UNCONDITIONAL

SURRENDER
Other Books by Gar y Nor th
Manes Religion of Revol uti on (1968, 1989)
An Introduction to Christian Economi cs (1973)
PuniZn Economc Expen%n& (1974, 1988)
Succes.$d Investing in an Age of Envy (1981)
The Dominwn Covenant: Genesis (1982, 1987)
Government by Emagency (1983)
Backward, Ch&iun SoZ&rs? (1984)
75 B&k Questi cm.s Your Instructors Pray Yw Wont Ask (1984)
Coi ned Freedom (19&4)
Moses and Pharaoh (1985)
The Sinai Stmtegy (1986)
Co@mcy A Bib&al Vii (1986)
Honest Money (1986)
Fighting Chmwe (1986), with Arthur Robi nson
Unholy Spi ri ts (1986, 1994)
Dominion and Common Grace (1987)
Inherit the Earth (1987)
Libemting Planet Earth (1987)
Heakr of the Nations (1987)
The Pirati Economy (1987)
Is the Wodd Running Down? (1988)
When Justice Is Aborted (1989)
Po= po@/wism (1989)
The Hoax of Higher Criticism (1990)
Tools of Dominion: The Case I.uzos of Exodus (1990)
Viimk Rights (1990)
Westminsters Conf i ?s s i on (1991)
Chtitian Recomtnuiw n (1991), with Gary DeMar
The Couse Theorem (1992)
Politically Incowect (1993)
Salvation Through Inflation (1993)
Rapture Fever (1993)
Ti thi ng and the Church (1994)
kiticus: An Economic Commentary (1994)
UNCONDITIONAL
SURRENDER
Gods Program for Victory
(Fourth Edition)
Gary North
Institute for Christian Economics
Tyl er , Texas
~opyri gh~ Gar y Nor th, 1988 [1994]
Msrary of COSI greas catal ogi ng-i d?nbl i catkm M
North, Gary
Uncondi ti onal surrender : GO&S program for vi ctory/ &ry North.
4th ed.
p. cm.
I ncl udes i ndexes.
I SBN 0-930464-12-5:$5.95
1. Domi ni on theol ogy. 2. Theonomy. 3. I kchatol ogy.
4. Commi tment to the church. 5. Scci ol ogy, Chri sti an. I . Ti tl e.
BT82.25.N68 1994
28sY.046-dc20 94-18245
CI P
Publ i shed by the I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economics, P.O. Box 8000,
T@, Texas 75711
Al ri ghts reserved. Wri tten permi ssi on must be secured from the
publ i sher to use or reproduce any part of thi s boo~ except for
ti l ef quotati ons i n cri ti cal revi ews or arti cl es.
Pri uted i n the Uni ted States of herb
Thi s book i s dedi cated to
Ray Sutton
whose work defi ni ng the bi bl i cal
covenant structure wi l l reshape
Protestant theol ogy.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..i x
Part One: FOUNDATI ONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...1
I ntroducti on to Part One. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...3
1. God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...13
2. Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...35
3. Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...85
4. Ti me . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...127
Summary of Part One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...161
Part Two: I NSTI TUTI ONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...171
I ntroducti on to Part Two. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...173
5. Fami l y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
6. Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . 197
7. State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
8. Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...259
Summary of Part Two. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...297
Part Three: EXPECTATI ONS. . . . . . . . . . . . ...301
I ntroducti on to Part Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...303
9. The Ki ngdom of God. . . . . . . . . . . . . ...309
10. A Strategy for Domi ni on . . . . . . . . . . . ...365
Summary of Part Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...387
CONCLUSI ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...389
SCRI PTURE I NDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...399
GENERAL I NDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...407
Thi s book was born of necessi ty. I publ i sh a bi -
weekl y economi c newsl etter, Remnant Reuiew, whi ch
i s sent to peopl e who are i nterested i n ways of pre-
servi ng and i ncreasi ng thei r capi tal . I n my June 6,
1980 i ssue, I wrote about the Four Gs i n i nvesti ng:
gol d, groceri es, guns, and God. I had pl enty of
recommendati ons on the fi rst three, but when I
came to the fourth, I got stuck. I wanted to recom-
mend a good i ntroductory book on the si gni fi cance
of Chri sti ani ty for the modern worl d, and I coul dnt
thi nk of one. There are books of many ki nds, al l
deal i ng wi th one aspect or another of Chri sti an fai th
and worshi p, but I coul dnt thi nk of one that was
general , theol ogi cal l y accurate, comprehensi ve, and
readabl e.
T& began to bother me. At the ti me I was publ i sh-
i ng seven newsl etter, wri ti ng four of them, so my ti me
was extremel y scarce. Furthermore, I run the I nsti tute
for Chri sti an Economi cs, and one of my conti nui ng
projects i s wri ti ng a compl ete economi c commentary
X UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
on the Bi bl e. I spend a mi ni mum of ten hours a
week, fi fty weeks per year, on thi s project. So I knew
I di dnt have much ti me to wri te a book. At the same
ti me, I became convi nced that an i ntroductory
paperback was needed.
To get the job done wi thout rui ni ng my schedul e,
I deci ded to wri te thi s book, but wi th a ti me l i mi t.
That l i mi t was two weeks. I began on Jul y 2, 1980,
and I fi ni shed the fi rst draft on Jul y 14. I n fact, I
even had hal f a day to spare, si nce I fi ni shed i n the
after noon.
I had James Jordan read the manuscri pt, and he
made some i mportant suggesti ons. I have i ncl uded
most of them i n the fi nal versi on. Sti l l , the book i s
basi cal l y the product of two weeks of wri ti ng. The
enti re project took one month: from begi nni ng to
fi nal draft.
I wanted i t to be readabl e. Compl exi ty makes
books unreadabl e, so I wrote i t rapi dl y: no notes, no
outl i ne, and wi th onl y the chapter headi ngs i n mi nd.
But I had been studyi ng the Bi bl e for over twenty
years before I began thi s project. (I used the Ki ng
James Versi on for ci tati ons, si nce most readers own
thi s transl ati on.) I made major revi si ons onl y i n the
chapter on man, wi th James Jordans hel p, i n the
secti on deal i ng wi th sal vati on. I am l east happy wi th
thi s secti on, si nce i ts more compl ex than I had
hoped, but I have been unabl e to fi gure out a way to
make i t shorter or easi er. I wanted i t to be accurate.
I si mpl y di dnt have ti me to be more thorough. I
hope that my approach has at l east made the book
readabl e. Anyone who wants to pursue some of these
PREFAcExl
topi cs i n greater detai l can fol l ow through by readi ng
the books recommended on the pages fol l owi ng the i n-
dexes. No si ngl e handbook can serve as a fi nal source
on the meani ng and i mpl i cati ons of Chri sti ani ty.
I deci ded ori gi nal l y to cal l the book Chisttinify:
What Qj%rence Does It Make? Some of my associ ates
wanted me to cal l i t SheeY (Wstianio, a ti tl e remi ni s-
cent of C. S. Lewi ss Mere Christianity. But I have
stuck wi th Unconditional Surrender, si nce I thi nk i t
comes cl oser to the major themes of thi s book.
What I wanted to produce was a handbook that
coul d serve as an i ntroducti on to the basi cs of Chri s-
ti ani ty as wel l as a study gui de for peopl e who are
al ready Chri sti ans but who have never spent much
ti me consi deri ng the soci al , pol i ti cal , and economi c
i mpl i cati ons of Chri sti ani ty. I t mi ght be thought of as
a fat tract. I t mi ght be thought of as a Chri sti an mani -
festo. My hope i s that i t wi l l at l east be thought of.
The book i s di vi ded i nto three secti ons. The fi rst
secti on, Foundati ons, covers the fi mdamental s of
orthodox Chri sti ani ty. These are the rel i gi ous pri n-
ci pl es that set Chri sti ani ty apart from al l other
rel i gi ons. The second secti on, I nsti tuti ons, covers
the i mpl i cati ons of Chri sti ani ty for the major i nsti tu-
ti ons of human l i fe. We shoul d expect to fi nd a very
di fferent approach i n each major i nsti tuti on from
what we woul d expect to fi nd i n non-Chri sti an cul -
tures. Fi nal l y, there i s the thi rd secti on on Expecta-
ti ons. What shoul d we expect i n the future? How
wi l l we i mpl ement the pri nci pl es we found i n secti on
one? Do we have ti me to devel op the i nsti tuti onal
base of secti on two? What i s the proper pl an of
XI I UNCONDMONAL SURRENDER
acti on? What are we requi red by God to do?
Thi s book wi l l i nevi tabl y offend everybody. I t
breaks wi th most of what we know as establ i shment
Chrkti ani tyY There area l ot of establ i shment Chri s-
ti ans who thi nk they arent part of a rel i gi ous estab-
l i shment, but they are. When they read thi s book,
and i f they thi nk about what they are readi ng, they
wi l l ei ther have to reject much of what I concl ude i n
thk book or el se they wi l l have to begi n to l abor l ong
and hard to rethi nk the rel i gi ous pri nci pl es they have
been taught for many years.
Any ti me a reader doesnt l i ke what hes readi ng,
he shoul d check hi s premi ses. Then he shoul d check
out the documentati on I provi de. Errors i n any
human book are i nevi tabl e, but i ts a questi on of
reduci ng errors to a mi ni mum. Thi s book breaks
wi th many of the current sl ogans of Chri sti an
churches, yet i t was wri tten i n terms of thi s presup-
posi ti on: the Bible is th inspired Word of God. I t was
perfect i n the ori gi md manuscri pts (autographs). I t
i s because I bel i eve the Bi bl e i s i nspi red, wi th respect
to both i ts hi stori cal data and i ts theol ogi cal judg-
ments, that I deci ded to wri te thi s book. I am con-
vi nced that much of what passes for conservati ve
Chri sti ani ty i n the l ate 20th century i s nei ther con-
servati ve nor Chri sti an.
What I recommend to the reader i s si mpl e to
state but di ffi cul t to achi eve: respect for uhzt the BibZe
says. Somethi ng i snt Chri sti an because I say i t i s,
but because the Bi bl e says i t i s. At the same ti me,
somethi ng i snt Chri sti an just because some pastor
or some fami l i ar book says i t i s. Just because you
PREPACE Xiii
havent heard anythhg l i ke the message thi s book
presents doesnt mean i t i snt an accurate message.
You have to make up your own mi nd. Tradi ti on i s
no substi tute for personal responsi bi l i ty. Sl ogans you
l earned i n Sunday school may not be what the Bi bl e
real l y teaches. Just because you may have an outl i ne
at the foot of each page i n your Bi bl e doesnt guaran-
tee that the text of the Bi bl e teaches whats i n those
footnotes. l bu have to deci de, not i n terms of what
men say, but what the Bi bl e says.
Gary North
August, 1980
Preface to the Second Edi ti on
The opportuni ty to put out a second edi ti on onl y
one year after the fi rst i s grati fyi ng and has afforded
me the opportuni ty to correct some typographi cal
errors brought to my attenti on by readers. The Bi b-
l i ography at the back of the book has been updated.
The text of the book has not been changed, except
for a few mi nor i mprovements i n phrasi ng and a
strengtheni ng of the secti on on the sacraments i n
chapter 5.
December, 1982
Preface to the Thi rd Edi ti on
I have added a chapter on Ti me~ whi ch I had
negl ected to do ori gi nal l y.
October, 1987
Part 1
FOU/VDAT/OIVS
INTRODUCTION TO PART I
For about as l ong as I can remember, I ve heard
peopl e tel l me that such and such a church or group
or bel i ef i snt a rel i gi on; i ts a way of l i fe. Have you
ever heard that sl ogan? Thi nk about i t. Have you
ever heard of a rel i gi on that i snt a way of l i fe? Fur-
thermore, have you ever heard of a way of l i fe that
wasnt basi cal l y a sort of rel i gi on? Every ti me I hear
someone say that Chri sti ani ty i s just another
rel i gi on, but l ?m l ooki ng for a way of l i fe, I begi n to
wonder just how much that person knows about
ei ther Chri sti ani ty or ways of l i fe.
Chri sti ani ty i s a rel i gi on. No doubt about that
fact! I t has church bui l di ngs, and mi ni sters, and
church soci al s, and mi ssi onari es, and col l ecti on
pl ates. I t has youth groups, Bi bl e studi es, summer
camps, hymnal s, semi nari es, and mortgages. I t has
marri ages, bapti sms, and funeral s. I ts a rel i gi on.
But Chri sti ani ty i s al so a way of l i fe. I t has a
moral code. I t has a system of church courts. I t has
creeds, doctri nes, and catechi sms. I t has members
4 UNCOND~lONAL SURRENDER
who share si mi l ar vi ews on the meani ng of l i fe and
death, good and bad, hi story and the fi ture, men and
women, God and man. And beeause Chri sti ans thi nk
about these subjects i n ways di fferent from the ways
that Mosl ems, Buddhi sts, Hi ndus, and athei sts thi nk
about them, the ki nds of soci eti es Chri sti ans have
bui l t, or have i nfl uenced, l ook a l ot dti erent from
other soci eti es. I n other words, it really maks a d@wnce
what peoph believe. Thei r i deas have consequences.
Peopl e usual l y dont thi nk deepl y about the way
they l i ve. They take most thi ngs for granted. Theres
not enough ti me i n a day to thi nk everythi ng
through. We cant questi on everythi ng al l the ti me.
But once i n a whi l e a person si ts down and asks hi m-
sel fl What ki nd of a worl d am I l i vi ng i n? Why i s i t
the way i t i s? I s i t goi ng to change some day? I s i t
goi ng to change for the better? And then he may ask
hi msel fi Who am I ? What am I doi ng here? What
shoul d I be doi ng? Where am I goi ng?
And then, i f hes a typi cal 20th century man, he
opens a can of beer, turns on the tel evi si on set, and
forgets al l hi s questi ons.
The Bi bl e tal ks about the person who does thi s
sort of thi ng. But be ye doers of the word, and not
hearers onl y, decei vi ng your own sel ves. For i f any
be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he i s l i ke un-
to a man behol di ng hi s natural face i n a gl ass
[mi rror], for he behol deth hi msel f, and goeth hi s
way, and strai ghtway forgetteth what manner of
man he was (James 1:22-24). A man asks hi msel f
some very good questi ons, and then he doesnt do
anythi ng to get some good answers.
INTRODUCTION TO PART I 5
What good are questi ons i f you never get any de-
cent answers? Not much good at al l .
Maybe youve started aski ng yoursel f some good
questi ons. Maybe you thi nk that a l i ttl e book l i ke
thi s can hel p get you started i n fi ndi ng answers to
good questi ons. Whatever your reason for readi ng
thi s far, I m goi ng to try to gi ve you a hand. No book
of thi s si ze wi l l gi ve you al l the answers. Li fe i snt
that easy. But i t wi l l hel p you get some answers, and
maybe youl l even pi ckup a few i deas about how you
can get a l ot more answers. And when you get
answers, you can start taki ng acti on.
But fi rst you need some questi ons. Let me sug-
gest a few. When I taught col l ege a few years ago, I
tol d my students a l i ttl e tri ck they coul d use to hel p
them get a handl e on hi story, government, soci ol -
ogy, and economi cs courses. I tol d them they coul d
ask themsel ves four questi ons about any soci ety
known to man, and i f they coul d get even short
answers to these four questi ons, they coul d probabl y
pass the course. Here are the four questi ons.
1. What does a soci ety bel i eve about God?
2. What does a soci ety bel i eve about mm?
3. What does a soci ety bel i eve about law?
4. What does a soci ety bel i eve about time?
I t l ooks easy enough, doesnt i t? Wel l , l ooks are
decei vi ng. A seri ous schol ar coul d spend a l i feti me
taki ng one soci ety and studyi ng just one of these
questi ons. But you dont have a l i feti me to spend thi s
way, and nei ther do 1. So the best we can do i s l ook
at a few books or arti cl es and then hope that the
wri ters knew what they were wri ti ng about.
6 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
We al l know that peopl e dont agree wi th each
other about everythi ng, not even peopl e i n a very
smal l communi ty. I n fact, someti mes i t seems that
peopl e dont agree about much of anythi ng. But once
i n a whi l e, we can fi nd out what peopl e do agree
about. One of the best ti mes to fi nd out what peopl e
real l y bel i eve i s when they face a l i fe-and-death
cri si s. When the chi ps are down, i f I may use a
gambl i ng metaphor, we fi nd out what peopl e thi nk i s
real l y i mportant.
Someti mes men have to di e for thei r bel i efs.
Maybe theres a war, or a revol uti on, or some sort of
major cri si s. What i s a man wi l l i ng to di e for? What
are a l ot of men i n a soci ety wi l l i ng to di e for? God,
country, and fami l y? Fame and fortune? Honor?
When we pi n men down and ask them what real l y
matters to them, we get some i dea of who they are
and what they are. We get some i dea of who they
thi nk they woul d l i ke to become. We fi nd out what
they want out of l i fe when they face a si tuati on that
threatens thei r l i ves. Tek a mans rel i gi on.
Thi nk about i t yoursel f. I s there somethi ng i n
your l i fe that you woul d real l y be wi l l i ng to di e for?
Most parents woul d say that theyd be wi l l i ng to di e
for thei r chi l dren. But what about an i dea or a
bel i ef? I f an enemy were hol di ng a gun to your head,
and he tol d you that he was goi ng to pul l the tri gger
unl ess you were wi l l i ng publ i cl y to renounce some
i dea, i s there any i dea so preci ous to you that youd
say, Shoot. Now youre getti ng cl ose to your
r el i gi on.
About 1800 years ago, there were peopl e i n the
INTRODUCTION TO PART I 7
Roman Empi re who tol d the emperor and hi s ofFi -
ci al s, Shoot . Of course, they di dnt have guns back
then. But they had l i ons and arenas. They had chop-
pi ng bl ocks for human heads. They had al l sorts of
tortures avai l abl e. The Roman Empi re waged war
on the earl y Chri sti ans, and a si gni fi cant number of
them absol utel y refused to toss a bi t of i ncense on an
al tar to the emperor. Was that such a bi g deal ? They
thought so. They resi sted, they di ed, and after three
hundred years of on-and-off persecuti on, they won.
From about the year 363, al l the emperors of the
Roman Empi re professed fai th i n Jesus Chri st as the
l i vi ng God who control s hi story. Anyone who refbsed
to make thi s professi on di dnt become emperor.
Maybe they al l di dnt bel i eve i n Chri st, but they sai d
they di d.
The earl y Chri sti ans bel i eved that i t makes a
di fference what you bel i eve about God. They were
wi l l i ng to di e for thei r bel i ef. They bel i eved the
words of Jesus: For whosoever wi l l save hi s l i fe shal l
l ose i t: and whosoever wi l l l ose hi s l i fe for my sake
shal l i i nd i t. For what i s a man profi ted, i f he shal l
gai n the whol e worl d, and l ose hi s own soul ? Or
what shal l a man gi ve i n exchange for hi s soul ?
(Matthew 16:25-26). They bel i eved that you cant
buy your way out of hel l and i nto heaven.
I s there anythi ng on earth so i mportant to you
that youd di e i n order to preserve i t or to assert
your commi tment to i t? I f so, then thats probabl y
your hi ghest goal , your most cheri shed possessi on.
We mi ght even say i ts your God. One thi ng i s for
sure: i ts about as cl ose as you can come to l ocati ng
s uNcoNomoNAL s-m
your God. I f youd gi ve your l i fe for i t, i t must be
pretty i mportant to you.
Some peopl e bel i eve the sl ogan concerni ng
communi sm, Better dead than red. Others di s-
agree: Better red than dead: si nce you can al ways
fi ght another day, or at l east you may have ti me to
see communi sm col l apse. But the two posi ti ons are
opposed to each other. You cant work out a com-
promi se here.
Yet other peopl e want a thi rd al ternati ve:
Nei ther red nor dead. They want a positive al ter -
nati ve. They dont want the l esser of two evi l s. They
know what they want, and theyre wi l l i ng to work
hard to achi eve thei r goal .
Thats my posi ti on. I want a posi ti ve al ternati ve.
My motto i n l i fe i s thi s: I fM cant beat something with
nothing. I f you dont l i ke whats goi ng on around you,
then get out and try to change i t. I f you dont l i ke
somethi ng, offer somethi ng el se thats better. Thats
why I took the ti me to wri te thi s book. I di dnt l i ke
the others.
I m concerned about the state of the worl d today.
I m convi nced that Western Ci vi l i zati on i s at a turn-
i ng poi nt. I dont want the l eaders and ci ti zens of the
Free Worl d to make deci si ons that wi l l spel l the
doom of our way of l i fe. Yet there area l ot of thi ngs
about our way of l i fe that I d l i ke to see changed. I n
fact, I m convi nced that i f theyre not changed, were
goi ng to l ose the posi ti ve aspects of our way of l i fe for
a l ong, l ong ti me. I dont want to have to make the
choi ce between Better red than dead or Better
dead than red. Whi l e theres sti l l ti me, I d l i ke the
INTRODUCTION To PART I 9
thi rd al ternati ve: nei ther!
But you cant beat somethi ng wi th nothi ng.
Thats why I d l i ke i t i f youd gi ve some ti me and
effort to thi nki ng about some basi c probl ems. I s the
worl d faci ng a cri si s of monumental proporti ons? I s
there anythi ng we can do to sol ve the probl ems were
faci ng? Can we fi nd where we went wrong and then
do somethi ng about i t? I s there anythi ng we can do
that wi l l make a di fference?
Thats what thi s book i s about: doi ng smnet/ti ng
many thi ngs, i n fact that wi l l unquesti onabl y make
a l ot of di fference. But we cant know whi ch thi ngs
wi l l make a di fference i f we dont understand the
nature of our worl d, oursel ves, and our resources.
Thats what I want you to thi nk about.
Perhaps you arent very fami l i ar wi th the hi story
of Chri sti ani ty over the l ast century or so. One of the
conti nui ng debates concerns the l egi ti macy of soci al
acti on. Those who have tended to reject the basi c
doctri nes of the fai th the i nfal l i bi l i ty of the Bi bl e,
the dei ty of Chri st, the real i ty of the vi rgi n bi rth, the
second comi ng of Chri st i n judgment, etc. have
been the proponents of soci al acti on, especi al l y pol i -
ti cal acti on. On the other hand, those who have de-
fended the tradi ti onal doctri nes have tended to drop
out of pol i ti cs. They have concentrated on preachi ng,
evangel i sm, forei gn mi ssi ons, Bi bl e conferences,
study groups, and so forth. They have concerned
themsel ves wi th bri ngi ng the message of personal
sal vati on a message whi ch has de-emphasi zed or
even deni ed the possi bi l i ty of Chri sti an soci al
r econstr ucti on.
One sl ogan whi ch pretty wel l summari zes the
di vi si on i s thi s: The l i beral s have bel i eved i n hi story
but not i n God, whi l e the conservati ves have bel i eved
i n God but not i n hi story. What thi s book stresses i s
the real i ty of both God and hi story. I ndi vi dual s are
saved, but i f they bear spi ri tual frui t, they wi l l al so
bear cul tural frui t. God speaks to thi s worl d, for He
made thi s worl d. He cal l s peopl e to repentance, but
repentance from speci fi c si ns, speci fi c ways of l i fe,
speci fi c atti tudes, specfi c phi l osophi es, and speci fi c
economi c doctri nes. God speaks to the whol e man,
and therefore He speaks to the whol e worl d. We
must therefore preach the whole counsel of God, just as
the prophets of the Ol d Testament di d.
Rel i gi ons, i f they are trul y rel i gi ons, have i mpl i ca-
ti ons for thi s worl d. A true rel i gi on i s a way of l i fe.
Any versi on of Chri sti ani ty whi ch i s not applied
Chri sti ani ty i snt Chri sti ani ty. Acti on for acti ons
sake i snt Chri sti ani ty, but acti on for Gods sake, and
accordi ng to Gods reveal ed gui del i nes, i s Chri sti an-
i ty. So now the questi on to be answered i s: What i s
Chri sti ani ty?
Remember my four questi ons? The questi ons we
can use to di scover the most i mportant features of
any soci ety? What ki nd of God do Chri sti ans bel i eve
i n? What i s thei r vi ew of ~n? what i s hei r vi ew of
l aw? And fi nal l y, what i s thei r vi ew of time?
Can Chri sti ani ty make a di fference? The Bi bl e
says i t can. Hi story says that i t has i n the past. But
wi l l i t make a di fference? That3 the questi on!
What i s Chri sti ani ty, anyway? What i s i t real l y
INTRODUCTION TO PANT I 11
al l about? Does i t make much sense to ask whether
Chri sti ani ty can make a di fference i f we dont know
what i t i s i n the fi rst pl ace?
Lets l ook at our four sujects: God, man, l aw,
and ti me. What does the Bi bl e say about these four
topi cs? Unti l we know the answers, we sure cant ap-
pl y them to oursel ves, our worl d, and our futures.
GOD
What does the Bi bl e have to say about God? A
whol e l ot, as you probabl y guessed. I t says that God
i s light. Thi s then i s the message whi ch we have
heard of hi m, and decl are unto you, that God i s
l i ght, and i n hi m i s no darkness at al l (1 John 1:5).
(I f youre wonderi ng what I John 1:5 means, I l l tel l
you. I n the New Testament, as i n the Ol d Testa-
ment, we have the vari ous books marked off by
chapters and verses. These di vi si ons were made over
a thousand years after the books of the New Testa-
ment were wri tten. I John 1:5 refers to the fi rst
epi stl e ofJohn, chapter one, verse fi ve. I f youve fi g-
ured out that there must be a H John, youre on
target. I n fact, theres even a I I I John. I ts onl y one
chapter l ong, however, so we wri te HI John 3 . The
3 refers i n thi s case to the verse, not the chapter.)
The Bi bl e al so tel l s us that God i s l ove. He that
l oveth not knoweth not God; for God i s l ove (I John
4:8). I f a man l oves nothi ng or no one, then he obvi -
ousl y cant be a fol l ower of God, John sai d, si nce
God i s l ove.
14 uNcowmoNM su~
The troubl e i s, there are many rel i gi ons that tel l
us that God i s l i ght and l ove. The words dont tel l us
that much about God. You can put al most any i nter-
pretati on on l i ght and l ove. We need to know
more about God than thi s.
Why not start at the begi nni ng? Why not start
wi th the openi ng words of the Book of Genesi s, the
fi rst book i n the Bi bl e? I n the begi nni ng God cre-
ated the heaven and the earth. Above al l el se, God
i s the Creator.
Now were getti ng somewhere. The concept of
God as the absol ute Creator i s uni que to Chri sti an-
i ty and Judai sm. There are other rel i gi ons that speak
of God as the mol der of the worl d or the ori gi nal be-
i ng, but no rel i gi ons other than Chri sti ani ty and
Judai sm speak of God as the absol ute, soverei gn, no
hel p needed Creator. The fi rst chapter of Genesi s
says that He created the whol e uni verse by the
power of Hi s word. No pre-exi sti ng matter, no spare
parts l yi ng around the back yard, not even a back
yard for spare parts to be l yi ng around i n. Nothi ng.
God created al l thi ngs out o~notl uhg. Now thats a
hard doctri ne to bel i eve. Men just dont want to
bel i eve i t. Theyl l go to i ncredi bl e l engths to avoi d
bel i evi ng thi s. They create myths, l i ke the myth of
the cosmi c egg. Or maybe they choose to bel i eve i n
an eternal ocean, and out of the watery ocean al l
thi ngs, i ncl udi ng gods, have sprung. Modern sci en-
ti sts fol l ow the l ead of Greek phi l osophers who l i ved
2500 years ago, and concl ude: 1) the uni verse has
al ways exi sted just about the way i t exi sts now (the
steady-state theory); or 2) the uni verse started
GOD 15
when there was a huge expl osi on of some eternal
matter-energy (the Bi g Bang theory); or 3) the uni -
verse osci l l ates: bang, col l apse, bang. . . . Of course,
modern sci enti sts dress up the theori es wi th a l ot of
mathemati cs and fancy words, but they real l y havent
come up wi th any new outl i nes.
Creati on out of nothi ng i s what the Bi bl e
teaches. I t doesnt teach that God dropped a part of
Hi msel f down i nto space and that thi s spark of
di vi ni ty turned i nto the worl d. I t doesnt teach that
He mol ded pre-exi sti ng matter i nto what we see to-
day. I t doesnt say that the worl d of matter somehow
i mi tated God, who i s nothi ng more than thought
thi nki ng i tsel f. (Thi s suggesti on was made by Ark-
totl e i n hi s book, Physics, chapter 8, whi ch he wrote
around 330 B.c.) What the Bi bl e teaches i s that God
sai d, Let there be l i ghq and there was l i ght
(Genesi s 1:3). One after another, God sai d, Let
there be . . . and i mmedi atel y there ZOus. The fi rm-
ament, water, dry l and, grass, sun, moon, stars, ani -
mal s, and fi nal l y, man: God sai d, Let there be . . .
and there was.
He di d al l thi s i n si x days. Hebrew grammar
cant tel l us whether these were 24-hour days. A l ot
of modern Chri sti ans have argued that they werent.
But when you thi nk about i t, why not? I mean, i f
God created everythi ng out of nothi ng, whi ch i s one
of the most di ffi cul t thi ngs i n the worl d to bel i eve i n,
why not accept the Bi bl es words at face val ue? The
anci ent Hebrews certai nl y bel i eved that the si x days
were real l y days. Each day had a morni ng and even-
i ng. Addi ng up the days produced the 7-day week,
16 UNCONDITIONAL SURRSNDSR
wi th a day of rest every seventh day. Besi des, what
good i s the theory of bi l l i on-year days, assumi ng you
take seri ousl y the Genesi s account of creati on? The
sun, moon, and stars were created on the fourth day.
But the herb-yi el di ng seeds and frui t trees were cre-
ated on the thi rd day (Genesi s 1:11-12). What sci en-
ti st wi l l accept the i dea that the pl ants of the earth
were created before the sun was created? Not an
evol uti oni st. Not even i f we try to argue that the
word day coul d mean a bi l l i on years. The modern
sci enti st cannot possi bl y accept the i dea of Gods cre-
ati on out of nothi ng, so redefi ni ng day to mean a
l onger peri od of ti me sol ves nothi ng.
What we l earn i n the fi rst chapter of Genesi s i s
one of the most i mportant doctri nes of Chri sti ani ty:
God created the worl d out of nothi ng. He i s total l y
separate from the worl d. He i s total l y soverei gn over
the worl d. The O#ord English Dictiona~ defi nes sov-
erei gn i n thi s way: One who has supremacy or
rank above, or authori ty over, others; a superi or; a
rul er, governor, l ord, or master. . . . Yet even these
words are i nsuffi ci ent to convey to us the Bi bl es doc-
tri ne of the soverei gnty of God over Hi s creati on.
God is the absolute controller of eve@hing that happens. He
controk the universe because He made the universe. I t has no
i ndependence from God because i t was made by
God. I t i s presentJv sustained by God. The Provti ence of
God means si mpl y Gods acti ve sustai ni ng and order-
i ng of Hi s uni verse.
The Bi bl e doesnt teach that the uni verse i s a
huge cl ock or machi ne that God made a l ong ti me
ago, when He fi rst wound up the spri ng, and now i t
ti cks away, compl etel y i ndependent of God. The
uni verse i s Gods pro@rty, and He guards i t jeal ousl y.
I n the Psal ms, those i nspi red poems and hymns of
the Ol d Testament, we read: The earth i s the
LORDS, and the ful ness thereo~ the worl d, and they
that dwel l therei n. For he founded i t upon the seas,
and establ i shed i t upon the fl oods (Psal m 24:1-2).
The earth i s fi l l ed wi th l i vi ng thi ngs, i ncl udi ng you
and me. Al l l i vi ng creatures bel ong to God, i ncl ud-
i ng you and me.
The Creator-Creature Di sti ncti on
We can cal l thi s doctri ne of creati on the Creator-
creatzue distinction. There i s a basi c di fference between
God and the uni verse, between God and man. Man
i s a created bei ng. No man stands al one. No man
stands i ndependent of God. No man merges i nto
God, ei ther. God tel l s us very speci fi cal l y that my
thoughts are not your thoughts, nei ther are your
ways my ways (I sai ah 55:8). Why not? For as the
heavens are hi gher than the earth, so are my ways
hi gher than your ways, and my thoughts than your
thoughts (I sai ah 55:9).
Thi s doesnt mean that God i s so far removed
from us that He cares nothi ng for us. On the con-
trary: For thus sai th the hi gh and l ofty One that i n-
habi teth eterni ty, whose name i s Hol y; I dwel l i n the
hi gh and hol y pl ace, wi th hi m al so that i s of a con-
tri te and humbl e spi ri t, to revi ve the spi ri t of the
humbl e, and to revi ve the heart of the contri te ones
(I sai ah 57:15). Does thi s mean that Gods peopl e
who have contri te and humbl e hearts i n front of
18 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
Gods hol i ness real l y dwel l wi th Hi m i n those hi gh
pl aces? In prznc@e, His people dwell with Him in spin-t,
for He reaches down and touches them, heal s thei r
wounds, and l i fts thei r spi ri ts up. We are l i ke peopl e
who have resi dences el sewhere, so we put down our
home address, even when were far away from
home. The Apostl e Paul wrote: For our conversa-
ti on [the ol d Engl i sh word for citizenship] i s i n
heaven; from whence al so we l ook for the Savi our,
the Lord Jesus Chr i s~ (Phi l i ppi ans 3:20). Of course,
those who dont l ook to heaven for thei r Savi or, the
Lord Jesus Chri st, obvi ousl y dont have thei r ci ti zen-
shi p i n heaven. Thats an i mportant poi nt whi ch
Paul was tryi ng to make.
Chri sti ani ty doesnt teach dA.snz, the i dea that
God i s compl etel y separate and di stant from the uni -
verse, whi ch i s now absol utel y i ndependent of God.
I t al so doesnt teach jxznthei .sm, whi ch says that God i s
so deepl y embedded i n thi s worl d that He i s not di s-
ti ngui shabl e from i t. God i s certai nl y everywhere.
The Psal mi st announces: Whi ther shal l I go from
thy Spi ri t? Or whi ther shal l I fl ee from thy presence?
I f I ascend up i nto heaven, thou art there. I f I make
my bed i n hel l , behol d, thou art there (Psal m
139:7-8). Nothi ng i s goi ng on anywhere whi ch God
hasnt heard about. But He i snt part of Hi s creati on.
God i s never to be i denti fi ed wi th Hi s creati on.
There i s no uni versal form of bei ng, no ul tra
somethi ng i n whi ch both God and man parti ci pate.
Thue is no %ale of bang between God and His creation.
Men dwel l i n the presence of God, but they are not
one wi th God i n terms of thei r bei ng. He i s utterl y
QoD 19
di fferent. The Psal mi st says i t best: LORD, thou hast
been our dwel l i ng pl ace i n al l generati ons. Before
the mountai ns were brought forth, or even that thou
hadst formed the earth and the worl d, even from
everl asti ng to everl asti ng, thou art God (Psal m
90:1-2). Man i s, but God al ways was. When man
wasnt, God was.
I t can never be sai d of man: Tor of hi m, and
through hi m, and to hi m, are al l thi ngs: to whom be
gl ory for ever. Amen (Remans 11:36). But Paul sai d i t
of God. God never sai d thi s about man; He sai d i t
about Hi msel f: Yea, before the day was I am he; and
there i s none that can del i ver out of my hand: I wi l l
work, and who shal l l et [prevent] i t? (I sai ah 43:13).
Men cannot sti ck out thei r arms and stop Gods pl an.
Even ki ngs cant do i t, for ki ngs make thei r deci si ons
i n terms of Gods pl an. me ki ng% heart i s i n the
hand of the Lore, as the ri vers of water: he tumeth i t
whi thersoever he wi l l (Proverbs 21:1).
Men dont l i ke to hear about thi s sort of God.
We prefer to thi nk of God as some sort of cosmi c ex-
pert who can be cal l ed upon to bai l us out every ti me
we get i n troubl e. He can gi ve us speci al i zed i nforma-
ti on, as a professi onal counsel or mi ght, but He cer-
tai nl y i snt the fi nal authori ty. After al l , men say to
themsel ves, Were al l i n thi s together: God, man-
ki nd, and the envi ronment. God becomes, at best,
Dr. G@ whi l e al l the rest of us are merel y %fr.
The Book of Hebrews, i n the New Testament,
pai nts a very di fferent pi cture of God. %nd, Thou,
Lord, i n the begi nni ng hast l ai d the foundati on of
the earth; and the heavens are the works of thi ne
~ UNCONDMONAL SURRENDER
hands. They shal l peri sh, but thou remai nest; and
they al l shal l wax ol d as cl oth a garment. And as a
vesture shal t thou fol d them up, and they shal l be
changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shal l
not fai l (Hebrews 1:10-12). God i s i n absol ute con-
trol , forever.
Why i s i t so i mportant to keep stressi ng thi s
Creator-creature di sti ncti on? Because i t i s the very
essence of mans rebel l i on agai nst God to deny i t.
When the evi l tempter tempted Eve, he offered her a
speci al hope: to be as God. She had been commanded
not to eat the fi wi t of the tree of the knowl edge of
good and evi l . Satan (Revel ati on 12:9) sai d: For
God cl oth know that i n the day ye eat thereof, then
your eyes shal l be opened, and ye shal l be as gods,
knowi ng good and evi l (Genesi s 3:5). So she ate,
and her husband ate. They defi ed God. They tested
God to see whether Hi s word woul d come true or
Satans. They el evated themsel ves i nto judges, for
they thought they woul d test Gods word agai nst
Satans. How woul d they do thi s? By assumi ng that
they coul d determi ne good and evi l i n defi ance of
Gods word to them. They acted as though they were
soverei gn creators even before they actual l y ate the
frui t.
Agai n and agai n, throughout the hi story of man,
peopl e have compromi sed or actual l y rebel l ed
agai nst thi s doctri ne of God the Creator. They have
tri ed to el evate manki nd i nto co-creators wi th God.
They have sai d that men were once one wi th God
and that they shal l be one wi th God i n the future.
QOD 21
They have sai d that men are endowed wi th a spark
of di vi ni ty. They have sai d that manki nd, through a
l ong evol uti onary process, wi l l become equal wi th
God. They have sai d that si nce man and God share
the same common bei ng or substance, i t i s possi bl e
for men to bri dge the gap and become di vi ne. The
Bi bl e rejects al l of these asserti ons.
I n the anci ent tyranni es of the Mesopotami an
worl d, ki ngs were sai d to be di vi ne. The Egypti ans
bel i eved that thei r Pharaoh was a di vi ne bei ng, the
l i nk between heaven and earth, the sustai ner of
Egypts prosperi ty. Thi s bel i ef l ed di rectl y to the i dea
of a di vi ne State, a pol i ti cal order whi ch coul d not be
chal l enged by mere men. The State, si nce i t was
the hi ghest l i nk between man and God, was there-
fore al l -powerful i n the theol ogi es of the anci ent
wor l d.
Of course, you can accompl i sh much the same
thi ng by denyi ng that there i s any God above the
pol i ti cal order. Si nce the State i s the most vi si bl y
powerful human i nsti tuti on, athei sm removes a con-
cept of some hi gher court of appeal beyond the State.
The State becomes di vi ne by defaul t the hi ghest
court of appeal , the hi ghest moral authori ty. Not
every athei st i s a stati st. But where athei sm predom-
i nates, the State steadi l y encroaches on mens free-
dom, for they are I ei l wi th no hi gher authori ty to
appeal to or to provi de them wi th the moral justi fi -
cati on for resi stance to tyranny. Where the fear of
God i s absent, thefear of the Stat% i s a conveni ent and
uni versal substi tute.
Hol i ness
Peopl e who l i ve i n Protestant countri es probabl y
have heard the word hol i ness i n several contexts.
