Dennis Tuuri

Psalm 2

Why do the heathen rage and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against his anointed, saying, “Let us break their bands asunder and cast away their cords from us. He that siteth in the heavens shall laugh. The Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath and vex them in his sore displeasure.

Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree. The Lord has said unto me, thou art my son. This day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron. Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel. Be wise now therefore, oh ye kings, Be instructed, ye judges of the earth.

Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

This Wednesday, October 31st, is Reformation Day. If you’ve been going to this church very long, you know that’s the day that Martin Luther posted his 95 theses on the door of the church at Wittenberg. That day has come to be celebrated as the day of the birth of the Protestant Reformation. Although of course Martin Luther had historical antecedents in that reformation.

The key issue in the Reformation was sovereignty. The sovereignty of God versus the sovereignty of man and the sovereignty of a religious thought at that time known as humanism. The sovereignty of God’s word versus the sovereignty of the tradition of the church. The sovereignty of God in salvation and in grace versus the carnal doctrine of penance and indulgences, et cetera.

The irony of the Reformation lies, I think, in that first of all, a great tradition came forth from it of liberty and freedom in the West and much historical progress over the last 300, 400, or 500 years owes its roots or finds its roots in the Reformation. Political freedom, freedom to serve God in all endeavors. A renewed sense of vocational calling, for instance, was greatly one of the reasons for the great expanse of human knowledge since that time and the blessing of God upon, for instance, the Western nations such as the United States of America and the political liberty we have here of course knows its roots in the Reformation as well. And so that light that’s shown in the 1500s and then into the 1600s really has burned brightly over the last 400 years in terms of results.

The irony is that in many ways the Reformation was a beginning and it’s a beginning that hasn’t really been built upon much since that time. And in many ways in terms of theology we see a declension, a downward cycle from the time of the Reformation. Its light burned bright in terms of results but its light has dimmed in terms of what is taught and preached in churches for the last several hundred years.

Sovereignty is the issue and immediately in the context of the Reformation came the counterreformation and along with that came a renewed emphasis again upon the sovereignty of man through such teachings as Arminianism. And so really the Reformation was never completed and particularly it was not completed in terms of the civil state.

It is very interesting to read reformers on their findings of the civil state and whether or not they’re bound by the Mosaic judicial laws. Time and time again we read in the reformers that they were not but time and time again we see them saying but the civil magistrate has to, for instance, enforce death penalty for Sabbath breakers, idolaters and all the prescriptions for the death penalty in Mosaic law. So it seemed like they were almost kind of confused on the issue.

Well that confusion I think is being cleared up by God in terms of history. And I think that what I want to talk on today in terms of a Reformation Day sermon is the sovereignty of God versus the sovereignty of the state. We have today a need for the theology of the state. That need really was beginning to be understood at the time of the Reformation and for various reasons was never fully developed.

Well, God has a way of bringing these things up to us and explaining things to us and showing us the need for such things. And we’re in the context of a worldwide turning away from God and turning toward idolatrous civil states that shows us the great need to develop a theology of the state. God has given us modern incarnation of an old desire to rest sovereignty from God and put it in the hands of man. He has given us the attempt of the modern secular state to declare itself to be sovereign in all aspects. And God has brought this to pass that he might make us epistemologically self-conscious, so to speak, that he might make us aware of the very failings that have brought it to pass, and that we might come face to face with the creation of our own rebellion against God, the civil state.

And we’ll be talking about that as we look at Psalm 2 in relationship to Psalm 1 and Psalm 3.

Increasingly, there is a growing understanding of the need for a theology of the state. I think that Christian Reconstruction has gone a long way to providing the intellectual base for it, but the tyranny of modern secular states has done a lot to make people realize the need for a new theology of the state and for restraints and restrictions to be placed upon it. Increasingly, we see the need then for this theology.

We see more and more churches who would reject the teachings of Christian Reconstruction call for a biblical worldview and life view, call for political activism, call for renewed thinking through of the ethical standards for Christians, particularly as it relates to civil state matters and politics. Increasingly, the modern state is obviously a force that is hard to live with, but most people also find it a force that’s hard to live without.

We face a need for and I am convinced that we are at the beginnings of a new Reformation or perhaps one should say a continuation of the Reformation in a renewed sense and in a dynamic sense as we move toward the year 2000 in the world.

