Is there such a thing as a Christian Nation?

[RamistThomist]

Now that the civil state of Israel is over and done with forever is it accurate to labels nations as "Christian" or not?

Without reading all the other posts here is my . The only Christian nation is the church and there is an antithesis between them and the unregenerate.



.

And reading the other posts would show that the statements to the affirmative, particularly those of Rev. Winzer, that the reality of the church does not rule out geopolitical entities that could with all good faith call themselves "Christian."

 

[MW]

Another simple observation -- people are arguing against the possibility of a Christian nation by confining the adjective "Christian" to the church. Are you sure you want to conclude that the church is the only entity that can be called "Christian" in the world. Is the Puritanboard Christian? Are there Christian publishing houses, Christian bookshops, Christian schools, Christian charities, Christian families, etc.? If so, then there can be no principled objection to applying the adjective "Christian" to a nation.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Another simple observation -- people are arguing against the possibility of a Christian nation by confining the adjective "Christian" to the church. Are you sure you want to conclude that the church is the only entity that can be called "Christian" in the world. Is the Puritanboard Christian? Are there Christian publishing houses, Christian bookshops, Christian schools, Christian charities, Christian families, etc.? If so, then there can be no principled objection to applying the adjective "Christian" to a nation.

...Christian Australians, etc...?

 

[Christusregnat]

Now that the civil state of Israel is over and done with forever is it accurate to labels nations as "Christian" or not?

Also, the whole "Christendom" concept... is it Biblical?

No.

Hebrews 13:14 "For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come."

But if we did the only one I want to be a part of is a Cromwellian state that gives me the power to take the turkey out of your oven on Christmas day.

This is an interesting thought; no Christendom. WOW, how far the church has fallen.

First, in Hebrews 13:14 the same language is used of the saints of the Old Covenant who had no "continuing city" (Hebrews 11:10). And yet, Abraham was the patriarch of a theocracy, and is held up as an example to us.

Did Moses look for a continuing city? If you answered yes, then that is what we call dispensationalism. If you answered no, then you are Reformed.

Now, if Moses was in the same case as us, was it wrong to have a holy nation? Was it wrong for Jehovah to be King of kings and LORD of lords? Was it wrong for the kingdoms of the world to become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ?

If you don't believe in Christendom, then I believe you may be out of accord with the Confession:

"III. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God."

The Reformed faith is the restoration, not the abolition of Christendom. Leonard Verduin, and other anabaptist fanatics aside, all nations are to be Christian, and will one day be so. Alterations to this portion of the WCF do not mean that we've gained ground; they merely prove how much ground we've lost.

Cheers,

 

[Christusregnat]

William,

You said:

"Without reading all the other posts here is my . The only Christian nation is the church and there is an antithesis between them and the unregenerate."

William, this is the typical Anabaptist / anti-nomian mode of thinking, but it really has no root in the Scriptures. Because the Anabaptist assumes the "inferiority" (express or implied) of the Old Testament, he, of necessity, must deny every form of theocracy, and affirm pluralism at every level (see Leonard Verduin's "The Reformers and their Stepchildren" for more detail on the consistent Anabaptist position).

What if I were able to quote from the prophets and show you that heathen nations, after the coming of Christ, would obey His laws? What if I showed you that this coming Messiah would be the Ruler of all Civil Rulers? What if I showed you in the prophets that all magistrates are called Deacons and servants of Jesus Christ? Oh wait, that's in the New Testament! Shux! I gave away my hand.

Anywho, here's a sampling of the riches of Scripture on why all nations MUST BE, and one day WILL BE Christian:

Isaiah 2:2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Isaiah 19:18 In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction. 19 In that day shall there be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the LORD...24 In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land: 25 Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.

Romans 13:4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

A few notes, when Christ comes, the theocracy doesn't end; it's just the beginning. Egypt and Assyria are included, and then, at the end, Israel is recalled with the Gentiles (see Romans 11 for more detail).

Christ commanded that all of the worlds nations be made His disciples, and that they learn everything that He has commanded. He is given the title of "King of kings". Paul takes up this theme by calling Caesar (who thought himself lord and god over all) a mere deacon (minister or servant) of Christ.

This is the failure of the Anabaptist socio-political philosophy: it cuts the guts out of Christendom, and asks the barbarians to take up their rightful place as our "unregenerate" rulers. The Spirit of God, however, says "Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him." All kings and judges are to fear Christ; to be instructed by His laws, to worship Him, and be blessed. This is not the us vs. them dichotomy of anti-nomianism, but it is biblical Christianity.

Cheers,

 

[RamistThomist]

For those who disagree with Christendom, it is only fair that you read the finest expression of Christendom: Oliver O'Donovan's The Desire of the Nations. O'Donovan is arguably the top evangelical ethicist living today.
Amazon.com: The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theology: Oliver O'Donovan: Books

 

[Christusregnat]

Thanks Jacob!

By the by, that doesn't look like your "public profile" picture; is it?

Cheers,

Adam

 

[RamistThomist]

Thanks Jacob!

By the by, that doesn't look like your "public profile" picture; is it?

Cheers,

Adam

That's a pic of Ray Stevens. Not me.

 

[RamistThomist]

Some more thoughts:

Intestingly,
Outside the Reformed world, almost all readers of Augustine's City of God see Augustine advocating, if cautiously, the triumph of the Church over culture. But they placed this triumph in history. Us modern Reformed folk spiritualize it and place the triumph in "heaven."