They have heard of %ol y rol l er churches. Or maybe
they+e sung the tradi ti onal hymn, Hol y, Hol y,
Hol y. Another possi bi l i ty: hol i ness sects. These are
ti ghtl y kni t groups of Chri sti an bel i evers who pursue
a ri gorous way of spi ri tual l i fe.
The Bi bl e has a doctri ne of hol i ness. I t begi ns
wi th G& hol i ness. And the LORD spake unto Moses,
sayi ng, Speak unto al l the congregati on of the chi l -
dren of I srael , and say unto them, Ye shal l be hol y:
for I the LORD your God am hol y (Levi ti cus 19:1-2).
I am the Al mi ghty God; wal k before me, and be
thou perfect (Genesi s 17:1). The New Testament
doctri ne i s the same: Be ye therefore perfect, even
as your Father whi ch i s i n heaven i s perfect (Mat-
thew 5:48). Agai n, quoti ng from the Ol d Testament:
Sancti fi yoursel ves therefore, and be ye hol y: for I
am the LORD your God (Levi ti cus 20:7). We star t
wi th God. We acknowl edge the hol i ness of the God
who created us. Then we appl y the same standard of
hol i ness, or perfecti on, to oursel ves. Unquesti on-
abl y, we fi nd that we dont mwsure up to the standizrd.
But what exactl y i s hol i ness? God has i t, we are
supposed to have i t, but what i s i t? The bi bl i cal
meani ng of hol i ness i s to be set apart, or di i l erent
from the worl d. I t i s a ki nd of set apart-ness, i f I
may i nvent a new term. I t means to di sti ngui sh
onesel f from others. God i s set apart by Hi s ri ght-
eousness, Hi s perfecti on. (He i s al so set apart
GOD23
because of Hi s posi ti on as a separate ki nd of bei ng,
the Creator, but hol i ness refers to ethi cs, not the
%ufP we are made of. ) We can see i t better i n Gods
words to the nati on of I srael : And ye shal l be hol y
unto me: for I the LORD am hol y, and have severed
you from other peopl e, that ye shoul d be mi ne
(Levi ti cus 20:26). God wants us to conform our-
sel ves to Hi s moral standards. He separates us fmm
those i n the worl d who are i mmoral , who defi antl y
set up standards di fferent from those establ i shed by
God for manki nd. We are Hi s property, as we l earned
when we consi dered the Creator-creature di sti nc-
ti on. He sets us apart ethi cal l y, requi ri ng of us that
we l i ve di fferent sorts of l i ves. He l i teral l y set apart
the Hebrews i n the anci ent worl d, separati ng them
geographi cal l y when He gave them the l and of
Canaan (the Promi sed Land). But i n our day, He
separates us spi ri tual l y by pul l i ng our mi nds and
hearts out of the corrupti on of the worl d around us,
and by separati ng us soci al l y (such as i n our choi ce
of marri age partners) and i nsti tuti onal l y (member-
shi p i n a fel l owshi p, the church; educati on i n Chri s-
ti an school s).
The Bi bl e devotes consi derabl e space to hol i ness.
I f you open a Bi bl e concordance, whi ch l i sts al l the
verses i n whi ch a parti cul ar word appears, and l ook
up the word %ol y, you wi l l fi nd hundreds of refer-
ences. Strong% Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible has
over fi ve col umns of extremel y fi ne pri nt l i sti ng the
verses that appear i n the Ki ng James Versi on of the
Bi bl e, the most popul ar of the Engl i sh transl ati ons.
Gods moral standards of hol i ness, the key to l i fe,
24 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
are set forth i n Hi s l aw. He i s a~kalous God, we are
tol d. I n the Book of Exodus, we fi nd Gods ten com-
mandments. He tel l s Hi s peopl e not to bow down to
other gods, for I the LORD thy God am a jeal ous
God (Exodus 20:5). So determi ned i s God to defend
Hi s standards of ri ghteousness that He threatens us
wi th puni shment i f we di sobey. The prophet Amos,
who was a si mpl e sheep herder before God cal l ed
hi m to chal l enge the peopl e of hi s day, announced to
them: Hear thi s word that the LORD bath spoken
agai nst you, O chi l dren of I srael , agai nst the whol e
fami l y whi ch I brought up from the l and of Egypt,
sayi ng, You onl y have I known of al l the fami l i es of
the earth: therefore I wi l l puni sh you for al l your
i ni qui ti es (Amos 3:1-2).
But i f God requi res peti ecti on, and men di sobey
Hi m, then how can any of us escape puni shment?
How can we meet such a standard of perfecti on?
One defi ant act, and we have l ost perfecti on. I n fact,
as we wi l l see i n the chapter on man, we are born i n
si n. The great si n was the si n of our father, Adam.
He acted for al l of us when he defi ed God. We are al l
tai nted wi th hi s transgressi on. So how can we attai n
per fecti on?
The answer i s cruci al l y i mportant. We need a
substi tute. We need someone who i s perfect to stand i n
front of God and say, i n effect, God, I have met
your standard of perfecti on. I deserve your bl essi ng.
However, these peopl e here, my fki ends, have si nned
gri evousl y. They deserve your hol y judgment. But
do thi s for my sake, as a perfect bei ng. Puni sh me i n-
stead of them. Look at my perfecti on i nstead of l ook-
i ng at thei r i mperfecti on. I wi l l bear thei r puni sh-
ment . Thi s i s exactl y what the Bi bl e requi red from
the day of Adams rebel l i on: a sacri fi ce. Speci fi cal l y,
a blood sacriice, whi ch woul d symbol i ze the greatest
sacri fi ce of al l ti me, the death and puni shment of a
perfect bei ng, who was al so a perfect man. The
prophet I sai ah spoke concerni ng the comi ng
Messi ah: Surel y he bath borne our gri efs, and car-
ri ed our sorrows: yet we di d esteem hi m stri cken,
smi tten of God, and affl i cted. But he was wounded
for our transgressi ons, he was brui sed for our i ni -
qui ti es: the chasti sement of our peace was upon hi m;
and wi th hi s stri pes we are heal ed (I sai ah 53:4-5).
The Apostl e Paul wrote: For when we were yet
wi thout strength, i n due ti me Chri st di ed for the un-
godl y. For scarcel y for a ri ghteous man wi l l one di e:
yet peradventure [perhaps] for a good man some
woul d even dare to di e. But God commendeth
[proves] hi s l ove toward us, i n that, whi l e we were
yet si nners, Chri st di ed for us (Remans 5:6-8).
Thi s doesnt mean that the Bi bl e teaches that we
can become perfect i n thi s l i fe. The Apostl e John
wrote: I f we say that we have fel l owshi p wi th hi m
[God], and wal k i n darkness, we l i e, and do not the
truth. But i f we wal k i n the l i ght, as he i s i n the l i ght,
we have fel l owshi p one wi th another, and the bl ood
of Jesus Chri st hi s Son cl eanseth us from al l si n. I f
we say that we have no si n, we decei ve oursel ves,
and the truth i s not i n us. I f we confess our si ns, he i s
fai thful and just to forgi ve us our si ns, and to cl eanse
us from al l unri ghteousness. I f we say that we have
not si nned, we make hi m a l i ar, and hi s word i s not
26 uNcoNDITloNM ~
i n us (I John 1:6-10). Z%e r@t of conjkssion of sins
before Chri st through prayer, and al so through resti -
tuti on i f we have si nned agai nst another, i s the most
importunt right Chn3t3 people possess.
What i s si n? Sin is th violation of God% revealed law.
Whosoever commi tteth si n transgresseth al so the
l aw: for si n i s the transgressi on of the l aw (1 John
3:4). Some peopl e have mi si nterpreted Johns words
i n the thi rd chapter of hi s l etter, concl udi ng that
John taught that absol ute perfecti on i s possi bl e after
a man i s brought by grace i nto Chri sts sal vati on.
But what John taught was that the definition of a saved
man i s si nl essness, that he i s si nl ess before God
because God l ooks at Chri st, not at the si ns of the re-
generate man. The regenerate man i s characteri zed
by hi s stri vi ng agai nst si n, by hi s determi nati on to
root si n out of hi s l i fe, but John taught the benefi ts of
confessi on of si n, whi ch proves that he knew that re-
generate men, though vi ewed as men draped i n
Chri sts ri ghteousness, sti l l transgress the l aw. The
regenerate man cannot l i ve a l i fe characteri zed by
si n. He cannot i mmerse hi msel f i n si nni ng as a way
of l i fe.
Without a substitute, a mm faes inevitable judgnwnt.
The man who thi nks he can stand before God i n hi s
own hol i ness, wi thout Chri sts ri ghteousness cover-
i ng hi m, has commi tted permanent sui ci de. He faces
what the New Testament cal l s the second death
(Revel ati on 20:14), eternal judgment. Thats why
God requi red ani mal sacrfi ces i n the Ol d Testa-
ment. They represented the absol ute sacri fi ce of
Chri st on the cross, al though that sacri fi ce was
GOD 27
al most 1,500 years i n the future when Moses gave
I srael the l aw. Even Abel , Adams son, offered a
bl ood sacri fi ce to God (Genesi s 4:4). Gods hol i ness
i s no tri fl i ng thi ng, nothi ng to be scoffed at. Men
who do not take Gods hol i ness seri ousl y are maki ng
a terri bl e mi stake. Such an atti tude takes too seri -
ousl y the ri ghteousness of man i n the face of a hol y
God. The prophet I sai ah warned: But we are al l as
an uncl ean thi ng, and al l our ri ghteousnesses are as
fi l thy rags [l i teral l y: menstruous rags]; and we al l do
fade as a l e~ and our i ni qui ti es, l i ke the wi nd, have
taken us away (I sai ah 64:6). Graphi c l anguage, i n-
deed; yet men conti nue to bel i eve that they are no
worse than the next guy, as i f the next guy werent
peri shi ng, too.
The Tki ni ty
What ki nd of God i s thi s God of the Bi bl e? A@r-
sonal God. He has communi on as a person has com-
muni on. But He does not need man for Hi s com-
muni on. He exi sts throughout eterni ty; mans
appearance was temporal . God was not l acki ng any-
thi ng when man was not around. He was not l onel y,
as some pagan myths of the creati on tel l us. He was
not l onel y, for He possesses communi on. We are not
deal i ng wi th one uni form, i sol ated bei n~ we are
deal i ng wi th PtYsons who consti tute a Person.
When God ahnounced the creati on of manki nd,
He sai d: Let us make man i n our i mage, after our
l i keness: and l et them have domi ni on . . . (Genesi s
l :26a). When the rebel s at Babel began to construct
thei r tower, a monument to thei r one-worl d govern-
28 UNCONDmMAL SURRSNDSR
ment, God sai d: Go to, l et us go down, and there
confound thei r l anguage, that they may not under-
stand one anothers speech (Genesi s 11: 7). Let US,
God sai d; and I %ey di d. But They di d i t as one Per-
son one Person, yet more than one Person, i n ful l
communi on.
The fi rst chapter of Genesi s tel l s us: And the
earth was wi thout form, and voi d; and darkness was
upon the face of the deep. And the Spi ri t of God
moved upon the face of the waters (Genesi s 1:2). We
al so read concerni ng Adam and Eve: And they heard
the voi ce of the LORD God wal ki ng i n the garden i n
the cool of the day . . . (Genesi s 3:8a). But God i s a
Spi ri t (John 4:24). Di d a Spi ri t wal k? The words i n-
di cate that thi s God exi sts i n several Persons.
The Ol d Testament doesnt say speci fi cal l y how
many Persons consti tute the Godhead. The New
Testament does: Father, Son, and Hol y Spi ri t. The
Hol y Spi ri t remai ns i n the background i n Hi s rel a-
ti ons wi th men. Chri st tol d Hi s di sci pl es: These
thi ngs have I spoken unto you, bei ng yet present
wi th you. But the Comforter, whi ch i s the Hol y
Ghost, whom the Father wi l l send i n my name, he
shal l teach you al l thi ngs, and bri ng al l thi ngs to
your remembrance, whatsoever I have sai d unto
you (John 14:26). Agai n, Chri st sai d: I t i s expe-
di ent for you that I go away: for i f I go not away, the
Comforter wi l l not come unto you; but i f I depart, I
wi l l send hi m unto you (John 16: 7). I n other words,
God the Father wi l l send the Hol y Spi ri t, yet Chri st
wi l l al so send Hi m. The Hol y Spi ri t i s an agent who
has a speci al rol e to pl ay i n New Testament ti mes.
He comforts Gods peopl e duri ng the ti me i n whi ch
Chri st i s absent.
Chri st al so sai d: When he, the Spi ri t of truth, i s
come, he wi l l gui de you i nto al l truth: for he shal l not
speak of hi msel fi but whatsoever he shal l hear, that
shal l he speak: and he wi l l show you thi ngs to come
(John 16:13). The Hol y Spi ri t i ntercedes wi th God on
our behal fi Li kewi se the Spi ri t al so hel peth our i n-
fi rmi ti es: for we know not what we shoul d pray for as
we ought: but the Spi ri t i tsel f maketh i ntercessi on
for us wi th groani ngs whi ch cannot be uttered
(Remans 8:26). He stays i n the background, but He
does i mportant work.
Who i s the most i mportant of the three Persons?
What has to be sai d from the outset i s that they are
al l equal l y i mportant, for they are al l of the same
essence. They are, i n the words of one Chri sti an phi -
l osopher, mutual l y sel f-exhausti ve. That means that
each of them knows al l thi ngs; that each of them i s
total l y open to the others; that they share the same
goal s, exerci se the same power, honor each other
equal l y. They are equal s, but they are not i denti cal ,
for they are di sti ngui shabl e. Chri sti ans usual l y say
that they bel i eve i n one God i n three Persons, but
l anguage i s i nsuffi ci ent here. What we do know i s
that there i s one God: Hear, O I srael : The LORD
our God i s one LORD (Deuteronomy 6:4). Yet at the
same ti me, when the i nterrogators questi oned Jesus
regardi ng Hi s cl ai m of di vi ni ty, He asserted Hi s ful l
di vi ni ty. Agai n the hi gh pri est asked hi m, and sai d
unto hi m, Art thou the Chri st, the Son of the
Bl essed? And Jesus sai d, I am: and ye shal l see the
* UNCONDITIONAL SURREND~
Son of man si tti ng on the ri ght hand of power, and
comi ng i n the cl ouds of heaven. Then the hi gh pri est
rent hi s cl othes, and sai th, What need we of further
wi tnesses? Ye have heard the bl asphemy: what thi nk
ye? And they al l condemned hl m to be gui l ty of
death (Mark 14:61-64). The Jewi sh Sanhedri n, the
hi gh court of the Jews i n Chri sts day, knew exactl y
what He cl ai med for Hi msel f, and He was wi l l i ng to
afl i rm thi s much before the Sanhedri n. Beyond thi s,
He remai ned si l ent.
Ti me and agai n, those who reject Chri sti ani ty
argue that Jesus was onl y a man, not fi dl y di vi ne. Or
they say that He was almost di vi ne, or becanw di vi ne,
but that He was not, from the begi nni ng, ful l y co-
equal wi th the Father. Thi s i s the age-ol d error of
subordzkztionism. I t tri es to put Chri st bel ow the Father
i n terms of Hi s bei ng, power, gl ory, or honor.
But di dnt Chri st acknowl edge Hi s own i nferi ori ty
to God the Father? Di dnt He say agai n and agai n
that He was doi ng Hi s Father% busi ness? When He
prayed i n the garden, the ni ght that He was cap-
tured by the authori ti es, He prayed wi th these
words: Abba, Father, al l thi ngs are possi bl e wi th
thee; take away thi s cup from me: neverthel ess not
what I wi l l , but what thou wi l t (Mark 14:36). But
He al so sai d Heaven and earth shal l pass away: but
my words shal l not pass away. But of that day and
that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angel s whi ch
are i n heaven, nei ther the Son, but the Father
(Mark 13:31-32). He asserted the external i ty of Hi s
own words, yet He cl ai med i gnorance of the day of
judgment. What can we make of al l thi s?
GoDsl
Theol ogi ans struggl e wi th these seemi ng para-
doxes, and the best they have come up wi th i s thi s:
the Ti i ni ty i s made up of equal Persons, but as
regards thei r acti vi ti es i n rel ati on to the creati on,
they have di fl erent fi mcti ons. They are equal in
essence eternal~, but subordinate in Jmction historical~.
God sent Hi s Son to redeem men. Jesus sai d, I am
the way, the truth, and the l i fe: no man cometh unto
the Father, but by me (John 14:6). But He al so sai d:
No man can come unto me, except the Father
whi ch bath sent me draw hi m [l i teral l y: drag hi m]:
and I wi l l rai se hi m up at the l ast day (John 6:44).
There i s a mutual i ty of purpose, but a di fference i n
hi stori cal executi on of thei r respecti ve tasks.
Theol ogi ans l i ke to makeup fancy terms, so they
di sti ngui sh between the ontologzcal Tri ni ty (equal i ty
of bei ng) and the economical Tri ni ty (subordi nati on i n
functi on). Al l theyre real l y sayi ng i s that they fi nd
traces of subordi nati on i n Jesus mi ni stry before Hi s
Father and subordi nati on i n the Hol y Ghosts mi n-
i stry before both the Father and the Son, especi al l y
si nce He testi fi es not of Hi msel f. Wi th respect to
God3 rekzti on to His creation, i n ti me and on earth,
there are d#i mnces i n jnuti ort. I n rel ati on to each
other, the three Persons of the Tri ni ty are mutual l y
sel f-exhausti ve, knowi ng, respecti ng, and l ovi ng
each other compl etel y.
By understandi ng these theol ogi cal di sti ncti ons
i n advance, the new Chri sti an gai ns an i ntel l ectual
defense agai nst those who woul d make Chri st al most
a God, a l ate-bl oomi ng God, or a God who real l y
wasnt 1007o human. He al so protects hi msel f
* UNCONDITIONAL SURRENOER
agai nst any vari ati on of evol uti oni sm, whi ch argues
that man i s becomi ng a God and that Chri st was
our fi rst great exampl e of mans upward march to
fi dl di vi ni ty. Jesw stu~d out bezng God. Paul wrote:
Let thi s mi nd be i n you, whi ch was al so i n Chri st
Jesus, who, bei ng i n the form of God, thought i t not
robbery to be equal wi th God, but made hi msel f of
no reputati on, and took upon hi m the form of a ser-
vant, and was made i n the l i keness of men. And be-
i ng found i n fashi on as a man, he humbl ed hi msel f,
and became obedi ent unto death, even the death of
the cross (Phi l i ppi ans 2:5-8). God the Father di dnt
humbl e Hi msel fj the Hol y Spi ri t di dnt humbl e
Hi msel fi but God the Son di d. Each had a di fferent
task, but man cannot l egi ti matel y make hi msel f i nto
a di vi ne bei ng because of the hi stori cal humbl i ng of
the Son of God, who wal ked on earth as Jesus
Chri st, the Messi ah, ful l y human and ful l y di vi ne,
one Person, wi th two natures, i n perfect uni on, but
wi thout i ntermi xture. (I f Chri st had possessed two
di sti nct personal i ti es, then we woul d wi ndup wi th a
doctri ne of one God, four Persons the di vi ni zi ng of
the nature of man, a creature. Thi s woul d deny the
Creator-creature di sti ncti on, and i t woul d al so deny
the real i ty of the ontol ogi cal Tri ni ty.)
Concl usi ons
I f God i s God, then man i snt God. I f God cre-
ated al l thi ngs, then man i s i n no way the l ord over
creati on. I f God sustai ns the creati on through the
mi ght of Hi s power, then we must bel i eve i n the #rov-
i dmce of God, not the provi dence of man. I f we cannot
l egi ti matel y bel i eve i n the provi dence of man, then
we most certai nl y cannot l egi ti matel y bel i eve i n the
provi dence of the State. The State i s not the agency
of human sal vati on. The State i s not the source of
our l i berti es. The State i s not the source of our
weal th, power, and hopes.
I t was thi s i mpl i cati on of the doctri ne of God that
got the Hebrews i nto so much troubl e wi th Nebu-
chadnezzar, ki ng of Babyl on, who bel i eved hi msel f
to be a di vi ne ki ng i n a di vi ne State (Dani el 3). He
repented of thi s bel i ef at the end of hi s l i fe (Dani el 4).
I t was thi s same i mpl i cati on whi ch enraged
Pharaoh, another sel f-procl ai med di vi ne rul er, when
Moses asked that he al l ow the Hebrew sl aves to go
out of Egypt for a week i n order to worshi p God (Ex-
odus 5). I f God i s the Creator, then He must al so be
the Savi or, whi ch permanentl y deni es thi s rol e to the
State. The stati sts have never forgi ven God because
of thi s fact.
Somethi ng el se must be understood. God i s
si mul taneousl y one and many. God i s He and God i s
2%9. God acts as a Person, yet He i s three Persons.
We have i n the very bei ng of God both i ndi vi dual i sm
and col l ecti vi sm (corporate bei ng). We have i n Gods
very bei ng the theol ogi cal foundati on of the reconci l i
ati on of an anci ent phi l osophi cal probl em, namel y,
the one and the many probl em. I s man essenti al l y
i ndi vi dual i sti c or col l ecti vi sti c? I s the State supreme
or the i ndi vi dual ? The Bi bl e tel l s us the proper ap-
proach to thi s probl em: man, like God, i.s botk in-
dividualistic and collectivistic. We dare not emphasi ze
one aspect and excl ude the other.
When were tryi ng to get to the bottom of thi ngs,
i ts usual l y best to get to the ori gi ns of thi ngs. What
was the ori gi n of man? The Bi bl e provi des us wi th
the answer: And God sai d, Let us make man i n our
i mage, after our l i keness: and l et them have domi n-
i on over the fi sh of the sea, and over the fowl of the
ai r, and over the cattl e, and over al l the earth, and
over every creepi ng thi ng that cr eepeth upon the
earth. So God created man i n hi s own i mage, i n the
i mage of God created He hi m; mal e and femal e cre-
ated He them. And God bl essed them, and sai d unto
them, Be frui tful , and mul ti pl y, and repl eni sh the
earth, and subdue i t: and have domi ni on over the
fi sh of the sea, and over the fowl of the ai r, and over
every l i vi ng thi ng that moveth upon the earth
(Genesi s 1:26-28). I n the next chapter, God gi ves us
more i nformati on about the speci fi cs of mans crea-
ti on: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of
the ground, and breathed i nto hi s nostri l s the breath
of l i fe; and man became a l i vi ng soul (Genesi s 2:7).
= UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDSR
Man i s God-nzuo%. He i s not man-made. He owes
hi s l i fe, hi s goal s, and hi s envi ronment to God. God
i s the source of everythi ng man has. God owns man
just as surel y as He owns al l the other resources of
the creati on. God i s absol utel y soverei gn over man
and the creati on.
But man i snt dust. He came from the dust, but
hes more than dust. He i s a speci al creati on of God.
He i s made i n Gods i mage, wi th moral sel f-
consci ousness and domi ni on over the rest of crea-
ti on. Unl i ke the angel s, man was created a race, an
organi c uni ty, not a host, and thus even the one-and-
manyness of God i s i maged i n humani ty.
Thi s i ndi cates a three-ti ered system, at the very
l east. Fi rst, there i s God, the Creator. Then there i s
man, the creature wi th a soul . Then there i s the
general creati on. Man i s part of the creati on, yet he
i s i n some speci al way di sti nct from the creati on.
Man i s uni que.
The I mage of God
The Bi bl e says that God made man i n Hi s i m-
age. Or, more preci sel y, God made man i n Thei r i m-
age. Man i s a person, endowed wi th a soul , and i n
communi cati on wi th God. Man refl ects the very
character of God. He i s not equal wi th God, for he i s
a creature. Neverthel ess, he refl ects Gods nature i n
a way that no other creature does.
I n the verse that fi rst speaks of the creati on of
man, Genesi s 1:26, we are tol d two thi ngs about
man. Fi rst, he i s made i n the i mage of God. Second,
he i s to have donzinwn over the l i vi ng bei ngs of the
m 37
earth. The l i nk between the i mage of God and mans
l awful domi ni on cannot be i gnored. We are not tol d
that the essence of the i mage of God i s seen i n mans
moral nature. We are not tol d that the i mage of God
i s seen i n mans abi l i ty to thi nk. Nei ther are we tol d
that the fundamental fact of the i mage of God i n man
i s hi s abi l i ty to speak. Al l of these aspects of mans
nature are rel ated to Gods nature, but the essence of
the i mage of God i n man i s domi ni on. Domi ni on
fol l ows Gods l i keness i n man (Genesi s l :26a).
What God di d i ni ti al l y was to create a man-free
uni verse. Thi s took fi ve days. Thi s man-l ess uni -
verse was i ncompl ete. I t was good; God sai d i t was
good after each stage of creati on. But i t was i ncom-
pl ete. God created man as a means of completing nature.
Nature was not a coherent whol e, even though i t
possessed God-gi ven regul ari ti es, such as the repro-
ducti on of each speci es after i ts own ki nd (Genesi s
1:24). Nature was not lawless, yet it was incomplete. I t
was governed by God, yet i t was i ncompl ete. Some-
thi ng was mi ssi ng, despi te natures regul ari ti es.
Man was the mi ssi ng pi ece, for there was not a man
to ti l l the ground (Genesi s 2 :5b).
Ours i s a personai univeme. God, a personal bei ng,
created the uni verse. I t has i ts very bei ng i n terms of
God and Gods comprehensi ve pl an for the ages. Not
a si ngl e fact i n the uni verse exi sts apart from God,
Gods pl an, and Gods eval uati on of each fact. No
fact i s i sol ated, sel f-exi stent. Every fact i s fzdl y inter-
preted by God, because God created every fact, gi oes
meaning to every fact, and control s every fact. God i s
absol utel y soverei gn.
* UNCONDmOML SURRENDER
God created a ki nd of assi stant, or a second l i eu-
tenant, to exerci se domi ni on over Hi s earth. Thi s
doesnt mean that man i s i ndependent of God or i n
any way reduce the soverei gnty of God. Al l of mans
l awful soverei gnty i s deri ved soverei gnty. God gave i t
to hi m when He gave mans assi gnment to hi m. God
di dnt l ose some of Hi s soverei gnty when He created
man. He sti l l control s al l that comes to pass. Noth-
i ng takes pl ace that God tri es to prevent. Mans
soverei gnty i s expl i ci tl y delegated soverei gnty. What-
ever soverei gn power he enjoys, he enjoys as a resul t
of the i mage of God i n hi s very bei ng. He doesnt
have a so-cal l ed spark of di vi ni ty i n hi m. Nowhere
i n the Bi bl e can you fi nd that doctri ne taught. But he
does have the i mage of God, whi ch i s a domi ni on-
ori ented i mage. God is creatiue~ constmctive, while man
is receptively reconstructive.
Man i s a personal bei ng. He needs communi on.
Because he i s a l i mi ted bei ng, he al so needs hel p.
God therefore created an assi stant, Eve. Wi th Eve,
he was to begi n to bri ng the garden under domi ni on.
I n fact, he was assi gned the task of nami ng (cl assi fy-
i ng) the ani mal s before he was gi ven Eve (Genesi s
2:20). He had ajob to do b$ore he was gzven a w~e. Man
i s defi ned i n terms of the i mage of God, but thi s i m-
age i nvol ves mans normal i ncl i nati on to domi nate
the creati on. He di d hi s job; then he got hi s wi fe.
Eve was hi s hel pmeet, to use a common term
(Genesi s 2:20). Actual l y, the Ki ng James Versi on
never uses hel pmeet . Thats a word whi ch devel -
oped from the Ki ng James phrase, an hel p meet for
w 39
hi m. What the phrase real l y meant was a hel per$t
for hi m, or better yet, aksi~ed for hi m. Eve was de-
si gned to compl ement Adam and make hi s work
more effi ci ent. Adam was l i mi ted from the start, an
i ncompl ete creati on, just as the earth was an i ncom-
pl ete creati on. Adam needed Eve. He needed her to
work better, enjoy l i fe better, procreate chi l dren, and
most i mportant of al l , better refl ect Gods i mage.
Man i s l i ke God. He i snt i denti cal to God, but
he i s l i ke God. God now has a creature made i n Hi s
i mage who can act as God3 agent on am%, maki ng the
earth fi wi tful . He can work i n the garden, dressi ng i t
(Genesi s 2:15). But more than thi s, he can dress the
whol e worl d. He wasnt to stay i n the garden al l hi s
l i fe. The garden of Ea%n was si mpl y a prelimznay train-
ing ground for man. I t set the pattern. I t was to serve as
a school for dominion. The ri vers fl owed out of the gar-
den, and what better way for the sons of Adam to
fi nd thei r way i nto the worl d to subdue i t (Genesi s
2:10, 13-14)?
Man must dominate. This was never i ntended to be
a l i cense for mi susi ng hi s powers. He was to dress
the garden, not ravage i t. He was to treat Gods
creatures wel l , for he was representi ng God on
earth. He was to care for Gods creati on, as a
steward cares for hi s masters property. Neverthe-
l ess, man must domi nate. I t i s basi c to hi s very be-
i ng. He was desi gned to exerci se domi ni on, as the
i mage-bearer of God, i n ti me and on earth.
Man started out as somet.hg l i ke a second
l i eutenant. (Eve mi ght be consi dered a non-
commi ssi oned offi cer, except i n those days there was
~ UNCDNDITIDNM SURRENDSR
no rul e agai nst offi cers fraterni zi ng wi th non-corn s.)
He had the opportuni ty to become a captai n, a ma-
jor, even a one-star general . He was to be tested i n
hi s assi gnments by God. But one thi ng was i mpossi -
bl e for man: he could never become the Comm.under-in-
C/ztif He coul d never become the sol e authori ty. He
coul d never become God.
Thats just what he wanted to become.
The Fal l
The evi l tempter came to Eve, the subordi nate,
and tol d her to vi ol ate Gods l aw. He tol d her that
she woul dnt real l y di e on the day she ate of the tree
(Genesi s 3:4). No, he tol d her, she woul d have her
eyes opened. She woul d become as God, knowi ng
good and evi l (Genesi s 3:5). To become as God
what a marvel ous opportuni ty! No muss, no fuss; i n-
stunt divinity. No commi ssi oned offi cer status for her,
nor for her husband. She wanted. to be Commander-
i n-Chi ef. What a promoti on! No years of work i n the
garden, and then i n the worl d at l arge.
Satan, the number-one rebel i n the uni verse,
knew how rebel l i ons are made. He went to the ob-
vi ous source of di scontent: Eve. Here she was, the
number-two person i n a two-person outfi t. I n fact,
she was real l y number fi ve, i f we count the three per-
sons of the Godhead. She was at the bottom. So who
do you thi nk woul d be the most l i kel y candi date for
starti ng a rebel l i on? Satan thought so, too.
She started gi vi ng orders. She vi ol ated Gods ex-
pl i ci t i nstructi on, whi ch presumabl y had been passed
on to her by her husband. God had tol d Adarn not to
mu 41
eat of the tree before Eve was created (Genesi ~ 2:17).
Satan came to her and quoted Gods words- sel ec-
ti vel y, of course, as Satan al ways does i n order to
remi nd her of the restri cti on on the coupl e. Then he
tol d her i t wasnt real l y that dangerous, and besi des,
the pay-off was terri fi c: to be m God. She ate, and she
gave to her husband to eat.
The chain of command was broken. Satan, the chi ef
rebel , got the woman to begi n the rebel l i on. Shortl y
thereafter, her husband took her advi ce, rejected
Gods expl i ci t i nstructi ons, and he ate. Satan had
brought di srupti ons to Eden.
The tradi ti onal vi ew of thi s event i n Chri sti an
ci rcl es (whi ch i s al so my vi ew) i s that Satan was
stri ki ng out at God by wi nni ng the al l egi ance of
man, who bore Gods i mage. I n other words, Satan
sought a victory over God by striking at God through man.
He was usi ng man as a means of di srupti ng Gods
uni verse. He was goi ng to thwart Gods pl ans by get-
ti ng man to vi ol ate Gods l aw. Thi s i s a theol ogi cal
specul ati on, but i t makes a l ot of sense, gi ven the
pi cture i n Genesi s 2.
What we fi nd i s that God declares that man will be
used to thwart Satan% plan for the univezse. God tel l s the
woman: And I wi l l put enmi ty between thee and the
woman, and between thy seed and her seed; i t shal l
brui se thy head, and thou shal t brui se hi s heel
(Genesi s 3:15). Thi s i s exactl y what happened at the
cross: Satan brui sed the heel of the son of man,
Jesus, but i n sati sfyi ng the hol y justi ce of God by Hi s
death, Chri st brui sed the head of the serpent. Chri st
made a way for Hi s peopl e to escape the wrath de-
si gned for Satan and hi s host (Matthew 25:41).
Satan had hoped to use man as a pawn i n a kmd
of cosmi c chess game. God then took that pawn and
devi sed a strategy to turn the tabl es on Satan, usi ng
that same pawn to defeat hi m. The open si gn of the
turni ng poi nt i n the game was the cructi l on and
resumecti on of Jesus. The game obvi ousl y i snt over,
but man, Satans hoped-for pawn, i s now a di vi ded
race. Li ke the angel s, who are al so di vi ded, G&
humun jbrces are guaranteed the uictoy Steadi l y, Gods
forces i n the heavens and on earth are pushi ng
back the ki ngdom of Satan. Satans l ast outpost i s
hel l , but the church of Jesus Chri st i s advanci ng to-
ward that l ast outpost, and the gates of hel l shal l not
prevai l agai nst i t (Matthew 16:18). I t takes ti me,
effort, and the grace of God, but vi ctory i s assured.
The gates of hel l shal l not prevai l agai nst Gods hol y
(set apart) church. The work of the church, i n ti me
and on earth, rol l s back the ki ngdom of Satan.
Then, when Satan rebel s at the end of ti me, Gods
angel s are sent down to %nop up (Revel ati on
20:7-10). The churchs work makes possi bl e thi s vi c-
tory. The gates of hel l cannot wi thstand the fi nal
onsl aught of the church. Satans hoped-for means of
thwarti ng God manki nd wi l l be used to thwart
Satan.
Neverthel ess, the ethi cal rebel l i on of man has
had enormous consequences for the hi story of man
and the hi story of Gods contest agai nst Satan. Man
rebel l ed ethi cal l y. He set hi msel f up as a judge be-
tween God and Satan. Woul d man real l y di e? Wel l ,
man sai d, l ets run an experi ment. We wi l l eat, and
MAN4a
then wel l see what happens. Satan mi ght be correct
about al l , after al l . Satans word mi ght very wel l be
equal wi th Gods. So man, the sel f-procl ai med sov-
erei gn judge, deci ded to test Gods verbal promi se
agai nst the abi l i ty of God to fi dfi l l the terms of Hi s
pr omi se.
Thi s anal ysi s underesti mates the extent of mans
rebel l i on. When man deci ded to test Gods word, he
actual l y had shady passed judgment agai nst Gods
word. After al l , man ate the forbi dden frui t. Gi ven
the horrendous consequences promi sed by God, the
ri sks were hi gh. I n fact, they were so i ncredi bl y hi gh
that onl y someone who had al ready deci ded that
Gods word couldnt possib~ be tru woul d be wi l l i ng to
take that sort of ri sk. Man was cal l i ng God a l i ar,
just as Satan had cal l ed Hi m. Man was i mpl i ci tl y
cal l i ng Satan the truth-bri nger, the l i ght-bearer,
whi l e God was si mpl y a l yi ng despot who was pl ac-
i ng man under an i ntol erabl e and compl etel y unwar-
ranted restri cti on. _Watch thi s, God! Adam and
Eve sai d to themsel ves. Or at l east, they mi ght as
wel l have sai d i t. Thats certai nl y what thei r acti ons
meant.
Satan promi sed that they woul d become as God,
knowi ng good and evi l . But the Hebrew word i s
stronger than that. I t means determi ni ng or estab-
l i shi ng: not si mpl y passi vel y knowi ng good and evi l .
By the act of defi ance, they were al ready asserti ng
thei r status as co-equal s wi th God. No, worse than
that. They were establ i shi ng themsel ves, they be-
l i eved, as the supreme jz@es between these two be-
i ngs, God and Satan. They woul d test Gods word
~ UNCONDtTIONAL SURRSNDSR
and Satans. They had al ready deci ded that Satans
word was true.
Satan coul d offer them somethi ng for nothi ng
status as gods, determi ners of good and evi l , apart
from the l ong years of godl y, subordinate servi ce as
garden-dressers and worl d-dressers wi thout en-
dangeri ng hi s own hoped-for posi ti on as the sover-
ei gn bei ng of the uni verse. Why not? By thei r asser-
ti on of the ri ght to judge between God and Satan,
they had al ready acknowl edged Satans soverei gnty
as the bei ng who bri ngs truth. Satan coul d al ways
demand ful l subordi nati on, gi ven hi s great power i n
compari son to mans power, Zy God woul d no l onger
protect man. Thats what the Book of Job tel l s us
that Satan thi nks, or thought before Cal varys cross.
He had to ask God for the power to harm thi s
ri ghteous man (Job 1:6-12). Wi thout Gods protec-
ti on, man was nothi ng to worry about, Satan con-
cl uded. So why not l et man thi nk man was the sover-
ei gn judge between Satan and God? Man woul d be
di si l l usi oned soon enough. Man woul d be powerl ess
soon enough. Man woul d be dead soon enough.
Di d man di e that day? Spi ri tual l y, he di d. I n
pri nci pl e, he di d. But God di d not sl ay hi s body that
day. Why not? God showed numy to rnun because Chtitk
sacrijice was already schedubd. God showed mercy to
man for the sake of Chri st.
Thi s may seem di ffi cul t to bel i eve, but the Bi bl e
unquesti onabl y teaches i t. For the sake of Chri st and
Chri sts church, the assembl y of sai nts, God pre-
served the l i ves of our fi rst parents. The New Testa-
ment tel l s us, concerni ng Gods heal i ng work, that
MAN&i
He has saved us, and cal l ed us wi th an hol y cal l i ng,
not accordi ng to our works, but accordi ng to hi s own
purpose and grace, whi ch was gi ven us i n Chri st
Jesus before the worl d began (I I Ti mothy 1:9). Paul
repeated thi s message i n several of hi s l etters.
Bl essed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Chri st, who bath bl essed us wi th al l spi ri tual bl ess-
i ngs i n heavenl y pl aces i n Chri st. Accordi ng as he
bath chosen us i n hi m before the foundati on of the
worl d, that we shoul d be hol y and wi thout bl ame be-
fore hi m i n l ove, havi ng predesti nated us unto the
adopti on of chi l dren by Jesus Chri st to hi msel f, ac-
cordi ng to the good pl easure of hi s wi l l , to the prai se
and gl ory of hi s grace, wherei n he bath made us ac-
cepted i n the bel oved (Ephesi ans 1:3-6). B&ore the
foundlztion of the world: Satans doom and the bl ess-
i ngs of God on Hi s peopl e were guaranteed before
Adam rebel l ed.
Mans Fal l was real . I t took pl ace i n ti me and on
earth. The fi rst man and the fi rst woman were i n-
vol ved. Satan, the angel i c rebel , was i nvol ved. Thi s
was no moral i ty pl ay wri tten by some obscure
Hebrew pri est about 3,500 years ago. Thi s was no
mythi cal tal e whi spered i n secret ceremoni es duri ng
the i ni ti ati on ri tes i n the deserts of Pal esti ne. Gods
word says that this rebellion really took place, in time and
on earth, and that the reason were i n the pl i ght that
we so obvi ousl y ar e i n i s because our parents made a
di sastrous deci si on.
Now the i mmedi ate response of the sons and
daughters of Adam and Eve runs al ong these l i nes:
Wel l , dont hol d me responsi bl e. I woul d have had
46 uwoml Tl oNAL SURRENDER
more sense than they di d. I woul dnt have touched
that fmi t. Why, I woul dnt even have l ooked at i t.
