“From the Christian standpoint, all true authority begins and resides in the sovereign God and His infallible Word. The Lord Jesus Christ declared, ‘All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth’ (Matt. 28:18)… In fact, what we believe about Christ’s authority and sovereignty actually has far-reaching implications for political life and thought” –Joseph Boot1
“The prince, as a civil leader, holds an office on behalf of God, the creator” –Stephen Wolfe2
INTRODUCTION:
Both Dr. Boot and Dr. Wolfe have a point, a very valid one. When it comes to the supreme authority in all areas of life, it is none other than Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords. Unto Him, and Him alone has ALL authority been granted in heaven and on earth. He alone is worthy to wield it. Jesus is the Chief Shepherd, therefore He has the rod to govern and lead His people as the Chief Prophet of God to His people. Jesus is the Chief Priest, therefore He has the keys to open and close, bind and loose to heaven or hell. Jesus is the Chief Prince, therefore He has the sword of justice, retribution and vengeance that He bears not in vain. Christ is sovereign over all spheres of life.
“He is the head over every power and authority” (Col. 2:10; NIV).
Representative Princes…3
And yet, we find that these things are also true in some measure to the representative heads of power in the various governing institutions that God has established—i.e., princes. The man who is father and husband is he who bears the rod in the home to guide and direct his children unto life, to ward/warn them from the paths that lead to death and destruction.
The man (men) who is the elder(s) and pastor(s) is he (they) who bears the keys in the congregation/assembly of God (often termed ‘the Church’). The elder/pastor presents the inscripturated word to those who attend service, presenting the sacraments of entrance into the covenant (baptism) and sharing at Christ’s table (communion) to the living and calls unto repentance the dead sinner. To those who seek to live honest and righteous lives the keys present an open door, but to the unrighteous, unrepentant and dishonest the keys present a closed door to the covenant community.
The man who is a civil magistrate and prince of the people is he who bears the sword as a protector of the good and a wrath bringer on the evil. The prince has authorization from the Chief Prince to execute retributive vengeance against those who publicly violate the law in such a way that they endanger the civil sphere with their corruption. Thus, a part of their role as the prince over the people is to execute judgment (justice) expediently in order to protect the good from such things spreading in society (e.g. Deut. 17:7 comp. Eccl. 8:11).
I realize that some do not appreciate Dr. Wolfe’s use of the term prince, or even god, in reference to the civil leaders in our midst. But, an honest assessment of the facts gathered from reading the Bible will show that he is not off in his conclusions on this point (cf. Psa. 82:6). Christ is King of kings or Prince of princes, meaning that Christ is the head magistrate over all the dominions of men, for all sectors of dominion fall under His domain (1 Tim. 6:15). Jesus rebuked the religious leaders of His day by citing the Psalmist declaration that the civil rulers (aka., judges) of the past were rightly referred to as gods (John 10:34-35). Not gods in a divine sense, but gods in the sense of delegated authority and power. They ruled the people. They were charged with leading them well. They led to either the rise or fall of the nation (state) that they governed depending on how they did so.
Area of disagreement…
Both Dr. Boot and Dr. Wolfe are correct in their assessment. Christ is Lord over all, including the lesser lords or princes that He has established to rule on this earth. These lesser magistrates are not permitted to lead however they so choose. Since Christ is above them all, and since He is in the position of judge over them all, they are not free to rule in whatever way fits their fancy, by any law they deem fit.
Nevertheless, this hasn’t stopped such individuals from seeking this end. Civil leaders have often attempted to lead in a manner that suits the beat of their own drum. Even so, the fact is it is not a matter of “if” but “when” the rod or sword of Christ will fall for failing to lead in a manner that considers first the will of the King of kings and Prince of princes.
One Historical Example…
Take for example, King Nebuchadnezzar. Who positioned him upon the throne over the Chaldeans? Who allowed him to reign over the Babylonian empire as he brought other nations to their knees before him, including Israel? Was it not the Lord of Hosts? Was it not the Triune God of Scripture that established his throne, his domain, and his dominion (cf. Jer. 27:4-8)? Is not the great Yahweh responsible for ordaining Nebuchadnezzar to the seat which he held? And, was it not also the same God of gods and Lord of lords and King of kings that decreed that the king of Babylon would have his seat of power, his authority to reign, stripped from him for a period of seven years? It was. As Daniel would prophesy earlier, and as Nebuchadnezzar would later concur, God is the true authority behind the rulers of the earth.
