Maintaining our Christian Identity While Living On the Margins

Introduction

Conversation with Friend concerning preparing the Church for what looks to be coming

Article by one of the Church’s Theologians on living as Exiles

Any honest appraisal of the era that we are currently living in includes the idea that Christians are and that the Christian belief system is being pushed to the margins of our culture. In my estimation a good case can be made that as the perverted are being allowed out of the closet, the Christian is being shoved into the closet, being required to keep silent now as perversion previously had been. Our cultural absolutizing of Science and the technological as the arbiter of all truth has resulted in the claims of Christianity being seen as worthy of derision. Belief in the supernatural is made to look fairly tale-ish compared to evolution. Abortifacients, no-fault divorce, and now the push to the accepting of sodomite marriage have made orthodox Christian sexual ethics look pass’e, out of date, and mean. In some cultural circles to even espouse a traditional Christian mindset is to invite charges of “hate crimes.”

Of course we are not the first ones to have to live with Christianity being seen as culturally unacceptable. The book of Hebrews gives us insight into some early Christians who were exiles among their own people. In the book of Hebrews the congregation is informed to bear the reproach of Christ. They are reminded that given their times they have no continuing city and they are told to seek the city to come.

We will look closer at that theme in just a moment but for now we want to consider other options that some Christians will choose in order to avoid being marginalized in this culture and in order to avoid becoming cultural outcasts.

Obviously one tactic will be to compromise,

I.) Biblical Christianity will be reinterpreted through a different grid

The result of this will be that what was once seen as beyond the pale, will now be seen as needful to support if one is to be seen as “Christian.

This is happening already.

Over the past decade, evangelical support for same sex marriage has more than doubled, according to polling by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute. About a quarter of evangelicals now support same-sex unions, the institute has found, with an equal number occupying what researchers at Baylor University last year called the “messy middle” of those who oppose gay marriage on moral grounds but no longer support efforts to outlaw it.

This compromise and reinterpretation is seen especially among the Church’s young people under 35. Among that age group just slightly less than 50% now support same-sex marriage. Reflecting that homosexual student organizations have become to crop up at various “Christian” colleges across the nation including Wheaton College.

Even some of the most prominent evangelicals—megachurch pastors, seminary professors and bestselling authors—have publicly announced their compromise on this subject recently. In April a fairly prominent Pastor in Ann Arbor let the world know that he had “seen the light” on the issue and was now recanting his former views.

This tactic of compromise has been a time honored maneuver in the Church over the decades and even centuries. On another subject it was seen again most recently in a well known Church publication. In this article, compromise was being urged on in the way that the Scriptures define Adam and Eve.

“Adam and Eve: Traditionally we’ve been taught that Adam and Eve were the first human pair, Adam made out of dust and Eve from one of Adam’s ribs. But sustaining this doctrine is extremely difficult when we take seriously the human race as we know it today sharing ancestry with other primates such as chimpanzees. Where in the slow evolution of homo erectus and homo habilis and homo sapiens do Adam and Eve fit? We will have to find a better way of understanding what Genesis tells us about Adam and Eve. . . .”

We could spend the whole morning elucidating compromises in Church history. It is sufficient to understand that one way of avoiding the Hebrews counsel to be willing to bear the reproach of Christ is to compromise the faith in order that we may remain “relevant” to our culture.

II.) The Scriptures themselves warn against this turn to compromise when Paul spoke to the Ephesian Elders,

“I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverted things, to draw away disciples after them.”

In the letter to the Hebrews the author likewise warns against this temptation to compromise by giving them the example of Moses,

“24 By faith Moses when he was come to age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, 25 And chose rather to suffer adversity with the people of God, than to enjoy the [z]pleasures of sin for a season, 26 Esteeming the rebuke of Christ greater riches, than the treasures of Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward.
27 By faith he forsook Egypt, and feared not the fierceness of the king: for he endured, as he that saw him which is invisible.”

And then the author of Hebrews, sets forth the Lord Christ as an example as one who did not compromise to gain relief from the threat of cultural irrelevance and exile.

“…let us run with patience the race that is set before us, 2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set at the right hand of the throne of God.”

III.) Exile in the OT as a Pattern

Being exiles is not a theme that is that foreign to Scripture. Joseph was exiled by His Brothers. Moses was exiled and rejected by Israel. It is not too much to say that the law typologically foreshadows Christ as the rejected and exiled prophet. Jesus came unto His own and His own received Him not. Exile.

And yet Scripture also seems to set forth the pattern that God uses His exiled people to be the means of deliverance for God’s people. Joseph was rejected and exiled but eventually God judged Joseph’s brothers, (Gen. 43:21-22; 44:16) exalted Joseph (Gen. 45:9), and through judgment brought the brothers to repentance (44:16, 18-34, 50:15-18) and all along what they meant for evil God meant for good (50:20). So also with Moses; though Israel had rejected him (Ex. 2:14), God exalted Moses (Ex. 4:16), judged Israel when they grumbled against him (Numbers 14:1-23), through judgment brought them into the Promised Land (Dt. 2:16), and made his glory known (Ex. 14:4, 34:6-7, Num. 14:21).

The pattern is fulfilled in Jesus who was rejected and exiled, with the book of Hebrews informing us that Jesus suffered outside the gate, while despising the cross and enduring the shame. He was a exile. And yet we know that God exalted this rejected exile and that through the judgment that fell on Him, His people are delivered as they trust in Christ alone. The Lord Christ is the fulfillment of all the previous typological OT prophets who were rejected and exiled and yet finally were vindicated and used as the means by which God’s people would be delivered.

III.) Exile in the NT and in Church History

However, that which was true about Christ as being rejected and exiled is true not only about the OT saints who anticipated Him but it seems that in some epochs of History it is also true about those that belong to Christ. They likewise are a rejected and exiled people. Whether we speak of the Apostles in the New Testament,

9 For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. 10 We are fools for Christ’s sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised. 11 Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling place; 12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: 13 Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.

or whether we look at the congregation of the Hebrews here, or whether in history we consider the Huguenots, Covenanters, or the Puritans, God’s people have in their History this living their lives as those considered exiles.

Of course this sense of exile has not been the burden of Christians in the West for some time. The West was built by the Christian faith of Christian men and women. The Christian faith dwelt in the hearts, hearths, and homes of the West. This was so true that they often refer to the West as “Christendom.” This Christendom was never utopia but it was a place where Christian beliefs and mores could be found in wide acceptance. Christ was seen as the Redeemer and Savior of His people. God’s law was seen as the standard, not only for personal ethics, but also for the ethics that were enshrined into the laws and institutions of the West. Confessing Christ was seen as necessary and required for holding different political offices. Being Christians Mothers and Fathers, raising a Christian family, giving the children who would eventually arrive a Christian education was seen as the the goal of every newlywed young Christian man and wife. The Christian Church with its Christian worldview echoing from the pulpit, and ensconced in a myriad of weekly publications was the predominant molder and shaper of the culture. Exile was not a familiar theme.

