For Hardness Of Hearts God Imposes Bad Laws

-->

God Imposes Bad Laws

For Hardness Of Hearts

“He said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so’” (Matthew 19:7-8 ESV).

            God permitted many things (and commanded many things) in His law that were less than His ideal. The reason? Hardness of hearts. Under the Law of Moses God permitted slavery and concubines. For the same reason He also required many ceremonial laws as types and shadows of better things. But in the beginning it was not so. The prophet Micah gives the ideal when he says a day was/is coming when the ideal will be restored. Hearts will be softened by a mighty move of God and the law shall go forth from Zion and be established. In that day there will be no slavery, no war, and no socialism. Every man will sit under his own fig tree and his own vine (Micah 4). That is free enterprise and private property.

            Because of the hardness of hearts God gave Israel a king. Samuel warned of what it would be like under a monarchy. And the LORD said to Samuel, “Obey their voice and make them a king.” (1 Samuel 8:22 ESV) “And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day” (1 Sam 8:18). “But the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel. And they said, ‘No! But there shall be a king over us…’”(1 Samuel 8:19 ESV). So it is today. We get what we ask for.

“And now behold the king whom you have chosen, for whom you have asked; behold, the LORD has set a king over you. If you will fear the LORD and serve him and obey his voice and not rebel against the commandment of the LORD, and if both you and the king who reigns over you will follow the LORD your God, it will be well…  And you shall know and see that your wickedness is great, which you have done in the sight of the LORD, in asking for yourselves a king.” …And all the people said to Samuel, “Pray for your servants to the LORD your God, that we may not die, for we have added to all our sins this evil, to ask for ourselves a king.” And Samuel said to the people, “Do not be afraid; you have done all this evil. Yet do not turn aside from following the LORD, but serve the LORD with all your heart. And do not turn aside after empty things that cannot profit or deliver, for they are empty. For the LORD will not forsake his people, for his great name's sake, because it has pleased the LORD to make you a people for himself’” (1 Samuel 12:13-22 ESV).

            The confederacy during the time of the judges would have been the ideal government if the people had made God the king. But because of their hard hearts five cities in the Gaza strip dominated all the scores of cities in Israel. It could not work because of man’s fallen nature. Under Saul and David’s central government Israel dominated not only the Philistines but also all its neighbors. No prophet came later demanding that Israel return to the confederacy of former days, God promised that He would not answer (1 Sam 8:18). God gives us the leaders we deserve. “Because of your hardness of heart” God gave you a king and here are the laws you will live under. You asked for it.

            But God turned around and used this “lesser ideal.” And the prophets even used it as a type of the greater ideal. “But they shall serve the LORD their God, And David their king, Whom I will raise up for them” (Jer 30:9).

            Nevertheless, “do not turn aside from following the LORD.” The idealist would interpret “following the LORD” as a return to the confederacy. We actually have one or two modern teachers that do the same by claiming that America should return to the Articles of Confederation. The Articles might have been the ideal (arguably), but it did not and could not work for the same reason the confederacy under the judges did not work. Hardness of hearts forbids it. Every state did what was right in its own eyes. The nation chose the U.S. Constitution as king just as Israel chose a king.

            So Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking for a king from him. He said, “he will take your sons… and your daughters… your fields… a tenth of your grain… a tenth of your flocks… and you shall be his slaves… And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day” (1 Samuel 8:10-18 ESV). The American people have chosen what we have and the Lord will not answer until the people repent. God’s law cannot be imposed, it must be requested by the people. “No law structure can be enforced… unless almost everyone accepts it as the necessary law order”  (Rushdoony, Inst. II, p. 466).

            But we say, “Conscription is against God’s law! Taking our fields and taxing us is against God’s law!” The prophet’s response: “Too bad. You asked for it. God promised He would not answer you in that day. A deal is a deal. Serve God with what He gave you.”

            Some people thought David and Solomon were unjust. If they had had Facebook and cable news in those days, all we would hear would be complaints about the government oppression. In those days, “Absalom would say, ‘Oh that I were judge in the land! Then every man with a dispute or cause might come to me, and I would give him justice’” (2 Samuel 15:4 ESV). Absalom was no doubt justified in his complaint that David did nothing about his son raping his daughter. But God’s prophets said nothing about this and even held up David’s kingdom as a model example of God’s kingdom. “Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father’ (1 Chron 29:23). His throne is called “the throne of the LORD.”

