R2K Virus (Radical Two Kingdom Theology) – Page 19

R. Scott Clark Seeks to Capture Jesus for the R2K Agenda

Every culture and generation has been tempted to capture Jesus for their own agenda. The Gnostics portrayed Jesus as a second-century figure (a dead give away) who was a Gnostic opposed to the church and the Christian gospel of free salvation from the wrath to come through faith alone in Christ alone. The Constantinian (post-4th century) church often portrayed Jesus as such a fearsome king and judge that the church began to search for other saviors and mediators. In the Modern era, Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) re-made Jesus into his own rationalist image—he produced his own version of the New Testament stripped of supernaturalism. In the Carter 1970s and the Reagan 80s, as the baby-boomer-dominated culture turned inward, Jesus became a facilitator for our personal sense of well being. Now, with the rise of the Millennial generation, the product of the war against terror and a Carter-esque economic malaise, the concern is ostensibly other-centered but once again the Christian faith has become yet another vehicle to carry social concerns. There is renewed talk among young evangelicals and others of the so-called “social gospel.”

R. Scott Clark

Of course the Irony here is that Scott, in insisting the naughtiness of these other movements to capture Jesus for their own agenda is doing the same exact thing. Scott desires to capture Jesus for his R2K movement. For R2K Clark Jesus is the very embodiment of R2K. Jesus, being R2K, is against all those movements which would try to capture Jesus for other naughty movements. For Scott Jesus is a 21st century figure who is R2K opposed to the church and a Christianity that insists that Kings (R2K Common realm Authorities) must kiss the Son lest those Kings perish in the way. Scott, and R2K have re-made Jesus into their own surrender monkey image. They are trying to produce their own version of the New Testament stripped of any notion of Christian culture, Christian education, Christian family, Christian marriage, Christian law etc. With the rise of R2K, a response that seeks to avoid the rising tide of anti-Christian sentiment by means of surrender and withdrawal, we see that the concern is to protect the Church by cutting it off from cultural engagement. What R2K has turned Christianity into, by promoting abdication as the Church’s social concern is yet another vehicle to carry its own social concern.

Will the Real Michael Horton Please Stand Up

“Nothing in the 2K view entails that Christians do not, then, pursue their vocation in a ‘distinctively Christian way’ or that neither the church nor individual Christians should be in the business of changing the world or society.” Michael Horton,
December 2011

______________________________

“It is certainly true that America is not a Christian nation and in any case Christians should not seek to promote distinctively Christian doctrines or practices through the properly coercive power of the state.”Michael Horton,
May 2011

Here we have Horton telling us that Christians can

First Horton says that, “Nothing in the 2K view entails that Christians do not, then, pursue their vocation in a ‘distinctively Christian way’ …” and then he turns around and says that, “Christians should not promote distinctively Christian doctrines or practices through the properly coercive power of the state.”

Of course Horton must be assuming here that it is impossible for Christians to pursue their vocation in a distinctively Christian way if their vocation is law or politics. After all, the vocation of Christian law and Christian politics is all about the attempt to promote distinctively Christian doctrines and practices (i.e. — the implementation of Legislation) through the properly coercive power of the state. Legislation, when properly passed, is never ever anything except the promotion of doctrines and practices through the properly coercive power of the state. So, is Michael telling us here that there is indeed something in R2K which forbids Christian political activists or legislators from changing the world or society in a Christian direction?

Putting the concern in the paragraph above as succinctly and as pithily as possible we ask, how would a Christian Magistrate pursue his “vocation in a distinctively Christian way” (Horton quote #1) and still “not seek to promote distinctively Christian doctrines or practices through the properly coercive power of the state” (Horton quote #2)?
The second quote from Horton is quite breathtaking and convinces me that Michael is just confused and doesn’t really mean what he is saying. Keep in mind that the properly coercive power of the state is always properly coercive in keeping with some religion. Proper coerciveness is never employed without that coerciveness as being derivative of and a reflection of, some religion. So, given that is true, what is wrong with Christianity changing the world via the properly coercive power of the state? The problem here of course is that Michael continues to think that the state can be neutral or common ( largely synonymous ideas). In Michael’s Libertarian world the state is unbiased and is not to be captured for the usage of anyone or any religion, except for the religion that insists that Christianity has nothing to do with the public square. In Michael’s R2K social order the state is set free from all the gods and so rules as god over all the gods to determine how far their adherents can go in the common square. For Michael it is, in the state we live and move and have our being.

