Romans 1.1-17

Chapter 1
Verse 1

Paul opens his letter by calling himself a slave of Christ. But this slave of Christ is also His apostle, not by Paul’s choice, but by the divine intervention and call of God. Paul’s divine call to apostleship occurred in the direct appearance of Christ to Paul on the Damascus road, and, presumably, under the direct or inspired teaching of Christ as Scripture is silent concerning Paul’s whereabouts for several years following his conversion. The purpose of God’s calling of Paul to be Christ’s apostle is the gospel of God. The gospel of God is nothing else but the person and work of Christ, the Son of God, whose perfect obedience, death on the cross, and vindicating resurrection have secured righteousness before God and the hope of eternal life in His glorious presence for those who believe in Him. For this reason Paul was set apart.

Verse 2

The gospel of God is not a promise that was recently made to Paul, or to any other at that time. Rather, the gospel of God concerning the person and work of Christ was promised in the inspired written word of God’s prophets. These prophets of God who composed the holy Scriptures including the Law (the Mosaic Pentateuch) and the Prophets (the Major and Minor prophets as well as the Wisdom books). From the first promises of God to Adam and Eve after their fall from righteous preservation, the people of God looked to the Word of God through the mouths of His prophets concerning the Messiah who would crush the deceiver and restore God’s people to righteousness and blessed peace on earth.

Verse 3

Paul speaks clearly that the promise of the holy Scriptures in their entirety is Christ the Messiah, born as a descendent of David according to the flesh, though revealed by the Spirit to be the eternally begotten Son of God. Son of God and Son of Man, Christ Jesus is fully human and fully divine, possessing the nature and attributes of both, excepting the sinful nature of Adam, the federal head of fallen humanity. It is important to notice that the incarnation is indicated by Paul to be part of the promise of the holy Scriptures. Though some still contend that the Old Testament nowhere prophesies the birth of God’s own Son, Paul affirms that it indeed does prophesy the same.

Verse 4

We know that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God because of His resurrection. We must not miss the importance of this point. The resurrection of Christ is the proof of His divinity. The Jewish leaders rejected the prophesies of the second Elijah, who was John the Baptist. The Jewish leaders rejected the teachings of Christ, who spoke with divine authority. The Jewish leaders rejected the miracles of Christ, accomplished in the power of the Spirit of God. Yet having rejected him in these external witnesses, they also rejected the witness of their own standard, the holy Scriptures, and therefore condemned Jesus as a blasphemer worthy of a death worse than even the Law commanded—for rather than stoning Jesus according to the Mosaic Law, the Jewish leaders saw it fit for Jesus to suffer at the hands of pagans, according to the most vile and cruel punishment of the day—death on a cross. Yet in the resurrection of Christ Jesus from the dead, God proved Jesus to be the Christ, and this final rebuttal to the false doctrine of the Jewish leaders was the final vindication of Jesus’s Messianic Kingship and Sovereign rule as the Son of God whom He claimed to be. The cross became the objective sign for all men to look and see their salvation accomplished in Christ, and the resurrection became the objective sign for all men to look and see their hope of eternal life accomplished in Christ for our blessedness of fellowship with God, and to His glory. Moreover, Paul refers to this resurrection of Christ from the dead as in accord with the spirit of holiness and identifies Jesus once more as its object for perfect fulfillment. That is, the resurrection was set apart by God’s righteous aim so that Christ Jesus would receive the first fruits of glory for our glorification; eternal life in the presence of God.

Verse 5

In Christ Jesus Paul asserts himself as a recipient of God’s grace and apostleship, for the purpose of bringing Gentiles into the obedience of faith for the sake of Jesus Christ. As Lord of Creation, the glory of the King is manifested in the multiplication of worshippers from all tribes and tongues of men. He who created all things, desires that all things worship Him in the fullness of His glory. For this reason Paul is called to be an apostle to the Gentiles, so that God’s grace might be manifest unto those who are called according to the purpose of God and in the name of Christ Jesus alone.