That time has gone into eclipse and now we must reckon with the fact that we live, as the congregation did in the book of Hebrews, as Exiles.

IV.) Well how shall we successfully live as Exiles in this Brave New World

A.) First, we realize that our status as exiles has no need to be the only theme among Christians. There is currently a theology in the Reformed Church in existence that wants to absolutize the theme of exile so that any suggestion of building successful Christian culture is seen as Triumphalism or as a dastardly theology of glory. We understand because of our own antinomian unfaithfulness we are living in an age of Exile but there is no reason to absolutize this Exile as if it is the norm for all times and places. Scripture speaks repeatedly of the Triumph of Christ in time and space. The Kingdoms of this world are shattered by the rock cut out of the Mountain that rolls over the Kingdom statue. The Knowledge of the Lord will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. The Kingdom of heaven leavens all. The mustard seed of Christianity becomes a great tree in which all the Nations (Birds) find refuge.

There is something altogether unseemly in a theology that says “we’ve always lost, we are losing now, and we will only ever lose, though spiritually speaking that losing is really winning. If we want to be faithful we have to see ourselves as perpetual exiles in every generation.”

Continuing on with addressing how to successfully live as Exiles …

B.) Church and Worship

1.) For Exiles Church and Worship becomes a haven where identity is reinforced.

I’m convinced that this is one reason why the author to the Hebrews can tell this congregation of Exiles to,

23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)
24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: 25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

As Exiles a way to maintain or identity and also a way to continue to fight is to have our identity reinforced in the gathering of the saints for Worship. In worship we walk out of the liturgies of the world which would shape us consistent with the belief systems of the zeitgeist and we walk into the liturgy of the Church where the centrality of Word and Sacrament permeates the whole of the rest of the liturgy.

In our worship the Word informs the Liturgy and during the dance of worship our identity in Christ is underscored and so we rejoice at being Exiles for and in Christ. In the Word Christ is championed as being the great reconciler between God and man and in whom we find a peace with God that the zeitgeist can never offer. In the word Christ is our great liege Lord to whom all our loyalty gladly belongs. In the Word Christ is seen as the one in whom are hidden all the treasuries of Wisdom and knowledge which reminds us of the zeitgeist follies we walked out of in order to enter the sanctuary.

So important is Worship that Dr. Peter Leithart can ask and then answer his own question by observing,

“Christians in the US are entering a period of crisis that will lead to martyrdom…

How do we prepare? Not by military exercises or organizing militias. We prepare by learning to use finger-weapons, not hand-weapons, which is to say, by learning to battle with musical instruments. We prepare by training our bodies as musical instruments, by learning to sing lustily, especially by learning to sing God’s songs.”

Via the singing of God’s songs … via the Heart of Christianity communicated via Reformed Liturgy … via the emphasis that one finds in Reformed Sermons of a Christian worldview that takes captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ the Exile and marginalized retain their Christian identity.

Now, I would never contend that Worship is the only means of living successfully as Exiles but I would contend that it is one of the means of resistance. Via Biblical Worship we are washed of the foul false word and liturgies of the zeitgeist and we are re-oriented by the Word and Sacrament as they inform our Liturgy and so we are able to once again find ourselves rooted and grounded in Christ. This simple but beautiful Worship where the Word saturated Liturgy finds us Welcomed by the God who reminds us of His law every week. This Liturgy where upon the hearing of God’s law God’s people confess their sin and then find comfort in God’s absolution of their sin and the turning away of His judgment because of the finished work of Christ. Then because of this pronounced absolution God’s people are reminded of their resurrection in Christ. This liturgy where God speaks to His people through the voice of His spokesman who brings to God’s people from the Holy desk both the harmony and disharmony of Law and Gospel.

C.) And then out of that worship we fight

The visible Church is the Church militant and like Peter on that 1st pentecost we continue to command all men everywhere to repent. And so we contend for the crown Rights of the Lord Christ.

The Dutch theologian Kuyper could say here,

“When principles that run against your deepest convictions begin to win the day, then battle is your calling, and peace has become sin; you must, at the price of dearest peace, lay your convictions bare before friend and enemy, with all the fire of your faith.”

We wrestle against principalities and powers. We take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. We put on the whole armor of God. We study to show ourselves approved, workmen who needeth not to be ashamed. We are ready to give an answer of the hope that lies within us. We have our minds transformed and renewed to think God’s thoughts after Him on every subject under the sun. As Exiles we are witnesses to the Nations until the Nations are converted to Christ.

Conclusion

re-cap

Fisking R. Scott Clark On Laws Against Religious Freedom

Christianity Is Not Private But A Bakery Is

I am fisking only parts of the article. Those who want to read the whole article by Clark are encouraged to go to the site provided.

Despite the 1st amendment and his (Constitutional) oath, Sen. Schumer (D-New York) says that religious Americans have a choice: hold their religious faith or go into business but, according to Sen. Schumer, religious people cannot both practice their faith and conduct business in America. Why on earth would an American senator, who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution of United States say such a remarkable thing?

Note here at the outset that Dr. R. Scott Clark (RSC) begins his article outraged that a sitting Senator is speaking against religious freedom in the common realm and ends the article complaining that Natural law is not being followed in the common realm. It sounds to me what RSC is really upset about is that his religion (Natural law as he interprets it) is not being allowed in the common realm.

Also, note, that R2K has consistently insisted that the common realm is common and that the common realm is grounded in Natural law and not religion. Well, if that is true then RSC should hardly complain that Sen. Chuck Schumer is getting rid of religious freedom since the common realm is not religious conditioned. How is it possible to have “religious freedom” in a common realm where religion doesn’t exist?

Thirdly keep in mind that it is R. Scott Clark who has said “good riddance” when speaking of the demise of Christendom. Well, the flooding of the common square with those things that the Westminster-California objects to is but the natural consequence of ridding ourselves of Christendom.

Clark complains,

The first part of the answer is that, in the modern period, as I explained my post for Independence Day 2014, it became a given in the modern period that religion is an essentially private, theoretical matter. With this assumption, politicians and policy makers assume that when the founders spoke of religious freedom—when they think about the original intent of the founders—they were speaking about the right to hold private religious views. Many of those who make our laws and write the policies by which we live seem to have never come into contact with anyone who does more than hold private religious beliefs. This shapes the world within which politics and policy are formed. Further, as several writers have noted recently, as the federal government grows and becomes more involved in our daily lives, the less freedom citizens have to practice their religious convictions. When the federal government was smaller (before the Great Society) and therefore less intrusive there were fewer opportunities for such a collision. Now, the collision between government and religious conviction is not only inevitable but a daily occurrence.

Bret offers,

The whole burden of R2K has been to sanitize the common realm of the Christian religion and now that it has succeeded in that venture Clark wants to complain that the State wants to sanitize the common realm of the Christian religion? We have had it from some friends or students of Clark that Bestiality should not be legislated against, and that same sex civil unions could be supported by Christians or that Brothers marrying Sisters is a legitimate possibility and now Clark wants to raise his voice against a US Senator who likewise believes that private religious beliefs be only private?

