Philosophy 1: a Brief Introduction

“See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit….” (Colossians 2:8, ESV)

“For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:22–24)

“What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?”—Tertullian

The subject of Philosophy has been, and continues to be, a source of great theological controversy within the Christian church, even to this very day. Anyone who has endeavored to seriously and systematically contemplate the things of God in these modern or postmodern times has likely heard the warnings of discouragement: “You can't build a ladder of reason up to God,” they say. “The Bible says that knowledge ‘puffs up,’” they caution. “God’s thoughts are not man’s thoughts. God’s ways are not man’s ways.” But in such sentiments, the entirety of both Christian and Western thought is reduced to nothing more than a cautionary tale.  The philosopher recast as though he were some kind of court jester chasing rainbows or running after the wind, a spectacle of both amusement and disdain to the more sober-minded, practical man. Philosophy is the realm of speculations to the useful and sensible man committed to his work in the here and now. But aren't these concerns warranted? Doesn't the Bible warn us about philosophy and empty deceit? Isn't it also the case that while some men work and build up things for the good of others, the lazy man loafs about under a tree, his head in the clouds, contributing nothing while taking his share from others?

Behind each of these objections, I do find legitimate concerns. However, before addressing them, let me ask a few of my own questions….

What man of ideas do you have attending your appointed posts? Practical and honest, hardworking men laid the bricks and mortar of abortion clinics; a skilled carpenter designed and built the scaffolding on the buildings of Nazi death camps. So I ask: for whose ideas do you swing your bold and pragmatic hammer? The proud sons of Germany did it for the progressive philosophies of Hegel and Nietzsche at the behest of Adolf Hitler. Hard work and simplicity was their bread and butter too. Blue-collar steel workers and riveters built the Russian Gulag because of the ideas of Joseph Stalin. The “philosophies” of a tyrant defined their work, and gave meaning to their perfectly respectable pragmatism. However, this is America; such philosophies do not define our work and purpose. Those sorts of ideas only shape the world on the other side of the Atlantic. This is the land of the free; home of the brave.

The truth of the matter is that ideas shape the world. The United States of America is not exempt from this truth. Capitalism is an idea. Pragmatism is an idea. Democracy is also an idea.  Every American knows this. Whether or not he or she denies it, to think about and reflect upon those ideas, as we do all the time, is to engage in a multitude of philosophical inquiries. The question is not whether we do philosophy. It’s not even about being a professional philosopher. After all, we use mathematics without becoming mathematicians. We gaze at the stars without a degree in astronomy. This is likewise true of philosophy. The real question is whether we are doing it well. Or will our worldviews crumble to the ground like a house built by an architect who hated mathematics? It is better to ask if they are they good ideas or are they bad ideas? And how can we tell? …Such is the bread and butter of the philosopher.

But what of the Biblical warnings and Christian objections against doing philosophy, like the ones mentioned earlier? What are we to do with those?

Context is important. Does anyone seriously think that the apostle Paul, or any other biblical writer, was warning us about thinking about anything? When Paul writes, “knowledge puffs up,” did he mean to categorically exclude any and all knowledge, which would include everything he said in his first letter to the Corinthians? For example, when Paul writes, “knowledge puff up,” then wouldn't the knowledge that knowledge puffs up also puff us up? However, when we read his teaching in context, what he actually says is “THIS knowledge puffs up” (1 Co. 8:1, emphasis added). The context was that some Christians were judging other Christians concerning the consumption of food sacrificed to idols. What he was saying was that the knowledge that we are free to eat it must not be used for the glorifying of ourselves, but for the edification of the church. This includes the edification of the weaker brother, whose conscience bothers him about eating the foods of idols. To use such knowledge about our freedom in Christ in such a self-serving way does indeed “puff up” because the conscience of our weaker brother is a greater concern than the mere pleasure we take from eating food.

What about Colossians 2:8, where Paul warns us about philosophy and empty deceit? Isn’t Paul referring to philosophy as being “empty” and “deceitful?” No, he’s not because, once again, context matters:

“See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” (Colossians 2:8)

There are different ways in which the term “philosophy” can be understood. What the writer is warning his readers about here are worldviews—“philosophies”—which are based upon human traditions as well as the “elemental spirits of the world,” and not on Christ. In this same section, Paul assures us that we have the treasures of wisdom and knowledge in Christ, and that in Christ, we may understand. This way, we will not be deluded by arguments that might seem plausible (2:2-4). What are these “elemental spirits of the world” the author refers to?  It refers to things like circumcision, works of righteousness, food and drink, festivals, new moons, and the Sabbath. He calls these things “shadows” of things to come. The text also goes on to warn about asceticism, the worship of angels, and about visions—and this is interesting—which are “puffed up” WITHOUT REASON by the sensuous mind.  What Paul is telling us here is not to have, as our foundation of knowledge, things that perish—things of this world. But isn't this precisely what the sensible pragmatist does? Life is the work of his hands, the car in his garage, and the food in his belly. Behold his pregnant wife and his all-American son, living in a big house with a white-picket fence. While such things are nice, they are not the ultimate thing.

The section then goes on to explain that such things do indeed have the appearance of wisdom in their promotion of self-made religion, but such things do absolutely nothing to stop the indulgences of the flesh. What does the apostle tell us to do instead? He tells us to seek the things above, which are the heavenly things beyond these earthly elements, to set our minds upon them. In other words, he tells us to do real philosophy, and in our new self to be renewed in knowledge after the image of the creator.  The language of this section stresses over and over again to consider the unity of diverse things in relation to the creator. This is what philosophy does.

What the critic of philosophy isn’t getting is that philosophy is inescapable. In his rejection of it, he offers up an anti-philosophy philosophy. Out of one side of his mouth, he says he’s too humble of a man to have any rational understanding of God, while out of the other he presumes to tell everyone what God is like. In his rejection of beholding the highest things of existence, he merely substitutes them for earthly things, which is precisely what Paul has told us not to do. Instead of an actual reason, we are given everything from the pastor’s personal experiences, to a burning in his bosom, to visions and personal revelations. Some appeal to the mystery of God, as though it was some sort of secret knowledge, speaking about God in ambiguity like the Gnostics did. Evidently, we are supposed to bend to the expertise of such teachers, even though he or she babbles incessantly about ludicrous things.  But God does not speak with a forked-tongue.  Claiming to have no knowledge, when God has clearly revealed Himself, is not humility. Rather, it is pride and self-exaltation. They base their knowledge on the things of this world, denying God’s clear speech, and teach their congregations to do the same. Let them be liars and God be true, as the Scriptures say.

So, what about those who say they don’t base their faith on philosophical reasoning, but on Scripture alone? Surely, such a claim is faithful and true, isn’t it? But which part of the Bible is being alluded to? For example, is it the part of the Bible that tells us that God has hands and feet or is it the part that says He is spirit alone, having no body? Is it the part that tells us God had to test Abraham’s faith to find out if he was truly obedient or the part that says God is unchanging and knows all things from beginning to end? The Bible doesn’t explicitly resolve these sorts of issues, and requires its readers to do some heavy thinking. Should they think about such things in a rational or an irrational fashion?