I ts not my faul t. I wasnt there. But of course thats
the typi cal response of arrogant rebel s. Here were
Adam and Eve, created peti ect, wi th no hi story of
si n behi nd them. They communed wi th God. There
was no si n separati ng them from a hol y God. And
these two peopl e, created good, rebel l ed. And now
we i i nd thei r offspri ng, rebel l i ous to the core,
separated from God by a mountai n of si ns, bl i nd to
the doom that awai ts al l ethi cal rebel s, tryi ng to tel l
themsel ves (not to menti on God) that i t woul d have
been a l ot di fFerent i f someone as terri i i c as they had
been assi gned to the garden of Eden.
The Bi bl e tel l s us: Wherefore, as by one man si n
entered i nto the worl d, and death by si n; and so
death passed upon al l men, for that al l have si nned
(Remans 5:12). Agai n, For al l have si nned, and
come short of the gl ory of God (Remans 3:23). And
most i mportant of al l for man: Wor the wages of si n
i s death; but the gi ft of God i s eternal l i fe through
Jesus Chri st our Lord (Remans 6:23).
Mans Fal l was ethical. I t i nvol ved an acti ve rebel-
lion on mans part agai nst the l aw of God. God had
tol d hi m not to eat of the tree, but man wanted i n-
stant i l l umi nati on, i nstant di vi ni ty. He rejected the
processes of ti me, the effects of godl y, obedi ent l abor.
He rejected the thought that he woul d have to re-
mai n a subordi nate. He woul d have to acknowl edge
hi s posi ti on as a creature under God; he woul d have
to spend hi s l i fe thi nki ng Gods thoughts after Hi m,
as a creature, rather than stand as a tyrant over crea-
MAN 47
ti on, whi ppi ng creati on i nto l i ne as a sel f-made God.
He woul d have to mature over ti me, and al ways as
Gods subordi nate. Awful !
God woul dnt permi t thi s sort of nonsense to go
on unrestrai ned. Fi rst, man i s a subordi nate. He has
to be; he i s a creature. He i s under the soverei gnty of
God. Man has to serve God or Satan, as the chi ef
rebel . Now, Satan i snt choosy. He doesnt requi re
that we worshi p hi m expl i ci tl y. Al l he wants i s that
we worshi p hi m i mpl i ci tl y. He di dnt tel l Adam and
Eve that they shoul d eat of the tree i n order to spend
eterni ty worshi ppi ng hi m. He onl y tol d them that
they shoul d do what God had forbi dden, so that they
coul d become god-l i ke bei ngs. By rgicting the worship
of God, mm inevitably accepts the worship of Satan, even
when man thinks he is worshipping himselJ or idols, or the
messianic State.
Chri st sai d: No man can serve two masters: for
ei ther he wi l l hate the one, and l ove the other; or el se
he wi l l hol d to the one, and despi se the other. Ye can-
not serve God and mammon (Matthew 6:24). Man
cannot serve as a medi ator between God and Satan.
He cannot test Gods word. He cannot serve them
both, even when he thi nks he i s servi ng nei ther.
Man must serve. He was created as Gods repre-
sentati ve on earth. He cannot escape hi s cal l i ng
(vocati on, task, etc.) before God. He cannot escape
hi s very bei ng. He was desi gned to worshi p God. He
was desi gned to be an obedi ent subordi nate. Now,
i ts possi bl e for hi m to become a dtiobe&@ subor-
di nate, but he remains a subordinate. Domi ni on man i s
al ways subordi nate man.
48 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
Man has tri ed many ways to escape thi s posi ti on.
I n Eden, he tri ed to do i t by asserti ng hi s sel f-
appoi nted soverei gnty over God. He woul d test the
rel i abi l i ty of Gods word. What real l y happened? He
wound up a subordi nate to Satan, ethi cal l y speak-
i ng. Metaphysi cal l y speaki ng (I hate to use a word
l i ke metaphysi cal , but I dont know what el se to
use), he remai ned subordi nate to God. By thi s, I
mean that i n terms of the real worl d a worl d i n
whi ch God i s absol utel y soverei gn he was then, i s
now, and forever wi l l be szdxm%uzte to God. But as an
acti ng man he rebel l ed ethi cal l y. He was no l ess a
man. He was no l ess under the soverei gn control of
God. He was no l ess Gods second l i eutenant, i n
charge of the earth. He was no l ess dominion ma. He
was, however, a twisted domi ni on man, a rebel .
Man must be subordi nate. Man must al so rul e.
How can he do both? Under hi s ori gi nal cal l i ng, he
was to be subordi nate to God, but a rul er over crea-
ti on. Now he has asserted hi s decl arati on of i nde-
pendence from God, so he fi nds hi msel f under the
power of some aspect of the creati on. He tri es to be a
rul er i n hi s own ri ght, and he becomes subordi nate
to Satan. Now, as I ve sai d, Satan i snt choosy. Man
can become ethi cal l y subordi nate to any aspect of
the creati on. I t doesnt real l y matter that much to
Satan. Man can pi n hi s hopes to anythi ng, so l ong as
i t i snt the God of the Bi bl e. Man can obey anythi ng
or anyone, so l ong as i t i snt the l aw of God.
Paul wrote these words concerni ng mens abi l i ty
to bel i eve i n anythi ng, no matter how crazy, i n order
to avoi d bel i evi ng i n God. For the wrath of God i s
Wu 49
reveal ed from heaven agai nst al l ungodl i ness and
unri ghteousness of men, who hol d [l i teral l y: hol d
buck, or restrai n] the truth i n unri ghteousness,
because that whi ch may be known of God i s mani fest
i n them; for God bath shewed i t unto them. For the
i nvi si bl e thi ngs of hi m from the creati on of the worl d
are cl earl y seen, bei ng understood by the thi ngs that
are made, even hi s eternal power and Godhead; so
that they are wi thout excuse. Because that, when
they knew God, they gl ori fi ed hi m not as God,
nei ther were thankfi d; but became vai n i n thei r i m-
agi nati ons, and thei r fool i sh heart was darkened.
Professi ng themsel ves to be wi se, they became fool s,
and changed the gl ory of the i ncorrupti bl e God i nto
an i mage made l i ke to corrupti bl e man, and to bi rds,
and four-footed beasts, and creepi ng thi ngs. Where-
fore God al so gave them up to uncl eanness through
the l usts of thei r own hearts, to di shonour thei r own
bodi es between themsel ves, who changed the truth of
God i nto a l i e, and worshi ped and served the crea-
ture more than the Creator, who i s bl essed for ever.
Amen (Remans 1:18-25).
Qui te a pi cture, i snt i t? Here are human bei ngs,
who i magi ne themsel ves to be wi se, but who become
the worshi pers of creepy-crawl i es. They hol d back
the truth i n unri ghteousness. They are gi ven the rev-
el ati on of God i n Hi s creati on, yet they restrai n thi s
knowl edge, condemni ng themsel ves. They know
what theyre doi ng. They are acti vel y restrai ni ng the
truth of God. They arent a bunch of supposedl y i n-
nocent savages who just never had the opportuni ty
to hear the message of sal vati on through fai th i n
~ UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
Jesus Chri sts atoni ng death on Cal vary. They are
savages, al l ri ght, but acti ve, systemati c, truth-
restrai ni ng savages. There i s nothi ng i nnocent about
them. They worshi p bugs i nstead of God. They wor-
shi p snakes i nstead of God. And the real l y sel f-
decei ved ones tel l themsel ves that they worshi p
nothi ng at dl and then fal l prostrate before the mes-
si ani c State.
Mans Fal l was ethi cal . I t was acti ve rebel l i on.
Eve, admi ttedl y, was decei ved, Paul tel l s us, but
Adarn wasnt (I Ti mothy 2:14). I t was not that Adam
fel l because of some fl aw i n hi s bei ng, or a fl aw i n the
creati on. I t was not that ki nd of rebel l i on. I t was ac-
ti ve si n, the overcomi ng of ri ghteousness, the rejec-
ti on of the truth.
Thi s i s i mportant for the doctri ne of sal vati on.
God doesnt restore some l ost aspect of mans bei ng.
Man i s a rebel today, but he i s sti l l a man. He sti l l i s
the i mage of God. He acti vel y restrai ns the truth of
thi s i mage, but he i s neverthel ess a subordi nate to
somethi ng, and he al so domi nates somethi ng el se.
He may worshi p a demon and beat hi s wti e. He may
worshi p money and cheat hi s nei ghbor. He may
worshi p the State and suppress the free market.
Si nce he i s sti l l a man, sti l l made i n the i mage of
God, sti l l a subordi nate, and sti l l domi ni on man, he
i s still completely responszble bg$ore God. Thats why,
through the grace of God, some men respond to the
message of sal vati on. They are sti l l men. They sti l l
have the testi mony of thei r very bei ng to condemn
them. ~men were not men, they could not repent. Angel s
dont repent. Men do. When God regenerates a
MAN51
man, He doesnt put back somethi ng that man l ost
i n the Fal l some aspect of hi s bei ng that made man
a ti e man i n Eden, but whose absence makes man
somethi ng l ess than a man today. God untunh- the
man, restoring him ethical~ before God.
Man was a man before he rebel l ed. Man i s a
man today, though a twi sted rebel . Man wi l l be a
man i n the new heavens and the new earth, when si n
i s abol i shed. And man wi l l sti l l be a man i n hel l ,
wi th one excepti on: he wi l l no l onger be domi ni on
man. Any wi l l to domi ni on wi l l be eternal l y frus-
trated. That i s part of the curse of the second death.
Satan suffers the same fate: possessi ng power before
hi s rebel l i on and after hi s rebel l i on, but not i n hel l .
Sti l l subordi nate, l i ke hi s associ ates, he l oses power.
That i s hi s fi nal curse. Refusi ng to acknowl edge
thei r metaphysi cal subordi nati on to God thei r
subordi nati on i n the very essence of thei r bei ng as
creatures Satan and hi s host, i ncl udi ng rebel l i ous
men, wi l l wi nd up compl etel y domi nated by God,
but wi thout a trace of thei r ori gi nal power, thei r
del egated authori ty as responsi bl e creatures. They
sought absol ute poweq they wi l l wi ndup wi th none.
The Curse
Gods response to the si n of Adam and Eve i s re-
veal i ng. Fi rst, He began Hi s questi oni ng of the pai r.
He began wi th Adam, the head of the househol d.
Satan had begun hi s revol uti on wi th Eve; God
returned to Adam. He asked Adam i f he had eaten
of the forbi dden frui t. And the man sai d, The
wornan whom thou gavest to be wi th me, she gave
= UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDSR
me of the tree, and I di d eat (Genesi s 3:12). That
woman whom Z& gavest to me: Adam was attempt-
i ng to pl ace the bl ame el sewhere. I t was the womans
faul t, but ul ti matel y i t was Gods faul t. Wou gave her
to me, God; you created a fl awed envi ronment for
me. I m just an i nnocent vi cti m of my envi ronment,
afi er al l . I m not real l y al l that responsi bl e.
God then asked the woman i f thi s was true. Had
she gi ven her husband the fmi t? And the woman
sai d, The serpent begui l ed me, and I di d eat (Gen-
esi s 3: 13 b). The devi l made me do i t! I t?s thi s ter-
ri bl e envi ronment, God. Temptati ons everywhere.
Whats a poor gi rl to do?
God asked the serpent nothi ng. He just con-
demned i t. From then on, i t woul d be the most cursed
of beasts, and the son of man woul d brui se i ts head,
even as i t woul d brui se the heel of the womans seed
(Genesi s 3:14-15). That curse extended, God then
returned to the woman. She wi l l have pai n i n chi l d-
beari ng, i ndi cati ng a change i n her anatomy. The
serpent woul d hereafter crawl on the earth, i n-
di cati ng a change i n i ts anatomy, and the woman
woul d be i n pai n when gi vi ng bi rth.
Then came Adams curse: And unto Adam he
sai d, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voi ce of
thy wi fe, and hast eaten of the tree, of whi ch I com-
manded thee, sayi ng, Thou shal t not eat of i t: cursed
i s the ground for thy sake: i n sorrow shal t thou eat of
i t al l the days of thy l i fe. Thorns and thi stl es shal l i t
bri ng forth to thee; and thou shal t eat the herb of the
fi el d. I n the sweat of thy face shal t thou eat bread,
ti l l thou return unto the ground; for out of i t wast
MAN53
thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shal t
thou return (Genesi s 3:17-19). God had cursed the
anatomi es of the fi rst two rebel s; now he cursed not
onl y Adarns body, but hi s l abor. Hi s cal l i ng before
God woul d henceforth be pai nfi d. He had been turned
back i nto dust. He woul d forever be remi nded of hi s
creaturehood. Shape dust i nto any form, and i t
eventual l y crumbl es and bl ows away. So woul d i t be
wi th man.
But more than Adams body was cursed. The
ground was cursed. I t woul d henceforth resi st man.
I t woul d produce thorns and thi stl es. Thi s, i n effect,
was a change i n natures anatomy. Nature woul d
now rebel agai nst man, even as man had rebel l ed
agai nst God, and woman had rebel l ed agai nst both
man and God. Adam had been pl aced as a ki nd of
second l i eutenant over nature. He had rebel l ed
agai nst hi s Commander-i n-Chi ef. Now he woul d
l earn what al l i nsubordi nate commanders l earn: the
process i s hard to stop. When second l i eutenants di s-
obey seni or offi cers, non-commi ssi oned offi cers tend
to di sobey second l i eutenants, and so on, ri ght
down the chai n of command. Rebel l i on was l oose
among the troops. Now man woul d l earn how trou-
bl esome i nsubordi nate subordi nates can be. Satan,
the number-one-rebel , had l aunched a uni versal re-
bel l i on by means of man.
Unquesti onabl y, nature was cursed. Nature,
mans subordi nate, parti ci pated i n the defeat of her
commandi ng offi cer. Adams puni shment dragged
nature i nto the bri g, too. Natures fate was seal ed by
the fate of her commander. Hi s defeat was natures
= UNCONDMONAL SURRENDER
defeat. What hu@ms to commanding oficers is cwiaily
imporkznt to their subordinates. Whether a man serves
under the command of Jesus Chri st or Satan makes
al l the di fference i n the worl d, and even more i mport-
ant, al l the cl i Rer ence bgortd tlis worl d. Men wi l l
serve under a conquer er or the conquered, but they
must serve someone. l %ere are no ruwtral obsemrs in
this cosmic struggle. Everyone i s drafted i nto one army
or the other. Men are born i nto Satans army, si nce
i ts a heredi tary offi ce; Adam volunteered himse~and aU
hti postert& fm service in Satin% fmces. Only God can
draft men i nto Hi s forces. There have onl y been two
true vol unteers: the fi rst Adam, and the second
Adam, Jesus Chri st. Satan tempted them both:
Adam i n the l uxuri ous garden and Jesus i n the bar-
ren wi l derness, after He had fasted forty days (Mat-
thew 4). Adam fel l i n the mi dst of l uxury; Chri st
resi sted i n the mi dst of a hosti l e envi ronment. Adam
had everythi ng but the forbi dden fi wi t a perfect en-
vi ronment, accordi ng to God. He abandoned Gods
word and vol unteered for the wrong army. Chri st
had practi cal l y nothi ng, a harsh envi ronment, and
He resi sted Satans offer to defect. Commitment to
God% word not man% environment, determines mun~ success
or failure.
Adam rebel l ed agai nst God. Nature rebel l ed
agai nst Adam. Satan i s i n rebel l i on agai nst God,
man, and nature. Wi th nature rebel l i ous, has Gods
pl an been thwarted? Wi l l man be defeated i n hi s
assi gnment of subdui ng the earth under the soverei gn
control of God? Di d Satan defeat God? I s Satan, i n
ti me and on earth, the successful commander of the
MAN*
best troops? Or i s hi s strategy doomed, i n ti me and
on earth? We know i ts doomed i n eterni ty, but i s i t
doomed before eterni ty? I s Satan that good a com-
mander? Wi l l Chri st% troops suffer endl ess humi l i a-
ti on, endl ess defeats, i n ti me and on earth? Wi l l
Chri sts draftees be apol ogeti c unti l the very l ast day
concerni ng thei r Commanders ski l l s i n battl e, the
strategy devi sed by thei r Commander, the i nsuffi -
ci ent trai ni ng of Gods troops, the woefhl l y second-
-rate equi pment, and the i nabi l i ty of Gods angel s to
offer protecti on to men from Satans angel s? Di d
God i n fact defeat Hi s own pl an when He cursed the
ground, thereby undercutti ng Hi s former ethi cal
subordi nate, Adam?
Concerni ng Gods strategy, and i ts l i kel i hood of
success, i n ti me and on earth, we wi l l defer a di scus-
si on for now. That topi c wi l l be consi dered at the end
of thi s book i n the chapter on the ki ngdom of God.
But what about Adams task? Di d God remove the
domi ni on assi gnment from Adarn? Not at al l ; He
just made i t hardn- for Adam to compl ete hi s assi gn-
ment. Adam woul d now fi nd out how mi serabl e i t i s
to get fi ni shed wi th a project when al l your empl oy-
ees are goofi ng off, or maki ng troubl e, or acti vel y
draggi ng thei r feet. God woul d have troubl e wi th
Adam and hi s hei rs from now on, so Adam and hi s
hei rs woul d have troubl e wi th nature. But the do-
mi ni on assi gnment i s sti l l i n force. Onl y now there i s
a new i ncenti ve: eati ng. No more free l unches for
manki nd. No more l uxuri ous garden for basi c trai n-
i ng. I t was the end of Adams basi c trai ni ng. He had
wanted i nstant i l l umi nati on, i nstant power, i nstant
w LNeoNmmNAL SURRENDER
di vi ni ty. He hadnt been content wi th the pl easant,
but ti me-consumi ng, basi c trai ni ng i n the garden.
Fai r enough, God sai d i n effect: get out there ri ght
now and start subdui ng the earth. You wanted on-
the-job trai ni ng? You wanted to speed thi ngs up?
Youve got i t!
But God i s graci ous. He made coats for them out
of ani mal ski ns. He ki l l ed the ani mal s for the sake of
man (Genesi s 3:21). He di dnt send them out to be
kfl ed or embarrassed by thei r own nakedness. He
sent them out wi th physi cal capi tal , pl us whatever
mental capi tal they had.
They had amazi ng mental capi tal . Adam was
incrediUy smati. He had named (cl assi fi ed) al l the ani -
mal s of the garden i n a few hours, for he had com-
pl eted hi s assi gnment before Eve was gi ven to hi m
on the si xth day. Hi s mi nd must have been l i ke a
computer. We know from anci ent records and bui l d-
i ngs how amazi ngl y advanced the i mmedi ate post-
Fl ood technol ogy was far more advanced than
anythi ng i n the modem worl d unti l about two cen-
turi es ago. (Books showi ng thi s fact i ncl ude Peter
Tomkhs Secrets of the Gnat Pyramid [1971] and
Charl es Hapgoods Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings
[1966].) Human evol uti on i s a myth; human deuoh-
tion, at l east i n the area of mans l i fe span and mans
grasp of technol ogy, i s cl oser to the mark. From the
days of Noahs Fl ood unti l about the si xteenth cen-
tury, i t was downhi l l technol ogi cal l y, except for occa-
si onal breakthroughs and very sl ow advancement
duri ng the Mi ddl e Ages (say, A.D. 500 unti l A.D.
1500).
MAN!57
Was thi s curse of the ground a total curse? I f so,
Adam woul d have been defeated i n hi s assi gnment.
But the curse al so consti tutes a blessing, gi ven mans
rebel l i ous nature. I f man had conti nued to l i ve i n an
uncursed garden and an uncursed worl d, wi th total
weal th at hi s i mmedi ate di sposal , what woul d he
have done wi th hi s spare ti me? The sl ayi ng of Abel
by Cai n tel l s us. Man, the murderer, the rebel , the
domi ni on offi cer on earth, woul d have tol erated no
back-tal k, no i nsubordi nati on, fi -om other men. I f
Adam was wi l l i ng to al i enate hi msel f from God,
woul d hi s now twi sted i mage have made hi m i nto a
trustworthy vol untary associ ate wi th other men? I f
Adam, made i n the i mage of God and wi thout si n,
was wi l l i ng to al i enate hi msel f from hi s Father i n
heaven, what woul d hi s hei rs have been wi l l i ng to do
to each other i f they had l i ved i n l uxury wi th endl ess
ti me on thei r hands? I t woul d have been a worl d
fi l l ed wi th murder, rape, pi l l age, and arson. I t woul d
have been a worl d of constant warfare.
God restrai ned man preci sel y because He
wanted man to conti nue worki ng out the i mpl i ca-
ti ons of mans domi ni on assi gnment. I t maybe hard
work to pul l weeds; i ts a l ot more pl easant than get-
ti ng murdered. Dead men dont exerci se domi ni on.
What man woul d have done, as he does now to a
l esser degree, i s stri ke out agai nst the most obvi ous
mani festati on of God, namel y, other men, who are
made i n the i mage of God. Al l owi ng manki nd total
abundance i s comparabl e to al l owi ng murderers ac-
cess to nucl ear weapons, and zero-cost nucl ear
weapons at that.
Men now have an economi c incentive to coopmute
wi th each other. They have to work together to get
ri d of those thorns and thi stl es. They work i n
groups or trade wi th each other i n order to i ncrease
thei r per capi ta i ncome. They may not l ove each
other, they may not even l i ke each other, but i t
makes economi c sense to cooperate wi th each other.
There i s a bui l t-i n i ncenti ve program i n thi s cursed
worl d an i ncenti ve program to substi tute coopera-
ti ve l abor for uncooperati ve vi ol ence. A ZOorki of scar-
city is necessa~ fw a race of murderers.
One of the i mpl i ci t bel i efs of al l soci al i sts i s that
nature i s i nnatel y abundant, but evi l capi tal i st i nsti -
tuti ons reduce the weal th of the masses. Thi s i s non-
sense. Nature was ori gi nal l y abundant, but now
nature i s cursed. Scarci~ is nmma~ i t i s prosperi ty
whi ch i s abnormal . Thi s doesnt mean that scarci ty i s
nomwti m. I t shoul d not be our goal , ei ther as i ndi vi d-
ual s or soci eti es. Abunolznce is nonnative, says the
Bi bl e. Abundance i s our l egi ti mate goal . Whol e
chapters are devoted to the rel ati onshi p between fol -
l owi ng Gods l aw and gai ni ng external , vi si bl e bl ess-
i ngs (Deuteronomy 8 and 28). But for rebel l i ous man
ethi cal l y rebel l i ous man scarci ty i s normal .
Long-term poverty for a nati on, generati on after
generati on, i s a si gn of Gods curse Hi s acti ve, con-
ti nui ng judgment on that soci ety (Deuteronomy
28:15-68). He keeps them poor because He doesnt
trust them wi th weal th. The responsi bi l i ty of
stewardshi p i s too great for them; they wi l l use thei r
external weal th for destructi ve purposes. God can
entrust weal th to a soci ety of Abel s; He doesnt en-
MAN59
trust such weal th to a soci ety of Cai ns, except as a
prel i mi nary step to nati onal judgment (Deuteron-
omy 8:10-20).
Cumed nature h not nonnative any more than ffl en
man i s. We cannot l ook at nature and di scover abso-
l ute standards of thought, absol ute standards of l aw,
or absol ute standards of judgment. Even i f cursed
nature were normati ve, perverse men woul d mi si n-
terpret nature. I f Adam rebel l ed agai nst the verbal
revel ati on of God Hi msel f before he fel l i nto si n,
what shoul d we expect from the sons of Adarn, now
that nature i s cursed and no l onger the same ki nd of
revel ati on of God that i t was i n the garden? I t sti l l
testi fi es of God, as we read i n Remans 1:18; man hold
back the truth in active unrighteousness. But cursed nature
i s not the same open revel ati on of God that i t once
was, and we dare not use nature as an ethi cal , pol i ti -
cal , or any other ki nd of gui depost for bui l di ng
human i nsti tuti ons. We have to abandon natural
l aw as a source of rel i abl e i nformati on. Nature i s
cursed, and we are ethi cal rebel s, spoi l i ng for a fi ght
or a mi si nterpretati on. Thats why we need the reve-
l ati on of God i n Hi s word, the Bi bl e, and through
Hi s Word, Jesus Chri st.
Sal vati on
The doctri ne of sal vati on i s the most i mportant
doctri ne i n the Bi bl e, from the poi nt of vi ew of mans
sel f-i nterest. I t i snt as i mportant as the doctri ne of
God, because man i snt as i mportant as God. But
from mans perspecti ve, the doctri ne of sal vati on i s
the cri ti cal doctri ne. Wi thout thi s doctri ne, the doc-
60 uNcoNDmoNA1. SURRENDER
tri ne of God woul d serve onl y to condemn man, for
man i s an ethi cal rebel .
I ts a compl ex doctri ne. I t has been the error of
many Chri sti ans to oversi mpl i fy thi s doctri ne. For
the sake of sorti ng out some of the detai l s of thi s doc-
tri ne, I have used three orderi ng pri nci pl es: Gods
court of l aw, mans ethi cal condi ti on, and mans earthl y
assi gnment. These can be cl assi fi ed as the judicial,
the moral , and the dominical. They refer, respecti vel y,
to these three subdoctri nes of sal vati on: justi fi cati on,
sancti fi cati on (regenerati on), and adopti on. Because
there i s so much confusi on concerni ng the i dea of the
fatherhood of God, I prefer to begi n wi th adopti on.
Then we can take up the other two doctri nes, sancti -
fi cati on and justi fi cati on. The whol e process i s
rel ated to Gods soverei gn choi ce: el ecti on.
Adoption
I n the begi nni ng was the Word, and the Word
was wi th God, and the Word was God. The same
was i n the begi nni ng wi th God. Al l thi ngs were
made by hi m; and wi thout hi m was not any thi ng
made that was made. I n hi m was l i fe; and the l i fe
was the l i ght of men. And the l i ght shi neth i n dark-
ness; and the darkness comprehended i t not (John
1:1-5). Who was thi s Word, thi s l i ght? Jesus Chri st.
He was i n the worl d, and the worl d was made by
hi m, and the worl d knew hi m not. He came unto hi s
own, and hi s own recei ved hi m not. But as many as
recei ved hi m, to them gave he power to become the
sons of God, even to them that bel i eve on hi s name
(John 1:10-12).
NAN61
Have you ever heard someone tal k about the
uni versal fatherhood of God and the uni versal bro-
therhood of man? Wel l , i ts absol utel y true. There i s
a uni versal fatherhood of God, and there i s a uni -
versal brotherhood of man. And we can see how i t
works i n practi ce by readi ng the story of Cai n and
Abel , two brothers. Abel offered God a bl ood sacri -
fi ce. He was a herdsman. Cai n thought hi s offeri ng
woul d be just as good: an offeri ng from the fi el d. He
was a farmer. God accepted Abel s sacri fi ce and re-
jected Cai ns. Cai n sl ew Abel i n hi s wrath (Genesi s
4). Peopl e who use the phrase the uni versal
brotherhood of man to prove an underl yi ng uni ty
based on mutual respect and l ove are mi susi ng the
Bi bl es testi mony. The universal bmtlwrhood of man is a
brotherhood of death and destruction. Men see the i mage
of God i n thei r brothers, and they despi se i ts testi -
mony of thei r conti nui ng subordi nati on to thei r
uni versal Father, God.
But does the Bi bl e real l y teach the uni versal
fatherhood of God? Of course. Paul , when he
preached to the Greeks of Athens, used the doctri ne
of the uni versal fatherhood of God to bri ng them to
repentance from thei r si ns agai nst thei r Father. Paul
remi nded them: And bath made of one bl ood al l na-
ti ons of men for to dwel l on al l the face of the earth,
and bath determi ned the ti mes before appoi nted,
though he be not far from every one of us. For i n
hi m we l i ve, and move, and have our bei ng; as cer-
tai n al so of your own poets have sai d, For we are
al so hi s offspri n< (Acts 17:26-28).
God created man. He i s the Father of man. But
62 uNcoNDmoNAL suRRENDEn
what mi susers of the Bi bl e fai l to tel l thei r l i steners i s
thi s: God the Father has d&Meri ted Hi s chi l dren. He
has rejected them, as He rejected Cai n. He has cut
them off from thei r i nheri tance. He threw Adam out
of the garden so that Adam coul d not eat of the tree
of eternal l i fe that grew i n the garden (Genesi s 3:22).
Men want thei r i nheri tance back, but onl y on thei r
own murderous terms. Because there i s a uni versal
fatherhood of God a God who has di si nheri ted Hi s
chi l dren i %om true l i fe men shoul d turn back to
God i n repentance. But they wont do i t.
God has therefore i naugurated a new program of
sonshi p and fatherhood. That system i s cal l ed ado$-
ti on. To as many of those who bel i eve on the di vi ni ty
of Jesus Chri st and trust i n Hi s atoni ng work of
bl ood-sheddi ng at Cal vary for thei r ti cket to eternal
l i fe, to them gi ves He the power to become the sons
of God. Paul wrote: For i f ye l i ve after the fl esh, ye
shal l di e: but i f ye through the Spi ri t do morti $ the
deeds of the body, ye shal l l i ve. For as many as are
l ed by the Spi rh of God, they are the sons of God.
For ye have not recei ved the spi ri t of bondage agai n
to fear; but ye have recei ved the Spi ri t of adopti on,
whereby we may cry, Abba, Fathefl (Remans
8:13-15). Paul tol d the Atheni ans that they were the
sons of a uni versal God. He tol d the Roman Chri s-
ti ans that they were the sons of God. Was Paul con-
fused? Had he forgotten what he had tol d the Athen-
i ans? On the contrary, he remembered qui te wel l .
Paul taught the truth: there are two fi rms o~son.sh@.
Natural sons are condemned from bi rth because of
Adarns rebel l i on; adopted sons adopted b~ore tke
MAN69
ji nm!ati on of the ZOodd (Ephesi ans 1:4-5) are the sons
whose i nheri tance has been restored. Adopted sons are
the sons Qf the complete restoration.
The Book of Job tel l s us of a ri ghteous man who
had great weal th. Satan came before God and sai d
that Jobs ri ghteousness woul d crumbl e i f God al l owed
Satan to remove hi s weal th, hi s heal th, and hi s vi si -
bl e si gns of Gods favor. After much tri bul ati on, Job
fi nal l y was tol d by God that God i s soverei gn overal l
creati on (Job, chaptem 38-41). God can do anythhg
He wants wi th anythi ng that i s Hi s, whi ch i ncl uded
Job. Havi ng made Hi s poi nt, He then restored
weal th, heal th, and a l arge fami l y to hi m (Job 42).
The end resul t was better than before: Job had a
proper understandi ng of the absol ute soverei gnty of
God, and he al so had greater external weal th. Thats
what adopti on i s al l about: restomti on that is better than
the on@nal.
God adopts; men respond to the announcement
of thei r adopti on by acknowl edgi ng fai th i n Jesus
Chri st. The word i s ni gh thee, even i n thy mouth,
and i n thi ne heart: that i s, the word of fai th, whi ch
we preach, that i f thou shal t confess wi th thy mouth
the Lord Jesus, and shal t bel i eve i n thi ne heart that
God bath rai sed hi m from the dead, thou shal t be
saved. For wi th the heart man bel i eveth unto ri ght-
eousness; and wi th the mouth confessi on i s made
unto sal vati on (Remans 10:8-10). God acts; men w-
spend.
Paul s l etter to the Ephesi ans outl i nes what we
were, who we ar e (through Gods grace), and what we
are supposed to &. And you bath he qui ckened, who
~ UNCONDMONAI. SURRENDER
were dead i n trespasses and si ns; wherei n i n ti me
past ye wal ked accordi ng to the course of thi s worl d,
accordi ng to the pri nce of the power of the ai r
[Satan], the spi ri t that now worketh i n the chi l dren
of di sobedi ence: among whom al so we al l had our
conversati on i n ti mes past i n the l usts of our fl esh,
ful fi l l i ng the desi res of the fl esh and of the mi nd; and
were by nature the chi l dren of wrath, even as others.
But God, who i s ri ch i n mercy, for hi s great l ove
wherewi th he l oved us, even when we were dead i n
si ns, bath qui ckened us [gi ven us l i fe] together wi th
Chri st, (by grace ye are saved;) and bath rai sed us
up together, and made us si t together i n heavenl y
pl aces i n Chri st Jesus: that i n ages to come he mi ght
shew the exceedi ng ri ches of hi s grace i n hi s ki ndness
toward us through Chri st Jesus. For by grace are ye
saved through fai th; and that not of yoursel ves: i t i s
the gi ft of God: Not of works, l est any man shoul d
boast. For we are hi s workmanshi p, created i n
Chri st Jesus unto good works, whi ch God bath be-
fore ordai ned that we shoul d wal k i n them (Ephe-
si ans 2:1-10). From death to l i fe, through fai th, by
grace, unto good works that were ordai ned by God
for us to do: here i s the path of restorati on.
What a marvel ous doctri ne the doctri ne of adop-
ti on i s! I t rai ses some very i mportant questi ons,
however. How can God l ook at a si nful man and
decl are hi m a true son of God? What about the
mans si n? Here we come to the probl em of the or&
ofsah.wtion. What comes fi rst (l ogi cal l y, though some-
ti mes si mul taneousl y)?
MAN6S
Election
What comes fi rst, predi ctabl y, i s Godt decision to
choose a man. No better statement of thi s exi sts than
Paul s decl arati on: And we know that al l thi ngs
work together for good to them that l ove God, to
them who are cal l ed accordi ng to hi s purpose. For
whom he di d foreknow, he al so di d predesti nate to be
conformed to the i mage of hi s Son, that he mi ght be
the fi rstborn among many brethren. Moreover
whom he di d predesti nate, them he al so cal l ed: and
whom he cal l ed, them he al so justi fi ed: and whom he
justi fi ed, them he al so gl ofi ed. What shal l we say to
these thi ngs? I f God be for us, who can be agai nst
us? (Remans 8
:
28.31). God chose ~ bgfore the foun&
tion of the world. We must not mi ni mi ze Paul s words:
Accordi ng as he bath chosen us i n hi m before the
foundati on of the worl d, that we shoul d be hol y and
wi thout bl ame before hi m i n l ove, havi ng predesti n-
ated us unto the adopti on of chi l dren by Jesus Chri st
to hi msel f, accordi ng to the good pl easure of hi s wi l l
(Ephesi ans 1:4-5). I t was Gods soveretjyz choice bejore
time began to adopt some for Hi s own, conformi ng
them to the i mage of Hi s Son. The twi sted i mage of
God i n man has been strai ghtened out by God, i n
pri nci pl e, and as we mature as adopted sons, that
i mage wi l l be progressi vel y untwi sted by Gods sanc-
ti fyi ng grace through ti me.
God calZs us to Hi msel f. He makes a general cal l
to al l men, but a savi ng cal l i s a speci al cal l . The
general cal l i s the one menti oned by Jesus: For
many are cal l ed, but few are chosen (Matthew
22:14). That cal l i s l i ke the cal l of a father to a way-
08 uNcoNDmoNAL SURRENDER
ward chi l d one whi ch the chi l d hears, refuses to ac-
cept, and runs away bm. But the cal l of expl i ci t
choosi ng, or the effectual cal l , or the i nescapabl e
cal l , i s the Gail of God to His about-to-be adopted sons.
They cannot resi st thi s cal l . He chose them before
ti me began. But God bath chosen the fool i sh thi ngs
of the worl d to confound the wi se; and God bath
chosen the weak thi ngs of the worl d to confound the
mi ghty (I Cori nthi ans 1:27). Why? That no fl esh
shoul d gl ory i n hi s presence (I Cori nthi ans 1:29). I t
i s the work of God, not of mans fl esh. To prove i t,
He chooses the l osers of the worl d, who become the
ul ti mate vi ctors wi th Hi m.
Adopted sonshi p i s as i ndependent of a mans
pl anni ng as bi ol ogi cal sonshi p i s. I t i s God who
adopts some men as Hi s ethi cal sons. They do not
adopt God. They respond to thei r newl y acqui red
adopted sonshi p, but onl y because i t has i n fact been
acqui red al ready. Li ke the newborn i nfant who
screams when sl apped on the bottom, newl y adopted
sons voi ce thei r response. They do not shout i n pai n;
they shout for joy.
Sanet$cation (regeneration)
Havi ng cal l ed men, He then regenerates them i n
the mi dst of ti me. A new heart al so wi l l I gi ve you,
and a new spi ri t wi l l I put wi thi n you: and I wi l l take
away the stony heart out of your fl esh, and I wi l l gi ve
you an heart of fl esh. And I wi l l put my spi ri t wi thi n
you, and cause you to wal k i n my statutes, and ye
shal l keep my judgments, and do them (Ezeki el
36:26-27). Gods adopted sons wi l l conform them-
MM67
sel ves to the i mage of Hi s Son, Jesus, and l i ke Jesus,
they wi l l do the works of the l aw, for the l aw of God
wi l l be i n thei r hearts.
Regenemti on means bei i g bom again, or as the
Greek phrase can al so be transl ated, I xmz j-o-m aboue.
Jesus answered and sai d unto hn, Veri l y, veri l y
[trul y, trul y], I say unto thee, Except a man be born
agai n, he cannot see the ki ngdom of God (John 3:3).
Man must be born of the Sirit of God. That whi ch i s born
of the fl esh i s fl esh; and that whi ch i s born of the Spi ri t
i s spi ri t. Marvel not that I sai d unto thee, Ye must be
born agai n. The wi nd bl oweth where i t l i steth, and
thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tel l
whence i t cometh, and whi ther i t goeth: so i s every
one that i s born of the Spi ri t (John 3 :6-8). The Spi ri t
of God actual l y regenerates a man, untwi sti ng the
faI l en i mage of God i n man, maki ng that man a new
muti m. ~erefore i f any man be i n Chri st, he i s a new
creature [creati on]: ol d thi ngs are passed away, be-
hol d, al l thi ngs are become new (I I Cori nthi ans 5:17).
God chooses a man as an adopted son. God caUs
thi s man. God regenerates thi s man, makhg i t possi bl e
for hi m to respond to the cal l . He must be regener-
ated bg%re he can respond to the cal l , otherwi se, he
woul d never l i sten to the cal l . But the natural man
recei veth not the thi ngs of the Spi ri t of God: for they
are fool i shness unto hi m: nei ther can he know them,
because they are spi ri tual l y di scerned (I Cori n-
thi ans 2:14). Agai n, For the preachi ng of the cross i s
to them that peri sh fool i shness; but unto us whi ch
are saved i t i s the power of God (I Cori nthi ans 1:18).
We are back to that fami l i ar pri nci pl e: God acts; men
66 UNCONDITIONAL SURRSNDSR
respond. At thi s poi nt, you maybe sayi ng to yoursel fi
Thi s sounds too compl i cated to me. After al l , i ts
real l y fai th that counts. Why get i nvol ved i n a l ot of
theol ogi cal specul ati on? What does i t matter,
whether God regenerates a man fi rst, or whether the
man responds i n fai th and then God regenerates
hi m? I snt i t al l the same i n the end?
No, i t i snt al l the same. We have to understand
the nature of man. Man is total~ depraved not a bi t,
not a whol e l ot, but total ~. Adams one si n buri ed us.
For whosoever shal l keep the whol e l aw, and yet
offend i n one poi nt, he i s gui l ty of al l (James 2:10).
Comprehensi ve, i snt i t? Total , i snt i t?
Adam, created perfect, coul d do onl y one thi ng
to gai n Gods curse. Anythi ng el se i n the whol e
worl d was open to hi m. He headed strai ght for the
forbi dden fi -ui t. Now hi s hei rs are total l y depraved.
They have transgressed the whol e of the l aw. There
i s nothi ng on earth they can do to gai n the favor of
God, except one thi ng: have fai th i n Jesus Chri st. I f
Adam, a perfect man, coul d have retai ned Gods
favor by doi ng anythi ng i n the worl d, except one
thi ng, and wound up doi ng that one thi ng, how can
fal l en men expect to be abl e to di scover and then do
the one thi ng that can bri ng Gods favor, out of an
i nfi ni te number of thi ngs they can do that wont
bri ng Gods favor? I ts ri di cul ous. They cant do i t.