For Pete’s sake, R2K has been telling us for at least a decade now that religion is essentially a private, theoretical matter when it comes to the common realm. Why should we be surprised that now Sen. Schumer agrees with Irons, Van Drunen, Horton, and Clark et. al.?

Thirdly, note that RSC can’t seem to connect the dots between his “good riddance to Christendom” and the rise of the Messiah State. Only Biblical Christianity, with its Jurisdictionalism, can provide a bulwark against Messianic Statism. It is not an accident that the power of the Messiah State has grown as Christendom has gone into abeyance.

RSC bemoans,

The second part of the answer is really a question. How did it come to be that, in America, a nation founded on the principle of the right of relatively unencumbered religious practice, in which civil and religious freedom was defined not as “agreeing with the majority” or “agreeing with the reigning political party” but rather “the relative absence of civil restriction” that a politician would feel free to say what Sen. Schumer said? The Bill of Rights used to be sacrosanct in American politics. Even the biggest of the Big Government Democrats in the 1960s (e.g., Hubert Humphrey) would never have said what Sen. Schumer said. The world seems to have been turned upside down. God (he’s out), mother (unless she’s a Lesbian), and apple pie (only if it’s fair trade) all seem to be politically incorrect today.

Bret queries,

Clark asks how did these things come to be? We answer, “because we have surrendered notions of Christendom in favor of notions of the Messianic State.” Where now your “Good riddance to Christendom” Dr. Clark?

Secondly, R2K has wanted God and His explicit law out, in terms of the common realm, since Lee and Misty Irons were brought before a Church court. Oh, sure … R2K is all for Natural Law being “in” but for R2K God and the idea of Christian Family (Mom) has been politically incorrect, for the common realm, from the beginning.

Clark presses on,

As I’ve been arguing for a while, we are experiencing some unintended consequences from the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We can see these consequences in Sen. Schumer’s remarks. By going into business, by forming a corporation, according to the senator, one’s property is no longer his. It is no longer private. This is part of the reasoning behind forcing bakers and photographers to serve homosexual weddings. When homosexual couples use the strong arm of the state (and when courts support them) they are saying that one may privately think that homosexuality is sin but one is no longer free to act on their conviction.

Steven F. Hayward explains how the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s has been corrupted. As a matter of fact, Dr. King believed that homosexuality was unnatural, a disorder. Only a few years ago our president was opposed to homosexual marriage, he said, because of his Christian convictions. In other words, as late as 2012 it was culturally permissible in as late as to form policy on the basis of one’s religious convictions and to act on that policy but in 2014 it is not. That is a cultural Blitzkrieg. Hayward traces the roots of the loss of the freedom of association and the free use of private property (including one’s business) to the attempt to redress slavery.

Bret,

Long ago the Messianic state overthrew the Constitution’s recognition of the pre-existing right we call the freedom of association. It stands to reason, by the reasoning of the Messianic State, that if we are not allowed freedom of association because of one type of perceived barrier then we should not be allowed freedom of association because of another kind of perceived barrier. Given RSC’s R2K convictions I really don’t know what he is complaining about? The Messianic State has said that nature teaches that freedom of association is archaic. What is he complaining about if the Messianic State broadens its boundaries for disallowed freedom of association? Christendom is dead. Good riddance.

RSC offers,

The American solution is to recognize that bakeries and photography shops are private property. They may serve whom they will. They are not tax-funded public entities (e.g., busses and trains). Unless we recognize the fundamental right of private property owners to act according to conscience the American definition of civil liberty is dead. At the same time, secularists and Christians alike must recognize that religious convictions are not merely privately held beliefs without public consequences.

Bret

This is rich. One of the most rabid defenders of R2K — a “theology” that insists upon the maintenance of the religiously common realm — is insisting that religious convictions are more than privately held beliefs and that said religious convictions have public consequences.

RSC embraces Peyote smoking in order to restore private property rights

In an attempt to shame us into repudiating the notion that religious beliefs have public consequences some critics have attempted a reductio ad absurdum: if we allow Hobby Lobby not to provide abortifacients to employees or photographers not to serve homosexual weddings, what then? We shall have allow Native Americans to smoke peyote. Using the ghoulish Lemon Test, the Supreme Court (1990) has held that there is not a right to use peyote, even if for religious purposes. Nevertheless, in the interests of maximizing religious and civil liberty, I would support permitting the religious use of peyote if that’s the price we must pay to regain the freedom to act according to conscience. If the use of peyote renders one unemployable (because of intoxication), that is not the employer’s problem. It is reasonable to expect employees to be able to be employed and employable. What about polygamy? A natural law argument can be made against both homosexual marriage and, on similar grounds, polygamy. Both are contrary to the nature of marriage. The state may license unaided human flight but it is still against the laws of nature. Anyone who tries it will suffer the consequences. So it is with homosexual marriage. Courts may license it but such marriages are legal fictions.

Bret,

You heard here first folks. Dr. Clark is for legalizing all drug usage that is religious if Christian businesses are allowed to refuse sodomite customers.

(Wait a minute Scott, per your R2K I didn’t think it was possible for photographer or bakers to practice their craft as Christians? If it is not possible for businesses to be Christian why are you so worried about their religious convictions in the public square? Shouldn’t you be telling these Christians to “get over it?”)

Scott weighs in,

Why may the state regulate homosexual marriage but not compel a private business to serve a homosexual marriage? The state has no compelling interest in compelling a private business to associate with (by doing business) or endorsing a homosexual marriage. No one has a natural right to my cake or my services as a photographer—unless of course we’ve abolished the very notion of private property. Until I sell it to you, the cake and my services are mine. They are not yours. That’s why we have laws on the books against theft. There is a fundamental difference between mine and yours. We all learned that in kindergarten. Apparently Sen. Schumer missed that session?

Bret answers,

And the state does have a compelling interest in regulating sodomite marriage?

If the State does have a compelling interest in regulating sodomite marriage then I would suggest that, by the Messianic State’s reasoning, it also has a interest in compelling a private business to associate with (by doing business) and endorsing sodomite marriage. The Messianic State, upon their premises, can argue that as all citizen should be treated equally, no citizen has a right to refuse service to another citizen service upon any pretext concerning the person with whom they are doing business. Sodomites have every right to the cake-makers cake as any other person has a right to the cake-makers cake. R2K teaches us that Christian cake-making is a myth after all and so since there is no such thing as Christian cake-making there likewise should be no such thing as common realm cake makers having a right to deny service. Christendom is dead. Good riddance.

RSC throws dust in the air when he talks about “theft.” I’m sure that the Messianic State will require all customers they are forced to do business with to pay for any services rendered.

RSC opines,

In contrast, the state has a compelling interest in limiting what sorts of marriages may be contracted. No one has a fundamental right to do things that are contrary to nature.