Psalm 2 tells us the central battle of any Reformation: that battle between the sovereignty of apostate man and his various institutions that he develops against the sovereignty of the Lord of creation and the Lord of redemption.

Now, many people outline Psalm 2 in four sections. It falls out nicely into four sections of three verses each. I’ve chosen to do it a little bit differently for a bit of a dramatic reason, I guess. I’ve chosen to structure it in three sections, as you’ll see on your outline. I know it’s a little bit different organizing scheme, but I think it helps for us to realize the place of the narrator in the drama that’s unfolded in Psalm 2.

We see the first point on your outline. The narrator essentially introduces the first point in scene one when he talks about the heathen. “Why do the heathen rage and imagine a vain thing?” And then he tells us what they’re doing on this stage. So it’s like he sets up a picture and then the picture, the play takes place and you see the people conspiring against God.

And in the second section the narrator gives God’s response and he introduces that and then God speaks through his actions and God speaks through the word of his son, his sovereign, in the second stanza that I’ve sketched out there in verses 4-9. And then in the third stanza the narrator comes back and he then delivers the moral of the lesson. So he kind of sketches out a drama here: first introducing and then showing us the civil state’s disobedience and rebellion against God, then showing us God’s response and how ridiculous the civil state is and how they’re coming under judgment. And then he draws a moral lesson from all of this for civil states particularly, but that has application to us.

As we get to that third point, you’ll see why I’ve kind of broken it out that way. I think the narrator is very important in the way I’ve decided to look at the structure of this psalm and I think it’s very important for applying it to our modern day.

One other thing before we actually get into the text itself: I want to just say briefly here and spend a little bit more time in a couple of minutes showing the relationship between Psalm 1, Psalm 2, and Psalm 3. But suffice it to say that I believe that Psalm 1, 2, and 3 are indeed a unit that they’re to be seen together.

This Wednesday night we have a Reformation party. We will be singing some of the Genevan Psalms. We’re going to sing Psalm 1, 2, and 3 in the Genevan in a row like that. And you’ll see there again this unit aspect of Psalms 1, 2, and 3.

Psalm 1, you remember, shows us the two ways. Men that obey God, men that disobey God, and the ends of those two different ways of being. The wrong way leads to cursing from God, and the right way leads to blessing.

Psalm 2, I think, develops that and shows us that the wrong way leads also to statism. So in Psalm 1 you’ll see the two ways for all men to take. Psalm 2, you’ll see that when men reject God, what they end up turning to eventually is a sovereign civil state. When you rest sovereignty out of the hands of God and place it in man’s hands, collective man, the civil state ends up then rebelling against God as the voice of the people to throw off God’s sovereignty. And so I think Psalm 2 flows out of Psalm 1.

Psalm 3 though is quite important in this trilogy because Psalm 3 then shows how they go about that warring process. You very rarely see a civil magistrate—we have seen it in history—actually shake a fist up to the skies and say, “I’m not going to put up with you.” But what we do see are civil magistrates warring against God’s people and that’s how they effect the revolution they’re trying to effect in Psalm 2 against God. They do it by means of striking out at God’s people.

And so Psalm 3: David is saying I’m in great trouble, I’m surrounded by these guys, I need salvation—speaking on behalf of his people, ultimately of course of Jesus Christ. But you see it shows there that progression: from rejection of God by peoples, the erection then of sovereign civil states as the great idol against God, and third, it shows the means that civil state wages war against God by waging war against God’s people, against us in other words.

And that’s very important to point out too as we get into Psalm 2.

Okay, having said all that by way of introduction, let’s look at the Psalm. And the first heading I’ve put there is the attempted sovereignty by the humanistic state.

Again, we see the narrator speaking first. “Why do the heathen rage and the people imagine a vain thing?” He introduces the scene here and the scene is sketched out. “The kings of the earth, the kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against his anointed saying, ‘Let us break their bands asunder and cast away their cords from us.’”

So the narrator introduces it and then we see the vision of the kings and the rulers trying to war against God and shake off his shackles.

Why do the states rage? The word “rage” there is not referring to an internal condition so much as an outward activity and agitation against God. “Why do the heathen rage and the people imagine a vain thing?” That is a question that I have asked myself for the past two months relative to the particular manifestation of this same general principle here on the part of the Department of Education in the state of Oregon.

Why is the Department of Education attacking homeschoolers? It is a silly thing. It is a vain thing. And yet they do it continually. In the last couple of months they prosecute this war against Christian homeschoolers. Why? All logic and evidence demonstrates the faciousness of a king of the earth setting himself against God and against God’s people.

