Mark 1:29-39 — The Lord Christ Dismisses A Fever — The King and Kingdom Have Arrived

We are still considering the Church calendar, and in that context we are still considering Epiphany. Epiphany, as we have stated means “manifestation.” As we’ve been looking at these texts we’ve then been considering the manifestation of the Lord Christ and the manifestation of the purpose of His coming.

As it pertains to the Epiphany of the Lord Christ and the purpose of His coming Mark gives us bullet points as to these matters. Condensed and packed tightly Mark makes known the person of Christ and the purpose for His coming.  In Mark 1:5 we are alerted that the coming of the Messiah has to do with the forgiveness of sins. There the Messiah’s “advance man” makes that clear. Eventually the promised “One who is coming” arrives and is Baptized thus identifying with the sons of Adam and in order to consecrate a new Priestly line. With the Baptism of Christ the heavens are split and the approval of the Father is heard communicating that God has come near to man in Christ. Unlike both Adam in the Garden and Israel in the Wilderness the Lord Christ overcomes the trials of Satan’s temptation and begins to announce that the Kingdom of God is at hand (1:15). After Messiah begins to re-establish Israel by calling what will be 12 disciples the Lord Christ immediately (a word used 14 times in Mark 1-2) begins to demonstrate the impact of the Kingdom upon this broken world. Last week we looked at that Kingdom impact in the Lord Christ casting out the Demon. This week we consider the healing ministry.

Clearly what Mark is doing here (and all the Gospel writers do, each in their own way)  is that he is giving us the impact of the Kingdom of God against this present wicked age. The coming of the Messiah, with His Kingdom is with authority and power.  Because of the Messiah and His Kingdom, the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. A pretty impressive resume. It might be helpful to you to keep this in mind when you are reading the Gospels.

I.) The Kingdom & Simon’s Home

Very well then, we get to this account that we have read this morning. After the Demoniac is healed in the synagogue Jesus attends to Simon Peter’s home. Upon arrival Peter’s mother-in-law is discovered as ill with a fever. Mark does not give us details here but we can well imagine this wasn’t a case of the sniffles. In the ancient world fevers could easily lead to long term debilitation and even death.  The text indicates that no time was wasted between the time of the discovery of the illness of this loved one and the communication of this state of affairs to the Lord Christ.

With vs. 31 the problem is as quickly addressed as it was introduced. However let us consider a couple of the verbs in vs. 31. The text says “he raised her up,” and then “she served them.” The verb “raised her up,” will be used again in Mark 16:6 in application to the resurrection of the Lord Christ.  It is a verb that Mark will use frequently to apply to healings .

Jesus simply “raises her up.” In Mark’s direct and uncomplicated style he says, “…and the fever left her and she served them.” The verbs are interesting. Simon Peter’s mother-in-law is “raised up” by Jesus. This Greek word takes on powerful meaning in Mark’s gospel. In 16:6, in reference to Christ’s resurrection, the same word is applied to Jesus himself. Mark uses egeiro in many healings (see, for example, 5:41, 9:27).  This word communicates that strength is restored so that those ill, possessed, or even the dead, are renewed to their former place. Do not miss the fact that the healing was immediate and instantaneous. No recovery period required.

Something we should interject here, before we look at the second verb is who Jesus is dealing with. Jesus comes to those who would have been considered low on the Hebrew societal pecking order. His Kingdom is not only for the well healed and well placed. Mark establishes this by noting Jesus calling of Fishermen as disciples.

The Kingdom sweeps into its vortex all types of men and women — the high born, the low born, the crippled, the healthy, the fisherman, the tax collector. In terms of entrance into the Kingdom there are no credentials that one must bring in order to enter. Jesus here heals a daughter of Eve. Also we would add that it is interesting that Mark records Jesus’ first healing to be of a woman. A woman brought sickness into creation and a woman is the first who is healed in the coming of the re-creation.

The second verb we want to consider in vs. 31 is that “she served them.” The word is where we get our word “Deacon” from. She is healed and she returns to the task that God had assigned her. This is no lowly or mean position. After all, our Lord Christ will us this same word later in Mark to describe His own ministry.

Mark 10:45 “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Peter’s Mother-in-law was healed and upon being healing she rendered Kingdom service. All who are brought into the Kingdom are brought in to serve even if their service is by way of providing Leadership. Jesus underscored this when He washed His disciples feet.

II.) The Kingdom and the Crowd

A little context here. In the ancient world the homes typically did not have doors like we do today. The openings of the houses were such that one simply walked in and out. This helps us make sense of the whole city being at the door. They were crowded around and pressing in to have audience with the King and the Kingdom. This idea of door traffic is mentioned again in the next chapter. In 2:2 we are told that the traffic was so heavy that there wasn’t even enough room around the door.