That there is the non-Van Tillian idea of neutrality leaking in his thinking is seen by Michael’s call for Christians not to seek distinctly Christian doctrines. Very well then Mike, if Christians are not to seek distinctly Christian doctrines then what is left for them to seek? Non distinctly Christian doctrines? Distinctly non Christian doctrines? Non distinctly non Christian doctrines? Mike is implicitly giving us the idea that we can have neutrality in our public square. We can have laws that come from nowhere, religiously speaking.

In terms of quote #1 above, keep in mind though, that per R2K and Horton any changing of the world or society that might happen will not and can not make the society more “Christian” since it is not possible for society to be Christian. Societies, cultures and social orders, like horses, whales, and bumblebees can not be Christian. To speak of a Christian society for R2K is a confusion of categories. It is to speak an absurdity.And finally, Horton’s 1st quote just is not true. There is plenty that has been published by R2K chaps that forbids the Church from changing the world or society.

Random Thoughts On Escondido Republication

“… the doctrine of Republication cannot be harmonized with the teaching of the Westminster Standards.”

Robert B. Strimple
President emeritus & Professor emeritus of Systematic Theology, Westminster Seminary California, Escondido, CA

Recently a prominent Reformed Lawyer, on a social media cite, posted a hypothetical in order to continue the conversation with the Escondido Republicationists. Our Lawyer friend posited this hypothetical proposition,

“the Passover was in some sense a Republication of the Covenant of Works. Israel’s obedience to the command (“put blood on the doorpost and live — fail to to do this and you die”) congruently merited the reward of deliverance from Egypt.”

Of course this hypothetical could arises due to Escondido’s insistence that the Mosaic covenant was at the same time both a covenant of Grace and a covenant of Works. This is accomplished by introducing language of “upper” and “lower” register into the Mosaic covenant while insisting that the idea of typology sustains that “in some sense” the Mosaic covenant was a covenant of works for Israel.

Of course, one can use this reasoning not only in the Mosaic covenant but also in any of the other covenants which represent the continual maturing and flowering of the one covenant of grace. For example, one could go back to Genesis 17 and say much the same thing about God’s command/stipulation to Abraham to “walk before Me and be blameless” (Genesis 17:1 ). Given that stipulation language in Genesis 17 one can’t help but wonder, given Escondido predilections for a hyphenated Mosaic covenant, how is it that the Abrahamic covenant also is not an example of a mixed (hyphenated) covenant? In point of fact Dr. Meredith Kline taught that that Noah and Abraham were themselves under a legal-works covenant? One thus wonders, if, according to Escondido, whether the covenant of works was republished to Abraham and Noah as well?

In all this I wonder if there isn’t some covenant confusion that was articulated by a Baptist named Philip Cary in 1640 in a debate with John Flavel and other Reformed luminaries. This debate surrounded the issue of the validity of infant Baptism but some of Cary “reasoning” sounds a great deal like Escondido reasoning on covenant republication. Cary treated Genesis 17 (Abrahamic), Exodus 20 (Mosaic) and Deuteronomy 29 (Mosaic) together under a covenant of works. In doing so, the Baptist, Cary, could treat all these passages as discontinuous in nature, purpose and extent with the covenant of Grace. For the Baptist Cary, no commands from the covenant of works could affect the covenant of grace. For the Baptist, Philip Cary, this meant that Abraham, as well as all the elect in the Old Testament were in both covenants at the same time. This sounds strangely familiar to some of the writings of Escondido adherents.