“It is He who changes the times and the periods; He removes kings and appoints kings; He gives wisdom to wise men, and knowledge to people of understanding” (Dan. 2:21; NASB).
“[Nebuchadnezzar]… was walking on the roof of the royal palace of Babylon. The king reflected and said, ‘Is this not Babylon the great, which I myself have built as a royal residence by the might of my power and for the glory of my majesty?’ While the word was in the king’s mouth, a voice came from heaven saying, ‘King Nebuchadnezzar, to you it is declared: sovereignty has been removed from you, and you will be driven away from mankind, and your dwelling place will be with the beasts of the field. You will be given grass to eat like cattle, and seven periods of time will pass over you until you recognize that the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind and bestows it on whomever He wishes. Immediately the word concerning Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled… But at the end of that period [of seven years], I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever; for His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom [i.e., kingship] endures from generation to generation” (Dan. 4:29-33a, 34).
By Whose Law…?
Dr. Boot admits that all authority rests in the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Dr. Wolfe agrees that the lesser Christian prince—the civil ruler of whatever station—rules on behalf of God. On this I find agreement with both men, and so should you. However, where I would disagree with Dr. Wolfe is in terms of his use of natural law over and above divine law as a common ground from which the Christian prince, the civil representative of God, would rule (lead) society.
And in my mind that is perhaps the greatest flaw in his book on Christian Nationalism. Others who critique him tend to do so on the grounds of sacralism—the confluence of church and state governing spheres. That is a subject I tend on entertaining in a different post, but here I want to spend some time on the idea of a Christian prince ruling in terms of natural law, rather than divine law.
Wolfe’s Assessment of the Christian Prince…
Regarding the ruling prince ultimately under Christ’s dominion, Wolfe states,
“The prince, as a civil leader, holds an office on behalf of God, the creator… It is a natural office, required by the nature of man, whose function is ordering civil society for commodious and pious living. Civil power being original to God, the prince mediates God’s divine civil rule. He is not a steward or a simple administrator, as if he simply promulgates a divinely prescribed civil code. Rather, he makes public judgments in application of God’s natural law, effectively creating law (though a derivative of natural law), and he has the power to bring about what he commands.”4
He later adds,
“The prince mediates divine rule both by a sort of divine presence or gravitas and in civil judgment. For the latter, the prince is the instrument by which natural law becomes human law. The prince enlivens laws not as an agent of coercion but as the divinely sanctioned vicar of God who binds conscience to just applications of natural law, as one who directs public reason.”5
And, in case the reader would like some definition as to what Wolfe is referring to when he speaks of natural law that is meant to direct the prince (i.e., civil magistrate) in their prospective sphere of governance, he gives the following definition:
“The natural law is an ordering of reason, consisting of moral principles that are innate in rational creatures, given by God, who is the author of nature. Put differently, God has ordered man with a rule by which he discerns what he must and must avoid in order to achieve his ends. This natural law applies to every sphere of life, not merely civil life; it is comprehensive. But being a set of universal principles, it requires particular applications according to sphere in which one is acting and according to the circumstances of that sphere.”6
Though I appreciate much of what Wolfe discusses in his book regarding Christian Nationalism and his discussion of a Christian magistrate (what he calls a minor “prince”), this is an area where I believe a corrective distinction is needed.
A Minister of Justice via God’s Law…
In Romans 13 the apostle Paul calls the civil magistrate or “prince” a “minister [and… ] servant of God” (Rom. 13:4, 6). This civil officer has been authorized the use of sword—in a lethal sense, if necessary—in punishing evil and upholding the good. They are a protector of civil society by driving fear into the hearts of the populace. But, by what means are they authorized to make such judgment calls by God? Is it a law of their own design? Not according to Paul for in the same discussion he makes his appeal to civil justice on the grounds of God’s divine law:
“Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For this, ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet,’ and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom. 13:7-10).