God’s Bad Laws Under Babylon

            A similar situation took place under the king of Babylon. The last king of Judah, Zedekiah “rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God. He stiffened his neck and hardened his heart against turning to the LORD, the God of Israel. All the officers of the priests and the people likewise were exceedingly unfaithful...” (2 Chronicles 36:13-14 ESV).

“As I live, declares the Lord GOD, surely in the place where the king dwells [in Babylon] who made him king, whose oath he despised, and whose covenant with him he broke, in Babylon he shall die” (Ezekiel 17:16 ESV).

            God then says in the next verses that the covenant Zedekiah made with the king of Babylon was God’s covenant.

Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: “As I live, surely it is my oath that he despised, and my covenant that he broke. I will return it upon his head. I will spread my net over him, and he shall be taken in my snare, and I will bring him to Babylon and enter into judgment with him there for the treachery he has committed against me” (Ezekiel 17:19-20 ESV).

            This captivity then resulted in Judah living under bad rules that God Himself ordained.

Moreover, I swore to them in the wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them through the countries, because they had not obeyed my rules, but had rejected my statutes and profaned my Sabbaths, and their eyes were set on their fathers' idols. Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life, and I defiled them through their very gifts in their offering up all their firstborn, that I might devastate them. I did it that they might know that I am the LORD (Ezekiel 20:23-26 ESV).

            Now, because of the hardness of their hearts, God forced them to live under Babylon’s civil laws instead of those of Moses. God did it. Daniel was forced to attend the university of sorcerers and was even made the supervisor over all the tax collectors of the Persian Empire. God Himself defiled them with civil laws that were not good. They asked for it by breaking God’s covenant. “And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day” (1 Samuel 8:10-18 ESV).

            Cyrus and later Persian kings gave the Jews permission to rebuild the temple and Jerusalem. God’s people did not rebel against Persia; they asked permission. They believed “The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes” (Prov 21:1). They understood that they must “be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and God has instituted those that exist. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment” (Romans 13:1-2 ESV). All of this less than ideal bondage was their punishment because of the hardness of hearts.

At the same time, God’s faithful ones understood that the meek should one day inherit the earth. But they understood it would become a reality by means of meekness and not by force.

However, there is a time for armed resistance. But armed resistance for the purpose of freedom of religion and conscience must come under the authority of lesser magistrates. 

The Maccabees’ rebellion is a good example of righteous rebellion under the authority of a lesser magistrate. Their leader, Mattathias was a judge in Judea and a priest that raised an army that rebelled against the Syrian king who would not allow Jews to circumcise their children and was forcing Jews to offer incense to Apollo.  We ought to obey God rather than man. For the sake of their conscience, the Maccabees defeated the Syrian army, re-captured Jerusalem, and cleansed the temple against impossible odds.

On the other hand, the zealots that rebelled against Rome (Barabbas types) were not rebelling out of obedience to their conscience but rather for what they thought were their rights. They thought they had a right to rebel against Roman civil laws. They no doubt believed they were in righteous rebellion. They desired to restore Jerusalem to the Law of Moses. They opposed the tyranny of Rome. But they did not understand or believe that God would or could overthrow Rome in a meek manner and in His due time. Nor did they understand the difference between rebellion for conscience’ sake and rebellion for rights’ sake. Disobedience for the sake of the conscience is obedience to God and disobedience for the sake of rights can be sin. Non-violent demonstrations, however, are not sin and are legal in America.

Rome’s unjust laws that required things like forcing a citizen to carry a soldier’s one hundred pound load for a mile was a very unjust law that violated human rights. It did not however violate one’s conscience. Therefore Jesus’ law says, “Carry it an extra mile.” The same is true of taxes and a soldiers “right” to slap you or beat you without a trial. The law of Christ to His church is, “Turn the cheek and put up your sword, Peter.”