Bret queries,

Who says that the state has a compelling interest in limiting what sorts of marriage may be contracted?

By what standard are we saying that no one has a fundamental right to do things that are contrary to nature? Is it nature that is the standard and if so and if I’m a sodomite I’m insisting that this is a serious misreading of nature.

And besides, by R2K reasoning, this idea that RSC has put forward is merely a religious shibboleth of RSC’s that has no place in the common realm.

RSC offers,

Thus, incest is properly illegal. Pedophilia is properly illegal because it is contrary to nature. Bestallity is properly illegal. This is why suicide is properly illegal—not because it is immoral or sinful but because it is contrary to nature. Humans do not have a fundamental right to murder others or themselves. No society, as the Netherlands shall soon discover, can legally sanction suicide and survive. One Dutch physician writes, “Deliberate termination of life of newborns (involuntary euthanasia) with meningomyelocele (MMC) is practiced openly only in the Netherlands.” A society that gave legal approval to bestiality could not be cohesive even if gave the broadest possible definition to the word. Imagine a man and his bestial “wife” checking in to a hotel. Now, that’s absurd. The family is a natural, creational institution and these practices, even as they are gaining approval among some influential intellectuals, are destructive of any sense of family. In other words, if we are going to live together, there must be basic rules common to a society if it is to retain that title. Otherwise we shall have descended into a Hobbesian state of nature.

Bret

Apparently there is disagreement among the R2K lads about matters like incest, bestiality and pedophilia because some of them have said that the state supporting these issues is most certainly not a absurd position.

Here is R2K Pastor and Westminster-California Grad Todd Bordow on the non absurdness of Beastiality in the common square,

“Not being a theonomist or theocrat, I do not believe it is the state’s role to enforce religion or Christian morality. So allowing something legally is not the same as endorsing it morally. I don’t want the state punishing people for practicing homosexuality. Other Christians disagree. Fine. That’s allowed. That is the distinction. Another example – beastiality (sic) is a grotesque sin and obviously if a professing member engages in it he is subject to church discipline. But as one who leans libertarian in my politics, I would see problems with the state trying to enforce it; not wanting the state involved at all in such personal practices; I’m content to let the Lord judge it when he returns. A fellow church member might advocate for beastiality (sic) laws. Neither would be in sin whatever the side of the debate. Now if the lines are blurry in these disctinctions,(sic) that is always true in pastoral ministry dealing with real people in real cases in this fallen world.”

Here is R2K Doctor and Westminster-California Professor Dr. Michael Horton on the non absurdness of Sodomy in the common square,

““Although a contractual relationship denies God’s will for human dignity, I could affirm domestic partnerships as a way of protecting people’s legal and economic security.”

Again,

“The challenge there is that two Christians who hold the same beliefs about marriage as Christians may appeal to neighbor-love to support or to oppose legalization of same-sex marriage.”

And another graduate of Westminster-California, Rev. Steve Lehrer, has offered in the book, “New Covenant Theology: Questions Answered.” — pg. 154

“Suppose that it were legal in our country for a man to marry his sister. If this were the case, and a man who attended your church wanted to marry his sister, would your church perform the wedding?”

Answer

“We need to get our initial shivers and our “yuck, ick, disgusting” first reactions out of the way. . . . In the New Covenant Scriptures no mention is made of the impropriety of marrying one’s sister. Although the practice is illegal in many countries, which makes it sinful for Christians living in those countries to do (Romans 13:1), it seems that if you and your sister are both believers and you live in a country that deems marriage between siblings to be a lawful practice, then your marriage would be holy in God’s sight.”

Apparently absurdity is in the eye of the R2K beholder.

Further, is RSC trying to tell us that all things contrary to nature are illegal because ipso facto if is contrary to nature it is immoral and sinful? Really, what Scott is saying here is that if something is contrary to nature then it is, by definition, immoral and sinful. Yet Scott wants us to believe he doesn’t have a problem with something immoral and sinful in the common realm though he draws the line at something contrary to nature. (Insert rolling eyes icon.)

Incest, Pedophilia, Bestiality, and Suicide are bad not because they are immoral or sinful but because they are against nature? Really? I can’t wait to preach that.

“Incest, Pedophilia, Bestiality, and Suicide are bad, not because they are in violation of God’s law, but rather they are bad because they are in violation of nature.”

A few questions for Dr. Scott given this last paragraph,

1.) Who says that survival and cohesiveness are according to nature?

2.) By what standard does RSC measure “absurd,” and is he saying that “absurd” is immoral and sinful? How does he know?

3.) Where do these “basic rules” come from if not from some kind of religious presupposition RSC?

4.) RSC calls for Nature to be the ruling standard but then turns around and complains about the Hobbesian state of nature? What gives RSC? Why complain about Hobbes? Isn’t his judgment of Nature as valued as yours?

Finally, the family indeed is a Creational institution but as Creation fell and all the institutions along with it, Family must be restored by Grace, and as such this Creational institution can only find its true self as it finds itself, as part of nature, restored by Grace.

Scott finishes,

We should all hope that Sen. Schumer and all who think as he does on these issues will reconsider the history of the Republic and the violence that must be done not only to our constitutional documents and principles but also to the very idea of liberty itself. They may get their wish and banish religious objections but they may come to regret it when their most deeply held and formerly protected convictions are also sacrificed on the same altar. To what will Sen. Schumer appeal then, when his basic liberties as well as ours have rubbished?

Bret responds,

1.) They will never banish all religious objections. That is not their goal. The goal of Schumer and Reid and people like him is to banish all Christian objections. This is the character of the Messianic State. Christendom is dead Scott. Good riddance.

2.) R2K has a “Theology” has contributed to the creation of this fecal sandwich all Biblical Christians are being forced to eat. Dr. R. Scott Clark has been one of the major proponents of R2K. I think he should just get used to the consequences of his “theology.”

Darrell Dow On The Good Samaritan And Illegal Immigration

I am blessed to have extraordinarily thoughtful friends. Here Darrell Dow, a recovering Baptist and good friend from Kentucky gives a memorable, succinct, pithy response to a Christian who is convinced that Christians are obligated, because of Jesus Good Samaritan parable, to support illegal immigration. This piece is marked by lucid brevity and would be good to have in your pocket the next time the Zombies come at you on Immigration.

Darrell is responding to this piece by the well intended but confused Southern Baptist executive Dr. Russell Moore.

The Road to Jericho and the Border Crisis

Let’s start with the parable of the Good Samaritan since that is where misguided Christians make appeal to in regards to supporting illegal immigration. Was its inclusion in the Gospels designed to instruct the state as regards immigration policy? Here Moore engages in logically fallacious thinking by universalizing a particular obligation and in so doing creating the conditions for ethical mischief that ultimately empowers the state at the expense of civil society. Moore is propounding a universal ethic that is more a residue of Enlightenment liberalism than Christianity and leads to statism. The ethical instruction may be appropriate for individuals and even churches but Moore is laying this at the feet of the magistrate who is to be an avenger of God’s wrath and minister of justice.

