Anyway, I thought I would dip into the controversy and read something that explained a little bit what it was all about. Imagine my surprise when I picked up G. K. Beale’s, “The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism,” and discovered that all Enns is pushing is a variant of neo-orthodoxy with a “History of Religions” school twist. There is nothing new in what Enns is thumping. This drivel has been pushed for decades. The fact that somehow this is seen as “new,” or, “innovative,” by some people speaks more of those people’s collective historical unawareness then it does to the fact that Enns has discovered a new and innovative Hermeneutic.

Beale, at least, recognizes that Enns has hardly come up with something new under the sun. In a trenchant critique Beale has this to say about the failure of Enns “Myth Hermeneutic.”

1.) Enns affirms that some of the narratives in Genesis, e.g. of creation and flood, are shot through with myth, much of which the biblical narrator did not know lacked correspondence to actual past reality.

2.) Enns appears to assume that since biblical writers, especially, for example, the Genesis narrator, were not objective in narrating history, then their presuppositions distorted significantly the events that they reported. He too often appears to assume that the socially constructed reality of these ancient biblical writers, e.g., their purported mythical mindsets, prevented them from being able to describe past events in a way that had significant correspondence with how a person in the modern world would observe and report events.

3.) Enns never spells out the model of Jesus’ incarnation with which he is drawing analogies for his view of Scripture.

4.) Enns affirms that one cannot use modern definitions of truth and error in order to perceive whether Scripture contains truth or error. However, this is non-falsifiable, since Enns never says what would count as an error according to ancient standards. This is also reductionistic, since there were some rational and even scientific categories as the disposal of ancient people for evaluating the observable world that are in some important ways commensurable to our own.

5.) Enns does not follow at significant points his own excellent proposal of guidelines for evaluating the views of others with whom one disagrees.

6.) Enns’s book is marked by ambiguities at important junctures of his discussion.

7.) Enns does not attempt to present to and discuss for the reader significant alternative viewpoints besides his own, which is needed in a book dealing with crucial issues.

8.) Enns appears to caricature the views of past evangelical scholarship by not distinguishing the views of so called fundamentalists from that of good conservative scholarly work.

Enns’s hermeneutic is basically a hermeneutic of post-modern tolerance. When embraced the consequence is that the reader of Scripture is the one judging Scripture (what is myth and what isn’t) as opposed to being the one who is under the judgment of Scripture. Enns himself might be comparatively “conservative,” but allow his hermeneutic to be officially sanctioned in the Church (and it already is sanctioned in a defacto way in most churches … for Pete’s sake if it could live for years and years at Westminster East, clearly it is hard to see how it wouldn’t already be ensconced in the Church now) and the consequence will be all kinds of novel postmodern conclusions as putatively drawn from Scripture.

You can read Lee’s whole “apologetic” here. I’ve excised only some of the superfluous verbosity,

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/08/should-we-open-congress-with-prayer/#ixzz2TTiJ2iDJ

Below I interact with Dr. Lee and his glaring inconsistencies as he ties himself up in knots trying to justify the contradiction involved in insisting that the two realm must not be confused all the while confusing the two realms with his prayer.

Before I get into the Lee labyrinth let me start off by quoting one of Dr. Lee’s R2K bedmates (Dr. R. Scott Clark) on this very subject. Clark said on the matter of opening common realm sessions with prayer,

“… there may be no clearer example of the confusion of the two kingdoms when Christ’s ministers do the bidding of Caesar by praying for divine blessing on behalf of the magistrate, as a civil function. Ministers and all Christians are commanded by God to pray for the magistrate. We do so during the week. We do so on the Sabbath, but do we have any business doing so to open legislative sessions? Legislators ought to pray as private persons before, during, and after their civil work but ministers are called by God as Christ’s servants in his eternal, immutable kingdom. They are not called as civil servants. If they will to be civil servants they have only to resign their ecclesiastical office. To attempt to function as an officer in both kingdoms simultaneously is a blow to the spirituality (which doesn’t mean ethereality) of Christ’s church….

For more on how to think about this see D. G. Hart, A Secular Faith. Can you imagine the Apostle Paul opening a session of the Roman senate? The real question is whether we’re going to continue to try to hang on to the last remnants of Christendom.”

And so, we see here what we’ve said all along and that is that R2K is a movement without a center. On one hand you have R2K advocates like Clark and Hart insisting that praying as Ministers in the common realm to be clear confusion of the Kingdoms while on the other hand you have Ph.D’s like Lee and wannabe Matthew Tuiniga who insists that one can be R2K and confuse the two Kingdoms.

Want to know what R2K thinks about any one issue? Flip a coin and your apt to find some R2K minister supporting the coin whether it lands heads, tails, or on its side. Shoot, you can probably find the same R2K minister supporting the same contradictory opposite positions of the coin as we find in Dr. Lee. Really, you’d be better of reading Tarot cards to find consistency in the R2K position then to read the R2K advocates themselves. It’s just that with Lee their inconsistency finds new ways to be inconsistent.

Having introduced my fisking with those comments we turn to the Honorable Dr. Lee.

Dr. Lee writes,

“I was torn, (about whether I should pray in the House of Representatives) and proceeded to have a lively debate with myself, based on the terms of my own Christian faith, on whether I ought to accept. Most arguments for and against civil religion tend to be pitched at a generic level, though the merits of generic religion are unclear to me. (I have yet to see a Judeo-Christian church — or would it be a synagogue?) However, it dawned on me that there are a number of quite good Christian arguments for and against public prayer in Congress, and that the more Christians gave serious thought to what their tradition thinks about this, the more welcome they would be when they do speak out. What follows is a brief summary of some key arguments. (Spoiler alert: I accepted and opened the pro forma session on April 30th in prayer; here is text and video, at 2:00.)…

1) What the Bible says about public prayer for civil leaders.

The Apostle Paul urges prayers and thanksgivings to be offered for all people, especially “kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and dignified life” (1 Timothy 2). Christians believe all governing authorities are established by God, and Paul even calls them “God’s servants” for our good, and for punishing evildoers (Romans 13). In the New Testament, church and state play distinct roles in God’s plan, but both are divine instruments in the world — the church for salvation, the state for preservation. So the state is a fitting subject for Christian prayer, and indeed one we pray for practically every week in our church.

Where these prayers should take place is less clear. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warned about hypocrites, who love to pray on street corners “so they may be seen by others” (Matt 6.5). Yet for many Christians today, the whole point to praying in public is to be seen, that we may “bear witness” to the Gospel. This seems to deeply confuse the purpose of prayer with public proclamation, not to mention totally ignore Jesus’ command: “When you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret.”

Of course, as a minister I get paid to pray in public every Sunday. Which brings us to our next argument.”

Bret Lee responds,

1.) First, let me note that it is head scratchlingly amazing to me that a minister has to write a couple thousand words in order to justify praying. What next, articles from Surgeons justifying using a scalpel?