The function of government is to protect its citizens from plunder. Governments therefore are duty-bound to bear the sword. Individuals under their own authority do not have the right to resist unjust laws. They must address the proper authorities in a lawful manner like the apostle Paul did. He first submitted to be beaten unjustly. When the jailer started to release him, he sent a message through the jailer to the magistrates and cited Roman law (Acts 16:35-39).

When individuals in Scotland rebelled against the tyrant kings of England, they did it in a popular uprising for the sake of their conscience, not simply because their rights had been violated. We ought to obey God rather than man. Carnal babes cannot understand the difference. Nor do they trust God to fight for them while they hold their peace. (When the sovereignty of God is taken out of the equation, all kinds of carnal efforts based on fear will be made. Unbelief deems it absurd to submit to injustice because it does not believe that nothing can happen unless God permits it, and that if He does it will be for good, even unto death.)

In America non-violent demonstrations and freedom of speech are legal. When civil laws say we cannot preach all of Scripture including the sinfulness of gay sex, we ought to disobey the law and obey God’s command to preach the word rather than man. When lesser magistrates are commanded to confiscate arms, they have a duty to obey the Constitution and to disobey such laws.

Humanist governments (states) are evil in many ways, but because of the hardness of hearts and the choice of the people, God has placed these governments as His servants. “For he [the government] 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” (Romans 13:4-5 ESV).

The logic of the neophyte babe in Christ is, “Statism is evil; therefore we must get rid of the state.” He forgets that God is the One who ordains evil states for a good reason: the hardness of hearts. The one and only solution is a mighty revival that would result in fulfilling 2 Chronicles 7:14. Then and only then will the law go forth from Zion and the land be healed.

How do we get from “A,” the present reality, to “Z,” the ideal? How can we jump from “A” to “Z” when we have not even gotten to “B?” “ “If you have run with the footmen, and they have wearied you, Then how can you contend with horses?” (Jer 12:5) One of the reasons the average Christian rejects the idea of God’s law as the ideal for the culture is that they think Theonomists want to impose it soon. This causes a “knee-jerk” reaction that even rejects the ideal. They think God’s law is evil. They even hold the current state as the ideal.

Two Levels Of Forgiveness

Leviticus 4:13 If the whole congregation of Israel sins unintentionally… and they realize their guilt … the assembly shall offer a bull (v. 14)… and they shall be forgiven (v. 20).

4:22 When a leader sins unintentionally… and realizes his guilt…he shall bring as his offering a goat (v. 23)… and he shall be forgiven (v. 26).

Did this forgiveness mean they were saved eternally?

         Hebrews 10:4  says, “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” permanently.

These animal sacrifices symbolized the payment for sin, but they did not accomplish it permanently. Last year’s sacrifice did not cover the next year’s sins. A permanent sacrifice was needed to deal permanently with sin.

People Not Under Grace Are Still Under Law

…just like Israel was. Therefore, there are two kinds of forgiveness: temporary and permanent, earthly and heavenly.

Temporal Atonement

Deuteronomy 21:1 gives an example of finding a murdered man  “lying in the open country, and it is not known who killed him, [6] And all the elders of that city nearest to the slain man shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley, [7] and they shall testify, ‘Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it shed. [8] Accept atonement, O LORD, for your people Israel, whom you have redeemed, and do not set the guilt of innocent blood in the midst of your people Israel, so that their blood guilt be atoned for’” (Deuteronomy 21:6-8 ESV).

This atonement meant that their town would be spared of the Four Horsemen of God’s wrath: war, famine, conquest, and plague. 

How about when Nineveh repented?

“And the people of Nineveh believed God. They called for a fast and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them to the least of them… [10] When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it” (Jonah 3:5-10).

Did this forgiveness mean Nineveh was saved permanently? The Medes did destroy Nineveh 100 years later. When they repented, did they establish God’s law as the law of the land? Did they establish the death penalty for idolatry and sorcery? Did they do away with statism? Evidently their forgiveness was based on an earthly level. “… a broken and a contrite heart, O God You will not despise” (Psalm 51:17). “Go and learn what this means, I prefer mercy and not sacrifice.”