This thinking leads us to conclude that we have 6.3 billion “neighbors.” But in scripture, compassion is balanced with justice, and with a preference given to kin, and by extension to nation. I Timothy 5:8 teaches, “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” I am operating under an assumption–that God organizes society around groups of people: families, clans, communities, tribes, nations. Open immigration and the creation of lawless boundaries destroys such a social order and a prudential civil government has an affirmative duty to protect the interests of its people first and foremost. My brother, for example is a house painter. Is he harmed or helped in his calling and ability to care for wife and children by an influx of cheap labor? Who is my neighbor in this scenario?

How do we think about refugees and immigrants? In his book “The Immigration Crisis: Immigrants, Aliens, and the Bible”, Dr. James Hoffmeier provides a definition of an alien in Israelite culture and law. The Hebrew word ger is translated variously as “stranger” (KJV, NASB), “sojourner” (RSV, ESV), and “alien” (NIV) in contemporary English translations. A ger was a foreigner living in a land outside his homeland who had received permission from the proper authority. For example, when Jacob’s family wanted to flee famine they traveled to Egypt and asked Pharaoh for permission to enter, “We have come to sojourn in the land … please let your servants dwell in the land of Goshen” (Gen. 47:4). With the appropriate permission secured, Jacob’s family, which grew into the people of Israel, became legal aliens in Egypt. In short, they were allowed into the country by the host. This scenario finds its modern equivalent in the immigrant who has legally entered a foreign land with permission and secured proper documentation to that effect.

With this background we better understand the various biblical laws protecting “aliens” from oppression. It is wrong to allow people into your land and subsequently subjugate them. God gave many laws to protect aliens in Israel. Aliens were not to be oppressed (Ex. 22:21; Lev. 19:33-34). They were integrated into Israelite society, entitled to equal justice (Num. 15:15-16) and equal pay (Deut. 24:14-15), and could celebrate Passover (Ex. 12:48). They had legal standing and near equality of status in the community.

Two other Hebrew words, nekhar and zar, refer to those foreigners passing through or sojourning in Israel—this would be more in line with the “refugees” along the border. They were not given the same benefits and protections as the ger (Ex. 12:43; Deut. 15:3; 17:15). The “foreigner” and the “alien” did not have the same social and legal status. Some English versions of the Bible, including the TNIV and TLV, translate ger as “foreigner,” allowing the reader to think that these categories of people were the same. They were not.

Biblical supporters of “comprehensive immigration reform” and a “path to legalization”, which Moore endorses, often refer to Leviticus 19:33-34, which says: “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.”

Citing C. D. Ginsburg, R.J. Rushdoony says that this “‘stranger’ is one who has become circumcised, fasted on the Day of Atonement, obeyed the laws of sacrifice, and has practiced the laws of chastity, as well as obeyed other moral laws.” In short, once a foreigner had become part of the community, his nationality was not to be used against him. Such passages address treatment of aliens ONCE they are part of the community. But it tells us nothing of who should be allowed to be part of that community.

Finally, I don’t think that we can call these folks at the border “refugees.” They are not enduring political or other persecution, but are coming for economic reasons and because they know that Americans are disarmed. This ethical disarmament is what is endangering these people and encouraging them to make a dangerous journey. And to the extent that they are “refugees”, even the article that Moore cites leads one to conclude that the reason for their travails is the ongoing drug war. Will Dr. Moore try to convince Southern Baptists of the wisdom of drug legalization? With a bowl of popcorn in hand, I shall await his attempt.

I would only add that even the “ger” would forever in his generations be seen as a “stranger” since he could never inherit land as land was always to return to the Tribes and Clans.

Biblical Theology & Head Crushing Enmity Between The Two Seeds

There are different disciplines that one is introduced to when one attends Seminary. Two of those disciplines are Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology. Both of these disciplines are based on the Bible. Biblical Theology as discipline came much later and labeled itself “Biblical Theology.” It was a good marketing move.

We are going to spend just a little bit of time seeking to help you get a laymen’s understanding of the two because the understanding of these distinctions, at least at a rudimentary level, should be owned by the Laymen as much as the Seminary Student.

When we consider Biblical Theology, which we will be emphasizing today, we find that according to one Professional Biblical Theologian,

“Biblical Theology seeks to explain the worldview behind the statements we now find in the Bible. Biblical Theology attempts to elucidate the metanarrative embraced by the Biblical authors.”

James M. Hamilton Jr.
_________________

Because this is so Biblical sermons may not focus on one text but instead might seek to be longitudinal as the sermon seeks to give some aspect of the metanarrative soil out of which a particular Biblical truth grows.

One of the most well known Biblical Theologians has offered,

“Biblical Theology, rightly defined, is nothing else than the exhibition of the organic process of supernatural revelation in its historic continuity and multiformity.”

Geerhardus Vos
____________________________________

Systematic Theology, for example, examines and organizes revelation systematically and logically, whereas Biblical Theology operates historically.

Example — Systematic Theology has this great dense, complicated and tangled Forrest of God’s Revelation before it. It looks at this Forest of Revelation and it asks the question, “How can I best organize all this truth so that it is understandable and digestible?”

And it concludes that the best way it can do that is to break it up into categories and sub-categories and sub sub-categories wherein it can be understood. So for example one might rightly see that the Forest of God’s revelation deals with “Soteriology” — “The Doctrine of Salvation,” and so one creates the category of “Doctrine of Salvation” with sub-categories under that of Redemption, Reconciliation, Propitiation, Expiation, Sacrifice, Blood, etc. The one might take one of those sub-Categories of the Category of Soteriology and break it down even more. In doing so there idea is that there will be ever increasing exhaustive understanding of what Scripture teaches on any one subject.

As we’ve hinted at already, the Discipline that is called “Biblical Theology,” does not ask the question that Systematic Theology asks. As we just noted Systematic Theology asks the question “How can I best organize all this truth so that it is understandable and digestible?” The discipline of Biblical Theology on the other hand asks the questions, “How did this Forest of God’s Revelation grow into the Forest it did and what are the main themes we can see in this Forest as this Forest grew?”

So systematic theology is concerned with the finished product of God’s Revelation whereas biblical theology is concerned with the unfolding process, growth, and final culmination of God’s Revelation. Now, if you were to think about it awhile you would realize that there is overlap between the two and that the two imply one another but this is the general way in which these two Disciplines are considered.

The concept of the organic nature of revelation is prominent in Biblical Theology. Good Biblical Theology traces the organic growth of revelation as it is God’s Interpretation of the work of God’s Redemption. The great events in the history of redemption were accompanied by the corresponding revelation of God to explain the meaning of the acts of Redemption. Biblical Theology understands that,

“the heart of divine truth, that by which men live, must have been present from the outset, and that each subsequent increase consisted in the unfolding of what was germinally contained in the beginning of revelation. The Gospel of Paradise is such a germ in which the Gospel of Paul is potentially present; and the Gospel of Abraham, of Moses, of David, of Isaiah and Jeremiah, are all expansions of this original message of salvation, each pointing forward to the next stage of growth, and bringing the Gospel idea one step nearer to its full realization.”

