Josephus on the Origin of the State
By
Titus Flavius Josephus, also known as Yosef Ben Matityahu, was a Jewish historian in the first-century A.D. He witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and recorded the events. His two major works are The Jewish War and The Antiquities of the Jews. The first tells the story of the Jewish revolt against the Romans from A.D. 66 to 70. The second is a history of the world from a Jewish perspective. Both are extraordinarily important for studying the history of the first-century and the history of the Jewish nation. For the modern Christian, Josephus illuminates the world of first-century Christianity.
In The Antiquities, Josephus mentions that the first human government was built by Nimrod, the mighty hunter from Genesis 10:8-9. This appears to be consistent with Genesis; no other organized government (unless you count a “clan”) is mentioned before his. Genesis is, first and foremost, a book of origins, and thus this original human government can arguably be taken as archetypal. Josephus, while not being authoritative like Scripture, extends the Babel story (Genesis 11:1-9) and provides an interesting insight regarding the origin of the state. The following extended quote is from Book 1, Chapter 4 of the Whiston translation. The selection reads a bit funny (Whiston translated Josephus in the 18th century), but stick with it and I’ll summarize afterwards.
“Concerning The Tower Of Babylon, And The Confusion Of Tongues.”
When they flourished with a numerous youth, God admonished them again to send out colonies; but they, imagining the prosperity they enjoyed was not derived from the favor of God, but supposing that their own power was the proper cause of the plentiful condition they were in, did not obey him. Nay, they added to this their disobedience to the Divine will, the suspicion that they were therefore ordered to send out separate colonies, that, being divided asunder, they might the more easily be Oppressed [by God].
2. Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it [their success] to God, as if it was through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power. He also said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach! and that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers!
3. Now the multitude were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod, and to esteem it a piece of cowardice to submit to God; and they built a tower, neither sparing any pains, nor being in any degree negligent about the work: and, by reason of the multitude of hands employed in it, it grew very high, sooner than any one could expect; but the thickness of it was so great, and it was so strongly built, that thereby its great height seemed, upon the view, to be less than it really was. It was built of burnt brick, cemented together with mortar, made of bitumen, that it might not be liable to admit water. When God saw that they acted so madly, he did not resolve to destroy them utterly, since they were not grown wiser by the destruction of the former sinners; but he caused a tumult among them, by producing in them divers languages, and causing that, through the multitude of those languages, they should not be able to understand one another. The place wherein they built the tower is now called Babylon, because of the confusion of that language which they readily understood before; for the Hebrews mean by the word Babel, confusion. The Sibyl also makes mention of this tower, and of the confusion of the language, when she says thus: “When all men were of one language, some of them built a high tower, as if they would thereby ascend up to heaven, but the gods sent storms of wind and overthrew the tower, and gave every one his peculiar language; and for this reason it was that the city was called Babylon.” But as to the plan of Shinar, in the country of Babylonia, Hestiaeus mentions it, when he says thus: “Such of the priests as were saved, took the sacred vessels of Jupiter Enyalius, and came to Shinar of Babylonia.”
Summarizing, the story here begins shortly after the flood. The people have congregated together for mutual benefit and trade. God then commands them to begin again in the task of spreading over the face of the earth – starting colonies. But instead, the people once again rebelled against God, even believing that this command to spread was given so that God could “oppress” them again. Nimrod, the first human king, was the individual most responsible for inciting this rebellion. They conspired to build a tower that, according to Genesis, would reach to the heavens and symbolize their ability to be gods themselves. Josephus indicates that they believed they could even attack heaven and avenge themselves against God for causing the great flood. God, to punish but not destroy them, sent confusion by causing them to speak different languages. They scattered (partly fulfilling God’s plan to spread humankind), and on the plains of Shinar the kingdom of Babylon was built. (Remember that Babylon is consistently referenced in the Bible as an abomination.)
As much as Josephus can be relied upon as a source, his account emphasizes four points:
- The origin of human government is rebellion against God.
- The government sets itself up specifically in opposition to the rule of God.
- The rulers exalt themselves while deceiving the people.