There are a multitude of problems with this sort of objection. For one thing, for every section, verse, or word that we read, there are thousands of assumptions the reader is making in the very act of reading, all of them pertaining to something philosophical by their very nature. Does a text have meaning, for example? Does this particular text have anything to say to me? What is a text? Does it communicate anything? Does it communicate real things? Do words have references outside themselves? Just because someone puts his mind on autopilot, unaware that he is making assumption after assumption in reading the Bible, doesn’t mean he isn’t making them. Indeed, nowhere in Scripture does any biblical writer suggest that some sort of cannon of writing nullifies the need for philosophy. The Christian assumed this was true very much apart from the Bible.

The problem Paul had with the Greeks wasn't that they sought after true knowledge or wisdom, as I have already demonstrated. Over and over again Scripture commands everyone to seek those things. Instead, the problem was they sought after a false knowledge, a false wisdom. They were looking for a different foundation outside of Christ in the elemental things of this world, which change and pass away. Upon such things, they were trying to build a different reality, a different system of thought and set of ideas. However, as I will begin to show in my next paper, this isn't what I mean by the term, “philosophy.” 

Does Calvinism teach that human beings do not have “free will?”

Does Calvinism teach that human beings do not have “free will?”


The charge often leveled against Calvinism is that it denies the free will choices of human beings and, by that premise, makes God the author and cause of the evils committed by men. The logic typically goes something like, “If man has no free will, and God elects only some and controls everything, including man’s sinful acts, then God is responsible for evil.” Oftentimes, it is further concluded that for God to cause men to do evil, where men have no choice in the matter, it would be unjust for God to punish them, since they had no choice in the matter. Therefore, the Calvinist’s God is unjust and the author of evil.


The problem with such charges against the Reformed camp, usually from Arminian Christians, is that they utterly fail to understand the position they are attacking. Calvinism does not deny free-will or that God pulls strings, as though people were marionette puppets, causing them to do evil things so that God can condemn them to eternal damnation later on. That is an uncharitable mischaracterization of the Reformed position, a straw-man. Those who attack the Reformed position on such grounds are merely attacking an argument that a Calvinist would never make.


If you think I am confused on this matter, then please feel free to pick up the works of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Calvin, Spurgeon, Edwards, and countless others to see what they teach on these matters. Feel free to investigate for yourself the teachings of Albert Mohler, James White, or RC Sproul concerning the Reformed position. Indeed, please exercise your free-will by looking into the first fifteen hundred years of church history, to the writings of Paul, and to the teachings of Jesus. What will you find? The Reformed position.


The debate is not, and never was, whether or not mankind possessed a “free-will.” Rather, the real question asked by Calvinists and others of the Reformed ilk is more appropriately expressed as follows: “Is the will a thing? If so, then what kind of a thing is it?” And to this philosophical inquiry, comes the theological exclamation: “The human will is a created thing with an essence or a nature!” In other words, the free will exists as a contingent thing with a nature—that is the Reformed/Calvinistic position.


This might seem like silliness to those of you hearing this for the first time, but it is actually very important. It is important for our purposes here because the Arminian is actually the one ultimately denying the human will. I understand that all of your lives you have been indoctrinated to think the opposite, but that’s because so many churches and pastors have adopted some very unbiblical notions about “free-will” which they got from humanistic and secular philosophers. Yes, Arminianism is a late-comer on the stage of history.


The real debate between Calvinists and Armenians is, and has always been, whether or not the human will is a created thing with an essence. Armenians posit what is called “autonomous” or “libertarian free-will,” while the Reformed position declares “complimentarian free-will.”   Notice here that everyone agrees that mankind has free-will.  However, to the Calvinist, the will is simply the mind choosing, it is a faculty of the human soul. For the Arminian, the will is autonomous, self-contained, self-sufficient, and self-caused.


Is the will caused or not? There is no “middle road” here, since either the human will is either caused or uncaused. If you say it is “self-caused,” then you are saying that it brought itself into existence before it existed, which is self-contradictory. If it is uncaused, then it must be the first cause, in other words, God. Did you notice above how the Arminian definition of free will actually takes on divine characteristics (autonomous, self-contained, and self-sufficient)?


Seeing how I am writing this to Christians, I don’t think I need to point out the absurdities of either self-contradiction or about human wills being Gods. Therefore, the human will is a thing which was caused to exist. And if it was caused, then it was caused by another thing with a nature. Either that prior thing was also caused or it was God. And that prior thing was caused, either by God, or yet another contingent thing. Ultimately, either God is the first cause, or we have an infinite regression of created things causing other created things to come into existence—an infinite regression of causes and effects. However, if we have an infinite regression, then there was no first thing. And if there was no first thing, then there cannot be a second, or a third, and so on to infinity. Therefore, either God causes and creates the human will, or it does not exist.


Does this mean that man has no free will? No. However, it does mean that will is contingent, which is to say, dependent upon something else for its existence. Otherwise, you are elevated the human will to the level of deity, like humanistic secularists have done. But the will of man is dependent upon the nature of man—his preferences, his passions, his mind, and so forth. It is complimentary to his nature. I don’t choose things arbitrarily, like a sucking on a fudge bar verses my shoe. If I preferred the shoe, I would be sucking on that! And if it was arbitrary, and utterly autonomous, then it should make no difference as to my preferences. However, common sense says that it does depend upon my preferences, my nature.


This what Arminians do not get. They don’t understand Calvinism, and persist in misrepresenting it. I  don’t care what you’ve heard about so-called “hyper-calvinists” and so forth—and in actuality, hyper Calvinist exist because they, like Arminians, deny at least one of the five-points of Calvinism—we are talking about Calvinism, the Reformed and the orthodox view. Don’t believe me? Good! Be good Bereans and check it out for yourselves. You’ll find libertarian notions of “free-will” consistently condemned as heresy throughout church history.


Now, if I give my children a choice between chocolate and candybars to eat, verses worms and poop and dirt, which would they choose? Does my foreknowledge or my setting up this state of affairs “violate” their free-will, since I foreknow they will choose the candy?  Of course not! I know that they will choose in accordance to their nature, their preferences, and so forth prior to me giving them the choice. I don’t even need to look into the future to know that.


So how much more can our Sovereign God know our choices?


He is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. He created the man and sustains him, even more than like a potter shapes his clay. He even created and fully sustains the will, the volition of man. He fully knows what we will choose.


Since our choices are motioned forth by our natures, just as my own children choose candy over crap, the unregenerate chooses sin over holiness because that holiness is abominable to him. Just as eyes adjusted to darkness shut to hide themselves at the site of such intense, violating light, the sinner cannot choose God because God is abominable to him, painful, and piercing to eyes adjusted to darkness. As Scripture has said, the sinner flees because of their wicked deeds. They cannot choose God because they are slaves to that darkness, slaves to sin and haters of the Light, which is God.


