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.

The Presence of the Kingdom — Mark 1:21-28

Introduction

After Jesus’ Baptism and Desert Temptation Jesus begin his ministry by announcing,

15  The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent and believe the Gospel.

For the hearers of the time, shaped as they were be the Old Testament, this announcement would have been met by an expectation that God would establish His kingdom by displacing Kingdoms that oppressed His people. After all, the purpose of the Kingdom was now to include salvation and blessing for His people and the defeat of Israel’s enemies.

Much of what is to follow then in the Gospel accounts then is a chronicling of how Christ was ushering in the Kingdom of God.

Keep in mind that as this Kingdom of God comes the consequence is that other Kingdoms are displaced. These other Kingdoms that are being overthrown are Kingdoms that raise protest over being displaced.

Given the truth of all this we should expect that the ministry of Jesus is going to be characterized by conflict. He is bringing in a Kingdom that is going to destroy previous strongholds. The clash of Kingdoms that was first promised in Genesis 3:15 becomes center stage in the life of Christ.

15 I will also put enmity between [a]thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. He shall break thine [b]head, and thou shalt [c]bruise his heel.

And this is what we find in this passages in Mark 1:21-28. Like an old Western where a new Marshall rides into town to clean it up of assorted villains, the Lord Christ is demonstrating, via His ministry, that there is a new authority in the Cosmos. This kind of drama where demons are cast out, nature is tamed, and the disfigured, diseased and even dead are healed is what would have been expected given all the teaching of the Old Testament on the coming of God’s Messiah.

All of this reminds us that with the coming of the Kingdom in the ministry of Christ we have something more than just sweet nice Jesus giving moral instruction. No … the Kingdom of God comes as with power and authority.

I.) The Authority of the Lord Christ Demonstrates the Kingdom has Arrived

A.) Jesus and his authority (21-22)

“Exousia” describes first the freedom of God to act. The Greek word is exousia and that word is related to a verb meaning “it is free” or “it is permitted.”  When it is noted that Jesus has “authority” what is being communicated is that He has the “sovereign freedom” of one who acts without question or hindrance. This is seen as something different from the Scribes and Pharisees perhaps because they were taken up with Talmudic tradition.

Jesus comes and  teaches and his teaching strips off the accretions of traditions and takes the people back to the bare word itself. Another way of saying this is that Jesus taught as giving God’s original intent and not as the current Teachers of Israel who were forever citing what amounts to the Case law of Talmudic traditions.

This issue of Jesus and His authority will come up again in the next Chapter (Mark 2). In Mark 2 however it is Jesus who is talking about His authority to heal and forgive.

10 But that ye may know, that the Son of man hath authority in earth to forgive sins, he said unto the sick of the palsy,

So as we would expect of someone who is bringing in the Kingdom of God Jesus is one vested with authority and in this account this unique authority is noted by those observing. Jesus teaches with an independent authority–or rather, on the authority of God (cf. 11:28-33).

Mark 11:28 And said unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority, that thou shouldest do these things? 29 Then Jesus answered, and said unto them, I will also ask you a certain thing, and answer ye me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. 30 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me. 31 And they thought with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven, he will say, Why then did ye not believe him? 32 [a]But if we say, Of men, we fear the people: for all men counted John that he was a Prophet indeed. 33 Then they answered, and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell. And Jesus answered, and said unto them, Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.

Whereas the scribes are bound to tradition, and so are not authoritative in their teaching as Jesus is, the Lord Christ is  free–free in the way that only one who lives directly from and to God’s authority is free.

Mark does not give us the content of Jesus’ teaching, but we can find examples of the difference between Jesus’ teaching and the teaching of the scribes elsewhere in the gospel tradition. For example, in Mark 12:35-37, Jesus asks why the scribes say the Messiah is the Son of David when Scripture indicates that David called the Messiah “Lord.” Scripture itself suggests that the scribes’ traditional interpretation is inadequate. Jesus is suggesting that who or what the Messiah is may break the traditional Jewish mold. Again, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus does not hesitate to suggest that the traditional interpretation of the commandments is inadequate. What God demands of us goes far beyond what the scribes require (cf. Matthew 5:20).

