Kingdom of God

Politics According to the Bible (4): A Biblical Worldview

/ davidsschrock / 1 Comment

[This is the fourth in a series of posts on Wayne Grudem’s Politics According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture].

Before moving forward in his investigation of “politics according the Bible,” Grudem spends a short chapter reviewing the basics tenets of the Christian Worldview.  To most thoughtful Christians, his six points will be familiar.  Nevertheless, it is helpful to see the worldview that the Bible gives us, so that in all ethical, legal, and political decisions we are working with a biblical framework and not one of our personal development.  Our politics must be informed by the Bible, not vice versa.

A BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW

(1) God Created Everything

Grudem refers to the explicit teaching of Genesis 1-2, Revelation 4:11, Psalm 19:1, and Romans 1:20, among others to assert the Biblical view that the God who made the world and everything in it, is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus.  While this view has been contested and even excluded from public education in America for decades, it is the clear biblical position.  Amalgamations of this view where Christian try to reconcile the Bible with evolution continue to be concocted (e.g. theistic evolution); however, such a marriage of faith and reason produces sterile offspring.  Scripture is clear: God made all things, and thus has creator rights over everything.  Biblically, man is not at liberty to govern apart from recognizing the creator.  Many attempts have been made to erect governments that deny deity, but God’s wisdom proves true, such disconnection from God will not sustain ethical living, and society suffers.

(2) The One True God Reveals Himself and His Moral Standards Clearly in the Bible

The God of creation is the God who reveals his character to his people.  In the Bible, God’s standard is seen in Genesis 2:17, when he warns Adam and Eve that disobedience results in death.  Likewise, as Grudem points out, God the creator is God the judge of all people.  He writes, “The moral standards that God reveals in the Bible are not simply moral standards for one particular church or one particular religion, but are the moral standards for which the one true God… will hold every single person accountable at the last judgment” (118).  To support his point, Grudem cites  1 Peter 4:4-5 and Acts 17:24, 30-31 which teach that the risen Christ has been given the scepter of God to rule and judge over all the earth (cf Psalm 2).

This truth impacts the way we think about politics in that the standard for any official in government is not the cultural norm or the majority view, it is the character of God and the truth of God’s Word.

(3) The Original Creation was ‘Very Good’

Not only is God’s character revealed in creation (cf. Rom 1:20) and in his word (Exodus 20:1-17), but in creation itself, the goodness of God is perceived.  In Genesis 1:31 God judges his world and declares the verdict: “It is very good.”  Moreover, God tells the man to cultivate and keep the garden and to extend its borders to fill the earth with its cultivated beauty.  Had Adam and Eve not sinned, the people of God would have proliferated, spreading the glory of God over the whole earth (cf. Hab 2:14), exercising dominion and subduing all things as they were created to do.  Thus, in a perfect world government would have existed to promote the general welfare of God’s people (82).  As we think about politics in our day, it is helpful to remember the enterprise is not intrinsically evil and anarchy and malevolent governors are a result of sin.

(4) Because Adam and Eve Sinned, There is Moral Evil (‘Sin’) in the Heart of Every Human Being

We live in a moral universe, where good and evil exist and compete.  This is true within the church, and it is true in government; and how one interprets the nature of humanity will determine how one does politics.  It is not too much to say that this singular point is the continental divide between liberals and conservatives; the former believes in the intrinsic goodness of man, while the latter recognizes the limitations and inherent evil in the heart of every human being.  Grudem writes, “This one idea, that human beings are viewed as sinful before the absolute moral standards of the one true God, has immense implications for numerous policy differences between Republicans and Democrats (as will be seen in the chapters that follow)” (119).

Thus, the Bible’s worldview concerning humanity, sin, and the evil of society, as well as the possibility for good, will significantly shape our view of politics. As Grudem points out

This biblical principle means that evil does not come merely from the influence of society on a person, and those who do evil are not merely victims of external influences that they have experienced. Certainly there are evil influences on people, and society should try to remove those influences where possible. Nevertheless, doing evil things is still a result of a person’s evil choices, and people therefore should be held accountable for the evil they do.

