Monarchy and Judicial Law

AV1611 · #1 (**permalink**) 02-06-2008, 05:59 AM

Was Monarchy a part of the Judicial Law of Moses which discontinued with the end of the Theocracy?

Daniel Ritchie · #2 (**permalink**) 02-06-2008, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Was Monarchy a part of the Judicial Law of Moses which discontinued with the end of the Theocracy?

The Davidic Monarchy was typical of the kingship of Christ, and so there is now no basis for the monarchical form of civil government. The Biblical model is constitutional republicanism (Exodus 18). Israel's desire to have a king was a sign of its rejection of God (1 Sam. 8 - read this passage very carefully).

Ivanhoe · #3 (**permalink**) 02-06-2008, 07:10 AM

I am a Monarchist. Monarchy qua monarchy existed before the judicial law, if largely in a totalitarian form. When Christianity met Monarchy, the flowering of a great civilization occured.

Kevin · #4 (**permalink**) 02-06-2008, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

I am a Monarchist. Monarchy qua monarchy existed before the judicial law, if largely in a totalitarian form. When Christianity met Monarchy, the flowering of a great civilization occured.

I think that a case can be made that Monarchy is a creation ordinance.

Coram Deo · #5 (**permalink**) 02-06-2008, 12:02 PM

I have gone back and forth over Monarchy years ago and even Now....

So can you elaborate how monarchy can be made a creation ordinance?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

I am a Monarchist. Monarchy qua monarchy existed before the judicial law, if largely in a totalitarian form. When Christianity met Monarchy, the flowering of a great civilization occured.

I think that a case can be made that Monarchy is a creation ordinance.

Daniel Ritchie · #6 (**permalink**) 02-06-2008, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Was Monarchy a part of the Judicial Law of Moses which discontinued with the end of the Theocracy?

For more on this issue see chapter 6 of my forthcoming book A Conquered Kingdom which deals with "The Biblical Form of Civil Government".

Kevin · #7 (**permalink**) 02-07-2008, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thunaer

I have gone back and forth over Monarchy years ago and even Now....

So can you elaborate how monarchy can be made a creation ordinance?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

I am a Monarchist. Monarchy qua monarchy existed before the judicial law, if largely in a totalitarian form. When Christianity met Monarchy, the flowering of a great civilization occured.

I think that a case can be made that Monarchy is a creation ordinance.

What was the nature of the "civil government" that Adam exercised in the (pre-fall) garden? Was he elected? Did he rely on the delegated consent of the governed? Or did he rule by "jus divinum"?

Was he a Prime Minister, a President, or a King?

Coram Deo · #8 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 01:34 PM

Wasn't he a Patriarch?

How can one prove that Monarchy is a creation ordinance?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

Quote:

Originally Posted by thunaer

I have gone back and forth over Monarchy years ago and even Now....

So can you elaborate how monarchy can be made a creation ordinance?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

I think that a case can be made that Monarchy is a creation ordinance.

What was the nature of the "civil government" that Adam exercised in the (pre-fall) garden? Was he elected? Did he rely on the delegated consent of the governed? Or did he rule by "jus divinum"?

Was he a Prime Minister, a President, or a King?

VirginiaHuguenot · #9 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 01:42 PM

John Calvin, Institutes, 4.20.8:

Quote:

8. The diversity of forms of government

And certainly it were a very idle occupation for private men to discuss what would be the best form of polity in the place where they live, seeing these deliberations cannot have any influence in determining any public matter. Then the thing itself could not be defined absolutely without rashness, since the nature of the discussion depends on circumstances. And if you compare the different states with each other, without regard to circumstances, it is not easy to determine which of these has the advantage in point of utility; so equal are the terms on which they meet. Monarchy is prone to tyranny. In an aristocracy, again, the tendency is not less to the faction of a few, while in popular ascendancy there is the strongest tendency to sedition. When these three forms of government, of which philosophers treat, are considered in themselves, I, for my part, am far from denying that the form which greatly surpasses the others is aristocracy, either pure or modified by popular government, not indeed in itself, but because it very rarely happens that kings so rule themselves as never to dissent from what is just and right, or are possessed of so much acuteness and prudence as always to see correctly. Owing, therefore, to the vices or defects of men, it is safer and more tolerable when several bear rule, that they may thus mutually assist, instruct, and admonish each other, and should any one be disposed to go too far, the others are censors and masters to curb his excess. This has already been proved by experience, and confirmed also by the authority of the Lord himself, when he established an aristocracy bordering on popular government among the Israelites, keeping them under that as the best form, until he exhibited an image of the Messiah in David. And as I willingly admit that there is no kind of government happier than where liberty is framed with becoming moderation, and duly constituted so as to be durable, so I deem those very happy who are permitted to enjoy that form, and I admit that they do nothing at variance with their duty when they strenuously and constantly labour to preserve and maintain it. Nay, even magistrates ought to do their utmost to prevent the liberty, of which they have been appointed guardians from being impaired, far less violated. If in this they are sluggish or little careful, they are perfidious traitors to their office and their country.

