 |
| (Above: a depiction of Pontious Pilate) It is because earthly kingdoms must submit to God's kingdom that Pilate sinned in his treatment of Jesus. On the other hand, if God's kingdom has nothing to do with this world, then earthly kingdoms would have no moral responsibility before God, and therefore Pilate would not have sinned. |
Excerpt from God is Just: A Defense of the Old Testament Civil Laws, with an additional argument
[Note: The phrase "kingdom of God" can have different meanings, depending on the context. For a thorough treatment of the doctrine of God's kingdom, see The Kingdom of God by Brian Schwertley]
There are those who believe that Christ’s statement “My kingdom is not of this world” (Jn. 18:36b) means that Christ’s kingdom is narrowly confined to such things as heaven, the individual, and/or the church; as such Christ’s kingdom has nothing to do with kingdoms in this world. But this view has several problems.
First, there is
no reason to insist “of this world” means “nothing to do with the world.” Christ’s disciples are in the world but “are
not of the world” (Jn. 15:19b). Thus “of
the world” in John 15 does not exclude Christ’s disciples from being involved
with the world. Neither does it mean
they are not to work, by God’s grace, to transform the world—and in fact, the
Great Commission requires that Christ’s disciples attempt to do this very thing
(Matt. 28:18-20).
Second,
while Christ’s kingdom is not of this
world, it is over it: “The
LORD has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all” (Ps. 103:19) (emphasis
mine). Christ thus is King over the world (1 Tim. 6:15 ; cf. Eph. 1:20 -22).
The same Christ who
told Pilate “My kingdom is not of this world” (Jn. 18:36b) also told
Pilate “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you
from above” (Jn. 19:11b). The kingdom of men is subordinate to the kingdom
of God
“The sentence is by
the decree of the watchers, the decision by the word of the holy ones, to the
end that the living may know that the Most High rules the kingdom of
men and gives it to whom he will and sets over it the lowliest of men” (Dan.
4:17).
 |
| The Lord's Prayer teaches us to desire that all men on earth--which includes civil rulers--acknowledge and submit to God's kingdom. |
Third,
“of this world” has to do with a source of power. “Christ’s kingdom does not derive its origin
from the world”[1]—so
Christ’s kingdom is not of the world
in the sense that it is not from the
world. In fact the very verse that says
“My kingdom is not of this world” goes on to say that very thing—“my kingdom is
not from the world” (Jn. 18:36 d). “[O]n the contrary, His kingdom has been
given to Him by His Father (Dan. 7:14 ),”[2]
and therefore, God has everything to
do with civil government.
Fourth,
John 18:36 also reads, “If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would
have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews.” Some interpret this as meaning rulers can not
use the sword to enforce God’s civil laws.
But we must reject this from the outset, since rulers are required to
use the sword to punish evildoers in accordance with God’s requirements (Rom.
It is true that Christ’s servants “do not ‘fight’
in order to establish His kingdom, or indeed to spread His kingdom on the
earth.”[3] Christ’s kingdom advances “by the Holy Spirit
regenerating sinners as the gospel is proclaimed: ‘“Not by might nor by power,
but by My Spirit” says the Lord of hosts’ (Zech. 4:6).”[4] “This however, does not mean that the state
is not to protect the kingdom of Christ
Let us note the reason Jesus gives for saying
that His servants would fight if His kingdom was of this world: “If my kingdom
were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews” (emphasis mine).
There is nothing about this reason that opposes enforcement of biblical civil
law, since enforcement of biblical civil law and preventing Jesus from being
delivered over to the Jews are two different concepts entirely. In other words,
the use of the sword by Jesus’ servants to prevent Jesus from being delivered
to his enemies and the use the sword by the state to enforce God’s justice are
not the same.
Perhaps the reason Christ connects an earthly
kingdom with His servants fighting to prevent Him from being delivered to the
Jews is that if He was a mere earthly king, and his enemies destroyed him, his
kingdom would cease to exist. The only recourse would be for his servants to fight,
to protect both their king and his kingdom. But Christ is no mere earthly king;
as God, He rules over all. His deliverance to the Jews was part of God’s
sovereign plan, and thus Christ’s enemies could do no harm to His kingdom.
Thus, there was no need for Christ’s servants to fight to prevent Him from
being delivered to the Jews.
We must add that had Christ’s disciples prevented
His crucifixion with an armed revolt, there would have been no basis for the church-aspect
of the kingdom to advance at all, since such kingdom advancement depends on
Christ’s saving work.
Fifth, those
who consistently press the idea that Christians should never have anything to
do with the sword must be pacifists in every conceivable situation. This would absurdly mean there is no moral
basis for Christians to be involved with civil government, just warfare,
self-defense, and defending others.
Sixth, and finally, let us not forget the Lord's Prayer, which mentions “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven" (Matt. 6:9b-10). Christians are thus to desire to see all men on earth—which includes civil rulers—acknowledge and submit to the Kingdom of God. Thus to hold that Christ’s kingdom has nothing to do with kingdoms in this world is to deny the Lord's Prayer itself.
part of the "anti-theonomy objections" series
[5] Ibid. On the phrase “my servants would have been
fighting,” John Calvin writes: “He [Jesus] proves that he did not aim at
an earthly kingdom, because no one moves, no one takes arms in his support; for
if a private individual lay claim to royal authority, he must gain power by
means of seditious men. Nothing of this kind is seen in Christ; and, therefore,
it follows that he is not an earthly king.
“But here a question arises,
Is it not lawful to defend the kingdom of Christ kingdom of Christ kingdom of Christ kingdom of Christ kingdom of Christ
No comments:
Post a Comment