By contrast to this viewpoint, a secular perspective would tend to believe that human beings are basically good and therefore when they do wrong the primary reason be because something in society has harmed them and has caused them to act in wrong ways. Thus, some part of society will be mostly blamed for the wrong, and wrongdoer himself will more likely be viewed primarily as a “victim,” not a wrongdoer. This difference accounts for many political differences regarding responses to crime and to the threat of international terrorism (121).

How one understands the depravity of man effects the nature of the gospel message and also the nature of government.

(5) Because Adam and Eve Sinned, God Place a Curse on the Entire Natural World

Just as our view of humanity impacts the way we approach politics, so does our view of the entire world.  Understanding that the entire created realm–people, animals, and creation–are under God’s curse (cf. Gen 3:14-19) delimits the kind of improvements men are capable of making in this world (e.g. it urges caution when any leader promises utopian change).  Simultaneously, it recognizes that we living in a world filled with “thorns and thistles” will require that much of the governments work to promote the good, is to help citizens overcome the dangers and difficulties faced in our environment.  All the while, this kind of legislation cannot subject men to the creation, for man was created to rule the earth, not be ruled by it. This leads to Grudem’s sixth point.

(6) God Wants Human Beings to Develop the Earth’s Resources and to Use Them Wisely and Joyfully

Mankind was put on earth to cultivate it and to keep it.  Genesis 1:28 commands Adam and Eve to subdue, rule, and have dominion. This is often misunderstood and easily mishandled. Grudem explains, “these commands to subdue the earth and have dominion over it do not mean that we should use the earth in a wasteful or destructive way or intentionally treat animals with cruelty (Prov 12:10; cf. Deut 20:19-20; Matt 22:39)… We should use the resources of the earth wisely, as good stewards, not wastefully or abusively” (123).  Thus humanity is encouraged by Scripture to “beautiful homes, automobiles, airplanes, computers, and millions of other consumer goods” (123), and governments should aid in the process.

This kind of biblical mandate leads to discussions of the environment and economics, something Grudem will tackle in the ensuing chapters.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Though this chapter is brief, it is a helpful antiseptic to the views that subjugate humanity to the environment or that offer more good than can be effected through humanitarian efforts.  Though Grudem doesn’t spell it out here, the biblical worldview ultimately points us to a new age, with a new governor, and a new created order.  Only the Kingdom of Christ can satisfy all of our political longings.  Until his second advent, any political improvement is at best incomplete and temporary.  This should not deter us from working for the common good, but it should temper our utopian enthusiasm and/or our apocalyptic despair.

Despite all outward appearances, God is ruling over all the nations.  Whatever the state of the union, the state of the universe is in good hands (Psalm 115:3; 135:6).  God is using good and bad people, events, and governments to accomplish his intended purposes (Gen 50:20; Isa 46:9-11).  While we see brokeness in the world, God sees how all those pieces will be brought together in Christ (Eph 1:10); his blood will ultimately reconcile all things (Col 1:20).

We must remind ourselves of that if we are going to maintain a biblical worldview.  Otherwise, we will be tempted to put all our hopes in the next political election and candidate for change.  Political interest for the Christian is a “both-and’ kind of engagement.  We seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness (Matt 6:33) and we pray, vote, and speak in order to promote peaceful and quiet lives (1 Tim 2:1-4).

Still it must be asked:  Why do we promote such an environment?  Is it for us and for our children?  In part it is, but even more we pray and plead for justice from our governing officials so that the gospel may have freedom to deliver men and women from the dominion of darkness and bring them into the kingdom of the beloved Son (Col. 1:13).  To that we must endeavor relentlessly.

Soli Deo Gloria, dss

Book Review: The Kingdom of God

/ davidsschrock

Bright, John. The Kingdom of God: The Biblical Concept and Its Meaning For the Church.  Nashville: Abingdon,1953.

If you like Graeme Goldsworthy, you will like John Bright; and if you come to John Bright’s book, The Kingdom of God, already familiar with Goldsworthy’s According to Plan, you will recognize some similar elements.  Bright unites the entire Bible along the lines of the kingdom of God, which he defines in many places as the people of God under the rule of God.  (He does not make quite as explicit the place of God, as Goldsworthy does).  Nevertheless, the two books share some common elements, which should not be entirely surprising because of the Union Theological Seminary connection, where Bright taught and Goldsworthy studied.