Civil magistrates or Christian Princes are not at liberty to make appeal to any law that their reason might desire, but they are authorized to appeal to the divine law as revealed in the Torah (instruction) of God. It was God’s Law that made a distinction between Israel and the nations. A point Moses makes in Deuteronomy 4:5-8 when he says that other nations shall hear of these laws, see them in action in Israel (when the people are faithful to them), and yearn for the wisdom they see there displayed. The Law of God is a light that brightens the path and enlightens the mind of man (cf. Prov. 6:23; Isa. 51:4-5).
There is no law except God’s Law (theonomy), and due to sin it alone can make sense of right and wrong in this fallen world. If we rely on nature alone we end up looking like the beasts that roam the earth. In short, you need a corrective lens in order to properly understand what is often termed as natural law. (I will touch on this in a moment).
Now a law may be made by man that is a corollary of God’s Law, applied in a cultural sense that might differ from its former application, but in principle is the same. One such law that theonomists tend to appeal to in order to offer some explanation of this point is the parapet around the roof of the home.7 That law recorded in the Torah states,
“When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, so that you will not bring bloodguilt on your house if anyone falls from it” (Deut. 22:8; NASB).
Flat roofs are a thing in some parts of the world, but in other parts of the world where heavy rains and snow are a natural occurrence it makes sense to have a pitched roof. A flat roof in those other parts of the world, like in Israel at the time of the giving of this law, were used like our common decks/porches here in the U.S.A., for example. Thus, a fence or rail needs to be put around them to protect their neighbors. We do the same things in a variety of places: on our porches, around our pools, on construction projects before the outside walls are built, in digs where various utility lines and pipes are placed. The principle of the parapet still applies, because God’s Law is universal, though the culture application of it has changed over time and space.
The Limits of Natural Law Theory…8
The limitation of a natural law approach was demonstrated and demolished by Cornelius Van Til. He did this in terms of epistemology—the theory and study of knowing. Van Til writes,
“Just what then, we ask, is the difference between the Christian and the non-Christian interpretation of the moral consciousness as far as its being a source of the answer to ethical inquiry is concerned? The most comprehensive way in which this difference can be intimated is by saying that according to non-Christian thought the moral consciousness is no more than the immediate or proximate source of information on ethical problems. For Christian ethics the revelation of the self-contained God, the ontological Trinity, as found in Scripture, is the ultimate reference point in all ethical as well as in all other questions. For non-Christians ethics the autonomous moral consciousness of man is the ultimate reference point in all ethical as well as in all other questions.”9
Van Til continues,
“The difference between Christian ethics and non-Christian ethics has not been made perfectly clear at this point unless we dwell on the fact that even in its original perfect condition the moral consciousness of man was derivative and not the ultimate source of information as to what is good. Man was in the nature of the case finite. Hence his moral consciousness too was finite, and as such had to live by revelation. Man’s moral thought as well as the other aspects of his thought had to be receptively reconstructive. God therefore spoke to man in paradise, tell him what to do and what not to do with the facts of nature. In the case of non-Christian thought, man’s moral activity is thought of as at once creatively constructive, while in Christian thought, man’s moral activity is thought of as being receptively reconstructive.”10
So as to not miss the point that Van Til is making here, let us carefully what his insights have revealed. He is stating that before the Fall and the curse mankind still needed divine instruction even in order to know the difference between right and wrong action. Before the curse of sin twisted our forefather’s reasoning ability (and ours after him), he still needed the God’s Law-Word in order to act in manner befitting of the station God assigned to him.
One of the failures of appealing to natural law as a basis on which all men might be governed, an argument offered because all men are image bearers of God and, to some degree, have an inner testimony of right and wrong behavior in the world via a conscience, is that men are by nature sinners. We are born after the image of our father Adam, until we are redeemed by our heavenly Father via Christ Jesus. Left to our own devices we (here, I speak as a sinner11) may seem to agree with redeemed men that murder, or theft, or the mistreatment of our neighbors is wrong, but our basis for doing so is founded on another footing. “What footing,” you may ask? That which seems right in our own eyes.
