13 I urge you in the sight of God who gives life to all things, and before Christ Jesus who witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate, 14 that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless until our Lord Jesus Christ’s appearing, 15 which He will manifest in His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen.
So here is a simple question. Who are these "kings" and "lords" that our God is King and Lord over? And what does it mean to be their King/Lord? I’m curious to find out both your speculation and any scriptural/exegetical evidence.
January 25, 2008 at 10:13 pm |
I don’t think the two kingdom folks can perform basic arithmetic. There has to be at least three kingdoms if Jesus is to be the King of kings.
January 25, 2008 at 10:14 pm |
Echo, what I mean is otherwise, He would just be the King of king.
January 26, 2008 at 7:43 am |
Unless the logic is that He is the King of the two kingS (himself and the other king).
It would be an odd way to construct the idea.
I’ve never delved into this question before so will be interested to look at it and see the comments.
January 26, 2008 at 9:00 am |
You mean, Jesus is king of Himself? I don’t get it…
January 26, 2008 at 9:27 am |
One problem I have with the Two Kingdom view is that so-called secular kings are supposed to be ruled by God via natural law – i.e. they form their laws based on what they themselves believe to be right and just. But God has never left people to form their own ethic. Even in the Garden before the Fall, Adam was instructed by His Father. How much more now after the Fall does fallen man need God’s Word to perform justice? Where do the scriptures ever say that doing what is right in one’s own eyes is the same as doing what is right?
This is my Two Kingdom view: There is the kingdom of this world (which includes all so-called secular kingdoms), and the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ. By the end of time, we are told that the former will be consumed by the latter. Or, if you are a preterist, this has already happened. (Rev 11:5) I believe this has happened in word, but not yet in flesh. And as the incarnation teaches us, God’s Word takes on flesh. This means that kingly David’s prayer for himself, his descendants, and his fellow kings in Psalm 72 will be realized in real time.
January 26, 2008 at 11:35 am |
Ron,
Thanks for your input (and your provocation,
). However, you’re jumping the gun here. Obviously there are kingdoms that these kings are going to rule (I think). But what kings are we talking about?
I think it is safe to say that you believe these kings are all kings here on earth in the past, the present and the future, before the consummation. However, I think we might find others can think of different ideas, and yet have more than one ‘king.’ For example, maybe it means all the kings of Israel pre-incarnation. Or, maybe we’ll be kings after the second coming.
Let’s see what others have to say. Oh, and do you just really enjoy trying to get Echo’s goat?
Kazoo
January 26, 2008 at 12:14 pm |
King of kings means that he is King over ALL the kings of the earth. He has authority over them, sovereignty over them, and apart from him, they can do nothing.
How does he exercise his sovereignty?
Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
What does it mean to be a secular king under the authority of God?
Ps 82:3 Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
And again:
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36 ESV)
January 26, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
And yet, they don’t have to obey His Law, rather, under the two kingdom view, they make up their own. What sort of king is that?
Gen 3:15 destroys the fanciful notion of “secularism”, btw.
January 29, 2008 at 4:51 pm |
Now where did I say that they can make up their own law? And where did I say that they don’t have to obey God’s law? You’re putting words in my mouth.
January 29, 2008 at 8:40 pm |
Sorry everybody that I haven’t responded earlier. It’s been a tough week. Thank you Ron, Echo & Dean for responding. I thought maybe we’d have a little more interaction here on this one. But, maybe it is just so evident that these kings must be those that rule between the 1st Adam’s fall and the second Adam’s return.
I plan to build little by little on truths such as these. Here is my take:
Yes, these are kings and lords that are not only in OT Israel, but the kings and lords of the gentile nations as well. Christ is their King, meaning that He has authority over them all. Every single king/lord that has ever lived, lives now, or ever will live, owes the King of kings their allegiance and obedience. They are to rule ‘justly’ as Echo points out.
Kazoo
January 29, 2008 at 10:42 pm |
RS,
Here is my distinction. The ruler of the state is subject himself to the 10 commandments, and he will stand before God and give an account for what he has done one day. But his charge, his mandate, as a head of state, is not to ENFORCE all 10 commandments. His charge is to enforce justice, to deliver the oppressed, whether they are Muslim or Christian.
For example, if a Muslim woman is raped, the state is charged by God to punish her attacker. But the state is not charged by God to force her to convert to Christianity.
E
January 31, 2008 at 2:23 pm |
Echo, you have contradicted yourself. The 10 commandments are justice. How can a ruler enforce one and not the other?
NEway, I was commenting on the two kingdom view, not your view (necessarily). I apologize for the confusion.
In the two kingdom view, civil magistrates are left to “natural law” to determine justice. This is seen as God ruling through the civil magistrates because God is sovereign and establishes rulers a la Romans 13. But this is a blurring of the distinction between God’s prescriptive will and His sovereign will, and we know how people hate the blurring of a good distinction.
God prescribes obedience. At times, He wills to permit disobedience. In the two kingdom view, this could still be called “justice”.
January 31, 2008 at 4:08 pm |
“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.
There is the mandate for the state. You murder, the state puts you to death. The reason for it is God making man in his own image, but the mandate is to put murderers to death. Period. Justice between men, that’s the mandate of the state.
February 1, 2008 at 5:59 am |
Ok, good. We are getting somewhere, Mr. Echo. That’s one of Ten.
Now, on what basis do we reject the State’s mandate to enforce the other 9 (or 8, really, since the 10th was never enforcable)?
You have accepted one penal saction under God’s Law (execution for murder), but what about the prescribed penalty for rape, which is also execution? Why do rapists and child molesters get to go to prison for a few years and then get on with their lives (and often repeat offend), while their victims are scarred for life?
February 2, 2008 at 8:50 pm |
Well, with regard to the death penalty, you’re certainly welcome to call me a liberal.
I mean it should be applied liberally.
I think a lot more people ought to be put to death for their crimes. Pedophiles should be put to death. Rapists…well, maybe not on the first time. Let me explain.
