is absurd on its face.
One has to consider history. The founders of our country had a heritage of tremendous political and religious upheaval during the previous two and a half centuries. On October 31, 1517, the Monk Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses on the Wittenberg Church door in Germany. Considering the work of John Hus and John Wycliffe, this act was not the first salvo of the Reformation, but it is a critical date used to measure what would soon after become a mass movement across Europe. For a century, different governing powers would square off on the side of the established Church, the Roman Catholic Church, or side with the Reformers, like Luther and John Calvin.
The debates, scriptural arguments, persecutions, and military conflicts resulted in a realignment of power. One of the first powers to be questioned was that of the Roman Catholic Pope. If, as the Reformers asserted, the Pope had accumulated unscriptural and illegal power, then what about civil rulers? It was only a matter of time that civil government would come to its "judgment" also, for if there was a limit to the Pope's power and authority, why wouldn't there be limits to the power of civil rulers? If the power of a Church leader was in question, why would civil rulers be immune from questioning? The doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, ostensibly based upon the bible, had propped up many a civil ruler for centuries. Now that anyone could read the bible, many began questioning that doctrine, one of them being Samuel Rutherford, who wrote "Lex Rex" to detail the biblical argument against that doctrine.
Different parts of Europe became Protestant, while others remained Roman Catholic. Nations, regions of nations, and even cities divided against each other on religious and political grounds. The Roman Catholic areas tended to remain in favor of monarchy, while the Protestant areas favored a change toward more democratic civil government. Great Britain, from whence most founders drew their heritage, as well as their understanding of political theory. Before America's foray into the political maelstrom of the time, England was the forerunner of economic and political liberty in the West. From the time of the Magna Carta in 1215, England was proud of its belief in rights and liberty in the face of tyrannical overreach.
Therefore, it was no surprise that in England occurred the political victory of those who argued in favor of lawful limits to a king's authority. That political battle resulted in the execution of a king by Parliament and the deposing of another in the 1600's. But that victory of Parliament came with a terrible price - civil warfare, illegitimate prosecutions for heresy against the Roman Catholic Church's doctrines, and all the upheaval that comes with such. By the end of the Seventeenth century, Parliament had cut the power of the king down to a manageable size, but only to gradually accumulate too much power to itself.
Apparently, the Parliament thought that the votes of the people were sufficient to grant it absolute sovereignty over Englishmen, whether living in England proper or in the American colonies. The American colonies developed a different view. The fact that an ocean separated the colonies from the mother country immunized the colonies for a time from the upheavals in England. But the prosperity of the colonies gained the attention of Parliament in the Eighteenth century. And being ignored by the mother country was no longer sufficient to protect the colonies from the envious eye of the Parliament, who could raise taxes on the Americans' prosperity and experience no negative consequences at the ballot box. The temptation for the politician to profit off that imbalance was too great to resist.
But America had yet to develop an adequate answer to the Parliament's aggrandizing actions. See Bernard Bailyn's book, "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution," (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992). American lawyers, speakers, representatives hammered out an answer and a defense for their resistance to Parliament's efforts to take from the colonists the lawful rights of Englishmen, a status in which the colonists still lived and breathed. They were Englishmen, entitled to the same fundamental, God-given rights as Englishmen living on the Isle of Great Britain. The Americans searched high and low through the political writings of thinkers of the past, and the wrote their own polemical works. By far, the most referenced work was the bible, for the colonists were governed in their thinking by a Christian perspective. And while there were many Roman Catholics in the colonies, the vast majority were Protestant in their thinking if not in their actual church membership.
One of the key impediments to the colonists in their argument for liberty was a "sovereignty" concept governing the thinking of Parliament. The English king's power had been preserved because of this concept, which was that there could be only one source of sovereignty in a nation. That source prior to the English Revolution of the Seventeenth Century was the king, as God's delegated representative. Once the king lost absolute power, the Parliament took up the mantle - "Parliamentary Sovereignty." It was this concept, far more powerful in the 1700's than the Divine Right of the British monarch, against which the colonists had to argue and ultimately fight.
During the ratification debates, when the thirteen States were debating ratifying the Constitution, there was concern among certain sects in the country that a religious test oath could be used to exclude those of a certain belief. Such oaths had been used that way in the past. One could argue that the exclusion of certain Christian sects from participation in the civil sphere had created a fear of a religious test oath. However, that was the colonists' experience in Europe. The religious test oaths of the American Colonies were not that type of oath. See Blog Post, "Oaths 1." The American oaths might exclude non-Christians and certain heretical Christian sects but not the majority of Christians.
Ellsworth's opinion (see Oaths 3) seems to represent the naive view that one can reconcile radical rationalism and faith in the authoritative word of God. In other words, we can keep our Christian morals and culture, even if it means use of the civil power to enforce such, but we need not require that those using the civil power be actual confessors of the Christian faith and a biblical system of law and justice. Such a viewpoint is absurd on its face.
One has to consider history. The founders of our country had a heritage of tremendous political and religious upheaval during the previous two and a half centuries. On October 31, 1517, the Monk Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses on the Wittenberg Church door in Germany. Considering the work of John Hus and John Wycliffe, this act was not the first salvo of the Reformation, but it is a critical date used to measure what would soon after become a mass movement across Europe. For a century, different governing powers would square off on the side of the established Church, the Roman Catholic Church, or side with the Reformers, like Luther and John Calvin.
The debates, scriptural arguments, persecutions, and military conflicts resulted in a realignment of power. One of the first powers to be questioned was that of the Roman Catholic Pope. If, as the Reformers asserted, the Pope had accumulated unscriptural and illegal power, then what about civil rulers? It was only a matter of time that civil government would come to its "judgment" also, for if there was a limit to the Pope's power and authority, why wouldn't there be limits to the power of civil rulers? If the power of a Church leader was in question, why would civil rulers be immune from questioning? The doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, ostensibly based upon the bible, had propped up many a civil ruler for centuries. Now that anyone could read the bible, many began questioning that doctrine, one of them being Samuel Rutherford, who wrote "Lex Rex" to detail the biblical argument against that doctrine.