So Jesus comes with the Authority of God. His teaching is new only inasmuch as it is not laden with the mistakes of the Talmud and wrong headed traditions.

Ill. — Someone coming who goes back to the Constitution dismissing the case law and doing so convincingly.

B.) They were astonished

This astonishment over Jesus authority is carefully chronicled throughout the synoptic Gospel account. The presence of this astonishment is one of the markers of the ministry of Christ.

Mark 2:12, 4:41, 7:37, 10:24  // Matthew – 13;54, 15:31 22:22, 33 //  Luke – 2:47-48, 4:22, 36, 8:25

C.) Cite examples of the authority of Christ

1.) Authority over Demons

Jesus tells him to “hold thy peace.”

Why? — the Lord Christ does not desire demonic heralds.

Interesting sidelight — the usage of the pronouns — back and forth singular to plural to singular

2.) Authority over Nature

(Mark 4:37-41)  37 [a]And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves dashed into the ship, so that it was now full.38 And he was in the stern asleep on a pillow: and they awoke him, and said to him, Master, carest thou not that we perish? 39 And he arose up, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, and be still. So the wind ceased, and it was a great calm. 40 Then he said unto them, [b]Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?41 And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, Who is this, that both the wind and sea obey him?

It is interesting the parallels this account of the casting out of the Demon has to the story of the stilling of the storm (Mark 4:35-41). Here Jesus’ rebukes (epetimēsen) the spirit with the command to “be silent” (phimōthēti). This is  parallel to Jesus’ rebuke (epetimēsen) of the wind and the command to “be still” (pephimōso) in 4:39. The response of the crowd in 1:27, “what is this (ti estin touto)…he commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey (hypakouousin) him,” is parallel to the response of the disciples in 4:41: “Who then is this (tis ara houtos estin), that even the wind and the sea obey (hypakouei) him?” These similarities suggest that, for the early Christians who formulated and transmitted these stories, the exorcism and the stilling of the storm illustrate a similar point: Jesus has authority over both the natural world (winds and sea) and the supernatural world (demons).

So, lets summarize briefly here,

In Mark 1:21f we have the record of the Lord Christ casting out a demon accompanied by the amazement of the people regarding Jesus Authority. What we dare not miss here is that this casting out of the Demon is one demonstration that with the coming of God’s King God’s eschatological Kingdom itself has arrived. Mark is interested in placarding this authority of the great King and so in Mark’s Gospel we find the Lord Christ putting on an authority display over competing Kingdoms. With the Demoniac here Christ is showing his authority over Satan’s Kingdom. In the casting out of the Demon He is binding Satan and dispossessing him of his belongings (Mark 3:27). The King has come. Later, in Mark 4 Christ demonstrates his authority over the Kingdom of Nature by instructing the winds and the waves, much as He instructed the demon in Mark 1, to “be still.” The King has come. In Mark 1:30f Christ demonstrates his authority over Illness and disease. The King has come.

Mark wants us to know that Christ Himself is the King, Kingdom, and re-creation. Further Mark is interested that the work of Jesus is the work of binding the strongman.

In what is recorded here we see the fulfillment of what was called for in Isaiah 61

1 The Spirit of the Lord God is [a]upon me, therefore hath the Lord anointed me: he hath sent me to preach good tidings unto the poor, to bind up the [b]broken hearted, to preach liberty to the [c]captives, and to them that are bound, the opening of the prison, 

So what we are learning is that outside of Christ’s authority there is only demon possession, untamed Nature, and disease. and we are forced to ask whose authority are we under?

3.) Authority over Illness and Disease — Mark 1:29

Another component of this authority of Jesus is his healing ministry. This is so significant as proof that the Kingdom of God has come that Jesus appeals to it as evidence against John the Baptist’s doubt as to whether Jesus was bringing in the Kingdom.