Ahab’s Limited Forgiveness

1 Kings 21:24-29 There was none who sold himself to do what was evil in the sight of the LORD like Ahab, whom Jezebel his wife incited… Elijah predicted God’s curse on him. He said, “Anyone belonging to Ahab who dies in the city the dogs shall eat, and anyone of his [family] who dies in the open country the birds of the heavens shall eat” (1 Kings 21:24). …[27] And when Ahab heard those words, he tore his clothes and put sackcloth on his flesh and fasted and lay in sackcloth and went about dejectedly. [28] And the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, [29] “Have you seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the disaster in his days; but in his son's days I will bring the disaster upon his house.”

         This same type of conversion happens today. The awakened sinner feels it and thinks he’s saved. But it’s only temporary. God’s mercy can send a strong delusion.

How about Jehu?

         God’s prophet anointed him to wipe out the family of Ahab and all the Baal worshippers. Jehu did it but failed to wipe out golden calf worship. God rewarded him anyway with the promise that his dynasty would endure to the 4^th generation. His dynasty lasted longer than all the other dynasties of Israel. In this case we see God rewarding an idol worshipper on one level and yet cursing him on another level. This proves that not only are their two levels of forgiveness, but also two levels of rewards. One level of blessing can deceive men into thinking God approves of them on all levels.

Two Levels Of Atonement

1 John 2:2

Propitiation means atonement. It means “a sacrifice that bears God’s wrath and turns it to favor.”  Christ “is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” The unbelieving world gets temporary atonement only. There are two levels of grace.

Common Grace And Special Grace

The whole world receives common grace. One level of forgiveness is by common grace and the other is by special grace. Common grace is what God grants to mankind in common. He rains on the just and the unjust. That’s common grace. Jesus said God is “kind to the ungrateful and the evil” (Luke 6:35). But even among unbelievers there are various levels of common grace. Outward Christians who are unsaved have more common grace than pagans. “Then what advantage has the unsaved Christian? Or what is the value of baptism? Much in every way. To begin with, unsaved Christians were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar…” (Romans 3:1-4 ESV).

The Two Israels

         When Moses led Israel out of Egypt God said, “Israel is My son, My firstborn.” He was talking about the nation as a whole. All of them were baptized in the sea and the cloud. All ate of the same spiritual bread as a type of Communion. Yet God was not pleased with most of them. Most of them were not true converts. On one level they were all Israel as a whole, but on another “they are not all Israel that are of Israel” (Rom 9:6). There are two Israels and by that I mean two kinds of Christians; the outward and the inward; the visible and the invisible. Therefore, there are two levels of forgiveness and two levels of grace.

Can A Person Be Enlightened While Not Saved?

Hebrews 6

“For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, [5] and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, [6] and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt” (Hebrews 6:4-6 ESV).

         Those who believe one can lose his salvation and still be able to repent again, have to disagree with this chapter. These verses prove that a person can share in the Holy Spirit and still not be a genuine convert.

         The Holy Spirit came on King Saul and he was changed into a different man and prophesied. But he was never a genuine convert. He proved it when he had murder in his heart. 1 John 3:15 says, “you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.”

         Many of our modern so-called converts are awakened only. They find joy in Bible study and church activities, but are still not born again. Even though they preach, cast out devils, and do many good works, the Lord will say on Judgment Day, “I never knew you.”

Can One Be Blotted Out Of The Book Of Life?

“And the LORD said to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book” (Ex 32:33). True converts will never be blotted out because true converts overcome sin. Jesus promised, “He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life” (Rev 3:5).

I believe that when infants are baptized in the name of the Lord, their names are written in God’s book and their sins are forgiven on a common grace level. It does not mean they are born of the Spirit; they are born of water only. Jesus said, “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). If baptized infants never get born of the Spirit, their names will be blotted out. On Judgment Day, whosoever is not found written in the Book of Life shall be cast into the Lake of Fire.

What About Infant Baptism?

1 Corinthians 7 says both the children and the unbelieving husband of a Christian woman are sanctified by her faith. That does not mean they are saved. It means they are set apart on a certain level of common grace. So just as forgiveness has two levels, so does sanctification.

Did The Apostles Baptize Infants?

Irenaeus A.D. 130 “He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men.” Irenaeus was 37 years old when his pastor Polycarp was burned to death. Polycarp was born in 80 A.D. and was almost 20 when his pastor, the Apostle John died. This is pretty strong evidence that the apostles practiced infant baptism.