Different parts of Europe became Protestant, while others remained Roman Catholic. Nations, regions of nations, and even cities divided against each other on religious and political grounds. The Roman Catholic areas tended to remain in favor of monarchy, while the Protestant areas favored a change toward more democratic civil government. Great Britain, from whence most founders drew their heritage, as well as their understanding of political theory. Before America's foray into the political maelstrom of the time, England was the forerunner of economic and political liberty in the West. From the time of the Magna Carta in 1215, England was proud of its belief in rights and liberty in the face of tyrannical overreach.
Therefore, it was no surprise that in England occurred the political victory of those who argued in favor of lawful limits to a king's authority. That political battle resulted in the execution of a king by Parliament and the deposing of another in the 1600's. But that victory of Parliament came with a terrible price - civil warfare, illegitimate prosecutions for heresy against the Roman Catholic Church's doctrines, and all the upheaval that comes with such. By the end of the Seventeenth century, Parliament had cut the power of the king down to a manageable size, but only to gradually accumulate too much power to itself.
Apparently, the Parliament thought that the votes of the people were sufficient to grant it absolute sovereignty over Englishmen, whether living in England proper or in the American colonies. The American colonies developed a different view. The fact that an ocean separated the colonies from the mother country immunized the colonies for a time from the upheavals in England. But the prosperity of the colonies gained the attention of Parliament in the Eighteenth century. And being ignored by the mother country was no longer sufficient to protect the colonies from the envious eye of the Parliament, who could raise taxes on the Americans' prosperity and experience no negative consequences at the ballot box. The temptation for the politician to profit off that imbalance was too great to resist.
But America had yet to develop an adequate answer to the Parliament's aggrandizing actions. See Bernard Bailyn's book, "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution," (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992). American lawyers, speakers, representatives hammered out an answer and a defense for their resistance to Parliament's efforts to take from the colonists the lawful rights of Englishmen, a status in which the colonists still lived and breathed. They were Englishmen, entitled to the same fundamental, God-given rights as Englishmen living on the Isle of Great Britain. The Americans searched high and low through the political writings of thinkers of the past, and the wrote their own polemical works. By far, the most referenced work was the bible, for the colonists were governed in their thinking by a Christian perspective. And while there were many Roman Catholics in the colonies, the vast majority were Protestant in their thinking if not in their actual church membership.
One of the key impediments to the colonists in their argument for liberty was a "sovereignty" concept governing the thinking of Parliament. The English king's power had been preserved because of this concept, which was that there could be only one source of sovereignty in a nation. That source prior to the English Revolution of the Seventeenth Century was the king, as God's delegated representative. Once the king lost absolute power, the Parliament took up the mantle - "Parliamentary Sovereignty." It was this concept, far more powerful in the 1700's than the Divine Right of the British monarch, against which the colonists had to argue and ultimately fight.
During the ratification debates, when the thirteen States were debating ratifying the Constitution, there was concern among certain sects in the country that a religious test oath could be used to exclude those of a certain belief. Such oaths had been used that way in the past. One could argue that the exclusion of certain Christian sects from participation in the civil sphere had created a fear of a religious test oath. However, that was the colonists' experience in Europe. The religious test oaths of the American Colonies were not that type of oath. See Blog Post, "Oaths 1." The American oaths might exclude non-Christians and certain heretical Christian sects but not the majority of Christians.
Oaths 6
So, you might ask, "Didn't the Constitutional Convention have a point in stating that a religious test oath wouldn't work?" Here's a portion of the debate on the matter.
One of the arguments at the Convention was that religious test oaths are ineffectual.
"In one of his famous letters of 'a Landholder,' published in December, 1787, Oliver Ellsworth, a member of the Federal Constitutional Convention and later Chief Justice of this Court, included among his strong arguments against religious test oaths the following statement:
" 'In short, test laws are utterly ineffectual; they are no security at all, because men of loose principles will, by an external compliance, evade them. If they exclude any persons, it will be honest men, men of principle, who will rather suffer an injury than act contrary to the dictates of their consciences. . . .' "
"Quoted in Ford, Essays on the Constitution of the United States 170. See also 4 Elliott, Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 193."
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 494 n. 9 (1961).
Yet the Convention did apply a test oath - an oath to the Federal Constitution. Wouldn't the same logic apply? That "men of loose principles will . . . evade" the oath to the Constitution? And the test oath would exclude "men of principle" who are adamant in their commitment to pursuing a non-biblical republic, a commitment we are seeing applied today. NOtice that we are not seeing "men [and women] of principle" apply the Constitution in compliance with their oath to that document; we are seeing them write opinions and issue judgments in whatever way they can to undermine not only the Constitution but the biblical morals that formerly undergirded the society. The "principle" by which they live is "loose principle" with respect to both the Constitution and biblical morals. You lose both the Constitution and the Christian society. Why? Because they are wholly committed to a Secular Humanist society.
Ellsworth's Letter of "a Landholder" was much longer and covered the subject of test oaths much more than the quote above indicates. The full letter is below:
"Some very worthy persons, who have not had great advantages for information, have objected against that clause in the constitution which provides, that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. They have been afraid that this clause is unfavorable to religion. But my countrymen, the sole purpose and effect of it is to exclude persecution, and to secure to you the important right of religious liberty. We are almost the only people in the world, who have a full enjoyment of this important right of human nature. In our country every man has a right to worship God in that way which is most agreeable to his conscience. If he be a good and peaceable person he is liable to no penalties or incapacities on account of his religious sentiments; or in other words, he is no subject to persecution.