20 And when the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come, or shall we wait for another? 21 And [e]at that time, he cured many of their sicknesses, and plagues, and of evil spirits, and unto many blind men he gave sight freely. 22 And Jesus answered, and said unto them, Go your ways and show John, what things ye have seen and heard, that the blind see, the halt go, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor receive the Gospel.

So Christ has come. The Kingdom of God — that promised “age to come” —  is rolling back this present wicked age. And the consequence is that Christ is seen as having Mastery over all.

II.) The Actions of the Lord Christ Demonstrate the Kingdom has Arrived

Devout Jews expected the Davidic Messiah to cast out demons and heal the blind, the deaf and the mute (see Isaiah 29:18; 35:5-6; 42:7,16).

18 And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness.

5 Then shall the eyes of the [a]blind be lightened, and the ears of the deaf be opened.  Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the dumb man’s tongue shall sing: for in the [b]wilderness shall waters break out, and rivers in the desert.

7 That thou mayest open the eyes of the blind, and bring out the prisoners from the prison: and them that sit in darkness, out of the prison house…. 16 ¶ And I will bring the [a]blind by a way, that they knew not, and lead them by paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them.

This expectation of the casting out of Demons by the Messiah may find its origins with the power of David’s harp playing to exorcise the demons plaguing King Saul (see I Samuel 16:14-23). In traditions attested both in and outside the Bible (see Wisdom 7:20), David’s son, Solomon, also received power over demons and infirmities (see Josephus, The Antitquities of the Jews, Book 8, Chapter 2, no. 5).

Josephus — God also enabled him (Solomon) to learn that skill which expels demons: (6) which is a science useful, and sanative to men.

And now a greater than both David and Solomon is here and the expectation is that if David’s and Solomon’s greater Son is present bringing in the Kingdom He will do greater works of those who previously came and so He also will cast out demons.

III.) The Consequence of this Arrived Kingdom is the dismantling of all other Kingdoms

Satan’s Kingdom — (This incident demonstrates the Jesus has bound the Strong man and is dispossessing him — (Mark 3)

Scribes & Pharisees Kingdom — (This incident demonstrates the Jesus is overthrowing the Talmudic order)

His teaching as “one with authority” is quite possibly a testimony that He is not concerned with Talmudic traditions or case Law. Instead He is going back to the original Torah and is fulfilling it and bringing forth its meaning.

A couple observations

Spiritual vs. Corporeal

There is in some of the Church this idea that Spiritual matters are divorced from Corporeal matters. Here we see in Jesus’ work that the Spiritual and Corporeal intersect. Jesus is dealing with the Spiritual world by casting out a Demon but the effect is on a real live corporeal person. Similarly with His healing ministry Jesus is dealing with Spiritual problems but in his triumph over the spiritual problems physical maladies are healed.

Now / Not Yet

Obviously what we have with the coming of Christ is the NOW of the Kingdom presented to us.  Jesus is triumphing and the Kingdom to come is present. There is, of course a Not Yet to the Kingdom. We still contend with those realities that will only finally be finished once for all upon our entrance into the new Jerusalem.

We live in that time when the Kingdom is both “Now and Not Yet.” We have been delivered but we await to be delivered. We have been set free we await being set free.

I think there is a tendency to forget the Nowness of the Kingdom in favor of the Not Yetness of the Kingdom. We have needs to keep before us that the Lord Christ has triumphed and in principle has brought His Kingdom. This Kingdom reality then progressively rolls forward so that eventually the Kingdoms of nations will become the Kingdoms of our Lord.

Conclusion

How does this account of a 1st century Demoniac being healed bear upon us today? Especially in light of the fact that there are so many that dismiss the supernatural. For those of us who are God’s people, we must dismiss those who dismiss the supernatural and acknowledge and embrace again the truth that the Kingdom of God — the authority and power of Jesus Christ — has come and so is present. We must live in terms of His authority and move in the confidence that His Kingdom has come. We must not recoil in fear against those powers and Kingdoms that have already been defeated.