Keep in mind though that if covenant are both law and gracious at the same time, it is also the case that people living under those hyphenated covenant arrangements lived and moved by both law and Gospel at the same time. Escondido would have us believe that the Mosaic saints earned, via congruent merit, their stay in the land while at the same time those same saints were saved by unmerited grace. This seems to me to be a “Glawspel” arrangement. If so, it is ironic that the very people (Klinean republicationists) who complain that those who don’t accept their republicationist paradigm are guilty of not distinguishing properly “Law and Gospel,” with the consequence that “Glawspel” obtains are themselves guilty of not properly distinguishing “Law and Gospel” so that “Glawspel” obtains.

Think about it. If you’re living under the Mosaic covenant how do you determine if your obedience to God’s law is motivated by earning congruent merit in order to stay in the land as opposed to an obedience that is motivated by gratitude for God delivering your from your enemies and putting you in the land?

Second, in light of the constant disobedience of Israel under the Mosaic, how can we speak of going back under a covenant of works in the Mosaic when the covenant of works required absolute perfect obedience? If the Old Testament saints under the Mosaic covenant were put back under a covenant of works it was a very different covenant of works then what Adam was under in the Garden where one violation was all that was required to be cast out of the garden. Are we to believe, per Escondido, that the covenant of works was more gracious in the Mosaic covenant then it was in the garden?

________________

For some reading that might kick start thinking on this matter I recommend chapter 45 of Beeke and Jones, “A Puritan Theology; Doctrine for Life.”

Considering Rev. Bordow’s Defense of R2K — #4

Todd writes,“So if the Mosaic Law cannot be used as a political blueprint of laws for common grace nations outside a theocracy appointed by God, and the New Testament is silent concerning such civil laws, the conclusion must be that the Lord has not chosen to reveal such things to us in his Word. Thus pastors, as heralds of the Word only, cannot instruct the government on public policy questions without going beyond the Word of God. So the Law of Moses, because of its religious purpose in the history of redemption, cannot be used as a legal guide for all nations, and that most directly addresses the theonomic critique of E2k.”

1.) Notice the word “cannot” in this paragraph.This would suggest that to violate Todd’s “cannot” is to sin. If the Lord has not chosen to reveal public square morality as codified by the State then it must needs be sin to suggest otherwise. Why won’t Todd just be honest and say that “Ministers who speak to the state concerning civil laws are in sin?”

2.) Note that Todd calls the Law, “the Law of Moses.” In all actuality it was the Law of God handed down to Moses. The reason that this is important to point out is that what Todd, and all R2K, is telling us is that the Law of the Old Testament God is not valid in the New Testament God’s world. This R2K theology gives us a Marcion and non-immutable God. Orthodox Reformed theology has always taught that God changes not. R2K theology is giving us a mutable god and this only on the barest and most contrived hermeneutic. It has always been understood that God’s law is His character but Todd tells us that God’s character, while emblazoned upon the pages of the Old Testament, has been strangely muted in the New and better covenant.

I’ve been trying to think of pithy ways to say all of this.

R2K — The theology where Christ dies to save us from God’s law for the public square

R2K — The theology where the New Testament God is more social order friendly then the Old Testament God

R2K — Christ dying to make bestiality safe for the public square

R2K — Where the Old Testament was a better covenant because the Kingdom ethic wasn’t yet taken away as intrusion

R2K — The theology that allows Theologians to envision laws allowing sodomite unions

Maybe my readers can improve on distilling R2K even more succinctly.