Say a guy and a girl are both drunk, acting stupid, doing more than they should, and when the guy is all hot and bothered, suddenly the woman sobers up a bit, and tries to make him stop, but he’s too drunk and riled up to stop and forces himself on her. Now, I agree there ought to be some penalty for this guy, but both parties are at fault. Women need to learn not to play with fire too.
But the guy that’s hiding out in dark places and grabbing women trying to get into their cars at night in isolated places or something, well, especially if he’s a multiple offender, this man should be put to death. There’s no rehabilitating such monstrous, violent men. They need to be put to death. Give them a chance to hear the gospel and repent, that’s fine, then chop off their head.
Pedophiles definitely need to be put to death. Immediately. They should be hung in public or something. I hate pedophiles.
Who else should be put to death? I don’t know. Probably pimps who sell women for money. Slave traders should be put to death, especially the kind who kidnap children and sell them on the black market. Those guys should be killed. And let’s see…kidnappers, they should definitely be put to death.
Oh and people who have abortions. Yep. They’re murderers. Put them to death.
Yeah, there isn’t much justice in our society.
But when it says that whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, it doesn’t only mean murder should be punishable by death. What I said was justice between men. The state is charged to deter against crimes between men.
So that means the state needs to uphold the second table of the law, not the first, broadly speaking. So they need to prevent theft and protect peoples’ rights, not just to life, but to peace and property as well. The state should uphold marriage as an institution, and the state should defend the family. They should stand up for the weak, delivering them from their oppressors.
In this way they act as God’s agent to bring about a relative peace and justice and equity among men, providing the peaceful context for the church to thrive.
February 3, 2008 at 7:21 am |
Echo,
We find more agreement! How blessed it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!
I would not consider your first example to be biblically defined as “rape” at all. So, we pretty much see eye to eye with regard to the death penalty (as it pertains to murderers and sexual based offenders).
You brought up theft. Let’s talk about that. Which is more just?:
Under God’s Law, when someone steals something, and they are convicted, they have to make restitution + 20% (or more if they had gotten away with the theft for a long time). This is like interest to compensate the victim of theft for the time they were without whatever it was that was stolen. If the thief is unable to make restitution, they are forced to work it off (in other words, enslaved).
Under our current system, the convicted thief is given an arbitrary term in prison, and the victim has to pay for the thief’s room and board (via taxes). So the government actually steals from the victim twice. First, by not requiring restitution be made, and second, by forcing the victim to pay for the thief’s room and board.
February 3, 2008 at 2:29 pm |
I was discussing this question with a friend of mine yesterday, and another possibility pops up. Could it be that the title here refers to Christ as the “best” king and the “best” Lord? Maybe it isn’t saying that their are particular kings that Christ is king of.
While that is one possibility, I don’t think that it is the only possibility. I still say that all kings are subject to Christ, their king.
I plan to write another article looking at what Ron and Echo have morphed into here, the subject of justice. It will be a little while before I get that one written though.
Kazoo
February 4, 2008 at 12:42 am |
Ron,
Jail time for theft removes the person from society, and as such is just. If we were in more ancient times, we could drive someone out of the city, never to return. Cities were smaller. We can’t kick someone out of the country, so jail is a viable alternative, because putting someone to death for theft seems unjust. But yeah, they should be made to pay restitution. That’s only just.
E
February 4, 2008 at 12:47 am |
Kazoo,
If we wanted to call him the best king or the best Lord, in Greek you’d just say “the King”. Then you’d interpret the article “the” to be signifying “par excellence”, viz, THE King. But it says King OF something. He has a certain dominion. Over what? Over kings. He is the one King who is over all the kings. Dan 7:13-14 would seem to make this clear, especially when Jesus says something like 80 times in the gospels that he is the Son of Man (of Dan 7).
He is sovereign over all. All are subject to him.
But again, it’s a question of what the mandate of the state is. Are they mandated to enforce the worship of God, or is their mandate to provide for peace and general equity among men, i.e., justice?
But let me be clear. There is no one on earth that doesn’t have to obey the law of God, no one who won’t be held to account for their violation of that law on judgment day. They will be judged according to the covenant of works.
E
February 4, 2008 at 8:22 am |
Echo,
I have to say that exchange with you in 2008 is much different than when we first met in 2006. I enjoy these interchanges. And, I agree with you on your last post.
Question though. You say:
You say this as if you think that enforcing the worship of God was a mandate for someone before (Israel?). Or that maybe someone today thinks that it is a mandate of the state. Can you expound on this?
For the record, I don’t think it has ever been the mandate of any state to enforce God’s worship, and if the state were to have ever took that upon herself, she was overstepping her bounds.
Blessings,
Kazoo
February 4, 2008 at 12:35 pm |
Well, the theocratic state of Israel had such a mandate. But that was a special situation. The Mosaic economy entailed a theocratic state wherein a works principle was enacted.
Other than Israel, no, no other state has ever had such a mandate. That’s what makes Israel special.
February 4, 2008 at 12:57 pm |
I’ve got to disagree with you there, Echo. On several points, actually.
First off, the term “theocratic” is so full of equivocation these days, that I’d prefer to leave the term itself out of the argument and actually have your understanding of what that means defined instead. But can you give me some scriptural support for your argument that the “state of Israel” had a mandate to ENFORCE the WORSHIP of God? I think you’re confusing some things here.
Secondly, I’ll point out that the idea of a secular state is a relatively new one. In Israel’s day, the pharoah, or emperor, or king, etc. were the God’s of the day and the nations then enforced worship of THEIR gods. Caesar was LORD, not Christ, for example. (That isn’t to say that they were mandated by God to do so, but they did so anyway).
Third, I don’t know why you want to say that the Mosaic economy was one in which the works principle was enacted. Sounds like a dispensationalist to me, instead of a Covenant Theology, Reformed guy to me. Check out chapter 7, paragraph 5 of the WCF:
They had the type and shadow of Christ, but it was still God’s grace. They sin and they have to go to God in faith with their sacrifices. We sin and we go to God in faith with our “once and for all” sacrifice (Christ). That’s grace all the way. Praise Him!!! Hallelujah!