2.) Jesus instructed the disciples how to pray. In that instruction He didn’t limit His disciples as to where they could pray. That saints prayed in public can be seen everywhere in Scripture. Solomon prayed in public. Ezra prayed in public. Hannah prayed in public. Daniel prayed in public. Jesus prayed in public. To cite Matthew 6:5f so as to muddy the waters about public prayer is to completely miss the point of Jesus words in Matthew 6:5f. For a minister to misunderstand the Scripture so badly on this simple of a point should be a klaxon warning of the potential errors to come.

Dr. Lee

2) The difference between Congress and church.

Before you file this under “most obvious argument ever,” take a moment to consider exactly what the essential difference is. A church is a particular worshiping community, a creedal body, because it prays to a particular God. When I pray publicly in church, I therefore pray in the first person plural. That is, I pray in common and on behalf of every member of that community. While guests are welcome to observe and join in, there is no presumption they must do so. In doing so I presume for all to whom we are praying, and how we are praying, and why we expect our prayers to be answered.

To whatever degree “Christian” may describe America, we are quite obviously not a creedal nation. Membership in Congress is explicitly not subject to a religious test; it is in this sense an anti-creedal body. It is therefore impossible for me to pray before Congress as I pray in church, on behalf of the assembled body, for Congress does not have an agreed-upon God. However, while I may not be able to pray on behalf of people who don’t share my faith, I can certainly pray for them. In this way, I occasionally pray for sick unbelievers when I’m invited to visit them in the hospital.

Christians must not presume false unity within a pluralistic group by praying in the first person plural on their behalf. If we do pray in such settings, we must pray as individuals, to a particular God, for the group. And indeed, this seems to me most consistent with the pluralistic character of our polity, that we retain our religious distinctiveness even as we enter the public square, instead of pretending as though there is none.

Bret Lee

1.) Being a creedal nation is an inescapable category. All nations are creedal nations. Even were a nation to insist that it was not a creedal nation that disavowal would then be that nations creed. When Lee notes that the Congress is a “anti-creedal body,” he has affirmed that the creed of the Congress is that no creed except the creed of no creed will be tolerated. Non-creedalism is the established religion.

Now nations are more than creedal but they are never less than creedal. So, this nation is a creedal nation. In point of fact legion is the name of those who are insisting that this nation is only a propositional nation which is much the same as being only a creedal nation. The creed of this Nation goes something like, America is a democratic nation founded upon the notions of the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” grounded in the principles of equality and human rights all the while affirming the creed that no creed except the creed of no creed will be tolerated. Despite Dr. Lee’s denial that is America’s creed and it is her civil religion. So, for Dr. Lee to insist that America is not a creedal nation tells us more about Dr. Lee’s analytical abilities then it tells us about America.

2.) To the contrary of Dr. Lee I would say that there is a religious test in America and religious test is the necessity for all who would serve to agree that there is no religious test in America. If any person ever ran on the idea that there should be a religious test in order to serve in Congress they would never be elected and I doubt they would be seated if they ran and won. Of course Dr. Lee agrees with our religious test that demands that we not allow religious tests and so he fits right into the current creed of this creedal nation.

3.) I do agree with Lee that as Christian ministers we must enter the public square as Christian ministers. As such were I asked to pray in that setting as a Christian minister I would pray that God would give a spirit of repentance to all men; both his servants who have a daily need to be conversant with repentance but also to those who have not had the joy of surrendering to the majesty and protection of the Lord Christ. It is true, I may not presume that all present are Christian but as a Christian minister I should pray that all might become Christian. Further I should pray that the magistrates of the nation would become God fearers and work to make existentially true what is already objectively true and that is that they might surrender the nation to the Crown Rights of the Lord Christ.

Dr. Lee writes,

3) The unknown God as the object of prayer.

It is a little odd, in my opinion, for the House of Representatives, which can’t officially believe in any particular God, to want to officially offer prayers to no God in particular. It brings to mind the Apostle Paul’s visit to Athens in Acts 17, when he notes the very religious nature of a people who raise altars dedicated “to an unknown God.” Paul grants that this unknown God was in fact the Creator God of Christianity — just as I recognize “Nature’s God” in the Declaration of Independence as the Triune God of Scripture. But then he calls the Athenians to repent of their ignorant folly in light of the resurrection of Christ.

This argument is a hard sell. Americans like their gods unknown, and their religion generic, and the more generic the better. “Hey, we’re all on a spiritual journey, no one has a corner on truth, and you can’t judge me for the object of my prayer. I’d rather members of Congress pray to someone — even just a higher power — than not pray at all.” Or, in the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is.” Civil religion is the enemy of the particular God; owned by every citizen, it is by definition generic.

There may be practical arguments, a la Ike, for civil religion and its generic prayer to an unknown God. It may be good public policy, and might even be good for your health. But these aren’t Christian arguments, and as a Christian minister I can’t encourage people to falsely pray to a God they don’t know and don’t believe in.

Therefore, I accepted the invitation to pray as a guest with the understanding that I could pray a Christian prayer, in and through the merits of Christ. Should the House tolerate prayers like mine, offered in the name of Christ? Only, it seems to me, if it is also willing to accept prayers written in the name of Allah, Buddha, Gaia, or Zeus. My guess is this pluralistic version of Pascal’s wager would enjoy a lot less popular support than generic prayers to a nameless God, and the practice would soon pass away entirely.

Rev. Bret Lee responds,

1.) If, as a Christian minister Brian can’t encourage people to falsely pray to a God they don’t know and don’t believe in, he can at least pray (Congress Critters) God via his prayer that those outside of Christ might come face to face with the God of the Bible that they may see their danger and so flee to Christ and he could pray that in his prayer in the well of the house. Can we not plead God for sinners to convert wherever we pray?

2.) Of course by Brian’s reasoning the House must also accept prayers written to Satan, Kali, and the Staypuff Marshmallow man. A polytheistic nation must allow all the gods in as long as the gods know to keep their place and not try to overstep the boundaries of the one true god, to wit, the Humanist God-State. Brian seems to think that one god does not predominate the the House and the Nation but in that Brian is mistaken. The one God that rules over all the gods in the public square is the God State. The God State even informs Brian what he can and can’t pray to his God as we shall see later on in this analysis.

Dr. Lee writes,

4) The nature of Christian prayer

Christian prayer is redemptive. We pray to God not as rights-bearing citizens deserving of our hearing in court, but as penniless beggars, debtors before his throne of mercy. As a Reformed Christian, I don’t hope, I know, this God will answer my prayers — not based on what I deserve, but based on what Jesus has done for me. When I pray publicly, as a Christian minister in church, I pray with this confidence on behalf of all the baptized members of that church, all who have professed faith in the work of Christ alone, and trust on him alone. I pray for their salvation, as well as for everything needful for body and soul. This is the essence of Christian prayer.