By way of application to our day and age, all logic should tell the civil state in the state of Oregon that homeschoolers are their best citizens. There was a rally of altogether over a thousand people, 860 people at the rally, several hundred more at the hearing who weren’t at the rally. Wednesday night and those people stood in line, many of them until 9:00 at night, from 4:00 in the afternoon to 9:00 at night to testify. Now, I didn’t stay around all night, but those people were amazingly orderly, patient, well-mannered, children well behaved. They were model citizens. These are the best citizens the state of Oregon has. Why seek to hurt them?

These citizens have tested out far and above, educationally speaking, than the public school students. Why attack homeschoolers? Why do they do these things? These things don’t make sense from a logical perspective. The same way that the kings don’t make sense in their rebellion against God.

I think that the rhetorical question has only one answer to it. Why do they conspire together? The word “set themselves” in verse 2, “take counsel together,” indicates the kings and the rulers of the earth actually sitting down plotting out how to break God’s bands asunder. And in the same way over the last month or two here in the state of Oregon, there have been meetings at the Department of Education, some of which we were not, none of which we originally invited to.

There was a meeting held last week, for instance, after the rally at which a certain select group of people, including members of the OEA, the teachers union that hates homeschooling, of course, OSBA, the school board administrators, and other educational bureaucracy people, were going to meet and discuss our futures again. And we again were not invited. Why do they conspire in that way to hurt homeschoolers in this state?

Well, I think that the answer to both these questions is found in that third verse. What are they conspiring to do? “Let us break their bands asunder and cast away their cords from us.” The civil state declares itself to be sovereign. The bands it’s talking about are the bands of God’s authority. Bands were used to yoke an animal to a yoke. These are the bands that yoke people to the authority of the King of Kings, Jesus Christ, and to the God who reigns in heaven.

What they are doing is rebelling against that authority. The only reason why they do so is rebellion, is an attempt to assert the sovereignty of the state as opposed to the sovereignty of God.

Now, relative to the homeschooling situation in the state of Oregon, the state wishes to assert the sovereignty of the state over the sovereignty of God administering education through parents to children. And I think it’s a direct application of Psalm 2, what we’ve been seeing the last few weeks.

Ultimately, the question can’t really be answered. The point of the question is that rationality has little or nothing to do with this entire process. It is outright rebellion. And you need to know that. You need to know that when you try to figure out why people are doing these things and you would seek to apply rationality, there is no rationality to the heathen who shakes his fist at an almighty and omnipotent God. No rationality, pure rebellion.

Why are these things seen as burdensome? It’s interesting. John Trapp said that the authority of God for the believer—speaking of that, he said it’s no more burden to the regenerate man that is God’s authority, God’s laws, than wings are to the bird. The law of Christ is no more bands and cords, but it is girdles and garters which gird up his loins and expedite his course. They’re assistance to us. They’re not restrictions to us.

Spurgeon said that to a graceless neck the yoke of Jesus Christ is intolerable, but to the saved sinner it is easy and light. We may judge ourselves by this. Do we love that yoke or do we wish to cast it from us?

The Department of Education having any restrictions on its ability to control the lives of the citizens of the state of Oregon, having any knowledge of any restrictions from God, is abhorrent to the state of Oregon at this point in time to the rulers that have been raised up against us. In like manner then, instead of just looking at them we’ve got to look at ourselves. We got to say do we find ourselves in this same position of verse 3? Do we find ourselves saying “let us break his bands asunder”? Do we find ourselves seeking ways to get around God’s law? Or do we find ourselves gladly taking upon us the yoke of Jesus Christ and finding it easy and good and more than that profitable for the work that he has called us to do?

God’s authority: is it bane or blessing? The answer to that question lies in our relationship to God himself. The civil state in this instance in Psalm 2 and in the instance here in the state of Oregon finds it vain and they seek to cast off all authority of God. It’s a question of sovereignty that we’re talking about.

Now, I want you to understand this relationship between Psalm 1 and Psalm 2. I’m going to point out some of the indicators that show the relationship between those Psalms. I think it’s quite important to get this point down to understand the nature of how we get to a situation such as we’re in now in the state of Oregon.

Several Hebrew manuscripts actually put the first two Psalms together. Origen says that he saw two copies of Hebrew manuscripts with the Psalms. One of them had Psalm 1 and 2 as one single Psalm together. Additionally, Origen wrote that there was an old Jewish saying that the first Psalm begins and ends with the blessing.