G. Vos

Now, I offer this painfully brief backdrop in order to spend a little time with you this morning looking at a theme that is constructed in a Biblical Theological fashion.

What we want to consider this morning is the process in Scripture by which the theme of the anti-thesis is begun and then traced throughout the Scriptures.

Of course the first mention of this warfare between the two competing seeds is found in the passage read this morning. What this passage teaches us is,

1.) I will put enmity (warfare) between the two seeds

There will be perpetual conflict placed between the people of God (seed of the Woman) and the people who oppose God (seed of the Serpent). This conflict is both between the people of God collectively and the enemy and the Champion of the people of God (Christ) and Satan.

2.) Bruising … and Crushing

This conflict will eventuate into ultimate deliverance (Salvation) for God’s people (God’s representative will crush the head of God’s opponent) but that ultimate deliverance will come via judgment (God’s opponent will strike the heel of God’s representative before that opponent is crushed.)

3.) On the belly … eating dust

Complete humiliation and total condemnation for the seed of the serpent.

So these three themes we want to trace organically and longitudinally through Scripture to see how this acorn theme in Genesis 3 grows into a mighty Oak through the rest of Scripture. In doing so we are seeking to let the Scripture interpret itself as God’s Revelation repeats and magnifies a theme that it begins in Genesis 3.

We need to keep in mind as we examine these themes that later Revelation can use different phrases and words to enlarge and expand upon the original idea.

I The Theme of Smiting and Broken Heads of Enemies

A.) Law

Numbers 24:17 I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not near: there shall come a [a]Star of Jacob, and a Scepter shall rise of Israel and shall smite the [b]coasts of Moab, and destroy all the sons of [c]Sheth.

This is the third oracle of Balaam concerning Israel. We see the language of “smiting” in reference to Moab (one of the early enemies of God’s people). The 1599 Geneva Bible interprets the “Coasts of Moab” as standing for the “Princes of Moab.” It is Balak, the Prince of Moab, as the seed of the Serpent that will experience the Smiting. King Balak has dismissed the prophet Balaam in frustration, but Balaam departs prophesying, consistent with the Genesis passage of a time when the seed of the Serpent “Moab” will have its head crushed by the seed of the Woman.

B.) Prophets

Judges 4:21

21 Then Jael Heber’s wife took a [a]nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him (Sisera), and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground, (for he was fast asleep and weary) and so he died.

5:26 She put her hand to the nail, and her right hand to the workman’s hammer: with the hammer smote she Sisera: she smote off his head, after she had wounded and pierced his temples.

Judges 9:53

53 But a certain woman cast a piece of a millstone upon Abimelech’s head, and brake his brainpan.

Here we see this promise to crush the seed of the Serpent’s head is quite literal.

1 Samuel 17:491599 Geneva Bible (GNV)

49 And David put his hand in his bag, and took out a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sticked in his forehead, and he fell groveling to the earth.

Isaiah 1:4-5

4 Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity: a [a]seed of the wicked, corrupt children: they have forsaken the Lord: they have provoked the [b]Holy one of Israel to anger: they are gone backward.
5 Wherefore should ye be [c]smitten anymore? for ye fall away more and more: the whole [d]head is sick, and the whole heart is heavy.

Here God refers to His enemies reminiscent to the language used in Gen. 3 (seed of the wicked) and speaks of the smiting that has taken place. God smites His enemies.

Isaiah 7:8-91599 Geneva Bible (GNV)

8 For the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin: and within five and [a]threescore years, Ephraim shall be destroyed from being a people.
9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah’s son. If ye believe not, surely ye shall not be established.

Here the context is that Syria and Ephraim are the “seed of the serpent,” opposing God’s seed and God is promising that His and His people’s enemies shall be destroyed.

Isaiah 28:31

3 They shall be trodden under foot, even the crown and the pride of the drunkards of Ephraim.

The head of the seed of the serpent is crushed as it is trodden under foot.

Jeremiah 23:19

19 Behold, the tempest of the Lord goeth forth in his wrath, and a violent whirlwind shall fall down upon the head of the wicked.

Jeremiah 30:23

23 Behold, [a]the tempest of the Lord goeth forth with wrath: the whirlwind that hangeth over, shall light upon the head of the wicked.

Habakkuk 3:13 Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, even for salvation with thine [a]Anointed: thou hast wounded the head of the house of the wicked, and discoveredst the foundations unto the [b]neck, Selah.

Habakkuk 3:13 From the top to the toe thou hast destroyed the enemies.

C.) Wisdom Literature

Psalm 68:22-24

21 Surely God will wound the head of his enemies, and the hairy pate of him that walketh in his sins.22 The Lord hath said, I will bring my people again from [a]Bashan: I will bring them again from the depths of the Sea: 23 That thy foot may be dipped in blood, and the tongue of thy dogs in the blood of the enemies, even in [b]it.

Psalm 74:12-14

12 Even God is my king of old, working salvation [a]in the midst of the earth.
13 Thou didst divide the sea by thy power: thou brakest the heads of the [b]dragons in the waters.
14 Thou brakest the head of [c]Leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be [d]meat for the people in wilderness.

This is a reference to God’s victory at the Red Sea. As we shall see in just a bit “dragon” and “serpent” are synonymous terms. When God defeated Egypt he defeated the seed of the Serpent and God’s people were saved.

Psalm 110:6

6 He shall be judge among the heathen: he shall fill all with dead bodies, and smite the [a]head over great countries.

Now we have yet to look at similar themes consistent with Gen. 3:14-19 but what we have learned so far is that,

1.) God destroys His Enemies and those who oppose His people.

We need to keep this in mind as we live in times that are increasingly characterized by a preponderance of God’s enemies. We need to remember the Genesis promise of God that He would crush His enemies. This promise extends beyond the Cross. While it is true that ultimately God’s enemies were crushed in and by Christ’s finished work on the Cross we still look for God’s enemies to continue to be crushed after the Cross.

Romans 16:20

20 The God of peace shall tread Satan under your feet shortly….

Epoch by epoch God’s enemies arise and epoch by epoch God eventually crushes the seed of the Serpent under the feet of His people. Time and again throughout history it has seemed that the seed of the Serpent was getting the upper hand, but then God hears the groanings of His people and arises to bring forth a champion to crush the enemy. Often the seed of the Serpent has been used has cleansing judgment against the seed of the woman as just judgment against their rebellion against God but always God arises and crushes His and our enemies.

Of course this gives us great hope. It should also give us patience, endurance, and optimism. God will arise. God will not let either His name of His people to be continually trod upon.

2.) There is a permanent animosity between the competing seeds.

