Libertarianism and the Christian: An Uneasy Relationship

by 

    Marc Clauson has challenged libertarians in a blog called Bereans at the Gate.

    Original Post here.

    My first response:

There is no such thing as "civil government" in the Old Testament. The verses used to refute that statement actually describe a "priesthood," not "the State." What "civil government" calls "capital punishment" was a shedding of the murderer's blood to atone ("kaphar") for the shedding of innocent blood (Genesis 4:10-11; 9:4-6; Numbers 35:33; cp. Deuteronomy 21:1-9). In our day, no blood but Christ's can cleanse the land of the pollution of murder. Similarly, what "civil government" calls "war" was "ceremonial," not "civil." It was "capital punishment" on a national scale. God commanded that an entire ethnic/political entity be sacrificed as a whole burnt offering, in an organized liturgical action ("hormah") that was led by priests, not the Pentagon, to cleanse ("kaphar") the land. "The State" was invented by rebels against God (Cain, Lamech, Nimrod, etc.) and imported into Israel when Israel rejected God as her Lawgiver, Judge, and King, (1 Samuel 8; Isaiah 33:22) in a desire to be "like all the nations." Jesus prohibited His disciples from being "archists" like the kings of the Gentile nations (Mark 10:42-45).

Marc's reply (left) and my response (right):

To Kevin Craig:
I am afraid you would be wrong in saying that there was no civil government in the Old Testament. While the term “civil government” or its equivalent is not used, it is clear that one sees the basic elements of government: the coercive authority of law enforceable by officials. God to be sure was the ultimate head and in that sense the Hebrew “commonwealth” was a theocracy. But he did ordain human vice-regents on earth, to enforce the Law in its civil aspects. If you don’t like Genesis 9, then there are other texts.		 I made a remarkable claim, backed up with Scripture: the OT functions usually called "civil" are actually "ceremonial." For a blog called "Bereans at the Gate," the reply (at left) is not a very Berean reply. It simply repeats the mainstream meme. No verses examined. The Bereans, remember,

were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, in that they received the Word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.Acts 17:11

Let's search the Scriptures, starting with Genesis 9. When Noah got off the ark, he was not greeted by any "civil government." Noah embodied a "patriarchal" (family-centered) society. When he offered burnt sacrifices (Genesis 8:18-21) he acted as a priest, not as a civil magistrate. When God told him to shed blood (Genesis 9:4-6) we are again dealing with "priestly," not "civil" requirements. If you disagree, then you would (if consistent) ask your local city council to shed blood in cases of unsolved homicide (I cited Deuteronomy 21:1-9 for this proposition -- no "Berean" analysis of this text).

When you see phrases like "it is clear," that's scholarly code for "I don't want to be a Berean."
Moses ruled the people under God, and enforced laws that were clearly not just ceremonial or moral, but had a civil-judicial character. In every way, Israel acted as a nation with a government. You are assuming that when the people acted collectively, they were doing so in a private capacity with massive cooperation and no actual governmental apparatus. You say Moses enforced laws that were "clearly" not just ceremonial, but "had a civil-judicial character." "Clearly" in this context is designed to quash Berean analysis. Please analyze Deuteronomy 21. Why should this passage be applied by "civil-judicial" agencies today? Why not? Why Genesis 9 but not Deuteronomy 21?
In some sense, I suppose war might have also been “liturgical” but if it was (and I am skeptical) then it was also a civil-governmental action. Notice the words "if" and "then." These are logical connectors. That which is on the right-side of the "then" flows necessarily from what preceded it on the left side of "then." At least if "then" is being used correctly.

But it's not. There is no logical or Biblical proof.

 IF  war was intended to atone for sin,  THEN  it was also civil. Why? What is the logic behind this syllogism?

Why is the burning of Jericho a "civil-governmental" action, and if it is, why should this not be used as a clear justification for the white-phosphorus bombing of Fallujah in Iraq by modern-day "civil magistrates?"