The appeal to Romans 2…
It is true that there seems to be a place where an argument can be made for the appeal to natural law, without the aid of divine intervention on passages like Romans 2:14-16 where it appears to readers (who fail to consider the entirety of Paul’s argument there) that people are able—on their own—to do that which is required by God by natural law alone: “…the work of the Law written in their hearts” (Rom 2:15).12 However, the point the apostle is making is not that men are justified on those grounds. He is not saying that people are able by will alone to know (via reason/right-thinking) and do that which is right (via a general will) in the sight of God. On the contrary, Paul lays the conclusion at the beginning of his argument against both Jews and Gentiles in that “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18). For the truth is “… all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law” (Rom 2:12).
Regardless of man’s lineage or gifting (i.e., be they Jew or Gentile; with the divine law or without it) all sinners have their mouth of many excuses shut, in that they are accountable to God (cf. Rom. 3:19), who has declared that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). To appeal to Romans 2:14-16 as a way to say that men are able to govern themselves and others in the civil sphere by appealing to what is natural to them, misses the point of Paul and miss applies the meaning of what has been spoken.
Considerate Retort…
I must ask, “If natural law is accessible to all men throughout history, then what has natural law gained them?” The Greeks had it, and their cultures were corrupted by it. The same can be said of the Babylonians, or the Persians and Medes, and let us not forget Rome. What has the advocacy of appealing to natural law—a supposed light given to all men in terms of right and wrong, moral versus immoral behavior—gained the world in all its epochs? Nothing. One might want to cling to the idea of natural law as something that all men can see and agree upon, but they cannot. Because the reasoning of men is not neutral, their starting point brings about the conclusion from the beginning.
Pilate may have seen that crucifying Christ was wrong, I mean, he couldn’t figure out what Jesus did that was actually deserving of death; and yet, he still flogged him and hung him on a cross. The understanding that natural law theory provides did not keep the formerly blind man from getting kicked out the synagogues for embracing Christ (cf. John 9). Nor, has it helped us much in our period of history as women murder their children, and a large sector of our society embraces governmental theft.
Even seeing Natural law in the classic sense, which many Christians no doubt embraced in the past, is a shadowy disfigured troll compared to the divine light of wisdom displayed in God’s Holy Law. I’ll even go so far as to say something radical to the modern Christian ears, men will be judged by God’s Holy Law in the next life to be sure, but in this life also. Reaping what we sow is a biblical statute, not something that will be evident from nature.13 Even if one were to reason to such a position, they cannot claim that this reason was unaided. And, if it is aided by the Holy Spirit to see a matter, then we cannot claim it was/is purely natural.
To be continued…
ENDNOTES:
1 Joseph Boot, Ruler of Kings: Toward a Christian Vision of Government (London, England: Wilberforce Publications, 2022), 117, 119. In fact, Christ as supreme ruler of the nations sits in judgment offering counsel to the kings (i.e., princes) of the earth. For those who heed His word—spoken and taught from the mouth of His people, in particular, His angelic messengers (i.e., ministers of the gospel not supernatural beings) –a peace and blessing is offered to them and those under their charge, but for those that ignore or turn a deaf ear to His commands the sword of His mouth and His scepter of iron are used to bring to ruin what they have been temporarily granted rule.
2 Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2022), 286. Earlier in the chapter entitled “The Christian Prince” Wolfe explains to his readers the intent behind this title given for the civil magistrate. He writes,
“I cannot conceive of a true renewal of Christian commonwealths without great men leading their people to it. Nor can we expect the national will to find its end through an administration led by wonks and regulators. So I will primarily use ‘prince’ as the mediator of the nation’s will for itself. This title denotes both an executive power (viz., one who administers the laws) and personal eminence in relation to the people. The prince is the first of his people—one whom the people can look upon as father or protectorate of the country. I am not calling for a monarchial regime over ever civil polity, and certainly not an autocracy, though I envision a measured and theocratic Caesarism—the prince as a world-shaker for our time, who brings a Christian people to self-consciousness and who, in his rise, restores their will for their good. ‘Prince’ is a fitting title for a man of dignity and greatness of soul who will lead a people to liberty, virtue, and godliness—to greatness.” (Ibid., 278-279); italics in original.