Considering Rev. Bordow’s Defense of R2K — #3

Rev. Bordow writes,First, a proper biblical theology understands that God’s law given to Israel to guide her as a nation was given to a specific people for a specific purpose. God’s law was given to Israel because she was a holy people to the Lord, set apart from other nations. Psalm 147:16&20: “He declares his word to Jacob, his statutes and rules to Israel. He has not dealt thus with any other nation; they do not know his rules.” The Gentile nations in the OT were never held accountable for breaking the Law of Moses. For example, there is not one place where a Gentile nation is condemned for not keeping the Sabbath, or for not worshiping at the tabernacle/temple as the Mosaic Law required. When those nations are condemned, it is for the same sins listed in the NT above, sins condemned by the conscience, or natural law, or what we call moral law. While there is of course ethical overlap between natural law and the Law of Moses, the absence of any requirement for OT pagan governments to enforce the Law of Moses indicates that it is illegitimate to require such a thing today. Dr. T. David Gordon’s questions are to the point: “How could the Gentiles, described by the apostle Paul as ‘outside of the [Mosaic] law’ (i.e., anomos) possibly be obliged to the law? How could it possibly be meaningful for Paul to distinguish Jews from Gentiles because ‘to them belong.. the covenants, the giving of the law’ (Rom. 9:4), if the covenant and its laws oblige non-Jews equally with Jews?” (13) The Mosaic Law therefore was uniquely given to OT Israel as God’s theocracy in the Holy Land. When we come to the New Testament, we see that the ethics of the OT law are lived out by the NT church, not by unbelievers. As a matter of fact, every time an OT Scripture is quoted as it pertains to obedience, it is fulfilled by the new covenant people of God, the church (see I Cor 5:13, 9:9-11, 10:1-6, Eph 6:1-3, I Tim 5:19).

Bret Refutes this mosh by quoting Bahnsen

The Magistrate Must Rule, then, According to God’s Law

The fact that civil rulers among the nations were to align their thrones with the throne of God and to govern, as Wisdom would instruct them, in such a way that criminals were terrified but the righteous praised has already indicated that these rulers were required to carry out their official functions according to the direction of God’s
law. Further evidence of that obligation can now be set forth.In the first place it would be wrong to suppose that God’s law did not morally bind the nations outside of the covenant community, Israel. That God’s law did not have such a geographical delimitation is clear from the fact, if nothing else, that David would make the surrounding nations surrender to his own theonomic rule (2 Sam. 22:21-25, 44-50; Ps. 18:43-50). David clearly intended that the sway of God’s law should be extended beyond the mere boundaries of Israel, and he looked forward to praising God among the nations because of the Lord’s plan to make the other countries obey David (and his seed) as head of the nations. It is evident that the rulers of the earth need not be Jews in order to come under theonomic dominion. God’s law was not meant to be restricted to the Hebrew nation but had international application. J. H. Bavinck has discerned this scriptural truth well:

It is striking how frequently the other nations are called upon in the Psalms to recognize and to honor God, and how complete is the witness of the prophets against the nations surrounding Israel. God does not exempt other nations from the claim of his righteousness; he requires their obedience and holds them responsible for their apostasy and degeneration. 3

The cities of Sodom and Ninevah provide adequate proof that nations which have not been corporately selected by God for special care and that have not been granted a special, written transcript of God’s law are nevertheless fully responsible to God’s standard of holiness as revealed in the law. Being a city full of exceedingly wicked sinners
(Gen. 13:13; 18:20) Sodom was justly destroyed for its “unlawfulness” (2 Peter 2:6-8). For that reason it is paradigmatic throughout Scripture for God’s judgment upon iniquity.4 Sodom was destroyed for breaking God’s law;

3 J. H Bavinck, An Introduction to the Science of Missions, trans. David Hugh Freeman (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1960), pp. 12-13.

4 Cf. Deut. 19:23; 32:32; Isa. 1:9-10; 3:9; 13:19; Jer. 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Lam. 4:6; Ezek. 16:46-56; Amos 4:11; Zeph. 2:9; Matt. 10:15; 11:23-24; Jude 7; Rev. 11:8.