Verse 6

For it is in the name of Jesus Christ and by His power that Gentiles have been called, even those Gentiles who are among the Romans to whom Paul is writing.

Verse 7

Therefore, Paul gives thanks to God for all the beloved of God in Rome who have been given the titles of saints, the holy ones. And it is according to the unsurpassed and all surpassing grace and peace of God that Paul commends grace and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul, the slave of Christ, reminds us that our slavery to Christ, that is, our complete fidelity to Him according to the knowledge we possess in seeing and beholding Him—this realization of Christ is that by which we experience the grace and peace of God the Father, Who, but for the sake of Christ and His own glory, would only bestow His wrath upon us.

Verse 8

Paul transitions from this brief expression of praise into a more substantial expression of gratitude for God. His thankfulness to God springs from the inclusion of these Romans into the faith by which and through which the grace of God is being proclaimed throughout the whole world. These Romans were living in such a way that others around them were expounding upon the profound faith that they were exhibiting. Certainly this proclamation is one reason why Paul is writing to them, for though he had not yet visited them, he had heard of their faith through witnesses or emissaries who were traveling throughout the Roman empire and testifying of their faith in Christ.

Verse 9

Paul pleads to the witness of God, and according to God’s commissioning of Paul to preach the gospel of Jesus, of his unceasing prayers for the Roman Christians. Is this not an example to us that we should pray for our brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus? And what should be our prayer, but that God would strengthen their faith, enlarge their hearts to serve God and one another, and by His grace that we might share in their fellowship by visiting them in their joys and afflictions.

Verse 10

What is the chief desire of Paul in his prayers to God on behalf of the Romans? It is to finally be granted to visit them and to impart to them the wisdom of God that has been granted to him by the power and revelation of Christ. So too should we wish to share what God has granted us in the way of knowledge and wisdom to those who will benefit from hearing.

Verse 11

Paul states explicitly the content of his desire, which is to impart a spiritual gift to the Romans, which includes his preaching of the Word, but also the presence and service of his body, which makes all words more remarkable to the mind, more palatable to the affections, and more lasting to the will. The word of this spiritual gift of Paul’s preaching, teaching, and serving in person is that the Church in Rome should be established in faith.

Verse 12

The encouragement in faith is accomplished not only by the presence of Paul in his preaching, teaching, and service, but in the additional and reciprocal works of the saints of Rome to exhort and serve Paul, thereby encouraging his faith in Christ and in the work He is accomplishing in their hearts. What better encouragement can there be to a minister of God’s Word than to see that Word take precedence in the hearts and lives of those to whom he ministers, and to be the recipient of their love and good deeds as well? Surely there is not only the sharpening of minds in this divine transaction, but also the deepening of relationships such that the Body of Christ is sanctified in the unity that resembles that much more the unity of Christ the Son with God the Father. Let us remember that the unity of the Son and the Father is not only one of Being, but of knowing and willing—can the Church express the unity of the Godhead if it is not united in mind and will, that is, by the doctrines that determine the content of its beliefs and the impetus for its actions? Only when mind of Christ pervades the minds of His people shall a proper unity of the Christ’s Body be revealed in the world.

Verse 13

Paul wants the Romans to know that his long absence in coming has not been the result of willful neglect, but of necessity and circumstance. Paul has longed to visit them in order to reap the fruit of Christ that they are bearing according to God’s faithfulness among them. Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles in Asia Minor and throughout the Roman Empire had not yet had firsthand fruition in Rome, and Paul has desired to cultivate the Gospel there by his own efforts according to the call of Christ. Can we not see the enduring passion of Paul for the call of Christ to be His witness to the Gentiles? No other thought consumes his mind so superlatively, so extensively as does the thought of preaching Christ to the Gentiles, and particularly the Gentiles in Rome. What a lesson this is to ministers today! Here Paul desires to preach the gospel—not simply to the unconverted (though certainly that is also his desire)—but to the converted! A minister who does not cease to desire to preach the gospel to his congregants is a minister who does not cease to see both the greatness of our need for Christ, and the greatness of Christ in supplying all our needs in Himself.