I know this is a great mystery, but praise be to God.

Politics 101 from a Christian perspective part 5: Tying up some loose ends

Politics 101 from a Christian perspective part 5: Tying up some loose ends

Since this concludes my writings for “Politics 101,” I thought I would finish by tying up some loose ends. The purpose of these writings was just to convey the “big idea.” Politics has a creational cause and a design. It, like all things, depends upon a set of prior assumptions, a worldview which bestows upon it what human activities and ideas should be or what they mean.  As I continue to write more about the particulars of a Christian political system, the importance of this will become more and more apparent. Since the Christian rationale for politics is absolutely rooted in the creation event, as revealed to us by Scripture, it made sense to me to begin by expounding on that. The rest of my writings will explore different facets, honing in on various aspects of the design of the political sphere in greater detail, as I defend and expound upon them.

In my last writing, I left off with the formation of man’s inalienable rights—life, liberty, and property—and how those derive from God’s image and how they are expressed in the covenant God made with Noah.  I concluded with a quote by Claude Frederic Bastiat, an important, French political thinker, from his famous work in 1850, “The Law.”  In citing that source, I had used the word “right,” declaring that individual persons have “rights.” Since there are many in the Christian camp who would take issue with the use of this word, I thought to address that first.

The typical objection made in the use of that word, is that “People do not have “rights” before God.” That is true. God is able to take away life, liberty, and property as He pleases, since He is the one that bestows them in accordance to His will. If the word “rights” is distracting, due to objections of “enlightenment thinking,” then substitute the word, “duties.” While human beings have no “rights” before God, they do have “duties” before God to defend and protect His image, which is precisely why the Christian cannot withdraw from politics and still be ethical.

Nonetheless, truth does not stop being truth merely because it was discovered via “Enlightenment thinking.” I agree that there are a great many problems with such a system. They wanted to make “modern man” the center of their thought and worship, the light and hope emerging from a history of darkness (which is why it’s called “The Dark Ages,” by the way). But I hope my previous writings have made clear that I reject such a notion, since God’s glory is front and center in my view.

The reason these things do not belong to the state is not because they are “collective” or “individual,” but because you don’t belong to the state—you don't even belong to yourself—but to God. This is why we have “unalienable rights.” They cannot be given or taken away by the state. They are of God. We have a stewardship of these things, a duty over life, liberty, and property, which belong to God. Either they will belong to God or to some idol—no neutral territory here. This is what the puritans of the Enlightenment would have meant by “rights.” They did not put the modern man as the object of their theology, nor do I.

To God, we have duties; to man, those duties are “rights.” The Christian has a vertical relationship to his God and Creator, and a horizontal relationship to his fellow man, or image-bearer. This relationship can be seen in Scripture, when Jesus speaks of the Law:

“And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”” (Matthew 22:37–40, ESV)

First, this demonstrates that there are lesser laws and greater laws. This means that lesser laws cannot violate greater laws. Also, as Jesus teaches, no laws or interpretations of those laws (“the Prophets”) may violate these two laws. Second, Jesus links these two laws by analogy. He says that the second commandment is “like” the first one. The first one describes man’s appropriate relationship to God (the vertical), while the second describes man’s appropriate relationship to his fellow man, the image of that God (the horizontal). Third, the reason God binds us by obligation to “love our neighbors” is because they are, by their intrinsic nature, the image of God. It is what they are by nature and how they were created (Gen 1:26). Their life, liberty, and property belong to God—it is their duty and their right. They do not belong to their fellow man, the state. The life is the image itself. The liberty is the worship, the noticing of and the basking in God’s glory. And, the property is the material expression of that worship. It is man’s dominion over the earth as an image-bearer, and his stewardship toward others for God’s glory, as per “The Good Samaritan.” It is for this reason that the law forbids covetousness and theft of properties.

To conclude, I would like to return to the posts of my original question involving God and politics. For recollection, here’s what I had asked:

“Was Jesus a political figure? Did He, or the Bible, have anything to say about politics? If you have the guts to post them, what are your thoughts?” (September 20, 2012)

Here’s the responses I received and a little some more reply from myself:

Post 1: “I think at times they (the religious leaders) tried to draw him into the political realm. I cannot help believing that those who followed him had the mindset that he was setting up his kingdom there, and that he would lead them over the Roman Empire.”

I think this is true. But, more precisely, I think they were trying to get Christ to put His stamp of approval on their political misconceptions, their distortions of the political realm. As we have seen, God is the ultimate political figure; indeed, it was the Son who designed it. Jesus’ ministry was nothing but political, since it had everything to do with law, power relations, stewardship, and so forth. Christ did lead people over the Roman Empire, toward the very City which it erroneously tried to replicate. The sign that hung upon the cross in mockery of our Lord and Savior, even gave His “offense.” It read, “Jesus, King of the Jews.”

Post 2: “I think he was as he is God, as he desperately encouraged the worship of The Father who is above all and should properly run governmental or state affairs. The Old Testament describes a conversation with a prophet during which the people didn’t want God to run them, but they wanted a King. I believe Jesus wanted to see that reversed. Jesus frequently spoke of "social relations involving authority or power" which is what politics is in an attempt to make that a political reality.” (1 Sam 2.1-22 NLT)

Israel’s government went from the exegesis (the interpretation) of priests to the monarchy. From Deut 17 to 1 Samuel 8, the form of government changes from Priests/Judges to a Monarchy, or earthly king. This displeased God, but he also anticipated it back in Deut 17. In verse 8, we see the application of law expressed as “rights” and “assaults,” defending the divine image. Here, He gives the law in priests. However, whether the law is in priests, judges, or kings, the same law stands over them all.  So the law consists of individual rights and their defense. The priest or judge was an exegete (an interpreter) of the law. These officers, as a species of the citizenry, and not a third thing, were under the law, not the originators of it. In the Bible, they did not originate the law, but interpreted the law.
In 1 Sam 8, even though they went to a monarch, God anticipates this. The state, as an institution, and the law, as its information, originates in God’s expression to man, in His image, so that the civil sphere is a function of the divinely revealed covenant.

Post 3: “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and that which is God unto God.”

Yes! Some things belong to Caesar, and all things belong to God. We pay taxes unto Caesar because the money is God’s, and it should be given to support the statesman, who is given authority out of God’s authority (Roman 13). The authority is not given for the making of idols or the destruction of life, liberty, and property. It is given for the protection of those very things, and to administer justice when evil-doers break the law. Romans 13 expounds upon this teaching, showing what is appropriate and why it is so. If homage to Caesar causes us to violate the greatest commandments, then homage to Caesar no longer applies, since it would violate the very purpose of its existence. The Apostolic church had to deal with this very conflict. Here’s what happened and what Peter said about it:

“Then the captain with the officers went and brought them, but not by force, for they were afraid of being stoned by the people. And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them. But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honor by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while. And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men. For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!” So they took his advice, and when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name. And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus.” (Acts 5:26–42, ESV)

When a conflict occurs, we must obey God rather than the men who disobey God. Do not join with them in their disobedience.