"But in other parts of the world, it has been, and still is, far different. Systems of religious error have been adopted, in times of ignorance. It has been the interest of tyrannical kings, popes, and prelates, to maintain these errors. When the clouds of ignorance began to vanish, and the people grew more enlightened, there was no other way to keep them in error, but to prohibit their altering their religious opinions by severe persecuting laws. In this way persecution became general throughout Europe. It was the universal opinion that one religion must be established by law; and that all who differed in their religious opinions, must suffer the vengeance of persecution. In pursuance of this opinion, when popery was abolished in England, and the Church of England was established in its stead, severe penalities were inflicted upon all who dissented from the established church. In the time of the civil wars, in the reign of Charles I., the presbyterians got the upper hand, and inflicted legal penalties upon all who differed from them in their sentiments respecting religious doctrines and discipline. When Charles II, was restored, the Church of England was likewise restored, and the presbyterians and other dissenters were laid under legal penalties and incapacities. It was in this reign, that a religious test was established as a qualification for office; that is, a law was made requiring all officers civil and military (among other things) to receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, according to the usage of the Church of England, written [within?] six months after their admission to office under the penalty of 500£ and disability to hold the office. And by another statute of the same reign, no person was capable of being elected to any office relating to the government of any city or corporation, unless, within a twelvemonth before, he had received the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England. The pretence for making these severe laws, by which all but churchmen were made incapable of any office civil or military, was to exclude the papists; but the real design was to exclude the protestant dissenters. From this account of test-laws, there arises an unfavorable presumption against them. But if we consider the nature of them and the effects which they are calculated to produce, we shall find that they are useless, tyrannical, and peculiarly unfit for the people of this country.
"A religious test is an act to be done, or profession to be made, relating to religion (such as partaking of the sacrament according to certain rites and forms, or declaring one's belief of certain doctrines,) for the purpose of determining whether his religious opinions are such, that he is admissable to a publick office. A test in favour of any one denomination of Christians would be to the last degree absurd in the United States. If it were in favour of either congregationalists, presbyterians, episcopalions, baptists, or quakers, it would incapacitate more than three-fourths of the American citizens for any publick office; and thus degrade them from the rank of freemen. There need no argument to prove that the majority of our citizens would never submit to this indignity.
"If any test-act were to be made, perhaps the least exceptionable would be one, requiring all persons appointed to office to declare at the time of their admission, their belief in the being of a God, and in the divine authority of the scriptures. In favour of such a test, it may be said, that one who believes these great truths, will not be so likely to violate his obligations to his country, as one who disbelieves them; we may have greater confidence in his integrity. But I answer: His making a declaration of such a belief is no security at all. For suppose him to be an unprincipled man, who believes neither the word nor the being of God; and to be governed merely by selfish motives; how easy is it for him to dissemble! how easy is it for him to make a public declaration of his belief in the creed which the law prescribes; and excuse himself by calling it a mere formality. This is the case with the test-laws and creeds in England. The most abandoned characters partake of the sacrament, in order to qualify themselves for public employments. The clergy are obliged by law to administer the ordinance unto them, and thus prostitute the most sacred office of religion, for it is a civil right in the party to receive the sacrament. In that country, subscribing to the thirty-nine articles is a test for administration into holy orders. And it is a fact, that many of the clergy do this, when at the same time they totally disbelieve several of the doctrines contained in them. In short, test-laws are utterly ineffectual: they are no security at all; because men of loose principles will, by an external compliance, evade them. If they exclude any persons, it will be honest men, men of principle, who will rather suffer an injury, than act contrary to the dictates of their consciences. If we mean to have those appointed to public offices, who are sincere friends to religion, we, the people who appoint them, must take care to choose such characters; and not rely upon such cob-web barriers as test-laws are.
"But to come to the true principle by which this question ought to be determined: The business of a civil government is to protect the citizen in his rights, to defend the community from hostile powers, and to promote the general welfare. Civil government has no business to meddle with the private opinions of the people. If I demean myself as a good citizen, I am accountable, not to man, but to God, for the religious opinions which I embrace, and the manner in which I worship the supreme being. If such had been the universal sentiments of mankind, and they had acted accordingly, persecution, the bane of truth and nurse of error, with her bloody axe and flaming hand, would never have turned so great a part of the world into a field of blood.
"But while I assert the rights of religious liberty, I would not deny that the civil power has a right, in some cases, to interfere in matters of religion. It has a right to prohibit and punish gross immoralities and impieties; because the open practice of these is of evil example and detriment. For this reason, I heartily approve of our laws against drunkenness, profane swearing, blasphemy, and professed atheism. But in this state, we have never thought it expedient to adopt a test-law; and yet I sincerely believe we have as great a proportion of religion and morality, as they have in England, where every person who holds a public office, must either be a saint by law, or a hypocrite by practice. A test-law is the parent of hypocrisy, and the offspring of error and the spirit of persecution. Legislatures have no right to set up an inquisition, and examine into the private opinions of men. Test-laws are useless and ineffectual, unjust and tyrannical; therefore the Convention have done wisely in excluding this engine of persecution, and providing that no religious test shall ever be required."
The Founders' Constitution, Aricle VI, Clause 3, Oliver Ellsworth, Landholder, NO. 7, 17 Dec. 1787, Essays 168-71, accessed at http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a6_3s14.html, May 24, 2016.
Notice that Ellsworth's argument against test oaths in principle ends with the warring of sects against each other, resulting in the persecution of one Christian sect by another Christian sect. At his most tolerant and pluralistic, Ellsworth still held to the law of God by stating that "the civil power" has a right "to prohibit and punish gross immoralities and impieties; because the open practice of these is of evil example and detriment." And his argument is purely pragmatic when he contends that oaths can be feigned by men of loose principle. In other words, Ellsworth wanted to keep a Christian culture but without requiring that the rulers of that culture confess outwardly to a Christian system of belief.