Verse 14

Paul continues to press home the purpose of his desire and its driving force. Paul is compelled, he is obliged, by the commission of God, to preach to Greeks and non-Greeks alike, to the wisest of their ranks and to the most foolish of their number. In this simple phrase we are reminded of Paul’s willingness to become all things to all men so that by all means some might be saved.

Verse 15

And in light of these preceding statements, Paul expresses his eagerness (as though it bore repeating!) to preach the Gospel to the Romans. Would that all of us who are called by the name “Christian” recognize in Paul’s eagerness that all important motive that ought to characterize our proclamation of the gospel to our fellow believers and to those who languish in unbelief. It is not that we might attain the satisfaction of men, nor that we should advance our justification before God—for the praise of men cannot reach the heights of heaven, nor can the works of our hands accomplish what God alone can do (and this shall be the theme of Paul’s letter). We do not preach to win the praise of men, nor do we preach to win the favor of God. Yet we preach the gospel of God in order to see His glory and grace poured out in the hearts of others as it has been poured out abundantly upon us. Grace manifests grace, whereas self-interest only manifests self-destruction. Let us then recognize that we can only preach the grace of God to the extent that we have understood and accepted the grace of God for ourselves, according to Christ Jesus and by His illuminating power.

Verse 16

Is it any other reason than Paul’s understanding of the manifest grace of God given to him in Christ that he could say with confidence, “I am not ashamed of the gospel?” For surely the proclamation of the gospel had brought him much shame as the world counts shame: beatings, shipwrecks, scourging, rejection, threats, insults, and a host of hardships were Paul’s lot in this life, his reward for preaching the gospel unashamedly. Though few of us shall endure the reward that Paul endured in this life, fewer still will receive his reward in heaven, and fewer still than that shall understand and experience the grace of God to the degree that Paul experienced it in his sufferings for Christ. But as potent as were the persecutions that Paul endured, and as sweet as was Christ’s support in his suffering, above these things Paul expresses his boast in the gospel according to its great power to save everyone who believes, first the Jews, but also the Greek. It was not Paul’s greatest boast, and his chief confidence that Christ had done so much for him, but rather it was Paul’s greatest boast and chief confidence that Christ has done so much for the world, and that for the sake of God’s own righteousness. The eternal vision of Paul sees far beyond his own subjective hope and joy, and by his eternal vision his subjective hope and joy is surpassed to overflowing.

Verse 17

Here we encounter the reason for Paul’s confidence, the source of His hope in Christ, and the theme that will drive his exposition of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Romans: “For in [the gospel] the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, ‘BUT THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.’” Paul uses the word that came directly from the mouth of God to the prophet Habakkuk as his theme and point of departure for the declaration of the gospel in its essential structure. How shall a man be found acceptable in God’s sight? How shall a man attain the satisfaction of perfect peace? How shall a man be vindicated of his faults? To these questions and others Paul’s response is: from faith to faith, God is the righteous One who makes men righteous: God who is all of justice is also all for our justification. No work but His own shall satisfy Him who works all things according to the pleasure of His Will. No work but His own shall accomplish the Good end that He has determined from the beginning. No work but His own will He heed as hale to withhold His righteous wrath when a sinner stands before Him on the day of judgment.

Purpose

This blog is devoted to my own personal reflections on the book of Romans. It is not intended to be an exhaustive exegesis, nor is it intended as an apologetic. It is merely meant to provide myself with an outlet for my own thoughts, in the hopes that others who read may also be encouraged, if God wills it so.

Christianity and the State, pt. 2

Chapter 3
Religion and the Church
In summarizing the contents of the previous two chapters, Rushdoony remarks that during the Christian Empire, the tendency was for the Empitre to identify God too closely with the Empire's world order, thereby making any enemy of the emperor/king an enemy of Christ. On the other side, the Church worked to separate God from the world as the emperors sought to unite God and the world. Further, the Church made the Pope in the image of the Emperor, such that an enemy of the Pope was an enemy of Christ. Thus the conflict between the divine right of kings and the divine right of popes was inaugurated in their long and historic conflict. Rushdoony also remarks that this tension was peculiar to the West, because the East was more Platonic in its thinking (i.e. other-worldly) and the West inherited the Roman tendencies toward centralization and simplification.