Thank you for reading and blessings.

Politics 101 from a Christian perspective part 4: The image of God and the law

Politics 101 from a Christian perspective part 4: The image of God and the law

12  “Woe to him who builds a town with blood

and founds a city on iniquity!

13     Behold, is it not from the Lord of hosts

that peoples labor merely for fire,

and nations weary themselves for nothing?

14     For the earth will be filled

with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord

as the waters cover the sea. (Habakkuk 2:12–14)

Last time, I wrote about the ontological flow of the political sphere and how it gives rise to vocation, economy, and to civil law. I referred to the created order of being, which is an immutable principle running throughout all of Scripture. God created that universe and all that is in it for His own glory, including the political sphere. He created man to bear His image, witnessing His glory, and to respond in praise in worship. This is the purpose of humankind in all the he says, thinks, and does.  When this order of being becomes distorted or perverted, such as in politics, the purpose for even having laws and people in authority to enforce them become undermined. When the substance behind the expression vanishes, so too does its expression.

Simply put, what this means is that civil laws cannot undermine divine law. If it does, it is illegitimate. If a man builds a structure, but destroys the foundation, the structure falls with it. Civil law and politics are no different. Castles cannot be built in the sky, without plummeting to the ground.

In the biblical model, the order of being (the ontological flow) begins with 1) God’s glory. 2) Man as the image-bearer exists to notice and reflect that glory, in his life and worship. 3) Since man is made in God’s image, he is given dominion over the earth, commanded to be fruitful and multiply (to increase that image), to subdue the earth and have vocations (to increase God’s glory), and 4) to place sanctions on evil (to protect God’s image).  These four things flow out of God, following a logical progression. They are NOT subject to political “innovation” without creating idolatry, sin, death and destruction. Such “innovations” corrupt the understanding and knowledge of the citizenry. They lead to great wickedness and human suffering within a political body.

Civil law is a species of divine law. God’s law communicates the civil laws to us, meaning that within the law of God is a civil law. And whether anyone understands that or not does not change one iota of God’s universal and objective law. In order for anything to be true, then the truth must be what it is. It is not subject to human interpretation or desires. God’s law is no different in that regard. Human beings cannot create laws out of thin air. For then they are merely arbitrary, where might makes right.

So, if God’s law is objective and universal, in other words, binding on all people in all places, and in all times, then what are we to do with Old Testament laws, which are “no longer relevant to us today?”

The answer here is that they ARE RELEVANT to us today. Anyone who says that they are not relevant has some very serious biblical dilemmas to solve. For example, in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 it says, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (ESV). However, if massive chunks of Scripture—and the writer was referring to Old Testament Scripture here—are “irrelevant” to us, then this verse cannot be true.

In the Old Testament, we have three different dimensions of divine law. We have 1) ceremonial laws, which were binding upon the priest, the life and rituals of the temple. There were 2) moral laws and 3) civil laws. These dimensions of divine law, communicate something about God’s character to us because they are expressions of God Himself. For example, the Ten Commandments (The Decalogue) establish the life, the worship, and the property of mankind, God’s image-bearers and convey to us some of the particulars of the Creator as a moral agent. These are moral laws and, as Christians know, they are applicable today.

On the other hand, we no longer sprinkle blood or adorn an ephad, which are ceremonial laws. We also do not build tabernacles, arranging the most precious metals in the holy of holies to the plain, bland fabrics on the outside. The reason for this is not because these things are “irrelevant” to us, but because they were expressions, temporary manifestations of an eternal, invisible reality.

Jesus Christ is now our high priest, who makes intercession on our behalf to God because His blood was shed for us. We do not build tabernacles because our body is the temple of the Most Holy God. Rather, we are to sanctify Him in our hearts, as more precious and holy than everything else, dressing ourselves in modesty on the outside. The value was not in the gold, but God was the treasure that we separate from the rest of the world.

The truth that these laws teach is still relevant to us today. They are still profitable for teaching, correction, and training in righteousness. They are applicable even today, normative in what they teach about God, universal and objective. Indeed, in Matthew 5, Christ tells us that those who relax even the least parts of the law will be called the least in His kingdom. Jesus was not telling His followers to obey rituals which were fulfilled by Him, but pointing us away from the letter of the law to the Spirit of the law.

“Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you, or from you? You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all. And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses’ face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it. For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.” (2 Corinthians 3:1–11)

The old, Mosaic Law has passed, not because it has no bearing on us today, but because it was fulfilled in Christ, and exceeded by Him. It still instructs us concerning the things about God. The visible applications of these laws point to an eternal significance, which is still normative to all of us. The Spirit behind that letter is what is universal and objective. As stated before, in Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus says that whoever relaxes the least of law will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.

However, the letter of the law was not enough. It was, and is, our instructor, but not our savior. And because of our weakness in our flesh—our sinful nature—it condemned all of us. This does not mean, however, that the law is bad. Jesus submitted Himself to it, earning our righteousness on our behalf. It has not been abolished, but fulfilled in Christ, who lived for us, died for us, and rose again so that we might inherit eternal life.

“For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.” (Romans 8:3–9)

We have a normative use of the law of God because, while we no longer have the same form of government as ancient Israel, its moral truths inform our ethical behavior, as per Romans 8 above, the law is fulfilled within us though the Spirit. It is the invisible things that give rise to the visible: The Spirit of the Law-->Letter of the law, the substance of the law-->the form of the law.

Switching gears, the city is the concentrated, collective expression of the image of God. Just as God calls and raises up men for their worship and vocation, He also calls and raises up the city to do those things which are pleasing to Him. The city is the concentrated reflection of His glory, since it is constituted by His images gathering together in a location, in cooperation with one another, in a civil union.

The state is the collective expression of the physical defense of the image of God. The image-bearer (man) comes first, the state is the expression of man’s image. Therefore, the state is to protect that image. The city is to be fruitful and to multiply—we have more children so that more of God’s image might express itself on the earth and subdue it (Hab 2:14). When we devalue children, we are hating God Himself. The state exists to protect these activities. To devalue that dominion is to devalue that image. To have a totally different political program is to oppose God and His image. Thus, the city and the state are intimately connected.

So what we have emerging here is a Trinitarian expression of God in the political sphere. We worship a triune God—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is the Father who decrees, the Son who executes as King of Kings what the Father has decreed, and the Holy Spirit who enables the image bearer to respond appropriately. The fact that God is one divine being in three separate persons is known in theology as “the ontological trinity.” The fact that these persons cooperate, live in communion with one another, as the Son subordinates Himself to the Father, and the Holy Spirit points us to the Son is known as “the economic trinity.”

The elements of the civil sphere (of politics) seem to be triune as well. We have 1) the law, which its decrees stand over everybody. We have 2) the king (state/government) who executes those laws. And there is 3) the citizenry, who are to honor and support the lords of their land.