Well, the first Psalm in our Psalter doesn’t begin and end with the blessing. It begins with the blessing, but it only ends with a blessing if you put Psalm 2 with it. Psalm 1 begins with the blessedness of the righteous man. And Psalm 2 ends by saying “all blessed are all they that put their trust in him.” And again, that shows that there’s a unit being at work here. And some of the Jewish commentators understood that.

The first one ends with a threat. Psalm 1 ends with a threat. The second Psalm begins and ends with the threat. Justin Martyr in his apology cites Psalm 1 and 2 as one continuous prophecy. Acts 13:33 specifically identifies Psalm 2 as the second Psalm. But it’s interesting that some of the ancient manuscripts of that particular text, some of the New Testament documents of the book of Acts, again cite that as the first Psalm, not the second Psalm.

The word “blessed” is used as I said in verse 1 of Psalm 1 and in the last verse of Psalm 2. The word “meditate” is used in both Psalms in a positive sense in the first Psalm in a negative sense in the second. The conspiracy of the kings is the same word as the word “meditate” upon the things of God in the first Psalm. In the second Psalm it shows the curse of those who meditate on other things. And the term “perishing in the way” is common to both Psalms as well in terms of the unbeliever.

Additionally Psalm 2 has exactly double the number of verses and stanzas as Psalm 1. So there’s a progression from Psalm 1 to Psalm 2 and a definite literary link between the two of them. Several literary links.

Based on all this evidence, J. Alexander, who probably has the best commentary on the Psalms, said that the first is an introduction to the second. The first Psalm is an introduction to the second and both of those together an introduction to the third Psalm.

What’s going on here? Well, I think the reason I take this time out is that one of the central things I want you to understand here is this relationship between secular statism, the state that seeks its sovereignty and throw off the bands of God’s sovereignty, and the disbelief of the people.

Psalm 1 addresses the general population. Why? People go one way or the other way. You’re going to leave today this facility and you’re either going to move closer to God in your walk or you’re going to move further away from God. If you’re regenerate, you move closer. If you’re unregenerate, you move further away.

And Psalm 2, I think, indicates to us that as secular man, as pagan man, rejects God and moves in disobedience, what he turns to eventually is the civil state. The voice of the people are all wrapped up together now, shouting at God, as it were, seeking to throw off his authority. So it’s very important to see these two Psalms in that light.

And what that means is what we see in Oregon today in 1990 is the result of what the church has failed to teach in 1950 or 1920. We’ve had generations of people who have chosen not the way of blessing, the way of God’s law, but have rejected it. And God now in his providence brings those people to the full-blown realization of their rejection of his sovereignty by giving them to raise up a sovereign civil state who claims to be God over every aspect of their lives.

It’s interesting, you know, in terms of education. We’re in a situation here where at one point in time, people taught their kids at home and then they decided to have a school do it for them and hire tutors. Public school, whatever it is. And they required certain things. If you’re going to turn your children over to a public school, you’re going to ask certain things, certain requirements that they’ve got to meet in order to educate your children. And that’s understandable.

We’re in exactly the reverse situation now. The civil state says the children are ours. And if you want them back in your home, you’re going to have to tell us certain requirements you’re going to meet. You see how the shift has happened? People have ceded authority to the civil state, and now we’ve got to prove to them somehow that we’re qualified in the words of Norma to instruct our children. It is abominable and it’s a direct result of people rejecting the sovereignty of God, the place of his law in their lives personally.

God brings to pass then the messianic civil state, as it were, as a judgment to people and to bring us to a self-consciousness of where we’ve come from and where we’re going to.

The loss of theonomic curses—by that I mean the loss of the preaching of God’s curse upon disobedience to his law—I think is one of the main factors in bringing about the situation we have today in terms of the oppression of home and private schoolers in the state of Oregon. It’s manifested in that but it comes forward from the people.

So recognize that the first scene tells us that apostate man forms a god of the state. That god of the state attempts to overthrow the sovereignty of God and claim total sovereignty for itself over every area of life and that’s the situation we have in Oregon in 1990.

But the second stanza shows us that the true sovereign reveals in his speech the rebels’ absurdity. Very important to recognize this. It’s important to recognize the problem. But it’s important to recognize that ultimately there is no problem for God.