Hippolytus A.D. 215 “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16)

Origen A.D. 248  “The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9).

Cyprian of Carthage A.D. 253 “As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2). 

Conclusion

So, in conclusion it’s easy to see that there are two levels of faith, two levels of forgiveness, two levels of sanctification, two kinds of grace (common and special), two churches, the visible and the invisible.

As we can see, the visible church has many faults, but Christ still calls it His church. Let’s make our calling and election sure.

        

The Ancient Church Fathers On Infant Baptism

Those who say sprinkling and infant baptism are not legitimate are saying the following: “The ancient fathers, the noble martyrs, the great reformers – devoted and Christ-like men such as Knox, Wesley, McCheyne, Edwards, Whitefield –were, according to the immersion theory, never baptized, never a part of the Church of Christ on earth, and they never partook of the Lord’s Supper without profaning it.” – By Rev. W.A. McKay 1881 Pastor of Chalmers’ Church, Woodstock, Ontario

The logic of this theory (immersion) as declared by its friends is this: Outside of this theory there is no baptism, no Lord’s Supper, no Christian ministry, no Christian church – and, by the same inexorable logic, no Christian man. – James W. Dale, DD in “Christic Baptism.” P. 21

Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.) Irenaeus was born in Smyrna where Polycarp was bishop until burned alive at age 87 in 167 A.D. Irenaeus was 37 at the time of the burning. Polycarp was in his teens when the Apostle John was still the overseer of the seven churches of Asia, which included Smyrna. Irenaeus believed infants were sanctified in baptism. This is evidence that infant baptism was practiced from the days of the apostles.

            "He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]). 

Hippolytus (215 A.D.) And they shall baptize the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family. And next they shall baptism the grown men; and last the women. (Apostolic Tradition 21.3-5)

Origen (248 A.D.) "Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]). 

Cyprian of Carthage (253A.D.)

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]). 

STATISM

             In this short 2-page article I will first quote some definitions of statism and then give the biblical view.

The dictionary says statism is a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs. Obviously there are various degrees of it.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Statism

“Statism is the belief that the civil government (or man via civil government) is the ultimate authority in the earth and as such is the source of law, morality, and righteousness (that which is right and wrong).^[1] Statism has manifested itself in different ways throughout history, and can be expressed through democratic and non-democratic governments alike.”

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: “In political science, statism is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.^[1][2][3][4] Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism.^[1][2][3][4] Statism can take many forms from minarchism to totalitarianism. Minarchists prefer a minimal or night-watchman state to protect people from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud with military, police, and courts.^[5][6][7][8] Some may also include fire departments, prisons, and other functions.^[5][6][7][8]Welfare state adepts and other such options make up more statist territory of the scale of statism.^[9][10] Totalitarians prefer a maximum or all-encompassing state.”

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/statism.html

“The political expression of altruism is collectivism or statism, which holds that man’s life and work belong to the state—to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation—and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good. A statist system—whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or “welfare” type—is based on the . . . government’s unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. The differences among statist systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same. Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims.  Nothing can ever justify so monstrously evil a theory. Nothing can justify the horror, the brutality, the plunder, the destruction, the starvation, the slave-labor camps, the torture chambers, the wholesale slaughter of statist dictatorships.”

The Biblical View On Statism

Can God’s judgments be justified? Bible believers say, “Yes.”

            The Bible shows that just because the state is bad does not mean we should rebel against it. But to believe the state’s laws are the highest laws is statism. “God [always] rules in the kingdom of men, and appoints over it whomever He chooses” (Daniel 5:21b). The Apocalypse shows the Great Dragon as the authority behind the state (Rev 13). The Ayn Rand type anarchist therefore concludes that to be logically consistent we must then oppose government (the state) in favor of anarchy (no government).

The biblical view is to 1.) Confess that the state has bad laws and only God’s law is perfect, 2.) Confess that it is God’s servant (“an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.”), 3.) Confess that it is God’s judgment on fallen man for sin, 4.) Submit to it as God’s minister unless commanded to break God’s law. When the state forbids freedom of religion, Calvinism teaches that we have a right to resist only under the authority of the lesser magistrate. Individuals are not allowed to take the law into their own hands. (There is, however, such a thing as “citizen’s arrest.)