Kazoo
February 4, 2008 at 7:15 pm |
1. Israel was commanded as a state to worship God. The kings of Israel should have destroyed the pagan practices of the Israelites, but didn’t. Their failure to enforce the worship of God alone eventually led to exile.
2. Sure, Rome, for example, at times, enforced worship of gods and the Emperor, but God never mandated that, as you said. So the point is irrelevant. They went beyond their mandate.
3. When I say works principle, I don’t mean works based salvation. I mean they had to obey in order to remain in the land. Disobedience led to destruction and exile. The nation had to work to remain in the land. They got to heaven by grace alone through faith alone, just as we do. But they got kicked out of the land. Why? Disobedience. That’s not grace in action, it’s works, or more to the point, the just recompense for a failure to work. So then, there is a works principle in the Mosaic economy. But even some who were exiled will be in heaven, e.g., Daniel, Ezekiel, etc.
February 4, 2008 at 8:03 pm |
1. All men are commanded to worship God, as individuals, families, churches and states, when you put it in these terms. But forbidding and enforcing the forbidding of worshipping other gods is NOT the same as forcing God’s worship. I assume you’re talking of worship as a ceremonial/ritualistic kind of worship when you mention Israel needed to enforce the worship of God. But sojourners weren’t required to get circumcised and partake of passover, etc. So Israel did not force them to worship, and yet that was okay. However, they weren’t allowed to worship other gods. So there is a negative, but I still maintain NOT a positive enforcement.
2. My point was that our concept of a secular state is relatively new. No biggie.
3. Thanks for clarifying.
February 4, 2008 at 9:12 pm |
1. Fair enough.
February 5, 2008 at 7:39 am |
!! Not fair enough! No state other than Israel has been commanded as a state to worship God (otherwise, we need to get ourselves a State Church), and no state other than Israel has the mandate to destroy pagan worship. Echo, I’m hoping you were just assenting to the negative/not positive distinction.
I have hit, and now I run…
February 5, 2008 at 9:00 am |
Rube,
I’m surprised it took you this long to join in on this one.
Do us a favor, okay? Can you please define your usage of the word “worship” in your first sentence? Nothing too involved, but just so we know for sure where you’re coming from. Also, are you using the same definition for both times your mention the word? And then one more thing, please give us some scriptural support for your statement.
I’ll respond to the second half of your statement later when I have time. I have to hit and run right now as well.
Kazoo
February 5, 2008 at 10:51 am |
I don’t intend to stay — I can’t even keep up with my own blog! But trust that I will be reading.
As for worship, there’s worship — as in “every moment of my life I should be worshipping God,” or “I can worship God by being a good worker,” or “I don’t just worship on Sunday mornings” — and there’s Worship, which is good ol’ RPW, God-ordained, Sunday-mornin Word, Sacrament, and Prayer. Individual, family and church are all involved with big-W-Worship, but little-w-worship is a matter of common grace (and both times up there I was referring to big-w-Worship). This is just the reformed doctrine of vocation, or profession. Things done outside the church are good (or bad) in and of themselves, with no need to assess whether they are done “Christianly”: when a baker bakes a good loaf of bread, God is glorified. When a scientist does good research, God is glorified. When an IT specialist transitions his entire legal firm to Linux, God is glorified — without regard to whether the baker or scientist or IT specialist is a Christian, or desires for his work to glorify God.
Likewise, a civil magistrate who administers civil justice, glorifies God. But that is not Worship. If he is a Christian, and his motivation is to glorify God, that’s great. If he’s a non-Christian, and his motivation is to defame God, but he administers the same justice, then personally he is sinning, but the justice is no less good. (Obviously I don’t mean “good” here in a soteriologically meritorious way, but only in a common-grace way.)
And just like it is not a question of whether Christ is King of Kings, but how Christ is King of Kings, so also the question is not whether the state is to “worship”, but how the state is to worship — or even whether the state is to worship or Worship; whether it must glorify God by simply being a good state, or whether it has to be a “Christian state.”
It also comes down to the question of what is “civil justice,” and I maintain that executing false Worshippers, idolaters, blasphemers, and sabbath-breakers, is not civil justice, but holy justice (note: on day 7, the Sabbath was “blessed” and “made holy“, so just because an element of the moral law existed since creation, doesn’t protect it from a civil/holy distinction)
But like I said, “and now I run…” Y’all have fun shredding this.
February 5, 2008 at 11:27 am |
Before you run, please, in your statement above then, can you clarify if you are saying:
or
kaz
February 5, 2008 at 11:40 am |
As I mentioned,
So that would be “No state other than Israel has been commanded as a state to Worship God…and no state other than Israel has the mandate to destroy pagan Worship.”
February 5, 2008 at 12:08 pm |
Okay, sorry. I guess I wasn’t clear on that. So when I reply I will be going with the assumption that you believe that Israel as a state HAS BEEN commanded to Worship.
I know you are just going to read now, but if anyone (Bruce, Echo, Steve, Zrim, etc.) wants to cite scriptural support for that belief about Israel, I’d love to see it.
Kaz
February 6, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
I thought that was clear.
February 6, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
PS “Fair enough” does not = “assent”.
February 6, 2008 at 4:50 pm |
Kazoo,
Luke 4:8 And Jesus answered him, “It is written,
‘You shall worship the Lord your God,
and him only shall you serve.’”
So what’s Jesus quoting? No one really knows, because he’s not quoting directly. He’s kind of quoting Deut 6:13 and 1 Sam 7:3 (so says the ESV), but not exactly. He is, admittedly, interpreting just a bit here.
But he’s not adding NEW revelation, he’s interpreting the revelation that the Jews already had, the Old Testament.
