Nothing to say, yet
Transcription
Samuel Rutherford believed that the Bible establishes the king's authority under God's law. However, he made a mistake by suggesting that the people have ruling authority. Rutherford's views on civil authority were influenced by natural law and Enlightenment thinking. It is important to reset our understanding of the Bible's role in shaping our judicial system and recognize that authority comes from God alone. Peaceful demonstrations are allowed, but overthrowing the king is not. Rutherford argued that the Old Testament law applies to all nations at all times and that the civil magistrate should enforce all Ten Commandments. However, there are differing views on the Sabbath requirement. Rutherford believed that the king should protect the Church of God and that the people have the power to divest the king of authority if he abuses it. However, this authority lies with duly ordained leaders, not the people directly. Rutherford categorized three forms of government but overlooked the bib Samuel Rutherford taught that the Bible makes the king subject to God's law. He pointed to Deuteronomy 17 as a classic passage in defense of Lex Rex, his book, Law as King. The king must make his own copy of the law and read therein all the days of his life that he may learn to fear the Lord his God to keep all the words of this law according to Deuteronomy 17. Now sadly Rutherford deluded this truth by making the people the source of ruling authority or governing power. It appears that he overreacted to the divine right teaching the king's answer to none but God. Although he quotes much Bible in defense of this position, but it's my opinion that Rutherford has not compared not adequately compared scripture with scripture to arrive at a balanced doctrine of civil authority. God does grant the people the power to nominate their rulers in both church and state and we see this in Act 6 nomination of deacons who are then brought to the Apostles for the laying on of hands. And we see it in the Old Testament at Deuteronomy 1.13 where the people nominated judges to serve under Moses who then appointed them as their heads. But Rutherford he thus reverted to natural law and enlightenment thinking at least in some measure at this point. But looking back over the course of Western civilization he's certainly not alone. Today we come to the necessity of a great Bible reset if we have any hope of escaping the wrath of God now resting upon America. And that great reset involves a covenant commitment, a recommitment in order or to order our judicial system in accordance with the law of God as it summarized in Exodus 20-24 the Mosaic Covenant. But the governing the governing power or authority comes from God alone in accordance with Romans 13.1. And this occurs with the ordination or swearing-in ceremony. It prohibits the people rising up in mass or as lone assassins to overthrow the Lord's anointed. Even David was constrained from killing Saul when given the chance. Their appeal must be to God in prayer and to the lesser magistrate. And we find this model everywhere in the book of Judges over and over. When the king gets out of line, however, like when Saul was going to require the death of Jonathan for eating some honey during a battle, the leaders of the people, the lower magistrates, are obligated to call the king to account, which they did. And Jonathan was not put to death. So we must adopt Rutherford's stress on Bible law or God's law as our only political standard. However, we must reject his notion that authority resides in the people rather than God. For this lies at the heart of secular theories of social contract, democracy, and ultimately anarchy. At the same time, I don't think this prohibits peaceful demonstration, which is a form of passive resistance in appealing to the elder. Samuel Rutherford wrote Lex Rex in opposition to the prevailing theory of the divine right of kings. He lived from 1600 to 1661, which spanned the reigns of James I and Charles I in England. He articulated much of the theology of his predecessor, John Knox, who brought dramatic reformation to Scotland in the previous century. Contrary to Calvin, both these men extended the right of rebellion against a tyrannical king to the individual Christian, as well as the lower magistrate. On the other hand, they both corrected Calvin's fatal tendency to place natural law above Bible law in other matters of civil government. The theories of both of them were secularized almost immediately by their successors, who transformed spiritual duties into political rights. It is, for example, but a short step from Rutherford's position to the social contract theory of John Locke. Thus, the reformers were sending mixed signals from all directions. It was this, at least in the realm of civil government, it was this refusal to rely exclusively on sola scriptura in the political realm that withered the impact of the Reformation, or stunted the impact of the Reformation, especially in the social-political realm. Some have objected