Naturally there is a temptation to want to make friendship with the World in order to purchase some relief from the pressures of the seed of the serpent. We should be careful of this. Our identity is in Christ and we must maintain that identity even in the face of growing warfare against the Saints. Certainly we must be wise about all this. We must pray for Wisdom. We must walk circumspectly. However, having said all that we can do nothing that would be a mar upon our identity we the seed of the woman.

3.) God’s Glory is seen in the context of this contest as His salvation is seen in the context of judgment

II The Theme of Broken Enemies

(Note that as the serpent is licking the dust of the ground there is reason why it is so often spoke of these broken enemies being trod under foot.)

A.) Law

Exodus 15:6, Numbers 24:8

6 Thy [a]right hand, O Lord, is glorious in power: thy right hand, O Lord, hath bruised the enemy.

8 God brought him out of Egypt: his strength shall be as an unicorn: he shall eat the nations his enemies, and bruise their bones, and shoot them through with his arrows.

B.) Prophets

I Samuel 2:10, II Samuel 22:39, 43, Isaiah 14:25, Jeremiah 13:14, 23:29, 48:4, 51:20-23

1 Samuel 2:10

10 The Lord’s adversaries shall be destroyed, and out of heaven shall he thunder upon them: the Lord shall judge the ends of the world, and shall give power unto his [a]King, and exalt the horn of his Anointed.

2 Samuel 22:39

39 Yea, I have consumed them and thrust them through, and they shall not arise, but shall fall under my feet.

2 Samuel 22:43
43 Then did I beat them as small as the dust of the earth: I did tread them flat as the clay of the street, and did spread them abroad.

Isaiah 14:25

25 [a]That I will break to pieces Assyria in my land, and upon my mountains will I tread him under foot, so that his yoke shall depart from [b]them, and his burden shall be taken from off their shoulder.

Jeremiah 13:14

14 And I will [a]dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the Lord: I will not spare, I will not pity, nor have compassion, but destroy them.

Jeremiah 23:29

29 Is not my word even like a fire, saith the Lord? and like an hammer, that breaketh the stone?

Jeremiah 48:4

4 Moab is destroyed: her little ones have caused their cry to be heard.

C.) Writings

Psalm 2:9, 72:4, 89:23-24, 137:9, Daniel 2:34-35, Job 34:22-25

Conclusion,

Now see what we have done this morning. We have taken one theme in Scripture and we started with its point of origin and just by moving through Scripture we have seen how God’s revelation expanded on that theme in the context of God Redemption. This is Biblical theology.

You can use this same technique to study any number of Biblical themes.

1.) the promise of God’s Kingdom and
2.) the building and expansion of God’s Law
3.) the idea of the covenant
4.) the spilling of blood for Atonement

I Samuel 8 & The Consequences of Repenting of God’s Kingship

I Samuel 8 — Israel Rebels against God

That this is rebellion is hinted at here but is stated explicitly in I Sam. 10 and I Samuel 12

17 ¶ And Samuel [k]assembled the people unto the Lord in Mizpah, 18 And he said unto the children of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I have brought Israel out of Egypt, and delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hands of all kingdoms that troubled you. 19 But ye have this day cast away your God, who only delivereth you out of all your adversities and tribulations: and ye said unto him, No, but appoint a king over us. Now therefore stand ye before the Lord according to your tribes, and according to your thousands. (Compare I Samuel 12:6-18)

I.) The Turn Away From God To the Nation (I Samuel 8:4-9)

What Israel is rejecting here is not Samuel so much as it is God. God had been their King as was made evident in God’s triumph over Pharaoh. The Exodus account tells of how God’s Kingship over Israel was mightier that Pharaoh’s Kingship over Egypt. That the Hebrew children recognized this is seen from their acclimation of God’s rule over them in Exodus 15:16-18.

17 “Thou wilt bring them and plant them in the mountain of Thine inheritance, The place, O LORD, which Thou hast made for Thy dwelling, The sanctuary, O Lord, which Thy hands have established. 18 “The LORD shall reign 24 forever and ever”

But now as the I Samuel 8 text teaches, “they have cast me away, that I should not reign over them.”

And so not desiring God to reign over them they desire a King like all the pagan Nations around them.

We need to keep in mind that this turn away from God’s Kingship was at the same time a turning away from God’s law. The Hebrews of Samuel’s time had no desire to be ruled by God and His Law Word. They desired a different standard by which to be ruled.

Now we want to make clear here that it is not the idea of having a King that is a problem. We know this because in Dt. 17 God speaks about the coming day when there will be a King and he lays down certain provisions for that Kingship.

15 Then thou shalt make him King over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: from among thy brethren shalt thou make a King over thee: thou [j]shalt not set a [k]stranger over thee which is not thy brother. 16 In any wise he shall not prepare him many horses, nor bring the people again to [l]Egypt, for to increase the number of horses, seeing the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth go no more again that way. 17 Neither shall he take him many wives, lest his heart [m]turn away, neither shall he gather him much silver and gold. 18 And when he shall sit upon the throne of his Kingdom, then shall he write him this [n]law repeated in a book, by the [o]Priest of the Levites. 19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, and to keep all the words of this Law, and these ordinances to do them: 20 That his heart be not lifted up above his [p]brethren, and that he turn not from the commandment, to the right hand or to the left, but that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his sons in the midst of Israel.

II.) The Consequences of that Turn From God to the Nations

A.) The consequences that Samuel lists are basically a move to centralization.

The Hebrew children are going to move from a decentralized Government (Judges) to a Centralized Government. Another way of saying this is that they are going to be ruled in a viciously top down fashion.

Calvin puts it this way,

Samuel warned them “that the King who will reign over them will take their sons for his own purposes and will cause much plundering and robbery.”

In this description Samuel gives we recognize that what the Hebrews have before them is the promise of being enslaved to the State.

I Sam. 8:17 “… and ye shall be his servants.”

The whole Nation will be organized so that instead of being the servants of Yahweh they will become the servants of the King. Each person becomes an agent for the State. What develops then is what a Political leader of the 20th century coined,

All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

Benito Mussolini

Along the way Samuel mentions the issues of Taxation, (8:15-17)

B.) Taxation

Now either what is happening here is that this tenth is being taken by the King from what belongs to the Lord,

Leviticus 27:30-32 / / Dt. 14:22, 28

30 Also all the tithe of the land both of the seed of the ground, and of the fruit of the trees is the Lord’s: it is holy to the Lord…. 32 And every tithe of bullock, and of sheep, and of all that goeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord.

Now if the King is not stealing from the Lord then what he is doing is creating a Tax Burden for the people.

In short the King will steal from them so what they think is their property is not really their property but instead belongs to the State.

1st edition of “The Institutes” Calvin commenting on Taxation,

“Taxes are not so much private revenues as the treasury of the whole people, or rather the blood of the people and aids of public necessity; to burden the people with which without cause would be tyrannical rapacity.”

Samuel’s point to the people is that they are turning away from the Liberty that comes from having God and God’s law as their King to the taxation Tyranny that comes from throwing off God.