They wont do i t. Onl y i f God regenerates them fi rst
can they possi bl y do i t, and then, bei ng regenerated,
they will do i t.
When the Bi bl e says that the natural man mceiveth
not the things of the Spin-t, i t real l y means i t. Peopl e
MAN 69
who say they bel i eve the Bi bl e, peopl e who even
quote thi s verse, often dont bel i eve i t. They rewri te
i t to say: The natural man r ecei veth not the thi ngs
of the Spi ri t, except, of course, the most i mportant
thi ng the Spi ri t ever says, the thi ng that i s absol ute
fool i shness to the worl d. Some natural men do r ecei ve
thi s. Wel l , thi s rewri tten versi on i s absol utel y fal se.
God acts; men respond. God el ects; men respond.
God regenerates; men respond. Regerwate men
recei ve the thi ngs of the Spi ri t. Natural men dont.
Ever. Not even a l i ttl e bi t. Thats what the Bi bl e
says, and thats what Bi bl e-bel i evi ng peopl e had bet-
ter bel i eve.
What i s the response of a newl y regenerated man?
He prof~ses faith in Jesus Christ. Understand, he is
regenerated; therefore he bel i eves i n Chri st. I t i s not
the other way around. He does not manufacture fai th
out of hi s own autonomy. He does not offer hi s fai th
to God i n payment for sal vati on. He does not earn
hi s way i nto heaven. A man doesnt choose to be
born, physi cal l y or spi ri tual l y. John speaks of the
adopted sons, Whi ch were born, not of bl ood, nor
of the wi l l of the fl esh, nor of the wi l l of man, but of
God (John 1:13). I t coul dnt be any cl earer. The wi l l
of man, i ncl udi ng the wi l l of the adopted son, i s not
i nvol ved as an i ndependent, ori gi nati ng factor. I t i s
all Gods grace, from start (choosi ng whi ch men to
adopt before ti me began) to fi ni sh (bri ngi ng them
i nto the new heavens and new earth).
Men usual l y resent thi s doctri ne. Li ke Adam,
they want at l east a l i ttl e ori gi nal soverei gnty. They
want a pi ece of the acti on i n thei r own sal vati on.
~ UNCONDMONAL SURRENDER
But they cant have i t. %ut the natural man r ecei v-
eth not the thi ngs of the Spi ri t of God (I Cori nthi ans
2 :14a). l %ti means exactly what it says, that the natural
man (natural son) real l y cannot respond to the cal l
to repentance unti l afler he has been regenerated. He
responds after he i s adopted, no l onger a natural
man (son).
Once a man i s regenerated, he can respond to
Gods grace. Faith and repentance, whi ch ar e essenti al l y
a single response by man, i mmedi atel y fol l ow. By grace
are we saved, through fai th (Ephesi ans 2:8). Men
know that Chri st has saved them, they assent to the
fact, and they trust i n Hi s conti nui ng grace to sus-
tai n them. They repent turn away from-thei r
si ns. Thus i s i t wri tten, and thus i t behooved Chri st
to suffer, and to ri se from the dead the thi rd day: and
that repentance and remi ssi on of si ns shoul d be
preached i n hi s name among al l the nati ons, begi nn-
i ng at Jerusal em (Luke 24:46-47). Thi s i s what we
are to bel i eve; thi s i s what our assi gnment i s: to preach
the message in all nations. Thi s i s what the apostl es
preached from the begi nni ng. And when the Gen-
ti l es heard thi s, they were gl ad, and gl ori fi ed the
word of the Lord: and as many as were ordai i ed to
eternal l i fe bel i eved (Acts 13:48).
Thi s act of regenerati on on the part of God i s
someti mes cal l ed definitive san@ication by theol og-
i ans. I t i s the moral transjiomnation of man, the new hazrt
and new attitude whi ch God i mparts to man. They
have Chri sts perfect humani ty (though not Hi s
di vi ni ty) i mparted to them, i n pri nci pl e, at the mo-
ment of regenerati on. Thi s i mpl i es ajhzul sancti fi ca-
ti on, that on the day of judgment, we wi l l be con-
MAN71
formed to the i mage of Gods Son (Remans 8:29).
Bl essed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Chri st, whi ch accordi ng to hi s abundant mercy bath
begotten us agai n unto a l i vel y hope by the resurrec-
ti on of Jesus Chri st from the dead, to an i nheri tance
i ncorrupti bl e, and undefi l ed, and that fadeth not
away, reserved i n heaven for you, who are kept by
the power of God through fai th unto sal vati on ready
to be reveal ed i n the l ast ti me (I Peter 1:3-5). Thi s
defi ni ti ve sancti fi cati on bel ongs to every Chri sti an at
the moment of conversi on. Chri sts ri ghteousness i s
i mparted to us. I ts ours, i n pri nci pl e, now.
However, we arent perfect, i n ti me and on earth.
So we have to work out our sal vati on wi th fear and
trembl i ng. Paul used the anal ogy of the ath~ete who
al ways struggl es toward the fi ni sh l i ne, no matter
how ti red he i s. 1 press toward the mark for the
pri ze of the hi gh cal l i ng of God i n Chri st Jesus
(Phdi ppi ans 3:14). Know ye not that they whi ch run
i n a race run al l , but one recei veth the pri ze? So run,
that ye may obtai n (I Cori nthi ans 9:24). Let us l ay
asi de every wei ght, and the si n whi ch cl oth so easi l y
beset us, and l et us run wi th pati ence the race that i s
set before us (Hebrews 12:1). ~ have fought a good
fi ght, I have fi ni shed my course, I have kept the
fai th: henceforth there i s l ai d up for me a crown of
ri ghteousness, whi ch the Lord, the ri ghteous judge,
shal l gi ve me at that day: and not to me onl y, but un-
to al l them al so that l ove hi s appeari ng (11 Ti mothy
4:7-8). Setti ng asi de those si ns that wei gh us down i n
our race: thi s i s Progressi ve sancti fi cati on. I t i s our l i fe
on earth. I t i s the subdui ng of our own si ns, by
~ UNCOND11iONAL SURRSNDSR
means of Gods reveal ed l aw, by the grace of God. I t
i s the worki ng out of our sal vati on, that i s, worki ng
out the i mpl i cati ons of our fai th. I t i s a moral struggl e.
Both aspects of sancti fi cati on must be bel i eved.
We recei ve Chri sts ri ghteousness at the moment of
the new bi rth. We add nothi ng to Hi s ri ghteousness.
We can rest i n Hi s good works. But at the same ti me,
thi s ri ghteousness i s not fi l l y devel oped i n our own
l i ves, i n ti me and on earth. So the defi ni ti ve, absol ute
sancti fi cati on must produce progressi ve sancti fi ca-
ti on. We don-l earn salvation, but we work out its implz2a-
tions. Hi story has meani ng. Our l i ves have meani ng.
What we do makes a d~er ence, i n ti me and on earth,
and al so at the day of judgment, when we wi l l re-
cei ve our rewards (I Cori nthi ans 3). Then we wi l l re-
cei ve ourjhud sancti fi cati on.
Ju.@cation
Men are chosen. They are adopted, meani ng
they are born agai n (from above). They respond i n
fai th and repent. God al so#.stJi es them. Just#cation
is a j-udicial act. God, the soverei gn judge, l ooks at
Chri sts ri ghteousness, fi nds i t perfect, and then i m-
putes thi s ri ghteousness to Chri sts peopl e. He de-
clares them not gui l ty. We have seen Remans 8:30
before, but here i t i s agai n: Moreover whom he di d
pr edesti nate, them he al so cal l ed: and whom he
cal l ed, them he al so justi fi ed: and whom he justi fi ed,
them he al so gl ori fi ed? We are safe from any success-
ful accusati on by Satan. I t i s God who justi fi eth.
Who i s he that condemneth? (Remans 8:33-34). God
decl ares us ri ghteous because of Chri st: %ei ngjusti fi ed
MAN73
freel y by hi s grace through the redempti on that i s i n
Chri st Jesus (Remans 3:24). I t i s not mans work
whi ch justi fi es man: Therefore by the deeds of the
l aw there shal l no fl esh be justi fi ed i n hi s si ght: for by
the l aw i s the knowl edge of si n (Remans 3:20).
Thi s i s stri ctl y ajuhki al act of God, the Supreme
Judge. He declares us i nnocent, not because of any i n-
nate or ori gi nal ri ghteousness i n us, but because of
the ri ghteousness of Jesus Chri st. God l ooks at
Chri sts conformi ty to Hi s l aw, as a perfect man (not
as the second Person of the Tri ni ty), and decl ares us
ri ghteous. He formal l y rel eases us, as ri ghtful l y con-
demned cri mi nal s, from the otherwi se i nevi tabl e
wrath to come. Thi s decl arati on i s dg$ni ti ve (i m-
medi ate), and i t wi l l bejnd on the day of judgment.
We are conti nual l y i n GoA court of law. As we
work out our sal vati on wi th fear and trembl i ng, God
conti nual l y bri ngs judgment on our acti vi ti es. Thi s
conti nual renderi ng of judgment i s the basi s of i nsti -
tuti ons of government fami l i es, ci vi l governments,
church courts i n ti me and on earth. God vi ews our
acti ons and decl ares our ri ghteous acts to be accep-
tabl e before Hi m. Our unri ghteous acti ons are
covered by the bl ood of Chri st. There are standards
of l aw and order, and God i s the source of these
standar ds.
His continual a%claration of our innocence is His
response to Christ3 imputed peg$ection. God i s not sayi ng
that our works are somehow the source of our i n-
nocence. We are not i nnocent, except as reci pi ents of
Chri sts i mputed (decl ared) ri ghteousness. We are
74 uNcoNDmoNAL ~
not, however, ti mel ess bei ngs. We make deci si ons,
thi nk about our si tuati ons, and carry out acti ons. Al l
of these acts are judged by God. God conti nual ~ eval-
uates our acti ons, and He deckzres us proyessiue~ r&ht-
eous, as we mature as spi ri tual l y regenerate crea-
tures. Hi s decl arati on of our ri ghteousness matches
our progressi ve sancti fi cati on. But agai n, i t i s Chfitt
righteousness imputed to us whi ch enabl es God to
decl are our acts ri ghteous. Our acts of ri ghteousness
are Gods gi ft to us. Per we are hi s workmanshi p,
created i n Chri st Jesus unto good works, whi ch God
bath before ordai ned that we shoul d wal k i n them
(Ephesi ans 2:10).
I f we si n, God judges us. He bri ngs puni shment
upon us. Bl essed i s the man whom thou chasteness,
O LORD, and teachest hi m out of thy l aw (Psal m
94:12). Chasten thy son whi l e there i s hope, and l et
not thy soul spare for hi s cryi n< (Proverbs 19:18).
Thi s i s Gods atti tude toward Hi s adopted sons. Tor
whom the Lord l oveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth
every son whom he r ecei veth (Hebrews 12:6). There
i s thi s continuul renting of~udgment, but i t i s not judg-
ment unto condemnati on. I t i s Gods process of /vo-
gwssiveju+$catiorz, Hi s means of bri ngi ng Hi s judg-
ments of our acti ons, i n ti me and on earth, progres-
si vel y i nto conformi ty to Hi s defi ni ti ve justi fi cati on,
whi ch was announced and i mputed to us at the mo-
ment of our conversi on. Meani ng i s restored to hi s-
tory, as God o?wlzres His people rzghteous over time, as
they advance i n thei r spi ri tual maturi ty, both indiuid-
tialiy and colleetwe~.
MAN 75
Summmy
Lets revi ew thi s i mportant but compl ex doctri ne
of sal vati on. There are three spheres i n whi ch mans
si n and Gods sal vati on are worked out: the @di ci al
or l egal sphere, the moral sphere, and the dominical
sphere. Adam was created l egal l y gui l tl ess, moral l y
upri ght, and domi ni cal l y i n charge of the earth.
When he rebel l ed agai nst God, Adam was decl ared
l egal l y gui l ty, he became moral l y perverse, and he
was exi l ed from Eden and l ost domi ni on over the
earth. The pl an of sal vati on, however, made i t possi -
bl e for Adam to acqui re legs/justJication before Gods
court of l aw, moral renovation through the work of the
Spi ri t of God, and domintial adoptwn as a son and am-
bassador of God.
The Zaw of God can be seen to have appl i cati on i n
these three areas as welL&idical~ or l egal l y, the l aw
cono%rnns sinners, decl ari ng them gui l ty. It puts men
uno% the curse and wrath of God. Jesus Chri st, Gods
perfect Substi tute for si nners, though pefi ectl y si n-
l ess Hi msel f, took the l egal gui l t and wrath of the l aw
upon Hi msel f. Bei ng a si nl ess man, He coul d take
the pl ace of those He came to save; bei ng God, He
coul d bear the i nfi ni te wrath of God agai nst si n. The
Bi bl e cal l s on men to l ay hol d of thi s sacri fi ce by
fai th, acknowl edgi ng our gui l t before Gods l aw and
decl ari ng our trust i n the substi tuti onary sacri i i ce of
Chri st as our onl y means of sal vati on. Those who
exerci se thi s fai th-commi tment arejust~ed before the
court of heaven; that i s, they are deckzred ri ghteous on
the basi s of Chri sts ri ghteousness imputed to them.
Thi s bri ngs us to the second use of the l aw. Mora@
76 UNCONDMONAL SURUENDER
the l aw i s Gods standard of righteousness. I t shows us
ri ght from wrong. Si nfi d man hates God and thus re-
jects the l aw as the bi ndi ng standard for hi s l i fe.
Al though Jesus Chri st never broke the l aw of God,
on the cross God put the si ns of Hi s peopl e on
Chri st, as the Scri pture says, For he bath made hi m
to be si n for us, who knew no si n; that we mi ght be
made the ri ghteousness of God i n hi m (I I Cori n-
thi ans 5:21). Death i s Gods penal ty for si n, and a fi t-
ti ng penal ty i t i s, for death destroys sin. Chri sts death
was the destructi on of the si ns pl aced on Hi m, and i t
made possi bl e the new l i fe of Hi s peopl e. Those
pl aced i nto uni on wi th Chri st by God through fai th
experi ence death to si n and newness of l i fe. They are
moral l y renovated and now rejoi ce i n Gods l aw.
Thi s moral aspect of sal vati on i s cal l ed sancti fi ca-
ti on. Sanct@d man progressi vel y subdues his own evil
k?ruienclks.
The third use of the l aw i s i ts dominical use. The
l aw shows Gods way of l i fe for al l of l i fe, and man,
as rul er of the earth, i s to rule by means of God% law.
Si nfi d man has forfei ted l egi ti mate domi ni on, how-
ever. The Bi bl e associ ates domi ni on wi th sonshi p,
si nce the son i s the vi ce-presi dent of the father i n the
fami l y. Adam was the son of God, accordi ng to Luke
3:38. Cast out of Eden, Adam was expel l ed from
Gods fami l y, l osi ng hi s ti tl e to l egi ti mate sonshi p,
and l osi ng hi s l egi ti mate domi ni on. Jesus Chri st
assumed that pl ace for Hi s peopl e. He owned noth-
i ng, exerci sed no occupati onal domi ni on after Hi s
bapti sm i nto the rol e of Savi or (though He had been
a carpenter before thi s), and had no pl ace to l ay Hi s
MAN77
head. On the cross He experi enced the uitimateform @
fo~eiture ofdominion-hdl. Because of thi s, the peopl e
of God are restored to domi ni on and sonshi p by be-
i ng adopted back i nto Gods fami l y. Chri sti ans are no
more to i mi tate Chri sts poverty than they are to try
to di e for the si ns of the worl d. Some Chri sti ans may
be cal l ed to a l i fe of poverty, but essenti al l y every
Chri sti an i s a restored domi ni on man (or woman).
Dominion man progessive~ subdues the earth.
Just&cation, sanctification, and adoption-these are
the three aspects of sal vati on, correspondi ng to the
judicial, moral, and dominicai spheres of l i fe. I t i s i m-
portant to observe that there i s an order to thi s sal va-
ti on. God does not grant l ong-term domi ni on to i m-
moral men, nor does he i mpart new l i fe and ri ght-
eousness to any who have not been decl ared l egal l y
just i n Hi s si ght.
Thi s l ogi cal order i s not a temporal order, how-
ever. Whi l e we must distinguish the three aspects of
sal vati on, we cannot separate them. God never i m-
putes justi fi cati on wi thout al so i mparti ng sancti fi ca-
ti on and adopti on. Every Chri sti an who i s justi fi ed
i n Gods si ght wi l l al so l i ve a new l i fe i n essenti al
conformi ty to Gods l aw and wi l l i nevi tabl y exerci se
domi ni on i n whatever sphere (however l i mi ted) God
pl aces hi m. We may further note that each of these
three aspects of sal vati on has a definitive, a progressive,
and a Jnal aspect.
Fi rst, there is@.st#ication. When God soverei gnl y
grants sal vati on to a person and sends the Hol y
Spi ri t to create fai th (l oyal ty) i n that persons heart,
God &c/ares that person to be justi fi ed at that mo-
~ UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
ment. Thi s i s akjinitiue justzlcation. Throughout the
Chri sti an l i fe, redeemed man wi l l have hl s acts of
ri ghteousness decl ared by God to be acceptabl e to
Hi m. That man wi l l al so progressi vel y l earn what i t
means to be cl eared of gui l t and to l i ve as a fi -ee man.
Thi s refl ects hi s progressiuejust~cation. Then, on the
day of judgment, there i s Gods fi nal renderi ng of
judgment, the$naljust$cation of Gods peopl e. What
must be understood i s that i n al l three cases, i t i s
Godk declarative act, not mans, that i s the source of re-
deemed mans justi fi cati on. The deci si on to decl are
one person ri ghteous and another person eternal l y
gui l ty i s sol el y Gods deci si on. Fal l en man i ni ti ates
nothi ng i n hi s own justi fi cati on. IVothing.
Si mi l arl y, when saved, the si nner i s regenerated
and gi ven new l i fe. Hi s atti tude of hatred i s repl aced
wi th an atti tude of l ove for God and a desi re to obey
Hi m and Hi s l aw. Thi s i s dg$nitiue sanctfzcation. No
Chri sti an, however, i s perfect i n thi s l i fe, for he i s
sti l l i nfl uenced by the worl d around hi m and by the
remai ni ng tendency to si n wi thi n hi msel f. Thus, he
must gradual l y grow i n hol i ness. Thi s i s pro~essi ve
sanct~cation. When he di es, however, he i s fi nal l y
separated fmm al l si nfi .d i nfl uences and i s made per-
fect i n hol i ness. Thi s is~nal sanctification. Each aspect
of sancti fi cati on (regenerati on) i s a gi fi from God.
The same i s true of dominion. God adopts us at
the moment of our sal vati on. He then gi ves us our
own personal garden of Eden to dress and to keep.
As we grow i n grace, i n ti me and on earth, our do-
mi ni on i s expanded. At the resurrecti on, our domi n-
i on i s consummated. Domi ni on i s defi ni ti ve, pro-
WAN 79
gressi ve, and fi nal . I t i s a gi ft from God.
The Chri sti an l i fe i n al l aspects i s l i ved by~ai th.
Fai th i s not a mysti cal experi ence, nor i s i t some-
thi ng that we exerci se onl y once at the poi nt of con-
versi on, nor i s i t mere i ntel l ectual bel i ef. Someti mes
peopl e assume that we are justi fi ed by fai th and
sancti fi ed by work. Thi s i s fundamental l y wrong.
Faith is an attituak which accompanies all activity. All men
have fai th, l oyal ty to some set of i deas. The Chri s-
ti an has fai th i n, and l oyal ty to, the Creator of the
uni verse. Thi s faith-loyalty attitua% gives rise to good
works, moral and domi ni cal . The Chri sti an l ooks to
God for the power to l i ve a ri ghteous l i fe and for the
power to exerci se domi ni on. Looki ng to God i s an
exerci se of fai th, trust, and l oyal ty. Thus, al l Chri sti an
acti vi ty i s grounded i n fai th. The preemi nent expres-
si on of fai th i s prayer. I n prayer, the Chri sti an ex-
presses hi s acceptance of Gods word and covenant
by sayi ng amen to Gods word. I n prayer, the
Chri sti an expresses hi s total dependence on God by
aski ng Hi m for the grace to l i ve as God wants hi m
to. Practi cal l y speaki ng, then, fai th i s seen i n prayer.
Restor ati on
We know from the Bi bl e that mans rebel l i on
brought a curse to the ground. Thi s curse was de-
si gned to restrai n mens evi l acts toward each other,
yet i t was al so to burden man, maki ng hi s domi ni on
assi gnment more di ffi cul t to compl ete. We are al l
si nners, so we are al l under the curses burdens. At
the same ti me, God wants Hi s sons to conti nue the
assi gnment - Hi s adopted sons. Hi s natural sons, who
~ UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
rebel l ed i n Adam and conti nue to rebel , are doomed.
They wi l l spend eterni ty i n the l ake of fi re, impotent i n
a way uni magi nabl e to us. They wi l l no l onger have
any responsi bi l i ty before God to work on thei r do-
mi ni on assi gnment, for they wi l l no l onger have
even a trace of power. No power no responsi bi l i ty.
Thi s i s thei r judgment. They sought autonomous
(i ndependent) power; they wi l l have no power at al l ,
i ndependent of God or under Gods soverei gnty i n
hi story. So God i s not worri ed about the i nabi l i ty of
rebel l i ous sons to fi dfi l l thei r domi ni on assi gnment.
They wi l l fai l , and adopted sons wi l l repl uce them as
the true humani ty, whi ch i s defi ned as the responsi -
bl e fami l y of God responsi bl e for subdui ng the
earth to the gl ory of God. Thi s process of repkzmnent
begi ns on earth.
I f the ground i s now cursed because of mans re-
bel l i on, shoul d we not expect to see the removal of
the curse i n the future when the adopted sons come
i nto thei r i nheri tance of si nl ess eternal l i fe? When
the natural sons have al l thei r power removed, they
wi l l then be no threat to other men. Thi s i s what the
Bi bl e teaches: For the earnest expectati on of the
creature [l i teral l y: the creati on] wai teth for the
mani festati on of the sons of God. For the creature
[creati on] was made subject to vani ty, not wi l l i ngl y,
but by reason of hi m who bath subjected the same i n
hope, because the creature [creati on] i tsel f al so shal l
be del i vered from the bondage of corrupti on i nto the
gl ori ous l i berty of the chi l dren of God. For we know
that the whol e creati on groaneth and travai l eth i n
pai n together unti l now. And not onl y they, but our -
MAN al
sel ves al so, whi ch have the fi rstfi -ui ts of the Spi ri t,
even we oursel ves groan wi thi n oursel ves, wai ti ng
for the adopti on, to wi t, the redempti on of our body
(Remans 8:19-23). A day ofjinal release is comi ng
rel ease from the curse.
We al so know that each mans personal vi ctory
over si n i s a l i fel ong task. Paul tol d the Phi l i ppi ans
church members to work out your own sal vati on
wi th fear and trembl i ng (Phi l i ppi ans 2:12 b). Work
out the salvation which is yours conveys the meani ng
better; not that they wer~ savi ng themsel ves by the~
own efforts, but that thg were working out the implica-
tions of theirfaith, in time and on earth. So are al l men al l
of the ti me. They are worki ng out the i mpl i cati ons of
thei r parti cul ar fai ths, thei r pri mary commi tments,
for good or evi l . Shoul dnt we therefore expect a @o-
gre.ssiue release for nature, before the fi nal day of
r el ease?
As godl y men work out the i mpl i cati ons of thei r
fai th, shoul dnt the worl d i mmedi atel y around them
steadi l y i mprove? I f one man i s honest, hel ps those
i n hi s i mmedi ate surroundi ngs, and makes l i fe more
pl easant, shoul dnt we expect to see hi m do better
materi al l y? Not every man i n every i nstance, of
course; but when a group of men shari ng fai th i n the
Chri st of the Bi bl e work out thei r fai th i n fear and
trembl i ng, wont most of them grow more powerful ,
more i nfl uenti al , i f onl y because other peopl e recog-
ni ze them as bei ng more rel i abl e?
We know that man has a domi ni on assi gnment.
We know that God i ntends Hi s adopted sons to con-
ti nue to work. We know that thi s l abor i s a l i fe-l ong
= UNCOND~NAL SURRENDER
process. Shoul d we expect God to i ncrease Hi s bl ess-
i ngs on the work of the natural sons, whi l e reduci ng
Hi s external bl essi ngs i n the l i ves of Hi s adopted
sons? Shoul d we real l y expect the rebel s to go from
vi ctory unto vi ctory, i n ti me and on earth, whi l e the
adopted sons, who have been sel ected by God to ful -
fi l l the terms of the domi ni on assi gnment, are cursed
wi th more poverty, more burdens, l ess capi tal , and
endl essl y i ncreasi ng fmstrati on, i n ti me and on
earth? We wi l l consi der the Bi bl es answers to these
questi ons i n the chapter on Gods ki ngdom, but
thi nk about them for the ti me bei ng. But keep thi s
questi on i n mi nd: I f God has assi gned Hi s adopted
sons the pri mzuy responsi bi l i ty for ful fi l l i ng the
terms of Hi s domi ni on assi gnment, cannot Satan
cl ai m vi ctory over God, i n ti me and on earth, i f
Gods adopted sons become progressi vel y l ess abl e to
compl ete thei r assi gnment? I f thi s i s the case, hasnt
Satan been successful i n Hi s attempt to thwart God
i n hi story? Hasnt he effecti vel y repl aced God on
earth as the master of those who are ful ti l i ng the
terms of the domi ni on assi gnment, the natural sons?
I n short, wi l l not Satan be able to boast, throughout eterni~
thut he personal~ had thwarted G@ at least for a few thou-
sandyears? Hasnt hi s cl ai m to operati ng soverei gnty
been justi i i ed, si nce i t was hi s peopl e, not Gods
adopted sons, who ful i i l l ed the terms of mans do-
mi ni on assi gnment, i n ti me and on earth? Hasnt he,
i n effect, l ocked up Gods soverei gnty i nsi de the
gates of heaven? Shoul dnt the Bi bl e have read some-
thi ng l i ke thi s: The gates of heauen shal l prevai l ?
I snt i t the ki ngdom of God whi ch i s under si ege,
MAN83
rather than the gates of hel l (Matthew 16:18)? Does
the Bi bl e real l y teach such thi ngs?
Concl usi on
Man i s made i n the i mage of God. Hi s rebel l i on
agai nst God di d not remove Gods i mage from mans
bei ng, but i t twi sted i t. Man chose to test Gods
word, hopi ng to become soverei gn over God. I n-
stead, man onl y swi tched al l egi ances: he now serves
Satan. He can serve onl y one master at a ti me, and
there are onl y two possi bl e masters. The uni versal
fatherhood of God has become Gods judgment on
man, for God has di si nheri ted Hi s natural sons. Yet
because He chose some men to become adopted
sons a choi ce made before ti me began (Ephesi ans
1:4) some men are restored to ori gi nal sonshi p,
meani ng ethual son-ship. The others awai t a fate worse
than physi cal death: the second death, i n whi ch al l
power i s taken from them. The domi ni on assi gn-
ment wi l l then be ful l y and vi si bl y reconfi rmed wi th
the adopted sons. Before the day of judgment, how-
ever, al l sons l abor i n terms of the domi ni on assi gn-
ment, and the earth has been cursed to make thei r
work more di ffi cul t, l ess rewardi ng, and l ess produc-
ti ve wi thout co-operati on on the part of thei r fel l ow
man. Restorati on of the ground i s guaranteed, for
restorati on of ful l ethi cal sonshi p through regenerat-
i ng adopti on i s al so guaranteed.
3
IAw
When God created the ani mal s, He put them
under l aw. He determi ned that they woul d repro-
duce after thei r own ki nd (Genesi s 1:24-25). When
God created man, He put man under l aw. He tol d
Adam that he shoul d not eat of the tree of the knowl -
edge of good and evi l (Genesi s 2:17). Adam was phy-
si cal l y abl e to eat i ts frui t, but he was under moral ,
l egal restrai nt not to.
The l aw of God i s a testi mony to Hi s unchangi ng
character. I am the LORD, I change not, God tol d
Hi s peopl e (Mal achi 3:6). He i s rel i abl e. Hi s charac-
ter i s fi xed. Everythi ng el se i n creati on changes, but
not God. Hi s permanence i s the very standard of
per manence.
Chri st, speaki ng of that fi nal day of judgment,
announced: Heaven and earth shal l pass away, but
my words shal l not pass away (Matthew 24:35). No
cl earer statement of Hi s own di vi ni ty coul d be i m-
agi ned. He was equati ng Hi s words wi th the per-
manence attri buted to God. Only God speaks a permu-
nent word.
86 UNCDNDITIDNAL SURRENDER
I n the sermon on the mount, Chri st i nformed
Hi s l i steners: Thi nk not that I am come to destroy
the l aw, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy,
but to ful fi l . For veri l y [trul y] I say unto you, Ti l l
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one ti ttl e shal l i n
no wi se [way] pass from the l aw, ti l l al l be fuMl l ed
(Matthew 5:17-18). The word destroy coul d refer to
a teari ng down, or di smantl i ng somethi ng. Jesus di d
not come to di smantl e the l aw of God. But thats a
pecul i ar way to speak of the l aw. What He meant
was that He had not come to abrogate or annzd the l aw.
He di d not come to i nvahk?ute the l aw. Gods l aw
structure of the cursed creati on wi l l not be changed
for as l ong as the ol d creati on (our worl d) remai ns.
The opposi te concept of abrogate or annul i s con-
jrm, establish, ratz>. Chri st sai d, therefore, that He
di d not come to abrogate the l aw but to rati & i t to
confi rm i t, to put Hi s seal of approval on i t. He
confi rmed i ts val i di ty by teachi ng i ts precepts, l i vi ng
Hi s l i fe i n terms of i ts requi rements, and overcomi ng
temptati on (i n the wi l derness) by ci ti ng i ts provi -
si ons to Satan (Matthew 4).
Th law is as permanent as God. But wasnt Jesus
promi si ng the fi nal abol i ti on of the l aw, once the
earth ends? True, not one jot or ti ttl e, the smal l est
marks i n the Hebrew al phabet, wi l l pass away unti l
then, but after that, wi l l the new heavens and new
earth (Revel ati on 21) be free of the l aw? That woul d
be a mi si nterpretati on of Chri sts words, si nce He
al ready stated that Hi s words wi l l never pass away.
What He meant was that those l aws appl yi ng to the
fdien worl d wi l l be i n force unti l the worl d i s re-
LAw 87
stored. Then the applications of the l aw may change,
si nce the external ci rcumstances wi l l change. For ex-
ampl e, the l aws of marri age wi l l no l onger be i n
force, for there i s no marri age i n heaven (Matthew
22:30). We are today no l onger faced wi th the prob-
l em of whether or not to eat from the tree of the
knowl edge of good and evi l ; that tree i s not part of
our testi ng any l onger. But the general przncipks of
marri age wi l l al ways hol d: fai thful ness, communi on,
servi ce, etc. The general pri nci pl e of the tree i s sti l l
i n force: dont di sobey Gods reveal ed command-
ments. Nowhere i n the Bi bl e can we fi nd any hi nt of
a fi nal abol i ti on of the rul e of God through l aw and
i ts pri nci pl es.
Laws Purposes
God i s a hol y bei ng, set apart from Hi s creati on.
He i s set apart by Hi s very bei ng; He i s fundament-
al l y di i l erent from the creati on. He i s al so set apart
by Hi s moral perfecti on. He i s the standard of ri ght-
eousness. He i s the source of al l moral standards. He
i s not under l aw, but i s the source of l aw. We dont
exami ne the acts of God and try to compare them
wi th some sel f-exi sti ng, soverei gn set of standards;
God i s the source of the standards.
Law h the basis of control for man: control of mans
own moral behavi or, control of rebel l i ous acts by
other men, and control of the creati on i tsel f. Wi th-
out the regul ari ti es of nature, al l woul d be i ncoher-
ent. But man i s gi ven domi ni on as Gods assi stant on
earth, and mans knowl edge of natures regul ar pat-
terns i s hi s pri mary means of di recti ng nature and
88 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
subdui ng i t. Law is powen Yet al l power, i f i t i s to be
exerci sed l egi ti matel y, must be under moral l aw.
There are l ots of terri bl e thi ngs we have the power to
do, but they shoul d not be done. So man gai ns do-
mi ni on by means of l aw, yet he i s al so restrai ned by
l aw. Gods l aw has moral and dominical functi ons.
God has reveal ed Hi s standards i n the Bi bl e,
especi al l y i n the fi rst fi ve books of the Ol d Testa-
ment, cal l ed the Pentateuch. They are moral stand-
ards. They al so provi de domintial standards. They
tel l man how to deal wi th other nun and nature. The
reveal ed l aw of God gi ves men gui del i nes for action.
They are val i d gui del i nes because God made both
man and the creati on, and He desi~ed these Zaws to be
in conformity with man and nature. Or we mi ght say that
the whol e creati on, i ncl udi ng man, i s governed by
both moral and physi cal pri nci pl es, and these pri n-
ci pl es are expressi ons of the hol i ness and power of
God. Man can grasp these moral and domi ni cal pri n-
ci pl es because he i s a creature made i n Gods i mage.
Psal m 119, the l ongest chapter i n the Bi bl e, deal s
wi th the rel ati onshi p between God and man, and i ts
focus i s the l aw of God. Anyone who i s real l y seri ous
about di scoveri ng Gods l egal rel ati onshi p to man
shoul d read thi s passage careful l y. Wherewi thal l
shal l a young man cl eanse hi s way? By taki ng heed
thereto accordi ng to thy word. Wi th my whol e heart
have 1 sought thee: O l et me not wander fmm thy
commandments. Thy word have I hi d i n mi ne heart,
that I mi ght not si n agai nst thee. Bl essed art thou, O
LORD: teach me thy statutes (Psal m 119:9-12). Mans
l i fe i s l i teral l y saturated wi th l aw; he l i ves i n a
LAW 89
uni verse of l aw, cannot escape from l aw, and exerci ses
domi ni on i n terms of l aw. Law is man% tool of domin-
ion: over hi msel f, hi s fel l ow men, and the creati on.
Law i s al so a means ofjui gi ng ones conformi ty to
Gods standards. Gods l aw has a judicial functi on.
Wi thout these standards, a man coul d not test hi s re-
l ati onshi p wi th God. Paul wrote: I had not known
si n, but by the l aw: for I had not known l ust, except
the l aw had sai d, Thou shal t not covet (Remans
7:7). The l aw tel l s us what we are: rebek.
Law therefore i s a schoolmaster whi ch l eads us to
Chri st. Wherefore the l aw was our school master to
bri ng us unto Chri st, that we mi ght be justi fi ed by
fai th (Gal ati ans 3:24). Our knowl edge of our own
rebel l i ous nature as di si nheri ted sons i s i ntended to
l ead us to Chri st, to bel i eve i n Hi m, and to recei ve
confi rmati on of our posi ti on as adopted sons.
Law i s al so a means ofjudging the spiritual condition
of others. Chri st warned: Beware of fal se prophets,
whi ch come to you i n sheeps cl othi ng, but i nwardl y
they are raveni ng wol ves. Ye shal l know them by
thei r frui ts. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or fi gs
of thi stl es? Even so every good tree bri ngeth forth
good fkui t; but a corrupt tree bri ngeth forth evi l
frui t. A good tree cannot bri ng forth evi l frui t,
nei ther can a corrupt tree bri ng forth good frui t.
Every tree that bri ngeth not forth good fi mi t i s hewn
down, and cast i nto the fi re (Matthew 7:15-19). But
how coul d we recogni ze good fi -ui t or evi l frui t i f we
di dnt have @rrnanent standar&fiom God whi ch serve
as our standards of eval uati on?
Law i s a means of establishing the holinas the set
apartn.essn of God% peoph. It is a segregating device.
God tel l s us, Be ye hol y, even as I am hol y: whi ch
means, %e ye set apart fi -om rebel s, for I am set
apart from rebel s. We are tol d: And have no fel l ow-
shi p wi th the unfrui tful works of darkness, but
rather reprove them? (Ephesi ans 5:11). Agai n, %e ye
not unequal l y yoked together wi th unbel i evers: for
what fel l owshi p bath ri ghteousness wi th unri ght-
eousness? And what communi on bath l i ght wi th
darkness? (I I Cori nthi ans 6:14). The l aw hel ps us to
ful fi l l these requi rements; we have stumz!ards of rig/zt-
eousjiuit. The l aw i s al so a means of calling the nutions
to repentance, for they wi l l understand how they are
separated from the l aw of God and Hi s hol i ness: Be-
hol d, I have taught you statutes and judgments,
even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye
shoul d do so i n the l and whi ther ye go to possess i t.
Keep therefore and do them, for thi s i s your wi sdom
and your understandi ng i n the si ght of the nati ons,
whi ch shal l hear al l these statutes, and say, Surel y
thi s great nati on i s a wi se and understandi ng peopl e.
For what nati on i s there so great, who bath God so
ni gh unto them, as the LORD our God i s i n al l thi ngs
that we cal l upon hi m for? And what nati on i s there
so great, that bath statutes and judgments so ri ght-
eous as al l thi s l aw, whi ch I set before you thk day?
(Deuteronomy 4:5-8). Thi s i s the Ol d Testament
background to Chri sts statement: Ye are the l i ght of
the worl d. A ci ty that i s set on an hi l l cannot be hi d.
Nei ther do men l i ght a candl e, and put i t under a
bushel , but on a candl esti ck; and i t gi veth l i ght unto
al l that are i n the house. Let your l i ght shi ne before
uw91
men, that they may see your good works, and gl ori fy
your Father whi ch i s i n heaven (Matthew 5:14-16).
I t works both ways, however. Evil on the part of
(%d~people is used by the enemies of God to bkzspheme God.
Nathan the prophet came to Ki ng Davi d, the rul er
of I srael , to chal l enge hi m for hi s great evi l i n com-
mi tti ng adul tery wi th Bathsheba and i n orderi ng her
husband i nto the front l i nes of battl e to be ki l l ed.
Nathan tol d Davi d, Because by thi s deed thou hast
gi ven great occasi on to the enemi es of the LORD to
bl aspheme . . . (I I Samuel 12:14). The enemi es of
God recogni ze the hol i ness of God, Gods l aw, and
Gods peopl e. They are al ert to ri di cul e the si ns of
Hi s peopl e, so that they mi ght ri di cul e Hi s l aw and
Hi s very exi stence. They say thi ngs l i ke thi s: Why
go to church to si t around wi th a bunch of hypo-
cri tes? I can meet al l the hypocri tes I need outsi de of
church. By i mpl i cati on, theyre sayi ng, % fact,
those i nsi de the churches are the most hypocri ti cal of
al l . At l east those outsi de the churches dont put on
ai rs. Whi ch i s a way of sayi ng, Actual l y, I m a l ot
better than those i nsi de the churches, and my way of
l i fe, when you come ri ght down to i t, i s s@mor to the
way of l i fe l i ved by Chri sti ans.
Those outsi de of Gods fel l owshi p recogni ze the
hol i ness of God. I t confronts them al l day, every day.
The i nvi si bl e thi ngs of the worl d testi fi to the ex-
i stence of God, but they restrai n thi s knowl edge i n
unri ghteousness (Remans 1:18-20). Si nce they recog-
ni ze the hol i ness of God i n the creati on, they al so
need to recogni ze Hi s set apartness i n Hi s l aw.
Thi s i s why i t i s i mperati ve that Gods peopl e adhere
= UNCONDMDNAL SURRENDER
to Gods l aw. It is a schoolmaster for those outsi& the fel-
lowship. Wi thout Gods l aw, they wi l l not recogni ze
the horror of thei r pl i ght.