Anyway, if the church stays faithful--which God promised us it will on some level (Mt. 16:18ff)
And if civil society continues on its suicidal path (which the West is)
And sin and stupidity are necessarily connected (see Van Til's critiques)
It follows (1) that long-term cultural and political stupidity cannot triumph.
And the church is left-standing when the rubble clears,
It follows (2) that there is a Christendom.

I am not saying this because I am some meanie theonomist who desperately wants a Christendom. I say this because looking at the suicidal path we are on, and the advance in missionary work, I don't see how, whether we like it or not, there can not be a Christendom.

 

[Pergamum]

Now that the civil state of Israel is over and done with forever is it accurate to labels nations as "Christian" or not?

Also, the whole "Christendom" concept... is it Biblical?

No.

Hebrews 13:14 "For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come."

But if we did the only one I want to be a part of is a Cromwellian state that gives me the power to take the turkey out of your oven on Christmas day.

This is an interesting thought; no Christendom. WOW, how far the church has fallen.

First, in Hebrews 13:14 the same language is used of the saints of the Old Covenant who had no "continuing city" (Hebrews 11:10). And yet, Abraham was the patriarch of a theocracy, and is held up as an example to us.

Did Moses look for a continuing city? If you answered yes, then that is what we call dispensationalism. If you answered no, then you are Reformed.

Now, if Moses was in the same case as us, was it wrong to have a holy nation? Was it wrong for Jehovah to be King of kings and LORD of lords? Was it wrong for the kingdoms of the world to become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ?

If you don't believe in Christendom, then I believe you may be out of accord with the Confession:

"III. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God."

The Reformed faith is the restoration, not the abolition of Christendom. Leonard Verduin, and other anabaptist fanatics aside, all nations are to be Christian, and will one day be so. Alterations to this portion of the WCF do not mean that we've gained ground; they merely prove how much ground we've lost.

Cheers,

Anabaptists are all fanatics? Every one of them?


This sounds like you are saying, "All nations will be Christian...or ELSE!"

 

[BertMulder]

The whole idea, seems to me, starts with the premise of a unity, rather than separation of church and state.

Now in an ideal world, there would indeed be such a thing. Such as the Scots claimed with their 'covenant'

Such as many of the Dutch from the 16th century on liked to believe... And look where it got them. From a church dominated state, they went, though not officially until the 19th century, to a state dominated church, where they did not even hold a National Synod until the state permitted the Synod of Dordt 1618-19. That synod had to contend with the heresy allowed into the church because... you guessed it, the doctrine had to be watered down as ... there were secular benefits (like jobs) attached to church membership...

The church and the state are each sovereign in their own sphere. And yes, in their sphere, the state is also responsible for the first table of the law. As such, the government of a truly 'christian nation' would all be members of the 'true church' as defined in the Netherlands (Belgic) confession... But now we are talking utopia...

From Scripture, in Revelations, we learn that the church dwells in the wilderness...

 

[RamistThomist]

Is the situation of the church in Revelation normative? That is assumed in your post, but it is not proven. Also, throughout most of church history the church was not in the wilderness (unless we assume the church from Augustine to Luther to be false).

Secondly, my observations--second to last post on page 4--were empircial in nature. Perhaps the church is the wilderness church (again, assumed not proven). That doesn't stop society from falling. And when society falls, the (wilderness) church is the last thing left standing. Irony of ironies, the church, despite her best efforts, triumphs in history (again!).

And I hold to separation of church and state. See Pope Gelasius' 2 swords.

 

[Poimen]

Such as many of the Dutch from the 16th century on liked to believe... And look where it got them. From a church dominated state, they went, though not officially until the 19th century, to a state dominated church, where they did not even hold a National Synod until the state permitted the Synod of Dordt 1618-19. That synod had to contend with the heresy allowed into the church because... you guessed it, the doctrine had to be watered down as ... there were secular benefits (like jobs) attached to church membership...

And this was repeated in 1816 which brought about the crisis (Afscheiding) in 1834.

 

[RamistThomist]

I don't think anyone here is advocating a state-dominated church or a church-dominated state. This is too easy a straw man to knock down (hence its popularity).

Unless you associate Christian moral teaching with exclusively ecclesiastical activities, one can hold to separation without the boogeymen mentioned above.

 

[Christusregnat]

The church and the state are each sovereign in their own sphere. And yes, in their sphere, the state is also responsible for the first table of the law. As such, the government of a truly 'christian nation' would all be members of the 'true church' as defined in the Netherlands (Belgic) confession... But now we are talking utopia...

From Scripture, in Revelations, we learn that the church dwells in the wilderness...

Howdy Bert,

I thought I'd pass along a sermon delivered to the church on its way to the "Howling Wilderness" (to use Cromwell's term), delivered by a Puritan hero:

The Winthrop Society: Descendants of the Great Migration

By the by, the church in wildnerness is also spoken of in Acts 7:38, and refers to a holy theocracy: a Christian nation.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[BertMulder]

The Conflict Between The Woman And The Dragon

Chapter 31 from the Book "Behold He Cometh" [by kind permission of Reformed Free Publishing Association]



(Revelation 12:13-17)



13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.

16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.

17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.



The beginning of this passage calls to our mind what immediately precedes: "And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth..." We will remember that these words refer to the battle which was fought in heaven, as pictured in the words immediately preceding those of the present passage. We found that this war was a battle between spirits. For that very reason we also drew the conclusion that it was indeed a very real war, but nevertheless one which must not in all respects be compared to the battles fought among men. It was not fought with sword and cannon, and it did not leave the battlefield strewn with wounded and killed. But it was a spiritual battle, fought with spiritual weapons of intellect and argumentation, of righteousness and law, a war which could only end in the casting away from the battlefield of one of the opposing parties.

