Click here to get this post in PDF

History as Your Context for Judging

“A righteous man falling down before the wicked is as a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring.” Proverbs 25:26, KJV.

“How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked?” Psalm 82:2, KJV.

“They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them.” Proverbs 28:4, KJV.

“He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.” Proverbs 17:15, KJV.

“He that saith unto the wicked, ‘Thou art righteous;’ him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him:” Proverbs 24:24, KJV.

“Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?” Psalm 94:20, KJV.

“They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood.” Psalm 94:21, KJV.

“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.” Proverbs 29:2, KJV.

“Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life: . . . .” Ezekiel 13:22, KJV.

“When I say unto the wicked, ‘Thou shalt surely die;’ and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.” Ezekiel 3:18-9, KJV.

“And thou, profane wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end, Thus saith the Lord GOD; ‘Remove the diadem, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.’ ” Ezekiel 21:25-7, KJV.

“When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that they shall be destroyed for ever:” Psalm 92:7, KJV.

“Falling down” in Proverbs 25:26, above, is translated from a Hebrew primitive root word “mowt,” which means “to totter, shake, slip, be moved, to be greatly shaken.” The Hebrew word translated “troubled” is “raphas,” which also means fouled. Think of someone sticking a muddy boot into a clear fountain. That’s a troubled fountain. The Hebrew word translated “corrupt” is “shachath,” whose full meaning is “to destroy, corrupt, go to ruin, decay.”

Romans 13 & I Peter 2 are oft-quoted New Testament chapters used to teach Christians to obey “the authorities.” The teaching is often accompanied by a reminder that the authors, the Apostles Paul & Peter, probably wrote those words while a wicked Emperor named Nero ruled the Roman Empire. Notice, however, that they did not advise Christians to “obey Nero.”

Paul in Romans 13 commands, ” Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.” Romans 13:1a, KJV (emphasis added). Notice the word “powers” is plural. Peter commands, “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.” II Peter 2:13-4, KJV (emphasis added). An ordinance is a law, and Peter also refers to plural authorities because he speaks of “the king, as supreme,” and “governors.”

The gospel writers were Hebrews and were not unskilled in their understanding of civil government. They were well versed in law, having been raised to practically memorize the Mosaic law from the earliest age. They understood there exist multiple authorities in the world of governing. Paul, as a Roman citizen, used his right to appeal to the emperor when he felt a lower court was prejudiced against him. Acts 25:11b, KJV (“I appeal unto Caesar.”)

As God-inspired writers, they used their words carefully. An ordinance is a law, and authorities are to protect the righteous and condemn the wicked. Their historical context was also relevant. As residents within the Roman Empire, they knew that they lived under Roman jurisdiction, not Israelite jurisdiction. Within Israel, there was distinct Jewish jurisdiction and Roman jurisdiction and probably some overlap also. But outside Israel, it was all Rome. In other words, as they went about their mission as ambassadors for the Kingdom of God, the apostles accepted their status as “aliens and foreigners.”

Rome had been founded by Romans, Roman law was based on the principles the Romans used in establishing their republic, and the early Christians were introducing an entirely new and “foreign” system of thought, belief, and life to the Roman Empire. Rome was also not a democratic republic in the sense that the modern West understands such. For example, one person/one vote was not the Roman Empire’s way. Romans had priority, and all others were subject to the rule of those Romans. The Romans did not recognize the law of the God of Israel; they merely granted to the Jews some limited jurisdiction because of their zeal for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But Rome itself did not recognize any jurisdiction for Mosaic law or biblical principles of governing, except by some accidental correspondence, i.e., laws against theft, the enforcement of private contracts, and other fundamental rules of order for society.

Compare that situation to ours in the U.S. Approximately, 1,300 years after the Roman Emperor Constantine accepted Christianity as an official religion, after Europe had amassed a Christian heritage of law and faith, and after that heritage was imported to the North American continent by European Christians (hopefully, minus some of the baggage imposed by state & church), our form of government was established.

Therefore, when a Christian faced the government and laws of Rome and found them unjust or contrary to scripture, that Christian had perhaps a theological or biblical/moral argument against that status quo, but that Christian did not have a legal argument based on the Roman Empire’s legal system. That Christian could speak before a magistrate while on trial for not acknowledging the divinity of Caesar and preach the truth that there was a new king, one named Jesus Christ, but his attorney (if he even had one) could not argue that Roman law required the tribunal to acknowledge Jesus Christ as King of the universe and of Rome.

However, the Christian today is in an entirely different historical context. One could even argue we live in the opposite historical context from that of the Christian living in the Roman Empire of the 1st through the 4th centuries A.D. Departing from the Christian and biblical heritage of our nation and the West would require the proponent to meet a very high bar and that they use lawful means to accomplish such a change.

To use domestic example, it would be like a man (Christianity) trying to woo the wife of another man (the Roman Empire). The husband can say to the rival, “I’m married to this woman. You’d better show that I have broken my marriage covenant with her before you attempt to take her from me, or you are a law-breaker and a scoundrel.” The husband has the responsibility of trying to retain his wife’s affection, but he also has the law behind him. The rival must overcome both to woo away the wife.

In the case of the U.S., Secularism or Humanism or Progressivism or Liberalism – pick your term – is attempting to woo the Christian West, to reverse that order, and they do so by arguing a lie. First, they assert that the U.S. governmental structure and legal system are Humanist, that the Founders rejected all biblical law and influence when they founded this country. Second, they jettison the means of changing the law, which the Founders themselves established in the U.S. Constitution – by amendment, which requires the consent of the people. Third, they then say that once that change has occurred, it can never be reversed without violating “the law.”

In other words, unlike the Christians who altered the Roman Empire over time by being forthright and honest about their religious faith in Christ and not attempting to overthrow the Roman government by subterfuge, the Secularist lies about the Christian heritage of America, and instead of using lawful means to alter the Constitution by amending it, argues to a federal court not only that Christianity has no say in interpreting that document but also that the original meaning of that document and its historical context have no bearing on its interpretation.

To be cont’d.