How can Chri sti ans preach an effecti ve gospel to
si nners wi thout al so preachi ng the l aw of God? Do
we preach about a hol y God? How do they know He
i s hol y? Do we preach that Hi s peopl e must be hol y?
How can they know what hol y l i ves are wi thout the
l aw? Do we tel l men they need to turn f+om thei r si ns
and repent? How can they recogni ze what a si n i s
wi thout the l aw of God? Do we tel l them that God
hates si n? What i s there to hate wi thout the l aw? Do
we wonder why men fai l to recogni ze the aftl ont to
God that si n entai l s? My shoul d they, i f we dont
preach the bi ndi ng nature of Gods reveal ed l aw?
Paul devoted consi derabl e space i n hi s l etter to
the Chri sti ans at Rome to thi s very subject. He tol d
them about hi s own experi ences before he repented
and bel i eved on Chri sts atoni ng work on the cross
for hi s sal vati on. l ?or I was al i ve wi thout the l aw
once; but when the commandment came, si n revi ved,
and I di ed. And the commandment, whi ch was or-
dai ned to l i fe, I found to be unto death. For si n, tak-
i ng occasi on by the commandment, decei ved me, and
by i t sl ew me. Wherefore the l aw i s hol y, and the com-
mandment hol y, and just, and good (Remans 7:9-12).
Paul taught that Chri sti ans are no l onger under
the curse of the l aw. Law no longer slays us. Thats the
reason he coul d decl are that he was once dead when
he recogni zed the deadl y nature of si n. Si n no l onger
strangl es the Chri sti an. I t no l onger drags hi m to the
eternal grave. But i t di d once, Paul sai d, and thats
LAw 93
why l aw i s such a good thi ng. I t woke hi m up to just
exactl y what he was, a si nner, and where he was go-
i ng: hel l .
I f Chri sti ans i gnore the l aw of God and regard i t
as i rrel evant just because we are no l onger under
Gods curse, how wi l l unbel i evers recogni ze us as be-
i ng di fferent? How wi l l they respond to men who do
not acknowl edge the l aw as external l y bi ndi ng? We
know how they~l respond: Those Chri sti ans are just
a bunch of hypocrdes. They tel l me that I m doomed
because I havent obeyed Gods l aw 100%, yet they
pay absol utel y no attenti on to the l aw once theyre
supposedl y converted to Chri st. They use thei r
rel i gi on to make me feel gui l ty, and then they l i e,
cheat, and steal worse than anyone, because they
say that theyre free fkom the l aw now. Hypocrztes!n
Wel l , i snt that just about what we are i f we use
the doctri ne of grace as a l i cense to si n? As Paul sai d,
Do we then make voi d the l aw through fai th? God
forbi d: yea, we establ i sh the l aw (Remans 3:31).
And agai n, What shal l we say then? Shal l we con-
ti nue i n si n, that grace may abound? God forbi d.
How shal l we, that are dead to si n, l i ve any l onger
therei n? (Remans 6:1-2). What Paul argued
agai nst, over and over, i s the mi stake of rel yi ng on
our own ina%pendent attempti to @&ll the requirements of
God% paject and comprehensive kzw structure. I f a man
puts hi msel f under the terms of the l aw and then
thi nks he can earn hi s way to heaven by doi ng the
l aw, hes an eternal l y dead man. For as many as are
of the works of the l aw are under the curse; for i t i s
wri tten, Cursed i s every one that conti nueth not i n
al l thi ngs whi ch are wri tten i n the book of the l aw to
do them (Gal ati ans 3:10). Thats what Chri st has
saved us from: Chri st bath redeemed us from the
curse of the l aw, bei ng made a curse for us: for i t i s
wri tten, Cursed i s every one that hangeth on a tree
(Gal ati ans 3:13). Jesus Chri st actual l y ful fi l l ed the
terms of the l aw, and then, as our ful l y ri ghteous
substi tute, was sacri fi ced on Gods al tar, so that we
wi l l not wi nd upon that fi ery al tar. Chri st, by ful fi l l -
i ng the l aw, has removed the curse of the l aw from
Hi s peopl e; but as He sai d i n the sermon on the
mount, He came not to annul the l aw but to con@rn
i t. I f Jesus Chri st di ed to confi rm the val i di ty of the
l aw, Chri sti ans shoul d never say anythi ng that mi ght
l ead l ost men to concl ude that there i s any escape
from our requi rement to obey the l aw. No one
escapes that requi rement. What men can escape i s
thei r requi rement to pay for thei r transgressi on.
Chri st never sai d we dont owe God a debt for our
transgressi on; He di d say that He had pai d the debt
for our transgressi on. What are l awl ess Chri sti ans
tryi ng to do, i ncrease thei r porti on of the debt Chri st
l ovi ngl y pai d? Are they conti nui ng to l i ve i n si n that
grace may abound? God forbi d, sai d Paul .
Our Ki ngs Treaty
God tel l s us that si nners deserve Hi s wrath. He i s
a hol y God, who despi ses both si n and the si nner. He
casts sinws i nto hel l , forever, not just si n. Sinners
pay, not si n. God sai d that He despi sed Esau,
Jacobs brother, even before the two had been born,
even before they had commi tted si n. Paul wrote:
LAw %
(For the chi l dren, bei ng not yet born, nei ther hav-
i ng done any good or evi l , that the purpose of God
accordi ng to el ecti on mi ght stand, not of works, but of
hi m that cal l eth;) I t was sai d unto her [Rebecca], The
el der shal l serve the younger. As i t i s wri tten, Jacob
have I l oved, but Esau have I hated (Remans 9:11-13).
Most peopl e dont l i ke thi s ki nd of preachi ng.
Paul was never a very popul ar fel l ow. But he was a
very smart fel l ow. He knew what most l i steners
woul d concl ude. He answers them before thei r ques-
ti on gets asked: What shal l we say then? I s there
unri ghteousness wi th God? God forbi d. For he sai th
to Moses, I wi l l have mercy on whom I wi l l have
mercy, and I wi l l have compassi on on whom I wi l l
have compassi on (Remans 9:14-15). The average
man thi nks to hi msel fi Poor ol d Esau. What a tough
break. After al l , what had he done i n hi s motheds
womb to deserve Gods wrath? That God: what an
arbi trary character! Lovi ng Jacob and hati ng Esau.
I ts not fai r. But Paul has answered thi s objecti on:
I ts fai r because God di d i t. I s there unri ghteous-
ness wi th God? You see, what the si nner i s real ~
thi nki ng i s thi s: Man i s real l y a decent speci es.
Each man i s born wi th a cl ean sl ate. He makes i t or
breaks i t on hi s own. He performs or he doesnt. He
earns hi s way to heaven, or maybe to hel l , but i ts hi s
work that counts. God i s bei ng unfai r to decent,
cl ean-sl ate man when He doesnt gi ve a guy a fai r
shake.
What does the Bi bl e say about man? That he si n-
ned i n Eden, and from that poi nt on, he i s perverse.
He has twi sted the i mage of God, whi ch i s hi s char ac-
* UNCOND~lDNAL SURRENDER
ter. As Davi d sai d, Behol d, I was shapen i n i ni qui ty;
and i n si n di d my mother concei ve me (Psal ms 51:5).
I t i s not sex as such whi ch i s si nful ; i t i s the entire char-
acter of si nful manki nd. Man i s not born wi th a cl ean
sl ate. He is born a disinhmted son of God, the rzghteous
Father. He needs adopti on. And God deci des who i s
to be adopted and who i s not. The astoundi ng thi ng
about the account Paul gi ves of Jacob and Esau i s
not that Esau was hated by God. The astoundi ng,
mi racul ous thi ng i s that God louedJacob. God doesnt
owe us a break; God owes us puni shment, and He
graci ousl y gi ves some of us a break, not because we
deserve i t, but because He wants to do i t, out of l ov-
i ng mercy. Thi s i s the bi bl i cal doctri ne of election.
God i s graci ous even to the hated natural sons.
He offers them a peace treaty. That treaty i s Hi s l aw.
When a ki ng pl aces hi s peopl e under hi s protecti on,
he sets forth thei r obl i gati ons to hi m i n return. A civil
government always has law. I ts ci ti zens must obey the
l aw i n order to gai n the benefi ts of protecti on. We
never find peace treatzix without mutuul obligations. The
terms may be harsh. The nati on whi ch l oses a war
may be faced wi th terms that i nvol ve uncondi ti onal
surrender. But the treaty ends the war. Si gn the treaty,
and the war ends.
God put Aaizm under a treaty Li ve i n the garden for
a whi l e, enjoy your wi fe, and then go out and sub-
due the earth. Al l I ask, Adam, i s that you avoi d the
frui t of a si ngl e tree. So there were terms to Gods
treaty. And there was puni shment for di sobedi ence;
i n thi s case, Adams i mmedi ate spi ri tual death, hi s
eventual physi cal death, the curse of the ground,
Uw 97
and the same for Eve, pl us pai n i n chi l dbeari ng. The
treaty offered protecti on and benefi ts. I t had terms of
obedi ence. I t had puni shments for di sobedi ence.
That i s typi cal of every treaty. I t i s Gods way of
deal i ng wi th men. I t i s al so every rul eds way of deal -
i ng wi th hi s subjects.
God ofirs all men His treaty. They know i t, too.
They see God i n the i nvi si bl e thi ngs of the worl d,
and they restrai n thi s knowl edge (Remans 1:18-20).
They even have the work of the l aw wri tten i n thei r
own hearts, and they dont even meet thi s standard.
For when the Genti l es, whi ch have not the l aw, do
by nature the thi ngs contai ned i n the l aw, these, hav-
i ng not the l aw, are a l aw unto themsel ves: whi ch
shew the work of the l aw wri tten i n thei r hearts, thei r
consci ence al so beari ng wi tness, and thei r thoughts
the mean whi l e accusi ng or el se excusi ng one
another (Remans 2:14-15). The l aw of God i snt i n
thei r hearts, but the work of the l aw i s. That i s suffi -
ci ent to condemn every man, but sti l l man refuses to
l ook up to God and acknowl edge the comprehensi ve
l aw-order that God has spel l ed out i n Hi s treaty of
peace. Men prefer to conti nue thei r war agai nst
Goda war whi ch cannot be won. He offers al l men
peace, but He knows that not one wi l l accept the
terms of the treaty apart from Hi s grace. Why wont
men capi tul ate to a treaty of compl ete ri ghteousness?
The prophet Jeremi ah tol d us l ong ago: The heart i s
decei tful above al l thi ngs, and desperatel y wi cked:
who can know i t? (Jeremi ah 17:9). And a few l i nes
l ater, he uttered thi s mi ghty prayer on the enemi es of
God: Let them be confounded that persecute me,
* UNCONDMONAL SURRENOER
but l et not me be confounded: l et them be di smayed,
but l et not me be di smayed: bri ng upon them the
day of evi l , and destroy them wi th doubl e destruc-
ti on (Jeremi ah 17:18). Thats how our ki ng wants us
to pray agai nst Hi s enemi es: l et them & datroyed. I f
they repent, of course, they are no l onger Hi s
enemi es, whi ch i s why i t i s al so l egi ti mate to pray for
thei r conversi on, meani ng thei r formal si gni ng of
Gods peace treaty. May Gods enemi es be destroyed or
si p the peace trea@
God i s neverthel ess wct>l, even to Hi s enemi es.
He requi res men to offer a peace treaty before at-
tacki ng another nati on. When thou comest ni gh un-
to a ci ty to fi ght agai nst i t, then procl ai m peace unto
i t. And i t shal l be, i f i t make thee answer of peace,
and open unto thee, then i t shal l be, that al l the peo-
pl e that i s found therei n shal l be tri butari es unto
thee, and they shal l serve thee. And i f i t wi l l make no
peace wi th thee, but wi l l make war agai nst thee,
then thou shal t besi ege i t; and when the LORD thy
God bath del i vered i t i nto thi ne hands, thou shal t
smi te every mal e thereof wi th the edge of the sword
(Deuteronomy 20:10-13). No sneak attacks are
al l owed, even by Gods peopl e who marched i n the
Ol d Testament era under the protecti on of God. He
Hi msel f offers al l rebel s a peace treaty; we must do
the same.
Most Chri sti ans understand that they are anzbas-
sadors of Jesus Chri st. Paul wrote hi s l etter to the
church at Ephesus fi -om a pri son cel l i n Rome. How
di d he descri be hi s task there? And for me, that ut-
terance may be gi ven unto me, that I may open my
LAw 99
mouth bol dl y, to make known the mystery of the
gospel , for whi ch I am an ambassador i n bonds: that
therei n I may speak bol dl y, as I ought to speak
(Ephesi ans 6:19-20). But what i s an ambassador? I ts
someone who goes to another nati on or another peo-
pl e as a representati ve of a farei gn monarch. He
comes before the peopl e of one nati on as an offi ci al
agent of another. An ambassador visits one kingdom as an
ojicial agent of another kingdom. He speaks i n the name
of hi s home ki ngdoms government.
The Chri sti an evangel i st i s unquesti onabl y an
ambassador. More than thi s, he i s an ambassador
who i s on a speci fi c mi ssi on: to cal l Gods enemi es to
surrender to the great Ki ng. He comes i nto Satans
ki ngdom and o%nandi the capi tul ati on of Satans
forces. He tel l s them of the futi l i ty of conti nui ng the
fi ght. He tel l s them of the soverei gnty of God. He
tel l s them of the awful , eternal future whi ch awai ts
al l those who are found i n the uni forms of the enemy
on the fi nal day. He cal l s them to reject thei r current
rul er and to defect, just as Rahab the harl ot defected
to I srael and I srael s God when she was vi si ted by the
Hebrew spi es (Joshua 2). He tel l s them of the majesty
of hi s Ki ng, who protects Hi s peopl e and gi ves them
hope. He tel l s them of the justi ce of hi s Ki ng, of the
wonderful l aws under whi ch he l i ves. He tri es to
make them jeal ous of the l aw of God, just as God
promi sed I srael that forei gn nati ons woul d be jeal ous
of I srael s l aws i f I srael remai ned fai thful to those
l aws (Deuteronomy 4:5-8). He tel l s them that thei r
chosen rul er, Satan, i s a usurper, that he does not
deserve thei r al l egi ance. He tel l s them that hi s Ki ng
100 uNcoNDmoNAL SURRENDER
i s a uni versal Ki ng, not just some l ocal monarch. He
tel l s them that hi s Ki ng hol ds them compl etel y re-
sponsi bl e for obeyi ng Hi s l aw, to the l ast jot and ti t-
tl e, whether they admi t i t or not. He tel l s them that
they had better surrender now and l earn about hi s
Ki ng% peace treaty and al l i ts requi rements, for i f
they refuse to submi t themsel ves to i ts terms before
the fi nal battl e, then they wi l l be utterl y destroyed.
The ambassador is not to pretend that there are no terms in
the peace treaty. He i s a fool or a l i ar i f he tel l s the for-
ei gn usurpers that by capi tul ati ng now they wi l l
never have to obey the treatys l aws, but i f they
refuse to surrender, they wi l l be hel d ful l y responsi -
bl e for obeyi ng them. The whol e i dea of requi ri ng
thei r surrender i s to extend the rei gn of the monarch
throughout the whol e worl d. The whole idea is to bind
men by the terms of the trea~ now, b$ore t~>nal battle, so
that they will not be bound up later and thrown into thejre.
As Chri st warned, concerni ng the fi nal judgment on
the tares (but not the true wheat): Let both grow to-
gether unti l the harvest: and i n the ti me of the har-
vest I wi l l say to the reapers, Gather ye together fi rst
the tares, and bi nd them i n bundl es to burn them:
but gather the wheat i nto my barn (Matthew 13 :30).
God~ ambassadors ext+nd His kingdom by rnakingplain
the terms of the treaty. The l aw of God i s mans tool of
domi ni on. Why? Because Gods l aw i s mans way to
become humbl e i n front of God. He who i s meek bejhe
God wi l l i nheri t the earth (Matthew 5:5). I f a man
humbl es hi msel f before God, he need have no fear of
the worl d. Remember, man must be subordinate, and
man must exerci se dominion. Thi s i s basi c to mans
I Aw lol
very nature, and i t i s basi c to the l aw structure of the
creati on, whi ch was desi gned as a garden for man,
meani ng humbl e, obedi ent man. He must be subordi-
nate to God and exercise dominion in terms of Godt iaw-
order. He must not be humbl e before Satan and
spend eterni ty i n hel l , al ong wi th Satan, where
nei ther Satan, hi s angel s, nor man can exerci se any
domi ni on whatsoever. The tenm of God% peace treap are
the terms spelled out in. His law. They are the means of
domi ni on. Gods adopted sons are to adhere to Hi s
l aw i n order to bri ng the earth under the rul e of Hi s
l aw. Gods adopted sons are to adhere to Hi s l aw i n
order to become honest ambassadors of God i n
Satans temporary and steadi l y erodi ng ki ngdom.
Gods adopted sons are to adhere to Hi s l aw i n order
to defl ect the predi ctabl e charge of hypocri sy from
the natural , rejected sons. The adopted sons are to
adhere to Gods l aw for the same reason that Davi d
shoul d have: to avoi d gi vi ng the enemi es of God an
opportuni ty to bl aspheme (I I Samuel 12:14). I n
short, Godh peace treaty k also a declaration of war on
Satan5 kingdom. I t serves as a weapon of war; Hi s
peopl e possess i t and can steadi l y subdue the earth i n
terms of i t. Hi s enemi es dont acknowl edge i ts val i d-
i ty, and they are l eft wi thout Gods tool of domi ni on.
Law% Bl essi ngs
The Book of Deuteronomy contai ns a great deal
of materi al on the l aw. Perhaps the two most rel e-
vant passages are chapters 8 and 28. Both of them
have the same outl i ne. Fi rst, God has gi ven Hi s peo-
pl e a parti cul ar set of l aws. These l aws must be
102 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
respected. Second, i f they obey Hi s l aws, God wi l l
see to i t that they recei ve external , vi si bl e bl essi ngs
as a peopl e. Thi rd, i f they rebel , they wi l l have these
bl essi ngs removed, and a peri od of hardshi ps wi l l
come upon them.
Deuteronomy 28 devotes the bul k of i ts message
to l i sti ng the horrors that wi l l come upon them, from
verse 15 to the end of the chapter, verse 68. Deuter-
onomy 8 has a somewhat di fferent approach. I t tel l s
the Hebrews that they wi l l go i nto the l and and pros-
per i f they fol l ow Hi s l aw. Thi s wi l l bri ng external
prosperi ty. The external prosperi ty wi l l then become
a temptati on to them. They may begi n to thi nk that
thei r power has brought thei r prosperi ty, rather than
thei r humbl eness before God and thei r adherence to
Hi s l aw-order. Fi nal l y, i f they do capi tul ate to thei r
temptati on, and they el evate themsel ves before God
and the worl d, they wi l l be judged, even as the ci ti es
of Canaan were judged when God brought them i nto
the l and.
We mi ght cal l thi s outl i ne the paradox of Deu-
teronomy 8. Fi rst a gtfi : the l and of Canaan. Next,
the law: the means of domi ni on. Next, prosfwnty:
natures response to godl y rul e. Next, temptation: for -
getti ng God and attri buti ng prosperi ty to man.
Next, amogance: attri buti ng thei r prosperi ty to thei r
own power. Next, judgment: Gods deni al of sover-
ei gnty to sel f-professed autonomous (i ndependent)
man. From a gi ft to the l aw; from the l aw to prosper-
i ty; from prosperi ty to arrogance; from arrogance to
the removal of both prosperi ty and the gi ft. The gi ft,
of course, was the l and of Canaan. And i t shal l be, i f
LAW 109
thou do at al l forget the LORD thy God, and wal k
after other gods, and serve them, and worshi p them,
I testi fi agai nst you thi s day that ye shal l surel y per-
i sh. As the nati ons whi ch the LORD destroyeth before
your face, so shal l ye peri sh; because ye woul d not
be obedi ent unto the voi ce of the LORD your God
(Deuteronomy 8:19-20).
The power of Gods l aw i n produci ng external
prosperi ty i s not dependent upon the spi ri tual condi -
ti on of the adherents. The terms of the treaty can,
for a ti me, be adhered to by rebel s. So l ong as they
adhere to the external s, they recei ve external bl ess-
i ngs. Of course, no one can adhere 1007o to the l aw,
and therefore God has the ri ght to smash anyone at
any ti me. Because, however, of Gods commi tment
to the terms of Hi s treaty, He grants to rebel s the
possessi on of l aw-produced prosperi ty for the ti me i n
whi ch they adhere to Hi s l aw. For exampl e, Egypt
prospered under the rul e ofJoseph, even though the
Egypti ans were ethi cal rebel s. Babyl on prospered
under the rul e of Dani el , unti l the ki ng of Babyl on,
Nebuchadnezzar, di ed, l eavi ng hi s rebel l i ous son on
the throne (Dani el 5). The ki ngdom of the Medes
and Persi ans prospered whi l e Dani el was agai n rai sed
to a posi ti on of preemi nence under Ki ng Dari us
(Dani el 6). These ki ngdoms were pagan, but for a
time they submi tted to the rul e of a servant of God,
and they prospered.
The probl em, of course, i s arrogance. The bl ess-
i ngs bri ng temptati on; and the temptati on i s submi t-
ted to by ethi cal rebel s. I t takes the atiue interoentwn
of God to restrain the hearts of evil men. Eventual l y, a
Pharaoh arose who knew not Joseph. A Bel shazzar
repl aced a Nebuchadnezzar. Rebels cannot foreuer sub-
mit to Godk kzw-order. I n the very l ast days of thi s
worl d, we l earn i n Revel ati on 20, Satans army
rebel s, and the wrath of God fal l s on them. (You
mi ght ask yoursel f, rebel s agai nst what? I f Satans
rul e expands through ti me, what i s i t that i s so good
and prosperous that provokes hi s rebel l i on? Hi s own
ki ngdom? 1s,, i t good and prosperous? I s not the
essence of hi s ki ngdom the i mpotence and arrogance
of the Pharaoh of the Exodus, who peri shed i n the
Red Sea, or Ki ng Bel shazzar, who saw the handwri t-
i ng on the wal l and di ed a defeated monarch before
morni ng? I s not the very essence of Satans rebel l i on
a stri ki ng out i n i mpotent fury agai nst the vi si bl e
goodness of God and Gods l aw: i n heaven, i n the
garden of Eden, and on the l ast day? We wi l l con-
si der thi s probl em i n the chapter on Gods ki ngdom,
but keep thi s questi on i n mi nd: What wi l l Satan be
rebel l i ng against that i s vi si bl y good on that fi nal
day?)
What we l earn from the Bi bl e i s that Gods l aw-
order, when adhered to by any peopl e, i ncl udi ng
ethi cal l y rebel l i ous cul tures, produces bl essi ngs. At
the same ti me, we al so l earn that no unregenerate
cul ture can sustai n forever i ts outward adherence to
Gods l aw-order. I f the Hebrews coul dnt, then
rebel l i ous nati ons cant. The bl essi ngs create a temp-
tati on: to be arrogant. Or better put: to be as God. To
be the source of l aw, the source of prosperi ty, know-
i ng (determi ni ng) good and evi l : here i s the fami l i ar
temptati on for mankkd. I t was the temptati on
Uw 105
whi ch destroyed Adam i n the garden. How can i t be
resi sted by rebel l i ous men, thi s si de of paradi se, thi s
si de of perfecti on? I t cant. Thi s i s why Gods l aw-
order has a bui l t-i n protecti on agai nst unauthori zed
use by ethi cal rebel s. Rebel s cannot forever pretend
to be humbl e servants before a soverei gn Creator. I t
grates agai nst thei r very nature. They cannot stand
i t. They want the prosperi ty that is the frui t of obe-
di ence to Gods l aw, but the terms of the treaty re-
mi nd them of i ts fi rst pri nci pl e: total submi ssi on to a
total l y soverei gn God. They rebel openl y. They set
up other gods to worshi p. They do what Moses
warned the Hebrews agai nst. Beware that thou for-
get not the LORD thy God, i n not keepi ng hi s com-
mandments, and hi s judgments, and hi s statutes,
whi ch I command thee thi s day (Deuteronomy
8:11). And what el se? And thou say i n thi ne heart,
My power and the mi ght of mi ne hand bath gotten
me thi s weal th. But thou shal t remember the LORD
thy God: for i t i s he that gi veth thee power to get
weal th, that he may establ i sh hi s covenant whi ch he
swar e unto thy father s, as it is this day (Deuter on-
omy 8:17-18).
I t takes the speci ul gmce of Gods redeemi ng Spi ri t
to drag men to the foot of the cross. They need to be
adopted i n order to enabl e them to remai n fai thful to
the outward, wri tten, comprehensi ve requi rements
of Gods l aw-order. Thi s doesnt mean that we shoul d
negl ect the preachi ng of the l aw. I f men submi t
themsel ves to the l aw of God, and they stop murder-
i ng each other, stop steal i ng fmm each other, stop
seduci ng each others daughters and wi ves, stop wor -
108 WmNDmmu SURRENDER
shi ppi ng the fal se god of humani sm, and stop com-
mi tti ng evi l i n the si ght of God and men, we al l ben-
efi t. We al l become the benefi ci ari es of a godl y l aw-
order. Who woul dnt rather l i ve next door to men
who honor the external s of bi bl i cal l aw rather than
men who constantl y vi ol ate i ts rul es? Even i f our
nei ghbors reject the testi mony of the Bi bl e that Jesus
Chri st i s God, that He di ed on the cross to make
atonement for si n, and that wi thout fai th i n Chri st,
through the grace of God, every man wi l l peri sh
eternal l y, i t i s neverthel ess preferabl e to l i ve next
door to those who adhere to the external terms of the
tr eaty.
No soci ety ever faces the choi ce between l i vi ng i n
terms of l aw and l i vi ng under no l aw whatsoever. I t
i s never a questi on of l aw vs. no l aw; i t i s al ways a
questi on of which l aw. Man must serve a master.
That master i mposes a treaty on hi s servants. The
master may be the humani sti c State. I t may be a
church. I t maybe a personal demon. I t maybe some
i magi nary i nventi on, such as the forces of hi story.
Or i t may be the God of the Bi bl e. But man must seine
a naast~, and may master brings a peace treaty for man to
si~. Any ambassador of a ki ng who supposedl y has
no peace treaty for man to si gn, no covenant be-
tween ki ng and servants, no terms of obedi ence, no
promi se of benefi ts for submi ssi on, and no promi se
of judgment for an arrogant unwi l l i ngness to sub-
mi t, represents a l yi ng ki ng, or el se the ambassador
i s l yi ng about what hi s ki ng real l y demands from hi s
servants. Beware of any ki ng or any ambassador of
a ki ng who cl ai ms that the peace treaty i s wi thout
LAW 107
terms of obedi ence. That woul d mean uncondi thnal sar-
r&on thepart @h ki ng b nun, and the advent of a new
ki ng, the tyrant Man. And Man, the sel f-procl ai med
monarch, i mposes terri bl e terms of surrender on hi s
fel l ow men, not to menti on the envi ronment.
There i s no neutral ki ng. There i s no neutral l aw.
There are no neutral bl essi ngs. And there are surel y
no neutral men. Ours i s a uni verse of l aw, but thi s
l aw i s the systemati c regul ari ty i mposed by God.
God has not repeal ed Hi s l aw, and He has not cal l ed
us to submi t to Hi m apart from a treaty wi th vw sjwz-
Jc terms. The quest for an al ternati ve l aw structure
natural l aw, neutral l aw, or no l aw at al l i s an
i nnatel y demoni c quest. I t i s mans attempt to revoke
uni l ateral l y the terms of the treaty i mposed by God.
To assert that we have found such a non-revel ati onal
l aw-order i s a decl arati on of i ndependence from
God. I t i s a revol t that must fai l .
Progressi ve Conquest
A conquered terri tory i s not compl etel y con-
quered overni ght. I t i s fi l l ed wi th pockets of rebel -
l i on. Li ke a garden fi .dl of weeds, i t takes ti me to
bri ng i t under domi ni on. I t takes effort, capi tal , and
a conti nual resol ve to extend the domi ni on of ones
monarch. I t takes perseverance on the part of the
monarchs ambassadors and offi cers to bri ng a con-
quered ki ngdom under the ki ngs rul e. I t i s onl y the
pati ence of the ki ng whi ch permi ts thi s ki nd of con-
quest; otherwi se, he woul d burn down the ci ty, burn
up the farms, and repl ace al l the present i nhabi tants
wi th hi s own subjects.
W8 lmeommow SURRENDER
God di d preci sel y thi s i n Canaan. More preci sel y,
he ordered the Hebrews to root out the i nhabi tants,
ei ther by ki l l i ng them al l or chasi ng them out of the
l and. Yet even here, God knew i t woul d take ti me. I
wi l l not dri ve them out from before thee i n one yeaq
l est the l and become desol ate, and the beast of the
fi el d mul ti pl y agai nst thee. By l i ttl e and l i ttl e I wi l l
dri ve them out from before thee, unti l thou be i n-
creased, and i nheri t the l and (Exodus 23:29-30). He
tol d Hi s peopl e to conquer the l and total l y, to make a
cl ean sweep? That they fai l ed to obey hi m onl y
testi fi ed to thei r unfai thful ness (Judges 1:2).
God was establ i shi ng a tempora~ ki ngdom i n
Pal esti ne. I t was to have been a trai ni ng ground for
domi ni on, as the garden was al so i ntended to be.
But the Hebrews fai l ed i n Canaan, just as Adam had
fai l ed, so God took the ki ngdom away from them
and made i t uni versal , spreadi ng i t by means of Hi s
ambassadors, who take the gospel of Jesus Chri st
throughout the earth. Satans ki ngdom was al l the
worl d before Chri sts death and resurrecti on, wi th
the excepti on of ti ny I srael . Now hi s ki ngdom has
been i nvaded by Chri sts ambassadors, who bri ng an
offer of peace to Satans own subjects. The ki ngdom
i s no l onger bottl ed up i n Pal esti ne. Thats what
Jesus meant when, earl y i n Hi s mi ni stry, He sai d:
And no man putteth new wi ne i nto ol d bottl es: el se
the new wi ne cl oth burst the bottl es, and the wi ne i s
spi l l ed, and the bottl es wi l l be marred: but new wi ne
must be put i nto new bottl es (Mark 2:22). The new
wi ne of Chri sts gospel broke the ol d bottl es of I srael ,
and thi s wi ne poured forth across the face of the
LAW 109
earth. Satans ki ngdom has been i nvaded. Beaten de-
finitive~ at t?w cross, Satan now G i n retreat, jighting a rear-
guani action against the inuaders. He i s powerfi .d. He i s
more dangerous than a wounded water buffal o. But
he i s nonethel ess fi ghti ng a l osi ng battl e. He wi ns
some defensi ve battl es, but Gods strategy achi eved a
permanent vi ctory at the cross.
(Let me i nsert thi s parentheti cal observati on.
Grape jui ce does not burst wi ne ski ns. I t i s the fer-
menti ng process whi ch expands the l i qui d. The hub-
bling over of the now-jirmenting product is what bursts the
old wine skins. When the Bi bl e speaks of wi ne, i t
means wine. To argue that i t real l y means grape jui ce
i s to destroy the anal ogy whi ch Chri st used to
descri be Hi s churchs acti ons i n hi story and Hi s gos-
pel s power i n hi story. Oh, how Satan must wi sh that
Chri sts church and Chri sts gospel were real l y grape
jui ce, si tti ng sti e and sound i n the ol d wi ne ski ns of
Pal esti ne! Why do you suppose Chri st sai d that the
wi ne of Hi s communi on tabl e was Hi s bl ood? Because
His blood is to cover the sins of sinners throughout Satin%
kingdom, all over the world. Yet there are mi l l i ons upon
mi l l i ons of Chr i sti ans today who i nsi st on
cel ebrati ng the Lords Supper wi th grape jui ce.
Grape jui ce breaks the anal ogy because grape jui ce
wont break wi ne ski ns. Grape jui ce at the commu-
ni on tabl e symbol i zes the historical impo.kmce of
Chri sts bl ood, Chri sts gospel , Chri sts church, and
Chri sts expandi ng ki ngdom. Grape jui ce stays %ot-
tl ed up, confi ned to the hi stori cal ski ns of Pal esti ne.)
The l aw of God i s our means of progressi vel y
subdui ng Satans ki ngdom. I t begi ns i n our own
110 unWNDmoNM SURRENDER
l i ves, si nce Chri sts fi rst outpost i s the heart of man.
Thi s i s the moral sphere, the work of sanct$cation.
Li ke an athl ete i n perpetual trai ni ng or a sol di er i n
perpetual trai ni ng, the Chri sti an i s perpetual l y sub-
dui ng hi s own si nful fl esh, by the grace of God, by
the power of Gods Spi ri t, and i n terms of the l aw.
Paul wrote: For I del i ght i n the l aw of God after
[accordi ng to] the i nward man. But I see another l aw
i n my members, warri ng agai nst the l aw of my
mi nd, and bri ngi ng me i nto capti vi ty to the l aw of
si n, whi ch i s i n my members (Remans 7:22-23).
Paul di dnt reject Gods l aw; he del i ghted i n i t! I t was
thi s l aw whi ch reveal ed another l aw i n hi s fl esh, the
l aw of si n. I t was Chri sts tri umph at Cal vary a
tri umph based on Chri sts pri or ful fi l l i ng of the terms
of Gods comprehensi ve l aw that gave Paul hope.
He was justi fi ed by fai th, he sai d, not by l aw (Gal a-
tiaIIS 3 :24).
What di d he mean, justi fi ed by fai th? I t meant
that God the Father wi l l l ook at Chri sts perfecti on
and not Paul s si n on the day of judgment. But thi s
does not deny the rol e of Gods l aw i n the
i ndi vi dual s l i fe. The second chapter of the l etter of
James tel l s us not to abandon l aw. Even so fai th, i f
i t bath not works, i s dead, bei ng al one. Yea, a man
may say, Thou hast fai th, and I have works: shew
me thy fai th wi thout thy works, and I wi l l shew thee
my fai th by my works (James 2:17 -18).. Adherence
to Gods standards of external , vi si bl e ri ghteousness
i s how we judge the real i ty, the val i di ty, of our gr ace-
gi ven fai th i n Chri sts atoni ng work. No aahmnce to
Gods kzw-no faith, sai d James. No frui ts of the
w 111
Spi ri t, sai d Chri st, then no redempti on; for by frui ts
do we know true fai th (Matthew 7:16).
Thi s bri ngs us to the doctri ne of sanct#ication. The
doctri ne of sancti fi cati on has three parts: dkjinitive
sancti fi cati on, progressi ve sancti fi cati on, and ji nal
sancti fi cati on. We know that al l of Chri sts good
works, al l Hi s adherence to the l aw, i s put on our ac-
count at the poi nt of our conversi on. Sti l l , we must
work out the i mpl i cati ons i n our l i ves of thi s sal va-
ti on. As Paul sai d, l et us l ay asi de every wei ght, and
the si n whi ch cl oth so easi l y beset us, and l et us run
wi th pati ence the race that i s set before us (Hebrews
12:1). (We thi nk i t was Paul who wrote Hebrews; no
one can be sure today.) How do we recogni ze a si n?
By the l aw of God. How do we l ay asi de these si ns?
By i mposi ng the rul e of Gods l aw i n our l i fe.
Wi thout the l aw of God, we cannot possi bl y
recogni ze and subdue si ns.
We have covered thi s materi al i n the chapter on
man. However, sancti fi cati on has another appl i ca-
ti on, one whi ch i s not di scussed very often. The doc-
tri ne al so appl i es to col/ectiues: State, church, fami l y,
etc. God rai ses up whol e nati ons that are composed
of peopl e who have decl ared thei r submi ssi on to God
and Hi s peace treaty. I srael i s one exampl e, and the
pagan ci ty of Ni neveh, for awhi l e, i s another (Jonah
3:5-10). God deal s wi th them collective~.
I n the case of Sodom, God agreed wi th Abraham
to spare the ci ty for the sake of the fami l y of
Abrahams nephew, Lot, i f Abraham coul d show
that there were as few as ten ri ghteous peopl e i n the
ci ty (Genesi s 18:32). There werent ten ri ghteous
112 UNCONDKIONAL SURRENDER
peopl e i n the ci ty, so onl y Lot and hi s two daughters
escaped the wrath that fel l on Sodom. But the poi nt
i s, God was willing to &al with a ci~ forth sake of a tiny
handfil of righteous people. Furthermore, because of
Gods judgment on a col l ecti ve, Sodom, Lot had to
fl ee to avoi d bei ng destroyed. Because of Gods judg-
ment on I srael and Judah, the prophets al so went i n-
to capti vi ty (Ezeki el 1:3; the Book of Dani el ). The
Hebrews were judged chasti sed, i f you prefer
because they and thei r ancestors had been under
Gods nati onal covenant. Judah went i nto capti vi ty
for 70 years. Why 70 years? Because for 70 ti mes 7
years, they had not obeyed the l aw of the sabbati cal
year, when the l and was to be rested (no pl anti ng, no
harvesti ng) for one year i n seven, a l aw gi ven by
Moses i n Exodus 23:10-11. So the l and was gi ven i ts
rest whi l e the Hebrews were sl aves i n Babyl on
(Jeremi ah 50:34).
God i s a Tri ni ty. He i s one acti ng agent, yet
three Persons, i n uni ty but wi thout i ntermi xture.
God i s both one and many. Three i ndi vi dual s, yet one
bei ng. There i s uni~ and particzdatity i n God. The
creati on refl ects thi s aspect of God. Speci es are made
of i ndi vi dual s, yet they are governed by regul ari ti es
establ i shed by God: they reproduce after thei r own
ki nd (Genesi s 1:24-25). They are i ndi vi dual crea-
tures, yet they are governed by l aws that affect them
as a speci es. So i t i s wi th human soci ety. God deal s
wi th us as i ndi vi dual s, but He al so deal s wi th us as
col l ecti ves. Both the one (the col l ecti ve) and the
many (i ndi vi dual s) are respected. God deal t wi th i n-
di vi dual Hebrews, but al so wi th the tri bes. He deal t
LAW 113
wi th the tri bes, but al so wi th the nati on.
Di d God choose the nati on of I srael because of i ts
mi ght or fai thfi .dness? He sai d He di dnt choose them
for anythi ng they possessed. He set them apart from
other nati ons, cal l i ng them hol y. He does thi s wi th
i ndi vi dual peopl e. He chose them because He l oved
them, as a nati onal enti ty; He does that wi th col l ec-
ti ve peopl e. For thou art an hol y peopl e unto the
LORD thy God: the LORD thy God bath chosen thee to
be a speci al peopl e unto hi msel f, above al l peopl e
that are upon the face of the earth. The LORD di d not
set hi s l ove upon you, nor choose you, because ye
were more i n number than any peopl e; for ye were
the fewest of al l peopl e. But because the LORD l oved
you, and because he woul d keep the oath whi ch he
had sworn unto your fathers, bath the LORD br ought
you out wi th a mi ghty hand, and redeemed you out
of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh
ki ng of Egypt (Deuteronomy 7:6-8). I snt thi s just
exactl y what He does wi th i ndi vi dual peopl e? He
redeems them out of the house of bondmen, where
Adam our father sol d us. Men are i n sl avery to si n as
i ndi vi dual s; I srael was i n sl avery to Pharaoh. God
del i vers both individuals and nations out of bondage.
How are i ndi vi dual s to work out thei r sal vati on?
By suppressi ng si ns i n thei r own l i fe. How are na-
ti ons to work out thei r sal vati on? The same way.
Thi s i s why God tol d the nati on of I srael to cl eave to
Hi s l aw, to keep Hi s commandments. Thi s i s why
He tel l s Chri sti ans to do the same thi ng as i ndi vi d-
ual s. This is progressive sanctz$cation indioidual~ and col-
Zectiue@: i n fami l i es, churches, and nati ons. There
114 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
can be chasti si ng of both i ndi vi dual s and nati ons.