So Jesus here interprets the Old Testament in a way that contradicts your distinction. In my mind, that settles the question. The Israelites were positively commanded to worship Yahweh. It was not a mere prohibition from worshiping other gods. There’s no such thing as worshiping no god, as having no god. You either worship the one true God or you worship an idol. The command to have no OTHER gods is a command to HAVE the one true God, and to have him as GOD, which entails worshiping him.
I don’t know, that’s just what Jesus says.
I didn’t make the point before because I figured it wouldn’t be worth arguing about. I really don’t see the point. But because Rube pushed the point and you asked for Scriptural support, there it is.
E
February 7, 2008 at 8:43 am |
I would say also that the day of atonement, and passover, etc. were instituted as national Holy Days — not like our national holidays of Christmas, 4th of July, Thanksgiving, Memorial day, Labor day, etc. Easter is not even a national holiday, is it? Is “national holiday” meaningful on a weekend? As much as you might want to declare the national holiday of Christmas (as opposed to not Yom Kippur or Ramadan) as evidence that we are a “Christian nation”, note that there is no scriptural mandate to celebrate Christmas or any other holiday as an actual Holy Day. The only exception is that we celebrate Easter, each and every Lord’s Day (which brings us to the fundamental question of, what does the state have to do with the Lord’s Day?)
February 7, 2008 at 8:55 am |
Guys,
You’re getting ahead of me here. Off topic. Original question, “who are these kings?”
The question at hand thus far has been about Israel, not today’s government. If we can’t even agree on what Israel’s laws looked like back then, we can’t hope to apply our different perspectives to today.
So, wrt to Israel, where are the sanctions against those who don’t Worship God? That’s what I am asking for Echo (or Rube). All people are commanded to worship God, but I see no civil sanctions given anywhere against those who don’t. Only against those who positively worship other gods.
So that’s the question at hand.
Kaz
February 7, 2008 at 9:54 pm |
Keeping the Sabbath is an act of worship. Behold:
Ex. 31:14 You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. 16 Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever.
Everyone had to keep the Sabbath. If you didn’t keep it, you were to be cut off from the people of God, which means, apparently, that you must be put to death. Your name must no longer be represented in Israel by your offspring. You are excommunicated by death.
Remember, the Sabbath was a time of resting in the Lord. It was a holy day, holy to the Lord. This was an act of worship, setting aside, sacrificing, if you will, the day to the Lord.
So you want to know the civil sanctions for failing to worship Yahweh properly in ancient Israel?
Nothing less than death itself.
Of course, they didn’t keep the law, which is why the land vomited them out.
February 8, 2008 at 11:36 am |
Is that the best you got? I’d say that’s getting close to what you’re trying to prove, but still not quite there. Here’s why:
There is still no positive command here to Worship that I can see. Just negative commands. Don’t do this. Don’t do that. Etc. I don’t see where the sojourner was forced to go to a congregational meeting for example. But what this law did was protect those sons, daughters, manservants, maidservants, etc. from being forced to work on the sabbath for their unbelieving father or master. So the unbeliever (sojourner let’s say) was told what NOT to do, which is what ends up being rest.
Good point though. That’s a little closer than I had thought of in the laws.
Do you disagree?
kazoo
February 8, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
All right, here’s some thoughts, which I haven’t thought out well, so “don’t quote me”.
It seems to me that the sojourners were not part of the Nation of Israel. All of God’s people were positively commanded to worship — the state of Israel was commanded to worship — same diff. If any sojourners wanted to celebrate passover, or be atoned on the day of atonment, they had to be circumcised, i.e. enter the covenant, become naturalized citizens of the state of Israel. But sojourners who were not citizens/covenant-members (no difference) were not subject to the positive command.
So now you will point to, for instance, Lev 24:22, and in particular Lev 24:16, that death penalties applied alike to in-covenant citizens of the state of Israel, as well as non-covenant, green-card Sojourners among them. Voila! On this pattern, we can set up a Christian state with Mosaic Law (excepting the ceremonial of course), and apply the same laws and penalties to the non-Christian sojourners among us!
The problem is that you are begging the Theonomic question by assuming that you can legitimately set up a “Christian nation.”
February 8, 2008 at 5:58 pm |
Rube,
Thanks for commenting on this one. I appreciate it.
So, I agree it would be begging the question if I were even trying to talk about the modern state. But head up 4 comments and you’ll see I was trying to get the discussion narrowed back down to Israel’s case.
And I think the fact that you would say it is begging the question shows that you can see that it will logically lead to the theonomic conclusion.
Thanks for quoting the verses for me. Now I don’t have to look them up. You’ve basically made my point for me. In ISRAEL’S day, the people living in the land were not positively commanded to Worship.
Gotta go eat dinner.
Blessings all,
Kazoo
February 9, 2008 at 11:48 am |
Kazoo,
I don’t know what you’re looking for. Are you looking for a verse in the Old Testament that says, “Everyone in Israel must worship God.” Is that what you’re looking for?
Your linguistic requirements need adjustment. Why isn’t what I quoted Jesus as saying enough for you? Jesus said that what you’re asking for is written in the OLD TESTAMENT. Jesus, the Author of the OT said so. All I can do is agree with him, and try to show you some examples of what he meant.
You see, Jesus’ linguistic requirements aren’t the same as yours. Jesus knows that what a text implies is just as authoritative as what it explicitly says. Some things are said by negation, and the affirmative is implied.
For example, consider the WCF (Larger Catechism) says about the 10 commandments. The 6th commandment “Thou shalt not steal” doesn’t mean only that you can’t steal, but it also commands us to further our own and our brother’s estate. So there’s a positive implication as well as a negative command. For every law, they ask what is forbidden and what is commanded/required by this commandment.
So your linguistic requirements disagree with what Jesus says, and with what the Westminster standards say.
I’m beginning to wonder what is required for you to admit that you’re wrong.
E
February 9, 2008 at 12:27 pm |
Echo,
No problem. Let’s back up a little bit. I’ll try to be more clear.