the ethical presupposition of this historical event was the responsibility of that non-Jewish nation to God’s righteous requirements. And this was not simply a vague, general responsibility (e.g., to the broad guidelines of only the Decalogue), for the statute that Sodom was specifically guilty of violating is not one of the Ten summary Commandments but a specific and particularized case law: the prohibition of homosexuality (Gen. 19:4 ff.; Lev. 18:22; 20:13; cf. Deut. 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7). Hundreds of years before the constitution of Israel as a nation under the written law of God that same law had ethical authority; if there had been no binding law, there could have been no sin and hence no justified vengeance of God against the Sodomites. Hundreds of years after the formation of the Israelite nation it is clear that the law of God was still binding upon the nations outside of Israel, for Jonah was sent to preach God’s imminent wrath upon the great city of Nineveh unless it should repent. The demand for repentance surely presupposes a violated moral dictate and so also prior obligation to obey the dictate. In contrast to the outcome of Sodom, Nineveh repented of its unlawful wickedness at the preaching of Jonah (Jonah 3) and thereby became an example of a heathen city (to whom the written law was not primarily addressed) submitting to God’s word (cf. Luke 11:30, 32). Therefore the binding authority of God’s law, from before its Sinaitic revelation to Israel until many years thereafter, must be viewed as holding for the nations outside of Israel’s covenant community.

However, the most dramatic illustration of the law’s validity outside of Israel comes from the period immediately following its deliverance through Moses to God’s elect people. Following a list of prohibitions Leviticus 18:24-27 declares: “Defile not yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out from
before you; and the land is defiled: therefore do I visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomiteth out her inhabitants. Ye therefore shall keep my statutes and mine ordinances, and shall not do any of these abominations . . . for all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you, and the land is defiled” (ASV). Here is sufficient evidence that the same law delivered to Israel is the law to which the other nations were subject. It is the same law given through Moses which defines the defilement and abominations of the people upon whom Israel will bring God’s temporal retribution. The striking thing is that verse 28 following this passage asserts that the punishment exacted against the Canaanites (the land vomiting them out) is precisely the punishment that shall be enacted against Israel if it commits the forbidden abominations. As Israel was subject to God’s law, so also were the nations who did not receive it in written form. Otherwise God’s judgment would have been unfounded—a thought which is precluded by the Lord’s justice and equity.

The book of Deuteronomy, a book reflecting the marks of a specific covenant document, persistently teaches that responsibility to God’s law extends beyond the covenant community. That Israel was instructed to destroy the ungodly nations in Canaan implies that those nations bore a prior responsibility to, and were consequently guilty for violation of, the law of God (Deut. 7:5-6, 16, 25; 12:1-4). Since these nations did not heed God but forgot Him they must perish (8:19-20; cf. vv. 11-19), and it is their wickedness which explains their being dispossessed from the land (9:4-5). The opposite of that abomination which brought vengeance upon the Canaanites is obedience to God’s law
(12:29-32); this is what the nations should have been striving after. Israel was told, then, not to imitate the pagan practices of the Canaanites because they (by contrast) were to be a holy people (14:1-2). The detestable practices of the nations constitute sin (20:18) and of necessity cannot be imitated by law-abiding Israel (18:9, 12). Should Israel depart from the law and become lawlessly idolatrous, they would likewise perish (30:17-18). Instead, Israel’s obedience to God’s law was intended to be an example to the nations (4:5-8). Hence we see that the covenant document itself plainly teaches an international responsibility to the stipulations of God’s law, and that responsibility has full force even in the non-elect nations who did not have the advantage of the law in written form. The fact that God did not have a redemptive purpose in mind for the Canaanites themselves does not contravene the unity of moral standard and obligation between the elect and non-elect nations.