In the The Kingdom of God, Bright traces the kingdom from its origins in Israel to its already, but not yet manifestation in the Church of Jesus Christ, and in so doing he has aimed to assist the “general reader of the Bible” (11) understand the continuous aspects of the Scriptures.  Wary of the History of Religion school and the hyper-typology of those like Wilhelm Vischer, Bright’s hope is to do justice to the texts of Scripture while showing how the Kingdom of God resides in them all, “in one way or another” (11).  In short, his goal in writing this book is to be faithful to the Bible, stimulating to the church, and helpful for biblical theology.  Without being overly congratulatory, I think he hits his mark.

The book is broken down into 9 chapters.  The first six are devoted to the OT, while the last three address the NT.  Of these nine, the final chapter actually becomes sermonic and makes biblical application for the contemporary church (circa 1950’s).

In the first chapter, Bright moves from the Exodus to the reign of David tracing Israel’s religion, Israel’s historical development, and the rise of kingship in Israel.  Instead of speculating about the royal themes inchoate in Genesis, Bright moves right to the Exodus and the birth of the Israelite nation.  He sets up the context of the Ancient Near East, and the ways in which God elected Israel and made covenant with them.  With rapid succession, Bright moves to the Davidic Covenant so that Genesis – 2 Samuel are covered in the first chapter of the book.

In chapters 2, Bright moves to the Davidic Kingship under God’s judgment.  He outlines the history of the day, retelling the works of the Assyrian empire and the threat they brought to Israel.  He spends much time in the book of Amos, following the argument of the prophet, who shows that all nations are under judgment and failed attempts at ethical living can only postpone the judgment of God for so long.  What is needed is a new covenant.  In this chapter, Bright asserts the distinction between Israel and the kingdom of God–they are not coextensive.  This is something he will belabor throughout his work, namely that not all Israel is Israel.

In chapters 3-5, Bright moves from the judgment of Israel to the Exile and back again.  Showing an extraordinary grasp of the history, each chapter begins by setting Israel in its geo-political context.  He explains the rise to power of foreign nations and what effect this has on Israel’s kingdom.  In this historical context, he exposits the theological message of Isaiah, Hosea, and Micah (ch. 3), and then Jeremiah and Ezekiel (ch. 4-5).  He highlights theme of “remnant” that develops in this historical context, and from a barrage of biblical texts shows how the hopes of Israel are moving forward.  Eschatological anticipation is growing along with a hope for a promised Messiah to save Israel.  Simultaneous with this messianic hope is the hope and desire for a new covenant.

Finishing the OT and moving into the Intertestamental period (i.e. Second Temple Judaism), Bright recounts Israel’s return to Jerusalem and the minimal realization of the eschatological promises.  In chapter 6, Bright once again distinguishes himself as an excellent historian by showing how two inter-locking trends developed in the corporate mindset of Israel in the centuries leading up to Christ.  First, an apocalyptic hope emerged, whereby Jews began to believe and anticipate YHWH’s fiery intervention to establish his kingdom once again in Israel.  This was coupled with a second trend in which Israelites devoted themselves to the preservation (and expansion) of the law and the keeping of Torah.  The former is reflected in Daniel, the latter can be seen developing in Ezra and Nehemiah.  Both of these are also seen in other apocryphal literature, and manifested in the various Jewish sects present in Jesus own day (i.e. Qumran, the zealots, the scribes and Pharisees).  Bright’s analysis is that these two separate themes, apocalypticism and devotion to the law, actually served to support one another–the devotion to God’s law was thought to invite God’s intervention.   Likewise, these dual ideologies served to protect the national identity of Israel in the face of Hellenism and other foreign influences. 