But should those to whom the Lord has assigned one form of government, take it upon them anxiously to long for a change, the wish would not only be foolish and superfluous, but very pernicious. If you fix your eyes not on one state merely, but look around the world, or at least direct your view to regions widely separated from each other, you will perceive that divine Providence has not, without good cause, arranged that different countries should be governed by different forms of polity. For as only elements of unequal temperature adhere together so in different regions a similar inequality in the form of government is best. All this, however, is said unnecessarily to those to whom the will of God is a sufficient reason. For if it has pleased him to appoint kings over kingdoms and senates or burgomasters over free states, whatever be the form which he has appointed in the places in which we live, our duty is to obey and submit.

Coram Deo · #10 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 01:54 PM

From what I understand in the Old Testament there were Two Great Sanhedrin's or Court Systems and Smaller Local Sanhedrin's of the land.. Of the two Great Sanhedrin's one was Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin or what we call today a Presbytery (Synod Level) which took care of all the church affairs and a Secular Great Sanhedrin or what we would call similar to Congress which took care of all the nation affairs. I say Similar to Congress because I am not sure if our set up is more biblical or a House of Lords is more biblical modal on how the office is filled...

Now the question remains, Is there a King besides the High King (Christ) over the Nation, a President similar to a Moderator of a Presbytery, or No higher Office then the Great Sanhedrin.

Yes there were Kings over the Great Sanhedrins in the Old Testament but not at all times.. At other Times there were Prophets over the Great Sanhedrin's who were picked directly by God and Patriarchs who were chosen by God.. Which I suppose the case could be made they were similar to Office of Kings but a couple of questions remain...

1. If God chose those men to rule over the nation, how do we do that today with Kings since God does not directly by voice speak to us through Prophets or the Voice of God directly?

2. If a Higher office exist then the Great Sanhedrin of the Land would not the case also be made for a higher office in the church like a Bishop preceding over the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin (Presbytery)?

It is number 2 which has kept me from fulling endorsing an Office of King. If I can clear that up, then I would have really no problem with the Office of King...

Then the Issue of Our Type of Congress versus House of Lord's still need to be solved in my mind regarding how a proper Secular Great Sanhedrin of the Land is set up....

moral necessity · #11 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 02:49 PM

Is Exodus 18 a teaching passage or a historical passage?, prescriptive or descriptive? That must always be considered.

Coram Deo · #12 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 03:32 PM

George Gillespie, Westminster Divine took it as an teaching passage....

Quote:

Originally Posted by moral necessity

Is Exodus 18 a teaching passage or a historical passage?, prescriptive or descriptive? That must always be considered.

Coram Deo · #13 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 03:41 PM

Here is a Article by Dr. Richard Bacon on The Old Testament Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin.

Which is on Exodus 24, let me see if I can also find some text on Exodus 18 and the Secular Sanhedrin....

Daniel Ritchie · #14 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 04:25 PM

While there is an element of truth in that quote - i.e. its idle to spend too much time discussing something that cannot be changed in the near future - nonetheless it shows us the rationalistic element within Calvin's thinking, preferring human reason over divine revelation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

John Calvin, Institutes, 4.20.8:

Quote:

8. The diversity of forms of government

And certainly it were a very idle occupation for private men to discuss what would be the best form of polity in the place where they live, seeing these deliberations cannot have any influence in determining any public matter. Then the thing itself could not be defined absolutely without rashness, since the nature of the discussion depends on circumstances. And if you compare the different states with each other, without regard to circumstances, it is not easy to determine which of these has the advantage in point of utility; so equal are the terms on which they meet. Monarchy is prone to tyranny. In an aristocracy, again, the tendency is not less to the faction of a few, while in popular ascendancy there is the strongest tendency to sedition. When these three forms of government, of which philosophers treat, are considered in themselves, I, for my part, am far from denying that the form which greatly surpasses the others is aristocracy, either pure or modified by popular government, not indeed in itself, but because it very rarely happens that kings so rule themselves as never to dissent from what is just and right, or are possessed of so much acuteness and prudence as always to see correctly. Owing, therefore, to the vices or defects of men, it is safer and more tolerable when several bear rule, that they may thus mutually assist, instruct, and admonish each other, and should any one be disposed to go too far, the others are censors and masters to curb his excess. This has already been proved by experience, and confirmed also by the authority of the Lord himself, when he established an aristocracy bordering on popular government among the Israelites, keeping them under that as the best form, until he exhibited an image of the Messiah in David. And as I willingly admit that there is no kind of government happier than where liberty is framed with becoming moderation, and duly constituted so as to be durable, so I deem those very happy who are permitted to enjoy that form, and I admit that they do nothing at variance with their duty when they strenuously and constantly labour to preserve and maintain it. Nay, even magistrates ought to do their utmost to prevent the liberty, of which they have been appointed guardians from being impaired, far less violated. If in this they are sluggish or little careful, they are perfidious traitors to their office and their country.