Michael, so we found, was the general on one side. He is not to be identified, so we found, with the Christ; but Scripture pictures him to us as an angel who is a prince over other angels, and whose special task it is to fight the battle against Satan in behalf of the people of God. This is also true of the passage we studied in the last chapter. In this instance he was fighting against the devil, the old serpent, the great red dragon and opponent of God.

As to the time of this battle, we concluded that it would not have been the time before the entrance of sin into paradise, and therefore could not refer to the first rebellion of Satan and his angels in heaven, for the simple reason that the text calls him the accuser of the brethren and that also in other ways it indicates that already during the time of this battle there were people of God, saved in Christ Jesus, upon the earth, saints who loved not their lives even unto death. Nor is it the time of the end in the strictest sense of the word that is referred to in the preceding passage. For even after this war has been fought, there are still saved of God who have the testimony of Jesus and keep the commandments of God on earth, which certainly could not be the case were the war that is here fought one that must be placed after the glorification of the saints in Christ. We concluded, therefore, that it is a war which is fought all during the time of the old dispensation. Only in the old dispensation there are brethren on earth that love not their lives even unto death, as is so beautifully recorded in the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is a war fought between Michael and his angels and the devil and his angels all during the time of the old dispensation, and that too, for the prize of the saints who had died and had been glorified in heaven in the days of the old dispensation.

Thus understood, all is clear. Then we understand that the devil had to fight this war just as well as the battle to prevent the coming of the Great Seed was fought by him on earth. For Christ had not yet come. And the devil, on the one hand trying to prevent His first coming, on the other hand claimed that the dead who died before He had come and before their sins were atoned belonged to him and had no right to glory. Then we could also understand why the devil is called the deceiver and the accuser of the brethren, the slanderer of God's people. For all during this period he must have slandered the people of God who had died in the days of the Old Testament and accused them of their sins before the countenance of God. And then, finally, we also understand that when the man child is brought forth and caught up to God's throne in glory, the battle between the spirits ,in heaven must come to an end, and the devil must be defeated.

For it was exactly through the suffering and exaltation of the Lord Jesus Christ, the man child, that Michael and his angels were placed in the right as they defended the right of the Old Testament saints to their glory in heaven. And the result was, on the one hand, that the devil and his angels were cast out from heaven, so that he can no more carry on this war there; but at the same time the result,is that he is cast down to the earth, so that he will pay all his evil attention to the church in the world. Here our text begins, and it speaks of the tremendous conflict between the woman and the dragon.


The Woman In The Wilderness


We must call attention, in the first place, to the fact that in the words of this passage we have a continuation of the symbolism which we met with in verses 1 to 6. Here we have no plain reality, but a symbolical representation of the things that are mentioned here. That was not the case in verses 7 to 12. In that passage there was nothing to indicate symbolism; and therefore without any difficulty we took it as plain reality, as a real war fought between real beings with a real purpose and with real results. Literally we explain that portion. But that is not the case here. There is no one who takes this woman for a real woman. Nor are there any interpreters who understand the dragon as a real animal, or the stream which he casts out of his mouth as a real stream, or the wings which the woman receives as real wings. In so far there is no difficulty.

But in spite of this, it is necessary that we remind you of the fact that here we have no literal presentation of facts, but rather an allegory, which does not allow of literal interpretation. For although all agree that this is not a real woman with real eagle's wings, and that the dragon mentioned here is not a real dragon, and that the stream of water he casts out after the woman is not a real stream of water, yet there are interpreters who make the mistake of singling out that wilderness and of maintaining that it, at all events, must be taken in a literal sense of the word. The woman, so they say, is at this time evidently in Jerusalem, the Old Testament holy city. And as she is attacked by the enemy, she flees into a literal wilderness somewhere in the vicinity, where she is hidden twelve hundred sixty days, even as at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem the disciples fled to Pella. Now this is violating one of the most fundamental rules of interpretation, and especially of the interpretation of the Apocalypse. And we must guard against it. There is no right to single out one element in an allegorical representation of things and to take it in the literal sense. And therefore it is well that we remember from the outset and bear in mind throughout our interpretation of this passage that here we have a continuation of the symbolism we met with in the first portion of this chapter.

In the second place, it may also be said that the symbolical representation as such is very clear. There is no difficulty in obtaining a picture of it in our minds. The woman who has brought forth the man child, - of whom we have lost sight for a moment because of the record of the war in heaven that intervened, - is still on earth. And as is plain from the seventeenth verse of this chapter, she brings forth still other children. For that verse speaks of the rest of her seed, that keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. The dragon now comes down to the earth. He has failed in every respect thus far. He failed to prevent the birth of the man child, and he failed to devour it when once it was born. And he also failed to gain his point in the war which he fought with Michael and his angels in heaven for the possession of the saints of the old dispensation. And because of this absolute failure, on the one hand, and because of the fact that he also realizes that he cannot continue to fight indefinitely and that his time henceforth is short, he is filled with raging fury. And thus he comes down to the earth for the purpose of persecuting the woman who brought forth the man child. But the woman receives wings of a great eagle. Already in the sixth verse we read that the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared of God. But now we are told once more, and definitely, that she received wings of a great eagle and that with them she flees into the wilderness. The idea is clear. She cannot outrun the dragon. If she comes into contact with him, she cannot stand in the battle. And therefore there is but one place of escape, and that is the wilderness. There the dragon cannot live, for there is nothing for him to feed on. There the woman is nourished in a miraculous way, and there she is hid from the face of the serpent. And at the same time, there is but one way of escape, and that is through the air. And therefore it is in perfect harmony with the symbolism of the entire passage that the woman received wings, and that she flees away from the face of the serpent into the wilderness. The serpent pursues her up to the very edge of the desert, but cannot follow farther. And therefore in his rage he casts a stream after her, not to drown her exactly, but evidently to carry her away and out of the wilderness, so that he may be able to approach her. But the earth opens her mouth and swallows up the stream, which again is in perfect harmony with the idea of the arid desert, where the water easily disappears. And finally, the dragon, seeing that also now his efforts are vain and that all his attempts to destroy the woman meet with failure, turns to her individual children, in order that at any rate he may destroy them. Thus is the,symbolism.