What’s God’s reaction to all this? Is he caught by surprise? No.

The narrator again introduces the section. “He that siteth in the heavens.” We go to a different person in this drama, as it were. “He that siteth in the heavens shall laugh. The Lord”—now the term there is Adoni. “The Lord shall have them in derision.” Earlier they had rejected the authority of Yahweh, the covenant God of Israel of his people. And here the narrator says in verse 4 that the Lord, Adoni, the supreme sovereign—that’s what that word means—shall have them in derision.

It is ridiculous for them to hope that they can cast off the bands of God. And the language in casting off seems to indicate they can just throw it off as a light thing. These are the bands of almighty God, the authority of him that they seek to—that they have deluded themselves into believing they can somehow toss off as easily as they could toss off a simple piece of rope.

J. Alexander in commenting on verse 4 said that beneath this bold anthropomorphism, God laughing, there is a hidden profound truth, namely that to all superior beings and above all to God himself, there is something in sin not only odious but absurd—something which cannot possibly escape the contempt of higher, much less of the highest intelligence. It is ridiculous to think that they can cast off the bands of God.

In verse 5, God addresses them directly. “Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath and vex.” Vex meaning to trouble, to dismay, to panic with terror. “He shall panic them in his sore displeasure.” Now the term “sore displeasure” literally could be translated “fiery wrath.”

In Exodus 15:7 we read, “In the greatness of thine excellency, thou hast overthrown them that rose up against thee. Thou setest forth thy wrath, which consumed them as stubble, and with the blast of thy nostrils, the waters were gathered together. The flood stood up as an heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea.” That’s what he’s talking about when he says that he will vex them in his sore displeasure, his fiery wrath.

“Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.” In spite of what you want to do in casting off the authority of me, the plain fact is I have set my king in contrast to the kings of the earth who rebel against him upon my holy hill of Zion.

And then that king speaks. “I will declare the decree. The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my son. This day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” All the earth. Matthew 28 should come to mind there. To the ends of the earth the nations will be disciples.

“Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron. Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

Now God’s response to the attempted usurpation of sovereignty is derision and it is action. He says “I will declare the decree.” The son says “I will declare the decree. The Lord hath said unto me.” He proclaims here; he makes reference to the proclamation that all authority in heaven and on earth has been given unto him. He reminds them of that proclamation, the pagan rulers who would usurp him.

He gives not an inch of ground in the battle. He puts it right in their face, so to speak, with his answer asserting the sovereignty of the Son over every square inch of the created order. No concessions are made. Instead, full authority is stated to be in possession of the ruler of rulers, the King of Kings, Jesus Christ.

He then threatens them with immediate and easy destruction. He will break them with a rod of iron, dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel. And the picture there is that it’s quite easy to break a potter’s vessel with somebody with a rod of iron. And it’s even easier for the God of heaven to break in pieces those who would seek to come up against him.

Luke 19:27 is a reminder of this verse. We read there, “Those mine enemies that would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither and slay them before me.” Simple as that.

So the words of our Savior remind us that the attempt by the civil state to exert sovereignty to itself is absolutely ridiculous, futile, and doomed to complete failure. As Spurgeon said, those who will not bend must break, and they surely will be broken by the King of Kings.

It’s very important that we understand that Psalm 2 is a warning to the kings of the earth and to us. We’ll see that in a couple of minutes. We should also—it’s very important that we recognize that it is a word of encouragement. It’s a word of comfort. It’s a word of counsel because it tells of the utter futility of all who attempt to rest sovereignty away from God and that includes the part of the civil state.

That means today that if you or your children are frightened of Norma or the state board of education, you got it all wrong. You got it all wrong. They’re the ones who should be frightened. They’re dealing with God. They’re dealing with the God who is the God of the people whom they’re seeking to restrict and take away the children of for educational purposes.

You see, they’re the ones who are in fear, who should be in fear and dread at this point in time. They’re the ones who are being threatened by the God of heaven, not us. We are promised to be saved and be blessed by him.

At the end of the Psalm we then go to the final, the third scene where the sovereign’s messenger instructs the sovereigns of the earth, the supposed sovereigns. There’s a transitionary tone here to encouragement and to exhortation rather and admonition.

And the narrator comes back, not to introduce a third character—first he introduced the kings of the earth, then he introduced God and his anointed one. But now he comes back to give instruction. He says, “Be wise now therefore, you kings. Be instructed, ye judges of the earth.”

