Distinguishing Spheres Affirms Christ’s Lordship Over All Things (Part 1)
By Dr. R. Scott Clark - Posted at The Heidelblog:
It is repeatedly argued (especially on social media) that unless one affirms that Christ exercises his dominion over all of life in the same way then one has denied Christ’s Lordship. Of course this way of arguing assumes what it has to prove (begging the question). It is simply untrue that to distinguish spheres is to deny Christ’s Lordship.Christ On His Twofold Kingdom
After all, Christians have been distinguishing spheres under Christ’s Lordship for a very long time. Jesus himself said,
“My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” (John 18:36–38)
If we consider this passage for just a moment we can see that our Lord was declaring that he is indeed a king. Pilate drew the correct inference, “So you are a king?” Christ is King! He is king over all things but he administers his kingdom in two distinct spheres. He said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” If we take this sentence absolutely, then we would be Manichaeans, who theorized about two competing principles in the universe, good and evil. This is Star Wars theology. Jesus was not a Star Wars theologian. He was not saying there are realms over which is he not king. He was saying, however, that his kingdom is not of, from, or finding its source in this world (ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου). Christ’s kingdom is from, of, or finds its source in the will of God—it is heavenly or eschatological.
Because Christ’s kingdom is not sourced in this world but, as it were, broke into history with Christ its king (Mark 1:15), he was not about trying to establish an earthly kingdom. That is why he did not send his servants to fight. That is why he had told Peter to put up his sword (John 18:11). Did that make Christ disinterested in this world? Did it make him passive or a Pietist, as the epithets tend to go in the online debate? Hardly. First, he applied God’s holy moral law to and for the citizens of his kingdom (e.g., Matt chapters 5–7).
In so doing, however, he also established spheres in his kingdom. When he gave the keys of the kingdom (Matt 16:13–20) to Peter as a confessing apostle and thence to the visible church, he did not give those same keys to Caesar, to whom he commanded only that we render to him what is his (Matt 22:21) (i.e., taxes). He did not give to the church dominion over civil life. The Donation of Constantine (post-750) was a fraud.
Consider our Lord’s language, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” Certain things are, in a sense, Caesar’s, whose picture was on the Roman coin. Does that mean Christ is absolutely excluded from dominion over taxes and Caesar? In saying this, was Christ teaching Manichaeism? He was not, but this is our choice: Manichaeism or two spheres in Christ’s kingdom.1
Manichaeism is anti-Christ. There are not two competing gods or forces, or one force with two principles in the world. The God who is one in three persons spoke into nothing and by the sovereign power of his Word created all things. He alone is the sovereign Lord and King over all things. But that one kingdom—Christ’s kingdom—exists, or is administered, in two distinct spheres.
See also:
Comments
Post a Comment
Please feel free to comment, but profanity, anti-Christian or argumentative comments will not be published. Thank you, ed.