- Human government drives a wedge between people, pitting them against each other. *
The incident brings to mind the words of Paul in the book of Romans:
“For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools…”
Romans 1:21-22
The state, which is the institutionalization of violence on earth, began as a usurpation of God’s authority; the true kingdom of God is not of this world (John 18:36). Let us not think that government can be “fixed” and the kingdom of God advanced by simply getting the right people in office, for we know that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It’s been that way since the beginning.
* Incidentally, even Ludwig von Mises in Liberalism admitted that language is one of the fundamental ways nations are divided.
Welcome, LRC readers, please check out my other articles featured on LRC: Top 10 Books for Christian Libertarians – Christmas 2008 Edition, and New Testament Theology of the State. Don’t forget to subscribe!
Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.
Tags: history, Josephus, Judaism, recommended books, The State
Related Content:
Norman is the creator and primary writer for LCC. Learn a little bit about him in the
Herodotus is likewise unflattering about the origins of the Persian state.
BTW, Babel can also be translated from the Hebrew as “Gate of God” – which ties in well with the avowed ambition of the builders to reach the heavens.
My goddaughter tells me that the liberation theologians see the confusion of tongues at Babel as God liberating the peoples of the world from an oppressive, centralized state which was enslaving the multitudes in its building project(s).
Great stuff. I have read all this in the book of Jasher. I did not know Josephus had anything to say about Nimrod. Do you have this in printable form?
Drew: I will work on that. I have heard about a wordpress plugin that will make printing easy, so now I’m motivated to get that done. Thanks for the suggestion!
Great points about Jasher and Herodotus, and I didn’t know that Babel means “Gate of God.” Wow, that’s really intriguing!
Just quibbling, but government in some sense is necessary. “And the government shall be upon His shoulders.” The primary mode of government will either be volitional self-government, through the internalization of God’s commandments, or imposed from without, through the coercive brandishment of the sword. It would be good if you would distinguish between the senses of government, because to neglect to do so is to unwittingly yield part of the field to those who actually do think that the civil magistrate brandishing the sword is either the only form of government possible, or what God desires.
Dear Sir, Your use of a traitor to the Jewish war effort in 66, a pre-historical flood story from Gen., and the charlatan who invented Christianity to prove your 4 points about government being a rebellion against God is absurd.
Genesis 11:9 tells us, “Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”
Nimrod displayed a willful and woeful ignorance of what was recent history, within his own family, as the Lord God had promised his grandpa to never again destroy the Earth with a flood (Genesis 9:11).
I think it’s arguable as to whether or not the men assembled together to build the tower were a “government” – but it’s mere speculation to conclude that, if that is the case, God meant governments as punishment. Nowhere is this stated, while the opposite is made very clear in Romans 13.
Where do you get idea that Nimrod was a king? Did you mean to put that in quotes, so we would know it was symbolism rather than actual?
Josephus’ conclusion that the tower was built in defiance of God’s will that they “scatter” is supported by Genesis 11:4 – “And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”
1. The origin of human government is rebellion against God. FALSE, see Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17.
2. The government sets itself up specifically in opposition to the rule of God. FALSE, based on speculation and not backed up in the Bible. See #1.
3. The rulers exalt themselves while deceiving the people. TRUE! This is human nature, no escaping it outside of Christ.
4. Human government drives a wedge between people, pitting them against each other. TRUE! – I give the USA.
Hence, the Christian is told time and again that this world is not our home and we should not get too comfortable nor whine too much.
Manfred,
1. The origin of human government is defiance against God. God only utilizes government like he uses evil man, or Satan for that matter. It is a human institution that God uses. Did not Israel reject God for a man made government official known as a king? 1 Samuel 8:7
2. The government time and time again as set it self up against God. Is not Satan prince and ruler of this world? Able to control the masses and blind them from the truth?
The reason Utopian libertarian or Utopian socialism will not work is because people are greedy and selfish. The love of money is the root of all evil!
Jim Nelligan says: “Dear Sir, Your use of a traitor to the Jewish war effort in 66, a pre-historical flood story from Gen., and the charlatan who invented Christianity to prove your 4 points about government being a rebellion against God is absurd.”
Ad Hominem tactics. No real argument.
Drew – God gave Israel a theocracy, led by His prophet. The sinful people wanted a worldly government like their pagan neighbors. Hence, their demand for “a king”. Of course, Satan has rule over this present age on Earth – but he does not have absolute rule – God does. And God has given the institution of government to man – and man twists and perverts it as we do with everything.