In the city, we have the densest concentration of image bearers, which gives rise to the state. The order/flow is God--> God’s image (the citizenry)-->the protection of God’s image (the State). This, I have reiterated many times, but so far I have been vague about what God has ordained the state to protect. We have seen already that rulers are a terror to bad conduct, but not to good conduct, in Romans 13. But what does it mean to “protect God’s image?”

1)      Life

To protect God’s image is to protect the life of the image-bearer, which Genesis 9 has already made clear. The murderer attacks the very image of God, and is to be put to death by other image-bearers. This does not nullify the state’s ability to yield the sword, executing law-breakers. It does, however, limit the state in the sense that it cannot kill at will, for its own schemes and purpose. This would be murder. It would give the rest of the citizenry just cause to erect another body to put murderous, renegade statesmen to death. The state is just the billy-club that mankind sets up in order to administer divine justice, and nothing more. The statesman is just another fellow citizen called upon to execute God’s law.

2)      Liberty

This refers to image-bearer’s activity in worship and expression. In Latin, “libertas,” or liberty, refers to the will, being free from coercion. That which demands the will—the liberty—of men, also demands the worship of men. God made man to worship Him, and Him alone. Since we are not God, then we are demanding the idolatry of a person when we demand their liberty. To liberate is to unshackle the will from bondage or coercion. Human beings are to be free in their pursuit of truth because it is truth which makes people free.

3)      Property

Property is the product of man, his creativity. It speaks of God, either accurately or inaccurately. It is the product of a man’s will and work, and, therefore, of his worship. What we do with it—how we are stewards over creation—will either lie about God or tell the truth about Him. Thus, it is never, ever neutral. Nonetheless, in order for the image-bearer to have stewardship, he must have dominion over his own things.

When any of these are compromised, one cannot worship God in purity. These three things—life, liberty, and property—precede any human law. They are the basis for any human law. A man’s life is invisible (liberty, his will) and visible (his property, that which he creates). When these are compromised at the directive of other masters, then we have idolatry, which is the kingdom of the devil.

“Life, liberty, and property. This is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. If every person has the right to defend, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus, the principle of collective right, its reason for existing, its lawfulness, is based on individual right.”—Fredric Bastiat, “The Law,” 1850

Politics 101 from a Christian perspective part 3: The formation of the political sphere

Politics 101 from a Christian perspective part 3: The formation of the political sphere               

Previously, I left off describing God’s covenant with Noah and how it provides the rationale for the existence of the city-state, citing the protection of God’s image as the reason for the existence of the state, or a governmental body. In other words, through a divine imperative God mandates the death penalty for the unlawful taking of human life, which is murder. It is a collective imperative, where the life of the murderer is to be taken by his fellow men.

At the time of the covenant, the state did not yet exist. However, beyond Genesis 9:6, God does arrange governmental forms, delegating such roles in order to defend His image, as we shall see. But as the covenant with Noah make apparent, life and justice existed before the state was specifically ordained to defend it. Therefore, the purpose of this writing is to elaborate upon that.

The word “ontology” consists of two Greek words. The first is “ontos,” which means “being.” It refers to “being,” or “that which is,” “that which exists.” The second term is “logos,” which is translated as “word,” as in John 1:1: “In the beginning was the word [logos], and the word [logos] was with God, and the word [logos] was God.” It is interesting to note that John goes on to describe that in Him—the logos—is life, which is the light of men. Logos refers to the reason for something, or the explanation of something. Therefore, the term “ontology” refers to the study of being.

God created the universe by His word (cf., Genesis 1-2, John 1:1ff). All that exists came into being through the logos and for the logos. Therefore, there is an order to the being of the entire universe, which begins with God. Indeed, the very word “universe” means “one word.” And the term “university” is the study of all things as a part of one, coherent system.

So why am I telling you this and how does this bare upon our conversation about politics?

The order of being, its very ontological nature, can be summed up in the statement: “essence precedes being.” The eternal essence of things comes before their being. They exist as thoughts in the mind of God prior to their expression, their coming to being, in the universe. So, when I talk about the ontological flow of things, I am referring to the flow of reality, how things come out of God as their source AND their purpose. God is both the source AND the purpose to all things. It is for this very fact that the apostle Paul writes:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.” (Romans 1:18–23, ESV)

In these verses, Paul refers directly to this ontological flow—this order of being. Let us consider it for a moment:

Creator--> Creation
Invisible--> Visible
Eternal--> Temporal
Spiritual--> Material
Necessary being--> contingent beings

What we see above, is that the universe, which is visible, temporal (having time and boundaries), material, created, and contingent (relying on something else for its existence), comes out of that which is invisible, eternal, spiritual, not-created but creating, and non-contingent or necessary. When Paul writes about men turning away from their Creator, and turning to things which are created, he is clearly referring to the distortion and perversion of the order of creation, or the ontological flow. It looks like this:  “God’s attributes-->creation (including man, God’s image)--> images of creation/images of men. But those who pervert this claim otherwise, confusing God for things which are merely creations.

In the political sphere, it is God who gives rise to politics and all the things within it or having to do with it. We have laws because God is lawful by His very nature. The very images which those laws seek to protect, receive their likeness from God. It is God who acts, and we who are acted upon, and not the other way around. It is God who is the objective thing, and us who are the subjective thing. We were created in His likeness by Him, through Him, and for Him.

So why would God create and organize the political sphere? Well…for the same reason He creates and organizes everything else: For His glory!

“For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.” (Romans 11:36)

“Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to your name give glory, for the sake of your steadfast love and your faithfulness! Why should the nations say, “Where is their God?” Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.” (Psalm 115:1–3)

God does all that He pleases, and for His own glory. The image-bearer receives this message of His glory, generally from that which God has created, but specifically from Scripture, and seeks to glorify Him. This is called “worship.” So from Scripture, it is written:

“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.” (19:1–3)

““Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!”” (Isaiah 6:3)

God’s glory is the object to which man sees, comprehends, and either subjects himself to it or suppress it in his unrighteousness. But all of mankind sees it and knows it intuitively. He sees the vast beauty of the deep sea, the unsearchable reaches of the heavens, the hopeful warmth of the rising sun. Therefore, God’s glory is the object, or the objective thing, being revealed by His creation. Man’s response, by design, is the subjective thing. He is to worship the God illuminating and emanating His glorious light through creation. Worship is a subjective act, responding to God’s objective glory. Worship is the noticing of and the basking in that glory, as we are a personal reflection of His glory.

“So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” (1 Corinthians 10:31)

So this is the created order of all things. 1 Corinthians 10:31 is the fundamental principle of all Christian ethics. Whatever we do, we do unto His glory. God is not glorious because worship exists. Rather, worship exists BECAUSE He is glorious. The image-bearer, which is you and me, receives this message of glory through the things which God has made (Ro 1:19-20).

