BLOG

The filet mignon of the word, part 7, Kingdom Authority

The law of God defines God’s rights and the rights of man according to His nature. God owns all that He has created, and this gives Him the right to define and enforce all rights. And so we find that He has the sole right to be worshiped, as seen in the First Commandment. No man has the right to contradict God’s right by claiming religious freedom. There is room in the present imperfect order for freedom of conscience, but not to worship false gods.

In practice, this means no man has the right to legislate laws that contradict the nature of God as defined by His law. The laws of men, enacted under the authority granted by such legislators, must not contradict God’s laws. If there is a contradiction, those laws are null and void from the moment of their enactment, for God esteems such laws to be unconstitutional. The law of God is the constitution of the Kingdom.

America’s Declaration of Independence stated that “all men are created equal.” The author, Thomas Jefferson, was pointing back to the book of Genesis prior to Adam’s sin. After sin entered the world, some additions were made, most notably the law of authority. This is seen in Genesis 3:16, where God told the woman, “your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

Prior to this, authority was given to Adam to rule over God’s estate (the earth), and this was part of his birthright (Genesis 1:26). Yet nothing is said at that time about Adam ruling over Eve, for Eve had not yet been taken out of Adam. Hence, Eve too was given rulership over the earth as an equal partner with Adam, and for this reason the text reads, “and let them rule.”

This mandate was not repealed after they sinned, but for the first time God authorized the rule of one person over another. Paul explained the two reasons for this in 1 Timothy 2:13, 14

¹³ For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve, ¹⁴ and it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

The first reason is derived from the law of sonship, which gives rights to the firstborn. Though Eve was in Adam, she was not in the position of a firstborn child. The second reason is simply that Eve was the first to be deceived into sinning. Nonetheless, as I will show, all authority is accountable to the one who has appointed or called him/her to do some particular work. If that authority is abused, it may be removed by the higher power. Authority is not absolute.

I will say too that the original sin was the start of a continuous degradation into the misuse and abuse of authority. Husbands have not been exempt from such abuse. Ultimately, the purpose of authority has always been to lead people into freedom, not to keep people in slavery. We see this in Romans 8:20, 21, which speaks of the authority of the children of God, saying,

²⁰ For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope ²¹ that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

In other words, Adam’s authority has been abused by most men and all governments—some worse than others—but those who have found true freedom in Christ will work to bring all of creation into the same freedom that they enjoy. This, of course, looks far hence to Creation’s Jubilee. But the point is that there is purpose in authority. It is not to have perpetual slaves but to use godly authority for the benefit of others.

So also, a husband’s authority over his wife is given so that he might have the power to express his love by setting her free—not by keeping her in perpetual bondage. In our goal of reversing the effects of sin, we strive to come into unity as “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). True unity is not possible apart from equality. Agreement begets unity, and unity renders authority irrelevant.

When a husband and wife are unified, there is no need for one to command the other nor for one to submit to the will of the other, for both have the same purpose in life, which is to please God and to work to set all of creation free. Yet as long as sin is in the earth, and as long as men and women remain imperfect, authority is necessary as part of Kingdom order.

Firstborn Sons and Princes

When God established the Kingdom of Israel in the time of Moses, He recognized the rights of the firstborn (Deuteronomy 21:17), unless the firstborn dishonored his father, as we see in the case of Reuben (1 Chronicles 5:1). A patriarch, or “prince,” ruled each tribe. This authority was passed down from one of Jacob’s twelve sons as a birthright. The patriarch was a father to his tribe, and it was his responsibility to protect and maintain equal justice for all.

As the tribes grew, each generation produced another layer of authority, where the father was responsible to protect his family, not only from intruders but also from injustice from those of other families. He was to be the kinsman redeemer, which is often mistranslated as “avenger of blood” (Deuteronomy 19:6). His job was not to take revenge but to ensure that justice would be done in the court that God had established among them. In essence, he was the advocate for his injured family member and the prosecutor against the criminal.

The Hebrew word translated “avenger” is ga’al, “a redeemer.”

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h1350/nasb95/wlc/0-1/

Blood has a variety of meanings and applications, including bloodline, that is, a kinsman. To understand this fully, one must study the laws of redemption, which give certain rights to a kinsman redeemer. (See Leviticus 25.)

Taking Vengeance is Forbidden

A kinsman redeemer did not have the right to take revenge by taking the law into his own hands. In the time of Moses, God established judges from the tribe of Levi, and these were intended to provide unbiased justice. Their courts were divine courts, and the judges, being instructed out of the law, were supposed to maintain equal justice in any dispute. For this reason, Paul quoted from the law in Romans 12:19,

¹⁹ Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord.

Paul was quoting from Deuteronomy 32:35, “Vengeance is Mine, and retribution.” God put the responsibility for administering justice into the hands of the Levite judges. This was not man’s vengeance but God’s. Man’s vengeance is too often biased in favor of his own family, and it is too often done without a proper understanding of the mercy factor that was built into the law. It is a truism that most men lean toward selfishness, because they lack love (1 Corinthians 13:5).

The apostle Paul, after forbidding believers to take vengeance, gives instructions on how to administer justice with love. Romans 12:20, 21 says,

²⁰ But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head. ²¹ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Neighbors often did not like each other, and when they traveled, the fire in their hearth would be extinguished. When they returned, they would normally ask their neighbor for one live coal so they could start the fire again. Paul painted a picture of doing good to his neighbor, using this metaphor with a double meaning. To give a neighbor woman an entire jar of burning coals meant that she would put the jar on her head and carry it home. In this act of kindness, going beyond the call of duty, the neighbor’s ill will might be overcome with good neighborly feelings.

The Law of Victims Rights

It was the duty of a judge to determine guilt or innocence according to the evidence presented. Once this was determined, he was to render the verdict according to the specifications of the law. If a man was guilty of stealing a sheep, he was to pay his victim double restitution (Exodus 22:4). If the stolen sheep had already been sold or killed, the thief was to restore fourfold (Exodus 22:1).

If a judge deviated from the mandate of the law, he violated the rights of either the thief or the victim. It was his duty to be precise. But once the judgment was rendered, it was the right of the victim to collect the entire amount that was due him, but this was not a duty. The victim retained the right of forgiveness. He could collect the entire amount or forgive any part of the debt. He even had the right to forgive the entire debt, if he so chose.

The victim of injustice, if he had a heart of love, might see that the thief was desperate to feed his family and was otherwise a good person. The victim might then have compassion on him and forgive the debt. Such forgiveness was not the right of the judge but only the right of the victim.

The prime example of this is seen with Jesus, against whom a great crime was committed. He was the ultimate Victim for the sin of the entire world, and this gave Him the right to forgive. He chose to forgive, saying, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34). These were not fanciful words that carried no legal weight. He was exercising His legal rights, not only to forgive those who were crucifying Him but also the sin of the whole world (1 John 2:2).