The Bible describes these events as liturgical and ceremonial. Where does the Bible describe them in any terms that could be called "civil?" Let's be Berean about this, not just defenders of the civil status quo.
As I said in another comment, I am no huge fan of governmental intervention, but Romans 13 presupposes its existence (as do other texts), even in the Old Testament. How else to account for the general command to obey in Romans 13–just after Christ? Yes he is referring to the Roman government there, but if we accept that part of the reason for government at all because of the sin nature, then surely the sin nature existed before the NT. And before the kings of Israel. Therefore government would have been needed then as well. Yes, Romans 13 presupposes the existence of a brutal pagan regime. Christians are to "be subject" to brutal pagan regimes because Jesus commanded us to do so, not because God approves of brutal military conquest and occupation.

That should be obvious, but I guess it's not. The Roman Empire was not "needed" in Israel any more than a monarchy was "needed" in 1 Samuel 8. If Italy invaded Israel today, and set up a military dictatorship, even the U.N. -- not usually on Israel's side -- would condemn this obvious violation of International Law. Jesus said to obey the lawless invaders. That does not mean they were lawful. In God's eyes or even man's.
Furthermore, nowhere does God condemn kingship per se, only the ungodly kings. That does not mean monarchy is the best form, but it also doesn’t mean there was no government at all that was considered legitimate. God is our King (Isaiah 33:22). 1 Samuel 8 is quite emphatic: the desire for an earthly king is a rejection of God. Let's do the "Berean" thing on the verses cited in that link.
Jesus does prohibit his followers in the context as individuals and as the church, from being “archists,” as you put it. But he does not forbid service as a magistrate or the use of Old Testament principles in government and law. Still, it is government, whatever its principles. Again, we are presupposing the mainstream meme by speaking of "Old Testament principles in government." These are, in reality, Old Testament principles of priestly atonement.

Magistrates are "archists." Jesus prohibits Christians from being archists.
The state was not invented by rebels against God. Then who invented it? Where? When? Please do the "Berean" thing and point to the verse where some "good guy" invented a monopoly of vengeance funded by theft.
The state was ordained by God to restrain evil and to do justice. I do believe that implies a very limited government, but not anarchy. "Ordained" in a providential sense, but not "ethically approved." God "ordained" Assyria to rape Israelites and pillage their property (Isaiah 10), but in the same passage God condemns Assyria for doing what God "ordained" them to do. This is the picture throughout the Bible. God uses ethically illegitimate actors to accomplish His purposes, then judges actors created in His image for their sins of being archists.

God does nor give His moral seal-of-approval to everything He "ordains" in history.

Again, let's do the Berean thing. Let's search the Scriptures. Where does God command human beings to form civil "governments?" I've gone through the Bible and I can't find that verse. Concerning the language of Romans 13 ("the powers that be are ordained of God"), James Benjamin Green, in his Harmony of the Westminster Standards, noted that: "It is not meant that God directly ordained the state by saying to man, Thou shalt set up a government or organize a commonwealth." Here's my survey of the Bible and "the State." John M. Frame, formerly of Westminster Theological Seminary (east and west) and now at Reformed Theological Seminary, is in my view a great Berean Bible scholar. Here is my response to his Berean survey of the State in the Bible.
One more point on that–I have difficulty believing you would think human nature so good that government could be avoided. And if it is necessary now it was then since human nature does not change. I don't believe "government" can be avoided. I "govern" my family. As an employer, I "govern" my employees. As a teacher, I "govern" the classroom. "Let all things be done decently and in order." I believe in self-government. "Economics" means "household government." This can all be done in a more Christian manner in the absence of "civil government" -- a coercive monopoly of vengeance and violence. An entity that by its very existence shouts: "Jesus the Prince of Peace need not be obeyed."

On "human nature," here is my previous comment:

200 years ago, "human nature" (i.e., man's sinful nature) was the basis for limiting the State. In your thinking it is a reason for justifying the State. "If men were angels," we wouldn't need the State. But if men are demons, we dare not have a State, a monopoly of violence and death.