All of this summary and brief elaboration leads up to this paragraph:

The more immediate problem is thus not the ancient Church-State problem but rather the relationship of religion, and, more specifically, the Christian religion to the Church and to the State. Because both ecclesiastical and civil institutions have become humanistic, they have abandoned their historic Western roles under God for a new doctrine of social order. It is important therefore to examine the relationship of religion to the Church, having surveyed earlier the relationship of religion to the state. (10-11)

First, Rushdoony states that the Church is specifically a Christian institution. The non-Christian view of society is unitary: the social order of the state, of which religion is a department of state existing only as an aspect of the state. But because Christianity refused to have its Church according to the existence of the state, but rather as an institution in existence by God's divine Will, the Church was to inevitably come to war with the forces of state that sought to bring it under its dominion. Rushdoony puts it this way:

[The Church] shattered the humanistic unity of society by declaring itself to be the representative of a transcendental King and order, Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God. It held, moreover, that the State, and every aspect of society, is similarly duty bound to represent God's order, not man's. The Church therefore was more than new wine in an old wine skin; it was new wine demanding new wine skins, demanding that all things be made new in terms of Christ. (11)

Rushdoony marks Feudalism, in its decentralized aspects, to be a product of the relative freedom of the Western Church. When the Church centralized, the ability to administer the life of Christ locally and individually, and the ability to reform the Church regularly through new movements and orders was diminished. The great Reformation was a result of the centralization of the Western Church--rather than changing in small parts continually and throughout, the central order forced its detractors to break from its power and association.

In our contemporary context, the pagan notion of a unitary society has resurfaced and grown, constituting a radical denial of the nature of the Church. Rushdoony cites the thought and action of the Vatican and the World Council of Churches as an example of the trend. Decentralization is a by-product of the great commission in Matt. 28:18-20, which aims to reconstruct man and society in terms of the regenerating power of God in Christ.


Chapter 4
The Anthropology of the State
The concept of man is central to any doctrine of the state. Rushdoony lumps the diverse theories into general or major kinds. The first is the classical view of Greek thought, which believes that man is a union between two alien elements in dialectical tension:

1. Form, idea, reason, or spirit and
2. Matter, will, particularity, or flesh.

The first set is the higher element, whereas the second set is the lower. Whether one prized reason or will determined how one regard man. Socrates (through Plato) held that Virtue is Knowledge and that no man sins willingly. All virtue comes from knowing what is truly for our good, and all sin comes in mistaking what is harmful for what is good. Knowledge liberates reason from its bondage to the will (appetites) and leads to happiness by pursuing true knowledge and curbing bodily desires. But rather than being an optimistic view of man, this view made salvation from sin practically impossible, for pure knowledge and pure virtue could not end without ending the dialectical tension between the mind and body, i.e. only death could end the struggle. Only the philosophical life came close to the ideal, and only the State ruled by philosopher-kings could ensure an environment that encouraged such an ideal. Whereas the non-philosophical man garners too great a mistrust, the philosophical man garners too great a trust. Rushdoony identifies under this view Enlightenment philosophers up to Rousseau, Marxists, Fabian Socialists, Behaviorists, and others.