What does he instruct them to do? First, serve the Lord with fear. Rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son. He tells them to come into obedience. And the terms used here, to fear and to serve, indicate religious submission as well as of course submission to the laws of the king.

Having published the decree, the constitution of his kingdom, the Son now instructs through his messenger that all are to come to obedience to his law religiously and politically as well in verse 11. And so the messenger tells the kings rather to be wise, to receive instruction. That instruction first consists of obeying the law of God and secondly it consists of understanding the curse for disobedience.

“Kiss the son lest he be angry and ye perish from the way when his wrath is kindled.” That is blazing up to consume all his enemies but a little, which means soon—so soon his wrath may blaze up to consume you and therefore on the basis of this play, as it were, this demonstration of God’s sovereignty, they are instructed to obedience to the law and they’re instructed that disobedience will bring God’s curse.

Now it’s interesting here and very important to note that there is no neutrality left for the civil ruler at this point in time. He is told to either submit to God religiously and politically or to be cursed by God. He is not told just to leave God’s people alone a little bit. He is told to come to submission to the King of Kings himself.

It’s interesting that Psalm 138:4 tells us, using the same expression, “all the kings of the earth, all the kings of the earth shall praise thee, oh Lord, when they hear the words of thy mouth.” When they hear the words of thy mouth. That word, as we said, talks about the blessedness of those that put their trust in him, the cursedness of those who disobey him, and the need to come into obedience religiously and politically as well to the King of Kings.

Who is the messenger? How will they hear the words of his mouth? I think that the scriptures here are not taking us back to God in heaven nor the kings in the earth. It tells us that the messenger of God is us. We are God’s prophetic voice to our culture. We are the ones who are to carry the message of verses 10, 11, and 12 to the sovereigns and to all who would seek to usurp the authority of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 12:5 and 19:15 talks about the rod of iron that Jesus uses and wields as God’s King of Kings. But Revelation 2 uses that same description to speak of us. Revelation 2, verses 26 and 27. Revelation 2:27 says that “he that”—that is, the ones that overcome, that is us—”shall rule them, that is the nations, with a rod of iron.”

We are given the incredible privilege according to Revelation 2:27 of participating, being the messenger of the one who reigns over the nations. We reign over them with that rod of iron, the Church. It is the job of the Church institutionally and it is the job of Christians individually in their prophetic office, their prophetic calling under Jesus Christ to instruct the civil magistrate that if he fails to come into submission to the King of Kings, he shall be judged. If he attempts to usurp sovereignty away from the true sovereign, he will be cursed by God.

That is our responsibility. I believe from Psalm 2, from Revelation 2 and other indications, Psalm 138 and other places, that’s our responsibility to tell the kings of the nations.

Now, Ezekiel says that if we fail to do that, if we fail to exercise the job of watchmen and warn men and warn the ones that we come into contact with, then we’re guilty of their blood.

Now there’s a problem. Well, before we move to the problem, it’s very important. I want you to understand this then: that the body of Jesus Christ has the need in its prophetic role to instruct kings and peoples of their obligation to give reverence to Jesus Christ.

We had the Bickers over the other night and Steve Bicker mentioned a thing in the voters’ guide, an argument in favor of the measure to ban convenience abortions in the state of Oregon signed by, I don’t know, probably 35 churches, something pastors from the west side. A tremendous thing talking in here about how children are born in the image of Imago Dei and how it’s murder to terminate them, et cetera. Excellent statement and it’s easy to do. And this is a specific mechanism we could use as a Church and other churches could in the state of Oregon and go a little bit further than this and say it’s the responsibility of the civil rulers of this state to protect those children that are not yet born and God holds people that refuse to exercise that responsibility liable. And we need to make use of things like that.

We need to make use of the testimonies that we can contribute to public hearings, writing our legislators, et cetera, to instruct them that they have a need and—respectfully. Certainly, we have to appeal to authority the correct way, but we need to let them know that they’re going to be judged by God should they fail to acknowledge the sovereignty of Jesus Christ.

The Church, the body of Christ, needs to instruct them in this and needs to instruct them of the blessings and cursings that accompany God’s law that will come to them in case they obey or disobey God’s word.

I mentioned the posting of the 95 theses. One way we could do this—again, we were talking about this the other night with the Bickers—perhaps next year for Reformation Day, we could begin our celebration at the Department of Education building in Salem or some other state agency with our own 95 theses. I think that the education of children would be an excellent one to post 95 theses over. That children are ultimately the property of God and that God has given those children to the stewardship of parents and the state has no authority over parents to tell them they have to do this, that, and the other thing to teach their own children.