that if the Christian is no longer under the law, how could Rutherford justify his reliance on Old Testament law as the basis for civil jurisprudence today? Wasn't the Old Testament law only for the Jews? On the contrary, Matthew 5.18 declares that not one jot or tittle of the Old Testament law had passed away as a result of his coming. Moreover, 1 Timothy 1 verses 8-12 requires that Old Testament civil law be enforced during the New Testament era. And we have many examples of this scattered throughout the New Testament. Even in the Old Testament, God held the non-believing nations around Israel responsible for keeping his law, as we see in Amos chapters 1 and 2. Thus, we are led to conclude that the Old Testament civil law was not meant for the Jews only, or for the Old Testament era only, but is obligatory on all nations at all times. Rutherford also taught that the magistrate was responsible to enforce all of the Ten Commandments, not just the last six. He pointed to numerous examples in the Old Testament of the magistrate enforcing the first table of the law, which is commandments 1-4, as well as the second table. In the first place, it is obvious that Moses himself enforced the entire body of the law. Later on, King Josiah cleansed the temple of idolatrous priests and paraphernalia as part of the reform of Judah in 2 Kings 23. Likewise, Jehoiada led the people in destroying the Temple of Baal and reinstituting proper worship in the Temple of God in 2 Chronicles 23. Then, after the restoration, Nehemiah enforced the Sabbath observance in Jerusalem in Nehemiah 13. Thus, it would appear that Rutherford was justified in his teaching that the civil magistrate is responsible to enforce all of the Ten Commandments. According to the Apostle Paul, this obligation remains binding on the civil magistrate during the New Testament era, as we have seen in 1 Timothy chapter 1, verses 8-12. However, Dr. Gary North, in his book, The Sinai Strategy, draws attention to passages in the New Testament that indicate a change in the Sabbath requirement. Hebrews 10 tells us that there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. But three other passages in the New Testament require a shift in application and enforcement from the state to the individual conscience. North points to Romans 14.5 which states that one man esteems one day above another, another esteems every day alike, let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. But according to Rutherford, the king is to be a father and protector of the Church of God. That's when Isaiah describes rulers as nursing fathers to the church in Isaiah 49.23. The people are to be his obedient children so long as he rules in accordance with the word of God. Rutherford believes that this is based on a covenant between king and people in which the whole body of the people confer their authority on the king. He points to passages such as 1 Kings 16.16 All Israel made Omri king. The people thus have power to divest the king of authority should he abuse that which they have given him, according to Rutherford. However, it is our opinion that Rutherford is not adequately comparing scripture with scripture at this point. He overlooks the details of the process in which the people first nominate their rulers and then bring them to God and existing leaders to be vested with ruling authority. Only those ordained leaders, only those ordained leaders possess authority to recall the king in cases where he rules in flagrant disregard of the law of God. The people, per se, do not possess this authority unless led by a duly ordained lower magistrate. And this is true regardless the form of government, according to Rutherford. Rutherford listed three forms of government, a monarchy, an aristocracy, and a democracy. The monarchy was, of course, ruled by a single individual. Aristocracy, he defined, is nothing more than a diffused and enlarged monarchy. Monarchy, on the other hand, is nothing but contracted aristocracy. Democracy calls government by the people and declares that, hence, all three forms are from God. We cannot agree with Rutherford at this point because he inexplicably neglects the fourth form, with which, as a Presbyterian, he should have been well-acquainted. We take the biblical form of government to be the Republic in which the people nominate candidates for leadership from among their number and those candidates are then examined and ordained by their leaders who are currently presiding. This we see in 2 Samuel 5, verses 1-3, wherein David is first approached by all the tribes of Israel and invited to be their king. Then, in verse 3, we see a public inauguration of David by the elders in a formal league with them and with God. So, I want to thank you for being with me today. I invite you to please visit our website at greatbiblereset.com patronize our sponsors, the bookstore at kingswayclassicalacademy.com and our longevity store at boomers-alive.com where 15% of your purchases help fund scholarships for low-income families at kingswayclassicalacademy.com