Aristotle represents a similar anthropology to Socrates and Plato. Rather than unifying everything in the State, Aristotle sought some emphasis upon the individual, or particular. Aristotle argued that the state was a creation of nature and thus man was a political animal by nature. Rushdoony remarks that if God created man, then man is defined by God and is a religious creature, but in Aristotle's conception, man is the creature of the state. So even in Aristotle's focus on particulars, he arrives at the same conclusion as Plato: man is the creature of the state. Like Plato, Aristotle saw a conflict between mind and body, saw "the good" as that to which all things aimed, and argued that both the good of man and the good of the state are what is good for man. However, the good of the state, being a greater and more perfect good, and thus holds prominence and preference over the individual good--once again we have the centrality of the state in the life of man, for the good of the state is what enables man to reach his highest good. This final good, like Plato, is happiness, defined as "self-sufficiency," which is supposed to seek itself in society as opposed to in its own individuality (i.e. anarchy).

Thus, classical anthropology shifts back and forth between anarchy and totalitarianism, or as Rushdoony puts it:

Classical anthropology thus had an ambivalent position, moving from totalitarianism to anarchism quite readily. The nature-freedom dialectic of modern philosophy gives it the same tendency, an emphasis on the totalitarian Savior-state, a world state, and an omnipotent state on the one hand, and, on the other, the protectionist, autonomous nation state and the anarchistic individual. Both man and the state claim to be universals and absolute particulars. Both man and the state see themselves as the final judge and arbiter of all things, and both decide issues in relationship to themselves.

This classical formulation also holds that man is a product of blind chaos and chance, an evolutionary accident, and an accidental product. His nature is not constant or God-given. Man is a product of his environment and is molded to whatever form the molder desires. Thus, education is necessary to mold the man and thereby control his future. Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Pavlov, Freud, Dewey, and many other statists have insisted upon the control of the child through education. The view of the "plastic man" as Rushdoony calls it, is a doctrine of totalitarianism, for it holds that total power can produce total change. The opposing side in the modern reformulation of the classical anthropology is the existentialist anarchists, who deny both the state and other men. Freedom, for these, is expressed by the unmotivated act and its demonstration of radical independence from God and man.

The second kind of anthropology is expressed in the democratic view of man. Behind it lies radical scientific elitism. Rousseau and his doctrine of man's goodness is a major figure of this view, which claims that only institutions and a bad environment lead to evil or sin on the part of man. Man has great dignity under this view, but what it grants ostensibly it cannot fulfill in reality. If man, in his great dignity, is so easily perverted by evil (as history shows), he must be very weak and his natural goodness very slight in relation to the operations of nature. The democratic view replaced God with Nature, making man the creature of Nature and the world of men. Like the classical view, but more so, man is malleable, and the result has been a heavy emphasis upon propaganda, education, and statist controls for reworking man. The overthrow of institutions that make man evil is the means of salvation, which is an anarchistic paradise where man and society operate in a stateless world. The notion that the voice of the people is the voice of God is also part and parcel with the democratic view. Ironically, the view has led to the proliferation of institutions and organizational control of man (despite its locating the cause of evil in institutions). If bad institutions will corrupt man, then good institutions will save him and keep him good. The democratic state is hostile to Christianity because of its view of man, and because it is not compatible with either totalitarianism or humanistic politics.

A Biblical anthropology views man as the creation of God. Created by God in goodness, and fallen into reprobation apart from Christ, man is not considered normal in his fallen state. Sin, a deformity in man, is destructive of man and society. Sin is suicidal. Thus, man must be considered in his original righteousness as well as in his total depravity apart from the work of Christ. Man is not plastic, he is not changed by the state or the environment; not by church or school, but by the eternal councsel, effectual calling, and regenerating grace of God FIRST, and then only secondarily by his own will. God acts and by that act, man responds.

Biblical anthropology makes personal responsibility primary, over and against modern psychologism and environmentalism as well as primitive notions of magic and the influence of evil spirits. Neither society, nor institutions are to blame for our condition or our actions as freely willing actors. Man is not anarchical, nor can he be totalitarian, for above all he must answer to God, who is the ultimate governor. The power granted to man is just that, granted, and therefore limited by God both actively and directly as well as secondarily through His law. Violations of the law invite God's just and inevitable judgment.