Go back to this comment, and see what I was asking you there: http://theonomist.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/who-are-these-kings/#comment-75
Now, I’ll try to give you a little background into what I am attempting to point out here. Rube’s caught on since he’s discussed these things ad infinitum over the past couple years with me verbally. However, I am trying to just get some discussion on the very small details, sort of block by block, that are the foundation of our understanding of God’s law in the here and now. If we take certain assumptions about God’s law during Israel’s time, but differ on them, then I think it is much easier to find ourselves disagreeing on applications today.
For example, the question that this original post addresses, “who are these kings?” It’s a very simple question, and presumably, it’s a pretty simple answer. Frankly, I thought for sure when I posted it that there would be a greater amount of differences, but I was wrong. That’s good. But this question affects the way that Christians see the world today, specifically the state. In our reformed world that you and I are both in, I dare to say that there is a very large and solid agreement on the individual, the family, and the church. So, I don’t think there is much iron to sharpen iron there. But disagreements cause us both to think and do the hard work of examining our beliefs and what we take for granted. That’s assuming we’re both willing to be humble and consider each other’s statements. And, with the two of us, I think that is true. Hopefully everyone on this particular blog is the same.
Now, on this particular issue, which I guess I should have made another post about, instead of letting it go so long in this thread (oh well, I can only do so much), I am just trying to get to a very small basic understanding of how God’s law worked on this one little particular issue back in the day.
So, terms are important. I like very much what Rube contributed with the word “worship.” I think it is important to understand that there are many ways to take it, and with this discussion he pointed out two very helpful distinctions. Worship: in our day this would be equivalent to gathering on Sunday, having an ordained minister preach the word and present the sacraments. It’s a very specific ‘ritualistic’ understanding of the word. Then there is worship. This is a more generic understanding that all men everywhere and in all times owe their obedience and subservience, etc. to God and to God alone.
Okay, so that is one term. The next term: enforce. What does it mean to enforce? I think this is worth dwelling on a bit. You say above that Israel was to ‘enforce’ worship. Maybe we have a different understanding of how this is to be done or what it means. I am trying to point out that even in Israel’s day, the state did not enforce Worship. I am further trying to show that there are no sanctions found in God’s law for someone who does not obey the positive enforcement of a command like “Worship Jehovah.”
So, you argue that “keeping the Sabbath was an act of worship.” (Did you mean big ‘W’ or little ‘w’?) Either way, I admitted this was a pretty good point. (So you see my sincerity in keeping this an honest open discussion). If you look back at my response (http://theonomist.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/who-are-these-kings/#comment-105), you’ll see why I still don’t think that it is a positive enforcement as I describe in the paragraph right before this one. A person could refrain from work, refrain from making his sons, daughters, servants, etc. from working, and yet refuse to go and sacrifice, attend synagogue, or whatever ritualistic type of Worship, and the state had no authority or grounds even to try him for a crime and put him to death. See what I mean?
I know this is little. It’s a very minute detail. But I also think that it has huge repercussions when we talk about something else that is affected by these different understanding. If you think Israel was commanded to dole out the death penalty to someone for not attending synagogue, and then I say that the state today should enforce justice as described in the Mosaic code, you’re going to have a big problem, because you’re going to translate my statement to logically mean the state today should put people to death for not going to church. (Or something like that). But, if I don’t think that Israel were to put people to death for missing synagogue, and I say the state should enforce justice based on the Mosaic code, then I certainly am not meaning or intending for the state today to put people to death for missing church. And this indeed is something I DON’T believe about the state today. (But let’s not go further than that on the subject of today’s state. Let’s stay on Israel for now).
So, sorry for the long comment, but I really want to see if I can communicate clearly to you what I am getting at and see if maybe now I am making sense to you. And, if I am wrong, and someone CAN show me where Israel ‘enforced’ a positive command to Worship Jehovah, then I really would like to see it.
Good?
kazoo
February 9, 2008 at 2:02 pm |
First off, do you agree or not about the definition of “nation of Israel” — were sojourners citizens or not? Because certainly sojourners were subject to negative prohibitions only, not positive commands to worship. But if the definition of “nation of Israel” is covenant members only, then I still maintain that the entire nation was positively commanded to worship.
Circumcision (=baptism) is a sacramental act of worship, and it was commanded, and even enforced. Weakly, Ex 12:48 tells us that violation of the positive command to circumcise is ‘enforced’ by prohibition from participating in the passover. More strongly, we have Gen 17:14: “Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” Sounds like the death penalty to me.
February 9, 2008 at 2:20 pm |
For the sake of argument, let’s say that I DO agree. (I’m actually not 100% sure, so this is a good area for me to study, thanks.) If the “nation” of israel only consisted of circumcised members, then I still see a differentiation (is that a real word?). First off, “cut off” does not equal “shall surely die.” I believe that excommunication was a reality back then AS WELL AS the death penalty. So we’ll have to dig further to try and substantiate your claim that it is the death penalty.
Secondly, even if it were the correct definition (i.e. ‘nation), the laws of the land allowed inhabitants without requiring circumcision and passover participation. So an understanding of the civil laws of that day don’t show a civil ’sanction’ for failure to Worship. (unless we can prove death penalty instead of excommunication, and then it is only in the case of citizens, which makes no sense since to be a citizen you would need to be circumcised, so that causes a round-robin. Death penalty would mean that one MUST become a citizen to avoid death, but some were allowed NOT to become citizens, so penalty must NOT have been death, but non-covenant member status).
If you want to discuss further if “cut off” equals “death penalty,” I’ll be happy to start researching this.
Kaz
February 9, 2008 at 3:03 pm |
Maybe that would be a good germ for a separate post?
Consider also a modern analogue to an enforcement for not participating in passover. Recently, a man was excommunicated from the OPC for abstaining from communion (for many years, in resistance to his eldership — Echo has more details, but they’re probably not relevant). If you think this was a just action of church discipline, then it would seem hard to deny that O.T. Israel could enforce the Passover. And I would say again, that the O.T. type of N.T. excommunication is the death penalty (you know how I read 1 Cor 5).