For His glory, God gives dominion over the things of the earth to His image-bearers (Gen 1:28, 9:5-6). Mankind is instructed to subdue the earth, giving man his vocation and his reason for work. The word “dominion” comes from the Latin word “domine,” which means “lord.” The commandment does not mean to “lord” things over one another, but it does mean that mankind is given lordship over the earth—it’s plants and animals, the soil that is to be trampled and tilled, the natural resources that humankind extracts from the earth.

From all of this activity mankind receives a vocation from his Creator. Someone must harvest; someone must plant. Someone must cut; someone must bind. It is from out the earth that we receive our sustenance, our medicine, our clothing, housing, and everything else. One person cannot do everything, so we are given our division of labor. Someone must gather or hunt for food, grow crops, make herbs and remedies, build homes, and so forth. This is the basis for the economic system. We have the division of labor: the tiller, the hunter, the builder, the medicine man, etc…. There must also be a system of cooperation, in order to work together to make such things. This involves education, culture and language. The young must receive their education from their elders, where they learn language, how to cooperate with others, and are taught trade skills. Arranging such matters is precisely what politics is. Where, how, and why people gather and cooperate, dividing labor and assigning tasks, has everything to do with economics, the polis…in short, politics.

The role of the state—of the government—is to protect the image-bearer, or the citizen, who engages in the vocation of subduing the earth, as Genesis 9 commands. The state is not a separate entity from the rest of the citizenry. Rather, it is simply another role delegated to certain individuals for a particular purpose. When God spoke to Noah, He commanded that the murderer be put to death BY HIS FELLOW MAN. The state consists of those who are called out to ensure that this mandate be followed. In other words, the state is our “fellow man,” drawn out of the citizenry in order to uphold the law.

We need guys that have the ability and the authority to uphold such laws. God ordains it. This is not just some obsolete command that God uttered to Noah in the Old Testament. It is also not something irrelevant to the modern-day church. Indeed, it is thoroughly reiterated in the New Testament to the church:

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.” (Romans 13:1–7)

Here, we see God’s affirmation of the state. Nowhere does Paul refer to it as a “necessary evil,” but as God’s handiwork, which is good. These authorities are ministers of God, called to their offices, their vocations, for the distinct purpose of bearing the sword against the evil-doer, the law-breaker, for the glory of God.

I understand that many of us, Christians especially, are tempted to read this, and with an eye on our current administrators, reject it as irrelevant to our current system and modern conditions. However, Paul wrote this to the church in Rome, exhorting the church to be subjected to Caesar. Nero reigned in Rome from AD 54 to 68, at the time Romans was written. He was a secular authority and was no friend to Christianity. When Paul penned this letter to the church, the state was a place of murder and intrigue. Nero was a murderer, well known for his great evil, and thought of himself as “the savior of the world.” Indeed, some Christians today believe that Nero was the Antichrist, a belief, perhaps, with a reasonable degree of merit.

So was Paul, the apostle of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, who wrote massive chunks of the New Testament, just blinded by his own optimisms about the state? Or one could argue the other way, claiming that Paul was well aware of evils of the state, but endorsed them anyhow. Believe it or not, both of these explanations are used, even by Christians. However, both have their problems. For one thing, anyone who’s read Paul’s writings beyond Romans 13 knows full well that Paul saw the struggle of the Christian as a spiritual war against ‘the rulers and authorities of this present darkness’ (Ephesians 6:12). Being a Pharisee and a Jew, Paul was no stranger to evil rulers in Old Testament Scripture. He read about Nebuchadnezzar, King Saul, Abimelech, and so on. His own people even lived under the Roman state as vassal slaves, paying homage to Caesar. He was anything but blind. On the other hand, Paul also did not condone evil…ever. Indeed, Romans 13 does not regard the authority of the state as a “necessary evil,” but as a God-ordained institution, a servant of God, given to us to punish the evil-doer.

Paul was neither naive nor a promoter of “necessary evils.” He knew about the Antichrist  that this man of lawlessness would be an official of the state; and he also knew that government was in the hands of the devil, doing the bidding of the devil. However, Paul also knew that the government was in the hand of God, and that it was designed by God. He did not confuse the temporal distortion of this present darkness with the eternal design. Romans 13 is about the DESIGN. It tells the Christian his appropriate response to ruling authorities as well as why God has ordained the state and given the statesman His authority. In other words, this section in the Bible does not just tell people to submit, but also why God instituted the state, and why they bear the sword. God gives them power FOR something, a creational cause.

Here’s what I am getting at: The rulers, which God has ordained to uphold the law, are under the law themselves. When a ruler murders, he is to be put to death, since Genesis 9 is a command to ALL people, not just a few. It is not a rebellion or a revolution, since such a label legitimizes the sins of the ruler, but a police action. The ruler is the one who is usurping God’s throne, and rebelling against God. When the people, the images of God, kill the tyrant for murder or treason, as a collective police action, they are upholding God’s command. Indeed, when Saul sinned against God’s rule, God rose up David to take the throne. It is God’s authority to give; and it is also God’s to take away (1 Sam 9.16; 16.1; 1 Ki 2.15; Dan 4). God’s law applies to the evil-doer, not to those who do what is right. When the authorities are the doers of evil, they are also subjects of divine law:

“When you come to the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,’ you may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again.’ And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold. “And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.” (Deuteronomy 17:14–20)

So, once again, we see that ontological flow: Divine Law--> civil laws. Divine Authority--> civil authorities.

I leave you with some food for thought: When the leaders commit evil atrocities in the land, God punishes not just the leaders, but those nations as well. The reason is because God has given ALL of us a command to protect His image. When we fail to bring the murderer, the lawless man, to justice, God’s wrath falls upon the entire nation precisely because we have failed to uphold His commandments. 

Politics 101 from a Christian perspective part 2: The substance of the political sphere

Politics 101 from a Christian perspective part 2: The substance of the political sphere

“By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God.” (Hebrews 11:8–10, ESV)

In my last paper, I focused on my Facebook question, briefly interacting with the replies I received, and set forth to demonstrate the connection between politics and the Bible. In that writing, I defined politics using a modern, secular source, the Merriam-Webster dictionary, as a means of tying it to a Christian worldview. However, in this paper, focus is being shifted from politics as a human endeavor to politics as a divine creation, from the distortion of the political sphere to the design of the political sphere.

Giving further definition to the meaning of “politics,” the word comes out of a Greek word, used numerous times throughout the New Testament (NT). The Greek word, meaning a town, city, or a city-state is “polis,” and is used 163 times in the NT in 154 verses.  The same word meaning “city” in Latin, is “civitas.” While the Hebrew word for city is “’ir,” which sounds like the English word “ear,” and it appears 1,091 times in 932 Old Testament (OT) verses.

The term “city” indicates a concentration of human beings, a population, within a place, which is a defined set of boundaries, under a particular jurisdiction or rule. So, it is a people, in a place, under a common law. Politics, then, refers to how this concentration of people, in a particular place, under a common jurisdiction is organized, structured, and how they cooperate. In other words, politics is about the stuff of the city. It is a study and a science and an art form, involving the minds of men and the life of the city.