But should those to whom the Lord has assigned one form of government, take it upon them anxiously to long for a change, the wish would not only be foolish and superfluous, but very pernicious. If you fix your eyes not on one state merely, but look around the world, or at least direct your view to regions widely separated from each other, you will perceive that divine Providence has not, without good cause, arranged that different countries should be governed by different forms of polity. For as only elements of unequal temperature adhere together so in different regions a similar inequality in the form of government is best. All this, however, is said unnecessarily to those to whom the will of God is a sufficient reason. For if it has pleased him to appoint kings over kingdoms and senates or burgomasters over free states, whatever be the form which he has appointed in the places in which we live, our duty is to obey and submit.

DMcFadden · #15 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

I am a Monarchist. Monarchy qua monarchy existed before the judicial law, if largely in a totalitarian form. When Christianity met Monarchy, the flowering of a great civilization occured.

Jacob, you really are a man born out of time. You sound like someone who would have made a great hero in Elizabeth's England. I could see you defeating the Spanish Armada almost single-handedly. And, you've got the correct eschatology to boot!

Ivanhoe · #16 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

I am a Monarchist. Monarchy qua monarchy existed before the judicial law, if largely in a totalitarian form. When Christianity met Monarchy, the flowering of a great civilization occured.

Jacob, you really are a man born out of time. You sound like someone who would have made a great hero in Elizabeth's England. I could see you defeating the Spanish Armada almost single-handedly. And, you've got the correct eschatology to boot!

Thank you, but I am premil. I would rather be running in the forests of Germany, clad in furs, defending my volk against the Empire.

DMcFadden · #17 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Thank you, but I am premil. I would rather be running in the forests of Germany, clad in furs, defending my volk against the Empire.

If know that you are premil (as am I). That was my point.

As to "defending the volk," myself being 7/8 German, keep defending us volk. You can do it "clad in furs," in English armor, or with some of that fancy gung fu martial arts stuff. In fact, since you are packing heat, bring that too. I need all the defense you can provide.

Coram Deo · #18 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 05:43 PM

Ah, I too must join the club since I am Volk with 95% German Blood and Historical Premillennial.. Would love to be running the forest of Germany defending the Volk....

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Thank you, but I am premil. I would rather be running in the forests of Germany, clad in furs, defending my volk against the Empire.

If know that you are premil (as am I). That was my point.

As to "defending the volk," myself being 7/8 German, keep defending us volk. You can do it "clad in furs," in English armor, or with some of that fancy gung fu martial arts stuff. In fact, since you are packing heat, bring that too. I need all the defense you can provide.

Ivanhoe · #19 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 06:15 PM

I am actually not German. But I have fallen in love with German history and culture. one set of grandparents hailed from Italy (mas vino, eh?). The other from Scotland.

JohnOwen007 · #20 (**permalink**) 02-11-2008, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Was Monarchy a part of the Judicial Law of Moses which discontinued with the end of the Theocracy?

Yes! Christ is now the monarch over all the world. That's what "Christ", "Messiah", and "Son of David" mean--King. As Jesus says of himself Matt. 28:18 "All authority in heaven and on earth have been given to me". Christ is king!

Hence, any earthly political rule is to be conceived as under the rule of Christ. Rom. 13:1-5 tells us that there is a place for the state; it is particularly authorised (under Christ) for the action of judgment (bringing justice).

The most profound rendition of this is found in Oliver O'Donovan's two works, The Desire of the Nations (a political theology) and The Ways of Judgement (a political ethics). These are by far and away the most sophisticated and cogent account of Christian political thought in recent years.

Ivanhoe · #21 (**permalink**) 02-11-2008, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Was Monarchy a part of the Judicial Law of Moses which discontinued with the end of the Theocracy?

Yes! Christ is now the monarch over all the world. That's what "Christ", "Messiah", and "Son of David" mean--King. As Jesus says of himself Matt. 28:18 "All authority in heaven and on earth have been given to me". Christ is king!

Hence, any earthly political rule is to be conceived as under the rule of Christ. Rom. 13:1-5 tells us that there is a place for the state; it is particularly authorised (under Christ) for the action of judgment (bringing justice).

The most profound rendition of this is found in Oliver O'Donovan's two works, The Desire of the Nations (a political theology) and The Ways of Judgement (a political ethics). These are by far and away the most sophisticated and cogent account of Christian political thought in recent years.

I spent last year studying Oliver O'Donovan. He has few equals on the level of erudition.

Daniel Ritchie · #22 (**permalink**) 02-11-2008, 12:46 PM

Oliver O'Donovan co-edited a great sourcebook which had loads of quotes from Martin Luther and John Know, however, its name escapes me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Was Monarchy a part of the Judicial Law of Moses which discontinued with the end of the Theocracy?

Yes! Christ is now the monarch over all the world. That's what "Christ", "Messiah", and "Son of David" mean--King. As Jesus says of himself Matt. 28:18 "All authority in heaven and on earth have been given to me". Christ is king!

Hence, any earthly political rule is to be conceived as under the rule of Christ. Rom. 13:1-5 tells us that there is a place for the state; it is particularly authorised (under Christ) for the action of judgment (bringing justice).

The most profound rendition of this is found in Oliver O'Donovan's two works, The Desire of the Nations (a political theology) and The Ways of Judgement (a political ethics). These are by far and away the most sophisticated and cogent account of Christian political thought in recent years.