Against evolutionary theory the Bible advances the claim that God alone, by His sovereign purpose, moves all things toward the glory of His name. All of creation's purpose is to serve God's purpose of His own glorification. The effects of Christian presuppositions has even had an impact upon pagan thought in previous eras. Rushdoony cites laissez-faire philosophy and free trade thinkers, who adapted the Christian doctrines of providence (harmony in creation). Harmony is not a product of nature or of blind forces, but of God's eternal willing. The conflict inherent in evolutionary philosophy requires that power be amassed in order to accomplish the ends of either the individual or the state. Amidst such conflict only arbitrary limitations can be advanced, but under a Biblical anthropology conflict is not an inevitable and inescapable aspect of natural forces, but is the product of sin, which is governed (along with all other things) by the sovereign will of God, who has provided both a means for salvation, and a manner in which man is to walk in order to give Him glory in all things.

Christianity and the State, pt. 1

The following series of posts constitutes another chapter by chapter summary, this time summarizing the book Christianity and the State by R. J. Rushdoony. The book is 192 pages and includes forty chapters an a short appendix. Since each chapter is relatively short and given the lengthy nature of the previous summary, I will include two to four chapters per post, with the appendix and any additional thoughts garnering a final post of its own. Thus, the next eleven posts shall comprise the complete summary. Unlike my summary of Gentry, I shall write in the place of the author, bracketing any of my own comments [like so].


Chapter One
Introduction: The Need for a Theology of the State
Evolutionary thought has assumed that primitive cultures are polytheistic and are succeeded by monotheism, however, polytheism marks a culture in decay, not a culture in formation. One contemporary example of polytheism is the post WWII figure Dr. Kerr (chancellor of UC Berkeley in the fifties) who claimed that instead of a universe (and university) there is really a multiverse (and multiversity). Plurality rather than unity is the structure of reality, and this view is a world of polytheism because it rejects any over-all truth and order in favor of "fragments and limited connections in the shambles of time and space" (1). The result of polytheism and its disavowal of universal order and meaning is the requirement of force to accomplish cohesiveness and truth. Religion within polytheism makes no claims of universality, but remains relegated to its own corner of acceptance, occasionally demanding gifts and bribes for appeasement rather than overarching claims of jurisdiction over men and nations.

The Enlightenment saw churches limit their spheres severely. While churches overstepped their boundaries up to this point in history in many ways, what authority is not limited is that of Christianity, specifically the authority of Scripture, which declares every sphere of life to be under the rule of God's word and under the authority of Christ the King. The implication is that EVERY human "must be a Christian in church, home, school, state, vocation, and all of life" (2). Not one sphere of life is not autonomous from the claims of Christ--just as we cannot move from fidelity to Christ to that of Mammon, Ball, or Molech so too we cannot move from fidelity to Christ to that of school, state, or any other order that is not under "the catholic or universal sway of God's rule and law" (2). The limits of the Enlightenment to the "spiritual" realm, which created an untenable distinction that led to more and more being categorized under the command of the "material" realm of the state and economics.

The following paragraph is as good a summary of the first chapter's argument as any:

Polytheism was born thus within the church. The work of Jesus Christ was progressively limited to soul-saving, and, with the steady rise of Arminianism, even here man gave an assist to God.

As a result, the cosmic Christ was traded for a polytheistic Christ, and the Bible was read, not as God's law-word, but as a devotional book for pietists. The state (and most of life) was thus "freed" from God to follow a humanistic course. Humanism, as the new Catholicism, began to claim the school and all other agencies and institutions, until humanism too began to decay within and thus resort to force to gain its will without, i.e., in the physical world of men and nations.

Scripture asserts its authority against such paganism and thus requires a theology of the state to guide our beliefs and actions. Psalm 2 proclaims to the nations a command to submit themselves to God's law or face his wrath and judgment. The state that would claim authority and lordship over any sphere of life must be challenged with the claims of Scripture proclaiming the sole Sovereignty of Christ.