Adam Smith would tell you that the selfishness of people is what makes the free market thrive, as selfish people benefit others while trying to benefit themselves. Forced distribution is the “utopia” that can never work – because men are evil and will subvert other people and systems. Therefore, free markets are best. Least control by evil men, least opportunity for the abuse of the poor.
While in 100% agreement with libertarian principles, I respectfully submit that you have gods confused with God.
Manfred,
Still through a theocracy God is in charge not man! By rejecting this they rejected God. Before there was a king in Israel people were able to buy, sell, and trade with no interference from a government. It is only when they followed after their own heart that God used other governments to oppress Israel and bring them back in line. This is very evident in Judges. God uses government when the people reject the will of God. Government is a man made institution, not God made. God only utilizes it.
Selfishness is not the virtue that Smith not Rand makes it out to be. People by their very nature are selfish. Yes, it can be used to stimulate the economy. However, when ones selfishness tramples on others rights of life, liberty and property then it is destructive. There will always be people grabbing for money and power. Our founding fathers devised the best system known to man to create checks and balances to keep people from trampling on the rights of others. Unfortunately like many democracies, republic or socialist, will break down because of greed and power.
I have to disagree with both your hypothesis and your conclusions.
This is demonstrably false, if you accept the account given in Genesis. Consider Genesis 9:5-6, where God lays out some of the Noahic Covenant – “Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. (6) Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.”
I contend that this is the point where human government (that is, the rule of men by men) was established on Earth. It was established by God as a limited government (force could not be applied outside the parameters laid out by Him) given specific tasks for punishing a specific crime. Government was not a usurpation of God’s authority but a dispensation of it. The tower of Babel and Nimrod’s actions later in history do not negate the acts of God prior; they rebel against it and demonstrate the superiority of God’s plans over man’s plans.
If God’s kingdom is limited to one not of this world, then why did Jesus command us to pray that God’s will be done “on Earth as it is in Heaven”? Is this not the extension of God’s kingdom to the temporal realm? Jesus did say that His kingdom is not of this world; that does not mean the world cannot become part of the Kingdom, especially as the Gospel spreads and men come under God’s form of government instead of man’s.
Power does not corrupt. If it did, God would be evil, and absolutely so. It is human nature that is corrupt by default and the corruption manifests when given the opportunity and means to do so. Government can be fixed, because the power of Jesus to redeem is absolute, available to anyone who submits to Him. Since governments are made up of men, they can be redeemed if they are fallen. If it is impossible to reform governments then it is because it is impossible to reform men.
Now, a government may be currently unredeemed, and irredeemable, if the members of the government are intransigent against God. That does not mean they will stay in government, or be replaced with equally intransigent people. No, they can be replaced with God-fearing Christians, and the government can be reformed that way. Don’t get me wrong, I do not mean to imply a preference for one party or another; as far as I’m concerned, they’re both apparently lost, but perhaps I just don’t have the view of the issue God has.
Finally, I do agree that it is not sufficient to merely elect Godly people; they must be active in rolling back bad government once in office. If they do not at least attempt to do so, they have become just as corrupted as the government they joined.
Manfred,
I don’t think God gave government to man, since it is hierarchichal in nature, and God wants us to serve him only, not Him and a government.
When the disciples asked Jesus who would lead the group after Jesus left them, who did Jesus put in charge? That’s right. Nobody.
Your reaching to Romans 13 confuses how a Christian is supposed to act when coerced into serving a government, with how Christians should view government. The bible also speaks of the christian slave, but surely God doesn’t condone slavery?
Matt Maynard,
Could you please cite an example of a ‘currently redeemed government’ for us? Any modern example will do.
If you find such a task difficult, perhaps it is not such a stretch to label government as inherently evil?
If governments command us to pay respect to the flag, does obeying this law violate the second commandment? Whose law comes first, God’s or government’s? Would a Godly institution command Godly people to violate God’s commandments?
Certain facts do present themselves as extension of this article. First, the gathering and centralizing of people under one language would create conditions for overspecialization, a condition which was cited by a Club of Rome study many years ago, which causes the extinction of both civilizations and species. This centralization of organization, with one language, one process of transmitting information, would have contributed greatly to overspecialization. Second, such central organization in one closed system contributes to entropy, which tends to accelerate the destruction of closed systems.