It was in this historical millieu that Israel’s long-awaited Messiah was born.  In chapter 7, Bright surveys the gospel accounts of Jesus coming and fulfillment of OT promises.  Chapter 8 then speaks of the birth of the church and the way in which God’s people relate to the OT community and the Messiah himself.  Bright conceives of the kingdom of God as being already but not yet, and provides a good explanation of the way in which the kingdom is transferred from the Old to New Covenant, though his Presbyterianism comes out in that within the church itself, like ancient Israel, there remains a spiritual remnant.  He interprets the field of Matthew 13:38 as the church, not the world.  Other than this, his explanation is helpful.  Again, his strong suit is his painstaking historical detail.

Finally, chapter 9 moves from the lecture hall to the pulpit.  Bright applies the biblical, historical theology of the kingdom of God to the church today.  Unashamedly, he applies much of the kingdom theology to current political events in his era.  Thus communism and the Soviet Union get much attention, but really the evils of Red Russia serve as a foil to show how the judgment of God is coming on all nations of all time, because only the kingdom of Jesus Christ will eternally stand.

In the end, his book is very helpful, especially in situating the kingdom of God in the historical contexts of the Old and New Testaments.  Bright makes constant reference of his scholastic mentor, biblical historian, William Albright.  Albright’s influence is evident, as each chapter is started with many pages of historical notes and annotations.  Bright is faithful to the Bible, showing only occasional moderate leanings (i.e. Second Isaiah, a late dating of Daniel), but his unified project affirms the authority, inspiration, and unity of the Bible.  Moreover, his writing is very readable and he often incredibly witty, using common vernacular to explain scholastic points.  One final criticism, is his theological understanding of the church.  He abstracts the kingdom of God in the New Testament to be an spiritual, invisible community, much like the spiritual remnant of the Old Testament.  I suppose this is better than equating the church with the kingdom, but I believe George E. Ladd’s work on the church-kingdom relationship, where the church serves as visible manifestations of the kingdom, kingdom outposts, if you will, is a better conception.

All said, Bright’s work The Kingdom of God: The Biblical Concept and Its Meaning For the Church is an excellent and enriching read, one that I highly recommend.  While other books on biblical theology do well to recapture the covenantal and literary structures of the Bible, you would be hard pressed to find another book that gives such rigorous attention to the historical details of the Bible.  At the same time, Bright’s emphasis on the later history of the kingdom of Israel during the time of the prophets stands out as an excellent treatment of that material. 

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

The Hourglass of Biblical History

/ davidsschrock

In his discussion of biblical history and the relationship between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament Church, John Bright correctly observes:

Through the Old Testament the reader senses that the focus has been continually narrowed.  It begins with the broad canvas of creation and tells of the dealings of God with the whole race of mankind (Gen. 1-11); then it narrows to the people Israel whom God had called to be the special servants of his purpose; then still further to the search for a pure Remnant within Israel fit to be vessels of the divine intention.  At the center of the Bible’s drama the focus has narrowed to one man: the Messiah, Christ. [Consider Matthew 1:1-17].  But from Christ the focus again turns outward–first to the new Israel which is his Church and then through that Church, into the entire world.  The Church is called to take up–[i.e. continue and/or fulfill, more than replace]— the destiny of the true Israel, Servant Israel, and become the missionary people of the Kingdom of God (John Bright, The Kingdom of God [Nashville: Abingdon, 1953], 232-33).

Bright’s description shapes biblical history into an hourglass with Jesus Christ at the center.  Jesus’ central place in the biblical storyline makes him the narrow and necessary passage through which all the promises of the Old Testament must come to the post-Pentecost people of God.  Well said JB.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

John Bright on Biblical Intertextuality

/ davidsschrock

John Bright, in his book The Kingdom of God, offers a very historically-enriching and theologically-astute presentation of the kingdom which unifies the entire Bible.  I have benefitted much from reading it, especially in the way that he looks at the people under God’s rule as a unified and yet developing body of believers.  In this outline, he is much like Graeme Goldsworthy, who emphasizes God’s people, under God’s rule, in God’s place, but Bright’s pages are more comprehensive in scope, being filled with copious details about the kings of Israel, the dynasties of foreign nations, and the who’s, the when’s, and the how’s of Israel’s history. (It is noteworthy that Goldsworthy references Bright’s work at the end of many chapters in his book According to Plan). 