But whether “cut off” always equals “death penalty” (whether “excommunication was a reality back then AS WELL AS the death penalty”) is kind of irrelevant — whatever form the enforcement takes, Israel was mandated to enforce the positive command for circumcision. Even if not by death penalty, you can be sure that “cutting off” at least meant being kicked out of the land.
February 9, 2008 at 3:46 pm |
Okay, I’ll do some looking into the “cut off” does or does not equal “death” idea. I think it is worthy of attention.
If I am right, then what we see with the OPC excommunicating the guy, but the state not killing him, would be exactly what I would expect a modern theonomic application of God’s law to look like. The church cuts him off from the people, but the magistrate doesn’t have anything to enforce. i.e. he doesn’t have to move out of the land or worry about his life being forfeited.
I’ll add that if it was okay for the magistrate to execute a person who was supposed to be a covenant member, but not okay to execute a foreigner living in the land that refuses the sign, then the law is unjust. That is to say, it is NOT EQUAL.
And who would refuse the covenant sign anyway, since it was supposed to be applied at 8 days old?
Kaz
February 9, 2008 at 5:18 pm |
I haven’t taken the time to read this entire thread, so feel free to point me to a previous comment that answers this objection.
Where does this distinction come from, Rube? I find it artificial. Where does the scripture make the distinction between the commands God gives on an individual basis and the commands God gives corporately? The corporation is made up of individuals, so it stands to reason that the commands to the individual extend to the corporation. Doesn’t God call all men everywhere to repent? Then how does this not extend to the corporations of men? For instance, is it sinful for the Ford Corporation (and therefore those members of that corporation) to so actively support the homosexual agenda?
February 9, 2008 at 5:45 pm |
If it is ever discovered that a grown-up was never circumcised, he would have to submit to circumcision, or else! (cut off, or cut off — you choose!) More likely, if parents somehow resisted circumcising their son, they would have to bear the penalty.
Note that it is arguable today whether parents who deny their children baptism would be thus subject to church discipline. (See here and below, between Pr. Mike Brown (Santee URC) and Echo)
February 9, 2008 at 5:51 pm |
I’ll let Jeff answer that, since he doesn’t seem to think that Israel as a state was commanded to Worship, and he’s supposed to be The Onomist.
February 9, 2008 at 7:48 pm |
Nice dodge, Rube
The logic is simple. God calls all people everywhere to repent. The State is made up of people. Therefore God calls the State to repent.
February 9, 2008 at 8:13 pm |
I learn from the best.
The question was not about repentance, the question was about Worship. The state of Israel was commanded to engage in Word and Sacrament, whereas the United States of America has (have?) no business meddling with Word or Sacrament. That command is given only to all manner of individuals, families, congregations, denominations, etc. — all various subsets of the Church universal.
February 10, 2008 at 7:55 am |
Failing to worship is sin and God calls all people everywhere to repent of sin. So the question is not “Should the State be engaged in Word and Sacrament”, since the answer to that question is plainly “yes” because the State is made up people, all of whom should be engaged in Word and Sacrament and are called to repent if they are not. The question is, what should the State’s engagement in Word and Sacrament look like?
And here is where I know you and I would agree, Rube: Minimally, the State is obligated to protect the liberty of ministers of the Church to preach the Word and gatekeep the Lord’s Table. Recent hate crime legislation is obviously in opposition to this obligation. The State needs to repent from hate crime legislation, does it not?
February 10, 2008 at 1:01 pm |
I don’t know anything about recent hate crime legislation, but yes, the State is obligated to protect the liberty of ministers of the Church to administer Word and Sacrament.
February 10, 2008 at 10:46 pm |
Interesting concession, Rube. Who obligates the State this way? Are they equally obligated to protect the liberty of ministers of false religions to administer their sacraments? If so, Who obligates the State this way?
February 10, 2008 at 10:51 pm |
Oh, and there is also the issue of those banned from the Table. The liberty of the ministers of the Church to gatekeep to the Table is at odds with the liberty of the excommunicant to take communion. If an excommunicant continues to show up where he has been banned, the elders will likely call the police and heve him forcibly removed. And then you have the State enforcing the gatekeeping of the Table. Oops…
February 10, 2008 at 10:56 pm |
Finally, if the US treasury starts printing money with a picture of Uncle Sam and the caption “USA – The Savior of the World”, would that be idolatrous? Do you think the State is obligated to refrain from exalting itself in this way?
February 11, 2008 at 1:41 am |
Kazoo,
Anything else I say in response to you would only be a repeat of what I’ve already said. However, I will add that the focus you were trying to keep on this thread has been utterly lost.
E
February 11, 2008 at 12:14 pm |
Howso, Echo? Doesn’t the question as to whether the State is obligated to refrain from exalting itseslf as god speak to the original question of what it means for Jesus to be King of kings?
February 11, 2008 at 4:46 pm |
I do think we’ve run our course here. I started study over the weekend for another post. I want to put up a post with a little more effort put into it this time, so that is why it is taking me longer. Hopefully soon though. Like I said, I already started some study.
Kaz
February 11, 2008 at 5:23 pm |
I don’t see we’ve run our course at all. I see a lot of questions, but not very many answers.
I think the most defeating for the anti-theonomic view is the question with regard to the State’s obligation under God (or lack thereof) to refrain from exalting itself as a deity. I would really like an answer for that one. Does God turn a blind eye to Uncle Sam saying, “I AM”? Or does He obligate the State to refrain from that sort of self exaltation.
Or let’s make it even easier. What about a king or dictator who does that sort of thing? Now we have it pinned down to an individual. If an individual has obtained political power to the point that they can exalt themself as god, is that ok with God because the State is not obligated to enforce the first Table?
February 11, 2008 at 6:12 pm |
Yes, many questions. Echo and Rube don’t agree with my point about negative sanctions for any individual living in the state but refusing to Worship. And, you have a lot as well.
But what I mean by “run our course” is the original question of “who are these kings?” Seems like we all agree on that one.