The fact that the Kingdom has come bears on our eschatology. If we really believe that the Lord Christ brought His Kingdom and has been Ascended and seated as King of Kings then it is difficult to see how we can avoid some kind of optimistic eschatology. If we really believe that we are now living in the age to come because of Christ’s victory over the Kingdoms that resisted his Kingdom then how can we not be convinced that we go from victory unto victory in Christ?

Confidence in Christ’s Kingdom word strongly works towards demanding of us confidence that His already arrived Kingdom is going to become that mustard seed that grows into the largest of trees.

 

Considering Rev. Bordow’s Defense of R2K #2

Rev Bordow writes,

“An objection often arises: if the gospel call includes a calling to people to repent of specific sins, wouldn’t that include a call to repentance for civil authorities who allow or approve of abortion and gay marriage? To answer that objection, one can first examine the New Testament for such examples of public policy rebuke, but find none. The Apostles never once condemn a policy of the Roman government, although there were an abundance of opportunities to do so by highlighting certain evil policies of the  government.”
Bret responds,1.) Actually there is a rebuke in the New Testament of a Magistrate, if not for public policy, at least for scandalous public behavior.

Matthew 14:3 For Herod had taken John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife.4 For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.

Here we find clear precedent for speaking to the Magistrate against their sins, whether in public behavior or in public policy. But, as R2K, what Rev. Bordow will offer is that John the Baptist was the last of the OT prophets and so his example can not be counted because the Intrusion Ethic was not yet completed at this time. How convenient.

2.) Also there is this rebuke of public policy by St. Paul,

Acts 16:35  And when it was day, the governors sent the sergeants, saying, Let those men go. 36 Then the keeper of the prison told these words unto Paul, saying, The governors have sent to loose you: now therefore get you hence, and go in peace. 37  Then said Paul unto them, After that they have beaten us openly uncondemned, which are Romans, they have cast us into prison, and now would they put us out privily? nay verily: but let them come and bring us out.38 And the sergeants told these words unto the governors, who feared when they heard that they were Romans.

The Magistrates had pursued a public policy that was not just and here St. Paul rebukes them. Rev. Bordow is just wrong in his assertion.

The Rotting Cancer of Equalitarianism

Isn’t your philosophy authoritarian?

Accusations of authoritarianism follows from an equalitarian ideology which assumes the equality of all men so that no man is worth listening to more than another, no idea is more valuable than another, no child wiser than its parents, no code higher or more authoritative than another.

But it happens that in the course of human history much has occurred and much has been learned which constitutes a fund of experience we disregard at our peril. All of us are not as wise as our ancestors. We can become wiser only by listening to their experience before going on to add our own, just as a child must first listen to his parents before he can safely lead a life of his own.

What is more serious, the destruction by the equalitarian virus of this proper and necessary kind of authority also destroys proper and necessary discipline. Lack of it in the home is, in my opinion, far more often the cause of juvenile delinquency among both rich and poor than the so-called exclusion from family or community groups which today obsesses psychiatrists and sociologists.

Perhaps an ideology which offers ice cream to soothe mutinous convicts, and which condones murder and robbery among backward peoples under the guise of “freedom,” should not be expected to create respect for duly constituted authority in the home. Yet all children, and especially delinquents, need to be taught respect for and obedience to parental authority if we are ever to have law and order in the adult world.

Interestingly enough, the delinquent who is capable of being saved wants the voice of authority to rebuke and guide him more than he wants pity and tears. Parents are usually to blame both in failing to set an example that can be respected and in failing to speak with the tone of command. Men or nations that have been told often enough that in spite of all their training, experience and wisdom they are no better than the untrained, inexperienced and ignorant child or race will come in time to believe it, and consequently to lose the force and assurance which generates obedience.

Finally, by a series of insidious steps the equalitarian virus produces that most disastrous of all diseases, the complete appeasement of evil. At some point, all ability to discriminate is lost, all resistance to wrong ceases, all indignation dies, all evil is met with sobbing pleas which evil most naturally greets with contemptuous laughter, and the red death of a Godless communism settles on the earth.

I cannot protest too strongly against the tendency of the equalitarian virus to undermine all authority in our society from the home through the school on into our attitude toward international affairs.

Carleton Putnam