It is not only unchristian, but rude, to offer such a prayer publicly on behalf of people who don’t claim Christ. Therefore, I explicitly limited the scope of my House prayer. While I invoked the name of Christ that my prayer might be answered, my prayer was not stealthily evangelistic, or redemptive. Rather I prayed for those blessings which the Lord is pleased to give to all men in common. I prayed that the House would fulfill God’s purpose for all civil governments: “to protect the defenseless, praise those who do good, and punish those who do evil” (1 Peter 2.14, Romans 13). America may be exceptional in many ways, but not in God’s eyes, and Christians everywhere should pray these things for their government, whether they live in Syria, China, Israel, or Russia.

Rev. Bret Lee responds,

1.) Please note the two sentences I emboldened. I’m sure that there is something I am missing here because if I have not misunderstood the point here this must be the most glaring contradiction I’ve ever seen from a Reformed minister.

On one hand Dr. Lee tells us that Christian prayer is redemptive but a few sentences later Lee tells us that his prayer in Congress was not … redemptive. So, if this is really what Lee means all I can conclude is that Lee, as a Christian minister offered a non-Christian prayer in the name of Christ. What else am I to conclude?

2.) Dr. Lee also tells us that it is unchristian for a Christian Minister to offer a Christian prayer for non-Christian people.

Uhhh?

If this keeps up we are going to need a Venn diagram to keep all this straight.

3.) I also disagree with Dr. Lee about America not being exceptional. I think America is exceptional. It is exceptional in wickedness. It is also exceptional in producing profoundly confused clergy.

4.) Governments can not fulfill God’s purpose for all governments when they are not Christian because when they are not Christian they no longer have God’s standard to define either good or evil. Oh sure, non Christian governments might serve into good and evil but they will not be able to account for why they see some matters as “good” and other matters as “evil.”

Here is a copy of Dr. Lee’s prayer,

Creator God, merciful and just.

You dwell above in holiness, a father to the fatherless, protector of widows and orphans. Dear Lord, rescue the weak and needy, deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

Give wisdom to this body. You hold all things in your almighty hand, and you have established this House of Representatives — and every governing authority — as your servants, that they might protect the defenseless, praise those who do good, and punish those who do evil.

Preserve and protect our President.

Humble all these your servants with your holy law, which you shine forth in all our hearts. Help them to seek peace.

You are a God who saves. Convict us of all our sins, that we might know deliverance from these our wicked ways.

Hear this prayer, for the sake of the merits of your only Son, the crucified and risen Lord, Jesus Christ.

Amen.

1.) Lee goes out of his way to address God as “creator God.” In his mind, by doing so, Lee has avoided confusing Creation (common realm) with Redemption (grace realm). However Lee really confuses matters when Lee then refers to this Creator God as a father to the fatherless, protector of widows and orphans. However, God as Creator is only father to the fatherless and protector of widows and orphans to those fatherless and widows and orphans who are in Christ. To all those outside Christ (including the Fatherless and Widows an Orphans) the Creator God is an avenging fire.

2.) Lee suggest that God has written his law on all men’s hearts and yet Jeremiah restricts that blessing of the law written on the heart to those who are members of the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:33). In other words, Dr. Lee was mistaken on that point.

3.) I’m quite encouraged that Dr. Lee prayed for the redemption of all his listeners in this, his non redemptive prayer.

4.) It is a bit confusing that a non-redemptive prayer would be offered up for the sake of the merits of your (The Father’s) only Son. How can a non-redemptive prayer be offered up upon the merits of the Redeemer Christ?

______________________

And finally, here are the restrictions that the God State put upon Dr. Lee and his God. After all, the God state is obliged to let all the gods know how far they can go in the god states public square.

“The guest chaplain should keep in mind that the House of Representatives is comprised of Members of many different faith traditions.

The length of the prayer should not exceed 150 words.

The prayer must be free from personal political views or partisan politics, from sectarian controversies, and from any intimations pertaining to foreign or domestic policy.

It must be given exclusively and in its entirety in the English language.

It must be free from references to the national day observances of any other nation.

The prayer must be submitted at least one week ahead of time for incorporation in the Congressional Record.

When introduced by the Speaker for the prayer, the guest chaplain should not make any introductory remarks, but rather just begin the prayer.”

www.startribune.com/local/159819565.html?refer=y

However the Piper ministry was convinced that the Newspaper got it wrong. So, instead of trusting the Newspaper’s reporting and just going with that I am going to fisk Piper to show how the Newspaper got the essence of the story correct.

Piper said in his sermon,

Don’t press the organization of the church or her pastors into political activism. Pray that the church and her ministers would feed the flock of God with the word of God centered on the gospel of Christ crucified and risen. Expect from your shepherds not that they would rally you behind political candidates or legislative initiatives, but they would point you over and over again to God and to his word, and to the cross.

First, Piper reveals that he has compartmentalized his thinking. Somehow for Piper the Christian faith has nothing to say to Politics when Political agendas are impinging on the clear revelation of Scripture. Scripture forbids sodomy but Piper refuses to concretely support legislation that would forbid sodomite marriage. One of the uses of the law (usus politicus) reminds us that one of the purposes of the law is to be used by our magistrates in order to govern society. That is, the law serves the commonwealth or body politic as a force to restrain sin. And yet Piper would have ministers seemingly ignore this use of God’s law.

Second, Piper fails to realize that Politics is just theology by another means. Politics is not a free floating category unrelated to theology. Politics is instead the outward manifestation of a people’s inward beliefs. So, when Piper refuses to tell his people that they should support what God’s law proscribes and prohibits in their social order he is suggesting that the Church can not speak God’s voice on these matters.

Now some may offer up, as Piper does, that the Church cannot speak on these issues while individual Christians should. That sounds nice and tidy but it is really just a guarantee of the Church’s effeminacy. Consider, that if the Church refuses to speak God’s voice on these matters and its membership forms Christian associations on these matters the consequence is that you could get all kinds of advocacy groups all going under the banner of “Christian.” You could have a Christian group for man boy love. You could have a Christian Sodomy group. You could have a Christian pro-Sodomite marriage group as well as Christian groups supporting Christian morality. But in Piper’s anti-politics theology what voice will speak a “thus saith the Lord” to the advocacy groups that are potentially coming out of Piper’s church that support anti-Christ behavior? Not Piper … for he has said that isn’t his business.

Others can say what they want, but I still contend that this smells of cowardice to me on Piper’s part and on all the part of those who advocate this retreat-ism.

It should be the expectation of every Christian that their laws should be informed by Biblical categories. St. Paul reminds us,

9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for murderers, 10For fornicators, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for enslavers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Here Paul insists that the law is for the lawless. This is clearly support the usus politicus and ministers should, when necessary, be able to point to legislation and candidates and say, “based on the fact that this legislation or this candidate supports God’s usus politicus we need to get behind them.