In the third place, there are also some elements in the symbolism which we understand immediately and with which we have met before and which we do not have to interpret again. The woman, so we have learned, is the church. In the first part of the chapter we have become acquainted with her. But there is a little difference between the woman as she appeared in the first part of this chapter and as she appears in the present passage. In the first passage she was still travailing to bring forth the man child; and therefore she represented the church of the old dispensation. There she was the symbol of the people of God, of the church, as the mother of Christ. But here she appears after she has brought forth the Christ, and therefore in the new dispensation, as the mother of the New Testament believers, the rest of her seed. In parentheses, we may notice that also here the Word of God teaches us the essential unity of the church of all ages. It is the same woman all the time, representing the same church, only in different dispensations. And therefore it will not harmonize with Scripture to maintain that there was an essential difference between the church of the Old and of the New Testament days. But this in passing. The second element in the symbolism with which we are acquainted is that of the dragon. He is the devil. He is the great opponent of God. And we must remember that as the opponent of God his great and only purpose is to prevent the establishment of the kingdom of God and to maintain his own sovereignty. It is for that purpose that he battled against the woman in the Old Testament, to prevent the birth of her man child. It is for that same purpose that he went to heaven to question the right of the Old Testament saints to enter into glory. And it is again for that same purpose that he now attacks the woman as we meet her in our present passage. The devil does not care for the woman as such. He does not care for her seed as such. But he knows that she must be instrumental in the completion of the kingdom of God and in the realization of God's counsel, and therefore fights her to the last ditch.


The Attack Of The Devil


This last thought brings us to the next question: why does the devil persecute the woman after she has brought forth the man child? Why does the devil still persecute the church after she has given birth to the Christ?

Was it merely a streak of vengeance that led him to do so? That is sometimes the impression that is received from the symbolism in the text. The dragon, so the idea often is, has failed twice in his attempts to thwart the plan of God. He failed to devour the man child, and he also failed in his war in heaven to bring down the saints of the old dispensation to hell. And now he is just raving mad. The woman really has served her purpose, and she is of no account to him any more. But in spite of that fact, and in spite of the fact that the dragon well knows that he is defeated and that his attack upon the woman will not help him even if he should succeed to destroy her, he just means to wreak vengeance and to empty his raving madness and fury upon the head of the poor woman.

But we might know from the very outset that this is not the case. The devil is not a mad fool. He certainly is a fool, and he also is mad. But he is not a mad fool in this sense, that he does things that have nothing to do with the plan of God Almighty. And you may depend on it, if the woman after she has brought forth the man child was of no account any more, the devil would not trouble himself about her. He has but one purpose, and he lives from but one principle. It is the purpose and the principle of opposition against God Almighty. This principle he never denies. And whatever has nothing to do with that principle he leaves severely alone. That is already plain in the individual lives of the people of God on earth and in the church. If you are of no account to the coming of God's kingdom and are in no way related to the glory of God, the devil does not trouble his head about you. It is only when he begins to surmise that you also are one of the followers of Christ and that you confess Him that he begins his action against you. Thus it is also with the woman. The very fact that the dragon in raving madness indeed turns against the woman, to persecute her, already causes us to surmise that she is still of great importance to the kingdom of God and the fulfillment of His plans.

Nor need we search very long to find the answer to this question. What is the motive of the devil in persecuting the woman even after she has brought forth the man child? This woman, as we have had occasion to notice before, is the church, the visible church as she exists on earth. In the former passage we noticed how she appeared as the mother of the Savior, of the King in the kingdom. The church brings forth the Christ. Christ is the great seed of the woman. He is the Son of Mary, out of the house of David, of the tribe of Judah, born from Israel, out of the loins of Abraham, in the line of Shem and Seth, and finally born from Eve as the spiritual mother of the holy seed. But this is not all. The church as she exists in the present dispensation is not only the mother of Christ, the great seed. But she is also the mother of us all. She is the mother of the true, spiritual children of God. As such it may be said that the church visible, as a visible institution on earth, brings forth the church invisible, true believers, from age to age. The church is the mother of the true children of the kingdom. These are born from her, are baptized by her, are nourished through her, receive their strength and life and all the blessings of God's covenant in her bosom. And it is as such, evidently, that the church appears in the words that we are now discussing. For as we have maintained already, the passage makes mention of the rest of her seed, of her spiritual children. She is the mother of all the true children of God, of all the subjects in the kingdom that is to be established in the future. That is her great importance.

Now the devil knows this.