Thus it is not surprising that the Older Testament definitely states the inclusion of all nations under God’s righteous judgment, a judgment not limited to crimes committed against His chosen people (e.g., Ps. 9:4-5, 7-8; 98:9; Amos 1:3-2:3, etc.). The whole world shall be judged by the same righteous, absolute moral standard: God’s law. Therefore,
there is scriptural reason to deny the premise that God’s law did not morally bind the nations outside of Israel’s covenant community. This being the case, the civil magistrates outside of Israel were required, no less than the rulers of Israel, to carry out their functions by following the righteous law of God. The law clearly prescribes numerous things of a social character, and the law lays it upon the civil magistrate to honor and enforce those things. Therefore, as the law of God binds the nations outside of Israel, so their rulers are under obligation to rule according to that law. The laws binding magistrates are just as much commandments from God as are the laws binding farmers, merchants, parents, women, men, children, or any other distinct class of person instructed by the Lord’s commands. The law morally binds the nations, and that means that the magistrates of the world kingdoms are as much under ethical obligation as the fathers, craftsmen, or children of those nations. The fact that the socio-civil commandments of God’s law are as binding upon the nations outside Israel as they are upon Israel itself receives confirmation from a comparison of Habakkuk 2:12 with Micah 3:10. Habakkuk declares, “Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood,
and establisheth a city by iniquity!” (ASV). Although the assertion itself is general enough to be a universal axiom, in its particular context in Habakkuk it is a reference to the Chaldeans. What is significant is that the same pronouncement is spoken against the Israelite city of Jerusalem by Micah the prophet, and the context (cf. vv. 1-3, 9-11) clearly is one of rebuke for sins of the civil magistrates. Thus the same judgment against sin in national leaders is entirely possible between the Jewish and Gentile nations, and this is grounded in the fact that the Lord universally does not honor a city which fails to be founded upon, or acting in accord with, the justice of His law. When the rulers ignore God’s law, whether in Babylonia (Hab. 1:4) or in Jerusalem (Mic. 3:1-12), the result is always that justice is perverted and not upheld; instead the wicked abound. It is for the restraint of this social evil that God ordains magistrates and expects them to keep His righteous law. “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people” (Prov. 14:34, NASV). The international scope, civic emphasis, and theonomic theme of that inspired declaration should be unmistakable. Here is straightforward and indisputable confirmation of our thesis.

The obligation of non-Jewish magistrates to honor and obey God during the Older Testament era can also be supported by positive example. Huran, king of Tyre, recognized the divine appointment of Solomon (2 Chron. 2:11-12), and the queen of Sheba acknowledged Solomon’s appointment by God as well as his just and righteous government (1 Kings 10:9). Cyrus of Persia obeyed the Lord’s command to have the Jerusalem temple rebuilt (Ezra 1:1 ff.). Darius commanded all the nations to serve the God and Lord of Daniel (Daniel 6:25 ff.), and Nebuchadnezzar instructed the nations that God rules over all and expects righteousness of kings because His own ways are just (Dan.
4:esp. 1, 25-27, 37). If civil obedience to the law of God were to be restricted to Jewish government, then Scripture is strangely silent in disapprobating the previous examples. When the Israelite, Daniel, assumed civil office in a nation which was not Jewish or located in the promised land, he apparently did not feel that the rules for leadership had changed from what God would have expected of a civil magistrate in Israel. Daniel sat as an official in the court of the king in Babylon (Dan. 2:49), and was well known for his close adherence to the law of God (cf. Dan. 6:5). The ancient Jews certainly thought of Daniel as a ruler who applied God’s law to civil affairs, as is evidenced in the book of Susanna 5:60-62 (cf. Deut. 19:16-19; Prov. 19:5, 9). Thus we have an example of a godly Jew bringing the law of Jehovah to bear upon the government of a Gentile nation. Furthermore, we have, on the other hand, an example from Scripture of a Gentile monarch decreeing the application of God’s law. Ezra 7:11-28 is highly instructional at this point. Artaxerxes sent Ezra to inquire about Judah’s and Jerusalem’s adherence to the law of God (7:14). Artaxerxes honors God as God and knows that he is under responsibility to God and subject to divine judgment (7:15 ff., 21, 23). Most notably Artaxerxes commands Ezra to appoint magistrates and judges that will judge all those “beyond the River” (i.e., the whole territory between the Euphrates and the Mediterranean Sea).5 Those who were ignorant of God’s law were to be taught it (7:25), and the judges were to go so far as to punish offenders against God’s law—even to the point of execution (7:26)! Artaxerxes as a non-Israelite ruler thus applied the whole law of God in its social and penal details, and he applied it to areas far exceeding the boundaries of Israel! However, the factor which cannot be overlooked in the narrative is Ezra’s blessing of the Lord for putting such a thing in the king’s heart (7:25-26). However one humanly accounts for the involvement of Artaxerxes in sending this decree, the fact stands that the action itself is the sort of thing which meets with approval in Scripture. Therefore, by both negative and positive illustration, in addition to consideration of ethical principles as revealed in Scripture, one must conclude that the civil magistrate in even non-Israelite countries was under moral obligation to obey God’s commandments in the official and social capacities of national leadership.