I’m going to go deeper into these other questions though with another post. Until then, everybody should feel free to add more comments if so desired.
kazoo
February 11, 2008 at 8:57 pm |
Ron,
No, any state that exalts itself as a deity will be subject to the judgment to come. Of course. But I would also say in response that this too doesn’t mean that the state should uphold a positive command to worship God.
And frankly, it seems as if kazoo doesn’t think so either, and is even arguing that even in Israel, you didn’t have to enforce the first table of the law. But I find that odd. I disagree with it. I mean, if I don’t worship God, I ultimately worship myself, even if I have no church, no altar, and no statue of myself to which I pay homage. Nonetheless, this idolatry must be punished even under the negative stipulations of Israel.
E
February 11, 2008 at 10:15 pm |
Echo,
you guys just keep pulling stuff out of me before I can get to another post.
Just to clarify, you’re right that I don’t think the modern state should, or that Israel did, enforce a positive command to Worship (capital W). But I don’t make that completely equal to the first table. I don’t want to get into a large part of this here, more will come. But to give you a specific for positive and negative, here you go: the state shouldn’t force someone to go to church, but should prevent that same someone from employing a person on the sabbath.
We’ll have plenty chances to discuss how we disagree on that in the near future, but the main thing now I want to know is if I made that distinction is clear to you.
Thanks,
Kazoo
February 11, 2008 at 10:57 pm |
So Echo, I want to make sure you have fallen into my tra… I mean… I want to make sure I understand you.
So by the State being subject to “judgment to come” for exalting itself as a deity, I take you to mean that the State is obligated by God to cut down all State idols.
And this is where I have led you, if you will follow: Is the State only obligated by God to cut down an idol if the State itself is that idol? Are all other idols are fair game? Is that your position?
February 12, 2008 at 6:53 am |
What happened to just working? How about just keeping your own shop open yourself, or accepting volunteers to work on Sunday? And what about the demand side — How about shopping? How about setting up roadblocks on all freeways, and only allowing emergency (and church) traffic through? Certainly you’ll have to outlaw the trimming of hedges. Or at least the picking up of sticks afterwards…
Many questions, probably you want to just put them in your pocket for now.
February 12, 2008 at 8:30 am |
Rube, like I said, “to give you “A” specific…”
I figure that particular one is less problematic for people than the others you cite.
So…. Don’t push!!!
kazoo
February 12, 2008 at 11:20 am |
I think this demonstrates one of the primary differences in attitude between those who accept Theonomy and those who reject it.
The theonomist starts with, “God’s Law is perfect and the only possible standard of justice,” and then moves to, “Let’s figure out the particulars of what that means, how to generally equate God’s written Law to our particular situation, and seek to honor God by keeping His Law.”
The one who rejects Theonomy starts with, “The particulars are way too difficult to define, much less implement,” and from there, inevitably concludes, “let’s call the whole thing off and let folks do what is right in their own eyes.”
Rube, let me be pragmatic for a sec. I know this is not a logical argument, but I am interested in your answer. Are you going to tell me that the country is better off now than when all the stores shut down on Sundays?
I am not saying we go back to Blue Laws, but how about making it illegal for an employer to force his employees to work on Sunday or making their willingness to work on Sunday a condition for employment? In other words, does God obligate the State to protect the liberty of His people to worship Him?
February 12, 2008 at 5:35 pm |
Ron,
Interesting turn. Just because I said that no, a state should not PRESENT itself as a deity, does not mean that they should go chopping down the proverbial asherah poles.
So then, if people worship the state, the state should not try to stop them. But it should not PRESENT itself as a deity.
For example, I think many today look to our government to legislate what morality is. If it’s legal according to our government, in the eyes of many it becomes, if not morally good, at least morally permissible. To get even more specific, the fact that abortion is legal in our country means to most people that it is not morally wrong.
That is making the state into a deity in my opinion, because it gives moral authority to the state that only belongs to God.
However, our state, as a state, is not guilty of setting itself up as an idol simply because some people look at it that way. Our state IS, however, guilty of making itself into an idol when it makes abortion legal, because it is offering a moral judgment contrary to the law of God.
So in making abortion legal, our state has PRESENTED itself as an idol. But the state is not to be blamed for presenting itself as an idol simply because people LOOK to it that way.
To further clarify, if abortion was to be made ILLEGAL, then at least on this issue, the state would not be guilty of presenting itself as an idol, even if people begin to believe that abortion is wrong because the state, not God, said so.
So when people THINK the state has God’s moral authority, the state is not necessarily guilty of anything. But if the state PRESENTS itself as having God’s moral authority, THEN it becomes guilty of presenting itself as an object of worship. But if people illegitimately view the state as having God’s moral authority, the state is not to be blamed, unless it is itself encouraging that.
E
February 12, 2008 at 8:15 pm |
So, Echo, as I understand you, if the State had erected State idols, God obligates the State to cut those idols down. And I assume by force (like they did with the ten commandments in Alabama). But no other idols. Just the State ones.
If that is your position, I find it untenable. Please substantiate this distinction between State idols and other false idols. What’s the difference? All idols are demonic, aren’t they? They are all part of the kingdom of this world, aren’t they? Why is the State obligated to forcibly remove one part of Satan’s kingdom, and not the other? I find this distinction arbitrary.
February 13, 2008 at 12:31 am |
You find it arbitrary because it is arbitrary, but thankfully, that’s not the logical conclusion of what I said. That no one should present themselves as a deity does not mean they then have the obligation to go chopping down asherah poles.
Look, I’m obligated as a human being not to present myself as a deity. But say I do. Say I start telling people to worship me, and some people do, and they make little Echo statues and put them on their mantle. What’s my obligation? My obligation is to stop telling people to worship me. I must stop presenting myself as a god.
Ok, so let’s say I do that. Now why would I have the right to go into their home and destroy their little Echo statue? I don’t. If I stop presenting myself as a god, and stop demanding worship, then I can do no more. Maybe I could tell them, look, I’m not a god, I was full of it, but I can’t go into their house and destroy their property, just because it happens to be a statue of me. I have no rightful claim to such authority.