He knew from the beginning that the Great Seed which this woman is to bring forth is the all-important factor in the entire war which he wages. If he can prevent His coming or devour Him as soon as He is born, he does not have to trouble himself about the rest of her seed. And therefore all his efforts are directed toward that end in the old dispensation. And because he is so certain that he will succeed in that battle against the woman and surely prevent the birth of the Great Seed, he also thinks it strange and without justice that all the saints who are born and die before the coming of Christ go into glory. But he has failed.

And now he knows too that the church still exists. He knows that even as that same woman has not only brought forth the Great Seed, but was also the mother of Abel and Enoch and Noah and the patriarchs and Moses and all the prophets and all the faithful believers of the old dispensation, so she will continue to bring forth seed in the new dispensation. Also in the New Testament day she will have children. She will bring forth children of the kingdom who will fight the battle of the kingdom here below and who will enter into the glorious kingdom hereafter. And since he cannot fight directly against the King of the kingdom any more, Who is caught up to the throne of God, and since he cannot go to heaven any more to dispute about the right of the glorified saints, he will persecute the woman and try to destroy her at all events, before she has brought forth many more children who will serve as subjects of the kingdom that is to be established. And therefore he goes and persecutes her.

Now the text tells us that when the dragon comes to persecute the woman, two wings of an eagle are given to her, in order that she might fly into the wilderness. The question as to the meaning of the eagle's wings, as if they could be interpreted to mean work and prayer, or anything else, is certainly irrelevant. The figure has perhaps been obtained from Exodus 19:4, where we read that Jehovah says: "Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagle's wings and brought you unto myself." And the idea is evidently that God Himself provides the church with means to escape the fury of the devil.

Different, however, it is with the idea of the wilderness. Also this has been obtained from the episode of the people of Israel's history in the desert. Even as there God delivered His people from the fury of the world-power in Egypt by bringing them into the wilderness, so also now He brings His people into the wilderness to escape the rage of the devil. But the difference is that in Israel's case it was a real wilderness into which they were led, while evidently in this case the figure is employed to represent something different. And the question is: what is the meaning of this wilderness into which God enables the church to fly in the new dispensation in order that she might escape the wrath and persecution of the devil?

It has been said that the wilderness is here used to depict the want and deprivation which the people of God must suffer in the world. They are the despised of the world; and there are not many noble and mighty among them. They must suffer all kinds of persecutions and deprivations in the world. And therefore that world is a real wilderness to them. And, of course, this is true in itself. But it is not the meaning of the text. For, in the first place, the church is driven into this wilderness after the birth of Christ and after His exaltation. But it cannot be said that the being subjected to want and deprivation of all kinds is peculiar to the people of God in the new dispensation only. Also the long list of witnesses mentioned in Hebrews 11 could tell you of them. And therefore, this cannot be meant. In the second place, it is difficult to see how this could possibly be a means of hiding them from the face of the devil, so that he could not attack them. Yet this is evidently the purpose of it all. The woman received these wings to fly into the wilderness in order that she might be able to escape the wrath of the devil, and so be safe. And, in the third place, the wilderness is a place prepared for her by God, where she does not suffer want and deprivation, but is nourished by God for a time, and times, and half a time, or twelve hundred sixty days. And therefore, that cannot be the meaning of the term wilderness in our present passage.

We would rather adhere to the symbolism, and derive the meaning from the representation itself. In the literal and natural sense of the word the wilderness, or desert, is a place in the world, but not of the world. It may lie right in the midst of the world, yet it is absolutely separated from the life of the world. There is no plant life, no vegetation to speak of, no animal life, no human life; there are no houses, no cities, no rivers and streams. It is a place in the midst of the world, yet separated from the world. If one is in the wilderness, he is separated from the life of the world.

If we adhere to this meaning, the explanation of the symbolism cannot be difficult. It reminds us of the words of the Savior, "In the world, yet not of the world." And it tells us that the visible church in the new dispensation is an institution separate in every respect from the worldpower as such. It exists, indeed, in the world; but it exists as a separate institution. That is not true of her children individually. They live right in the midst of the world, and they live the life of the world, even though they are spiritually separated from that life, and live it from the principle of the kingdom of God. But that is true of the church.

The church as such is a separate institution in the world. She has her own King. And as an institution the church does not recognize any other ruler. No earthly king has any dominion over her. There is no worldly ruler, be he king or president or dictator, who can exercise dominion over the church as the mother of her spiritual children. Only Christ is King. From this it follows that the church has its own laws. There may be laws established and ordained by the worldly ruler regarding the existence of the church in this world, regarding her buildings and property, etc.; but the church in this world, in regard to her real existence and life, acknowledges no other power, no other sovereignty, than that of Christ. No world-power, no emperor, or king, or president, can formulate her creed. She does so herself, in obedience to Christ her King. No world-power can regulate her worship, can compose her hymns and her forms, can dictate how she must pray and what she must preach. No world-power can tell her how and when and why she must censure her members and exercise discipline over them. The church as an institute is a separate institution. She has her own King, her own laws, her own life. She does not mingle in politics as such. She may instruct her children how to behave in regard to the powers that be; but she herself does not mingle in the politics of the world. She has no armies. She does not fight with the sword. Again, she may instruct her children that even in regard to the battles of the world they must be subject to the authorities, and obedient; but she herself, as an institute and as the mother of her spiritual children, does not take part in the battles of the world. She lives in separation. Even as the children of Israel in the desert lived in separation from the world-power in Egypt, and even as they received their own laws from their own King in that wilderness, so also the church of the New Testament is in the wilderness with regard to the world and its power and its life. The church does not do business. The church does not mingle with the affairs of this world. She owns no property for its own sake. She has no factories. She has no army or navy. She fights her own battles and does her own work. The church as an institution is separate from the life of the world. She has received a God-prepared place in the wilderness.