The City of God is a concentration of human beings, who have been justified and set apart, within Christ, under His Lordship. This is the design. We are a political body by our very nature. And this eternal Kingdom draws men unto itself, out of the corruption, by the Father’s will, as God is designing it and building it, even as you read this. About Christ Jesus we read:

“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.” (Isaiah 9:6–7)

Jesus Christ is the zeal of the LORD of host, and His body is the foundation of our city (cf., John 2:13-22).

It is undeniable that God fully intends to design and build a city, which is precisely what politics is about. A politician is one who is involved in the designing and organization of a city—the people—he is a leader of the people, in one sense or another. It might bother you to hear it, but Jesus is the ultimate politician. And if that word is just packed too full of jaded meanings for you, substitute it for “the One who makes and designs the city of God, and organizes the affairs of His people.” He does so for the protection of its inhabitants—those who live in Christ—for cooperation between the King and his subjects as well as the between the citizens themselves, and for the division of labor by gifting His citizens through His graciousness.

What this is not, however, is mass-manipulation. God’s design of the political sphere is not the degeneration of public discourse or the manipulation of its members, but the protection against those very things. Politics, then, is good by its design. It reflects His glory and was, as all things, created for His glory.  The city was and is created and organized by God for the specific purpose of glorify God.

But the church is a spiritual city and God is the ruler, not the physical city made by sin-filled men here on earth. What has Hitler’s Socialism or Stalin’s Marxist Communism got to do with that?

They are distortions of God’s design, not the design of the political sphere itself, which has roots in the creation of mankind, and begins with God’s covenant to Noah and to all his descendants. The way in which a people, or its leaders, design the state begins with their worldview assumptions. The very fact that Hitler or Stalin would be used as examples of corruption, fully communicates that something good exists in regards to the political sphere to corrupt.

If we truly believe what Scripture reveals, then by resistless logic my conclusion follows:

Premise 1: God designed all things to speak of Him specifically, for His own glory.
Premise 2: The political sphere is a thing.
Conclusion: Therefore, God designed the political sphere to say something specific about Himself, for His own glory.


In other words, what we say about God—our doctrine of God, including His attributes, characteristics, and who He is—immediately causes us to deduce things about the political sphere. Likewise, the inverse is true as well: What we say about the political sphere says something about God. Either it lies about Him or tells the truth about Him.  Now, as to why this is will be the matter under discussion going forward.  Nonetheless, the Hitlers and Stalins of the world are not challenges to my claim.

As I mentioned earlier, the ordination of the state goes back to the days of Noah, after the flood, when God made a universal covenant of peace with Noah and all his descendents. Within the terms and conditions of that covenant, God sets forth the following requirement:

“And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” (Genesis 9:5–6)

The verses that follow establish this covenant as universal, and not just belonging to the church, but to every living thing. The promise was made to every living thing. From mankind in particular, God requires that murderers be put to death by his fellow man. Why?

Does it say that it is for vengeance? No. Is it because man is just? No.  Rather, this covenant has a mandate to defend life, where the punishment fits the crime. If I take five dollars, then I should forfeit five dollars. If I take a life, then I forfeit my life. To not do so, communicates the idea that the life of the assailant is more than the victim. However, the reason that the Bible gives for God requiring this reckoning is BECAUSE we are made in His image. God requires the justice; man is to execute that justice for God.  The purpose is because to attack an image of God is to attack the God of that image. It is a personal offense to Him to murder the very vessels that He created for His glory.

This covenant refers back to the creation event found in the first and second chapters of Genesis, where God made man in His image, both male and female were made in His image (Gen 1:27). Furthermore, the creation commands found in Genesis 1:28-30 to be fruitful and multiply, to have dominion over the earth, and to subdue it are reinstated in God’s covenant to Noah and all his descendants (Gen 9:1-4). What is interesting about comparing and contrasting these two sections is that they are almost the same covenant. They even use the same words, sentence structures, and correspond in their respective order. However, where they differ is that one is prior to sin and death entering the world, while the other was after. In other words, the covenant made between God and Noah takes into account the presence of sin and of death within creation, while the one before it does not. Thus, God institutes within His covenant of peace to Noah and all his descendants a just use of force against those who would use unjust force, murdering God’s image-bearers out of their own iniquity. To murder the image-bearer is to profane the very image of God Himself, who made man in His own image for His own glory.

Nonetheless, one objection to raise is that this does not talk about government. So why would anyone use these verses to demonstrate the ordination of the state?

It is true that God does not refer directly to the creation of the state in these verses, but these are the seeds of an entire political system, nonetheless. God is giving the rationale—the substance—prior to the form.  Consider what His commands are:

1)      Be fruitful and multiply: The institution of reproduction, family, and growth. This multiplies God’s image. The family is the seed and beginning of the city.
2)      Subdue the earth and have dominion over it: We are to subdue the planet under God’s image for His glory, tilling fields, sharing food in fellowship, extracting natural resources for the good of our fellow men. We are also to have dominion, or rule, over it. This creates borders for the city-state, property, and so forth.
3)      Do justice on those who violate God’s image, execute the murderer: Requires the investigation of cases, people to protect God’s image, using just force to uphold the law.

All of these are collective imperatives and necessitate cooperation among groups of people—God’s images—in order to administer and execute. Beyond God’s covenant with Noah in Genesis 9, God does institute the forms, which we will discuss in more detail later. However, what is important here is that the rationale—the substance—of the city-state exists prior to its form. The reason is given BEFORE the structure.

Adam was a man BEFORE the state ever existed. Therefore, mankind is not defined by the state, but the state is defined by mankind. The law gave rise to governing bodies and those exist because of divine law; the state did not arbitrarily give rise to laws out of thin air, and laws do not exist because of the state. The image of God existed prior to the protection of it, not the other way around.

And that, my friends, is the point.

Once again, I hope and pray that these will be read and thoroughly considered. What we see here is God’s eternal kingdom, His city-state, penetrating the darkness of this world. It is for His city that we are all created. It was God who designed the political sphere, and it is after the fashion of His design that all nations build their own, either by following it or by corrupting it through what they perceive as an improvement. The substance of the polis exists PRIOR TO the form of the polis. The importance of this will become more apparent as I move forward and further define its meaning and significance.

Blessings.

Politics 101 from a Christian perspective part 1

Politics 101 from a Christian perspective part 1

Earlier I had posted a question on Facebook regarding the relationship of Scripture to the realm of politics. For purposes of recollection, or in the case of someone missing it, I had posed the question like this:

“Was Jesus a political figure? Did He, or the Bible, have anything to say about politics? If you have the guts to post them, what are your thoughts?” (September 20, 2012)

It was a rather provocative question, or so I had thought, but to my misfortune, it did not generate much in the way of discussion.

I had asked the question in hopes of talking about it. I enjoy talking to people about their political opinions, especially when they differ from my own. It does not bother me. Really, it is belligerence and incoherence that bothers me, when someone lacks respect for the individuals of “the opposing side.” When people’s heated passions extend out further than their brains—that’s when we have a problem. So I was hoping to collect more comments, but I will make do with what I have.