There can be total judgment on i ndi vi dual s and na-
ti ons, as Sodom and Gomorrah shoul d remi nd us.
Biblical law tk our tool of dominion. I t enabl es us to
subdue si n i n inner pl aces (the moral sphere) and
outer pl aces (the domi ni cal sphere). I t i s our standard
of ri ghteous performance i n our dai l y l i ves as i ndi -
vi dual s and as col l ecti ves. Bl essi ngs and cursi ngs
come to us as i ndi vi dual s and col l ecti ves. I n short,
the treaty of the great ki ng i s establ i shed between
God and Hi s ambassadors as i ndi vi dual s, between
God and Hi s church, and al so between God and the
nati ons. After al l , the Bi bl e doesnt promote a one-
worl d State. That was what God destroyed at Babel .
The nati ons (or peopl es) persi st beyond the day of
judgment (Revel ati on 21:24,26; 22:2). God deal s
covenantal l y wi th i ndi vi dual s and wi th col l ecti ves.
Hi s treaty of peace, whi ch i s at the same ti me a code of
l aw, establ i shes Hi s terms of sunnder for men and na-
ti ons.
Shoul d we real l y expect vi ctory, i n ti me and on
earth? The Bi bl e says that we ought to. We have
been gi ven the weapon that cannot be defended
agai nst over the l ong run, namel y, the word of God.
Thi s weapon i s i mposed steadi l y, not i n vi ol ent
revol uti ons, but by the preachi ng of the gospel .
Nothi ng coul d be more powefi l . The enemi es@ God
are okstroyed by it, step by step. But the word of the
LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept
upon precept; l i ne upon l i ne, l i ne upon l i ne; here a
l i ttl e, and there a l i ttl e; that they mi ght go, and fal l
backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken
LAW 115
(I sai ah 28:13). Thi s i s the means of fmgressi ve donzin-
ion. God requi res uncondi ti onal surrender, but He
does not demand i mmedi ate, i nstant uncondi ti onal
surrender, for that woul d requi re the abol i ti on of hi s-
tory at the fi nal judgment. That wi l l come eventual l y,
but He has establ i shed other requi rements for hi story.
Resti tuti on
Thi s i s the underl yi ng pri nci pl e of bi bl i cal jus-
ti ce. The i ndi vi dual who si ns agai nst another must
compensate the victim. Thi s i s why God requi res that a
sacri fi ce be offered to Hi m by man, for man has
si nned agai nst a hol y God. Thi s sacri fi ce must be
unbl emi shed and perfect. God demanded ful l pay-
ment of thi s sacri fi ce from Hi s own Son, Jesus
Chri st. The l etter to the Hebrews i s the New Testa-
ment book whi ch deal s most thoroughl y wi th thi s
human sacri fi ce. The wri ter decl ared, we are sanc-
ti fi ed through the offeri ng of the body of Jesus Chri st
once for al l (Hebrews 10: 10). I t i s Chri st3 pafiect saa-
jice whi ch establ i shed the foundation of our dominwn:
But thi s man, after he had offered one sacri fi ce for
si ns for ever, sat down on the ri ght hand of God;
from henceforth expecti ng ti l l hi s enemi es be made
hi s footstool . For by one offeri ng he bath perfected
for ever them that are sancti fi ed (Hebrews 10:12-14).
Thi s i s the doctri ne of dej%zitioe sanct~cation: the one-
ti me-onl y sacri fi ce of Gods Son, whi ch i s then i m-
pmted to those chosen by God from before the foun-
dati on of the worl d. The ri ghteousness of Chri st i s
the basi s of the acceptabi l i ty of that sacri fi ce, whi ch i s
our sacri fi ce as redeemed (bought-back) men.
116 UNCONDmONAL SURRENDER
The doctri ne of redemption i mpl i es apaynwnt. Why
a payment? Because we owe God such a payment to
compensate Him for our transgressi on. Thi s i s the ul ti -
mate resti tuti on payment. The magni tude of the si n
of Adam was so great, that Gods Son, the second
Adam (I Cori nthi ans 15 :45), had to l ay down hi s l i fe
as the onl y suffi ci ent payment. Redempti on means
to buy back, or to redeem, as a debtor redeems a
pawn i n a pawn shop, that i s, buys back hi s col -
l ateral for the l oan extended to hi m by the pawn
broker. And thi s payment must be comparabl e to the
ori gi nal debt. I t must be of the same magni tude.
Furthermore, resti tuti on requi res an addi ti onal pen-
al ty payment.
Exodus, chapter 21, begi ns the detai l ed account
of the requi rements of Gods l aw. I t fol l ows Exodus
20, i n whi ch the Ten Commandments appear. Exodus
21 i s devoted to cri mes and puni shments. The gen-
eral pri nci pl e of compensati on i s establ i shed: Eye
for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
burni ng for burni ng, wound for wound, stri pe for
stri pe (Exodus 21:24-25).
I snt thi s overl y harsh? I snt thi s vengeance, pure
and si mpl e? Yes. So what? I t i s Gods way of reduc-
i ng future cri mes of vi ol ence. I t i s al so Gods way of
r educi ng the power of the State. The State may not l egi ti -
matel y establ i sh the death penal ty for theft, or tor-
ture for assaul t. The State i s l i mi ted by the extent of
the cri mes i mpact on the vi cti m. Di d peopl e actual l y
have thei r eyes poked out when they had poked out
an i nnocent vi cti ms eye? What good di d that do the
vi cti m? The vi cti m had the opti on of aski ng for such
LAW 117
puni shment, but woul d he not have preferred eco-
nomi c compensati on? The judges had the opti on of
i mposi ng comparabl e damages, i f the vi cti m agreed
and the gui l ty party agreed (Exodus 21:30). The
poor man who coul d not pay had the opti on of sel l -
i ng hi msel f i nto sl avery for a set peri od i n order to
pay the fi ne. Thi s payment was not made to the
State; i t was made to the victim (Exodus 21:19). The
gui l ty party had every reason to avoi d havi ng hi s
own body damaged, and the vi cti m had many
reasons to gai n fi nanci al resti tuti on, now that he was
i n some way hampered by hi s i njury. I t was i n the i n-
terest of the vi cti m to accept anothers suMi tute pay-
ment. Thi s, after al l , i s what God permi ts: a substi -
tute payment. I nstead of ki l l i ng manl chd, He accepts
a substi tute. I nstead of mai mi ng the gui l ty party, the
vi cti m accepts payment for damages. Thi s hel ps
both vi cti m and cri mi nal to recogni ze mans need for
a substi tute. But someone al ways has to pay. No ex-
cepti ons.
The poi nt of the l aw, however, i s to dri ve home
the magni tude of the payment. A4an cannot legitimute~
pay the victim a toothi worth cf value for an gek worth of
damage. There must be comparabl e resti tuti on. The
law reminds man of the magnitude of his okbt to Godfor his
sin against God. He i s remi nded that he needs access
to a substi tute payment, for the maWi tude of hi s si n
i s too great for hi m to repay. Man cannot hope to
buy off the wrath of God by means of hi s own efforts.
He cannot substi tute a hangnai l s penal ty payment
for a capi tal cri me.
Resti tuti on for al l si n must be ma~ to God. Thi s i s
118 uNcoNDmoNAL SURRENDER
the fi rst pri nci pl e of bi bl i cal l aw. I t must be made to
the earth~ victim. Thi s i s the second pri nci pl e of bi bl i -
cal l aw. I t must be comparab~e to tb mme. Thi s i s the
thi rd pri nci pl e. For cri mes so horri bl e that no resti -
tuti on payment i s suffi ci ent to compensate the vi cti m
(such as murder) or compensate God (adul tery, wi tch-
craft, i dol worshi p, etc.), the ci vi l government i s em-
powered by God to execute the cri mi nal . Exodus
22:18-20 l i sts some of these capi tal cri mes; others i n-
cl ude rape (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), adul tery
(Levi ti cus 20:10), and stri ki ng or cursi ng ones father
or mother (Exodus 21:15,17). The fami l ys i ntegri ty
was to be protected. Paul was so convi nced of the
val i di ty of the civil government right to execute mminaik,
that when he was charged wi th bl asphemy and
brought before a Roman judge, he sai d: For i f I be
an offender, or have commi tted any thi ng worthy of
death, I refuse not to di e . . . (Acts 25:l l a).
I t i s unfortunate, but many Chri sti ans who have
not studi ed the l aw of God, or who bel i eve that God
has abol i shed Hi s l aw, argue that the ci vi l govern-
ment must never execute a man, because a dead
man cannot confess Chri st. Al l cri mi nal s supposedl y
must be al l owed to l i ve, so that they may confess
Chri st at some i ndetermi nate fhtur e date. Questi on:
Why are cri mi nal s today al l owed to avoi d executi on
i n order to gi ve them a l i feti me to be converted, but
cri mi nal s i n the Ol d Testament ki ngdom of I srael
were requi red by God to di e for certai n cri mes? Was
God bei ng unfai r to cri mi nal s i n Ol d Testament
ti mes? Second questi on: I snt the threat of death for
commi tti ng a capi tal cri me a VW @ctive incentive for a
I Aw 119
man to consi der hi s si ns agai nst God? I f he thi nks he
has forever to repent or an i ndetermi nate peri od,
whi ch i s psychol ogi cal l y forever i n the mi nd of a
present-ori ented man wi l l he not put off repen-
tance unti l i t i s too l ate? But most i mportant of al l ,
sal vati on i s by grace, and i f God tel l s us that a rebel
shoul d be executed, and He chooses not to regener-
ate hi m, i snt that Gods busi ness? We fi nd too many
Chri sti ans who sti l l thi nk that man %as a pi ece of
the acti on i n sal vati on and that i f we i n any way i n-
terfere wi th hi s l i fe by condemni ng hi m to death, we
have i n some way vi ol ated hi s supposed i nnate ri ght
to be converted. We say, i n effect, that Gods revel a-
ti on to man i snt good enough, i ncl udi ng (and espe-
ci al l y) Gods revel ati on of Hi msel f i n Hi s hol y l aw.
We thi nk we are doi ng God a favor by refusi ng to
execute peopl e who have commi tted cri mes that God
says are worthy of executi on. And we do thi s i n the
name of evangel i sm. I ncredi bl e! We attempt to mask
the magni tude of capi tal cri mes, so that evi l men wi l l
not have to face up to the true magni tude of thei r
cri mes, and then we tel l them to repent because they
have si nned agai nst a hol y God. We tel l them that
God i s a God of wrath who executes perfectl y horri -
bl e justi ce horri bl e to those who dont rest i n
Chri sts atoni ng death and then we seek to cover
up the vi si bl e, i nsti tuti onal si gns of Gods wrath,
even though God establ i shed these vi si bl e, i nsti tu-
ti onal si gns i n Hi s l aw.
Modem evangel i cal who deny the ri ght of the
ci vi l government to enforce bi bl i cal l aw are embamused
by God% r@teousness. Z%ey dont want to acknowl edge
120 uNcoNDmoNM WRRENDm
the hol y nature of the God reveal ed to us by the Bi bl e.
Yet they want unbelievers to acknowl edge the exi st-
ence of just such a God, even though modern evan-
gel i cal are embarrassed by Hi s l aw. They say they
want to gi ve the unbel i evers a chance to repent , yet
they have si mul taneousl y attempted to bl ur ungodl y
mens percepti on of the Person and nature of God.
Why shoul d unbel i evers repent (turn around) from
thei r si ns, when the God of the modern evangel i cal
i s l ess wi l l i ng to enforce Hi s standards of ri ghteous-
ness through external puni shment than the God of
the Ol d Testament was? Why has God, i n thi s age of
Chri sti an evangel i sm, deci ded to provi de modern
man wi th a l ess vi si bl e si gn of Hi s hol i ness? Why has
God hi dden Hi s character i n the age of i nternati onal
evangel i sm, when He reveal ed Hi s character through
Hi s l aw to the I srael i tes when they were bottl ed up
i n Pal esti ne? Why has He i nstructed Hi s fol l owers to
de-emphasi ze (and even el i mi nate) the i nsti tuti onal
si gn of Hi s i mpendi ng judgment, namel y, capi tal
puni shment, i n the era of Jesus Chri st, whi ch i s
cl oser to the day of judgment than the era of I srael
was? The answer to al l these questi ons i s the same:
God hasnt. But many of hi s fol l owers have acted i n
terms of these fal se assumpti ons.
By What Standard?
I n the Ol d Testament, the l aw of God as enforced
by the pri ests, ki ngs, and tri bal rul ers was to serve as
a beacon to the forei gn nati ons, but evangel i sm on a
personal l evel was not emphasi zed. The prophets di d
preach to forei gners, as the Book of Jonah i ndi cates,
LAw 121
but the establ i shment of godl y rul e through I srael s
i nsti tuti ons was Gods fi rst step. I t was the wi sdom of
I srael , as demonstrated by I srael s l aws, whi ch was to
bri ng the nati ons to repentance (Deuteronomy 4:5-8).
I n the New Testament ti mes, evangel i sm on a
face-to-face basi s has been emphasi zed, because the
ki ngdom of God i s no l onger associ ated wi th any si n-
gl e geographi cal regi on or any si ngl e nati on. When
the New Testament documents were wri tten, there
was no l onger any ci vi l order whi ch coul d be associ -
ated wi th God and Gods l aw. But thi s fact of ti e fi rst
century A.D. shoul d not be used as an excuse for
avoi di ng the tasks of domi ni on i n the real m of ci vi l
government. The l aw of God i s sti l l moral l y bi ndi ng.
I t i s therefore sti l l @di czi zl Zy bi ndi ng. I f a l aw i s not
worth enforci ng judi ci al l y when i t rel ates to extnnal
mmes agai nst God or man, then i t i s not moral l y
bi ndi ng, ei ther. I f a man i s mor al l y prohibited fr om
murderi ng hi s nei ghbor, seduci ng hi s nei ghbors wi fe
or daughter, or steal i ng from hi s nei ghbor, then he
shoul d be judicial~ prohibi~d as wel l .
We are back to the neutral i ty questi on, the great
myth of neutral i ty. The work of the l aw i s i n the heart
of the pagans, but not the l aw i tsel f (Remans
2:14-15). Vague i mi tati ons of Gods l aw are i mposed
by pagan ci vi l governments, but not Gods l aw.
There i s no uni versal l y recogni zed natural l aw.
There i s no l ogi cal l y i rrefutabl e natural l aw. There
i s Gods reveal ed l aw, and there are al l other l aw-
orders. By denyi ng the l egi ti macy of Gods l aw i n the
real m of ci vi l government, men are affi rmi ng the
val i di ty of some other law-order, meani ng some vari a-
122 uNcoNDrnoNhi sumDER
ti on of the soci ety of Satan. There are no uni versal l y
recogni zed humani sti c defi ni ti ons of theft, murder,
or assaul t. There are certai nl y no uni versal l y
agreed-upon puni shments for these cri mes. How,
then, can anyone cal l i ng hi msel f a Chri sti an be
sati sfi ed wi th anythi ng l ess than the rei gn of Ol d
Testament l aw i n the ci vi l government? Woul d he
choose to l i ve under Pharaoh? Woul d he choose to
l i ve under Bel shazzar? Why, then, do so many
Chri sti ans say that theres no such thi ng as bi bl i cal
l aw for todays ci vi l governments? Why do they
choose to l i ve under the control of somethi ng other
than Gods ci vi l l aw? Why do they conti nue to
choose Egypt and Babyl on as thei r homes? How
l ong wi l l they conti nue to argue that any l aw-or der
can be accepted by Chri sti ans, no matter where or
when they l i ve, except one l aw-order, namel y, the
l aw-order ordai ned by God for Hi s peopl e and
del i vered by Moses and the prophets? How l ong wi l l
they conti nue to defend the l egi ti macy of Egypt and
Babyl on and conti nue to deny the l egi ti macy of
Jerusal em? How long will thg allow themselves to be
o%ceived by Satan% myth of neutral laws, neutralju@es, and
neutral ctvil governments? When wi l l they recogni ze the
truth of Jesus warni ng? He that i s not wi th me i s
agai nst me; and he that gathereth not wi th me scat-
tereth abroad (Matthew 12:30). They have not
come to gri ps wi th Jesus announcement: Thi nk not
that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to
send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man
at vari ance agai nst hi s father, and the daughter
agai nst her mother, and the daughter i n l aw agai nst
LAW 123
her mother i n l aw. And a mans foes shal l be they of
hi s own househol d (Matthew 10:34-36). Chri st
di vi des Hi s peopl e from members of thei r own
househol ds, yet there are l i teral l y mi l l i ons of Chri s-
ti ans today who say that i ts i mpossi bl e for Chri st to
di vi de men from thei r ci vi l governments and the
anti -Chri sti an l aws of those governments. I ncredi -
bl e, i snt i t? Chri st di vi des the most i mportant of
human i nsti tuti ons, the fami l y, yet l eaves i ntact the
rel ati onshi p beween Hi s peopl e and any ci vi l gov-
ernment on earth, now or i n the future. Do you
thi nk thi s i s l i kel y? Real l y? And i f i t sounds si l l y,
then on what basi s shoul d the Chri sti an judge the
performance of the ci vi l government rul i ng hi m?
Obvi ousl y, by the lizws of God that pertain to civil govern-
ments. And where do we fi nd such judi ci al standards?
(Thi s i s goi ng to come as a shock to mi l l i ons of mod-
em evangel i cal Chri sti ans!) The Bi bl e. Speci fi cal l y,
i n the Ol d Testament. Where el se coul d we possi bl y
fi nd these standards? And i f we conti nue to argue
that there are no such standards, that the Ol d Testa-
ment i snt bi ndi ng on us anymore, and that we are
prohi bi ted fkom exerci si ng godl y rul e i n terms of the
Ol d Testament, then we have pk.ced ourselves, in princz-
pk?, under tk dominion of Satin and hti pagan kingdoms.
We are ri ght back i n Egypt or Babyl on, from whi ch
God del i vered Hi s peopl e l ong ago.
Concl usi on
The l aw of God i s a revehzti on of God% charactez To
deny the bi ndi ng nature of l aw i s to bl ur mans per-
cepti on of thi s revel ati on of Gods character. The
124 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDEU
message of the gospel of Jesus Chri st i s thi s: resti tuti on
has been made. A sacri fi ce has been offered. Men who
cl i ng to the ri ghteousness of Chri st cannot be con-
demned for the rebel l i on of Adam. We are del i vered
from the curse of the l aw, not the obl i gati ons of the
l aw. The l aw i s a tool of domi ni on for us: domi ni on
over our own l i ves (the moral sphere), domi ni on over
the l awl ess external acts of rebel s (the judinal
sphere), and domi ni on over the creati on (the domz%-
ical sphere). I f we reject that marvel ous tool i n the
name of l awl ess freedom, i n the name of grace,
then we are surrenderi ng the worl d i n pri nci pl e to
Satan. The Bi bl e tel l s us that Satans ki ngdom i s
steadi l y bei ng di spl aced, that i t cannot stand, that
the gates of hel l cannot survi ve. We must not aban-
don the tool of domi ni on, Gods l aw, for to do that i s
to abandon the fi ght, to abandon the task assi gned to
Hi s peopl e, the dominion assignment.
One generati on can al ways abandon i ts assi gn-
ment. I srael di d i mmedi atel y after the del i verance
fi -om Egypt. God puni shed the whol e generati on, ex-
cept for two men, Joshua and Cal eb. These two men
al one recommended to I srael s l eaders that they
shoul d i nvade the l and of Canaan, that God had
del i vered the Canaani tes i nto thei r hands. The other
spi es sent out by Moses came back to report on the
gi ants i n Canaan and the sure defeat that l ay ahead.
The i nci dent i s recorded i n the Book of Numbers,
chapter 14. Onl y Joshua and Cal eb were al l owed by
God to enter Canaan; al l the others di ed i n the wi l -
der ness.
Though one generati on can abandon the domi n-
w 125
i on assi gnment, not al l of them can. Eventual l y, a
generati on of Chri sti ans becomes convi nced that
thei r God i s soverei gn, that Gods l aw i s val i d, and
that Gods peopl e are vi ctors, i n ti me and on earth.
When these opi ni ons spread across a nati on, or a
group wi thi n a nati on, the bl essi ngs begi n anew. The
peopl e cease wanderi ng i n the sel f-i mposed wi l der-
ness. They turn back to God, Hi s l aw, and Hi s
domi ni on assi gnment. They begi n anew the exten-
si on of Gods ki ngdom, i n ti me and on earth.
Judai sm and Chri sti ani ty were uni que i n the
anci ent worl d wi th respect to thei r vi ew of ti me.
They both taught that ti me moves forward i n a
strai ght l i ne, from a begi nni ng to an end. Thi s
doesnt sound l i ke such an amazi ng i dea to you, does
i t? But once upon a ti me, i t was uni que. I n fact, i t
was unheard of outsi de of the ti ny nati on of I srael .
Peopl e i n the West hardl y ever thi nk about ti me,
except to remi nd themsel ves that there never seems
to be enough of i t. But they dont often gi ve much
thought to the underl yi ng nature of ti me. Ti me i s
somethi ng natural , somethi ng that everyone knows
i s a strai ght-l i ne seri es of events, just one thi ng after
another. But how does anyone know thi s for sure?
We al so have a sayi ng, hi story repeats i tsel f? Does
i t? Does i t real l y and trul y repeat i tsel f, event for
event? What do we mean, %i story repeats i tsel f?
(Those who have been trai ned as professi onal hi stori -
ans know the red secret of hi story: %l i story may n~t
repeat i tsel f, but hi stori ans repeat each other.)
128 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
We thi nk that everyone understands that hi story
i s l i near, l i ke a rul er or a l i ne. But why shoul d peopl e
bel i eve thi s? Because common sense tel l s us? How
far can we trust our common sense? After al l , i f we
were to take a common sense vi ew of the shape of the
earth, and i f we di dnt have sci entfi c measuri ng
techni ques or photographs of the earth from outer
space, we mi ght thi nk that i ts fl at ci rcul ar, maybe,
l i ke the sun and moon, but fl at, l i ke a gi ant di sc
hangi ng somehow i n space. A l ot of peopl e i n hi story
bel i eved just thi s not everyone, however, but a l ot
of them. (I f a person l i ved on a hi gh hi l l overl ooki ng
a seaport ci ty, and i f sai l i ng shi ps wi th bri ght, whi te
sai l s were sti l l i n use, and i f he had real l y sharp eyes,
he mi ght noti ce an odd phenomenon: the tops of the
sai l s of a di stant shi p that was sai l i ng i n hi s di recti on
woul d appear on the hori zon before he coul d see the
shi ps body. I f he had a tel escope, he coul d see thi s
cl earl y, but some peopl e saw thi s back i n the days be-
fore tel escopes. Woul d the average person who had
been tol d that the worl d i s fl at put two and two
together? Woul d he correctl y concl ude that onl y a
spheri cal earth woul d allow hi m to see the tops of a
shi ps sails befor e he coul d see its body? A handful of
peopl e di d, many centuri es ago. Cr ackpots. )
The same probl em of common sense per spec-
tive is true of ti me. Wi th the excepti on of the two re-
l i gi ons that were grounded i n the Bi bl e, all anci ent
1-
rel i gi ons vi ewed ti me as ci rcul ar. Peopl e vi ewed the
course of ti me i n much the same way that they vi ewed
the seasons. Summer follows spri ng as sur el y as fall
fol l ows summer. The seasons are ci rcul ar. They re-
TIME 129
peat. Furthermore, the stars i n thei r heavenl y
courses ci rcl e the worl d, or so i t seems to anyone
who charts the stars every ni ght, whi ch pri ests i n the
anci ent worl d certai nl y di d, and di d wi th astoundi ng
accuracy. Now, i f natures vi si bl e cl ocks; the
seasons on earth and the stars above, both seem to
fol l ow ci rcul ar patterns, why shoul dnt ti me al so rol l
around i n the same way? Why i snt cosmi c ti me
essenti al l y ci rcul ar? The Bi bl e gi ves the correct an-
swer ti me i s l i near because God created the uni -
verse and wi l l judge i t but peopl e who rejected the
Bi bl e found i t di ffi cul t to gi ve an equal l y good an-
swer. Onl y i n modern ti mes have Bi bl e-rejecti ng
peopl e offered any pl ausi bl e defenses of the i dea of
l i near ti me, and they needed sci ence the hi stori c
product or+ of a bi bl i cal vi ew of ti me to di scover
these answers.
One of the most popul ar al ternati ves to bi bl i cal
rel i gi on hi stori cal l y has been the doctri ne of karma,
or rei ncarnati on. Peopl es soul s are sai d to survi ve
the death of thei r physi cal bodi es. These soul s go
through thousands or mi l l i ons of l i fe experi ences,
upward or downward on some vast chai n of bei ng,
from the l owest ani mal to god (the One) hi msel f.
These soul s advance or degenerate i n terms of the
net good or evi l they have done i n the past, l i feti me
after l i feti me. At the end, al l soul s reuni te wi th the
i mpersonal uni versal spi ri t from whi ch i ndependent
exi stence somehow came. But there i s no way to be
sure that the process of creati on through separati on
doesnt start over agai n, and there i s every reason to
bel i eve that i t does; for most peopl e who have ever
l = UNCONDITIONAL WRRENDS
bel i eved i n karma have al so bel i eved that ti me runs
i n cycl es. Onl y by escapi ng ti me can we fi nd peace,
the peace of changel essness. Questi on: How di d we
get i nto ti me i n the fi rst pl ace? Why wont we wi nd
up back i n ti me agai n? Even the phrase wi nd up
poi nts to a worl d that runs down and then somehow
starts agai n. Peopl e who bel i eve i n karma dont con-
si der the truth of the Bi bl es expl i ci t teachi ng, I t i s
appoi nted once for man to di e, and after that the
judgmen? (Hebrews 9:27).
Li near Ti me
The Bi bl e says that ti me i s l i near. Ti me moves i n
a strai ght l i ne, from Gods creati on of the worl d to
Gods fi nal judgment of the worl d. Onl y someone
who bel i eves i n the strai ght-l i ne devel opment of hi s-
tory can bel i eve i n a fi nal judgment by God. And for
many centuri es, onl y those who bel i eved i n the fi nal
judgment of God bel i eved i n strai ght-l i ne hi story.
The Bi bl e teaches a l i near vi ew of ti me because i t
teaches a uni que doctri ne of creati on, provi dence,
and fi nal judgment. I t teaches that the ori gi nal crea-
ti on of the uni verse was by the same personal God
who personal l y sustai ns the whol e uni verse moment
by moment and who wi l l judge manki nd and reno-
vate Hi s creati on at the l ast day. Thi s i s why onl y
those phi l osophi es that have been heavi l y i nfl uenced
by the Bi bl e can consi stentl y hol d to the i dea of
l i near hi story.
Pagan man has al ways preferred to bel i eve i n
anythi ng el se rather than accept the i dea of a fi nal
judgment by a personal God. Pagan theori es of the
TIME l a
ori gi n of al l thi ngs have al ways deni ed Gods crea-
ti on of the uni verse out of nothi ng. They hol d that
matter has al ways exi sted, or that energy has al ways
exi sted, or that matter-energy has al ways exi sted,
God or no God. Thus, pagan theori es of the ori gi n of
the uni verse al ways deny that God al one was respon-
si bl e for creati on. I f there ever was a god, he must
have worked wi th pre-exi sti ng stuff to create the
uni verse, pagani sm has al ways taught. Any god who
was al l owed to exi st by pagans had to be a co-equal
to matter. Li ke man, thi s god al so faces the probl em
of shapi ng chaoti c matter i nto an orderl y uni verse.
He, too, battl es the resi stance of matter. He, too, i s a
pri soner of ti me. He i s l i ke man, onl y more so.
God and man possess essenti al l y the same ki nd of
bei ng.
Thi s vi ew of God i s preci sel y what Chri sti ani ty
deni es. The Bi bl e teaches that God created the uni -
verse out of nothi ng. I t teaches that God i s funda-
mental l y di fferent fi -om creati on. Man i mages God;
he does not parti ci pate i n the same bei ng wi th God.
There i s an eternal Creator-creature di sti ncti on.
Man never can become God, ei ther by evol uti on or
r evol uti on.
Modern pagani sm, fol l owi ng Charl es Darwi n,
bel i eves that the materi al uni verse i s al l there has
ever been, and that a l ong, l ong seri es chance events
l ed to the ori gi n of gal axi es, stars, the sol ar system,
l i fe, and man. Unti l man arri ved, the uni verse was
i nherentl y i mpersonal , conventi onal modern sci ence
teaches. (A handful of sci enti sts have argued that the
uni verse i tsel f i s somehow personal , but they have
132 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
been vague about exactl y how thi s works out i n hi s-
tory.) Onl y mans presence makes the uni verse
somehow personal , for man al one understands hi s-
tory and can to some degree control the future. Man
becomes the onl y true god of the uni verse, by
defaul t.
But what about ti me i n thi s supposedl y un-
treated uni verse? There has been a l ong debate
among sci enti sts about thi s. Most sci enti sts who
wri te about such cosmi c events as the end of ti me be-
l i eve that the uni verse runs down l i ke a gi ant cl ock,
getti ng cool er and more random, l i ke a rusti ng pi ece
of scrap metal or a dyi ng star; ti me ends i n the heat
death of the uni verse. They say, basi cal l y, that wi th-
out these materi al -energy cl ocks to keep cosmi c
ti me, ti me actual l y ends: No cl ocks, no ti me. A few
other sci enti sts argue the now-expandi ng uni verse
wi l l eventual l y contract when gal axi es fal l back to a
si ngl e poi nt, expl ode together, and expand outward
agai n, back and forth forever, i n endl ess cosmi c
cycl es of bi g bangs. Whi chever approach modern
sci ence takes, there i s no consi derati on of what the
Bi bl e teaches: a personal God created matter and
physi cal energy out of nothi ng, He presentl y sus-
tai ns i t, and He wi l l judge al l peopl e at the l ast day
i n terms ei ther of thei r personal conformi ty to Hi s
l aw or to the requi rement to bel i eve i n the savi ng
work of Hi s l aw-abi di ng Son, Jesus Chri st.
The Bi bl e i nsi sts on cosmi c personal i sm; modern
humani sti c sci ence i nsi sts on cosmi c i mpersonal i sm.
The Bi bl e affi rms that the uni verse i s meani ngful ,
for God, i ts creator, assi gns meani ng to i t; modern
TIME 133
humani sti c sci ence affi rms that the uni verse i s ul ti -
matel y meani ngl ess, for nothi ng outsi de of the uni -
verse exi sts. The Bi bl e says that hi story has cosmi c,
eternal purpose through the decree of God; modern
humani sti c sci ence says that hi story cannot possi bl y
have cosmi c, eternal purpose, for there i s no God to
enforce Hi s decree.
Purposeful Ti me
God created the uni verse, whi ch i s mans envi -
ronment, and then He created man. He created the
stars, sun, and moon so that man coul d keep better
ti me. They became the basi s of mans cal endars.
They serve as mans cosmi c cl ocks. I n short, the
heavenl y orbs serue munkind. And God sai d, Let
there be l i ghts i n the fi rmament of the heaven to
di vi de the day from the ni ght; and l et them be for
si gns, and for seasons, and for days, and years: and
l et them be for l i ghts i n the fi rmament of the heaven
to gi ve l i ght upon the earth: and i t was so. And God
made two great l i ghts; the greater l i ght to rul e the
day, and the l esser l i ght to rul e the ni ght: he made
them stars al so (Genesi s 1:14-16). Gods very order
of creati on was jhture-oriented: Hi s creati ve work of
day four was desi gned to serve the creature who ap-
peared on day si x.
Consi der what the Bi bl e teaches here. What i t
teaches cannot be made to fi t to any other vi ew of the
ori gi n of the uni verse. Any attempt to fi t the Bi bl es
account of creati on wi th any other vi ew necessari l y
must i gnore or reject what the Bi bl e speci fi cal l y
teaches. Fi rst, the earth was created before the sun,
t~ UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDSR
moon, and stars. The earth di d not evol ve out of the
stars or sun; i t was created before them. TV to fi t
thi s account i nto any sci enti c versi on of evol uti on!
Second, the heavenl y bodi es were created by
God i n order to gi ve l i ght to the earth. More than
thi s: they were created to become szjps. Si gns must
be i nterpreted. I nterpreted by whom? Man! Si gns
for whose purposes? For mans purposes! I n other
words, the sun, moon, and stars were created i n
order to serve man, who had not been created yet.
The very sequence of creati on poi nted to the future.
Modern Darwi ni sm sel f-consci ousl y deni es any
trace of purpose i n the hi story of the uni verse unti l
l i fe appears. But the Bi bl e teaches that l i fe was
created the day afi er the creati on of the sun, moon,
and stars. Try to fi t thi s account i nto any versi on of
modern Darwi ni sm!
Thi s shoul d prove my case: the bi bl i cal account
of creati on, i f accepted l i teral l y, l eads us to reject al l
ri val expl anati ons. Onl y i f we abandon the obvi ous
meani ng of the words of Scri pture can we merge the
Bi bl es account of creati on i nto any other i nterpreta-
ti on of the ori gi n of the uni verse.
The Bi bl e refers to the creati on wi th these words,
I n the begi nni ng . . . (Genesi s 1:1). Ti me began at
the creati on. There was no ti me before the creati on.
The bi bl i cal vi ew of tim cannot be di vorced from the
bi bl i cal account of creation. Any attempt to di vi de
them l eads to a rejecti on of both the bi bl i cal vi ew of
ti me and the bi bl i cal account of creati on. They aR i n-
separabl e. I f anyone rejects the bl l di cal account of cre-
ati on, he necessari l y rejects the bi bl i cal vi ew of ti me.
TIME 13s
Covenantal Ti me
Ti me, above al l , i s covenantal . I t conforms to the
decree of God. Ray R. Suttons book Thut h May
Prosper: Dominion By Covenant (1987) proves that
there are fi ve aspects of Gods covenant: 1) Hi s abso-
l ute soverei gnty, yet al so Hi s i nescapabl e presence;
2) a hi erarchi cal , representati ve system of l awful au-
thori ty; 3) the l aw of God as the basi s of domi ni on;
4) the judgments of God, di spl ayed i n bl essi ng and
cursi ng, 5) the i nheri tance of Gods peopl e over ti me
(conti nui ty). Al l fi ve poi nts can be found operati ng
i n every human government and i n every human i n-
sti tuti on. The fi ve-poi nt covenant i s an i nescapabl e
concept.
Several books of the Bi bl e are structured i n terms
of these fi ve poi nts, such as Exodus, Deuteronomy,
Matthew, Remans, and Revel ati on. So are the Ten
Commandments: one through fi ve and si x through
ten. Even the structure of the fi ve books of Moses
(the Pentateuch) conforms to thi s fi ve-poi nt cove-
nant model : Genesi s (God as Creator-Soverei gn),
Exodus (God as Lord and Master over the
I srael i tes), Levi ti cus (Gods requi red l aws of hol i -
ness), Numbers (Gods judgments on I srael and
I srael s enemi es i n the wi l derness), and Deuteron-
omy (the rati fi cati on of Gods covenant by the i nher-
i ti ng generati on).
We can see thi s structure i n the Bi bl es account of
ti me. Fi rst, God i s i n compl ete control over ti me, for
He i s the Master. He sustai ns i t provi denti al l y. We
say that God i s transcendent over ti me. Neverthel ess,
He reveal s Hi msel f i n hi story, for He i s present
136 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
throughout hi story. He announces cl earl y both Hi s
control over ti me and Hi s presence wi th man i n
ti me. He announces Hi s presence i n hi story: I am
the LORD, and there i s none el se, there i s no God
besi de me: I gi rded thee, though thou hast not
known me: that they may know me from the ri si ng
of the sun, and from the west, that there i s none
besi de me. I am the LORD, and there i s none el se
(I sai ah 45:5-6). He announces Hi s control over ti me
through Hi s control over the si gns of ti me, day and
ni ght: I form the l i ght, and create darkness (I sai ah
45:7a). Hi story i s personal because God i s i n control .
Gods hol y word i s transcendent; therefore, i t
cannot fai l . For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
nei ther are your ways my ways, sai th the LORD. For
as the heavens are hi gher than the earth, so are my
ways hi gher than your ways, and my thoughts than
your thoughts. For as the rai n cometh down, and the
snow from heaven, and returneth not thi ther, but
watereth the earth, and maketh i t bri ng forth and
bud, that i t may gi ve seed to the sower, and bread to
the eater: so shal l my word be that goeth forth out of
my mouth: i t shal l not return unto me voi d, but i t
shal l accompl i sh that whi ch I pl ease, and i t shal l
prosper i n the thi ng whereto I send i ~ (I sai ah
55:8-11). We can see here the l i near nature of Gods
hi story: the rai n and snow fl ows down, and i t bri ngs
forth good crops. I t does so purposeji dl y, that i t may
gi ve seed to the sower, and bread to the eater. Thi s
i s what Hi s word does, too.
Second, hi story i s covenantal because God estab-
l i shes man over the creati on i n hi story (Genesi s
TI ME 137
1:26-28). He establ i shes a system of representation.
Man represents God to the creati on, usi ng Gods l aw
to extend hi s own domi ni on over the earth. There i s
a hierarchy i n the creati on: God over man, man over
creati on. A personal representati ve who i mages God
i s pl aced i n charge. Agai n, hi story i s al ways personal ,
never i mpersonal . God i s soverei gn over hi story, and
man i s Gods desi gnated agent. Man answers to God
as a steward over hi story. Thi s l eads us to the thi rd
poi nt of Gods covenantal structure, ethi cs.
Thi rd, hi story i s covenantal because i t i s ethical.
God bri ngs forth Hi s perfect wi l l wi thi n ti mes
boundari es. Jesus tol d us to pray, Thy ki ngdom
come. Thy wi l l be done i n earth, as i t i s i n heaven
(Matthew 6:10).
Fourth, hi story i s covenantal because God@c(ges
i t. Men prosper in history i n terms of thei r obedi ence
to Gods l aw (Deuteronomy 28:1-14), and they are
cursed i n hti to~ for di sobeyi ng i t (Deuteronomy
28:15-68). Paul wri tes: For he sai th to Moses, I wi l l
have mercy on whom I wi l l have mercy, and I wi l l
have compassi on on whom I wi l l have compassi on.
So then i t i s not of hi m that wi l l eth, nor of hi m that
runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy (Remans
9:15-16). God i s the Judge of hi story as i t unfol ds, not
merel y Judge at the end of hi story.
Fi fth, there i s an inheritance for Gods peopl e.
After the fi nal judgment, God extends hi story to par-
al l el Hi s own exi stence i n eterni ty. He that over-
cometh shal l i nheri t al l thi ngs; and I wi l l be hi s God,
and he shal l be my son (Revel ati on 21:7). There i s
al so dtinheritance for covenant-breakers. But the
fearful , and unbel i evi ng, and the abomi nabl e, and
murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and
i dol aters, and al l l i ars, shal l have thei r part i n the
l ake whi ch burneth wi th fi re and bri mstone: whi ch i s
the second death (Revel ati on 21:8).
Because ti me i s covenanta.1, man fi nds hi msel f
faci ng moral deci si ons i n hi story. Ti me i s never i m-
personal , random, or meani ngl ess. And because
Adam rebel l ed i n hi story, the processes wi thi n hi s-
tory have fal l en under the curses of God. Ti me i tsel f
i s cursed.
Cursed Ti me
Ti me has now become a burden for man, just as
hi s l abor has. Ti me i s a threat to man today, for i ts
removal bri ngs man i nto the presence of God the
Judge. Ti me i s no l onger assured to man. Thi s
threat of ti mes removal was not present i n the gar-
den before Adam fel l . I n the garden, pri or to hi s si n,
Adam had the opti on of eati ng from the tree of l i fe
and gai ni ng eternal l i fe. After hi s si n, God del i ber-
atel y removed man from the presence of thi s physi -
cal tree of l i fe, so that he coul d not take al so of the
tree of l i fe, and eat, and l i ve for ever (Genesi s
3:22b). I t i s Jesus Chri st who i s the tree of l i fe; onl y
by fai th i n Hi m can a person recei ve eternal l i fe: He
that bel i eveth on the Son bath everl asti ng l i fe: and
he that bel i eveth not the Son shal l not see l i fe; but
the wrath of God abi deth on hi m (John 3:36).