Only in this sense can we see, in the first place, that this condition commenced actually in the new dispensation and with the exaltation of Christ. In the old dispensation, among Israel, church and state were intertwined in the theocracy. Israel was the people of God. Israel was the church. They were not identical, but they were inseparably combined. For that reason the people of God also could have an earthly king, could fight the battles of Jehovah with bow and sword, could have an earthly country of their own, could have possessions and do business as a people of God. With the new dispensation this is changed. The church does no more live in a certain land, but is spread all over the world and among all nations. One and the same church, with the same King, with essentially the same faith, with the same life, now exists among all the nations of the earth. And as the most general confession has it, "I believe an holy catholic church." But at the same time, and for that very reason, the church is now in the wilderness. It is separated from the world-power. It does not acknowledge any other authority for her life as such than the authority of Jesus Christ.

But, in the second place, it is also very plain that this is exactly her safety in the present dispensation. The world-power is and remains on the earth, earthy. It has a temporal purpose, and ultimately shall unite, as we shall see, to make war against the Christ and His kingdom. If the church did not live as a separate institution, living her own life, acknowledging her own King, regulating her own affairs, making her own laws, establishing her own forms of belief, and controlling her own worship, she would be gone, and would ultimately unite with the power that rises against the Christ and His kingdom. No matter whether this would realize itself in one or in the other, whether the church would have dominion over the powers of the world and over the affairs of the world, - as the Romish Church would have it, - or whether the power of the world would exercise authority over the church of Christ as an institution in the midst of the world, the same result would necessarily follow, namely, the destruction of the church as the mother of the faithful subjects of the kingdom of Christ. The church is in the wilderness of this world, separated from the power of the world, and must needs be in that wilderness for her own safety.

The measure of time here indicated need not detain us very long. It is plain from the context that time, times, and half a time is the same period as the twelve hundred sixty days mentioned in the first portion of this chapter. This leads us to the conclusion that time, times, and half a time indicates three and one-half symbolic years. One symbolic year, and two symbolic years, and half a symbolic year. One symbolic year is calculated to be three hundred sixty days, which, multiplied by three and one-half, gives us the twelve hundred sixty days. And again, this is evidently. the same period as the forty-two months of the two witnesses. For, taking a symbolic month to contain thirty days, forty and two months would again give us twelve hundred sixty days, or three and one-half years. All these indications of time refer, therefore, to the time of the new dispensation, from the exaltation of Christ to the very end, as has become plain before.

Only, the three and a half times indicate this period, in the first place, from the point of view that the history of the world is divided, as it were, into two halves, because of the coming of Christ. If seven is the symbolic number indicating the completion of all that God does in time, and therefore also indicating the complete period of the history of the present world, both before and after Christ, then it is plain that three and one-half must indicate the period of one dispensation, in this case that of the dispensation after the coming and exaltation of Christ Jesus. And, in the second place, this number also indicates that the period of the church's being in the wilderness shall be cut short. The days shall be shortened for the elects' sake. But whatever this number, which also occurs in Daniel, may indicate, certain it is from a comparison of the different places in which it occurs, that it points to the entire period of the new dispensation, even to the end. In this entire period the church has to suffer from the attacks of the dragon. In this entire period God has prepared her a place in the wilderness in separation from the powers of the world, and that too, to her own safety.


The Devil's Failure


That this is actually so is also plain if we study for a moment the manner in which the dragon attacks this woman in the wilderness, and how he fails.

Symbolically the text indicates this by saying that the dragon, when he saw that he could not pursue her into the wilderness, cast a stream of water after the woman, in order that she might be carried away with the flood. Evidently this does not mean that the devil makes an attempt directly to destroy the woman while she is in the wilderness. On the contrary, especially the original gives us reason to believe that the purpose is different. He knows that he cannot approach the woman in her isolation in the desert. He cannot touch her. She must remain there. He must leave her alone. Hence, he casts a stream of water after her, that she might be borne up by that flood and be carried out of the wilderness. Especially the word used here in the original gives us that very idea. He does not mean to drown her: that would be impossible. But he means to lift her from her isolation. And therefore he casts a stream after her, in order that she might be carried away by the stream, and thus be borne into the world from which she fled.

Understood in that sense, the meaning is not difficult to grasp. The devil realizes that in the isolation of the church as an institution from the powers of this world lies her strength, and that as long as the church remains in this state of separation he cannot do anything against her. And therefore he makes the attempt to establish an alliance, to unite the church and the world. He tries to carry the church into the world and either offer her the dominion over the powers that be or subject her to the powers of the world. Then he may be sure that her strength is gone. Then he is certain that she will also bring up her spiritual children as subjects of the kingdom of the world, which is his kingdom. Then he is certain that the kingdom of the Christ shall at least be deprived of its subjects in the new dispensation. Clearly you may see this attempt. Now the devil tries to subject the church as an institution to the powers of the world, and establish a state church, as in various countries of Europe has been and still is the case. In that case the worldly rulers are at the same time the rulers of the church, and they establish its creeds and forms of worship and confessions. The church is ruled by the worldly power. Now he tries to gain his point along the way of offering the church dominion over the powers of the world, as in the time of Constantine the Great, and ever since, in the Romish Church.