Many will focus on the title and the phrase “theocratic Caesarism” I am sure, but we would do well to acknowledge the plurality of leadership referred to, even if its concept is foreign and somewhat shocking to our Western ears.
3 I realize that Dr. Wolfe’s use of the term “prince” or specifically “Christian Prince” is pointing to a political figure/officer/governor/magistrate. However, what I am driving at is that man is a created prince, and those princely duties are exercised in the various institutions that God has established. The prince of the home is the “father,” the prince(s) of the church is the “pastor(s),” and the prince in the civil sphere is any number of positions of power that we might recognize today or in the past. The term is symbolic and/or analogical, and not meant to be taken with a wooden literalism this misses the nuances one might apply to the term. In short, a prince is one who has been put in a position of authority with a measure of power that has been authorized from on High for them to use in a fashion that glorifies their Maker.
4 Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism, 286. Emphasis added.
5Ibid., 290. Italics in the original. Emphasis mine.
6 Ibid., 245. Earlier Wolfe attributes the ability of man to recognize the natural law through the use of reason. He writes,
“God made man a reasonable creature. Man’s possession of reason is what most distinguishes him from beasts. Being reasonable, man is placed under moral (or natural) law… Reason is that faculty by which man discerns this law and thereby judges what must be done and must not be done… The reason of man allows him to discern and understand both the laws of his nature and why those laws are good for him.” (p. 244).
Wolfe is correct that reason is a tool given to us by our Maker that distinguishes us from the animal kingdom, but like all other aspects of man, reason, has likewise been maligned by sin.
7 Ibid., 246. Wolfe also cites this law as being discussed by Junis in “Mosaic Politity” (46).
8 All of life is ethical and all of life’s ethical standards (i.e., laws, statutes, commands, etc.) are religious in nature. See: Greg L. Bahnsen. By This Standard: The Authority of God’s Law Today. Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics. 1985. and, R. J. Rushdoony. The Institutes of Biblical Law. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing. 1973.
9 Cornelius Van Til, “Christian Theistic Ethics,”Vol 3 of In Defense of Biblical Christianity (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1980 [1970] ), 19, PDF e-book.
10Ibid., 20.
11 Just for clarification, I am a sinner saved by grace through Jesus Christ the Lord, the object of my faith, to whom the Father drew me in and the Holy Spirit enlivened me to. I only state “here, I speak as a sinner” in order to stress the distinction between the two positions: redeemed vs. unredeemed; godly vs. worldly. Sinners may seem to agree with Redeemed individuals on various matters, but their starting point is different as their conclusions on various topics reveal.
12 To this Van Til also speaks,
“It is necessary, however, to think of this revelation of God to man as originally internal as well as external. Man found in his own makeup, in his own moral nature, an understanding of and a love for that which is good. His own nature was revelational of the will of God. But while thus revelational of the will of God, man’s nature, even in paradise, was never meant to function by itself. It was at once supplemented by the supernatural, external and positive expression of God’s will as its correlative. Only thus can we see how basic is the difference between the Christian and non-Christian view of the moral nature of man in relation to ethical questions.” Ibid., 21.
The reader ought to note the distinction that Van Til offers here. Even though we have been granted what is often termed a “natural law” system of right and wrong, morally vs. immorally acceptable behavior this was meant to be governed by God’s spoken Word, even before the Fall of Man in the beginning. How much greater is the need then in our time when we are born sinners, and even after redemption have a remnant of sin that we must contend with? To argue that men can govern themselves by their own internal light—i.e., the light of nature—in the civil sphere is an error in judgment committed by a great many Christian thinkers.
13 Although, I will admit that we might draw an analogy from nature that makes sense of this divine truth, but not apart from it, let alone without first starting with it. God’s Law-Word, divinely revealed and inscripturated for our benefit, is the necessary corrective lens that we ought to view the world. Even, in terms of the civil magistrates use of/creation of laws to govern society as a whole.
Kristafal's Musings 