In The Kingdom of God, there are many helpful subjects, but I found this description of the Bible’s intertextuality most helpful.   He writes,

The Old Testament is, therefore, as it were, an incomplete book.  It is a story whose Author has not yet written the ending; it is a signpost pointing down a road whose destination–and surely its destination is a city, the City of God (Heb. 11:10, 16)–lies out of sight around many a bend.  [The OT] is a noble building indeed–but it lack a roof!

That roof, by its own affirmation, the New Testament supplies: in announcing in Christ the fulfillment of the hope of Israel it stands as the completion of the Old Testament.  But–and this must not be forgotten–to say that is at the same time to say that it cannot be understood to itself alone apart from the Old Testament.  If the Old Testament be a building without a roof, the New Testament alone may be very like a roof without a building–and that is a structure very hard to comprehend and very hard to hold up!  It is a structure that may be put to all sorts of uses and may shelter all sorts of things, but it is a structure which may be easily be knocked down.  By this we certainly do not mean to say the New Testament is merely an appendage of the Old, or to deny Christ is himself the cornerstone of a mighty building (1 Cor. 3:11; 1 Pet. 2:4-7), but only to insist that it is impossible to set the New Testament apart and to construct a purely New Testament religion without regard to the faith of Israel.

The New Testament rests on and is rooted in the Old.  To ignore this fact is a serious error in method, and one that is bound to lead to a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bible message.  he who commits it has disregarded the central affirmation of the New Testament gospel itself, namely Christ had come to make actual what the Old Testament hoped for, not to destroy it and replace it with a new and better faith (John Bright, The Kingdom of God [Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1953]).

May we never stop marveling at the wisdom and beauty of God’s holy Word.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

The Goal of Marriage is the Kingdom of God

/ davidsschrock

THE PURSUIT OF PLEASURE IN THE PLEASURE OF ANOTHER

 

Here is a point to ponder.

Darby Livingston, pastor of Come As You Are Fellowship in Union City, OH, comments on 1 Corinthians 7:29, in his book The Pursuit of Pleasure in the Pleasure of Another: A Christian Hedonist Guide to a Happy Marriage (if you are not familiar with the term Christian Hedonism, coined by John Piper, see Pastor John’s explanation here).  Pastor Livingston writes:

 

 

“From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none”  (1 Cor. 7:29)  What does that mean?  Are we supposed to leave our spouses?  NO! [Capital letters mine]… We’re just supposed to be gospel-centered whether single or married.  The gospel isn’t to be used to build better marriages, though sermons and books abound on that topic.  Just the opposite is true.  Marriage is to be used to expand the Kingdom of God through the gospel.  In saying that men with wives should live as though they had none, Paul is saying that the gospel has invaded this evil world and has flipped past priorities on their heads.  Our priority before believing the gospel may have been to build a comfortable little life with our spouse and pray we live long enough to enjoy the fruit of our labor [Ecclesiastes 9:9 does say as much].  Our priority since believing the gospel must be to use every temporal blessing, including marriage, as the means of advancing God’s Kingdom on earth (Darby Livingston, The Pursuit of Pleasure in the Pursuit of Another [USA: Xulon Press, 2007], 124).

In John Piper-esque fashion, Pastor Livingston challenges comfortable Christian marriages, to count the cost, pick up the cross, and carry the gospel.  This is not optional, this is essential.  Overstating his case, Livingston says that “the gospel isn’t to be used to build better marriages.”  Clearly this is not true in and of itself.  The gospel of Jesus Christ does build better marriages.  However, in context his point is dead on!  Good marriages are not the final goal.  The gospel is!  And marriages are to orient themselves around this reality.  As Jesus says with similar hyperbole, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26).  In stating his case this way, Pastor Livingston is simply paraphrasing the words of our Lord, and challenging Christian couples to live lives of discipleship.  

Though, I have only read a few chapters of Livingston’s book, I commend it to you as a book that will help you see the glory of God in your marriage and to live radically for the kingdom of God.  If you are a Christian Hedonist, this book is for you; if you are not yet a Christian Hedonist, I would encourage you all the more to check it out.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss