Marsiglio of Padua #3 (Bible Analysis)

The transcription discusses biblical analysis of the teaching of Marsiglio of Padua, focusing on Exodus 20-24 and the parameters for life in a nation governed by God's law. It emphasizes that civil courts were set up by God to assign justice according to biblical law, and civil government was established by God in the Noahic covenant. It criticizes Marsiglio's suggestion that civil government can function apart from the Bible or the church. The transcription suggests that civil government should return to its covenantal roots and be governed by the word of God. It also discusses the definition of citizenship according to Marsiglio and compares it with the Bible, highlighting the importance of covenanted citizens. The transcription argues against democracy and emphasizes the need for government to be patterned after God's revealed law. It concludes by mentioning an upcoming interview on prophetic interpretation and promoting the commentary on the law of the covenant and the longevity st Hello everybody, this is Oliver Woods in The Great Bible Reset with our biblical analysis of the teaching of Marsiglio of Padua. You'll recall that Exodus 20-24 gives us God's parameters for life in a nation governed by the law of God, including crimes defined by penalties and general commands for cultural harmony. You can pick up an in-depth commentary on this law of the covenant in the bookstore at kingswayclassicalacademy.com. Notice that civil courts were set up by God to assign justice according to biblical law, including the death penalty. They are dependent on God and answer to God. Civil government was set up by God in the Noahic covenant after the flood. He granted the civil ruler the power of the sword to execute justice and prevent further outbreaks of evil. Whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made he man. That's Genesis 9-6. Having been set up by God, it is treason to suggest, as Marsiglio did, that civil government may function apart from the Bible or the counsel of the church. It is especially offensive when done in the name of an advanced level of spirituality. So how do we correct the damage done by Marsiglio? We must forsake both the wisdom of the ruler and the will of the people as a basis for civil rule. Instead, civil government must return to its covenantal roots in Exodus 20-24. Then the new official would be sworn to govern in accord with the word of God. We the people and we the potentate are both rival claimants to the throne that belongs to Christ alone. Christians are enthralled by the democratic preamble of their constitution, we the people, as opposed to the authority of God in the foundation of their government. But democracy always degenerates to tyranny as the people learn that they may vote money out of their neighbor's pocketbook and God assigns a tyrannical government as discipline. We need to abandon the idea that we are innocent victims. Throughout the Bible we find the ecclesiastical authority working hand in glove with the civil authority to lead the people in obedience to God. Every Old Testament king had his ecclesiastical counterpart looking over his shoulder for instruction, encouragement, correction, and where necessary, reproof. Saul had his Samuel, David had his Nathan, Ahab had his Elijah, and even in the New Testament Herod had John the Baptist, and Felix, Festus, and Agrippa had Paul. Leaders today need to recognize this as a central feature of their job description and get to know the political leaders in their area. How does Marsiglio's definition of citizenship compare with that of the Bible? To answer that question we have to do a word study on the word stranger in the Old Testament. What was a stranger? In ancient Israel a stranger was the resident alien, a foreigner who had taken up residence within the boundaries of Israel, but had not yet accepted Israel's God. The stranger was not permitted to participate in the government of Israel. This privilege was reserved for citizens who had sworn allegiance to God and His law. Only the covenanted citizen could be trusted to administer the law of God in the civil context. Again, following Aristotle, Marsiglio calls citizen, quote, him who participates in the civil community with either deliberative or judicial authority according to his rank. By this definition, boys, slaves, aliens, and women are distinguished though in different respects from citizens, end of quote. Thus the citizen in Marsiglio's state is simply a man who chooses to participate with no regard to any oath of allegiance to a higher standard of any kind, let alone God, which is democratic to the core. This is a situation similar to what we find in modern America, where babies become citizens simply on the basis of birth and geographic location. The only oath required is sworn to the U.S. Constitution with an oath to God forbidden in Article 6, Section 3, where it says no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under these United States, end of quote. The original requirement for voting and participation in civil government in Puritan, Massachusetts was a covenant with God via church membership. This lasted only until Thomas Hooker's 1639 Fundamental Orders of Connecticut in a government of free men, not explicitly Christian. The free men did not have to be members of the congregational church. Free men were adult men who had been certified by the town officials as members in good standing in a community of sober and upright behavior and conversation, who had property and land worth about 40 pounds. The covenant with God's law was broken. And I know this is heresy in pluralistic America, but that decision was the beginning of the end for Christian America, the beginning of the end for America. For some reason, we have no problem with the fact that Israel limits participation in its government to Jews and Talmud, and Iran limits participation in its government to Muslims and Koran. But any suggestion that so-called Christian America should have limited its government to covenanted Christians is greeted with scorn and ridicule by most. The end result of that kind of political polytheism is what we are experiencing today, political and social anarchy. The stranger is given extreme protection in Exodus 23, but he is not given the vote, he may not participate in government. The great Bible reset of Exodus 20-24 is our only hope for deliverance. So what system of government does Marsiglio recommend for making of law? And is this system biblical? Well, in this matter also, Marsiglio demonstrates his commitment to democracy. According to Marsiglio, the whole body of citizens, or its weightier part, either makes law directly or commits this duty to someone or a few. End of quote. Marsiglio naively justifies this democracy on the presumption that the people will not do injury or injustice to themselves in the making of law. He overlooks the fact that members of a democracy nearly always attempt to seize a range of power in order to vote money for themselves out of the public treasury. The democratic system is emphatically unbiblical. Instead God calls on the nations to pattern their jurisprudence after the model of his revealed law. Isaiah 2, 1-4. God's attitude to democracy is seen as a response to Korah's rebellion in Numbers 16, 3 and 33. And I quote, And they assembled together against Moses and Aaron, and said to them, You have gone far enough, for all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is in their midst. So why do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord? And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, and their households, and all the men who belonged to Korah with all their possessions. So they and all that belonged to them went down alive to Sheol, and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly. End of quote. So what are the characteristics of the best law according to Marsiglio? What is the Christian view of the best law? Once again, Marsiglio returns to Aristotle for his definition of the best law as, quote, that which relates to the common advantage of the citizens, and right, in law that is, to be considered with reference to the advantage of the state and the common good of the citizens. End of quote. So the reference point is to that which first of all benefits the state, and secondly the citizens of the state. Marsiglio holds forth a utilitarian standard for law as it relates to the common advantage of its citizens. By way of contrast, the Christian view of the best law would be that law which most closely conforms to the revealed law of God in the Bible. In scripture, the main concern of the law is not utility, but the administration of justice as defined by the law of God. It is government of God, by God, and for God, with an obedient people, the beneficiaries. Tomorrow we're going to be looking at the decree of God in prophetic interpretation with Pastor Paul Michael Raymond in an interview. So in the meantime, please pick up our commentary on the law of the covenant in the bookstore at kingswayclassicalacademy.com and visit our longevity store at boomers-alive.com for some really great deals, and this will help the school as well. Until then, we'll see you tomorrow.