One of the arguments at the Convention was that religious test oaths are ineffectual.
"In one of his famous letters of 'a Landholder,' published in December, 1787, Oliver Ellsworth, a member of the Federal Constitutional Convention and later Chief Justice of this Court, included among his strong arguments against religious test oaths the following statement:
" 'In short, test laws are utterly ineffectual; they are no security at all, because men of loose principles will, by an external compliance, evade them. If they exclude any persons, it will be honest men, men of principle, who will rather suffer an injury than act contrary to the dictates of their consciences. . . .' "
"Quoted in Ford, Essays on the Constitution of the United States 170. See also 4 Elliott, Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 193."
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 494 n. 9 (1961).
Yet the Convention did apply a test oath - an oath to the Federal Constitution. Wouldn't the same logic apply? That "men of loose principles will . . . evade" the oath to the Constitution? And the test oath would exclude "men of principle" who are adamant in their commitment to pursuing a non-biblical republic, a commitment we are seeing applied today. NOtice that we are not seeing "men [and women] of principle" apply the Constitution in compliance with their oath to that document; we are seeing them write opinions and issue judgments in whatever way they can to undermine not only the Constitution but the biblical morals that formerly undergirded the society. The "principle" by which they live is "loose principle" with respect to both the Constitution and biblical morals. You lose both the Constitution and the Christian society. Why? Because they are wholly committed to a Secular Humanist society.
Ellsworth's Letter of "a Landholder" was much longer and covered the subject of test oaths much more than the quote above indicates. The full letter is below:
"Some very worthy persons, who have not had great advantages for information, have objected against that clause in the constitution which provides, that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. They have been afraid that this clause is unfavorable to religion. But my countrymen, the sole purpose and effect of it is to exclude persecution, and to secure to you the important right of religious liberty. We are almost the only people in the world, who have a full enjoyment of this important right of human nature. In our country every man has a right to worship God in that way which is most agreeable to his conscience. If he be a good and peaceable person he is liable to no penalties or incapacities on account of his religious sentiments; or in other words, he is no subject to persecution.
"But in other parts of the world, it has been, and still is, far different. Systems of religious error have been adopted, in times of ignorance. It has been the interest of tyrannical kings, popes, and prelates, to maintain these errors. When the clouds of ignorance began to vanish, and the people grew more enlightened, there was no other way to keep them in error, but to prohibit their altering their religious opinions by severe persecuting laws. In this way persecution became general throughout Europe. It was the universal opinion that one religion must be established by law; and that all who differed in their religious opinions, must suffer the vengeance of persecution. In pursuance of this opinion, when popery was abolished in England, and the Church of England was established in its stead, severe penalities were inflicted upon all who dissented from the established church. In the time of the civil wars, in the reign of Charles I., the presbyterians got the upper hand, and inflicted legal penalties upon all who differed from them in their sentiments respecting religious doctrines and discipline. When Charles II, was restored, the Church of England was likewise restored, and the presbyterians and other dissenters were laid under legal penalties and incapacities. It was in this reign, that a religious test was established as a qualification for office; that is, a law was made requiring all officers civil and military (among other things) to receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, according to the usage of the Church of England, written [within?] six months after their admission to office under the penalty of 500£ and disability to hold the office. And by another statute of the same reign, no person was capable of being elected to any office relating to the government of any city or corporation, unless, within a twelvemonth before, he had received the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England. The pretence for making these severe laws, by which all but churchmen were made incapable of any office civil or military, was to exclude the papists; but the real design was to exclude the protestant dissenters. From this account of test-laws, there arises an unfavorable presumption against them. But if we consider the nature of them and the effects which they are calculated to produce, we shall find that they are useless, tyrannical, and peculiarly unfit for the people of this country.
"A religious test is an act to be done, or profession to be made, relating to religion (such as partaking of the sacrament according to certain rites and forms, or declaring one's belief of certain doctrines,) for the purpose of determining whether his religious opinions are such, that he is admissable to a publick office. A test in favour of any one denomination of Christians would be to the last degree absurd in the United States. If it were in favour of either congregationalists, presbyterians, episcopalions, baptists, or quakers, it would incapacitate more than three-fourths of the American citizens for any publick office; and thus degrade them from the rank of freemen. There need no argument to prove that the majority of our citizens would never submit to this indignity.
"If any test-act were to be made, perhaps the least exceptionable would be one, requiring all persons appointed to office to declare at the time of their admission, their belief in the being of a God, and in the divine authority of the scriptures. In favour of such a test, it may be said, that one who believes these great truths, will not be so likely to violate his obligations to his country, as one who disbelieves them; we may have greater confidence in his integrity. But I answer: His making a declaration of such a belief is no security at all. For suppose him to be an unprincipled man, who believes neither the word nor the being of God; and to be governed merely by selfish motives; how easy is it for him to dissemble! how easy is it for him to make a public declaration of his belief in the creed which the law prescribes; and excuse himself by calling it a mere formality. This is the case with the test-laws and creeds in England. The most abandoned characters partake of the sacrament, in order to qualify themselves for public employments. The clergy are obliged by law to administer the ordinance unto them, and thus prostitute the most sacred office of religion, for it is a civil right in the party to receive the sacrament. In that country, subscribing to the thirty-nine articles is a test for administration into holy orders. And it is a fact, that many of the clergy do this, when at the same time they totally disbelieve several of the doctrines contained in them. In short, test-laws are utterly ineffectual: they are no security at all; because men of loose principles will, by an external compliance, evade them. If they exclude any persons, it will be honest men, men of principle, who will rather suffer an injury, than act contrary to the dictates of their consciences. If we mean to have those appointed to public offices, who are sincere friends to religion, we, the people who appoint them, must take care to choose such characters; and not rely upon such cob-web barriers as test-laws are.