Chapter Two
Religion and the State
The so-called problem of church and state is akin to the so-called problem of free will. Both require the problem to be correctly identified and formulated in order to be answered correctly and sufficiently. Unfortunately, "Church and State" is a term that obscures rather than elucidates the discussion of the problem, for the current "state" is no more a unity than the current "church," although the rising assertion of influence over local branches of civil government by the U.S. Supreme Court is approaching something of a unified state authority. Rushdoony quotes from John F. Wilson's book, Church and State in American History, to elucidate the problem more clearly, and he narrows Wilson's six phases of the problem into three:

1. The colonial period's policy of establishment, where a single church (or in some cases more than one denomination) was established and financially supported by the state.

2. The colonial period's policy of disestablishment, where particular denominations were divested of state establishment and support and Christianity was established as a religion over an against any particular ecclesiastical establishment.

3. The post WWI rapid development of the post Civil War trend, which insisted on the neutrality of the state towards religion while maintaining religious liberty for churches.

Despite this historical discussion of the phases, Rushdoony finds it lacking in its attention to the basic issue, which he finds as far back as the medieval period, where the "Church-State" tension is identifiable apart from the traditional formulation expressed by Wilson.

The debate in the medieval period was the papal conflict with the nations under the Christian empire, and resolution was sought in institutionalization. A Christian order was acknowledged by both the popes and rulers, with periodic hostility concerning who would have primary control and maintenance of this Christian social order. This original formulation of the problem of Church and State has become obsolete in the modern era because the state is not concerned with establishing a Christian social order (and is more often hostile to that agenda) and there is less often any single church that seeks to claim establishment in any Western nation. Where establishment does exist, it often receives no support from tax funds and no legal recognition of Christian order in law courts. Also, there is no common consensus (ecclesiastical or civil) in the modern era that a Christian social order is even necessary. Finally, in the modern era religious liberty has been replaced by religious tolerance. Historically, religious liberty meant freedom for the church and its worshipers from state control and jurisdiction. But religious tolerance has meant that the state retains the power to declare which church or religion has a right to exist. The authority to govern that was foreign to the state under religious liberty has been usurped by the state under religious toleration. The original purpose of the First Amendment was to preclude the Federal Government from entering the jurisdiction reserved to the State governments who retained the right to establishment of religion [some of which had established religions during the ratification of the Constitution]. It was not until the 14th Amendment was interpreted by the Supreme Court as applying to all states that a complete denial of state establishment of religion was effected.

All of this history is preparation for the proper formulation of the problem, which must recognize the fundamental nature of the institutions of Church and State:

Not only is every church a religious institution, but every state or social order is a religious establishment. Every state is a law order, and every law order represents an enacted morality, with procedures for enforcement of that morality. Every morality represents a form of theological order, i.e., is an aspect and expression of a religion. The church thus is not the only religious institution; the state also is a religious institution. (7)

The battles between church and state are thus religious battles, where two rival claims to religious order are being waged against each other. These claims constitute totalizing influence for they wage for the governance of society, the whole of life for a people. Just as the American Puritans held the Bible to be the source of all reason and morality, so too humanists hold autonomous humanity to be the source of true reason and morality. Thus the issue is not between church and state, but between the state as a religious establishment or Christianity as a religious establishment. Neutrality is a myth created to obscure the claims made upon the power to enforce the governance of society. As humanism has increased its theological influence upon Christian belief, so it has increasingly become the established religion over the state, the school, and the church.

Before Jerusalem Fell, pt. 5

The following is the fifth and final installment of a chapter-by-chapter summarization of Before Jerusalem Fell by Kenneth Gentry. There are five sections to the book, and each entry here will cover one section. Note: quotations are being taken from a pdf copy of the book, therefore page references may not match exactly with hard copies.

