Is the question how the OT church/nation differs to today? Or is the question, at what point did the church or nation in the scriptures most resemble our current situation?

I agree that Israel in the OT was given laws by God, not made up by the Israelites, but I think it still most resembles todays situations, more so the the NT Church or even Israel in exile because I think the key question is what power and authority do we have to create laws.

I.e., in a democracy, I believe we have been given by the State itself, power to influence the laws being created.

I think the parable of the talents makes it quite clear that as Christians, we are to use the opportunities, and abilities we have in order to further the kingdom of God.

So, I would say that this implies we have a responsibility and duty, as Christians, to attempt to influence our societies laws in order to create a society where Christian principles reign. Not just so we can feel good about our power and influence, but in order to best help those in need. The oppressed, the widows, the poor. It isn’t about overcoming the non-Christian with power, but to show love is the most complete possible sense.

Just as the Church has used it’s influence to abolish slavery (twice!).

As per your third point, I think the ethics expressed can be seen as servant leadership and so can be consistent with seeking power. It seems to me that this is similar to a family, where the father seeks money in order to properly love his family.

Regarding the early church, I’m not sure ‘flourishing’ is the right word. The growth was, on average, around 2.5% per year.

The victory over the pagan world would seem to be more to do with Constantine removing state funding from them (a state act!), rather than the conversion of the general population.

For those institutions, when healthy, are more likely to produce well-adjusted children who become good citizens and thus contribute to the common good. So, Christians in a liberal democracy, because they have the means to affect change, should be concerned about whether the wider culture and/or their government agencies and institutions (such as the public schools) are properly shaping, or at least not corrupting, the characters of its young people.

It’s unexpected, I guess, that none of those institutions existed in the first three centuries of the church, yet the church flourished and overcame the ancient pagan world.

Unexpected, but true.

I would say that there are at least three significant discontinuities between the OT and the NT which are relevant here. Another way to say this would be, “Israel is not like the Church because …”

[1] In the OT, Israel is not making its own laws: it has a law (or “constitution” if you will) drawn up by God which they must abide by. God makes them a nation like no other for His own purpose, and in that there is no legislative activity needed — only judicial and executive action, if we can even make those parallels (I think we can, but I see why someone would not want to).

[3] In the OT, the better parallel for the sake of the church is Israel in exile rather than Israel conquoring the land. Someone will disagree with me about this, but here’s why this is true: the intention and the objectives of israel while in exile reflect how the church is not a citizen of this present age but a citizen of God’s kingdom which is also yet to come. We are here already — already servants of a Lord and Savior — and our hope is frankly in the “not yet”. Daniel in Babylon did not seek to subvert the kingdom, but rather to seek the common good of the kingdom in order that it would go well for him and his fellow Israelites.

[3] I have a hard time making the ethic expressed by statements like “the last shall be first and the first shall be last” and “take up your cross and follow me” as rationale to seek to possess temporal power. I think the ethic expressed there turns the tables on how we see power and authority and subverts statism (both left and right) and also libertarianism and anarchism, putting those who are saved from the sting of death in a position of moral freedom to do for one’s neighbor whatever is necessary to demonstrate that there is a real savior. That ethic is not expressed clearly in the OT because the savior is not manifest.

Your opinion may differ — I look forward to hearing what you think.

In any event, I don’t think what I’ve written is contrary to sola scripture (though, as a Catholic, I don’t hold to SS), though it is contrary to some points of view held by Protestants. But it is a view that does not really differ from views held by other Protestants. Consider, for example, this excerpt from my forthcoming book:

Although the New Testament speaks very little about government and the Christian’s responsibility as a citizen, one may glean certain principles from the Bible that contribute to our understanding why a Christian citizen should have an interest in politics and political institutions.