But the devil always failed. That does not mean that he never saw results. He surely did. Church after church was affected by this stream of water he spits after the woman. Now the church is actually subject to the state; now she has absolute sway over the powers of the world. And every time she lost her true character. But it never succeeded completely. The woman always remained in her isolation. And even today, although the tendency is once more to bring the church into the service and the subjection of the worldly power, and although the church has a hard fight to remain in her God-appointed place in the wilderness, nevertheless in many places the church stands as a separate institution; and also in our own land the separation of church and state is still constitutionally established. And therefore, the devil fails in principle. And our text tells us that he will fail. Surely, also in the future many a church will be carried away, and her subjection and unification with the worldly power will be one of the factors in her apostasy. But nevertheless, the church shall always stand, shall always remain as an institution and as a separate institution, shall always bring forth and nourish her spiritual children, till the last one of God's elect shall have been gathered into the glory of the kingdom.


The Devil's Turning To The Rest Of Her Seed


If we have understood the text correctly thus far, it is not difficult to understand the last verse of this passage, where we read that the dragon, being enraged with the woman and yet realizing his impotency to destroy her as such, goes to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

At first sight we may think that this is a somewhat strange expression. Is the church after all not the sum-total of all her seed? And how, then, must we conceive of this idea that the devil, after he has failed to destroy the church as such, can still turn to her children, to the rest of her seed?

This is not difficult to understand, however. The woman represents the church as such, the church as a visible institution in the world. And as such she is the mother of the true spiritual children of God. At first the devil makes the attempt to destroy the church as an institution by making her part of his own kingdom and by uniting her with the power of the world. But when this fails, he turns to the individual believers, in order that he may persecute and destroy them and bring them to apostasy. These individual members move about in the world. In every sphere of life they claim that they must live according to the principles of the Word of God, that they must keep His commandments, and that they must proclaim that Jesus Christ is King over all. And so they attempt to realize these principles in the midst of the world. They have been brought up in the commandments of God by their mother, the church; and they have learned to embrace and keep the testimony of Jesus. And therefore, in every sphere of life, in the home and in society and in the state, wherever they go and whatever they do, they keep these commandments and refuse to live from the principles of the world. They come into contact with the world, and therefore the devil can approach them. He can employ that world to make life hard for them, in order that by his persecution he may bring them to destruction. It is not told us in this chapter how the devil attempts to accomplish this. The following chapter pictures to us this tremendous attempt in detail; for there we have the description of the power of the Antichrist.

Let us now close this particular passage with the application of the text. In the first place, the church is in the wilderness. Neither must she attempt to rule over the powers of the world or to mingle with the affairs of the world, nor must she subject herself to these powers. Christ is King, and no other beside Him, over the church. There are many rulers in the world; there is but one King in the church. In the second place, love the church as your spiritual mother. More than once we find this presentation of the church in relation to her members. She exists for your spiritual care and nourishment, that through her you might be strengthened with the bread of life, and that too, through the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments. In the third place, walk as her faithful children in the midst of the world. Keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus. And finally, be assured that all the attempts of the devil shall surely fail. He shall fail in his attempts to destroy the church as such. She shall remain, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. And if you must experience the wrath of the great red dragon as her individual children, never you fear: Christ has overcome the world!

 

[Christusregnat]

My eyes hurt

Adam

 

[BertMulder]

And why would that be?

By the way, skimmed through that 'sermon'. What was your point with that in connection with this thread?

 

[RamistThomist]

I think what he means is that it, and I mean no disrespect, is that most people don't really read "copy/paste" passages. Out of principle I never read them. It is the easiest thing in the world to press "ctrl a + ctrl c + ctrl v." It is much, much more difficult to summarize the main arguments.

Whenever someone, even someone who agrees with me, posts a long portion from another site, I just skip it.

 

[HaigLaw]

The Great Commission says to disciple the nations.

Either we assume that's not going to succeed, with all Jesus' Lordship power behind it, or we assume it will succeed, in which event that nation will be a Christian nation.

Or am I being too simple-minded about this?

 

[HaigLaw]

equality vs. biblical?

It's not so much the American idea of personal liberty, but the idea of "equality" which is inimical to biblical reformation. Such "equality" does away with permanent societal structures which guarantee stability of values over generations. The biblical pattern is to acknowledge "superiors, inferiors, and equals," and then each one knows what is their place and duty in society. As it stands the modern notion of "equality" cares little either for traditional institutions or for the character of the individual.

That's an interesting idea I'd not thought of. But what is it in the confessional terms "superiors, inferiors and equals" that implies or requires generational continuity?

And what is it in such "permanent societal structures," such as the British landed aristocracy, I suppose, that guarantees "stability of values over generations"? It seems to me that many of them are a permanent leisure class with no values other than the preservation of their social standing and landed estates.

 

[MW]

And what is it in such "permanent societal structures," such as the British landed aristocracy, I suppose, that guarantees "stability of values over generations"? It seems to me that many of them are a permanent leisure class with no values other than the preservation of their social standing and landed estates.

I think that kind of criticism rises from a more materialistic view of "work." Diplomacy is hard work. Political machinery is alot like an air conditioner -- many people enjoy the cool environment and have no idea what is taking place beneath the cover.

 

[HaigLaw]

all faiths?

Believe it or not, both Rushdoony and Bahnsen decidedly opposed establishing a state denomination. They held to a voluntarist model. I am with them. On the other hand, I do not believe the state should give credence to "all varieties of faith expression." For example, I oppose the American Government sanctioning the spread of Islam in America and in Europe.

But how would you implement that legally in our U.S. constitutional context?