            Jesus did not and does not permit us to rebel because we do not like laws like taxation or because they are not in God’s law because those laws do not command us to sin. There are legal means by which to address those grievances. He forbids physical resistance to arrest and brutality (turn the cheek). Submission is the way we win. Cases of escape like Jesus, Paul, Elijah, and David did are not the same as sassing or wrestling with police. In unreasonable laws such as being forced to carry a soldier’s 100-pound load for a mile, the law of the kingdom of God is to go an extra mile. Only after Paul was beaten and released did he forward a message to the magistrate concerning his legal standing as a Roman citizen. He did not resist arrest, nor did Jesus. When Peter started to resist, Jesus said, “Put up your sword.”

            When Peter had already escaped from Nero’s persecution, Eusebius tells us that he met Jesus on the Apian Way outside of town. He asked, “Lord, where are you going?” just like he did in John 13:36. Jesus said, “I’m going to Rome to be crucified again.” Peter remembered how Jesus had predicted how he would die and said, “ “If I will that he [John] remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me” (John 21:22). Peter then turned back to Rome and was crucified upside down. The way of the cross lead to the conversion of the Empire. That is how they won and that model has never changed.

            Is it logical for the Bible believer to say, “Statism is bad, therefore anarchy is good”?  Is it logical to say, “Some cops are bad, therefore we need no cops”?  R.J. Rushdoony taught that anarchy is the father of tyranny. The “Ayn Rand” type anarchy might be logical to rebels, but it is lawlessness, and lawlessness is sin. This is the logic of a rebel. It is thoroughly consistent based on its false presupposition.

Barabbas Types

Barabbas Types

By Ron Smith

Tyrants hate tyrants. But before anyone has authority to speak against tyrants they must first conquer the tyrant within. I have had several experiences of being under unreasonable tyrants for many years. I have been forced to eat a lot of doo doo and I reacted in rebellious anger. But not until my stubborn heart submitted to them (without agreeing to their tyranny) did I obtain the authority to resist them. This cannot be understood intellectually. It must be experienced. Anyone who says he believes in God’s sovereignty and still cannot control his urge to be right has still not conquered the tyrant within. God put me under those tyrants to break me from always having to be right.

In Matthew 27:16, Barabbas was called a “notorious prisoner.” In Mark 15:7, Luke 23:19, and John 18:40, Barabbas was “among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection,” a revolutionary against the occupying Roman forces.

The name Barabbas means “son of the father” (bar abba) or “son of the teacher” (bar rabban), indicating perhaps that his father was a Jewish leader. According to the early biblical scholar Origen and other commentators, the full name of Barabbas may have been Jesus Barabbas, since Jesus was a common first name. Therefore the crowd was presented with a choice between two kinds of Jesus with the same name and Caesar. They responded in the typical schizophrenic manner of saying, “We have no king but Caesar, crucify Him and give us Barabbas.”

  

 Josephus says in W 2.17.2  408-410 

   “And now some of the most ardent promoters of hostilities banded together and made an assault on the fortress called Masada, and having gained possession of it by stratagem, they slew the Roman guards and put a garrison

 of their own in their place. 

   At the same time Eleazar, the son of Ananias the high priest, a very bold youth, who was at that time governor of the Temple, persuaded those that officiated in the Divine service to receive no gift or sacrifice for any foreigner. And this was the true beginning of our war with the Romans; for they rejected the sacrifice of Caesar on this account; and when many of the chief priests and principal men besought them not to omit the sacrifice, which it was customary for them to offer for their princes, they would not be prevailed upon.”

           

This act in 66 A.D. was the beginning of the end. Instead of praying for the rulers as Paul commanded in 1 Timothy 2:1-2 they reasoned that they could not pray for tyrants who violated God’s law.