Calvin in his sermon on this text noted,

“A tyrant rules only by his own will and lust, whereas legitimate magistrates rule by counsel and by reason so as to determine how to bring about the greatest public welfare and benefit.”

Calvin decried the oppressive custom of magistrates’

“taking part in the plundering to enrich themselves off the poor.”

Of course what the Hebrew Children are demanding in a Centralized system stands in contrast to the decentralized system that they previously knew.

In the Book of Judges we see that there is no king, no palace, no standing army. When Israel is attacked, a volunteer army is assembled. In part, this army is supplied by the families of those who fight (see 1 Samuel 17:17-22). There is no superfluous court bureaucracy to support or a administration that specializes in redundancy for which to pay. The previous system was decentralized and comparatively cheap. The new pagan system that they were demanding was to make slaves of them.

Application

I hope that you note as we move through this that today we have now much of what was promised in I Samuel 8. We ourselves, not being satisfied with God’s reign, have broken down and dispatched the kind of decentralized Government that we once had. We ourselves have demanded, both in years long past and still today, that we have a Government that is tyrannical and that taxes to the point wherein the 10% tax the Hebrew children were forced to pay would be met with shouts of joy by us today were we to return to that level of taxation.

And to this, the response we often get in our Pulpits today is at best deafening silence on these issue. Failing the silence we hear that we should be satisfied with our tyranny — and this by a wrong interpretation of Romans 13 that Knox, or Goodman, or Viret and any number of other Magisterial Reformers would have recognized. Sometimes what we get from the modern pulpit is so bad that it is suggested that this kind of tyranny is a positive good.

Our Reformed forefathers did not think that way.

I introduce Calvin here because I want people to see that these ideas I champion in terms of Biblical Civil Government are merely what I and we have inherited from our Reformed past. A Reformed past that had a great deal to say about Government and how it should be structured.

Calvin noted,

“the Lord does not give Kings the right to use their power to subject the people to tyranny. Indeed when Liberty to resist tyranny seems to be taken away by princes who have taken over, one can justly ask this question; since kings and princes are bound by covenant to the people, to administer law in truest equality, sincerity and integrity; if they break faith and usurp tyrannical power by which they allow themselves everything they want: is it not possible for the people to consider together taking measures in order to remedy the evil?”

Calvin was aware that there were extremes to avoid. He desperately did not want to come across as an anabaptist but he also realized that only God’s authority was absolute and because that was so he asked the question ” is it not possible for the people to consider together taking measures in order to remedy evil.”

Even when Calvin did call for submission to Governments, Calvin’s calls to submit to the governor were not without limit. God established magistrates properly

“for the use of the people and the benefit of the republic.” Accordingly, kings also had charters to satisfy: “They are not to undertake war rashly, nor ambitiously to increase their wealth; nor are they to govern their subjects
on the basis of personal opinion or lust for whatever they want.” Kings had authority only insofar as they
met the conditions of God’s covenant. Accordingly, he proclaimed from the pulpit,

“[S]ubjects are under the authority of kings; but at the same time, kings must care about the public welfare so they can discharge the duties prescribed to them by God with good counsel and mature deliberation.”

“Calvin preached that “there are limits prescribed by God to their power, within which they ought to be satisfied: namely, to work for the common good and to govern and direct the people in truest fairness and justice; not to be puffed up with their own importance, but to remember that they also are subjects of God.”

Calvin even went so far as to write in a Lecture on Daniel 6:22

‎”For earthly princes lay aside their power when they rise up against God, and are unworthy to be reckoned among the number of mankind. We ought, rather, to spit upon their heads than to obey them.”

John Calvin,
Commentary on Daniel, Lecture XXX Daniel 6:22

“We ought, rather, to spit upon their heads than to obey them.”

Where would you hear that in any pulpit in America today. Instead what we get is the necessity to obey even in the face of earthly princes who are rising up against God.

“The nature of wicked princes is much like to warthogs, which if they be suffered to have their snouts in the ground, and be not forthwith expelled, will suddenly have their snouts in all the body; So they if they be obeyed in any evil thing be it ever so little will be obeyed in all at length.”

John Ponet
Magisterial Reformer

‎”When therefore the supreme ruler has become a tyrant, he must be deemed by his own perjury (as against the covenant document with the people) to have freed people from their oath, and not to the contrary, when the people assert their rights against him.”

Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos
(Thought to have been written by a one or two men … both of whom were Calvinists)

“As often as the Magistrate commands anything that is repugnant EITHER to the worship which we owe unto God OR to the love which we owe unto our neighbor, we cannot yield thereunto with a safe conscience. For as often as the commandment of God and men are directly opposed one against another, this rule is to be perpetually observed; that it is better to obey GOD than men.”

Theodore Beza
Calvin’s Successor in Geneva

“Resistance to tyrannical governors was, according to (Calvinist Pierre) Viret, a legitimate act of self defense. He even endorsed the use of disinformation if the tyrant were persecuting as analogous to resisting a band of robbers. If the political leader acted like a criminal, Viret thought he should be treated like a one, and the citizens were justified in resisting him.”

The Political Ideas of Pierre Viret
Robert Dean Linder — p. 131

IV.) Now as to why God relented in giving them a King

a) A first reason God gives them a King despite it being a sinful request is that this is often the way that God deals with sinners. In Romans 1 we read repeatedly that “God turned them over.” God often punishes sin by turning people over to that sin they desire as prioritized over God.

b.) As we consider a 2nd reason why God gave them a King despite the sinfulness of the request we must remember the problem here is not so much the idea of a King as the desire to have a King to be like the rest of the Nations. The sin is in their being dissatisfied with God’s Kingship not in the idea of a King in and of itself. After all, they could have asked for a King who would rule them according to God’s law word. But they didn’t. They asked instead for a King to judge them like all the nations.

Israel was supposed to be unique. It was supposed to be a nation that was a light to the Nations. It was supposed to be a theatre of God’s grace for the Nations to look to and envy. The Nations were supposed to be envious of Israel because she was ruled by God’s law. Now, Israel wants to be like the Nations around her. Here is the sin in the request for a King.

That the problem wasn’t the idea of Kingship itself we note that God had earlier made stipulation as to what Godly Kingship would look like (Dt. 17).

1.) No King allowed who did not arise from their own kin
2.) He would not be allowed horses so as to make offensive war
3.) He would not lead them back into bondage
4.) He shall not accrue to himself great hordes of gold
5.) He shall be busy attending to God’s law seeking to understand and implement it.

So even though they were rejecting God, God gives them a King determining that the role of King would be anticipatory of the coming great King Messiah. The Lord Christ would be the true King of which all previous Kings would be pale representation. The Lord Christ would be earnest for the Father’s glory. The Lord Christ would protect God’s people and lead them into safety. The Lord Christ would give Himself in order to save a people. The Lord Christ would be busy attending God’s law.

So in giving a King in the face of this rebellious request God was creating a Template that only the Lord Christ could fulfill.

Conclusion — Recap