Third, Piper introduces a false dichotomy in order to justify his cowardice. The Shepherds can, at the same time, point you over and over again to God and to His word while saying, “We need to support this candidate or legislative mandate, because he is and the legislation is also supporting God and His Word.”

What if the pending legislation was proposing forcing Jews to wear yellows stars of David in order to be identified as Jews? Would Piper sill counsel that pulpits be quiet about political activism? I think not. I think Piper’s reluctance to be politically active is one where he picks and chooses what to be active on and what not to be active on.

Piper preaches,

“Please try to understand this concluding point. When I warn you against politicizing me, or politicizing the institution called Bethlehem, or the church in general, I do so not to diminish her power but to increase it. The impact of the church for the glory of Christ and the good of the world does not increase when she shifts her priorities from the worship of God and the winning of souls and the nurturing of faith and raising up of new generations of disciples. It doesn’t. It feels in the moment that it does. “Look at how many people showed up for the rally!” Or “Look how many signatures in that church they got!” Or “Look how that committee is functioning!” It feels powerful, but give it a generation. And little by little, that vaunted power bleeds away the very nature of the church and its power.”

1.) Raising up new generations of disciples? Piper is raising up new generations of disciples by refusing to give them God’s counsel on concrete actions they can take to support God’s legislating word? Piper is going to make disciples by modeling before them the necessity to hold truth in the abstract while evading truth in the concrete. Piper is going to make disciple by going all Platonic and Pietistic from the pulpit?

Allow me to suggest that the Church has too many of those disciples (and Pastors) already.

2.) Again, note how Piper is compartmentalizing his thinking. Discipleship happens in the Church. Instructing disciples on what discipleship looks like outside the Church is a no no. This is ecclesiastical schizophrenia.

3.) Certainly we can agree that it is possible for the Church to make the good the enemy of the best but to suggest that the Best (Preaching Christ and Him Crucified) necessitates that we give up the good (speaking clearly God’s voice on social issues where God has clearly spoken) is utter nonsense. It is like saying that since feeding my children was so important and such a priority while they were in my home that I could not also instruct them. Such thinking is utter idiocy. So, let us avoid hobby horses to the neglect of preaching up Christ but lets us also avoid the hobby horse that says that we can’t give concrete instructions to God’s people from God’s Word when the State intrudes itself upon God’s authority.

4.) Of course it is my position that it is Piper who is seeking, in all this, a theology of glory, despite his implicit accusation that that is what the putative “political activist” preachers do. When Piper avoids this kind of concrete instruction he can be sure he will offend no one. In offending no one he can build his big cash filled church because no one is offended by his supporting people and legislation who align with God’s authoritative Word that certain people may not approve of. People can sit in a church where they are offended in the abstract and blow it off but when they are offended in the concrete by knowing the Pastor is going to advocate defeating concrete positions by supporting concrete legislation or candidates then they are prone to leave.

Piper preaches,

If the whole counsel of God is preached with power week in and week out, Christians who are citizens of heaven and citizens of this democratic order will be energized as they ought to speak and act for the common good. It’s your job, not mine. Don’t look to me to wave the flag for your vote. Or wave the flag for your candidate.

Why is it their job and not Pipers? Why is it the flock must act without the Shepherd? This is Pietism once again. The minister dare not get his hands dirty in concrete affairs. The minister must remain dealing with all these things in the abstract.

And if a candidate is advocating a position that is consistent with God’s Law how is it that the Minister is waving the flag for his parishioner’s candidate? What makes that candidate uniquely the parishioner’s candidate? Why is it wrong for the Minister to “wave the flag” against candidates that are advocating sodomy or tagging Jews with yellow Stars of David?

Second, America is not, nor has ever been, a Democratic order. We are founded as a Constitutional Republic. Piper might want to investigate the difference.

Piper preaches,

Let me read you from this week’s WORLD magazine the editorial by Marvin Olasky. Many of you are familiar with WORLD. WORLD is a very political magazine, and it ought to be. I just love the Marvin Olasky and the team at WORLD. I’m glad they’re doing what they’re doing. This is what he said in the article, pleading with churches not to be politicized:

Wise pastors prompt [Christians] to form associations outside the church, and leave the church to its central task from which so many blessings flow. That pattern in the 18th and 19th centuries worked exceptionally well. New England pastors in colonial times preached and taught what the Bible said about liberty, and the Sons of Liberty — not a subset of any particular church — eventually sponsored a tea party in Boston harbor. Pastors through America during those centuries preached about biblical poverty-fighting, and in city after city Christians formed organizations such as (in New York) the Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor. (WORLD, June 16, 2012, 108)

My job is to feed the saints with such meals that they go out strengthened and robust and able to do the study and do the courage and do the action needed as salt and light in this world. And that will go away if you insist on the church and the ministry being the political leaders. It will and we can point to many where it has.

1.) WORLD has long been recognized as a neon-conservative magazine. It seldom represents political or theological orthodoxy.

2.) Piper goes on earlier about how he can’t wave the flag for certain causes and yet by supporting Olasky and WORLD magazine he waves the flag for Neo-conservative pagan politics.

3.) We no longer live in the 18th and 19th centuries. The leaven of humanism has worked its leaven far more through the institutional structures of our culture. What might have worked during a time that remained much more Christian will not apply during a time that is doing all it can to tear Christianity up, root, branch and twig.

“Those who, rejecting Scripture, imagine that they have some peculiar way of penetrating to God, are to be deemed not so much under the influence of error as madness. For certain giddy men have lately appeared, who, while they make a great display of the superiority of the Spirit, reject all reading of the Scriptures themselves, and deride the simplicity of those who only delight in what they call the dead and deadly letter. But I wish they would tell me what spirit it is whose inspiration raises them to such a sublime height that they dare despise the doctrine of Scripture as mean and childish. If they answer that it is the Spirit of Christ, their confidence is exceedingly ridiculous; since they will, I presume, admit that the apostles and other believers in the primitive Church were not illuminated by any other Spirit. None of these thereby learned to despise the word of God, but every one was imbued with greater reverence for it, as their writings most clearly testify. . . Again, I should like those people to tell me whether they have imbibed any other Spirit than that which Christ promised to his disciples. Though their madness is extreme, it will scarcely carry them the length of making this their boast. But what kind of Spirit did our Saviour promise to send? One who should not speak of himself, (John 16: 13) but suggest and instill the truths which he himself had delivered through the word. Hence the office of the Spirit promised to us, is not to form new and unheard-of revelations, or to coin a new form of doctrine, by which we may be led away from the received doctrine of the gospel, but to seal on our minds the very doctrine which the gospel recommends.”

Interestingly the Ascension was celebrated for centuries in the early Church with Pentecost as one festival. During the end of the 4th century the Church eventually recognized them as dates to celebrate two festivals. One honoring the Ascension. One honoring Pentecost.