“It is an abomination for kings to commit wickedness, for a throne is established on righteousness” (Prov. 16:12, NASV). The foundation of all civil rule according to the Wisdom literature of the Older Testament is righteousness, the righteousness of God’s law. Thus when any king commits violations of God’s law it is detestable in God’s sight. The comments which have been made on the nature of civil rule according to the Wisdom literature (especially Proverbs) of Scripture could be introduced again at this time as demonstrating the universal validity of God’s law for political matters; however, it will only be observed that the ancient Jews certainly understood their Wisdom literature and law to be normative for Gentile magistrates. That they did not restrict the civil morality of God’s law merely to Israel is evidenced in Wisdom of Solomon 6:1-5:

5 F. F. Bruce, Israel and the Nations: from the Exodus to the Fall of the Second Temple (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963), p. 102.

Listen therefore, O Kings, and understand; learn, O judges of the end of the earth. Give ear, you that rule over multitudes, and boast of many nations. For your dominion was given you from the Lord, and your sovereignty from the Most High, who will search out your works and inquire into your plans. Because as servants of his kingdom you did not rule rightly, nor keep the law, nor walk according to the purpose of God, he will come upon you terribly and swiftly, because severe judgment falls on those in high places.6

While it may be incorrect, at least the interpretation of the Torah and the attitude of the Jews themselves toward their law was that it bound the kings of all the nations. Wisdom 6:17-21 says rulers must honor God’s law if they value their thrones and scepters.

The inspired and canonical Wisdom literature of God’s word would not appear to differ in outlook at this point. No king is allowed to establish his throne on unrighteousness, as observed just previously (Prov. 16:12). Also we read that all who judge rightly and who decree justice (as every leader should) do so by means of godly Wisdom (Prov.
8:15-16), but all those who hate godly Wisdom (and its righteousness, even as applying to the civil courts, vv. 3, 7, 8, 13, 20) are lovers of death (v. 36). Consequently the king who rules a people who walk in God’s righteousness is said to belong to God (Ps. 89:15-18), but the ruler who condones wickedness by calling it “righteous” will be cursed and abhorred by the nations (Prov. 24:24). It is not merely magistrates in Israel, but all kings, princes, judges, and people of the earth who are instructed to praise the Lord (Ps. 148:11, 13).

6 Bruce M. Metzger (ed.), The Apocrypha of the Old Testament: Revised Standard Version with Introductions, et. al. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), p. 108.

When in Psalm 119:46 David declares that he would speak God’s law before kings, it is clear that he did not refer to the civil magistrate in Israel, for he himself was that magistrate. Therefore, David infallibly considered the commandments of God as binding upon the Gentile kings and urged the communication of that law to those who ruled in the nations. Thus the words of 2 Samuel 23:3 speak directly to the point presently at issue: “the God of Israel said . . . he who rules among men must be righteous, ruling in the fear of God.” The throne of civil power is established on righteousness (cf. Prov. 16:12), and hence earthly rulers must be just and God fearing in the performance of their official task. The verse does not distinguish Jewish leaders and the Jewish people from Gentile leaders and the Gentile nations; it simply asserts that any person who has authority to rule among a body of people must do so in accordance with godly righteousness and reverence. This truth applies to those who rule, not simply to those who rule among Israel of God’s elect people. The ideal leader is righteous, God fearing, and a blessing to his people (cf. 2 Sam. 23:4), and that ideal does not shift once one passes from Israel to other nations. The reason David
would speak God’s law to the kings of the nations is because that law was as binding upon them as it was upon David, for it is the pattern of righteousness which is required for the establishment of any earthly throne as well as for the concrete leadership of anyone who would rule among men.

