And I'm still waiting where government at all is established.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
A case for Monarchy?
- Thread starter FatherRuleMemes
- Start date
I see what you’re saying, but let’s define terms before going any further.
Define government.
Government == organisation with monopoly on legal use of force/violence
Deu 17:14 When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;
Deu 17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
1Sa_15:1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
1Sa 16:1 And the LORD said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons.
Psa_45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
Heb_1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
I Samuel 8:7
“And the Lord said to Samuel, "Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them.”
The nation wanted a king...just like all the other nations. That wasn’t God telling them to have a king. They had the Almighty king of heaven ruling over them, along with his Torah and priests.
They rejected that.
They did want a physically present King and they did reject the King Yeshua whom was already over them but we are talking about Kings in both cases. When God said that they rejected him, he did not then say, Samuel, they rejected the idea of a king so let's go establish a democracy for them instead. No, He said, go anoint the one that I tell you to anoint as a King over them. Because that is the kind of government that he establishes....
Establishes, or established in this instance?
There were judges in the land prior to this.
Is He restrained from establishing other forms of leaders?
If it’s a king, is it automatically legitimate?
Is the Muslim king of Saudi Arabia more legitimate than the Prime Minister of Italy?
I contend that God ordains all forms of leadership according to his sovereign will...good, bad and ugly.
There were judges in the land prior to this.
Is He restrained from establishing other forms of leaders?
If it’s a king, is it automatically legitimate?
Is the Muslim king of Saudi Arabia more legitimate than the Prime Minister of Italy?
I contend that God ordains all forms of leadership according to his sovereign will...good, bad and ugly.
I would question the choice of the verb "ordains." and instead argue for something on the order of "warns first, and then allows," since they had it coming...
...although there are clearly cases where He simply brought down His promised wrath. (PS> I would argue that those occur at cyclical "Biblical-level" supercycle turning points.)
Last edited:
I like my verb. He is sovereign. Ultimately all of time is subject to his rule. We may have trouble understanding how despots and rogues can be ordained of God, but nothing passes under his careful command of events. It is all leading to his perfect will and end.
I’m not trying to be pedantic, but not all “government” is about force and violence.
The whole of Torah is essentially a blueprint for divine government. It details how we are to live at peace with God and our fellow man. God established that.
You, on the other hand, have done a thorough and detailed analysis and you've presented a thoughtful counterpoint to the original post.
I am most impressed.
Sure it is. Remember a couple years ago when if you questioned the Official Government Narrative about COVID and their vaccine that they'd send armed men to your home to arrest you and put you in a prison camp? Remember about that same time if parents didn't want their three-year old children to see some homo pervert drag queen's exposed genitals and if you said something about it the FBI would come see you and put you on a list?
Sorry, but all government comes down to force and violence. You think of the most innocuous thing any government does and I can guarantee you that I can find an example of them threatening or performing violence to have their way.
Also the Torah:
Deuteronomy 18-21 imposes the death penalty on wayward sons who do not accept parental discipline. Deuteronomy also spells out an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth to define limits on violence carried out as retribution for harm.
The Mishnah placed an effective limit on executions by the Sanhedrin because they were killing too many people under the Torah alone.
Maimonides Mishnah Torah also prescribed a method of execution in which a convicted murderer was executed by being force fed bread and water until he cried out and then fed barley until his stomach ruptured and then he'd die in misery.
People who violated the 613 commandments of the Torah were quite often expelled from their cities at the point of a sword or a spear. Such expulsion being a veritable death sentence.
In short, the Torah establishes a form of governance but then enforces it with violence.
In theory, no. In practice, YHVH was right, and so were the Founders, who recognized that man was 'fallen', and thus the need to, as Jefferson put it, "bind them down with the chains of the Constitution."
And Franklin was right, too. It was "well-administered," for a brief while, and then fell into Despotism, "as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other."
True. And yet the world has never seen such a government, even under King David, who still ended up being the 'progenitor' of that eventual Kingdom.
No one reading this has ever lived with any government of man that didn't ultimately wield power as Mao described it - from the barrel of a gun.
They are only about force and violence.
How are they financed? Are taxes suggestion or do you pay them not to spend time in jail?
Same with laws. All laws either forbids something or order you do to something. What will state do if you break law?
Well they may start with being nice. If niceness doesn't work, don't worry police will shoot you no matter how much law is stupid.
Also, how states persist? If force wasn't willing to be used, anybody could "take reins of power".
A little exaggerated? I opposed all these things and never got a knock on my door.
However, I don’t disagree with most of the rest of what you wrote.
I missed a preposition in my reply above. It should have read not all OF “government” is about force and violence. Much of it is about ensuring everyday organization.
Of course I realize that consequences are spelled out in Torah, but the force and violence parts are not the emphasis. “Do these things and you will live long and prosper” (paraphrase) was the emphasis. Often times, the consequence were implied to be built in (reaping and sowing).
All of these things happen in a monarchy, and probably doubly so. That’s the point of this thread.
But in an absolute monarchy, there’s very little way to protest. Our constitutional republic provides a protected pathway for that.
I prefer the constitutional republic.
I agree almost 100%. Fallen man cannot govern himself well. I don’t disagree with that at all.
But, that’s why I’m not a supporter of monarchy. If all power rests with one man, and that man is corrupt and despotic, then it’s a guaranteed loss for all his subjects.
In a constitutional republic, you at least theoretically have righteous and rogue competing for authority and influence.
Sadly, I suspect a majority of AmeriKans don't even know what form of government we once had. ("A republic, madam -- if you can keep it," said Benjamin Franklin. The dumbed-down don't know that demonocracy is 'the devil's own government.")
John Adams: "This constitution was fit for the governance of an educated and moral [religious] people only; it is totally inadequate for that of any other."
Thomas Jefferson: "If a people expect to be both ignorant and free, they expect what never was, and never will be."
The purpose of a Bill of Rights, as a condition for ratification, was intended to prevent what has happened. It is ignored. And people don't understand why.
Bill of Right has too many holes. Let's starts with sound money, bribing voters etc...
Problem with democracy is that every war become moral crusade and therefore total. Also politicians are more like robbers.
Monarch should think more long term and monarhical wars are more about pure territory.