We could do a good job with it. We could make a statement then to the civil authorities that they are under submission. They should bring themselves to submission to the King of Kings, Jesus Christ, in this area.

We got a problem here though in saying that the Church’s job is this because the Church itself has rejected the authority of God and his law by and large across the nation. And I think it’s important. We won’t dwell on this point, but in the book of Revelation we have the harlot pictured. And the very kings of the earth who try to reject the authority of God are seen as fornicating with the harlot. That harlot church is the one that refuses to come to submission to God herself.

And so when we speak of the need for a Reformation in the civil arena, we need a Reformation in the Church in the ecclesiastical arena as well. Churches need to realize that if they fail to come to submission, they’re even guiltier than the civil state for its failure to acknowledge the sovereignty of Jesus Christ in all things that she does. The harlot Church will also be judged with a sovereign whose law, whether or not churches like it or states like it, is in full operation in the world of his creation.

Now, Psalm 2 gives us a picture of the movement of history that’s very important. We stand, I think, at a pivotal place in the history of America. Psalm 2 shows us the movement of history from kings rejecting God to being instructed and then ending with blessing as kings come to submission.

It’s interesting that the phrase “the kings of the earth” occurs nine times in the book of Revelation. The first reference in the book of Revelation of the kings of the earth are those kings hiding themselves in the rocks before Jesus Christ coming. And the rest—the next seven references to the great kings of the earth—talk about them as I said before fornicating with the harlot and attempting to ignore the sovereignty of Jesus Christ. But the last reference, Revelation 21:24, says that “the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it,” the light of the city of course, “and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honor into it.”

And so Revelation ends as Psalm 2 ends with the kings of the earth having received instruction come to submission and come to Jesus Christ. So Psalm 2 and as well as the scriptures in Revelation as well shows us the flow of history that nations do after being judged and corrected by God eventually come to repentance and come to bring their glory into the kingdom of God.

Now having said that then it is important to stress again the historic futility of the sovereign state, the sovereign church, or sovereign men against the true sovereign, Jesus Christ.

We have a picture of this futility in Exodus the first chapter. We read in verse 8, “Now there arose a new king, a new Pharaoh over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. And he said unto his people, behold, the people, the children of Israel, are more and mightier than we. Come on, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply.” And so he then begins a persecution of them.

Thomas Adams speaking on this text said that Pharaoh imagined that by drowning the Israelite males, he had found a way to root their name from the earth. But at the same time, his own daughter in his own court gave princely education to Moses, their deliverer. Did not God laugh?

Pharaoh was God’s mechanism to remind the people of Israel that they were in a foreign land and that they needed deliverance.

Today we see a parallel situation going on to Exodus 1. There has in the context of education arisen a new superintendent of public schools who knows not homeschoolers. Superintendent Vern Dunn was favorably disposed to homeschooling. And so we had peace for 5 years until he resigned. And now we have a new superintendent, Norma Paulus. Richard and I met in her office Wednesday afternoon. And it’s clear that she’s no friend of ours, no friend of homeschooling.

She has at public hearings talked about some homeschoolers keeping their kids home to sexually abuse their children. When in point of fact she knows, as anybody who has studied the statistics knows, that sexual abuse and physical abuse is far more prevalent in public schools. That’s where the problem is, not in homeschools. She has been interviewed as saying that homeschoolers are not all qualified to teach their children to homeschool. Where does she get that line?

Well, that’s right out of a resolution passed by the National Education Association in 1989 that parents are not qualified and should be certified by the state. That is the way the woman moves.

There has arisen in the homeschool community, which is 95% Christian, there has arisen a new Pharaoh who knows not homeschoolers. And that Pharaoh has said, “Let us deal wisely with them. Let us pass some rules quietly. Let’s talk about some backroom meetings here and get these things put into place and put restrictions upon these people lest they multiply in the land.” And we have more and more homeschoolers and more and more of these Christian fundamentalist nuts teaching their kids there’s a sovereign other than the state.

“Let us deal wisely with them.” But God laughs at these things. He is not concerned. And in fact, he is bringing this to pass. For what reason?