Of course we remember that the Ascension of the Lord Christ is a necessary aspect of the narrative of the Gospel. We confess the Ascension of the Lord Christ when we confess the Apostles Creed.

he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,

Too often we so focus on the Cross of Christ that we forget the subsequent Redemptive acts following the Cross — the Resurrection, the Ascension, the co-Regency of the Lord Christ (Session) and the Kingly distribution of the Divine gift of the Holy Spirit upon His people (Pentecost). So, in no way diminishing the luster of the Cross work of the Lord Christ we spend some time on Ascension Sunday speaking to the importance of the Ascension of the Lord Christ, while at the same time seeing the relationship between Cross and Crown.

We first note that the Ascension of the Lord Christ was a enthronement reality. In the enthronement ceremony of the Ancient world what was being affirmed was the Sovereign and rightful rule of the King. We find included in that rightful rule of the King also the theme of judgment because the king was enthroned to judge over his people.

Psalm 96:10, 97:2, 8, 98:9, 99:4

So, when we celebrate Ascension Sunday we are celebrating that Christ is a sovereign King who rules over the affairs of the nations. Indeed, in the Gospel narrative the Ascension of the Lord Christ is the explanation of how God’s reign is incarnated on earth among men.

Luke’s Gospel, for example, very quickly brings us to the Baptism of Jesus, which Jesus describes as a royal anointing (Luke 4:18). In point of fact when, upon Baptism, the Lord Christ hears the Father’s words, “You are my Beloved Son,” there is a echo of the enthronement Psalm of Psalm 2 coming through.

“You are my Son, today I have begotten you …”

So, at the beginning of Christ’s ministry Jesus, as David’s greater Son, is recognized as King, but His enthronement does not come until after his Crucifixion and Resurrection in His Ascension. That there is such a delay between his anointing and His enthronement should not surprise us since there is precedent for that in the OT. David is chosen by God and anointed by Samuel years before he is finally enthroned as King.

Luke describes the Resurrection and Ascension as Jesus’ divine royal enthronement. In his sermon at Pentecost Peter uses the Psalms to show how the Resurrection and Ascension represent the fulfillment of the God’s Promise to David that His seed would forever rule.

Luke cites Psalm 16:8-11 and explains that the Lord has fulfilled David’s prayer for preservation from death not in himself, for he died, but in Jesus who is raised from the dead (Acts 2:24-31).

He then draws on Psalm 110:1 to show how the Lord establishes Jesus as King at his right hand in his Ascension (Acts 2:32-36); through the Ascension Jesus is enthroned at the right hand of God. Though Jesus was “anointed” as king in his baptism, it was only in his Resurrection and Ascension that he was elevated and installed as king.

This exaltation and enthronement becomes a theme again a few chapters later in the book of Acts when Peter says,

(Acts 5:29-32 NKJV) But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men. {30} “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. {31} “Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. {32} “And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.”

So, the Ascension of the Lord Christ — His enthronement — was to the end that the Nations would move in terms of His Sovereign rule and authority, and Peter speaks as one who is under the authority of a King who compels him to disobey lesser authorities who rule contrary to the Ascended King’s Law Word.

That the soon Enthroned and Ascended King intends to bring God’s rule to bear on earth is seen in Jesus last recorded words in Matthew 28,

18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Jesus, as the Ascended one, who has been given a name above every other name, now sits at the right Hand of the Father to the end of the fulfillment of all that the Gospel intended to accomplish which is the ongoing extension of His now established rule. In His Ascension God has set His steward King as regent over the nations until His enemy nations are made His footstool.

Now none of this truth denigrates the message of the Cross. In order to come underneath the rule of the King one must understand their rebellion against and alienation from the Ascended King. Only the atoning death of Christ can answer that rebellion and alienation. However, once that rebellion is forgiven because of the finished work of Christ and the alienation set aside so that we are now adopted as co-heirs with Christ we now are part of the Kingdom of God and walk in terms of His law Word — a law word that will hold sway over everything once His enemies are made His footstool.

We should say a few words here to elaborate.

There are those in the Church who want to talk about Christ’s Kingship as if the Kingdom of God is going to be reflected absent the proclamation of the Cross of Christ. It is as if they believe that the current Kingdom of God will be participated in by men who never understood God’s just wrath against sin yet were brought into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross. This will never do. The Cross is the center of our proclamation because it constantly reminds us of our only solution for sin and our only standing before God. We can not participate in God’s building up of His Kingdom apart from the Cross.

However, on the other hand, there are those who never want to move beyond the Cross to the resurrection and the ascension. Christ is King NOW and just as His humiliation was seen in space and time History, so His exaltation will be embodied in space and time History as He triumphs by His Gospel over the nations until His enemies are made His footstool. There are those who warn against the dangers of a over-realized eschatology and in doing so they are warning against a theology of glory where the humility of the Cross is ignored. This is a profitable warning.

But we might also warn against a eschatology that is under-realized and one that diminishes the Ascension of Christ. We might warn against a theology that requires defeat and insists that the victories gained by the ascended Christ are only “spiritual” in nature. We might warn against forgetting the enthronement and Ascension of our Lord Christ and His intent on making his very real enemies into very real footstools. We might warn against a theology that closes the door to God’s reign on earth being made manifest so that all the Nations flow into the Mountain of the Lord’s house (Isaiah 2).

What might we say next of this Ascension we affirm and celebrate?

The Ascension belies an objective state of affairs.

Listen to this morning’s text again,

Acts 2:29 “Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne,[e] 31 he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.

34 “For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself:

‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”’[f]

36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

What we seen here is that the Ascension gives ontological objectivity to our Preaching and our message

We’ve tried to teach from this pulpit, many times, the the Christian faith is capital T transcendent TRUTH. This flies in the face of the post-modern age which deceptively tries to suggest that truth is person or community variable. In other words, we live in times that desires to suggest that if truth exists it only exists consistent with the narrative or story that any individual or group determines to spin.

Peter’s Sermon, in appealing to the Ascension of Christ puts an end to that nonsense.

Peter insists (and the book of Acts everywhere breathes) that this is an objective state of affairs that obtains and that objective state of affairs (Christ ascended and enthroned at the Right hand of the Father) requires all men everywhere to repent (Acts 2:38).

This objective state of affairs is a Universal reality. Christ ascended and so ruling is the way things are. When proclaiming the Gospel we are not primarily speaking of people entering into a personal relationship with Jesus the way that one might decide to go steady with a boyfriend or girlfriend. When we proclaim the Gospel we are primarily speaking of the Ascended one who rules over the affairs of the Universe to the end of restoring all things so that His enemies are made His footstool. Listen to the way St. Paul characterizes that Dominion in Ephesians 1. St. Paul can speak of

the exceeding greatness of God’s power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power 20 which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.