Because we are born i n si n, ti me i s potenti al l y a
curse to us. Of course, through Gods grace ti me can
become a bl essi ng. But we are born i n si n, and
TIME 139
therefore ti me i s i nherentl y a curse, for even the
temporal bl essi ngs we recei ve become curses on us i n
retrospect after death, for the more bl essi ngs the cov-
enant-breaker has recei ved i n l i fe, the greater hi s
puni shment i n eterni ty. Tor unto whomsoever
much i s gi ven, of hi m shal l be much requi red: and to
whom men have commi tted much, of hi m they wi l l
ask the more (Luke 12 :48b). I t therefore requi res
Gods grace i n hi story to remove ti mes curse.
We are pri soners of ti me. Wobody gets out of l i fe
al i ve i s a cyni cal phrase that descri bes our pl i ght.
But pri soners can make good use of ti me. Joseph was
a pri soner i n Egypt, but God used thi s experi ence to
make hi m a rul er. Paul was a pri soner i n Romes
jai l s, but he wrote l etters from pri son that reshaped
the worl d. Ti me i s a burden, but i t can be used to
overcome the curse. Ti mes testi ng peri od can and
shoul d be used to demonstrate our covenantal fai th-
ful ness to God. The curse of ti me can become an op-
portuni ty to recei ve and share Gods bl essi ngs. I t
depends on how the pri soners of ti me serve thei r sen-
tences. I t depends on how they redeem the ti me.
Redeemed Ti me
To redeem somethi ng i s to buy i t back. Some-
thi ng was yours ori gi nal l y, but you l ost i t somehow.
Maybe i t was stol en. (I n the case of Adams rebel -
l i on, hi s i nheri tance and ours was gi ven up vol -
untari l y.) The possi bi l i ty may exi st that you can earn
enough to buy i t back. I f you cannot earn that much
on your own, then perhaps a fri end or rel ati ve wi l l
provi de you wi th the redempti on pri ce. I n the Ol d
la UNCONDITIONM SURRENDER
Testament, thi s cl ose rel ati ve was cal l ed the
ki nsman-redeemer (Levi ti cus 25:25). But he al so
served as the fami l y judge, the bl ood avenger: he
had the l egal authori ty to ki l l a person who had ki l l ed
hi s nearest of ki n (Deuteronomy 19:6).
Who i s the redeemer of hi story? Jesus Chri st.
How di d He redeem i t? By perfectl y obeyi ng Gods
l aw, and by personal l y beari ng the puni shment asso-
ci ated wi th covenant-breaki ng. Hi s l i fe was cove-
nantal : 1) the transcendent God-man i n whom the
fhl l ness of the Godhead was present (Col ossi ans
2:9); 2) the Son who went about Hi s Fathers busi -
ness (Luke 2:49) as Hi s Fathers authori zed repre-
sentati ve; 3) the One who di d Hi s Fathers wi l l
(John 6:38), and to whom therefore was del i vered
al l authori ty i n heaven and on earth (Matthew
28:18-20); 4) the Judge who was judged by God on
the cross; 5) and the Son who i nheri ts Gods ki ng-
dom: The ki ngdoms of thi s worl d are become the
ki ngdoms of our Lord, and of hi s Chri st; and he
shal l rei gn for ever and evefl (Revel ati on l l :15b). He
shal l then del i ver thi s i nheri tance back to God when
He perfi i ts i t: And when al l thi ngs shal l be subdued
unto hi m, then shal l the Son al so hi msel f be subject
unto hi m that put al l thi ngs under hi m, that God
may be al l i n al l (I Cori nthi ans 15:28).
Thi s redempti on of hi story has three phases: de-
fi ni ti ve, progressi ve, and fi nal . We can i denti fy
them: Chri sts resurrecti on, the work of the church
i n hi story, and the fi nal judgment at the end of cursed
ti me.
TIME 141
Definitive
Jesus was born perfect; He l i ved a perfect l i fe
through sufferi ng; He di ed on the cross; and then He
rose agai n i n vi ctory. He was defi ni ti vel y perfect,
progressi vel y perfect, and fi nal l y perfect. Though
he were [was] a Son, yet l earned he obedi ence by the
thi ngs whi ch he suffered; and bei ng made perfect, he
became the author of eternal sal vati on unto al l them
that obey hi m (Hebrews 5:8-9). He gave hi msel f as
a ransom i n order to create Hi s own speci al peopl e:
who gave hi msel f for us, that he mi ght redeem us
from al l i ni qui ty, and puri ~ unto hi msel f a pecul i ar
peopl e, zeal ous of good works (Ti tus 2:14).
The i deal of redempti on i s fai thful servi ce: And
whosoever wi l l be chi ef among you, l et hi m be your
servant: even as the Son of man came not to be mi n-
i stered unto, but to mi ni ster, and to gi ve hi s l i fe a
ransom for many (Matthew 20:27-28). Thi s pay-
ment of a ransom for many was Chri sts act of re-
dempti on. He bought us out of our former bondage
to the curse of the l aw: %l hri st bath redeemed us from
the curse of the l aw, bei ng made a curse for us: for i t
i s wri tten, Cursed i s every one that hangeth on a
tree (Gal ati ans 3:13).
Because He has bought Hi s peopl e out of bond-
age to the curses of the l aw, they are enabl ed to obey
the l aw and thereby gai n the promi sed /de.ssi ngs of the
l aw. Gods l aw can now gi ve us the basi s of the good
l i fe on earth, for Gods l aw i s a law unto lije for those
who are redeemed by grace: That whi ch i s al to-
gether just shal t thou fol l ow, that thou mayest l i ve,
142 uNcoWDmoNAL SURRENDER
and i nheri t the l and whi ch the LORD thy God gi veth
thee (Deuteronomy 16: 20). The l aw i s therefore the
basi s of twofol d judgment (cursi ng and bl essi ng): i t
ki l l s those who rel y on thei r own works to save them
(Remans 7:9), whi l e i t gi ves l i fe to those who trust i n
Chri st (Remans 8:1-4). Obedi ence to Gods l aw
gi ves us more ti me. Honour thy father and thy
mothe~ that thy days may be l ong upon the l and
whi ch the LORD thy God gi veth thee (Exodus
20:12).
Paul speaks of sal vati on as a waki ng from the
dead, a spi ri tual and covenantal resmwction. I t i s as i f
the redeemed person has been cal l ed back from the
grave, so that he can serve God and man, and there-
by exerci se domi ni on. Paul s words are qui te cl ear
on thi s poi nt: Wherefore he sai th, Awake thou that
sl eepest, and ari se from the dead, and Chri st shal l
gi ve thee l i ght. See then that ye wal k ci rcumspectl y,
not as fool s, but as wi se, redeemi ng the ti me, because
the days are evi l (Ephesi ans 5:14-16). We are sup-
posed to redeem the ti me. Thi s means that we must
buy buck the time. I n doi ng so, we bri ng ti me under the
control of God, not that He does not al ways have
control over ti me, but i n order that Gods control over
tim is man festidpublk~ through the r~hteous behavior of
His chosen representatives, Hi s covenant peopl e.
Adam was gi ven the grace of extended l i fe (ti me)
onl y because God l ooked forward i n ti me to Chri st,
who redeemed the process of ti me. Chri st served as
manki nds representati ve, payi ng the pri ce necessary
to redeem the ti me. Thi s defi ni ti ve payment serves
throughout hi story as the very foundati on of hi story,
nME 143
the payment i n ti me that has made ti me possi bl e.
God del ays Hi s fi nal judgment because of Chri sts
defmhi ve payment for ti me i n ti me.
Progressive
Ti me i s not merel y l i near; i t i s progressi ve. I t i s
not suffi ci ent to adopt modem sci ences vi ew of ti me
as l i near because the worl d i s runni ng down. The
prophesi ed heat death of the uni verse at the end of
ti me i s what the humani sti c sci enti st bel i eves wi l l put
an end to ti me. Thi s vi ew of ti me i s i ncorrect. To see
ti me as l i near wi thout progress toward Gods fi nal
judgment i s to vi ew ti me as i mpersomd. I n such a vi ew
of hktory, the works of man wi l l i nevi tabl y be
swal l owed up by the i mpersonal and therefore
meani ngl ess processes of ti me ti me commi tti ng
sui ci de, and takkg everytMng wi th i t.
Chri sts defi ni ti ve payment at Cal vary defi ni -
ti vel y rel eased ti me fkom bondage. From the ti me of
Hi s resurrecti on, the process of ti me has been pro-
gressi vel y rel eased from the bondage of si n. How?
Through the Hol y Spi l t-i nspi red covenantal fai th-
ful ness of Gods redeemed peopl e, and through
Gods fai thful rewardi ng of thei r fai thfi dness. Thu
process of rewards produces favorabl e changes i n
mans envi ronment. Just as nature was cursed when
Adam fel l and was cursed agai n i n the great fl ood as
a resul t of mti l nds i ntol erabl e evi l , so have
natures external threats to manki nd been progres-
si vel y reduced when men have become progressi vel y
obedi ent to the external requi rements of Gods l aw.
Thi s process of cosmi c transformati on wi l l ac-
la UNCONDITIONAL SURRSNDSR
cel erate i n response to the spread of the gospel .
Mans geneti c code wi l l eventual l y be heal ed, so that
there wi l l be no more mi scarri ages; thi s same prom-
i se appl i es even to hi s domesti cated ani mal s (Exodus
23:26). Si ckness wi l l be removed (Exodus 23:25).
These bl essi ngs were avai l abl e to the I srael i tes, but
they fai l ed to obey Gods l aw. These bl essi ngs are
sti l l avai l abl e to us. I sai ah promi sed that mans l i fe
expectancy wi l l someday i ncrease: There shal l be
no more thence an i nfant of days, nor an ol d man
that bath not fi l l ed hi s days: for the chi l d shal l di e an
hundred years ol d; but the si nner bei ng an hundred
years ol d shal l be accursed (I sai ah 65:20). Ti mes
threat wi l l therefore be reduced. Thi s future era wi l l
represent a return to the I i fespans of men before the
great fl ood. So great wi l l be the vi si bl e and bi ol ogi cal
bl essi ngs of God that i t wi l l be a fi .mdamental trans-
formati on of the way our worl d presentl y works.
And i t wi l l come speci fi cal l y i n response to the ethi -
cal transformati on of the great porti on of manki nd:
And i t shal l come to pass, that before they cal l , I wi l l
answer; and whi l e they are yet speaki ng, I wi l l hear
(V. 24).
Noti ce that I sai ah was not speaki ng about the
worl d beyond the grave and after the fi nal judgment,
for si nners wi l l sti l l be operati ng i n the fhtur e peri od
of hi story descri bed by the prophet. He was speaki ng
about a peri od of ti me cal l ed the new heawns and
new eati h: For, behol d, I create new heavens and a
new earth (v. 17a). Obvi ousl y, thi s cannot possi bl y
refer to a peri od beyond the fi nal resurrecti on, for
there wi l l be no si nners among us then. They wi l l al l
TIME 145
be i n the l ake of fi re, al ong wi th Satan and hi s
angel i c host (Revel ati on 20:14-15). Therefore, the
new heavens and new earth must begin before Christ
comes again in~nal~ud-t. Some theol ogi ans bel i eve
that thi s peri od defi ni ti vel y began wi th Chri sts res-
urrecti on; others bel i eve that i t began wi th the fhl l of
Jerusal em and the destructi on of the Templ e i n A.D.
70; sti l l others bel i eve that i t wi l l begi n i n some
future mi l l enni al era when Jesus wi l l be rei gni ng
physi cal l y from Jerusal em. But one thi ng i s certai n:
this period of astounding lt~e expectan~ and increased spiri-
tual wisdom will take place dunng histo~, before thejnai
j@ment. To argue anythi ng el se i s to deny the l i teral
words of the prophecy of I sai ah.
I f some theol ogi an does deny thei r l i teral i nter-
pretati on (out of necessi ty to save hi s own i nterpreta-
ti on of Bi bl e prophecy), then what sense does any of
I sai ahs prophecy make? I f those peopl e who di e at
age one hundred are goi ng to be cal l ed chi l dren,
then what sense can thi s prophecy make i f ol d peopl e
real l y and trul y wi l l be dyi ng at age 75 or 80, the way
they do now, and di d i n I sai ahs day, and di d al so i n
Moses day (Psal m 90:10)? A l i teral i nterpretati on of
these words cannot l egi ti matel y be deni ed or spi ri -
tual i zed away, meani ng al l egori zed away, and sti l l
al l ow us to make sense of thi s prophecy.
(I t shoul d be cl ear why i t i s that thi s detai l ed and
obvi ousl y l i teral prophecy, above al l other passages
i n the Bi bl e, poses the greatest probl ems for ami l l en-
ni al i sts, who deny the comi ng of any peri od of l i teral
worl dwi de bl essi ngs i n response to the worl dwi de
success of the gospel . I t i s al so cl ear why they have
148 uNcoNDrrloNAL SURRENDER
taken the safe approach: they sel dom menti on I sai ah
65:17-25 and never devote so much as a paragraph to
expl ai n i t, no matter how l ong the parti cul ar ami l -
l enni al theol ogi ans book i s. The best exampl e of thi s
systemati cal l y dead si l ence i s a book by the ami l l en-
ni al schol ar, Archi bal d Hughes. There are onl y two
references to I sai ah 65:17-25 i n the books i ndex, and
one of them does not actual l y appear i n the text
where referenced, and I cannot fi nd i t anywhere i n
the book. He devotes not a si ngl e sentence excl u-
si vel y to thi s prophecy, yet hi s book of over 200
pages i s ti tl ed, A Nm Heaven and a NW Earth. Can
you i magi ne a book wi th tki s ti tl e that refi ses to
comment on the one passage i n the Ol d Testament
that uses thi s phrase, and one of onl y three pl aces
where i t appears i n the whol e Bi bl e? You can al ways
spot the weakest l i nk of any system of Bi bl e i nterpre-
tati on: i t wi l l be that obvi ous probl em passage that
the systems most schol arl y defenders refuse to men-
ti on i n pri nt.)
Gods covenant peopl e can and must grow ri cher
and more powerfi d when they remai n fai thful to God
by progressi vel y obeyi ng Hi s l aw. There i s no escape
from these external bl essi ngs. They wi l l overtake
covenant-keepers, even as a fast runner overtakes a
sl ow wal ker. And al l these bl essi ngs shal l come upon
thee, and overtake thee, i f thou shal t hearken unto
the voi ce of the LORD thy God (Deuteronomy 28:2).
Thi s fai th i n the cause-and-effect rel ati onshi p be-
tween external covenantal fai thful ness and external
covenantal bl essi ngs became the foundati on of the
i dea of l ong-term, cumul ati ve economi c growth, an
TI ME 147
i dea forei gn to al l pagan soci eti es before the advent
of Chri sti ani ty.
These bl essi ngs must become vi si bl e i n hi story
i n order to serve as a wi tness to covenant-breaki ng
nati ons: The LORD shal l command the bl essi ng
upon thee i n thy storehouses, and i n al l that thou set-
test thi ne hand unto; and he shal l bl ess thee i n the
l and whi ch the LORD thy God gi veth thee. The LORD
shal l establ i sh thee an hol y peopl e unto hi msel f, as
he bath sworn unto thee, i f thou shal t keep the com-
mandments of the LORD thy God, and wal k i n hi s
ways. And al l the peopl e of the earth shal l see that
thou art cal l ed by the name of the LORD; and they
shal l be afrai d of thee (Deuteronomy 28:8-10). (Thi s
i s what al l ami l l enni al i sts and al l consi stent premi .l -
l enni al i sts deny wi l l ever happen i n hi story before
Chri sts second comi ng. They deny the vi si bl e mani -
festati ons of progressi ve covenantal success i n the
l i ves of covenant-keepi ng men and soci eti es that
mani fest thei r progressi ve ethi cal sancti fi cati on.
These pessi mi l l enni al i sts sel f-consci ousl y l i mi t pro-
gressi ve sancti fi cati on to the hearts of i ndi vi dual s
and to the i nsti tuti onal church, whi ch they argue wi l l
grow progressi vel y weaker and l ess i nfl uenti al as hi s-
tory devel ops a vi si bl e testi mony to the fai l ure of
the gospel of Jesus Chri st to transform cul ture.)
What Chri sti ans must understand and acknowl -
edge i s that i i i sto~ i s covenantul. I t bears the mark of
Gods covenantal bl essi ngs and covenantal cursi ngs.
Hi story i s not a random, mysteri ous process whose
ethi cal cause-and-effect rel ati onshi ps peopl e cannot
see or understand. I f the events of hi story were ethi -
tal l y random, i t woul d not testi fy of the covenantal
God of the Bi bl e to covenant-breakers. But the
events of hi story do test% to Gods covenant, and
they are a testi mony. Moses announced to the gener-
ati on that was about to conquer Canaan: Behol d, I
have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the
LORD my God commanded me, that ye shoul d do so
i n the l and whi ther ye go to possess i t. Keep there-
fore and do them; for thi s i s your wi sdom and your
understandi ng i n the si ght of the nati ons, whi ch shal l
hear al l these statutes, and say, Surel y thi s great na-
ti on i s a wi se and understandi ng peopl e. For what
nati on i s there so great, who bath God so ni gh unto
them, as the LORD our God i s i n al l thi ngs that we
cal l upon hi m for? And what nati on i s there so great,
that bath statutes and judgments so ri ghteous as al l
thi s l aw, whi ch I set before you thi s day? (Deuteron-
omy 4:5-8).
Covenantal hi story the onl y hi story there i s or
ever can be i s marked by a process of ~owl i oe~eed-
baek, of progressi ve bl essi ngs that are desi gned to re-
i nforce mens fai th i n the rel i abi l i ty of Gods cove-
nant. God gi ves i ncreasi ng weal th to obedi ent peopl e
as a vtiible testimony to His covenant. But thou shal t re-
member the LORD thy God: for i t i s he that gi veth
thee power to get weal th, that he may establ i sh hi s
covenant whi ch he swar e unto thy fathers, as i t i s
thi s day (Deuteronomy 8:18). The words that he
may establ i sh hi s covenant are cruci al . We are
gi ven the power to get weal th as a means of testi fyi ng
to the positive sanctions of Gods covenant. Long-term
poverty, generati on after generati on, i s therefore a
TI ME 149
testi mony to the negatiue sanctions of Gods covenant,
to curses rather than bl essi ngs.
God i s merci fi -d to Hi s peopl e. He showers them
wi th bl essi ngs. Thi s means that they can enjoy
cumul ati ve growth by means of a process of l ong-
term i nheri tance. God says that He shows mercy to
thousands of those who l ove Hi m and keep Hi s com-
mandments (Exodus 20: 6). Commentators know
that thi s cannot refer to thousands of peopl e; i t must
mean thousands of generati ons. Thi s i s a powerful way
of sayi ng that Gods ki ngdom grows cumul ati vel y, i n
contrast to Satans earthl y ki ngdoms that onl y pros-
per for a few generati ons (Exodus 20:5). Long-term
compound growth eventual l y produces exponenti al
growth, no matter how smal l the growth rate i s.
Final
The fi nal mani festati on of Gods redempti on of
hi story i s reveal ed at the fi nal judgment. Paul s fi rst
l etter to the Cori nthi ans, chapter 15, i s the great bi b-
l i cal passage regardi ng thk fi nal redempti on. Then
cometh the end, when he shal l have del i vered up the
ki ngdom to God, even the Father; when he shal l
have put down al l rul e and al l authori ty and power.
For he must rei gn, ti l l he bath put al l enemi es under
hi s feet. The l ast enemy that shal l be destroyed i s
death (I Cori nthi ans 15:24-26). When temporal
death i s at l ast destroyed by the eternal second death
of fi nal judgment (Revel ati on 20:14), the curse of
ti me i s l i fted forever from covenant-keepers. We eat
eternal l y of the true tree of l i fe, Jesus Chri st, whi ch
the hi stori c tree i n the garden and the tree i n the
1~ UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
resurrected new heavens and new earth merel y
symbol i ze. Obvi ousl y, i t i s Jesus Chri st who i s the
true heal er of the nati ons, not si mpl y the l eaves of a
l i teral tree (Revel ati on 22:2).
Chri sts parabl e of the wheat and tares descri bes
Gods process of ethi cal separati on, whi ch ends wi th
the fi nal judgment. Hi story i s a conti nui ty that ends
wi th a great di sconti nui ty, whi ch comes fi -om outside
hzltory and whi ch transforms and therefore ends cursed
hi story. A man pl ants wheat i n a fi el d, whi ch Chri st
l ater pri vatel y tol d Hi s di sci pl es symbol i zed the
whol e worl d: The fi el d i s the worl d (Matthew
13:38a). That ni ght, an enemy (the devi l : v. 39)
pl ants si mi l ar l ooki ng tares, or weeds (the cove-
nantal chi l dren of Satan: v. 38). (A weed i s an un-
wanted pl ant, just as a si de-effect i s an unwanted
effect.) The two crops spri ng up together. The ser-
vants ask the owner of the fi el d (Jesus: v. 37) i f they
shoul d tear out the weeds. No, he says, l est whi l e ye
gather up the tares, ye root up al so the wheat wi th
them. Let both grow together unti l the harvest: and
i n the ti me of the harvest I wi l l say to the reapers,
Gather ye together fi rst the tares, and bi nd them i n
bundl es to burn them: but gather the wheat i nto my
barn (Matthew 13:29-30).
The reapers are the angel s (v. 39). They are the
ones who bri ng fi nal judgment at the end of hi story.
Both wheat and tares grow up i n the fi el d unti l the
end. There i s to be no premature removal of the
tares fmm the wheat, for the sake of the fi el d; there i s
surel y to be no premature removal of the wheat fkom
the tares. The fi el d (the worl d) bel ongs to the wheat
m 151
(the covenantal chi l dren of God: v. 38). Gods chi l -
dren are not to be removed i n hi story from the prop-
erty that i s thei rs by redempti on. At no he i n hi sto~
wi l l the weeds be Left alone in charge of thejeld. I nstead,
there i s continui~ i n the operati ons of the worl d, both
for wheat and weeds. The parabl e i s qui te cl ear
about thi s. The angel s come to separate the saved
from the l ost onl y at the l ast day.
(I t shoul d be cl ear why i t i s that thi s passage,
above al l other passages i n the Bi bl e, poses the great-
est probl ems for premi l l enni al i sts. I t deni es the key
doctri ne of premi l l enni al i sm: the comi ng dzicontinuity
in the midst of histo~ that supposedl y wi l l be produced
by the Rapture of the Chri sti ans i nto heaven, an
event that wi l l l eave covenant-breakers i n charge of
the worl d for some peri od of ti me. Thus, i f we take
thi s parabl e seri ousl y, the di sconti nui ty of Chri st?s
physi cal return whi ch no orthodox, Bi bl e-bel i evi ng
Chri sti an shoul d ever denymust come at the end
of ti me at thjnal judgment, not i n the mi dst of the
process of hi story. That di sconti nui ty wi l l end cursed
hi story, not di vi de cursed hi story. Premi l l enni al i sts
al most never comment on thk parabl e. As I sai d be-
fore, you can al ways spot the weakest l i nk of any sys-
tem of Bi bl e i nterpretati on: i t wi l l be that obvi ous
probl em passage that the systems most schol arl y de-
fenders refuse to menti on i n pri nt.)
What shoul d we concl ude about the redempti on
of hi story? Fi rst, that hi story was defi ni ti vel y
redeemed i n pri nci pl e by the l i fe, death, resurrec-
ti on, and ascensi on of Jesus Chrkt. Thk took pl ace
i n the mi dst of hi story. Nothi ng el se wi l l ever take
152 uNcoNDmoNAL SURRENDER
pl ace i n the mi dst of hi story to match thi s di sconti n-
ui ty, the di sconti nui ty of death and resurrecti on, of
death i nto l i fe. Thi s event i s the touchstone of Chri s-
ti ani ty: And i f Chri st be not ri sen, then i s our
preachi ng vai n, and your fai th i s al so vai n (I Cori n-
thi ans 15:14). Thi s was the greatest di sconti nui ty i n
hi story greater than the fal l of man i n Adam,
greater than Noahs fl ood. Li fe i nto death i s not
nearl y the di sconti nui ty that death i nto l i fe i s. Noth-
i ng ever happened before thi s or shal l ever happen i n
the future to match thi s di sconti nui ty, the di sconti n-
ui ty of Chri sts i ncarnati on, God wi th us.
After Hi s ascensi on to the throne of God, He
sent the Hol y Spi ri t to i naugurate the conti nui ~ ofpro-
gwssiue uictoy in history for Hi s covenant peopl e. To
deny thi s conti nui ty of vi ctory i s i mpl i ci tl y to deny
the power of Gods Hol y Spi ri t i n hi story and al so to
deny the cul ture-transformi ng power of Gods l aw
when the Hol y Spi ri t empowers covenant-keepers to
obey i t progressi vel y.
Representati ve Ti me
Al l human government i s representati ve (poi nt
two of Gods covenant: hi erarchy). Both God and
Satan exerci se thei r power i n hi story through human
representati ves: covenant-keepers represent God,
and covenant-breakers represent Satan. Nei ther
God nor Satan needs to be present physi cal l y on
earth after Chri sts ascensi on i n order for hi story to
be ei ther satani c or godl y. Thi s means that no Chri s-
ti an real l y bel i eves that Satan i s al i ve and wel l on
pl anet eartl q except r e@esentuti ve@ Bi bl e commen-
TIME 153
tators say that Satan i s represented by the beast
and the anti chri st , but they dont teach that Satan
actual l y operates from a secret hi de-out on earth.
Thi s i s a very i mportant poi nt. Chri sti ans who
say that Bi bl e prophecy teaches that satani c rel i gi on
wi l l i nevi tabl y tri umph i n hi story over the church
premi l l enni al i st and ami l l enni al i sts never argue
that Satan needs to be bodi l y present on earth,
rei gni ng from some central l ocati on, i n order for
Satans vi ctory to be a true vi ctory. They ful l y under-
stand that Satans vi ctory i n hi story i s a reprewntati ~e
victory.
What i s curi ous i s that premi l l enni al i st i nsi st
that Jesus Chri st must be bodi l y present on earth,
rei gni ng from Jerusal em, i n order for Hi s vi ctory
duri ng the future mi l l enni um to be a true vi ctory.
They readi l y admi t that Satans government can be
and i s both representati ve and vi ctori ous i n hi story
before Chri st% second comi ng, but then they argue
that Gods government cannot be si mul taneousl y
representati ve and vi ctori ous i n hi story (the Church
Age). They are therefore i mpl i ci tl y argui ng that
Satan has a major advantage over God in histq despite
Christ3 resurrection and Godk sending of the Holy Spirit:
when hi s God-hati ng representati ves are fai thfi .d to
hi m i n hi story, they wi n; when Gods representati ves
are fai thfi d to Hi m i n hi story, they l ose. Thk i s a
very strange vi ew of the hi stori cal power of Chri sts
resurrecti on and the power of the Hol y Spi ri t.
Hi story i s i nescapabl y representati ve. Therefore,
i f Bi bl e prophecy real l y teaches that Satans human
di sci pl es are i nevi tabl y goi ng to exerci se progressi ve
1s4 uNcoNDlnoNAL SumEmER
domi ni on over the church of Jesus Chri st i n hi story,
then Satan must be the true god of hi story. Satans
hi stori cal vi ctory over the church woul d have totes-
~ to hi s conti nui ng exerci se of hi s God-acknowl -
edged authori ty i n the New Testament era, despi te
Chri sts redempti on and inheritance of the ki ngdom
through Hi s death and resurrecti on.
To deny ti i s obvi ous concl usi on, a person woul d
al so have to deny that the church of Jesus Chri st i s
the onl y true representati ve of God i n heaven and
earth after the resurrecti on and ascensi on of Chri st,
who al one i s the l awftd I nheri tor of the ki ngdom of
God. He woul d have to deny that Chri st transferred
thi s ki ngdom i nheri tance to Hi s church, the new na-
ti on of God: Therefore say I unto you, The ki ng-
dom of God shal l be taken fi wm you, and gi ven to a
nati on bri ngi ng forth the frui ts thereof (Matthew
21:43). He woul d i mpl i ci tl y have to deny that Gods
earthl y ki ngdom i nheri tance i s sure. Thi s rai ses a
fri ghteni ng prospect: i f the church cannot trust i n
the God-guaranteed permanence of i ts earthl y ki ng-
dom i nheri tance, then how can the i ndi vi dual Chri s-
ti an trust i n the God-guaranteed permanence of hi s
eternal ki ngdom i nheri tance?
On the other hand, i f Gods representati ves are
i nevi tabl y goi ng to exerci se domi ni on i n hi story
because of thei r progressi ve conformi ty to Chri st,
then God i s the true God of hi story. As Chri sti ans
are empowered by the Hol y Spi ri t to obey Gods r e-
veal ed l aw, then the bl essi ngs of God wi l l i nevi tabl y
overtake them. Covenant-keepers wi l l necessanZy
grow more i nfl uenti al i n hi story, whi l e covenant-
TIME 15s
breakers wi l l necesxwi ~ grow l ess i nfl uenti al . The
earthl y di sci pl es ofJesus Chri st wi l l necessati @ experi -
ence the hi stori cal conti nui ty of domi ni on vi ctory.
God wi l l demonstrate Hi s control ou~ hi story by Hi s
vi ctory i n hi story, through Hi s earthl y representa-
ti ves, the eternal l y redeemed members of Hi s cal l ed-
out assembl y (ekkksi a), Hi s church.
I t i s ti me to cease hal ti ng between these two
opi ni ons. I t al so i s ti me to cease coveri ng up or mud-
dl i ng the i mpl i cati ons for hi story of these ri val theo-
l ogi cal opi ni ons. Who i s the true God of hi story?
Who redeems ti me? Who i s the true Redeemer?
Whi ch versi on of domi ni on theol ogy wi l l Chri sti ans
choose? They must choose one or the other. Not to
choose one i s automati cal l y to choose the other.
Concl usi on
Chri st summari zed the nature of Hi s work i n hi s-
tory-defi ni ti ve, progressi ve, and &MI i n terms of
Gods fi ve-poi nt covenant structure: Tor I came
down from heaven, not to do mi ne own wi l l , but the
wi l l of hi m that sent me. And thi s i s the Fatheds wi l l
whi ch bath sent me, that of al l whi ch he bath gi ven
me I shoul d l ose nothi ng, but shoul d rai se i t up
agai n at the l ast day. And thi s i s the wi l l of hi m that
sent me, that every one whi ch seeth the Son, and be-
l i eveth on hi m, may have everl asti ng l i fe: and I wi l l
rai se hi m up at the l ast day (John 6:38-40). Thi s
passage teaches that the fi ve poi nts of Gods cove-
nant are vi si bl e i n the mi ni stry of Jesus Chri st: 1)
transcendent God i s present wi th us i n Jesus Chri st, for
He 2) came down to us i n order to subordinate Him.sey
156 uNcoNomoNAL suRmNDER
3) to do the wi l l of Hi s Father i n true obedi ence. He i s
the perfect steward of Hi s Father% househol d, so 4)
He shall lose nothing and no one given to Him in iuktory. At
the l ast day, 5) al l those who have been gi ven to Hi m
wi l l be rai sed up to thei r l awfi .d inheritance. Chri st i s
therefore the true mani festati on of Gods fi ve-poi nt
covenant: transcendent yet present, hi erarchi cal
under God, ethi cal l y doi ng Gods wi l l , judi ci al l y
rai si ng up Hi s peopl e, and the one who di stri butes
the i nheri tance of eternal l i fe. He redeems the ti me.
So do Hi s covenant peopl e.
Hi story di spl ays both conti nui ty and di sconti nu-
i ty. The great di sconti nui ty i n hi story was the
I ncarnati on of Jesus Chri st, and Hi s death, resur-
recti on, and ascensi on to heaven. God took human-
i ty on Hi s own person and came to dwel l among us.
Nothi ng el se matches thi s i ncomprehensi bl e di scon-
ti nui ty not the rebel l i on of Adam, not Noahs
fl ood, not the creati on of I srael , not the casti ng off of
I srael , not the future regdti ng i n of I srael , not the
future era of mi l l enni al bl essi ngs, and not even the
fi nal judgment. After al l , there coul d have been a fi -
nal judgment wi thout the I ncarnati on: the wel l -
deserved deaths of Adam, Eve, and Satan. The I n-
carnati on made possi bl e the great di sconti nui ty i n
each Chri sti ans l i fe, the di sconti nuous transforma-
ti on from death to l i fe.
What about conti nui ty? The great conti nui ty i n
hi story i s the reveal ed word of God. Heaven and
earth shal l pass away, Jesus sai d, but not Hi s word
(Matthew 24:35). God spoke, and out of nothi ng
sprang creati on. Let there be, He sai d repeatedl y,
TI ME 157
and each ti me there was. He rul es the cosmos i n
terms of Hi s reveal ed word. Furthermore, Hi s Son i s
the very Word of God, the di vi ne l ogos (John 1:1),
the Creator (John 1:3), the One who i s the i mage of
the i nvi si bl e God, the fi rstborn of every creature.
For by hi m were al l thi ngs created, that are i n
heaven, and that are i n earth, vi si bl e and i nvi si bl e,
whether they be thrones, or domi ni ons, or pri nci pal -
i ti es, or powers: al l thi ngs were created by hi m, and
for hi m. And he i s before al l thi ngs, and by hi m al l
thi ngs consi st (Col ossi ans 1:15-17). The Second Per-
son of the Tri ni ty provi denti al l y and personal l y
hol ds together the cosmos, sustai ni ng i t, moment by
moment. I n short, Gods personal Word, Jesus
Chri st, i s the basi s of hi stori cal conti nui ty. He gov-
erns hi story i n terms of ethi cal cause and effect, ethi -
cal pri nci pl es that are reveal ed cl earl y o@ i n the
Bi bl e.
The Bi bl e teaches discontinuity: i n Adams si n and
al so i n Chri sts death and resurrecti on. The Bi bl e
al so teaches continui~: i n the progressi ve vi ctory of
covenant-keepers over covenant-breakers. Gods l aw
i s more powerful than mans l aw. The Hol y Spi ri t i s
more powerful than rebel l i ous mans unhol y spi ri t.
Thus, hi story i s progressi vel y redeemed. Hi story
progressi vel y mani fests the ful fi l l ment of Ephesi ans
5:14-16: Wherefore he sai th, Awake thou that
sl eepest, and ari se from the dead, and Chri st shal l
gi ve thee l i ght. See then that ye wal k ci rcumspectl y,
not as fool s, but as wise, redeemi ng the ti me,
because the days are evi l . Unti l Chri st comes i n
fi nal judgment, there wi l l al ways be evi l days, but
I sa uti coNDmoNAl . SURRENDER
they wi l l be progressi vel y i mproved by the trans-
formi ng power of the gospel and the Hol y Spi ri t.
Jesus Chri st defi ni ti vel y bought back the ti me at
Cal vary; He progressi vel y buys i t back through the
work of Hi s covenant peopl e, as gui ded by the Hol y
Spi ri t. He wi l l fi nal l y buy i t back at judgment day.
To deny thi s bi bl i cal truth concerni ng the work
of Chri st i n hi story i s to deny the transformi ng
power of the gospel of Jesus Chri st i n hi story. To
deny thi s i s al so to deny the power of the Hol y Spi ri t
i n hi story. I t i s to af6rm that the effects of Adams
transgressi on are more powerfi d throughout hi story
than the effects of Chri st% resurrecti on. I t i s there-
fore to affi rm the domi ni on power of Satan and hi s
earthl y fol l owers i n hi story. I n short, dominion is an
inescapable concept. I t i s never a questi on of domi ni on
vs. no domi ni on. I t i s al ways a questi on of whose do-
mi ni on. There no escape from domi ni on theol ogy.
The fai thfi d reader must seek bi bl i cal answers to
these questi ons: Who i s the god of domi ni on (thos)
i n my theol ogy of ti me: God or Satan, God or sel f-
procl ai med autonomous man? Who announces the
true terms of uncondi ti onal surrender i n hi story:
God or Satan, God or sel f-procl ai med autonomous
man? Who i s gi ven l awfi d authori ty i n hi story to
announce the terms of uncondi ti onal surrender,
covenant-keepers or covenant-breakers? Who are
the representati ves of the god who exerci ses sover-
ei gn authori ty i n hi story, Satans fol l owers or Jesus
Chri sts fol l owers?
Chri sti ans must not repeat the error of remai n-
i ng si l ent i n the ti me remai ni ng before God di spl ays
TIME 1s9
Hi s fi ery judgment. That i s what the Hebrews of
El i jahs day di d. Chri sti ans must ask themsel ves
El i jahs questi on and then answer i t covenantal l y:
How l ong hal t ye between two opi ni ons? I f the
LORD be God, fol l ow hi m: but i f Baal , then fol -
l ow hi m. And the peopl e answered hi m not a word
(I Ki ngs 18:21). How l ong wi l l the church of Jesus
Chri st hal t between two opi ni ons? I f God i s the God
of hi story, then fol l ow Hi m. But i f Satan (repre-
sented these days by sel f-procl ai med autonomous
man), then fol l ow hi m. And i f you choose God as the
God of hi story, then stop preachi ng that Gods repre-
sentati ves are i nevi tabl y goi ng to be l osers i n hi story.
SUMMARY OF PART I
Are you ready for that exami nati on of What i s a
Chri sti an soci ety? I sai d i n the i ntroducti on that
three questi ons are the most i mportant ones when
you start to exami ne a soci ety: 1) What i s i ts vi ew of
God? 2) What i s i ts vi ew of man? 3) What i s i ts vi ew
of l aw?
Fi rst, the Chri sti an vi ew of God i s the cruci al
i ssue. God i s a Tri ni ty, three Persons, yet one Bei ng,
i n fel l owshi p, yet acti ng as one Person. Thi s God i s
therefore one and many, at the same ti me, and beyond
ti me. God i s both uni ty and parti cul ari ty. Thi s God
i s the Creator of the uni verse. Al l the uni verse was
created out of nothi ng i n response to Hi s word. No
part of thi s uni verse shares any of Gods bei ng.
Chri sti ani ty afhr r ns the Creator-creature distinction:
God i s fundamental l y di fferent from the uni verse.
The uni verse i s hel d together by God through Hi s
provi denti al admi ni strati on. The uni verse cannot be
i mpersonal , for i t rests whol l y on God, a personal
bei ng. Chri sti ani ty therefore affi rms cosrntc @rsonal -
162 uNeoNDlnoNAL SURRENDER
i wn. There are no i ndependent forces dkecti ng the
creati on, forces that are above God or apart from
God. Everythi ng that happens has meani ng, for the
pl an of God governs al l hi story. The uni verse has a
foundati on i n the pl an of God. God knows every-
thi ng exhausti vel y. He control s everythi ng com-
pl etel y. There i s no zone of neutral i ty i n the uni -
verse, no zone of autonomy (i ndependence), no cos-
mi c WI @ X from God and Hi s provi denti al ad-
mi ni strati on. Al l si n i s personal , for i t i s al ways re-
bel l i on agai nst a personal Bei ng by a creature.
There i s not a si ngl e shred of chance i n the uni verse,
no sort of cosmi c mi ght have been, no area of ex-
i stence unknown to God. God i s absol utel y sover-
ei gn over the uni verse because He created i t and
presentl y sustai ns i t. The i i rst chapter of Genesi s
and chapters 38 through 41 of the Book of Job tel l us
about the creati ve acts of God and Hi s compl ete
authori ty over al l creati on. So does the ni nth chapter
of Paul s l etter to the Remans.