Section 5: Conclusion
Chapter 20: Concluding Remarks
Gentry finishes his books with a reminder of the importance of Biblical Introduction, which deals with such matters of authorship, audience, and dating of Biblical books (to mention only three important considerations under this topic). He then gives a summation of his early date argument, including the external and internal witnesses. He then proceeds to another reminder of the practical importance of resolving the question for oneself. Since it comprises the final section of the chapter, I will reproduce it here in full:

The resolution of the question of the dating of Revelation has far-reaching practical implications for the average Christian. As noted in our opening comments, fascination with Revelation is an extremely widespread phenomenon in American Christianity. Almost certainly this fascination will continue. The importance of Revelation for eschatological inquiry lends it an especially influential role in the development and implementation of a Christian worldview. Hence, it is of grave ethical and cultural significance in that it impacts on the Christian’s view of history.

On the one hand, if Christianity’s eschatological expectation is that of an imminently portending and dismally precipitous decline and extinction of Christian influence in our day, as much of current Christian literature suggests, then our Christian endeavor will be powerfully bent in one direction. And it must necessarily be turned away from the implementation of long-term Christian cultural progress and dominion. If Revelation’s judgments are yet to occur and lie in our future, then we must expect and prepare for the worst.

On the other hand, if the expectation held by the Christian community is of a sure hope for progress and victory, then the focus of Christian enterprise will be of a constructive and future-oriented nature. Our cultural endeavor will not be in despite of our eschatology, but in light of it. In this regard, if Revelation’s judgments lie in the past and punctuate the close of the old order in preparation for a divinely wrought novus ordo seclorum in which God will be engaged in “reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Cor. 5:19) and “drawing all men” to Christ (’John 12:31), then the Church can confidently seek to bring “every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5).

We also noted in the beginning of our inquiry that a serious confusion as to the nature and message of Revelation is partly responsible for the cultural defeatism and retreatist pietism so influential in twentieth century Christianity. There we observed that one reason for confusion as to the Church’s future is due to a radical misunderstanding of the date of the writing of Revelation. If Revelation is inadvertently dated after the events it prophesies as future, the way is opened to a radical misconstruing of its message. Indeed, not only has the message been misread in such circumstances, but it has been wholly inverted, placing in our future what really lies in our past. Hence, the significance of the date of Revelation. (336-337)

Although I am not going to produce a summary of it here, the reader may also be interested in the appendix provided in Gentry's book, which is a refutation of House and Ice's book "Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse?" Much of the refutation involves arguments already discussed in the book by Gentry, but a few additional arguments are made regarding dominion theology and the commentary on Revelation by Bruce Chilton, entitled "Days of Vengeance," which House and Ice focus much of their attention on.

Finally, now that I've concluded the summary of Gentry's book, I wish to add my own commentary, brief though it may be, on the value of the book. Although it took me quite a while to get through the book (even longer than it took to summarize it, I assure you!), I found that skimming through it again during my summary was a helpful aid in reflecting upon its arguments. Whatever one may think about Gentry as a person or the strength of Gentry's arguments in one place or another, I have been quite impressed by the exhaustive nature of his investigation into the dating of Revelation. His command of the scholarly literature, his attention to the ancient sources, his commitment to evangelical presuppositions, and his even treatment of the evidence are all things I hope to emulate in my own research efforts. A second appreciation I have for Gentry is his open recognition of the role that presuppositions play in EVERY endeavor of analysis. I have encountered many folks who wish to make arguments and claim that they are simply dealing with "the facts" or "the plain meaning of the text" or the "the best method of hermeneutics." While these folks have good intentions and strong convictions, it remains the case that behind every claim is an epistemological foundation, a source of authority to which one must appeal, a set of first principles, and a system of meaning that are all operating in and influencing the conclusions that one draws about what constitute "facts," what counts as "plain meaning," and what "method" accords with what can be counted as knowledge. These deeper issues of philosophical importance often float above the heads of most folks in the ethereal realm of abstraction, but they are nonetheless the property of all rational thought, whether anyone takes the time to consider them. For all those who are unwilling to end their inquiry with "common sense" or what is "self-evident," Gentry's careful thinking will be refreshing.

I am indebted to Gentry's work in strengthening conclusions that I had only assented to in principle prior to reading his book. I encourage the reader to engage with his arguments even if they are convinced of their own conclusions on eschatology. Their efforts will not be in vain!