So when we herald Christ we are heralding a objective ontological Cosmic reality. In the death of Christ, Christ defeated all enemies and implemented the Reign of God by brining in a new creational age wherein He intends to set all things aright so as to establish God’s New World Order — God’s Kingdom. This is what the Ascension of Christ bespeaks. Because of Christ’s ascension the age to come has invaded this present wicked age under the instrumentation of the obedient Church, which has been filled with the Spirit of Christ, as gifted by the Ascended King, so that the Church is eager to do good works, unto to the end of being the aroma of Christ unto a world that will be converted by the presently established reign of the ascended Christ.

In the language of the Theologians this is part and parcel of the Christus Victor motif (Col. 2:15). Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension is God’s testimony that He has triumphed over all enemies — foreign and domestic. When you combine this Christus Victor motif with the current reign of Christ over all nations and spheres you get the Gospel. Because of the active obedience of Christ in resisting the Devil and because of the passive obedience of Christ in the work of the Cross, the pretender to the throne of this world (the Devil) has been defeated — the Strong man has been bound — and because of the 2nd Adam’s work, Adam’s seed has had paradise restored — in principle.

You see then that the Ascension compels us to speak of a Gospel that has global implications. In St. John’s language (12:30f) Christ has been lifted up (a double entendre referring both to the crucifixion and the Ascension) and the consequence is that the ruler of this world is cast out. All men everywhere are now commanded to repent for Christ’s new creational age to come has come. This is the Gospel.

One last word on this Ascension Sunday.

Consistent w/ Federal Theology what is predicated of the Covenant head is predicated of His people.

Christ has ascended and so Federally and Covenantally speaking we have as well.

Compare Ephesians 1:20 w/ 2:6

20 which the Father worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,

2:6 — Speaking of believers

6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

The good news for Christians is that we died with him, were resurrected with him (Romans 6:4f, Col. 2:13) and have ascended with him (Eph. 2:6) so we are Kings and Priests unto Sovereign God under Christ (I Pt. 2:4f).

On this Ascension Sunday we are thus to be reminded to increasingly become what we have been freely declared to be because of our identity with Christ. We are a people who are now part of the new Creational Kingdom and as denizens of that new Creational Kingdom we are to become what we have been freely declared to be — Preists and Kings unto the Nations.

Conclusion

After this rousing of a Ascension Sermon we have need to be reminded that there is a “not yet” that must be spoken in the context of all this “now.” We are not what we once were but we also are not yet what we shall be. But even here there is great hope. Yes we continue to struggle against sin, and with the remnants of the Adamic nature that clings to all of us, but because Christ has Ascended and sent forth His Spirit we have great hope that we might mortify the old man while vivifying the new man so that we walking increasingly consistent with God’s royal Law Word.

But beyond all of our personal need to grow in the Grace and Knowledge of the Lord Christ the Ascension of our Lord Christ reminds us also of a King whose rule is Cosmic (Romans 8:21). The Ascension of our Lord Christ reminds us of His intent to subjugate His enemies via the Gospel proclamation that includes both their opportunity to appeal for peace and reconciliation based on the finished work of Christ AND the fact that the finished work of Christ is good news of a Victory that covers the world and so will convert the nations.

Ecclesiastes 7:1

A good name is better than precious ointment,
and the day of death than the day of birth.

Proverbs

22:1 A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches,
and favor is better than silver or gold.

Of course our first concern is that our name should be good before God. His assessment is the only assessment that counts. Immediately we are mindful that the only way we can have a good name before God is by having our name hid in Christ. Our names will never have any value or be considered “good” in any sense if our names are not breathed out as a echo of His name for us, and in our place.

So our first concern is to have a good name before God and that can only be the case as we are anchored and resting in Christ. However, taking that as a given it is still important to have a good name among men.

And yet we must hear that counsel for a good name in light of what our Lord Christ said,

Luke 6:26

“Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way.”

From this we could say that to have all men speak well of us would be to have a bad name before God.

Our seeking to keep a good name must be vertically oriented and anchored in God’s revealed Word. Which is to say that we can not adjudicate what a “good name” is by those who are outside the covenant and by those who hate Christ.

There are those who so concentrate on the cash and carry value of their name that they will compromise truth at every turn in order to advance their name and be seen as a fine fellow. They will seldom risk their reputation for Christ with the precise purpose of making sure that they keep their “good” name.

The word “good” here therefore must have a transcendent standard. A “good” name must be counted “good” as God counts “good.”

As Christians we desire then to have a “good” name

1.) First before God
2.) Second before His Saints
3.) Third before those outside the covenant community

The first two should be our priority and the third one as we can, knowing that if they hated Christ that they will hate us as well.

John 15:18

“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.”

So, while a good name is to be valued it must not be wrongly valued.

On this score we would also note that because of the importance of a good name it is proper, when possible, to challenge those who rake our reputation and good name. Many times, I have found it is not possible to do so, but when it is possible we ought to undertake to defend our name, not out of Pride, so much as out of defense of God’s truth. Just so, it ought to be doubly incumbent upon us to protect the names of the saints, dead or living, from false calumny and needless denigration. When we protect the names of God’s people from being dragged through the mud we are at that point defending God’s Church. Such a defense ought to inspire us. To often we don’t want to “get involved,” but if the matter is clear and the good name of a saint is on the line we must involve ourself for the sake of God’s honor and the honor of our brother or sister.

Pray for a good name, and live in such a way that your name will be good as God counts good, despite what men may or may not say of you.

The Teacher then says that the day of death is better than the day of birth and with that he begins a treatment on issues surrounding death. At first blush this sounds like one of those counter-intuitive statements.

Why might it be the case that the day of death is better than the day of one’s birth? (cmp. vs. 8)

Well, if we were to read this passage through the lens of Redemption we would say that such a thing is true because in our day of death, unlike our day of birth, we hear the “Well done thou good and faithful servant.” In the day of death we know that to be absent from the Body is to be present with the Lord. In the day of death we know that to die is gain in the words of St. Paul. We know that the end aimed at from the day of our birth has been answered, while at the day of our birth the end is uncertain. So, I think in that sense the day of death is better than the day of one’s birth.

Vs. 2 we find the second contrast of “Better this … than that.”

I believe what is said from this point on through the next few verses is especially pointed at the fool. Between vs. 4-9 the “fool” is mentioned 4 times. In Scripture “the Fool” is the one who lives life apart from an apprehension of the reality of God.

If we read vs. 2 in light of vs. 4 we might conclude that if is the fool that is being spoken of. It is better for a fool to go into the house of Mourning than go to the house of feasting.

The thrust here is fairly obvious. When men are frivolous and full of drink and partying their end is seldom before them. Ashes to ashes …. dust to dust.

However when men are in the house of mourning they sober up and hopefully begin to consider their own end.

There is nothing like a funeral to possibly catch people’s attention. Scripture elsewhere says God’s people take the end to heart.

Psalm 90:12 So teach us to number our days
that we may get a heart of wisdom.