So with the state. That it should not present itself as a deity does not mean that if people worship it that it has the right to force them to stop. They’re already ascribing more authority to the state than is warranted, and if the state then goes and claims to have authority to destroy peoples’ property, then it’s still over-reaching it’s just authority. All the state can do is not set itself up as a deity. That’s it. That does not logically imply that the state must crack down on those who DO look to it as god.
E
February 13, 2008 at 12:37 am |
Paul was in that situation in the book of Acts, wasn’t he? The people tried to sacrifice to him, and he persuaded them not to. But ultimately, if they had insisted on doing so, he could not have stopped them apart from simply telling them not to do that. If they had made little statues of him, he would have had no right to destroy them.
Acts 14:11-18.
February 13, 2008 at 12:41 am |
Kazoo, are you SURE the Israelites weren’t positively commanded to worship God? What does it mean to love God with all your heart, soul and might if it doesn’t mean worship? I mean, you can love your wife without worshiping her, but not so with God.
“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.” (Deuteronomy 6:4-9 ESV)
February 13, 2008 at 8:20 am |
Hi Echo,
With all due respect, I want to point out that this question you are asking me shows that you aren’t at all following what I am saying. If you look further up you’ll see that Rube is making a distinction on what we mean as WORSHIP. I am not saying that “the Israelites weren’t positively commanded to worship God.” I would agree that that is completely ludicrous.
What I have been talking about is the distinction of worship in the “Word and Sacrament” subset. The state, even in Israel, didn’t have a command to punish someone for NOT participating in “Word and Sacrament.” If you read back, this is what I’ve been arguing all along.
To re-address your sabbath scenario, the state had direction to punish one for working on the sabbath, but they did NOT have direction to punish one for failing to go to synagogue on the sabbath. To restate so that it is more clear: if a man refrained from doing what was prohibited on the sabbath, yet didn’t do what was required (negative, positive), the STATE (judges, kings, elders, etc.) had no positive commands to punish.
That is NOT to say that people (Israel) weren’t commanded to “go to synagogue” or Worship. Also, the ‘church’ was to punish by excommunication at its severest. They had the same hope as the modern church today, that the individual would be restored to the community, bring sacrifices for his sins, etc.
Kazoo
February 13, 2008 at 8:26 am |
So Kazoo is not saying the state Israel was not positively commanded to worship, he’s saying the state of Israel was not given penology with which to enforce a postive command to Worship.
February 13, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
You would if it was your home. Let me clarify that I mean public idols. I’m not sure if that changes anything, but that is what I have meant this whole time. The State has jurisdiction over the people aka public. Therefore, they have jurisdiction over what sorts of behavior are permitted publically. No one is saying that the State should start raiding houses.
Let’s recap with that in mind. You agreed (I think) that the State is obligated by God to take down all public idols of the State. Yes? Then what about other public idols? Are those fair game?
February 13, 2008 at 8:12 pm |
Kazoo,
Well, I was hoping to avoid this worship with a capital W and worship without a capital W. I find this distinction unhelpful. I don’t see the basis for it.
The reason I say this is because we have no evidence that there was such a thing as a synagogue prior to the return from exile. There was no Sabbath worship service to attend. Keeping the Sabbath and the other commands was the form of worship they were commanded to give as we are commanded to attend church worship services.
The more formalized sacramental worship was in keeping annual holidays, the liturgical calendar. So they’d go to Jerusalem once a year to offer sacrifices or whatever. So if you want to call that capital W worship, well, ok, I guess. But the regular Sabbath practice was resting from work, not going to synagogue.
Maybe I’m still misunderstanding what you’re saying though, I don’t know.
E
February 13, 2008 at 8:16 pm |
Ron,
I think it would be helpful if we stopped talking about the state as an entity for the moment, and started talking about individual leaders.
So for example, if Caesar has statues of himself erected throughout the realm, then yeah, he has violated his God-given mandate as the king. So what should he do to right himself? Well sure, he should stop putting up statues of himself to be worshiped. And yes, since HE IS RESPONSIBLE for erecting them, he should take them down, because it was by his authority that they were erected.
However, if Caesar does not set up himself as a god, does not demand people worship him, then that’s fine. If someone takes it upon himself to worship him, that’s not according to Caesar’s wishes, so Caesar is not responsible.
E
February 14, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
An interesting read here. Theonomists probably won’t agree with the “Secular Kingdom Administered” section, but the historical parts are interesting.
February 19, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
Rube,
Congratulations. Apparently we’ve won the debate.
E
February 19, 2008 at 4:32 pm |
Wishful thinking Echo. And here I thought Amills were pessimistic!
I’ve just been too tired and had my attention drawn elsewhere as of late. Pray for me.
kazoo
February 19, 2008 at 9:46 pm |
Excuses are like…never mind. Just kidding.
Just remember, “When I am weak, then I am strong.”
God’s not mean, he just refuses to compromise his desire that we trust him and only him completely.
February 25, 2008 at 7:57 am |
Num 9:13, RSV (Rube’s Super Version): “Celebrate Passover, or die.” I know you said you’ll come back to it eventually, but I just wanted to remind you that you’ve got a lot riding on what “cut off” means to the O.T. Jew.
March 5, 2008 at 10:59 pm |
[...] So that is where we will start. God is the beginning and the end. He started the world and put man on it in the context of a covenant (Hosea 6:7). Man broke the covenant and suffered the curse because of it. At the same time, God graciously provided a promise of salvation, and shadowed this promise even as early as the day man was thrown out of the garden. We see hints of this in what could have been the sacrifice of an animal to clothe Adam and Eve. In Cain and Abel, we see the two lines. One line of covenant keepers, and the other line of the covenant breakers. God gave Eve Seth as a replacement for Cain. The line goes on. We have Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David.So we see from the very beginning of human existence, we have this idea of covenant, and one’s standing with regard to it. These are not two kingdoms, but simply two states of relationship to the one King, Jesus Christ, who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. [...]