David VanDrunen

A Bold Claim
David VanDrunen

I haven’t had the chance to join this discussion yet. Let me make a contribution by making the bold claim that, in a certain and important sense, the first coming of Christ and his being given authority over all things effected no change to civil life. Of course there are other senses in which it does make a great deal of different, such as the assured hope that believers now possess of an eschatological kingdom and the sanctifying power of the Spirit poured out in the last days (which, in theory, should mean that Christians will fulfill their civil duties, whatever they happen to be, more wisely and righteously). But I would suggest that as far as the nature and role of civil government and the Christian’s attitude towards it, the work of Christ’s first coming has meant simply the abrogation of the Israelite theocracy and a return to the days of Noah, Abraham, and the Babylonian exile for God’s people as far as civil affairs go.

The Son of God, as agent of creation/providence, has always ruled the nations. Following his exaltation he rules the nations as the incarnate, resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. But he does not rule the nations redemptively. He clearly rules the church as its redeemer, but I have never seen a convincing argument that he rules the nations as their redeemer. He rules the nations as the Lord of providence, bending the course of history for his own purposes, chief among them the advance of church and the evangelizing of his elect. Eph. 1:22 is useful here for my position too.

The purpose of civil government as discussed in the Old Testament (looking at non-Mosaic theocratic contexts, for numerous reasons) is to avenge great wrong-doing by the power of the sword (e.g., Gen 4:15; 9:6) and, more generally, to provide a measure of peace and prosperity in the world (e.g., Jer 29:7). The New Testament provides nothing remotely resembling a political (or other social/civil/cultural) program, but what it does say echoes the OT teaching very closely. It’s still about avenging wrong-doing by the power of the sword (Rom 13:1-7) and providing a measure of peace and prosperity in the world (e.g., 1 Tim 2:2). Nowhere is there any command for Christians to seek a Christianized state or other social institutions, but they are commanded to look to the state for those same basic functions that the (non-theocratic) state was always supposed to provide.

A powerful consideration for me is this basic fact that the state in the NT era is still said to bear the sword and avenge wrongdoing. Hasn’t Christ said clearly that his kingdom is a peaceful kingdom and that the agents as such are not to bear the sword nor seek vengeance (e.g., Rom 12:19-20; 2 Cor 10:3-4; Matt. 5:38-42)? If Christ is ruling the nations as their redeemer and making them part of his redemptive kingdom, then why aren’t we all pacifists in our civil life? Christ rules the nations, but does so as he did as the eternal Son of God before his first coming, as the agent of creation/providence who directs all things for his manifold purposes.

Since Rutherford’s name has been brought up, here are a couple of interesting quotations from his Divine Right of Church-Government and Excommunication: “Two powers so different as spiritual and temporal: 2. As power carnal of this world, and spiritual not of this world: And 3. Both immediately subject, the one to God the creator, the other to Christ the Redeemer and Head of the Church….” (510) “Now this is the magistrate’s kingdom…that the power that bears the sword, which is the very essence of the magistrate’s office as magistrate as a magistrate, is not a part of his kingdom, for his kingdom is of another world, and spiritual; but the magistrate’s power is of this world, and uses worldly weapons, as the sword. Then it is evident that the magistrate as the magistrate, 1. Is not subordinate to Christ as mediator and head of the church.” (511)

Date: Jun 9th, 2006 · Comments RSS · Tags: Corporate Confession