The “sacrament” of Passover was administered by heads of Families.[1]
Notes
1. Exodus 12:3-4
References
Gary North denies this Thesis in his book Baptized Patriarchalism, pp. 45ff., where he points out that Jesus did not celebrate Passover with families, but only with Apostles. This puts North on a trajectory that says only ordained clergy can observe the Lord's Table.
The fundamental assumption going through North's book from cover to cover is the assumption that "the State" and the institutional church are instituted and approved by God: "three covenantal institutions" (family, state, church). These Theses are designed to show that the institution of "the State" was an act of rebellion. It was predestined by God, but does not carry God's ethical approval, and in fact is contrary to God's commandments. Secondarily, these Theses attempt to prove that the Old Testament priesthood was remedial and temporary. This priesthood is the basis for the contemporary "institutional church." That leaves the Family, or "patriarchy."
Readers are wholeheartedly invited to post references to North's commentaries as well as the works of James Jordan regarding the family and Passover. We will interact with them in more detail. "Clarification of thought" is the goal.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I think it is clear that the state was an act of rebellion against God. In 1st Samuel 8:6-7 the people of Israel cry out for a king, and God's prophet Samuel is troubled. God tells him that they have not rejected Samuel but Him, that God should not reign over them, but rather an earthly king. This pre-Davidic Kingdom polycentric "kritarchy" is clearly God's favored structure of government for us. God did ordain the Davidic Kingdom though and promised its return as an eternal kingdom, which has been accomplished in Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of Heaven. After Christ ascended to Heaven, the political landscape went through quite a few changes. The Roman empire persecuted the Early Church. Then it accepted Christianity. Then the West was overrun by Germanic pagans who promptly adopted the Christian faith, melding their customary tribal kingship laws with the laws of Christ and those of Roman civil law. During the roughly thousand years of the Middle Ages in Europe, there was no modern state. Some even call this period an anarchic state. I wouldn't go that far. Catholic Feudal kingship was not perfect, but it represented the closest thing we've ever had to a widespread and longstanding God-fearing social order.
It was during this period of time that Western freedom really developed. It was not the concentration of power under a single monarch, but the vast decentralization of power that allowed for the market to turn Europe from a backwoods tribal region into an advanced Christian civilization which raised standards of living higher than anywhere else on earth. See Ralph Raico's lecture on "The European Miracle."
But due to conflicts with and between increasingly powerful temporal rulers and the corruption of academia by the rediscovery of Roman Public Law the concept of popular sovereignty and public authority, the idea and reality of the monopoly state was creeping in. It took the splintering of the social and religious authority of the Roman Catholic Church to allow for the eventual triumph of the state model of governance in the West. And since then its really only gotten worse. The transition from Christian monarchies to secular republics and democracies in the 18th and 19th centuries was really a huge step backwards towards increasing tyranny and Godlessness.
I had to look up the word "kritarchy."
What Is A Kritarch, A Term Used By White Nationalists?
I'm pretty sympathetic to your thoughts on European history. I don't think "Judges" are a model for today. No society can "democratically elect" judges like Deborah or Samson; they were appointed directly by God. Every believer is a priest and a king (Revelation 1:6; 5:10) and by analogy every believer is a judge (1 Corinthians 6:1-11), and at the same time no creature is a priest, king, or judge in a monopolistic sense -- only Christ has a monopoly on those offices.
My own neologism for today's God-ordained system is "patriagora," from patria, family, and agora, market. Rothbard-adjacent.
Haha that is kind of funny. I'm using kritarchy in an extremely positive way, and maybe that exposes my ignorance on the origin of the word. I've only encountered it in the last year or so.
"at the same time no creature is a priest, king, or judge in a monopolistic sense -- only Christ has a monopoly on those offices"
I agree mostly. My only disagreement (and you might see this as a big one) is as it relates to the Roman pontiff.
The reason why I mostly agree with your statement is that I would say no king or judge as been appointed by God and so no (aggressive) monopoly is justified. However, I would argue, along with the Roman Catholic Church, that Peter and his successors have been ordained by Christ to lead the Church. Peter is not the successor or replacement of Christ, but His royal steward (Al Habayit in the Davidic Kingdom (Isaiah 22:22)). He serves under Christ, but as earthly head of Christ's Church on Earth.
However, I do not think that this gives the right for the Roman Catholic Church to aggressively forbid other religions or other devotional traditions to Christ. Only within voluntary or natural covenant communities would this be justified, and this is sort of where my particular political theology points.
"No society can "democratically elect" judges like Deborah or Samson; they were appointed directly by God"
Very true. This is why the best option we have is voluntary or natural hierarchy.
Post a Comment