Third, If you look at Jesus’ teaching in both law and government in Matthew 5, you see that Jesus claimed to be a fulfilment of the law, and that not one jot or tittle would be destroyed. However, in Matthew 5:25, we see that Jesus authorized settlement between two people “out of court”. He further extended this process of legal settlement outside of state power in Matthew 18:16, pointing to the law of “two witnesses” as declared in Deuteronomy 17:6 and Deut. 19:15.
We also know, from history and the recognition of the Supreme Court(Miranda vs Arizona, 1966, footnote 27) that the rule of two witnesses evolved into an analogue of our 5th amendment right against self incrimination.
The priciples of ‘rights” recognized in our Constitution can be traced to biblical teachings. Paul himself claimed “habeas corpus” immunity from arrest in Acts chapters 21-26, as well as the right to face his accusers. He also argued for a form of what we recognize as 1st amendment rights when he declared this his preaching harmed no one and was therefore permissible.
Further, Paul rebuked the High Priest of Israel who had ordered Paul to be slapped, stating that such practice toward an accused was unlawful.
Jesus himself, advocated settlement of complaints out of court in Matthew 18:16 and further stated in Matthew 18:18 that “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven….”
Basically, this meant that settlements out of court, out of the power of the state, was recognized by God. If the person who was accused, or who accused another, did not recognize this judgement, he was to be treated as a “Gentile or tax collector(RSV)”.
Since Jesus advocated such settlements whenever possible, and since such decisions would be “bound” in heaven, we can concluded that God did not favor the power of state settlements, or tax collectors either, it would seem.
As to Romans 13:1-7, One only has to remember Jesus’ admonitions for “common law” settlement among the “common people”, and realize that Paul himself advocated a form of trial by jury in 1 Corinthians chapter 6.
Paul tells us that there are no powers except as ordained of God. But both Paul and Jesus have allowed for common judgement among the people, as a form of trial by jury. If such powers are ordained of God, then they are required to recognize such judgements among the people as legitimate.
“Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” If any state power, therefore, does not recognize, or resists the right of the people to settle among themselves, as Jesus himself stated, then the state resists the ordinance of God, and is therefore to be damned.
Jesus himself was tried for sins(lawbreaking) of which he was innocent. He, therefore, in a court of law recognized by the state, died for sins or crimes in our behalf. As Paul points out in Romans 6:4, all who have accepted that sacrifice are dead to the law. There is no law that applies to a dead man. This is Paul’s teaching of the absolute nature of “habeas corpus”.
Our own 1st amendment recognizes this immunity in the free practice of religion.
UncleSim,
Romans 13:1 – “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.” If you contend God did not give governments to mankind, you call God a liar. Worldly governments are not in charge of the church – don’t get that leadership confused with worldly leadership of temporal affairs. Read Paul’s letters and virtually any other book of the Bible and see how the Lord wold have His people behave under the rule of pagan, wicked rulers – in as much as you are not compelled to deny God, submit to them. For this world is not your home and these rulers are put there by your God.
Regarding physical slavery, the Bible contains much historical narrative – not to be confused with instruction from God. Regarding spiritual slavery, Romans 6:16ff makes it very clear that one is either a slave to sin unto death or a slave to righteousness unto everlasting life.
Manfred,
Who tempted Jesus? What did he offer him? Could he have made such an offer if he was not in control of what he offered?
Please reconcile Satan’s control of government with God’s establishment of it.
Perhaps, as has been said, we are to govern ourselves according to God’s law, and giving up this self-government in favor of the corrupt worldly governments is our sin?
If you are right about Romans 13, what could a sinner within a worldly government do that would NOT be a sin, if such government is ordained by God? Anything? According to your argument, Hitler may have been serving God by killing Jews. Please reconcile?