 

[HaigLaw]

sphere sovereignty

Another simple observation -- people are arguing against the possibility of a Christian nation by confining the adjective "Christian" to the church. Are you sure you want to conclude that the church is the only entity that can be called "Christian" in the world. Is the Puritanboard Christian? Are there Christian publishing houses, Christian bookshops, Christian schools, Christian charities, Christian families, etc.? If so, then there can be no principled objection to applying the adjective "Christian" to a nation.

Rushdoony's writings are good on this -- the concept of sphere sovereignty, and the negation of the church running the civil government or vice versa.

Many folks wrongly assume that God is interested only in the church.

 

[HaigLaw]

Christendom out of the rubble?

Some more thoughts:

Anyway, if the church stays faithful--which God promised us it will on some level (Mt. 16:18ff)
And if civil society continues on its suicidal path (which the West is)
And sin and stupidity are necessarily connected (see Van Til's critiques)
It follows (1) that long-term cultural and political stupidity cannot triumph.
And the church is left-standing when the rubble clears,
It follows (2) that there is a Christendom.

Good thoughts!

 

[Theoretical]

And what is it in such "permanent societal structures," such as the British landed aristocracy, I suppose, that guarantees "stability of values over generations"? It seems to me that many of them are a permanent leisure class with no values other than the preservation of their social standing and landed estates.

I think that kind of criticism rises from a more materialistic view of "work." Diplomacy is hard work. Political machinery is alot like an air conditioner -- many people enjoy the cool environment and have no idea what is taking place beneath the cover.

Especially after studying Burke and ideas of 17th and 18th Century Anglo-American jurisprudence for my thesis upon the American Declaration of Independence, I've gained a dramatically stronger respect for "elite" institutions, and the beneficial roles both monarchy and aristocracy can afford to a society. Institutions that stabilize and guide reform such as these can be extremely great blessings to a society. They certainly have huge flaws as well, but my research has at least made me far less emphatically republican (the government, not the party).

Excess noble court leisure with trivialities and high vanity is no different in principle than the "baser" pleasures a lazy tradesman indulges in (rowdy taverns, prostitutes, and the like) - both individuals are sinning, just with different appearances and social acceptability.

Just because a nobleman might not typically have done the dishes, tilled the land, or washed clothes did not mean there wasn't ample work for him to do. (1) He had a not-insubstantial household employment to maintain and support - who I might add could easily be brought up 3 or more societal/economic tiers, (2) he had extensive diplomatic and political responsibilities to match his title and lofty estate, (3) he had to keep an eye on individuals he sponsored at the universities and artists, just to name a few.

Perhaps the biggest advantage some degree of social stratification has is that it provides markets for those things that are degraded by market pressures - namely the arts, philosophy, and purely theoretical studies.

Basically, there's more to the story than just the "standard treatment".

 

[MW]

Scott, Good thoughts. There's also the benefit that society doesn't suffer from status anxiety if everyone knows their place and station. This means people can get on with being what they are instead of presenting a superficial image of what they hope to become. This makes for greater real productivity.

 

[timmopussycat]

Let us ask another question:

Is the idea of a national religious establishment an inescapable one?

I think it is; every nation has an established religion. Hence, we read in Scripture of 'the gods of the Amorites' or 'the gods of the Egyptians' etc.

In Britain, the established religion is Secular Humanism.
In Iran, the established religion is Islam.
In Spain, the established religion is Popery.

Is God pleased with the fact that the nations have established false religions as the established religion of that nation? If not, then how can a Christian nation possibly be wrong?

While God is certainly not pleased by the religious practices of modern states, the answer to your second question is that in this age God is not requiring nations to swear covenants with him as was the case with Israel.

That said, given that Christians have freedom to vote and engage in political activity, it is not wrong for us to promote the idea that our nations should make the moral law/decaloge the foundation of their legal codes and conform our laws to applicable biblical standards.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Let us ask another question:

Is the idea of a national religious establishment an inescapable one?

I think it is; every nation has an established religion. Hence, we read in Scripture of 'the gods of the Amorites' or 'the gods of the Egyptians' etc.

In Britain, the established religion is Secular Humanism.
In Iran, the established religion is Islam.
In Spain, the established religion is Popery.

Is God pleased with the fact that the nations have established false religions as the established religion of that nation? If not, then how can a Christian nation possibly be wrong?

While God is certainly not pleased by the religious practices of modern states, the answer to your second question is that in this age God is not requiring nations to swear covenants with him as was the case with Israel.

That said, given that Christians have freedom to vote and engage in political activity, it is not wrong for us to promote the idea that our nations should make the moral law/decaloge the foundation of their legal codes and conform our laws to applicable biblical standards.

Well the question of whether or not a national covenant should be signed (while related) is logically distinct from whether or not there should be a Christian nation or whether or not false religions should be established/tolerated by the magistrate. It is theoretically possible to believe that the nation should be Christian without asserting that a national covenant should be signed.

 

[timmopussycat]

The Great Commission says to disciple the nations.

Either we assume that's not going to succeed, with all Jesus' Lordship power behind it, or we assume it will succeed, in which event that nation will be a Christian nation.

Or am I being too simple-minded about this?

Perhaps you are excluding an alternative. The church will disciple the nations if faithful. Even if the church is unfaithful, Christ will build his church and hell will not prevail against it. But even if the gospel runs in a given nation and matches what happened in Wales in 1859 in which 25% of the population were converted in a year and the vast majority remained solid believers for decades, we may see a Christian nation culturallly without necessarily seeing one legally.