In order to accomplish this goal, we will cover four topics (A) Caesar’s Coin and the Image of God, (A) Doing Justice, (C) Knowing Your Government, its Laws, and the Scope of Your Citizenship, and (D) Voting for and Supporting Non-Christian Candidates. Because each of these topics can be addressed individually in a book length treatment, we can only hope to skim the surface of each one in this introductory tome. The purpose of addressing these topics is not to propose the Christian perspective on politics, but rather, to offer the reader some biblical and theological ways to think about politics and the role of the Christian citizen in a liberal democracy….

We should also recognize that the theological purpose of Christian charity is not merely to help the poor and others who are need of the church’s love and care, but also to allow the grace of God to work through us so that we may be conformed to the image of Christ and bear witness to the world of that grace. According to Jesus (Matthew 5:17-24), it is the bearing of fruit, the hearing and acting on Christ’s words, the doing the will of his Father that constitute the life of faith, a life likened by Jesus to a house that could fall if not adequately constructed to withstand severe adversity. In John 14, Jesus tells his followers a bit of what it will mean when he says, “because I live, you will live also” (v. 19). He states, “In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him” (v. 20-21). And these commandments include “love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:28-31) and the acts of love that the goats lacked at the Last Judgment (Matthew 25:31-46). The Gospel of Mark recounts these words of Christ, “If any man would come after him, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and gospel’s will save it” (Mark 8:34b-35). In Mark 4, Jesus explains the parable of the seeds in which tells his listeners of those who receive the word “with joy,” but it does “not take root” and thus “they fall away” immediately “when trouble or persecution arises.” (v. 16-17). He also tells of “the ones sown on the good soil: they hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty and sixty and a hundredfold.” (v. 20) It seems then that the Christian Gospel is more than about getting us into heaven, but getting heaven into us. Thus, we should not be quick to accept government solutions that may have the unintended consequence of impeding the church’s opportunity to bear witness to Christ’s grace in our works of charity and mercy.

Among those who are made in the image of God are children. If we are to give “unto God what is God’s,” we must, therefore, ask ourselves as Christians what sorts of policies, practices, and institutions best advance the good of the nation’s youth. Unfortunately, there are those in contemporary culture who look at children as merely products of choice and the extent to which they may bring happiness to the adults who desire them. But this objectifies children and does not seem consistent with the biblical tradition, that portrays children as begotten, not made, and as gifts from God rather than products of our wills (Psalm 127:3). This is not to say that one must be a Christian to hold such a high view of human dignity, for many non-Christian citizens, both religious and non-religious, hold such a view. These citizens, like their Christian peers, see children as persons that should be valued for their own sake rather than because of what children can do for others. Thus, the objectification of children should trouble both Christians and non-Christians alike.

A proper understanding of children and the obligations that adults have to them are essential to a well-ordered society. As Jesus pointed out, “Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for a fish, will give a snake instead of a fish? Or if the child asks for an egg, will give a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11:11-13 -NRSV). And because our neighbor’s child is our neighbor as well, and we should love our neighbor as ourselves (Matthew 22:39), many Christians think it wise through our laws and our cultural practices to protect the institutions of marriage and the family. For those institutions, when healthy, are more likely to produce well-adjusted children who become good citizens and thus contribute to the common good. So, Christians in a liberal democracy, because they have the means to affect change, should be concerned about whether the wider culture and/or their government agencies and institutions (such as the public schools) are properly shaping, or at least not corrupting, the characters of its young people.

Whilst there seems to be a large focus on the New Testament for all this talk of Government and Laws, I would think the Old Testament might be a more appropriate place to investigate, simply because, in the Old Testament (or parts there of), we see the only place where God’s people had the power to create laws.

Arguing about how Paul told us to follow laws etc, seems to be missing the point, as in Paul’s day, Christian’s had no power (or ‘talents’) to influence how the government was run.

Today, we do have power to influence how government is run, and so the question cannot properly be resolved by appealing to Paul or other new testament writers.

I think you just creeped me out.

So we preach the Gospel (which is greater than any law because it does what the Law cannot do) in order to call out those whom God will forgive when they repent in order to pass laws which … do what if not “get our way” with those who are not called out?