Wow, so many interesting comments! I’ve also received a number of emails as well, so many that I’m not sure if I’ll be able to respond to everyone. First off, thank you all for your participation here, even if we don’t agree on everything. Interaction with you is what makes this worthwhile to me. Second, I admit that this article is short and thus does not cover everything possible — it is after all only 1200 words. For more strictly theological writing, I commend to you some of my other articles on this site:
# Render to Caesar: New Testament Theology of the State, Part 1
# Romans 13: New Testament Theology of the State, Part 2
# Turning the Other Cheek – Matthew 5:48-42
# Slavery in the Old Testament
Many of your questions in these comments and other emails I have received are addressed in these articles – especially the work on Romans 13. I also commend to you the work of Christopher Bevis in his guest article here Caesar and God in Context.
You speak of redemption as if it is an either/or state, not a process. a government, like a man, is not completely redeemed at any point in its life, but rather it is in the process of redemption. The man is justified when he gives his life to Jesus and sanctified afterwards, the process being called redemption and is completed at death. Likewise, the government is redeemed when the society commits to reforming it and follows through by electing reformers and making sure they do their job. In this light, no, I cannot give an example of a redeemed government, but I can give several examples in process of being redeemed. I will concede that the process is only beginning, and will continue as long as we have corrupt people in government. So yes, I do find it “a stretch to label government as inherently evil.”
As I was taught it, the 2nd is the “have no idols” commandment. Some denominations count the commandments differently, so for clarity’s sake I’ll be specific. You’re not clear as to what “pay respect” means, so I’ll also assume you mean the sense of worshipping the flag and what it represents, which would be against God’s law. But bringing up a single example of ungodly government does not add to your argument that all government is from man and not God, nor does it detract from my argument that government was established as a dispensation of God’s authority but can be corrupted.
No, of course not, a Godly institution understands the roles of men (both individually and collectively) and God’s established order. But you seem to think that government is strictly from man, where I contend that it comes from God and like other things, can be corrupted by sinful men. So answer the question I raised: did God establish government in Genesis 9? If not, what exactly is described in 9:5-6, and how does it relate to the government you describe in the story of Babel?
Matt,
I accept that government is part of God’s plan as much as Satan is. What concerns me is how much respect many Christians give government, particularly the US federal government. We may have the best idea yet, but we’re far from perfect.
Your initial comment sought to defend government from Norman’s exposure of its close relation to that other great evil that exists in God’s plan. Especially as long as government’s main tools are violence and coercion, Christians should avoid becoming overly beholden to such an entity.
Romans 13 doesn’t command blind loyalty to such an ungodly entity as many governments are (including ours, at times), but merely advises that we should avoid enraging the beast against us. Politicians and other power-seekers might disagree.
Not to be overlooked is the case of Joseph and Mary: commanded by an unholy, cruel government to travel a long distance so they could pay taxes. Was it God’s will that Joseph submit to this Roman government, that makes ours pale in comparison? While it may not make sense to those who see with earthly eyes, God’s will was for the young couple to make this journey so that His prophecy would be fulfilled.
That’s not to say that all obedience to earthly governments is a fulfillment of prophecy – but Romans 13 was written to folks under the same government and 1 Peter was written to mid-east folks being killed for their faith. And Peter (who was not a pope) says we are to “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake”. Not much wiggle room for personal opinion in there.
Yes, I agree about avoiding beholden-ness. My point was not to defend evil government but to point out that Norman is at best forgetting about a relevant event prior to the tower of Babel or at worst engaging in selective scripture referencing. God established government, but that does not mean it is inherently evil. When you point out that he also created Lucifer, remember that Lucifer was an angel in charge of worship in Heaven before he fell. During that time he was good.
Agreed. But what about the point where obedience to God enrages government and you can’t help but resist authority because you are obeying God?
Let’s add a term for clarity’s sake: Tyranny, defined as a body that commands disobedience to God (through whatever means they choose). Define Government as a body that rules in accordance with the will of God. So by the claims I laid out in my first comment, a Government can be established by God (or man, following God’s rules) and devolve into a Tyranny, in which case they place their subjects in what Locke called the State of Nature, absolved of obedience because no man is to be placed between a man and God.
None of this negates my claim that God established government in Genesis 9.
Glad to see our religious brethren see the light regarding the coercive and dehumanizing nature of government. But any argument that government is somehow a rebellion against God makes the leap that God must exist to rebel against for government to exist when in reality it is the desire of one person or a group to exercise control and coercion over another that is the basis of government – in other words – it is the rebellion against treating your countrymen morally that is the basis of government.