"But to come to the true principle by which this question ought to be determined: The business of a civil government is to protect the citizen in his rights, to defend the community from hostile powers, and to promote the general welfare. Civil government has no business to meddle with the private opinions of the people. If I demean myself as a good citizen, I am accountable, not to man, but to God, for the religious opinions which I embrace, and the manner in which I worship the supreme being. If such had been the universal sentiments of mankind, and they had acted accordingly, persecution, the bane of truth and nurse of error, with her bloody axe and flaming hand, would never have turned so great a part of the world into a field of blood.
"But while I assert the rights of religious liberty, I would not deny that the civil power has a right, in some cases, to interfere in matters of religion. It has a right to prohibit and punish gross immoralities and impieties; because the open practice of these is of evil example and detriment. For this reason, I heartily approve of our laws against drunkenness, profane swearing, blasphemy, and professed atheism. But in this state, we have never thought it expedient to adopt a test-law; and yet I sincerely believe we have as great a proportion of religion and morality, as they have in England, where every person who holds a public office, must either be a saint by law, or a hypocrite by practice. A test-law is the parent of hypocrisy, and the offspring of error and the spirit of persecution. Legislatures have no right to set up an inquisition, and examine into the private opinions of men. Test-laws are useless and ineffectual, unjust and tyrannical; therefore the Convention have done wisely in excluding this engine of persecution, and providing that no religious test shall ever be required."
The Founders' Constitution, Aricle VI, Clause 3, Oliver Ellsworth, Landholder, NO. 7, 17 Dec. 1787, Essays 168-71, accessed at http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a6_3s14.html, May 24, 2016.
Notice that Ellsworth's argument against test oaths in principle ends with the warring of sects against each other, resulting in the persecution of one Christian sect by another Christian sect. At his most tolerant and pluralistic, Ellsworth still held to the law of God by stating that "the civil power" has a right "to prohibit and punish gross immoralities and impieties; because the open practice of these is of evil example and detriment." And his argument is purely pragmatic when he contends that oaths can be feigned by men of loose principle. In other words, Ellsworth wanted to keep a Christian culture but without requiring that the rulers of that culture confess outwardly to a Christian system of belief.
Oaths 5
Evidence of the pervasive effect of allowing the federal government to forbid religious test oaths in the States of the Union as completely as is the case for federal government offices was the 1961 U.S. Supreme Court case, Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), is touted as the opinion that settled whether the Article VI religious test clause ban applies to the States after the Fourteenth Amendment. I've copied the Wikipedia article on the matter because it sums up the opinion and the lack of resolution of the issue by that opinion. The opinion actually never addressed Article VI because it applied the First Amendment to decide the case.
"In the early 1960s, the Governor of Maryland appointed Roy Torcaso (November 13, 1910 – June 9, 2007) as a notary public. At the time, the Constitution of Maryland required 'a declaration of belief in the existence of God' in order for a person to hold 'any office of profit or trust in this State.'
"Torcaso, an atheist, refused to make such a statement, and his appointment was consequently revoked. Torcaso, believing his constitutional rights to freedom of religious expression had been infringed, filed suit in a Maryland Circuit Court, only to be rebuffed. The Circuit Court rejected his claim, and the Maryland Court of Appeals held that the requirement in the Maryland Constitution for a declaration of belief in God as a qualification for office was self-executing and did not require any implementing legislation to be enacted by the state legislature.
"The Court of Appeals justified its decision thus:
"The petitioner is not compelled to believe or disbelieve, under threat of punishment or other compulsion. True, unless he makes the declaration of belief, he cannot hold public office in Maryland, but he is not compelled to hold office.
"Torcaso took the matter to the United States Supreme Court, where it was heard on April 24, 1961.
"The Court unanimously found that Maryland's requirement for a person holding public office to state a belief in God violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
"The Court had previously established in Everson v. Board of Education (1947):
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
"Writing for the Court, Justice Hugo Black recalled Everson v. Board of Education, and explicitly linked Torcaso v. Watkins to its conclusions:
"There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us — it sets up a religious test which was designed to and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public 'office of profit or trust' in Maryland.
"... We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.
"Rebuffing the judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals, Justice Black added: 'The fact, however, that a person is not compelled to hold public office cannot possibly be an excuse for barring him from office by state-imposed criteria forbidden by the Constitution.'
"The Court did not base its holding on the no religious test clause of Article VI. In Footnote 1 of the opinion Justice Black wrote:
"'Appellant also claimed that the State's test oath requirement violates the provision of Art. VI of the Federal Constitution that 'no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.' Because we are reversing the judgment on other grounds, we find it unnecessary to consider appellant's contention that this provision applies to state as well as federal offices.'"
The Wikipedia article concludes: "The question of whether the no religious test clause binds the states remains unresolved. Given the Court's First Amendment holding, that issue is largely academic."
"Torcaso v Watkins," Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins, accessed on April 2, 2016.
Ironically, considering the number of religious issues intersecting civil government that seem to originate or, at least, become issues in the State of Alabama, Hugo Black, the Justice from Alabama, was the author of the majority opinion.
Therefore, the U.S. Constitutional Convention rejected religious test oaths for federal offices only and appeared to have no intention, that I can discern, to forbid religious test oaths for offices in the civil governing of the States. Yet, 174 years later and 94 years after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court did apply the First Amendment to forbid such in the States in Torcaso. Thus, the founders' vision of a rationalistic basis for human reason and governance, unfettered by God's word, has descended from the child to the parents, so to speak. For the federal government was the creation of the States, and now its requirement of tolerance for all religious faiths has infected all the States of the Union.