There seems to be a correlation then in God’s Word between an understanding of our own mortality and end and the gaining of wisdom. The fool … the party girl … the carefree who spend all their time in the house of feasting never become a wise people.

In vs. 3 the contrasts continues. Sorrow is said to be better than laughter and by a sad countenance the heart is made better.

That the Teacher isn’t intending that the house of mourning should be our constant residence and occupation can be seen by what he says elsewhere in this book,

2:24f, 5:18f, 11:9-10

Because of this other counsel in this same book, I believe that the Preacher is especially talking to the fool. The fool, has especial need to occupy the house of the dead and consider his end. The fool, who knows only the escape of merriment has need to learn that sorrow is better than laughter.

We must say here that the West, including our country, and too often the Church, lives in the house of the feasting fools. We have taken the fools approach by thinking we can live in defiance of God’s reality and keep up our fiat life of mirth and merriment without taking God into account. The Church in the West needs to hear these words ringing from pulpits all across our land because we have become the fools to which the Teacher spoke to in Ecclesiastes. We have not learned the Wisdom of knowing our end. We have refused the sad countenance that could have, by God’s grace, made us wise.

In vs. 5-6 we hear another wisdom contrast, still in the context of fools and wise men.

The setting for the fool here is still the house of mindless mirth and merriment given the fact that we hear mentioned the “song of fools” and the “laughter of the fool.”

The rebuke of the wise is brought forth as being superior to the song of fools. It is far easier to be comforted by silly songs then to be corrected by the wise. Far easier to absorb the pleasures of Top 40 radio (the very definition of the song of fools) than to listen to a lecture or read a book from the wise that forces us to look at ourselves in a mirror that doesn’t reflect well upon us.

Here it is brought to mind the idea of short term vs. long term benefit. In the short term it is more comforting for us to play the fool and avoid the rebuke of the wise. But in the long term it is the rebuke of the wise that makes for our own wisdom and in the long term the song and laughter of the fool is to our harm.

vs. 7 I read as a reflection by the Teacher of living in an age that is characterized by the fool.

Such an age of oppression destroys a wise man’s reason. The threat of destruction is found in the Wise man’s ability to see the folly of his age and to be able to do little about it except lament. The threat of destruction of a wise man’s reason is present because of the temptation of the wise man to embrace cynicism about everything and so be of no aid to those few who desire to escape the age of oppression and be wise themselves.

The Teacher offers that oppression and bribe are common experiences that threaten to destabilize an otherwise good spiritual condition (cmp. 4:1-3)

There is another matter besides oppression that can bite the wise and that is the bribe.

Prov. 17:23 The wicked accepts a bribe in secret
to pervert the ways of justice.

Here the danger is that the wise will give up God’s law word that requires even justice in order to be blind to justice to give favor to the one who is offering the bribe. We are to entrust ourselves to God and to do justice and to not be swayed by the bribe from the wicked. Certainly, it is easier, when living in an age of fools, to take the bribe thinking, “what does it matter anyway? I am surrounded by injustice and fools. What matters it if I profit as well when it won’t matter anyway if I decide what if right by God’s standard.” This is why a bribe can destroy a man’s heart.

We might say here, if we want to connect some earlier matters to this, that the bribe here might be other than money. The bribe could be a good reputation. People could come to the righteous and say … “If you speak this way … or vote this way … your reputation will be ruined.”

In such a case then, he bribe is the promise of a polished reputation for turning a blind eye to wickedness or to becoming mute in the face of injustice.

Whether it is oppression, or whether it is the matter of the bribe we are called to entrust ourselves to God and turn from these wicked temptations.

In vs. 8 we come to another “better” contrast

7:8a I think corresponds to 7:1b. The end is better than the beginning, like the day of death better than the day of birth because at the end one knows if one arrived at what one aimed at.

In 8b – 9 the teacher turns to the dangers of being quick to anger and again juxtaposes the wise man with the fool.

The advice he gives is consistent with what we find elsewhere in Scripture,

James 1:19 Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.

And again in

Ephesians 4:26 “In your anger do not sin”: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry,”

If we connect these warnings against anger with what has gone before we might observe that anger can arise in the wise when living in the age of folly, and if unquenched the anger can lead to the fools folly.

We are called by the teacher to be patient in spirit. This patience is consistent with the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians which teaches that Christians are characterized by patience. By contrasting the patient spirit with the proud spirit what seems to be implied is that the patient spirit is a humble spirit.

Vs. 10 moves the wise towards a particular mindset regarding the times God has give us.

What has been described in Ecclesiastes is an especial age of folly. The temptation is to hearken for “the good old days.” The Teacher says that such an approach is not a wise inquiry.

God’s people are to be future oriented. Even in days of decline. We are to look forward to God’s future that He has for us and not to stuck in some imagined or real past.

Conclusion

Now, this pointed and practical wisdom having been given we would note again that it is impossible for anyone outside of Christ to take up this Wisdom. If it is our goal to be a Wise people we must look to Christ whom Scripture teaches is our “Wisdom from God.”

Also, we must realize that the learning and conforming of this kind of Wisdom is at the same time a matter of being conformed to Christ. Only as we walk in sanctification can we hope to increase in wisdom and knowledge. Scripture teaches that in Christ alone is hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. So, if we would be wise and heed the Teacher we must look to Christ alone and then be conformed to Christ who was the incarnation of God’s Law and Grace.

43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. 44 And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”

Some commentators have rightly noticed that this second statement about a stone also has an OT background, this time from Daniel 2:34-35: “A stone was cut out without hands, and it struck the statue … and crushed [it],” and it “became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away.” The statue in Daniel represented the evil world empires that oppress God’s people, and the stone symbolized God’s Kingdom of Israel that would destroy and judge these unbelieving Kingdoms. Now, unbelieving Israel as become identified with pagan Kingdoms and is portrayed as being judged along with them by also being ‘broken to pieces’ and ‘scattered like dust.’

Thus Jesus sees Israel as becoming indistinguishable from the ungodly nations and accordingly judged in the very same way. That is, Israel as a nation will no longer exist as God’s true covenant people, just as the pagan nations to be judged at the eschaton will no loner exist. Remember also that the ‘stone’ of Daniel, after smashing the colossus, representing the evil kingdoms, ‘became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.’ Jesus identifies himself with Daniel’s stone that smashes the ungodly nations, which also includes here Israel, which is seen as being allied with these nations. That an aspect of the new form of the kingdom in this passage is the temple, centered in both Jesus and a new ‘people producing fruit,’ is further indicated by the fact that the parable of the vineyard in Is. 57, to which Jesus alludes in the directly preceding context, was interpreted by early Judaism to represent Israel’s temple.