Know that the state is not the defender of religious freedom and choice – it is the moral and ethical choices of your neighbors, contemporaries and countrymen to not conduct violence towards you because of your beliefs that promotes the safety to practice your religion in peace.
Finally recognize that your desire to coerce your countrymen to act, behave, believe and conform to your beliefs and moral values is just religious government not the application of inviolate moral laws. It is very clear to me that defining marriage for a certain group is enforcing christian values on your countrymen, enforcing anti-drug policy against terminally ill patients who smoke pot is a coercion of your countrymen. Denying my right to not adhere to your faith is a form of coercion. All of these forms are definitions of government – theistic government instead of sectarian. What is the difference between a government based on god and one based on atheism – at least under a sectarian government you can choose which religion to practice!
My freedom from religion is freedom from one form of coercion and is necessary to encourage me to not attempt to coerce you in a sectarian way and deny your religious freedom.
Matt,
Genesis 9:5-6 seems to just say that we’re all gonna die, but if you shed a man’s blood, yours will most likely be shed by man. Nowhere does it say that it will be by government, it may come from a vengeful relative. Either way, it comes as a result of our sin. But I see no establishment of a government in these verses, only a warning that sin’s wages are deadly.
Moreover, any placing of man over man was done by Noah, not by God. Noah had natural authority over his sons and family. But no father has authority without responsibility.
Is there another place that says God established government, rather than a covenant? A covenant is more like a contract freely agreed upon, isn’t it?
Genesis 9:6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, …”
This is the essence of human government – one human forcing his will on another. What is government, if not force? Suppose the bloodshed does come via a vengeful relative; that does not negate the fact that it comes from another human, which is the point – government is man ruling other men.
Not true. In the circumstance of murder, God delegated to man the authority to kill the murderer. Where does Noah establish his own authority by his own actions in this passage? Nowhere. Not sure what you are trying to say by bringing up a point that isn’t in dispute; of course authority comes with responsibility.
A covenant is not always a bilateral contract; sometimes it is a one-sided contract, as in the examples of the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants. That is, they were initiated by God, not man, and are based on an unchangeable, unconditional promise by God. There are other covenants, but for this argument that’s beside the point. God established the concept of man ruling over man in certain limited circumstances in Genesis 9.
If you wanted, you could say He made the point in Genesis 9 and underscored it in Exodus 20. The Mosaic Law, apart from being the words of the Mosaic Covenant, reiterates the covenants that came before it and emphasizes certain things – namely, capital punishment. Even if you deny that God established Government in Genesis 9, you cannot deny that He established it in the Mosaic Law. For one, it’s more detailed, for another, it reiterates terms made in the Edenic, Adamic, Noahic, and Abrahamic covenants.
Are you familiar with Conner & Malmin’s The Covenants, or Conner’s Foundations of Christian Doctrine? He goes into a lot more depth that I can here.
Hello Norman,
I Samuel 8 affirms what you have said. The Lord told Samuel that by the people wanting “a king like the nations”, they were rejecting Him as Lord (verse 7). The kings were actually judgment against God’s people for this idolatry. The text also tells of how the king “will take and take and take and take to the point where the people will cry out to God because of the king’s oppression and God said “He would not hear them”. We have forgotten this lesson of history and are going through the same thing again.
I also agree that God alone is the Lawgiver. We usurp His authority as Lord of lords and King of kings when we believe the lie that the Devil told Adam and Eve; that we can be as God and decide (legislate) what is good or evil for ourselves. The true duty of judges is to apply the moral law justly when and where it applies.
Hopefully, godly men will see all three spheres (family, church and civil realms) as being under the Lordship of Christ and form covenantal communities in submission to Christ as Lord.
Take care,
Larry Crawford
Matt,
Two men do not constitute government. Avenging a death doesn’t either. I guess one could say that one’s actions will be governed by the potential reactions of others, which is kind of what life is all about, and is sort of a statement of the obvious to those with common sense, but it creates no structure, only that Noah is to command all living things.
If God was going to set an example of government, this is a pretty libertarian one, with no preexisting -archy controlling man, except the warning to avoid the sin that excites the wrath of the other living creatures of the earth, especially the human ones. It, like most of the bible, is a guide for self-government, with warnings of the evils that befall men.