"In the early 1960s, the Governor of Maryland appointed Roy Torcaso (November 13, 1910 – June 9, 2007) as a notary public. At the time, the Constitution of Maryland required 'a declaration of belief in the existence of God' in order for a person to hold 'any office of profit or trust in this State.'
"Torcaso, an atheist, refused to make such a statement, and his appointment was consequently revoked. Torcaso, believing his constitutional rights to freedom of religious expression had been infringed, filed suit in a Maryland Circuit Court, only to be rebuffed. The Circuit Court rejected his claim, and the Maryland Court of Appeals held that the requirement in the Maryland Constitution for a declaration of belief in God as a qualification for office was self-executing and did not require any implementing legislation to be enacted by the state legislature.
"The Court of Appeals justified its decision thus:
"The petitioner is not compelled to believe or disbelieve, under threat of punishment or other compulsion. True, unless he makes the declaration of belief, he cannot hold public office in Maryland, but he is not compelled to hold office.
"Torcaso took the matter to the United States Supreme Court, where it was heard on April 24, 1961.
"The Court unanimously found that Maryland's requirement for a person holding public office to state a belief in God violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
"The Court had previously established in Everson v. Board of Education (1947):
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
"Writing for the Court, Justice Hugo Black recalled Everson v. Board of Education, and explicitly linked Torcaso v. Watkins to its conclusions:
"There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us — it sets up a religious test which was designed to and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public 'office of profit or trust' in Maryland.
"... We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.
"Rebuffing the judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals, Justice Black added: 'The fact, however, that a person is not compelled to hold public office cannot possibly be an excuse for barring him from office by state-imposed criteria forbidden by the Constitution.'
"The Court did not base its holding on the no religious test clause of Article VI. In Footnote 1 of the opinion Justice Black wrote:
"'Appellant also claimed that the State's test oath requirement violates the provision of Art. VI of the Federal Constitution that 'no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.' Because we are reversing the judgment on other grounds, we find it unnecessary to consider appellant's contention that this provision applies to state as well as federal offices.'"
The Wikipedia article concludes: "The question of whether the no religious test clause binds the states remains unresolved. Given the Court's First Amendment holding, that issue is largely academic."
"Torcaso v Watkins," Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins, accessed on April 2, 2016.
Ironically, considering the number of religious issues intersecting civil government that seem to originate or, at least, become issues in the State of Alabama, Hugo Black, the Justice from Alabama, was the author of the majority opinion.
Therefore, the U.S. Constitutional Convention rejected religious test oaths for federal offices only and appeared to have no intention, that I can discern, to forbid religious test oaths for offices in the civil governing of the States. Yet, 174 years later and 94 years after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court did apply the First Amendment to forbid such in the States in Torcaso. Thus, the founders' vision of a rationalistic basis for human reason and governance, unfettered by God's word, has descended from the child to the parents, so to speak. For the federal government was the creation of the States, and now its requirement of tolerance for all religious faiths has infected all the States of the Union.
Judicial Tyranny 4 - Deceit & Treachery are the Foundation & the Fruit
Justice Antonin Scalia died recently. He was an originalist, a judge who thinks courts should use the meaning intended by those who wrote a law or a constitution. Within the legal community, his viewpoint is considered comical, quaint, or impractical. Among the citizens, his viewpoint is considered faithful to the law, which the citizens' representatives enacted on behalf of the citizens. So, to what should a judge aspire - faithful interpretation of the law and the facts or cleverness in finding a way around the original meaning in order to impose your personal opinion upon the law? With very few exceptions, law schools do not teach constitutional law; they teach how to change the U.S. Constitution by ingenious argument. It's the way to obtaining large attorney fees and to a professional reputation that makes you're the toast at cocktail parties.
Thus, with a few conservative exceptions, the citizens are being undermined by the legal community. You know, those professionals with "esquire," a title of nobility, behind their name. The citizens elect people to represent them, then the courts, which are comprised of those from the legal community, "interpret" the "law" to mean something contrary to what the people voted for. The judge's opinion is fed to him or her by the argument of the attorneys who use their ingenuity to create a philosophical lever the judge can use to alter the law. Then the judge changes the law to something completely unintended by the legislators, the executive branch and the voters. This is then called "the rule of law," and you are expected to obey the new "law." These "judges" deceive the people, then say, "You must obey our opinions, or you're violating lawful authority." This is the rule of law in action in today's America. Is this why Americans fought the Revolutionary War - to be liberated from a tyrannical king and parliament, only to be delivered into the hand of lying deceivers?
Justice Antonin Scalia was not right merely because he was a conservative judge. He was right because he was right. And he was honest. He actually cared about being honest when determining the facts and the law in a case. Liberals are not wrong because they have a different political perspective from me or Justice Scalia. They're wrong because they're wrong and completely dishonest. They really don't care about the law and the facts of a case. They want to force us to "progress."
Perhaps you're thinking, "You're just extremely arrogant about your position." But my assertion is not so hard to believe and accept. Think about someone who believes the founding fathers of our country are just "dead, white men," who were bigoted slave owners and some of whom were superstitious because they actually believed the bible is the word of God. In the mind of progressives, the U.S. Constitution, as originally conceived and written, holds the human race back from progress; it's not the premier governing document that helped the human race leap forward in progress.
In other words, from the moment these "liberal" judges swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution, they have no intention of following, upholding, or obeying the U.S. Constitution. They lie when they swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Why would we expect them to interpret the facts of a case accurately or apply the law honestly? Each case presents a potential opportunity to advance the "progressive" cause, which often involves total distortion of the Constitution.
These "liberal judges" should not be judges; they shouldn't even be legislators, even though that's closer to describing the type of attitude toward law which they hold. Or they should be community organizers. Then they could pass laws or urge the populace to adopt amendments to the Constitution. But then they would have to remain lawyers and not be judges, and it might be difficult to get paid an adequate lawyer salary for such endeavors. They would also have to convince voters to favor abortion, gay rights, and other issues that the voters do not favor. Apparently, that's just too hard and takes too long.