That Jesus identifies himself with the cornerstone of the new temple is pointed to further by how in Dan. 2 the stone that struck the statue and then ‘filled the earth’ represented the foundation stone of the temple. That foundation stone grew and grew until it expanded to cover the entire the earth. A further indication that Israel identified itself with the nations instead of God’s true Israel, Jesus, is seen in Pilate’s question to the Jews, ‘Shall I crucify your King?’ to which the chief priests responded, ‘We have no King but Caesar’ [John 19:15]. This develops the earlier statement by the Jewish crowd addressing Pilate, ‘if you release this man [Jesus], you are no friend of Caesar’ (John 19:12). In the parallel in Mt. 27:25 the Jews responded to Caesar saying, ‘ His blood be on us and our children,’ another radical expression of disassociating themselves from Jesus as the center of the newly emerging Israel, kingdom, and temple.

G. K. Beale
A New Testament Theology — 682

How can Beale remain amillennial and write material like this? Like Vos before him, Beale recognizes the “now, not yet” hermeneutic and constantly properly refers to the distinction between the Kingdom inaugurated and the Kingdom consummated. Yet, for Beale, again, like Vos before him always tends to front load the “not yet” in his hermeneutic over the “now.” I think this amillennial front loading of the “now” over the “not yet” is a Redemptive historical mistake. It was in the Old Testament where we find the front loading of the “not yet” over the “now,” in the coming of the Kingdom. However, with the coming of Christ who Himself is the Kingdom, the Redemptive-Historical anticipation has been realized so that with the new and better covenant the “now” of the “already, now, not-yet” Redemptive-Historical hermeneutic is front-loaded so that we anticipate that the inaugurated Kingdom that came with Christ goes from nowness unto nowness. This is the hermeneutical basis for postmillennialism. The front loading of the “not yet” has passed with the coming of Christ and with Christ’s victory we read the Scripture with the “now,” not consummated but indeed front loaded.

Also note that geo-political Israel is of no eschatological import to God as it has been overthrown, never to rise again. Geo-political Israel has absolutely zero claims to God’s promises of the OT. God has crushed Israel, divorced Israel, and served Israel divorce papers in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Indeed, I might go so far as to say that those who see Israel as remaining God’s chosen people, are trying to reverse God’s judgment and so are enemies of God and His people.

Now, we can quite agree that there is truth in the idea that when people are converted the cultural mandate is being fulfilled. However, all because there is a Spiritual component to fulfillment doesn’t mean that there does not remain a corporeal fulfillment of the cultural mandate. To suggest that believers need not be concerned with taking Dominion since Christ has taken Dominion is to create a vacuum in the temporal realm that becomes filled by other Christ hating religions who will take Dominion in the names of their respective gods. To refuse to enter into the cultural mandate work of Dominion as faithful stewards unto Christ is to spiritualize the Crown Rights of King Jesus to the point that He is King in absentia, King in name only, and a King who rules in name only.

All of this is, as I said earlier, to sever the work of Christ from the work of God’s people. It is because Christ fulfilled the cultural mandate that we seek to walk in terms of that fulfillment. Christ’s Kingdom is an inaugurated Kingdom where His inaugurated corporeal Dominion is exercised concretely via the obedience of His people as given by the poured out Holy Spirit. To suggest that God’s people need not take dominion in the public square, as faithful stewards unto Christ, is to so Spiritualize Biblical Christianity as to make it effete and as a salt that has lost its savor.

Also, such a theology guarantees defeat in space and time history. Such a defeat is necessary to R2K militant amillennial theology. Amillennial theology insists that at the end of History the Church has been defeated by God’s foes. R2K theology guarantees that will happen as they argue for a theology of withdrawal, retreat, and defeat in the public square. The only problem here is that Christ isn’t going to return upon the space and time diminution of the Church as created by R2K disobedience. As such it is conceivable that R2K could successfully deliberately create the climate for the Church’s decline as it surrenders the public square to the enemies of God who take dominion in the names of their Gods. Yet, even if R2K is successful in this surrender maneuver they will be sorely disappointed when their expected eschatology doesn’t find Jesus sweeping in on the clouds to rescue them from the disaster they have created by their retreat-ism.

All of this explains the pursuit of economic chaos with all the bailouts and stimulus programs. We must destroy the country economically so that a brighter economic future might be born. This explains the attempt at marriage chaos with the sanctioning sodomite marriage. This explains the attempt to overturn the 2nd amendment since weapons in the hands of the citizenry frustrate the revolutionists pursuit of order by means of chaos.

The progressive (Revolutionists) are committed to chaos at every turn and this is so because they are at war with a God who is a God of order. When they can introduce chaos into the temporal realm, it is an attempt to overturn the eternal realm.

For the Marxist progressive Revolutionists out of chaos order comes. For the Biblical Christian, the God of the Bible brings order out of chaos. Because of this antithesis the Progressive must destroy the Christian and the Christian must frustrate the progressive at every turn.

Satan came to kill, steal and destroy and the Progressive does his Lord’s work when he seeks to return to chaos.

“To return then, to the American Constitutional Order and System itself, we recognize that its two components had a touching point. Both the proponents of Locke’s natural rights thesis and those who perpetuated that which remained of the holy commonwealth idea believed that government should be limited in power. That was their point of agreement.

Dr. Glenn R. Martin
By far the greatest scholar ever to teach at Indiana Wesleyan University

Martin’s point of course was that the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution were dualistic documents that could be interpreted either through the lens of Enlightenment Rationalism or through the lens of Biblical Christianity, depending on one’s beginning presuppositions.

Of course the failures in the US Constitution, from a Biblical perspective, was the failure to explicitly recognized Jesus Christ as the Sovereign of the Nation and the failure to require a explicitly Christian religious oath. On the failure of the Oath part it can be argued that since the founders viewed the office holding of Federal officers to be likely drawn from those who were previously holders of political office at the State level there would be no necessity to require a religious oath since the charters and constitutions at the Colonial level were explicitly Christian in so many cases, and did require oaths or professions of Christianity.

A brief overview quickly makes the point,

The New Jersey Constitution of 1776 restricted public office to all but Protestants by its religious test/oath.

Only Virginia and New York did not have such religious tests/oaths during this time period

Still, the fact that the US Constitution did not include something similar to what we find above makes it a derelict document and the absence of a Christian oath and the acknowledgement of the Lordship of Jesus Christ is one reason that explains the evaporation of our undoubted catholic Christian faith in this country and the corresponding rise of malevolent faiths and behaviors in this nation.

As to why we have surrendered the joint conviction with the Rationalists of the idea of limited government this can be explained by the simple fact that if man will not bow to the God of the Bible and His Christ, who alone has unlimited government, then man will seek to vest unlimited government somewhere else; most usually the State. Americans have abandoned God and in abandoning God they have abandoned His design for Biblical limited Government and the result is Statist Tyranny.

Only repentance and a owning of our sin of rebellion against God can return us to God’s favor and provide solution for Statist tyranny. Men who are in bondage to sin, can never build social orders characterized by liberty.