The people of Israel were being prepared for what? For oppression? No. They’re being prepared for deliverance. They were being reminded that they had fallen away from true faith and needed to exercise faith once more. And God would deliver them from the hand of that Pharaoh, having woken them up through that Pharaoh to true faith in God.

And so, homeschoolers and educational Christians involved in education in the state of Oregon should thank God for all this happening. This is precursor to deliverance for us. It’s a precursor to deliverance in the sense that we are now going to speak openly and clearly about the necessity of the civil state to obey the King of Kings in this matter and let parents teach their children without state restriction.

And we’re going to ask for a bill saying just that come January here in the state of Oregon.

We don’t need to worry about these things. Our attitude should be the attitude of God. God laughs. God also works. We need to be diligent. But we need to recognize that all of this is part of the flow of history. God is, in the words of R.J. Rushdoony, incarnating the enemy of God, as it were, in the civil state for the purpose of demonstrating his superiority over that supposed sovereign and for demonstrating to the people their need to in their own lives acknowledge the sovereignty of Jesus Christ.

It’s interesting that I was at this educational meeting on Thursday. As I said, we weren’t invited, but when we told them we were going to be there, whether we were invited or not, 5 minutes later I got a call back from the deputy superintendent inviting us to this meeting. Oh, please come. Yeah. Thank you.

It is interesting too, by the way, you talk about religiously held perspectives. They, some of them obviously were troubled greatly that we had these uncircumcised, uninitiated sitting here at the Department of Education giving suggestions as to how these rules should be written, who are not part of the lit, you know, the informed and instructed educational matters. Some of them were just tortured having to sit there for 2 hours with us and listen to our objections to what they were trying to do.

After the meeting though, a man, one of the associate superintendents there, said, “Boy, you guys sure are organized. You homeschoolers sure are organized. That’s real obvious.” And I clapped him on the back and said, “Well, you know, every time you do something like this, we get more organized.” So thank you very much.

And it’s true. God’s people because of the persecution are recognizing more and more the need to get organized, to pray, to work hard. A homeschool task force has been initiated, the petition drive. We’re going to have thousands of people who will be able to be part of an effort come January 1st to pass legislation.

God is doing this that we might be delivered, not that we might be ultimately oppressed.

Getting back to the Reformation and in trying to wrap this up, one of the great performers was Martin Bucer who was at Strasbourg for 25 or 30 years. Unfortunately, almost none of his works are translated into English and he probably was seminal even for Calvin and other men at the time. He wrote a thing called De Regno Christi—the rule of Jesus Christ—in 1550. He wrote it when he was 59 years old at the end of his life and so it reflects much of his thinking and much of the understanding of what the Reformation was all about. He wrote it and addressed it to King Edward in England where he was now staying—in which he died in England as well.

His program for action, that is for implementing true Reformation, consisted of four parts. First, he said kings should gather godly counselors around them and begin to think through biblical government. Martin Bucer was a theocrat. He was a bibliocrat. He understood the word of God was the model for every area of life.

Second, he said the full gospel must be taught and preached throughout the land. He said, and I’ll quote now, “They did not so much compel their people that as biblical kings, by decrees to recover the kingdom of Christ as they persuaded them by serious and devout instruction.”

So first the kings gather counselors; second the full gospel is preached. Third, society is then reformed. He had a period, a thing of 14 specific zones of influence that he had sketched out and the covenant then is renewed as that process is completed. And then fourth, the king prevents lapsing into apostasy or idolatry.

James B. Jordan wrote a paper on this on Martin Bucer and I’m going to quote about a paragraph here. He said, “If historical study is to be a theological enterprise, some observation on the usefulness of Bucer’s scheme is warranted. The question of the usefulness of the Mosaic judicials is once again being debated in some reformed circles. Bucer’s program, however, seems at first glance to have little to offer modern America. We have no Josiah-like king like Josiah. Yet the Bucerian scheme is being worked out in our midst through the Christian school movement.”

Now Jordan wrote this about 10 or 15 years ago. I suppose through the Christian school movement which more than any other single factor is presently laying the foundation for a renewed society in America. It is interesting to note that the Kuyperian movement in the last century in the Netherlands was also preceded by a Christian school movement. Indeed, the rise of Christian politics in the Netherlands was due to a desire to protect these schools from the encroachments of the state and the current attack on Christian schools in America are leading to the same result.

Reclamation and education, not rebellion and tax strike, are the evangelical means of social transformation. Well, that’s very important and as we said, that’s what’s…