The more cunning and well-educated among "liberal judges" are able to write lengthy, persuasive opinions which pretend to follow the Constitution. The more difficult it is to fit a square, progressive peg into the round, constitutional hole, the more complicated the writing. And the more that judge or justice is lauded as a genius within the legal community. That's why Scalia's writings, which cut through the legerdemain of liberal judges and went to the heart of the issue, were so good. Not only was he correct on the law and the facts, but he couldn't resist scalding the dogs who would complicate and subvert the Constitution with high sounding, but deceptive rhetoric.
Liberals will tell you that liberal judges simply make room to apply reason when applying the law. In other words, conservatives are wooden, inflexible, unable to apply the law to the real world and real people. But this is a straw man argument. Originalism as a system of interpretation has plenty of room for application of the law in the real world and to real people. However, the liberal has again lied when making such an argument. They don't care about flexible yet faithful application of the constitution or a statute; they simply want an excuse to change the law. And they know that once they've set precedent by misinterpreting a law or constitutional provision, conservatives will have to follow. Why? Because they respect precedent. But liberals don't. So, it's like a ratchet, a tool that will twist a screw or bolt only one way. The liberal despises the conservatives judicial philosophy publicly but secretly loves it because they can use it to hold conservatives to their agenda even more effectively and permanently. They tell the conservative judge: "We get to change the law, then you have to adhere to it. That's what you believe, right, Mr. Conservative?"
Then there's the living constitution lie. You've heard it before. The liberals believe in a living constitution; therefore, the conservative must believe in a dead constitution, right? But it's the other way around. The liberals kill the constitution by making it a dead letter. In making the constitution so flexible that they can fit their own personal beliefs into it whenever it's convenient to do so, the liberal kills any meaning a constitution should have. A constitution is like a foundation is to a house; it's supposed to be something solid and unshifting and that will keep the house from falling. By making a constitution flexible, the liberal destroys its very purpose. And by changing a law from what it was intended to be, the liberal removes one of the most important aspects of the law - the foreseeability as to what conduct is forbidden.
What the liberal does with the constitution is kill it. They don't believe in a constitution at all. They believe in being limitless, so they can advance their own personal agenda or their favorite philosophy's agenda. It's the killing of the law for which the liberal is culpable. So who is it that believes in a living constitution - the liberal or the conservative?
Lastly, the liberal is an unbeliever and covenant-breaker. Law and faith are inextricably connected concepts. God is a lawgiver, and his law is effective for all of human history, not just a flexible or temporary guide. Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:17-8.
Unlike the bible, the U.S. Constitution, contrary to what some devotees effusively promote, is merely a man's document. An ingenious document, but in any event, a human creation. The Constitution may contain some timeless truths, but it is nonetheless subject to error. That's one reason the authors placed within it the ability to amend the document. The bible is infallible and inerrant. It cannot be amended -- ever.
So, what does that say about non-Christians who allege the bible is merely a man's document, to which we are not obligated to obey if we choose not to obey it? It means they don't respect the word of the living God, the creator of them and all things. They are rebels to the Creator, the origin of all law. They are traitors to the truth and refuse to submit to God's law. If they do not respect God's law, how much less would they respect a 230-year-old document written by men? If such persons cannot respect God's foundational document for life and governance - the bible, how can we expect them to honestly and truly swear an oath to defend and uphold as judges a document created by men? How foolish can we be?
What is sad is the conservative judge who believes in adhering to law and constitution and precedent. They're a tool of the progressive, who has no problem upending precedent completely to advance their personal agenda, then the liberal hypocritically demands that the conservative adhere to the new precedent. "It's the rule of law now, you know," the liberal says. It's like casting pearls before swine: The liberal simply swallows up your precious judicial principles with the slop without a thought for high jurisprudential principle, then they turn and rend you to pieces if you try to grab up your pearls before they eat them. Thus we see the high-minded liberal judge in action.
These are the so-called "moderates" nominated by liberal presidents. Conservative presidents attempt to nominate Scalia-type judges, but these judges are labeled "extremists" and are borked by the liberals in the Senate. Then the conservative president is forced to nominate a "moderate conservative," who will adhere to liberal precedent. See how it works? Heads they win, tails we lose. Believe me when I say that this process is what liberals call even-handed, non-partisanship. For them, dishonesty is judicial non-partisanship, and faithfulness to the law and constitution is right-wing extremism. There was a time when such betrayal of the people and undermining of the law would have called for impeachment or tar-and-feathering. Now it gets them a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court or a professorship at an Ivy League Law School, where they can teach the next generation of lawyers and justices.
Thus, with a few conservative exceptions, the citizens are being undermined by the legal community. You know, those professionals with "esquire," a title of nobility, behind their name. The citizens elect people to represent them, then the courts, which are comprised of those from the legal community, "interpret" the "law" to mean something contrary to what the people voted for. The judge's opinion is fed to him or her by the argument of the attorneys who use their ingenuity to create a philosophical lever the judge can use to alter the law. Then the judge changes the law to something completely unintended by the legislators, the executive branch and the voters. This is then called "the rule of law," and you are expected to obey the new "law." These "judges" deceive the people, then say, "You must obey our opinions, or you're violating lawful authority." This is the rule of law in action in today's America. Is this why Americans fought the Revolutionary War - to be liberated from a tyrannical king and parliament, only to be delivered into the hand of lying deceivers?
Justice Antonin Scalia was not right merely because he was a conservative judge. He was right because he was right. And he was honest. He actually cared about being honest when determining the facts and the law in a case. Liberals are not wrong because they have a different political perspective from me or Justice Scalia. They're wrong because they're wrong and completely dishonest. They really don't care about the law and the facts of a case. They want to force us to "progress."