Mark’s notation that the “sun had set” is likely indicative that the people were waiting until the Sabbath had ended in order to bring their loved ones. The people had been taught that work was not to be done on the Sabbath and healing was considered work. Keep in mind though that the Lord Christ had already healed on the Sabbath.

As we saw last week, so here, the Lord Christ does not allow the Demons to acknowledge Him. Perhaps it was a matter of not desiring the sulfur tongued  to be His heralds.

Herman Ridderbos in his book “The Coming of the Kingdom offer here,

“From the beginning of his public activity Jesus’ power over Satan had already asserted itself. This is not only proved by the casting out of devils in itself, but also by the manner in which those possessed by the devil behave in his presence (cf. Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34; Mark 5:7; Matt. 8:29; Luke 8:28,31). When Jesus approaches they raise a cry, obviously in fear. They show that they have a supernatural knowledge° of his person and of the significance of his coming (cf. Mark 1:34; 3:11). They call him “the Holy One of God,” “the Son of God,” “Son of the most high God.” By this they recognize his messianic dignity (ef. Luke 4:41). They consider his coming as their own destruction (Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34); their torment (Matt. 8:29; Mark 5:7; Luke 8:28). They feel powerless and try only to lengthen their existence on earth (Matt. 8:29; Mark 5:10), and implore him not to send them into “the deep,” that is to say, the place of their eternal woe (Luke 8:31, cf. Rev. 20:3ff).9 All this shows that in Jesus’ person and coming the kingdom has become a present reality. For the exercise of God’s power over the devil and his rule has the coming of the kingdom for its foundation.”

Perhaps, also there was a desire to keep the sensationalism at a minimum so that He could more freely be about His work. This insistence that His work be kept as low key as possible is not unique here.

Mark 1:43-44, 3:11-12, 4:10-11, 5:19, 8:30, 9:9

This insistence on the stealth approach has sometimes been referred to as the Messianic secret. The idea is that the Lord Christ constantly kept tamping down his fame so that the Father’s plan for His death would not be accelerated by popular enthusiasm.

The question is asked why we do not continue to see these kinds of healing and miracles today since the Kingdom is still present and for the answer we have to consider the place of all this in God’s redemptive History. The reason that all this is happening is that a very particular time in Redemptive History has arrived. All of this activity is giving testimony that this unique time in History has arrived.  All of what is happening here and then later with the Apostles after Pentecost is part of a single, comprehensive crescendo part of history. All this is done in light of the Historical coming of the Kingdom and it is done only with the arrival of the Messiah and His Kingdom and the establishment of His Church.  Here, in this point in History, the cornerstone and foundation is laid. From the close of the canon forward the superstructure is built upon this unique point in time history. To ask for more of this Historical uniqueness is like asking to be 25 again. That historical moment has passed. This is not to say that remarkable providences or inexplicable healings don’t still happen as God ordains. It is to say that we are at a different time of Redemptive History.  Do keep in mind that were it the case that we were to have the same kind of demonstration of authority and power as we find in this Redemptive time, this time would no longer be seen as a time that was unique and Historically epoch. That time of Christ would be “just another” day.

While the Pentecostals and Charismatics are full of good intentions they sully the record and uniqueness of Redemptive History with their insistence that 2015 and every year must be the same Historical Epoch as the 1st Century when Jesus and the Apostles ministered.

III.) The Kingdom & Continued Ministry

A.) Prayer

In the midst of this Kingdom expansion the Lord Christ takes time to commune with He who, according to His divine nature is one with.  This bespeaks the intimacy between the Father and Son. The text says a solitary place. Some translate it as deserted.

There is a theme that runs through Scripture of God’s man and the desert or solitary space. Often you find that God raises His man up for service but before He employs him for service God puts him on the back side of the desert.

Elijah — I Kings 19 // Moses — Exodus 3 // David — I Samuel 23:14 // John the Baptist — Desert prophet // Paul — Desert years

It is beneficial to see an implied connection made between the Kingdom work of the Lord Christ and the intimacy with the Father that accompanies it. The Lord Christ is no rogue agent but in His work he is about the will of the Father whom he spends solitary time.

B.) Purpose statement — Mark 1:38 -39 — Purpose statement — “Therefore came I forth … that I might preach there also.”

“That I may preach there also” //  Preaching, healing, and casting out. // Preaching is shorthand for all three

Though shorthand for all three the primacy is on preaching the good news of the Kingdom.  The miracles only have meaning to the end of confirming what was being preached. The disciples want to constrain Jesus to a theology of glory where everyone is being wowed by the next miracle. Jesus insists on pressing on to the next community to preach the glad tiding of the presence of the Kingdom.