The Jewish Revolt of 66 to 70 AD/CE had its origin in several different troubles identified by Josephus. At various points in his work he specifically names different events as 'the" cause of the war, either as an immediate trigger or as a fundamental motive. These include: 

• the involvement of governor Albinus with criminal gangs 
• the removal of rights of Jews in Caesarea 
• the pollution of the synagogue of Caesarea
• the murder of High Priest Jonathan 
• the murder of High Priest Ananias 
• the refusal to sacrifice to the Emperor 
• the Fourth Philosophy that held divine assistance would come to a rebellion: "the infection which spread from them among the younger sort, who became zealous for it, brought the public to destruction."
• the criminal acts and abuse of authority on the part of  governor Gessius Florus 
• a conspiracy on the part of Florus
• a certain ambiguous oracle (War 6.5.4) 

From these specific incidents the chief causes of the war in Josephus' eyes can be identified. Emphasized throughout his work is the cruelty and corruption of the Roman administrators, particularly those serving under Emperor Nero. Next in importance, judging by the amount of attention Josephus gives, was an extremist party that mixed nationalism with a religious ideal: to free the Holy Land from the powers of the world so that it would be only under the governance of Heaven. Between these two opposing forces there played themes of class and ethnic conflict which polarized the nation. The repeated robberies, riots, and uprisings these caused were kept in check by the harsh actions of the administrators, which in turn caused resentment among the populace, forming the familiar cycle of protest/response/protesting the response, common to the escalation of rebellions. 

   These are the specific elements Josephus stresses in his works. There is a larger context, some of which is indicated in the introduction to the War. The empire had grown weak in the last days of Nero. The corruption of the governors directly reflected the flaws in their emperor. Judea was not the only province to revolt; but its war was the longest and bloodiest. And the problems of religious nationalism and class and ethnic struggle had its roots in the long history of the Jews and the unresolved problems of the correct form of religious observance and the place of the powerful non-Jewish nations in the divine plan.”[1] 

Notice that Josephus does not fail to emphasize the wickedness of “an extremist party that mixed nationalism with a religious ideal: to free the Holy Land from the powers of the world so that it would be only under the governance of Heaven.” These “Barabbas” types were theonomists. The apostles were also theonomists, but not of the Barabbas type. Peter acted like the Barabbas type when he cut off the ear of the high priest’s servant. Barabbas types, without realizing it are denying the sovereignty of God. Armed rebellion must be only under the authority of lesser magistrates. That is Calvinism and also the doctrine of the Magdeburg Confession. Not until Peter proved his true fear when he denied Christ was he able to be broken free from his carnal logic.

Carnal logic says, “Caesar’s laws are contrary to God’s law and therefore we can break them. Caesar stole that coin with his image; therefore it is not lawful to pay taxes. To pay it is to violate God’s law.  It is not lawful (according to God’s law) for a soldier to take my shirt, slap me on the cheek, or make me carry his 100-pound load for a mile. Therefore I demand my rights.” Some Barabbas types even believe that any soldier employed by Caesar is violating God’s law. They forget that Daniel was the supervisor over all the tax collectors of the Persia beast (portrayed in the vision of Daniel 7 as a predatory bear).

When King Zedekiah disobeyed the King of Babylon (Lucifer), God said he broke God’s covenant. “As I live, declares the Lord GOD, surely in the place where the king dwells who made him king, whose oath he despised, and whose covenant with him he broke, in Babylon he shall die…  Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: As I live, surely it is my oath that he despised, and my covenant that he broke. I will return it upon his head” (Ezekiel 17:16-19 ESV).  God sent His people to Babylon and defiled them with pagan laws to which they were to submit unless commanded to disobey God. Paying taxes and submitting to laws by which they could not live was obviously not breaking God’s law. “Moreover, I swore to them in the wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them through the countries, [24] because they had not obeyed my rules, but had rejected my statutes and profaned my Sabbaths, and their eyes were set on their fathers' idols. Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life, and I defiled them… I did it that they might know that I am the LORD” (Ezekiel 20:23-26 ESV). Why did Daniel ask permission to not defile himself with the king’s food? God gave us that example so we would get permission from the government for home schools in order to not defile our children with what Caesar wants to cram down their throats. Why did Nehemiah have to ask the king for permission to rebuild Jerusalem? It was because God Himself had placed His people under the authority of the beast. Why did the early Christians not demand their rights and seek to overthrow Rome like the Jews did?