At any rate, I did receive a few interesting comments. I will share them here. Each of these statements consists of three different views from three different people. I will briefly comment on each of them for now and return to them later for further discussion:

Comment #1:  “I think at times they ( the religous leaders) tried to draw him in to the politcal realm. I can [not] help believing that those who followed him had the mind set that he was setting up his kingdom there and that he would lead them over the roman empire.”

What I understand about this comment is that the author of it sees Jesus as existing outside the political realm, since he mentions that the religious leaders tried to draw Him into it. The commentator does not define, exactly, what is meant by his use of the “political realm,” but seems to refer to it as the misapprehensions of mankind in the manipulation of others. He refers only to the religious leaders of that time and religious zealots who mistakenly believed that the Messiah would overthrow the Roman Empire and establish Israel as the elites of the world. So, in this view, politics is not perceived as a good thing, but as a form of estrangement from God.

Moving on:

Comment #2:  “I think he was as he is God, as he desperately encouraged the worship of The Father who is above all and should properly run governmental or state affairs. The old testament describes a conversatiin with a prophet during which the people didnt want God to run them, but they wanted a King [1 Samuel 8:1-22]. I believe Jesus wanted to see that reversed. Jesus frequently spoke of "social relations involving authority or power" which is what politics is in an attempt to make that a political reality.”

This comment is interesting and is directly backed up with Scripture. Here, politics is conceived of as a system that rejects God. The King, which the commentator uses as being analogous to government in general, is perceived as being a rejection of God—a turning away of true worship and praise to an idol, or a moving away from the heavenly and spiritual to that which is earthly and carnal. Politics itself is perceived as a form of control and coercion of the people to the idol of the state (government) away from the Creator. The writer indicates that he believe Jesus wanted to see the reversal of government—from the worship of the idol (the state or government) back to the centrality of God in the life of the citizen.

Unfortunately, the author does not specify precisely what that entails. To what extent should this be taken on this side of heaven? Does this involve a theocracy, like the one ancient Israel had, or something else? What form of government would it consist of?

It is an interesting and insightful comment, nonetheless, and the writer of it gives us plenty to discuss. I will definitely interact with it in more depth later on.

Comment #3: “Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars anf that which is God unto God.” [Mat 22:21; Mark 12:17; and Luke 20:25]

In this comment, only a verse is posted, so I am unclear as to what was intended by it. On the surface of it, the verse means to pay your taxes, assuming Caesar is analogous to our current form of government. However, this verse, standing by itself, tends to raise more questions than it answers. For example, does it mean that there are things which are Caesar’s that are separate from the things of God? Does the one who posted it mean to indicate that there are things which belong to the government, which are outside of the scope of Christian living? Does it agree with the first two comments that say that political bodies are the result of sinful man rebelling and turning away from the things of God, which, according to this verse, would see government as a necessary evil? I don’t know. Perhaps the writer meant to indicate that government was a good thing. Either way, I’ll be certain not to exclude the verse from my own presentation, as I answer my own question.

What was that question again?

“Was Jesus a political figure? Did He, or the Bible, have anything to say about politics?”

Getting directly to the point, my answer to both parts of the question is “yes” and “yes.” Jesus was definitely a political figure and both He as well as Scripture talks about politics, without ceasing, from the book of Genesis to the book of Revelation. Actually, if one thinks about it, they are both the same question; meaning, that if one answers one way to one of the questions, they must answer that way to both of them. One cannot be a political figure without having something to say about politics; and one cannot say something about politics without being a political entity.

I submit that from cover to cover the Bible is a political book by its very nature. Indeed, it scarcely, if ever, talks about anything else. It is often said that religion should stay out of politics and that politics should stay out of religion. Many people, it seems Christians included, are quite content with that. But come now, let us reason together (Isa 1:18). Let us take a thorough account of the question I have set before us. Let us begin by asking another very basic question:

What is politics?

Let’s start by defining the term. I know some might criticize me for doing such an elementary thing in a paper, but the reality is that defining one’s terms is essential to any rational discussion, academic snobbery aside. Indeed, whenever the subject of politics arises in conversation, people usually have in mind politics, as the art of deception, propaganda, and control. But this is not at all what the term means. Even when I asked my question, the responses indicated that such was the definition of the term upon which their minds were operating, likewise with those who say that religion and politics should not mix. Obviously, defining our terms is necessary.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, politics is, a : the art or science of government;b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy; c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government (see footnote 1).

So when I ask questions such as, “Does Jesus or Scripture have anything to say about politics?” and receive an answer that indicates that He tried to stay out of politics, then doesn’t that mean that He had nothing to say concerning how human beings are to be governed, execute justice and laws, or power relations? Do people who say that religion should stay out of politics actually mean to indicate that the church should remain silent on how the government shapes policy? What if it had always followed such a precedent? What if it had, for example, remained silent on American slavery or Hitler’s eugenics programs? Does such a prescription seem either right or moral now?

Another part of the definition of our term is, likewise, informative. Consider the fifth entry of the dictionary, 5a : the total complex of relations between people living in society.

Should the church also remain silent about the social relations of those living in society?

There is politics, which is not only necessary but unavoidable, and there is the distortion of politics. One idea should not be confused with the other, or we open up a whole other realm of distortions and confusions. And it is precisely within such a Pandora’s Box that we are living. We confuse what politics actually is with how it is distorted. Then, with our distorted definition of politics, insist that the Christian religion has nothing to say about the matter except to condemn the practice.

One problem with such a view is that it has no coherent solutions to the distortion. It is based upon wishful thinking, utopian dreams, and does not acknowledge the presence of sin and evil in this world. Of course it is true that if all mankind inclined himself to God, and to God alone, as his ultimate purpose, there would be no need for laws. However, we would still need a political system. We would still need people to work, to exchange goods and services, to communicate, to participate in a, yes, political system. On top of this, there is sin and evil in the world, and they aren’t going to go away on this side of eternity. So we also need laws, rules and legislations to curb the tide of evil and to administer justice in the land.

The very body of Christ is a political system. We are citizens of a kingdom; and that kingdom has a firmly established King. This is the entire reason we even call Him “Lord.” Our political system, which is to be embodied by the Church, has all the variety of any secular system. We have divisions of labor, and individuals gifted for certain tasks, we have customs and rituals, we have a Legislator, and those gifted at interpreting and executing that legislation, we have teachers and an educational system…we even have a fire department.

I hope and pray the many of you will read what I have said…and seriously consider it. I hope that it is thought-provoking and causes you to re-imagine and to redefine your perspective on politics. In this paper, I have only begun to lay the groundwork for future writings on the subject. All I have done, so far, is to define politics—using a secular source—and to demonstrate that it has everything to do with the Christian faith and with Scripture. I hope this causes some further discussion and interests you enough to read part 2, where I will get deeper into the subject of politics—what it is, what its elements are, and what they are for. I look forward to your comments.

Thank you for reading.



1. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politics