We would be wrong to quickly glide by the purpose statement made by the Lord Christ here. He tells us here why he came.

Christ is concerned that the message of the Kingdom receive the widest of audiences. This is consistent with what we find in the OT concerning the Messiah.

Isaiah 61 The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me,
    because the Lord has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor;[a]
    he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
    and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;[b]
2 to proclaim the year of the Lord‘s favor,
    and the day of vengeance of our God;
    to comfort all who mourn;

These “I have come” purpose statements are important inasmuch as they presuppose the pre-existence of the Lord Christ. In saying, “I have come” there is an implied idea that He has come from somewhere previous. So,   the “coming” mentioned here must be conceived as a “coming out of heaven.”

Further the “I have come statements,” reveal that the Messiah was epistemologically self conscious about who He was as Messiah and what His task was.  Jesus has come to call “sinners to repentance” (Mark 2:17ff); “to throw fire on the earth” (Luke 12:49); “to bring the sword and not peace” (Matt. 10:34ff, cf. Luke 12:51ff); he has not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but “to fulfill them (Matt. 5:17); “to proclaim the kingdom of God” (Mark 1:38), He has come “to seek and to save the lost”  (Luk 19:10), He has come “not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”  All of this suggests that the Lord Christ knew His supernatural origins and His task of bringing in the Kingdom.

Conclusion — Recap

Obama And His Idiotic Prayer Breakfast Remarks

At the annual prayer breakfast Wednesday the guy who poses as our President channeled his College Sophomore speech writer saying,

“Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history.  And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.  In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.  Michelle and I returned from India — an incredible, beautiful country, full of magnificent diversity — but a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs — acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhiji, the person who helped to liberate that nation….

1.) Obama here employs the classic “postmodern maneuver” by intimating that all religions are the same. It’s as if he says, “Sure, Muslims kill people but Christians have killed people also.  This is just the nature of all religions.” Clearly Obama sees all Religions as morally equivalent. It’s just the nature of all religions to be violent at times. One wonders what religion it is that tells Obama that violence is wrong?

2.) The whole “high horse” reinforces #1. Obama’s clear intent there is to remind his audience that Christianity has no reason to think itself morally superior to any other religion. Fascinating that as Obama warns against “High Horse(ism)” he, at that very moment, mounts his high horse.

3.) Obama intones the Crusades as a comparison to Islamic barbarity. But the Crusades were consistent with Christian “Just War” teaching. The Crusades were a Christian counter maneuver to Islamic offensive Jihad that had been going on for centuries. To suggest that wars fought in self defense is morally comparable to putting someone in a cage and dousing them with lighter fluid and making someone a human torch is, at best, rhetorically reckless, and at worst morally reprehensible on Obama’s part.

4.) Obama intones the Inquisition as a comparison to ISIS bringing to us televised live be-headings of Christians. Frankly, I’m amazed Obama didn’t throw in the Salem Witch trials for good measure. Needless to say that if one had a resume that included being responsible for all the deaths of the Inquisition as well ass the Salem Witch trial deaths for bonus bodies one probably couldn’t get a job ISIS or Boko Haram due to inexperience.

5.) It’s interesting that Obama even goes so far as to invoke the name of Christ, and yet does not mention once the name of Muhammad in who’s name all these deaths are being pursued.

6.) Obama ties up slavery and Jim Crow with Christianity but fails to mention the huge slave trade that was pursued by Muslims for centuries in Africa long before the Christian white man came along. Neither does he bother to mention the Muslim blood tax in Christian Europe that found the followers of Muhammad sizing Christian children in order to turn them into special forces troops for Islam — often against their own people in Europe. Neither does Obama mention that it was Western Christian Civilization that ended Slavery. Something that neither Jewish nor Muslim culture has yet done.

Obama’s moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam is just brain dead and it’s a obvious demonstration of how much Obama and his administration hate both Christianity and white people.

7.) Is there any Cultural Marxist History that Obama doesn’t embrace? Gandhi was a monumental hypocrite and here is Obama invoking him. When in South Africa Gandhi had been totally unconcerned with the situation of South African blacks. In point of fact he hardly noticed they were there until they rebelled. Gandhi was as intolerant as Obama is ignorant.

Obama continues,

And, first, we should start with some basic humility.  I believe that the starting point of faith is some doubt — not being so full of yourself and so confident that you are right and that God speaks only to us, and doesn’t speak to others, that God only cares about us and doesn’t care about others, that somehow we alone are in possession of the truth.

Our job is not to ask that God respond to our notion of truth — our job is to be true to Him, His word, and His commandments.  And we should assume humbly that we’re confused and don’t always know what we’re doing and we’re staggering and stumbling towards Him, and have some humility in that process.  And that means we have to speak up against those who would misuse His name to justify oppression, or violence, or hatred with that fierce certainty.  No God condones terror.  No grievance justifies the taking of innocent lives, or the oppression of those who are weaker or fewer in number.