There are three choices: Caesar’s law as the highest law, Barabbas types to overthrow Caesar’s ungodly laws, or Christ. The leaders of Jerusalem sealed their doom by choosing Barabbas. God sent them the Sicarii.

In Book 7 of The Jewish War (253–74) Josephus distinguishes in a general way between the various parties which took part in the resolute stand against Rome. In respective order, he mentions the Sicarii, the followers of *John of Giscala, the soldiers of *Simeon bar Giora, and finally the Zealots. The main distinctions are exemplified also in incidents which he describes in his detailed description of these sects in the earlier books of The Jewish War. Both references help towards an understanding of events. As stated, the Sicarii are mentioned first in the general summary in Book 7. Elsewhere Josephus describes the emergence of this extreme freedom group against the background of the establishment of the Province of Judea, which was connected with the census instituted by *Quirinius, the legate of Syria, in the year 6 C.E. (Ant. 18:4–10). The census was a profound shock to the Jewish people as a whole and it was only after considerable effort that the high priest at the time, Joezer ben Boethus, succeeded in quietening the emotions aroused among the majority of the people. Nevertheless, *Judah the Galilean of Gamala in Gaulanitis joined forces with *Zadok the Pharisee to issue a call for armed revolt, since in their eyes the census represented outright slavery. In their speeches they went so far as to declare that God would come to the aid of those who did not spare themselves in the struggle. According to Josephus, Judah and Zadok were the founders of the "Fourth Philosophy," the other three being the *Pharisees, the *Sadducees, and the *Essenes. After they acquired a great number of followers they involved the Jewish body politic in uprisings and sowed the seeds of the future catastrophes which were to overwhelm the Jewish people. Later on, after he gives a description of the "three philosophies," Josephus returns to Judah, whom he refers to simply as "the Galilean," and gives a succinct account of his "philosophy." According to him the adherents of this philosophy agree in general with the Pharisees, and are distinguished from them only by their unbounded love for freedom and by the fact that they accept God as their only master and leader. They are freely and readily prepared to submit to even the most horrible of deaths and to see their relations and friends tortured rather than accept human domination. Josephus even emphasizes that this resolute determination of theirs is widely known and therefore there is no fear that the truth of what he says will be challenged; on the contrary, he is afraid that he may not have sufficiently emphasized their indifference to torture (Ant. 18:23–5).[2]

These rebels were theonomists. The Barabbas spirit is a doctrine of devils. The Meek and Lowly One of Galilee conquered Rome God’s way; not by demanding our rights and sassing policemen, but by proclaiming the kingship of Christ “so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 3:10 ESV). They meek conquered Rome by the blood of the Lamb, the public proclamation of their testimony, and by not loving their lives unto death. They refused unto death to bow to the image of the state, but they submitted as unto the Lord to every ordinance of man.

Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor” (1 Peter 2:13-17 ESV).

The meek shall inherit the earth; not smart alecks. 

It is true that no lawless tyrant has a right to rule, but God is the One that gives us the rulers we deserve. The tyrant might not have a legal right under God’s law, but God is the one who puts them in power because His people break His covenant. The only just means to take up arms against them is under the authority of lesser magistrates. Examples of this are found in the Maccabees (Matthias was an elder and a Levite), the city of Magdeburg, certain Huguenot cities in France, Holland, Cromwell under Parliament, Richard Cameron as an official in the state church, and the American Revolution under the Continental Congress.

Preachers are to speak up against tyranny just as the Black Robed Regiment did in the decade leading up to the American Revolution.

I repeat: Tyrants hate tyrants. But before anyone has authority to speak against tyrants they must first conquer the tyrant within. I have had several experiences of being under unreasonable tyrants. I have been forced to eat a lot of doo doo and I reacted in rebellious anger. But not until my stubborn heart submitted to them did I obtain the authority to resist them. This cannot be understood intellectually. It must be experienced. Anyone who says he believes in God’s sovereignty and still cannot control his urge to be right has still not conquered the tyrant within. God put me under those tyrants to break me from always having to be right.

---

[1]gYAC&usg=AFQjCNGMhdm8u6KAHpcRugEvqAqt8f7n1g&sig2=5LEMyhnqWSdPaHybzbbscg&bvm=bv.80642063,d.eXY

[2] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0021_0_21428.html