I fail to see a strong enough connection in these verses to say that God ordained government here first. I haven’t read enough to argue for or against it in Mosaic law, but since Moses fled an oppressive government in Egypt, it would be hard to argue that God wants us to blindly serve those governments we happen to be born into.
I don’t consider Covenants and Governments to be equal, but you have inspired me to learn more about them. I hope you will revisit your support of governments as inherently Godly. Self-government, maybe. Overarching governments virtually depend on our sins for their power, and their very survival, though.
Rich
Matt, you confuse a theocratic government with a human government as specifically addressed in the article. Obviously, any government presided over by God and ruled by his statutes alone will be a perfect government within God’s plan. Assuming Genesis 9 creates a type of government, it can only be a theocratic government, in the same way the Mosaic law established a theocratic government.
However, in both cases, when human government was established over theocratic government, both times it was established in a direct opposition to God. In the first, Nimrod established a government to reject God’s commands, in the second, Israel wanted a human government in rejection of God’s established government. Thus, in both examples the hypothesis of the article holds true.
To our Libertarian Atheist friend, you make an assumption that freedom of religion is not a principle found in Christianity, and I can hardly blame you. It is highly unfortunate that whenever Christians have historically been in positions of power that they have most often tried to force their own beliefs on those the ruled over, but I assure you that such coercion cannot be found in the teachings of Jesus.
As to God establishing a government to be ruled by man, we can look at Romans 8:7, which tells us that the carnal(natural, biological) mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to God’s laws. If true, this would produce at least two results:
1.No one can claim physical authority as representative of God, since no natural mind can be subject to God.
2.Any attempt to do so would result in a tendency toward an infinity of religious ideas about God. Today, by some estimates, there are over 30,000 cults, sects, and denominations that claim to represent God.
If one assumes that Paul’s statement in Romans 8:7 is true, it would also result in the fact that there could be no decision procedure by which we can get from “here” to God”. Paul himself verifies this logic in Romans 8:29-30 and Romans 9:16, through rest of chapter.
While Romans 8:29-30 deals with predestination, it establishes the truth I stated earlier regarding Romans 8:7. We cannot make a decision to get from “here” to “God”, because God has already foreknown and predestined those whom he calls children. So, what does predestination have to do with freedom? It cancels any form of human government that would claim to represent God.
But let’s look at another angle. Kurt Godel developed a theorem in 1931 which states that in any consistent axiomatic formulation of number theory, there exists undecideable propositions. What this means is that there is no way to place all truth in one single package. Assuming that God is consistent with all truth, Godel has demonstrated that there is no single process by which we can get from “here” to ‘truth”, which happens to coincide with the results of Paul’s statements regarding God.
But what if there is such a decision procedure? If so, then that procedure can be translated into language, which can be translated into algorithms, which can then be programmed into a computer. The computer, lacking the flaws of human nature and the ‘carnal” mind, would be the embodiment of the son of God.
To say that a government, which is a finite rational system of human organization, can represent God, is to say that computers can ultimately become sons of God, since both are dependent on the same human reasoning process.
Further, if we can define “Holy Spirit” we can also program that into computers, so that we will have computerized “sons of God” with qualities of the “Holy Spirit”!
To argue for a government of God is to argue for computerized sons of God. Both come from the same human reasoning process. If that is true, then human life is unnecessary. We are merely the bridge to the higher, computerized sons of God. That is precisely the kind of reasoning that allows humans to kill other humans in the name of God or government.
[...] Josephus on the Origin of the State (30)40 Reasons to Ban Guns (16)Top 10 Books for Christian Libertarians – Christmas 2008 Edition (15)Unprecedented Obama Lust (12)Washington to the Rescue! (10) Mar 07 [...]
[...] Josephus on the Origin of the State (31)40 Reasons to Ban Guns (16)Top 10 Books for Christian Libertarians – Christmas 2008 Edition (15)Unprecedented Obama Lust (12)Washington to the Rescue! (10) Mar 12 [...]
[...] Josephus on the Origin of the State (32)40 Reasons to Ban Guns (29)Top 10 Books for Christian Libertarians – Christmas 2008 Edition (15)Unprecedented Obama Lust (12)Was J.R.R. Tolkien a Libertarian? (10) Mar 25 [...]