Perhaps you're thinking, "You're just extremely arrogant about your position." But my assertion is not so hard to believe and accept. Think about someone who believes the founding fathers of our country are just "dead, white men," who were bigoted slave owners and some of whom were superstitious because they actually believed the bible is the word of God. In the mind of progressives, the U.S. Constitution, as originally conceived and written, holds the human race back from progress; it's not the premier governing document that helped the human race leap forward in progress.
In other words, from the moment these "liberal" judges swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution, they have no intention of following, upholding, or obeying the U.S. Constitution. They lie when they swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Why would we expect them to interpret the facts of a case accurately or apply the law honestly? Each case presents a potential opportunity to advance the "progressive" cause, which often involves total distortion of the Constitution.
These "liberal judges" should not be judges; they shouldn't even be legislators, even though that's closer to describing the type of attitude toward law which they hold. Or they should be community organizers. Then they could pass laws or urge the populace to adopt amendments to the Constitution. But then they would have to remain lawyers and not be judges, and it might be difficult to get paid an adequate lawyer salary for such endeavors. They would also have to convince voters to favor abortion, gay rights, and other issues that the voters do not favor. Apparently, that's just too hard and takes too long.
The more cunning and well-educated among "liberal judges" are able to write lengthy, persuasive opinions which pretend to follow the Constitution. The more difficult it is to fit a square, progressive peg into the round, constitutional hole, the more complicated the writing. And the more that judge or justice is lauded as a genius within the legal community. That's why Scalia's writings, which cut through the legerdemain of liberal judges and went to the heart of the issue, were so good. Not only was he correct on the law and the facts, but he couldn't resist scalding the dogs who would complicate and subvert the Constitution with high sounding, but deceptive rhetoric.
Liberals will tell you that liberal judges simply make room to apply reason when applying the law. In other words, conservatives are wooden, inflexible, unable to apply the law to the real world and real people. But this is a straw man argument. Originalism as a system of interpretation has plenty of room for application of the law in the real world and to real people. However, the liberal has again lied when making such an argument. They don't care about flexible yet faithful application of the constitution or a statute; they simply want an excuse to change the law. And they know that once they've set precedent by misinterpreting a law or constitutional provision, conservatives will have to follow. Why? Because they respect precedent. But liberals don't. So, it's like a ratchet, a tool that will twist a screw or bolt only one way. The liberal despises the conservatives judicial philosophy publicly but secretly loves it because they can use it to hold conservatives to their agenda even more effectively and permanently. They tell the conservative judge: "We get to change the law, then you have to adhere to it. That's what you believe, right, Mr. Conservative?"
Then there's the living constitution lie. You've heard it before. The liberals believe in a living constitution; therefore, the conservative must believe in a dead constitution, right? But it's the other way around. The liberals kill the constitution by making it a dead letter. In making the constitution so flexible that they can fit their own personal beliefs into it whenever it's convenient to do so, the liberal kills any meaning a constitution should have. A constitution is like a foundation is to a house; it's supposed to be something solid and unshifting and that will keep the house from falling. By making a constitution flexible, the liberal destroys its very purpose. And by changing a law from what it was intended to be, the liberal removes one of the most important aspects of the law - the foreseeability as to what conduct is forbidden.
What the liberal does with the constitution is kill it. They don't believe in a constitution at all. They believe in being limitless, so they can advance their own personal agenda or their favorite philosophy's agenda. It's the killing of the law for which the liberal is culpable. So who is it that believes in a living constitution - the liberal or the conservative?
Lastly, the liberal is an unbeliever and covenant-breaker. Law and faith are inextricably connected concepts. God is a lawgiver, and his law is effective for all of human history, not just a flexible or temporary guide. Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:17-8.
Unlike the bible, the U.S. Constitution, contrary to what some devotees effusively promote, is merely a man's document. An ingenious document, but in any event, a human creation. The Constitution may contain some timeless truths, but it is nonetheless subject to error. That's one reason the authors placed within it the ability to amend the document. The bible is infallible and inerrant. It cannot be amended -- ever.
So, what does that say about non-Christians who allege the bible is merely a man's document, to which we are not obligated to obey if we choose not to obey it? It means they don't respect the word of the living God, the creator of them and all things. They are rebels to the Creator, the origin of all law. They are traitors to the truth and refuse to submit to God's law. If they do not respect God's law, how much less would they respect a 230-year-old document written by men? If such persons cannot respect God's foundational document for life and governance - the bible, how can we expect them to honestly and truly swear an oath to defend and uphold as judges a document created by men? How foolish can we be?
What is sad is the conservative judge who believes in adhering to law and constitution and precedent. They're a tool of the progressive, who has no problem upending precedent completely to advance their personal agenda, then the liberal hypocritically demands that the conservative adhere to the new precedent. "It's the rule of law now, you know," the liberal says. It's like casting pearls before swine: The liberal simply swallows up your precious judicial principles with the slop without a thought for high jurisprudential principle, then they turn and rend you to pieces if you try to grab up your pearls before they eat them. Thus we see the high-minded liberal judge in action.
These are the so-called "moderates" nominated by liberal presidents. Conservative presidents attempt to nominate Scalia-type judges, but these judges are labeled "extremists" and are borked by the liberals in the Senate. Then the conservative president is forced to nominate a "moderate conservative," who will adhere to liberal precedent. See how it works? Heads they win, tails we lose. Believe me when I say that this process is what liberals call even-handed, non-partisanship. For them, dishonesty is judicial non-partisanship, and faithfulness to the law and constitution is right-wing extremism. There was a time when such betrayal of the people and undermining of the law would have called for impeachment or tar-and-feathering. Now it gets them a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court or a professorship at an Ivy League Law School, where they can teach the next generation of lawyers and justices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)