The conclusion of the matter about obedience to God’s law by magistrates who rule in the nations can be taken from Psalm 2, one of the clearest teachings about the responsibility of world rulers to God’s lawful and righteous direction. The Psalm is dealing with the nations, the kings and rulers of the earth, the peoples, the very ends of the earth, and the judges of the earth (vv. 1, 2, 8, 10); the context of David’s words here is obviously international. The kings and rulers of the earth counsel together against the Lord and His Messiah in order to cast God’s rule and authority off themselves (vv. 2-3; cf. Jer. 5:5); the civil magistrates try to rid themselves of their obligation to obey God and
His commandments (note how the Psalm simply assumes that obligation to be upon the world rulers without offering any argument or explanation). However, the Lord laughs at them and holds their vain attempts in derision. All the nations, even the ends of the earth, are given to God’s Messianic Son so that they are “herded” and ruled with
a rod (or scepter) of iron. Throughout Scripture the rod represents an instrument for guidance and punishment, connoting power and authority.7 In the book of Revelation John applies this same imagery to Jesus Christ, saying that He shall rule the nations with a rod of iron (Rev. 12:5; 19:15; cf. 2:26-27). Thus the Lord’s Messiah has absolute,
firm, and autocratic authority over all the magistrates of the nations; they are guided, directed, and chastised by Him.

The practical application of David’s words is stated in his conclusion: “Now therefore, O kings, be wise; accept instruction, judges of the earth” (v. 10). Both wisdom and instruction are to be found in the commandments or law of God (e.g., Deut. 4:6; Prov. 10:8; Rom. 2:18, etc.). Thus the Psalmist counsels the kings and rulers to “serve the
Lord with fear . . . (and) do homage to His Son” (vv. 11-12). World leaders are to be servants of God, ministers of the Lord (cf. Rom. 13:4), and consequently they are constrained to obey Him since obedience is the characteristic gesture of those who serve another.8 Thedirectives from God which show kings how they are obliged to obey the Lord are found in God’s law, and the servant of God needs to be taught God’s statutes (Ps. 119:124). Moreover, if the kings are in fear to serve the Lord, then again they must serve Him by obeying the law of God, for it is that which inspires reverence (Ps. 119:38, 63, 79). What God the Lord requires is that men fear Him and keep His commandments (Deut. 10:12-13). “The fear of the Lord is to hate evil” (Prov.8:13) and wickedness consists in forsaking God’s law (Ps. 119:53); therefore, the one who genuinely fears the Lord delights in His commandments (Ps. 112:1) and keeps His precepts (Ps. 119:63).

7 Cf. Lev. 21:20; 2 Sam. 7:14; Job 9:34; Ps. 120:2; 125:3; Prov. 10:13; 13:24; 29:15; Isa. 11:4; Jer. 10:16; 48:17; 51:19; Ezek. 20:37; Mic. 7:14.

8 Cf. Josh. 22:5; Ps. 119:124-126; Matt. 6:24; Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22; Titus 2:9; 1 Peter 2:18.

It is quite plain what David means, then, by telling earthly magistrates to serve the Lord with fear. This imperative is very similar to the imperative delivered by Moses to Israel after he had explained to them that they must keep all of God’s statutes and commandments: “You shall fear the Lord your God, and you shall serve Him” (Deut. 6:13).
Psalm 2 says that the magistrate’s obligation to obey God’s rule in His law is so serious that, if the magistrate does not submit, then the Son’s wrath will be kindled and the magistrate will perish in the way (v. 12). By contrast, earthly rulers are advised that all who put their trust in the Son are blessed. The wrath of God is kindled when those who have been ordained to civil rule do not serve Him with fear but refuse to enforce His righteous law as the only proper standard of social morality and order. The ancient nations of the world were under the authority of God’s law, and their magistrates were obligated to rule accordingly.