And so, as people of faith, we are summoned to push back against those who try to distort our religion — any religion — for their own nihilistic ends.  And here at home and around the world, we will constantly reaffirm that fundamental freedom — freedom of religion — the right to practice our faith how we choose, to change our faith if we choose, to practice no faith at all if we choose, and to do so free of persecution and fear and discrimination.

1.) Obama calls for basic humility as he proudly begins to lecture a room full of Ministers, Priests, and other “Holy men” on the what they need to learn about religion. The minute he calls for basic humility he demonstrates his own lack of the very thing for which he calls. Perhaps Obama should show his humility by suggesting that he has doubt about what he is about to say and about what he believes is needed?

2.) Obama calls for doubt as he, full of confidence and with no doubt whatsoever, gives a spiel that communicates that he alone has truth when it comes to this demand to realize that none of us have all the truth. Note again, that this section of the speech underscores again that Obama (and his College Sophomore speech writer) believes that all religions are equal. All religions speak truth. All religions hear from God, god, or some god concept. Of that we all must not doubt, of that we all must be certain, and with that we alone are in possession of truth.

3.) Again with the postmodern epistemology. Note, in the second paragraph above, where Obama speaks of “our notion of truth,” as if there is nothing but human “notions of truth.”  Old Obama had a farm …. EIEO. And on that farm there were some notions of truth … EIEO. With a Islam notion here, and a Christian notion there, here a notion, there a notion, everywhere a truth notion … EIEIO.

4.) Do you suppose that Obama would confess that he is confused in what he is saying here?  Notice that in Obama’s world “fierce certainty” is the sin we must fight against. Obama is fiercely certain that we must fight fierce certainty.

5.) Obama says that “No God condones terror.” But the Quran disagrees with him. The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule.  Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding.  Muslims who do not join the fight are called‘hypocrites’ and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter. Here are just a couple,

Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing…but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.   And fight them until there is no more Fitnah

Quran (4:76) – “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”

6.) In terms of the last paragraph above just keep in mind how Christians businesses in this country are being persecuted and discriminated against for their faith.  Obama and his administration has done more to squelch freedom of religion then any Presidential administration in the 20th century.

 

 

Tullian On “Morning Joe”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4hdC0GJY0g#t=20
1.)  Tullian is introduced in identity with his Grandfather. Clearly he is trading off his Grandfather’s name.  Maybe it is fitting because, like his Grandfather before him, he is serving up heterodoxy as orthodoxy.

2.) Tullian is on the program to hawk his book.  Tullian, you cannot serve both God and mammon.

3.) Tullian tells us that there is a problem with people trying to fix themselves so he offers his new book as a fix for people who are always trying to fix themselves. How ironic Tullian.

4.) Notice in this 6:45 second interview the name “Jesus Christ” does not fall from his lips once.

5.) Quoting Tullian, 3:15f

“It is not so much religion in the public sphere as much as religion  in the pulpit (behind the pulpit). That’s my primary concern. That as a preacher, my job when I stand up on Sunday Morning to preach is not to, first and foremost to address social ills or social problems or to try to find social solutions. My job is to diagnose people’s problems and to announce God’s solutions to their problems. So … over the course of the last 20 to 30 years — Evangelicalism specifically — their association with the religious right (Conservative politics)  has done  more damage to the branding of Christianity then just about anything else.”

a.) Notice Tullian’s Dualism. He can diagnose people’s problems and announce solutions but only as those problems and solutions are private and do not impinge upon the public sphere.

b.) Wouldn’t it be a solution to unborn people’s problems to preach, in keeping with the sixth commandment, against abortion. Wouldn’t outlawing abortion be God’s solution to unborn people’s problems Tullian?

c.) I wonder what Tullian would identify concretely as the damage that conservative politics has done to Evangelicalism? I am neither an Evangelical nor part of the religious right (since I don’t think such a thing has existed in any numbers of significance in the 20th century) but still, I would love to hear how he answers that question.

d.) Tullian is offering a solution to the problem of social issues. He is saying, by his demanded pulpit silence, that God has no solution to social issues. Tullian, by his silence, is offering that there is no “thus saith the Lord” on issues from sodomite marriage to abortion, to the social justice of Marxism, to Corporate & Statist machinations (Corporatism) to connive together against the righteous.

6.) Tullian is no friend of Biblical Christianity. The fact that he seized this pulpit upon D. James Kennedy’s passing should cause thoughtful people to ask serious questions about how such a man, who is philosophically the polar opposite of Kennedy, was able to get away with this coup.

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.