“However, I think there’s a subtext or a presupposition in the way Dr. Beckwith has framed this that is more evidentialist than presuppositional, and I have a problem with that.”

I’m lost amidst the layers of irony in that statement. It’s just amusing to me that we are identifying Beckwith’s presuppositions as evidentialist.

But I’m actually sympathetic to evidentialism as an argumentative strategy, so I (alas) again find myself siding with Beckwith.

I also wonder often what we Protestants mean when we say ‘Biblical.’ There’s a real question there.

That aside, I think one thing that you left off your list of what we needed to identify was a biblical anthropology, that is, an understanding of the humans relationship to the political order as expressed in and through Scripture. Also, I have worries about formulating the political order strictly around the exercise of power. Much more seems to happen in politics than simply coercion, which may make it a more hospitable realm for Christian action.

But then, that gets back to Dr. Beckwith’s initial critique, which is that we’re approaching this issue with lots of modernist presuppositions that are affecting how we constrain ‘biblical’ and what counts as biblical.

Done rambling. I’m sure we’ll go around a few more times on this before the internet dies.

John the Baptist told the soldiers, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.” That’s not a massive moral breakthrough: that’s just handling the Rom 13 commission justly regarding the ministry of the sword.

My opinion for the legislative officer and the judicial officer and the executive officer is that he handle the second table of the Law wisely. He cannot legilate mercy or kindness, but he can legislate in the common law those tyhings which are known clearly by all men. And he must do it with the clear picture that his is a minister of the Gospel, and in that anything he would do to spoil that greater commission must be avoided.

I am perpetually stunned that I am among the eldest bloggers, but then I am also stunned that I am in my mid-40′s and can’t eat anything without gaining 2 lbs.

I can be honest and say that part of my slipping in of SS toward Dr. Beckwith is a rhetorical attempt to take him off his game. I think it’s a sound critique, but it’s one which, if played right, will cause him to re-justify his own theological choices and help me look more focused and therefore influence more people. Just between you and me, anyway — don’t tell anyone. Tactics win battles.

However, I think there’s a subtext or a presupposition in the way Dr. Beckwith has framed this that is more evidentialist than presuppositional, and I have a problem with that. There is no question we can learn from history — but history is not self-interpreting. We need a lense through which to view history, and some trust in this theory or that theory, but our lense is by definition Scripture.

So for example, we look at the council of Nicea which did some good and necessary and biblical things, and it also did some pragmatic and unnecessary and unbiblical things. It may have also done some biblical things poorly and some unbiblical things well. However, in order for us to ever even approach that grid, we need to first have a grasp on biblical ecclesiology and gospel-centered missiology and gospel-centered apologetics. The Bible has to inform the grid which we view this event through and not be merely a participant in the conversation.

Jim Belcher’s new book Deep Church does a great job, I think, of underscoring this in his chapter on “Deep Preaching”.

So I say all that to sort of say this: the Bible is not another authority. It is a pre-eminent authority with no peers. Our brothers in Christ before us can be useful and even edifying, but we have to weigh their efforts against Scripture and see where they were found wanting.

However, as you pointed out in your post, Agrippa and Festus are like the UN or Congress. Obviously if they are saved they should become disciples of Jesus as any Christian should, but their whole man is saved, not just their “spiritual man.”

What should their “political man” do as a regenerated follower of Jesus Christ?

I’d really be curious for a bit more justification for why you think sola scriptura has anything to do with Dr. Beckwith’s position. As someone who broadly agrees with Dr. Beckwith on this issue, yet holds to sola scriptura, I think that methodology is beside the point. As best I can tell, the issue isn’t whether we are bound to the witness of previous generations, but whether we should listen and be chastened by them–which is, on this issue, all Beckwith has said and really all that is needed. The tradition doesn’t seem to speak monolithically on this issue and hence not authoritative (for Catholics) in the same way as, say, the Nicene Creed.

More thoughts on this later, no doubt. Thanks for being awesome and letting a kid like me play.