Nothing to say, yet
Transcription
The transcription discusses the idea of a Christian nation governed by biblical law. It argues against the notion that this would lead to tyranny, stating that non-believers would be safe and secure in such a nation. The transcription also mentions the teachings of Rutherford and Knox, who believed in the right of the people to rebel against tyranny. It discusses the influence of these ideas on the American founders and the shift towards secularized theories of government. The transcription concludes by highlighting biblical principles of government, such as the existence of a supreme court in Israel and the rule of law. It also mentions restrictions on kings, such as limitations on stockpiling weapons and accumulating wealth. One of the biggest criticisms we hear about a return to a Christian nation and Bible law is that it will result in a tyranny of the saints. This is emphatically not true in a Christian nation under oath to govern according to the Mosaic covenant of Exodus 20-24. Here we have the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 followed by three chapters of case law illustrations and a covenant called the Book of the Covenant that binds the two together inseparably in chapter 24. Here is why non-believers are safe and secure in such a biblical nation of true Christian nationalism, not the fake Christian nationalism of Stephen Wolfe published by Canon Press. Take a look at verse 22-21 near the end of the case law section which says, And you shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. Then compare that with verse 23-9, You shall not oppress a stranger, since you yourselves know the feelings of a stranger, for you also were strangers in the land of Egypt. Two almost identical bookends separating almost a chapter of material there that are commands of God without a penalty, without a civil penalty. For example, we have guidelines on how to live together in community, things like not taking a bribe, helping your enemy pull his donkey out of the ditch, don't get caught up in a mob, or don't keep a cloak for collateral overnight because the poor man needs it to keep warm. God promises very strict judgment for any Israelite who would be so callous as to afflict any such widow or stranger or orphan. He says, I will kill you with a sword, and your wives shall become widows, and your children fatherless. So consider how you would apply this to what is happening in Israel today. We have a summary of Rutherford's teaching. He was in many ways heir and expositor of John Knox, who lived from 1513-1572. In the previous century, Knox's preaching left an indelible imprint on Scottish society. Knox rejected Calvin's dalliance with natural law in the civil realm. He insisted on submission of the ruler to the law of God alone, and this was conformed by the ordination oath. Knox departed from Calvin in teaching the right of the people to rebel against tyranny. They had this right, whether or not led by the lower magistrate, according to Rutherford. Rutherford followed Knox closely in Lex Rex, written in 1644, in most other respects. He wrote to refute a treatise on the divine right of kings by John Maxwell. Calvin had taught that people are limited to passive resistance when ordered to disobey God's command. However, the lower magistrate was duty-bound to interpose between people and tyrant. Calvin held that church elders were elected by the people. He transplanted this bottom-up system to the civil realm in a republican model. Elders were elected by people, but ruled by the Bible, and anointed by God. Giving ruling power to the people, Rutherford sowed a seed of festering democracy in Western civilization. He undermined the very republicanism he hoped to defend, I believe. What are the implications for subsequent history? Thus, Rutherford challenged the divine right of kings, but neither he nor Knox had much direct effect on American founders. Their indirect influence was profound, however, via successors who secularized their theory. Historian Richard Greaves observes, following biblical precepts as he understood them, Knox extended the right of rebellion against idolatrous and tyrannical sovereigns from magistrates and nobility to the elect. This I believe is the heart of democracy. Reformer George Buchanan went further. He followed Knox in granting the whole people the right of revolution, but differed in making it more of a natural political right than a scriptural, covenantally defined religious duty. Rutherford followed suit. For the fountain power remaineth most imminently in the people, he wrote. Therefore it is unlimited in the people, and bounded and limited in the king, and so less in the king than in the people. This is but a short step to the secularized social contract. That came shortly later from another less orthodox son of the Puritans, John Locke. Americans followed Locke in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They placed the just power of government in the consent of the governed. In the U.S. Constitution, the governing authority of God is replaced by we, the people. Also the biblical requirement for the ruler to swear loyalty to God and to govern by the Bible is forbidden in Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution. Across the channel, Rousseau led France into an even more radical social compact. It ended in the lawless and bloody French Revolution. So Rutherford vested the right of revolution in the people themselves based on such passages as Judges 8, 22, 2 Samuel 16, 18, 1 Corinthians 16, 1 Kings 10, 14-21, and so forth. But considering the whole of scripture, we have to question that interpretation. It's one thing to say the people may follow a duly inaugurated lower magistrate into rebellion against a king. It's quite another to declare that the people themselves may presume to take such an action. This Rutherford does when he says, for example, We teach that any private man may kill a tyrant, void of all title. However, David in his capacity as a private citizen did not presume to kill the tyrant Saul even when it seemed that such an action might be justified in self-defense. Likewise in the book of Judges, the people chafed under the rule of the tyrant, recognizing it as the hand of God's judgment until God raised up a deliverer or a lower magistrate to deliver them. Now the preface of Lex Rex states that the same principles are advocated in Lex Rex that are held by Buchanan in De Jure Rigne Apus Quodus, where both works are equally opposed to that absolute impassive obedience required from the subject to a royal prerogative. So how does this line up with scripture? Well, Rutherford pointed to evidence in the Bible of a three-way covenant between God, king and the people. For example, Rutherford's favorite Bible chapter declares that thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose, Deuteronomy 17.15, Deuteronomy 17 being Rutherford's favorite chapter, Old Testament chapter. Rutherford declares that the people are obligated to active obedience so long as a king upholds his end of the agreement to rule under God. In such cases, quote, the community keepeth to themselves a power to resist tyranny and to coerce it, although he cautions that the people are to suffer much before they resume their power, end of quote. Thus Rutherford denies that a king holds a royal prerogative which places him above the law. Quote, no king hath a prerogative to dispense with the law, says Rutherford. And again he turns to Deuteronomy 17 for proof. In the last two verses of that chapter, the king is exhorted to study and obey the law of God that his heart may not be tempted to pride above his people. The most frequently quoted scripture in Lex Rex is Deuteronomy 17. So what principles of biblical government, what other principles can we find in this chapter? In the only chapter of the Bible that describes the existence of a supreme court in Israel. This was a court consisting of ecclesiastical and civil authorities, both, together, conferring together in the courtroom. Apparently the scribes and Levites were present in court to assist the civil magistrate in the interpretation of the law and its application to specific cases. We also learn from this passage of biblical principles of two strikes and you're out. A person convicted of a crime received a specified penalty or perhaps even leniency, but if he failed to hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God or unto the judge and repeats the crime, even that man shall die. However, the procedural safeguard of at least two witnesses is established for conviction. The rule of law and not of men is set forth in the requirement of the king to read and obey the law of God in order that his heart may not be lifted up against above his brother. Kings are also limited in the prescription against stockpiling, offensive arms, multiplying wives and riches. Well, thank you so much for sticking with me today to get your free copy of Keys to the Classics, the history of decline and fall of Western civilization. Please visit our sponsors at greatbiblereset.com and buy one, get one free or buy one, get three free at boomers-alive.com and get the unbeatable protection of the genetic shield.