Second, the Chri sti an has a uni que vi ew of man.
Man was created i n the i mage of God. He was
created to bri ng Gods l aw over the creati on. Man
was created as Gods personal representati ve on
earth. Mans task i s to subdue the earth, and thi s do-
mi ni on assi gnment (or domi ni on covenant) was re-
peated to Noah after the worl dwi de fl ood (Genesi s
9:1-7). Man cannot escape thi s assi gnment except i n
hel l and subsequentl y i n the l ake of fi re. l % cl oser a
man or a soaety conforms itse~ to the revealed standarh of
biblical law, the more that man or that society will come
to jidjilling the terms of Godk assz~ment to man. Thi s
suMubRYoPPARTl 163
assi gnment i s both personal and col l ecti ve, and men
both as i ndi vi dual s and as col l ecti ves are hel d
responsi bl e for fi di i l l i ng thi s assi gnment.
Man, however, i s a rebel . He fel l ethi cal l y when
he defi ed Gods l aw and ate of the tree of the knowl -
edge of good and evi l . He wanted i nstant i l l umi na-
ti on, i nstant knowl edge, i nstant authori ty to deter-
mi ne good and evi l . God threw hi m out of the garden
of Eden, al ong wi th hi s wi fe, who had been gi ven to
hi m as a hel per. They were cursed physi cal l y, as was
the earth i tsel f. Thi s curse was to make the ful fi l l -
ment of the domi ni on assi gnment much more di ffi -
cul t, and yet i t al so made ful fi l l ment possi bl e, for the
curse of economi c scarci ty now forces hosti l e men to
cooperate wi th each other for the sake of greater pro-
ducti vi ty and greater personal i ncome. The di vi si on
of l abor pri nci pl e i ncreases everyones output when
men cooperate vol untari l y, rather than use force to
conquer and destroy each other. Man i s sti l l the
i mage of God, but thi s i mage i s twi sted ethi cal l y so
that man refuses to acknowl edge Gods authori ty
over hi m, and he chooses i nstead to worshi p crea-
tures rather than the Creator. Man i s therefore
bound for eternal destructi on, unl ess God i ntervenes
and bri ngs i ndi vi dual men to fai th i n Jesus Chri st,
Gods sacri fi ci al I amb, Gods hi gh pri est, and Gods
Son, the Ki ng and sustai ner of creati on.
Men cannot escape the domi ni on assi gnment,
but they work out thei r sal vati ons or damnati on as
subordi nates to God. Some men bel i eve they arent
subordi nate to God, and so they become sl aves of
Satan, the fal l en angel . Si nce the cross, each ki ng-
164 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
dom struggl es for vi ctory, but Chri sts kkgdom i s
assured of vi ctory, whereas Satans i s guaranteed
fi nal defeat.
As the terms of the domi ni on assi gnment are
progressi vel y fi dfi l l ed by Gods subordi nates, the
Chri sti ans, the creati on wi l l be progressi vel y
restored. The curse on the ground wi l l be progres-
si vel y l i fted, just as the curse on man wi l l be progres-
si vel y l i fted. But there wi l l never be perfecti on on
earth as l ong as there i s si n, and there wi l l be si n un-
ti l the fi nal judgment.
Man therefore cannot save hi msel f. God saves
man by Hi s grace, through mans fai th i n Chri st, the
onl y atonement sati sfactory to God. Man i s not saved
through hi s own l aw-keepi ng. Man i s not saved
through the abol i ti on of l aw. Man i s not saved by
revol uti on. Man i s saved by God, by means of
Chri sts l aw-keepi ng, i mputed and i mparted to man
by grace, through personal fai th i n Jesus Chri st.
God has chosen those He wi l l save before the foun-
dati on of the worl d (Remans 9; Ephesi ans 1).
Thi rd, there i s Zuw. Law i ncl udes the God-
i mposed and God-sustai ned regul ari ti es of the uni -
verse. I t al so i ncl udes the moral l aw, under whi ch
man operates, and i n terms of whi ch man i s judged.
Thi s al so i ncl udes the l aws of mans i nsti tuti ons, for
whi ch men i n groups are hel d responsi bl e. Bl essi ngs
and cursi ngs are i mposed i n terms of Gods l aw. Law
i s a tool of domi ni on. I t serves to restrai n the evi l i n
men (consci ence) as wel l as the vi si bl e evi l s among
men (judi ci al enforcement). Laws areas of human
operati on can be summari zed: moral , judi ci al , do-
SUMMARY OF PART I 165
mi ni cal . Man i s si mul taneousl y under Gods moral
l aw, under judi ci al l aw, and over the creati on by
means of domi ni cal l aw. Man i s responsi bl e to God
for the proper exerci se of the l aw. He i s si muhan-
eousl y subordi nate and domi neeri ng. He i s sup-
posed to be subordi nate to God and above the crea-
ti on, but because of mans rebel l i on, he subordinates
himself to the creation and re~ek against God. Rebel l i ous
man reverses the order of creati on, bei ng domi neer-
i ng where he shoul d be subordi nate and vi ce versa.
The l aw has not been abol i shed, abrogated, or
annul l ed by Jesus Chri st. Some of the Ol d Testa-
ments ceremoni al l aws are ful fi l l ed i n Chri st, for
they were shadows, whi l e He i s the foreshadowed
real i ty. The pri nci pl es of l aw are unchangi ng, for
they refl ect the character of God, who i s unchang-
i ng. The appl i cati ons of a l aw may change, as the
hi stori cal ci rcumstances change. But i f a l aw hasnt
been speci fi cal l y al tered i n appl i cati on by Gods rev-
el ati on, i t i s sti l l i n effect.
Gods sacri fi ce of Hi s Son on the cross serves as
mans substi tute. Chri st ful fi l l ed the l aw and i s there-
fore spotl ess, a sacri fi ce wi thout a bl emi sh. Thi s i s
what God requi res to sati s~ Hi s own hol i ness.
Nothi ng l ess wi l l suffi ce. So Chri sti ans have been
O!eliveredj?om the curse of the kzw, but they are still under
th terms of the law, Gods peace treaty wi th manki nd.
The l aw i s to bri ng men and nati ons to repentance.
The l aw i s therefore a school master for men, both as
i ndi vi dual s and i n thei r capaci ty as representati ves
of corporate groups.
Chri sti an man therefore has a wri tten set of stan-
1SS UNCONDITIONAL SURRENOER
dards that are appl i cabl e to the creati on, for the
same God who created man and nature del i vered
Hi s revel ati on to man, who i s made i n Gods i mage.
Man i s responsi bl e for domi ni on because man was
created to exerci se domi ni on. Man and nature W,
wi th man i n a posi ti on of superi ori ty because of the
i mage of God whi ch defi nes hi m. The l aw serves as
the i ntermedi ary between man and nature. Thi s l aw
fi ts mans mi nd and natures processes. God
created them al l to be i n harmony. Onl y mans rebel -
l i on di storted thk harmony, and the progressi ve
sancti fi cati on of man by Gods grace and the man-
subdui ng l aw i s steadi l y restori ng thi s harmony.
Fi nal l y, there i s time. Every soci al phi l osophy has
a concept of ti me. The Bi bl e teaches that ti me i s both
l i near and progressi ve. I t moves forward from crea-
ti on to fi nal judgment. God i s soverei gn over the
events of hi story, and hi story unfol ds i n terms of cov-
enantal cause and effect. Hi story i s never i mper-
sonal , random, or meani ngl ess. I t i s personal , cove-
nantal , and eternal l y meani ngful .
Hi story i s progressi ve. The vi si bl e bl essi ngs of
God overtake covenant-keepers (Deuteronomy
28:1-14), and the vi si bl e curses of God overtake cove-
nant-breakers (Deuteronomy 28:15-68). The l ong-
term cumul ati ve growth i n hi story of the vi si bl e
ki ngdom of God wi l l therefore i nevi tabl y overwhel m
the short-term cumul ati ve growth and subsequent
contracti on of each of Satans di vi ded earthl y khg-
doms. Whi l e the ebb and fl ow of hi story rai ses up
and puts down earthl y i nsti tuti onal representati ves
of both ki ngdoms, the ki ngdom of God i s i n pri nci pl e
SUMMARY OF PART 1 167
uni fi ed, whi l e the ki ngdom of Satan i s i n pri nci pl e
di vi ded. Jesus announced concerni ng Satans ki ng-
dom, Every ki ngdom di vi ded agai nst i tsel f i s
brought to desol ati on; and every ci ty or house di vi ded
agai nst i tsel f shal l not stand (Matthew 12:25b).
Thus, the hi stori cal vi ctory of Chri s~s cal l ed-out
covenant peopl e i s assured.
Hi story i s representati ve. The battl e between
God and Satan i n hi story i s carri ed out i n hi story
pri mari l y by thei r respecti ve human fol l owers. The
war i s conducted pri mari l y i n terms of ethi cs, not
raw power. What covenant-keepers and covenant-
breakers do i n hi story i s representati ve of what i s
si mul taneousl y taki i g pl ace i n the real m of the
supernatural . (On thi s poi nt, read the Book of Job.)
Thus, to say that the vi si bl e i nsti tuti onal church
wi l l fai l i n hi story i n i ts assi gned task of preachi ng
the gospel , and that Chri sti ans wi l l fai l i n hi story i n
thei r assi gned task of subdui ng the earth to the gl ory
of God, i s the same as sayi ng that God i s a l oser i n
hi story. Yet thi s i s exactl y what ami l l enni al i sts teach
about the church and what premi l l enni al i sts teach
about the church duri ng the so-cal l ed Church Age,
before the l i teral , physi cal return of Chri st to set up
Hi s top-down, bureaucrati c mi l l enni al ki ngdom.
Ami l l enni al i sts do not even have thi s hope for the
future. For them, hi story i s al l downhi l l fkom the
ascensi on of Chri st forward, despi te the comi ng of
the Hol y Spi ri t. I n short, God i s a l oser i n hi story.
To say that Satans human di sci pl es can and wi l l
tri umph over Chri sti ans unti l Jesus returns physi -
cal l y to rei gn on earth i s the same as sayi ng that
168 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
Satans pri nci pl e of bureaucrati c, tyranni cal organi -
zati on i s more effecti ve i n hi story than Gods decen-
tral i zed ki ngdom. Those who bel i eve that Satans
earthl y forces wi l l tri umph i n hi story unl ess Chri st
comes agai n physi cal l y to rul e i n hi story are si mpl y
too embarrassed to admi t that they have more fai th
i n the power of si n than the power of the resurrec-
ti on, more confi dence i n covenant-breaki ng men i n
hi story than i n covenant-keepi ng men i n hktory,
more respect for the power of tyranny i n hi story than
for the power of freedom, more fai th i n the trans-
formi ng work of Adam than i n the transformi ng
work of Chri st.
What i s the bi bl i cal approach to hi stori cal con-
ti nui ty and di sconti nui ty? I t teaches that the great
di sconti nui ty of Jesus Chri sts earthl y mi ni stry i s
behi nd us hi stori cal l y; the great progressi ve vi ctory
of Hi s covenant peopl e i s now i n progress. Chri s-
ti ans shoul d therefore expect to see the progressi ve
tri umph of Gods vi si bl e ki ngdom i n hi story. They
shoul d not expect to be a part of some great di scon-
ti nui ty i n the mi dst of hi story. There wi l l not be a
di sconti nuous break i n hi story that removes Chri s-
ti ans from hi story unti l the end of hi story. On the
other hand, nei ther wi l l there be a conti nuous
decl i ne i n cosmi c or cul tural i nfl uence of the gospel
i n hi story. We shoul d expect the conti nui ty of uicto~,
not the conti nui ty of retreat. Meanwhi l e, we must
remai n covenantal l y fai thful to Gods reveal ed l aw
through the empoweri ng of the Hol y Spi ri t. We must
work to show Chri st i n us and i n our i nsti tuti ons.
Wi th thi s outl i ne i n mi nd, we are now ready for
SUMMARY OF PART I 169
the next step: understandi ng the three pri mary i nsti -
tuti ons gi ven to man by God. These are: the fami l y,
the church, and the ci vi l government. Each of these
i s a form of government. Each possesses a God-gi ven
monopol y of rul e. Each of these i nsti tuti ons was
desi gned by God to meet mans needs. God control s
each of them. We shoul d not attempt arbi trari l y to
rel ate God to the church, man to the fami l y, and l aw
to the state. God i s rel ated to each of these three cor-
porate i nsti tuti ons, as wel l as to the i ndi vi dual .
The economy i s not a true government, for i t
cannot l awful l y i mpose an oath, but i t i s a major
sphere of human acti on. Man i s i nvol ved i n al l four
spheres. Law governs al l four. These i nsti tuti ons
form the structural basi s of the ki ngdom of God, i n
ti me and on earth.
Part II
l/VST/TUT/O/VS
INTRODUCTION TO PART II
I f Chri sti ani ty presents us wi th a uni que vi ew of
soci e~s cruci al foundati ons God, man, and l aw
then we shoul d expect to see i mportant di fferences
between Chri sti ani tys vi ew of soci al i nsti tuti ons and
ri val rel i gi ons vi ew of these same i nsti tuti ons. We
shoul d expect to see these i nsti tuti ons constructed on
di fferent phi l osophi cal foundati ons. We shoul d al so
expect to see vast di fferences i n the effi ci ency of these
i nsti tuti ons, dependi ng on whether they are found i n
a Chri sti an soci ety or a pagan soci ety.
One of the most i mportant features of Chri sti an
soci al theory, or at l east Protestant soci al theory, i s
the absence of any total~ sovereign human institution. No
i nsti tuti on i s granted fi nal authori ty, for no human
i nsti tuti on i s free from the destructi ve effects of si n.
On~Jesus Chrzkt can claim total sovereignty in time and on
eatih. Jesus Chrzkt alone is the link between mm and God.
Hi s reveal ed word, the Bi bl e, i s the fi nal authori ty
for man, not the pronouncements of commi ttees,
bureaucrats, or rel i gi ous l eaders.
174 uNcoNomoNAL SumENDa
2%e source of socaal order is God. Speci fi cal l y, i t i s the
Hol y Spi ri t, who was sent to comfort the church
(John 16:7). The Hol y Spi ri t came to gui de men i nto
al l truth: TLmvbei t when he, the Spi ri t of truth, i s
come, he wi l l gui de you i nto al l truth: for he shal l not
speak of hi msel fj but whatsoever he shal l hear, that
shal l he speak: and he wi l l shew you thi ngs to come
(John 16:13). And we know that where the Spi ri t of
the Lord i s, there i s l i berty (I I Cori nthi ans 3:17b). I t
i s Gods soverei gn power over the creati on that hol ds
al l thi ngs together, and we know that the establ i shed
rel ati onshi p between Gods l aw and external bl ess-
i ngs guarantees the preservati on of soci al order for
those soci eti es that stri ve to conform themsel ves to
the reveal ed l aw-order of God.
Bi bl i cal soci al theory therefore ai i kms the order-
produci ng effects of a &centralized system of compet-
i ng, yet i deal l y cooperati ng, i nsti tuti ons. No si ngl e
i nsti tuti on needs to provi de thi s soci al order. I ndeed,
no si ngl e i nsti tuti on can, si nce the concentrati on of
power i nvol ved i n such an attempt i s sel f-defeati ng
and i n total opposi ti on to bi bl i cal soci al order. Free-
dom and order are achi eved onl y when men through-
out a soci ety are stri vi ng to reconstmct al l thei r soci al
i nsti tuti ons al ong the l i nes outl i ned i n the Bi bl e.
Whenever we see a soci al theory that procl ai ms
the val i di ty of a jyrarnid structure of institutions, wi th
some i nsti tuti ons at the bottom, and a si ngl e i nsti tu-
ti on at the top, we are faci ng the soae~ of Satan. The
pyrami d structure, both i n soci al theory and archi -
tecture, was basi c to pagan anti qui ty. I t i s al so the
rei gni ng soci al theory of modern soci al i sm and com-
INTRODUCTION TO PART II 175
muni sm. I t pl aces men at the base of the pyrami d,
and i t pl aces the State at the top.
The Bi bl e procl ai ms the exi stence of mult@e souer-
e@zties, mul ti pl e i nsti tuti ons that bear l awfi .d author-
i ty. Human i nsti tuti ons possess l egi ti mate soverei gnty,
but al l such soverei gnty i s l i mi ted and deri vati ve.
God al one possesses absol ute soverei gnty. Any at-
tempt by any i nsti tuti on to command fi nal authori ty
i s demoni c. Al l i nsti tuti ons are under God and gov-
erned by Gods l aw. No si ngl e i nsti tuti on commands
permanent authori ~ over al l the others.
What the Bi bl e procl ai ms as bi ndi ng i s thi s: w-
sponsible men under God, but never autonomous men
under God. Nei ther the one (State, church, fami l y)
nor the many (i ndi vi dual s) can cl ai m absol ute sover-
ei gnty. Nei ther col l ecti vi sm nor i ndi vi dual i sm i s
val i d as an excl usi ve pri nci pl e of soci al order. What
the Bi bl e procl ai ms i s couenantaknn: i ndi vi dual s and
i nsti tuti ons under God and under Gods appl i cabl e
l aws.
We must understand, however, that the economy
i s not a separate covenant i nsti tuti on. No oath that
cal l s down Gods sancti ons i s val i d i n the economy. I t
i s a contractual i nsti tuti on, not covenantal . I have
di scussed thi s at greater l ength i n Z% Si nai Strategy
(I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1986), chapter
thr ee.
Wi th thi s framework i n mi nd, we turn now to
four soci al i nsti tuti ons: fami l y, church, State, and
economy.
5
FAMILY
Man and woman were created as a functi oni ng
team. Thei r task was, and i s, to suMue the earth to the
gl o~ of &d (Genesi s 1:26-28; 9:1-7). Thi s i s the task of
domi ni on. I t i s basi c to the very bei ng of man to fi dfi l l
thi s assi gnment. As puni shment for mans rebel l i on,
God does not al l ow man to compl etel y fl .di i l l thi s com-
mand. An eternal l ongi ng, a feel i ng of i mpotence,
wi l l gnaw at every rebel s mi nd forever.
Adam was created fi rst. He was assi gned the pre-
l i mi nary task of nami ng (cl assi fyi ng) the ani mal s
before he was gi ven hi s wi fe (Genesi s 2:19-20). Man
compl eted thi s assi gnment, and then God gave hi m
a wi fe. Thi s i ndi cates that a woman is given to man to
help him J@ hfi calling bejore God. Paul put i t thi s
way: For the man i s not of the woman; but the
woman of the man. Nei ther was the man created for
the woman; but the woman for the man (I Cori n-
thi ans 11: 8-9). At the same ti me, they are now a
functi oni ng uni t under God: Neverthel ess nei ther i s
the man wi thout the woman, nei ther the woman
178 urwotmmow SURRENDER
wi thout the man, i n the Lord. For as the woman i s of
the man, even so i s the man al so by the woman; but
al l thi ngs of God (I Cori nthi ans 11:11-12). Ori gi nal l y,
the woman was made for the man, but al l chi l dren
emanate fmm both man and woman. Al l are under
God.
There was, and i s, a hi erarchy. God i s absol utel y
soverei gn over both men and women, but He estab-
l i shes Hi s chai n of command through the husband.
Peter wrote: Li kewi se, ye wi ves, be i n subjecti on to
your own husbands (I Peter 3:l a). Agai n, Even as
Sarah obeyed Abraham, cal l i ng hi m l ord: whose
daughters ye are, as l ong as ye do wel l , and are not
afrai d wi th any amazement [terror] (I Peter 3:6).
Husbands owe thei r wi ves ri ghteous judgment
and support. Li kewi se, ye husbands, dwel l wi th
them accordi ng to knowl edge, gi vi ng honour unto
the wi fe, as unto the weaker vessel , and as bei ng
hei rs together of the grace of l i fe; that your prayers
be not hi ndered (I Peter 3:7).
Paul s l engthy statement concerni ng the mutual
duti es of husbands and wi ves compares thi s rel ati on-
shi p wi th Chri sts l ove for Hi s church and the
churchs responsi bi l i ty to the one who l oves her.
Wi ves, submi t yoursel ves unto your own husbands,
as unto the Lord. For the husband i s the head of the
wi fe, even as Chri st i s the head of the church: and he
i s the savi our of the body. Therefore as the church i s
subject unto Chri st, so l et the wi ves be to thei r own
husbands i n every thi ng. Husbands, l ove your
wi ves, even as Chri st al so l oved the church, and
gave hi msel f for i t; that he mi ght sancti ~ and
FAMILY 179
cl eanse i t wi th the washi ng
That he mi ght present i t
of water by the word.
.
to hi msel f a gl ori ous
church, not havkg spot, or wri nkl e, or ti y such
thi n~ but that i t shoul d be hol y and wi thout bl em-
i sh. So ought men to l ove thei r wi ves as thei r own
bodi es. He that l oveth hi s wi fe l oveth hi msel f
(Ephesi ans 5:22-28). Gi ven the percei ved necessi ty
of Paul and the other wri ters of commandi ng wi ves
to submi t to thei r husbands, and tel l i ng the hus-
bands to l ove thei r wi ves we shoul d expect to fi nd
the opposi te i n l i fe: di sobedi ent wi ves and unl ovi ng
husbands.
God gave stri ct orders to Adarn to refrai n from
eati ng of the tree of the knowl edge of good and evi l .
The tempter approached Eve fi rst, i n hi s successful
attempt to foment a revol uti on. Adam, i n turn, car-
ri ed hi s revol uti on to God. He al so ate. Satan knew
what he was doi ng when he began hi s revol uti on by
undermi ni ng the fami l y hi erarchy. He cut the chai n
of command at i ts weakest l i nk, the woman. Peter
spoke of the wi fe as the weaker vessel (I Peter 3:7).
Paul sai d the woman was decei ved by the serpent,
but the man was not decei ved (I Ti mothy 2:14).
Adam was the stronger l i nk.
The fami l y hi erarchy extends downward to the
chi l dren. Paul repeats the fami l i ar refrai n: Wi ves,
submi t yoursel ves unto your own husbands, as i t i s
fi t i n the Lord. Husbands, l ove your wi ves, and be
not bi tter agai nst them. Chi l dren, obey your parents
i n al l thi ngs: for thi s i s wel l pl easi ng unto the Lord.
Fathers, provoke not your chi l dren to anger, l est
they be di scouraged (Col ossi ans 3:18-21). Thi s
1~ UNCONDITIONAL SURRSNDER
chai n of command i s desi gned to refl ect Gods rel a-
ti onshi p to the creati on a hi erarchy of functi ons,
but wi thout any superi ori ty or i nferi ori ty of bei ng
whi ch means that the Chri sti an vi ew of marri age
uphol ds both sexes wi thout confusi ng the two. Func-
tional subordination does not imply ethical inferiority. I t
si mpl y means that manki nd as a col l ecti ve uni t i s
composed of di fferent sorts of peopl e, and there can
never be functi onal equal i ty between men and
women. Thei r tasks are di fferent, and for manki nd
to ful i i l l the terms of Gods domi ni on assi gnment,
men must respect the di fferences God has bui l t i nto
the sexes. Men are functi onal l y superi or to thei r
wi ves i n a way anal ogous to Chri sts functi onal
superi ori ty over the church. The church wi l l never
be functi onal l y superi or to Chri st.
The fami l y i s Gods speci al l y desi gned uni t. I t i s
desi gned to extend Gods vi si bl e soverei gnty over the
face of the earth. The fami l y i s the chi ef agency of
domi ni on. Domi ni on i s i ts task.
Chi l dren
Chi l dren are a bl essi ng of God. %0, chi l dren are
an heri tage of the LORD: and the fkui t of the womb i s
hi s reward. As arrows are i n the hand of a mi ghty
man; so are chi l dren of the youth. Happy i s the man
that bath hi s qui ver ful l of them: they shal l not be
ashamed, but they shal l speak wi th the enemi es i n
the gate (Psal m 127:3-5). The enemi es i n the gate
are opponents who have come before the judges of
the ci ty, who i n Ol d Testament ti mes sat at the gate,
to bri ng a charge agai nst a man. Men wi th l arge
FAUILY I&l
fami l i es have confi dence i n themsel ves, and so are
not afrai d of such enemi es. Thi s appears to i ndi cate
that the self-discipline involved in bang the head of a large
family carries over into other human relationsh$s. Large
fami l i es produce heads of househol ds who are better
fi t to l ead i n the communi ty.
One of the requi rements for hol di ng the offi ces of
el der or deacon i n the church i s for a man to be mar-
ri ed (I Ti mothy 3:2, 12). He i s to rul e over hi s house-
hol d effecti vel y (1 Ti mothy 3:4-5, 12). The fanzi~ is a
traininggroundfor leadership in the church. One of the ob-
vi ous fai l ures of al most al l denomi nati ons and l ocal
churches a fai l ure whi ch goes back to the earl y
church i s the unwi l l i ngness of church authori ti es to
wri te i nto thei r denomi nati onal handbooks gui de-
l i nes defi ni ng successful rul e over a fami l y. The
modern churches pl ace great emphasi s on where a
man went to col l ege or semi nary, on whether he can
rai se money, or on whether he can del i ver a red-hot
sermon. The Bi bl e puts l i ttl e or no emphasi s on any
of these factors. I t puts emphasi s on the l eaders
abi l i ti es as the head of hi s househol d.
Chi l dren are a tool of domi ni on. They are to be
sacri fi ced for i n thei r youth. They are to be i n-
structed carefi .dl y and conti nual l y i n the l aw of God.
And these words, whi ch I command thee thi s day,
shal l be i n thi ne heart; and thou shal t teach them
di l i gentl y unto thy chi l dren, and shal t tal k of them
when thou si ttest i n thi ne house, and when thou
wal kest by the way, and when thou l i est down, and
when thou ri sest up (Deuteronomy 6: 6-7). The ti me
spent i n trai ni ng chi l dren i n Gods l aw i s ti me wel l
162 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
spent, for i t i s a capi tal i nvestment. I t does produce
the next generati on of godl y, domi ni on-mi nded fami -
l i es. The Bi bl e says, Y1l -ai n up a chi l d i n the way he
shoul d go: and when he i s ol d, he wi l l not depart
from i t (Proverbs 22:6).
Thi s l eads us to an extremel y si gni fi cant concl u-
si on: e&cation k the moral respon-szbili~ of parents. They
are the ones who must determi ne whether or not
thei r chi l dren are bei ng taught the truth. They are
responsi bl e before God for the reari ng of thei r chi l -
dren. They are hel d responsi bl e even for the content
of thei r chi l drens educati on. Thi s i s why i t i s a great
responsi bi l i ty to bri ng chi l dren i nto the worl d.
The modern State has asserted i ts responsi bi l i ty
to educate chi l dren. Thi s i s the means by whi ch the
modern State has arrogated to i tsel f the posi ti on of
the establ i shed god on earth. The government
school s have become the establ i shed rel i gi on of every
nati on on earth. Humani sm, whi ch i s the worshi p of
man and hi s works, rests on thi s cruci al i nsti tuti onal
foundati on: the tax-supported, State-regul ated,
hypotheti cal l y neutral , deepl y rel i gi ous humani st
school system. There can be no neutral i ty, yet the
government school s have al most compl etel y stamped
out Chri sti ani ty and the l aw of God by means of the
neutral i ty myth. The State forces Chri sti ans to
fi nance school s that teach a rival rel i gi on, the
rel i gi on of humani sm. The State has al so attempted
to regul ate Chri sti an and i ndependentl y fi nanced
school s. At every poi nt, the State has substi tuted
tenured bureaucrats who are vi rtual l y i mpossi bl e for
parents to remove from authori ty, whi l e i t has
FAMILY 18s
removed parents from the seats of power i n setti ng
curri cul a or any other standards. The modern State,
whi ch i s a messi ani c, supposedl y man-savi ng i nsti tu-
ti on, has used the tax-supported, compul sory
school s as the pri mary means of steal i ng chi l dren
from God, by removi ng them from parental control .
Chri sti ans compl ai n about taxati on, but t% h.me
tithed their children to t/w State. They have abdi cated
thei r fi nanci al responsi bi l i ti es -Let the State
fi nance my chi l drens educati ons and i n our day,
they have abandoned al most al l other aspects of thei r
i nstructi onal responsi bi l i ti es. They have turned the
producti on of ci ti zens over to tax-fi nanced, State-
di rected school s. The pri ests of the rel i gi on of
humani sm have been abl e to enl i st the support of
many generati ons of Chri sti an parents, who have
deci ded that i t i s easi er to transfer the responsi bi l i ty
for educati ng thei r chi l dren to bureaucrats hi red by
the State.
Natural l y, parents have to del egate responsi bi l i ty
to someone. Few parents have the ti me or ski l l s to
educate thei r chi l dren at home. But the fundamental
pri nci pl e of educati on i s the tutor or the apprenti ce
di rector. Parents hi re speci al i sts to teach thei r
chi l dren al ong l i nes establ i shed by parents. The
pri vate school i s si mpl y an extensi on of thi s pri nci -
pl e, wi th several parents hi ri ng a tutor, thereby shar-
i ng the costs. But the parents, not the tutors, are i n-
sti tuti onal l y soverei gn. Si nce souerezgnty must bear tb
costs, education shouki be parent-jnarued. Anythi ng el se
i s a transfer of authori ty over educati on to an i mi ta-
ti on fami l y.
1~ UNCONDITIONAL SURRSNDSR
Chi l dren are to honor thei r parents (Exodus
20:12). I t i s the fi rst promi se whi ch i s attached to a
commandment: . . . that thy days may be l ong
upon the l and whi ch the LORD thy God gi veth thee
(Exodus 20:12b). So the parents owe thei r chi l dren
educati ons, food, shel ter, and care, but the chi l dren
owe thei r parents honor. Thi s means fi nanci al sup-
port. There are mutual obl i gati ons based on per-
sonal bonds. No one in the transaction is to become an end-
kss gwer, and no one is to become a perpetual recz#ient.
The modern messi ani c State has i ntervened
here, too. The State promi ses to uphol d men from
womb to tomb. The State promi ses to become the
new father. The i mpersonal , bureaucrati c State has
substi tuted i ts rul e for the fathex% rul e, and i ts chi l -
dren perpetual chi l dren are to remai n obedi ent
to i t al l the days of thei r l i ves.
The Bi bl e tel l s us that chi l dren grow up and
begi n new fami l i es. Therefore shal l a man l eave hi s
father and mother, and shal l cl eave unto hi s wi fe:
and they shal l be one fl esh (Genesi s 1:24). There
shoul d be no perpetual one-way obl i gati ons. Parents
are to trai n thei r chi l dren to be obedi ent, but al so i n-
dependent. They are to foster maturi ty i n thei r chi l -
dren. The State wants perpetual chi l dren, compl ete
obedi ence. The State i s a sad i mi tati on of a fami l y. I t
i s a pseudo-fami~ whi ch threatens human freedom.
Wel fare
The fi ami l y i s desi gnated by God as the chi ef
agency of human wel fare. I t i s the agency that i s
most effecti ve i n sol vi ng the probl ems of poverty,
si ckness, and cri si s. I t i s the onl y agency whi ch
knows i ts l i mi tati ons and strengths. The head of
every househol d counts the costs of every project
undertaken by the fami l y. No other human agency
l i nks mutual sel f-i nterest, mutual understandi ng,
mutual obl i gati ons, and mutual support i n the way
that a fami l y can. Members are cl ose. They know
each others weaknesses and strengths. The fami l y i s
al so an extended i nsti tuti on, wi th bl oodl i ne contacts
that can spread out wi del y. I t can cal l upon rel ated
fami l i es for hel p i n a cri si s.
I t i s afindamentalprinc+le of charity that chari ty be
fumonal whenevm possible. The Samari tan i n Jesus
parabl e of the good Samari tan came across a hel p-
l ess, i njured man. He hel ped hi m. He coul d see how
badl y the man was hurt. He coul d see that he was
not bei ng tri cked. He had the resources necessary for
hel pi ng the man. He was cl ose to a pl ace where the
man coul d be cared for. He hi red the caretaker per-
sonal l y, whi ch meant that he coul d hol d that man
responsi bl e for the care of the i njured man, si nce he
was payi ng hi m to do the work (Luke 10:33-35). Thi s
i s how Jesus defi ned the term nei ghbor. I t means
someone who i s i n a posi ti on to hel p and who does
so, based on accurate i nformati on concerni ng the
pl i ght of the i njured or hel pl ess.
The person most l i kel y to be abl e to hel p a poor
man i s a slightly less poor man. The sl i ghtl y l ess poor
man i s cl oser to the poor man (geographi cal l y and
soci al l y), he can recogni ze true need better than a
di stant man, and he can more accuratel y assess the
short-term sol uti ons to the poor mans probl ems.
186 uWmDmaAL SURRENDER
Thi s means that chari ~ from the rich should bejbred
down through institution-s that are close to the poor. The
church i s one such i nsti tuti on. Other pri vate chari -
ti es may al so qual i fjr. But wel l -pai d, bureaucrati c
agents of the State, wi th i ts compul sory programs
fi nanced by taxes, wi l l not be abl e to hel p the poor
except at the expense of everyones i ndependence.
The ri ch wi l l pay, the poor wi l l recei ve a fracti on of
the payments, and the bureaucrats wi l l mul ti pl y.
The rel ati onshi p i s i nvari abl y permanent, unti l the
wel fare State, that pseudo-fami l y, goes bankrupt
and i s overthrown i nternal l y or defeated by external
nati ons.
The fami l y cares for chi l dren. I t fi nances thei r
educati ons. I t cares for si ck rel ati ves. I t provi des
work for the parti al l y empl oyabl e members i n i ts
mi dst. I t supervi ses wi th f=l i ng, not wi th forms i n
tri pl i cate. I t provi des i nsurance, but not a l i feti me of
compul sory Soci al Securi ty tax payments that are
fi nal l y wi ped out by the mass i nfl ati on necessary at
the end of such programs i n order to fi nance them. I t
provi des ai d, but not to everyone, not to bl ocs of
speci al -i nterest voters.
The el dest son i s enti tl ed to a doubl e porti on of
the fami l ys estate (Deuteronomy 21:17). Thi s means
that i f a man has four chi l dren who are l egal l y
responsi bl e for hi m, then he must di vi de the estate
i nto fi ve equal shares, wi th the el dest son recei vi ng
two-fi ffi s. Why? Because i t i s the el dest son who has
the pri mary responsi bi l i ty for cari ng for aged
parents. The chi l d who i s wi l l i ng to bear thi s respon-
si bi l i ty i s treated as the el dest son, such as I saacs
FAMILY 187
posi ti on of favor before Abraham, not I shmael , the
fi rstborn, or Jacobs posi ti on before I saac because of
Gods choosi ng of Jacob over Esau, the el der twi n.
There i s a mutual i ty of servi ce and bl essi ngs. Costs
and benefi ts are more cl osel y l i nked. Fami l y di sputes
among the chi l dren are mi ni mi zed.
The State, i n modern ti mes, has become the el d-
est son. Estate taxes i n some nati ons wi l l take vi rtu-
al l y al l of very weal thy estates. Fami l i es are forced to
sel l off l ands and fami l y hei rl ooms i n order to pay the
estate taxes. The State has asserted its posztion as the
pseudo-fami~ and now it demands payment for its services.
Those who voted for the creati on of the caretaker
State two or more generati ons ago shoul d have
known what woul d happen. 2% State becomes the hnr
offizmi~ capital. The true fami l i es are progressi vel y
bankrupted, yet the State, as an i neffi ci ent, tyran-
ni cal , l i fe-l ong pseudo-parent, i s al so steadi l y
bankrupted, for the State i s not creati ve; i t i s para-
si ti c. I t needs new weal th to confi scate, yet i ts steady
destructi on of fami l y capi tal wi thers up the sources
of new taxes.
The Bi bl e provi des evi dence that God has en-
trusted the bul k of the wel fare obl i gati ons to the
fami l y, secondari l y to the church, and al most no re-
sponsi bi l i ti es whatsoever to the ci vi l government.
The Ol d Testament requi red ci ti zens to journey to
speci fi ed ci ti es once every three years for a com-
munal cel ebrati on. At the end of three years thou
shal t bri ng forth al l the ti the of thi ne i ncrease the
same year, and shal t l ay i t up wi thi n thy gates. And
the Levi te (because he bath no part nor i nheri tance
wi th thee), and the stranger, and the fatherl ess, and
the wi dow, whi ch are wi thi n thy gates, shal l come,
and shal l eat and be sati sfi ed; that the LORD thy God
may bl ess thee i n al l the work of thi ne hand whi ch
thou doest (Deuteronomy 14:28-29). Whal e the ci vi l
government requi red thi s cel ebrati on ti the (or so i t
woul d appear), the i ndi vi dual fami l i es had to make
thi s sacri fi ce, whi ch i nvol ved fi nanci ng for Levi tes,
strangers, and wi dows, onl y once every three years.
A commi tted soci al i st woul d be hard-pressed to
make a case for Chri sti an soci al i sm~ based on thi s
meager evi dence for stati st power.
The church i s requi red to take i n wi dows who
have reached the age of 60, but whose fami l i es refuse
to support them (I Ti mothy 5:3-13). Nephews are
consi dered responsi bl e by the church authori ti es i n
such cases. I t i s a matter of excommuni cati on for
any fami l y member to refuse such support to a de-
servi ng wi dow who meets the cri teri a speci fi ed i n thi s
passage. %ut i f any provi de not for hi s own, and spe-
ci al l y for those of hi s own house, he bath deni ed the
fai th, and i s worse than an i nfi del (I Ti motAy 5:8).
I t shoul d be obvi ous that thejhni ~ and not the ciui/
govermnmt, is the central agency in tti battle agaimt poverty.
The i ncenti ve to i ncrease the assets of the fmi l y
l eads di rectl y to i ncreased producti on. The i ncenti ve
to mai ntai n the reputati on of the fami l y by provi di ng
chari ty for i ndi gent members i s al so present i n
soci eti es governed by bi bl i cal pri nci pl es. Because the
fami l y i s the agency of soci al wel fare, the ci vi l
government can remai n smal l , l i mi ti ng i tsel f to pro-
tecti ng property, provi di ng for nati onal defense, en-
FAMILY 189
forci ng Gods ci vi l l aw, and defendi ng the publ i c
peace. The fami l y, as the chi ef agency of se~-govern-
ment, reduces the need for ci vi l government.
Tr ustee
The fami l y i s the pri mary trustee of a soci etys
capi tal . The fami l y serves as a bri dge between gen-
erati ons. The fami l y name i s an i mportant aspect of
bi bl i cal rul e. To i ncrease the capi tal of the fami l y
uni t i s a basi c i mpul se i n Chri sti an soci eti es.
A promi se to Abraham concerni ng the i nheri t-
ance of hi s descendants was central to Gods cove-
nant wi th Abram, whose name was changed to
Abraham (father of nati ons) by God. God prom-
i sed to gi ve hi s hei rs the l and of Canaan (Genesi s
15:18). Abraham had been concerned about a l ack of
an hei r for hi s capi tal , havi ng onl y a steward to l eave
hi s weal th to (Genesi s 15:2-3). He wanted a son to
i nheri t hi s capi tal , and presumabl y to i nheri t the
fami l y name.
The fami l y was understood to be an i nsti tuti on
i deal for the fi eservati on of capital. Abraham recogni zed
thi s, as di d the peopl e of hi s day. By extendi ng ones
fami l y, one extended the domi ni on of the fami l y, the
most i mportant i nsti tuti on a man coul d bel ong to i n
Abrahams day. Thi s hope was part of Gods promi se
to Abraham when He cal l ed hi m out of Haran.
Now the Lord had sai d unto Abram, Get thee out of
thy country, and from thy ki ndred, and fmm thy
fathefs house, unto a l and that I wi l l shew thee. And
I wi l l make of thee a great nati on, and I wi l l bl ess
thee, and make thy name great; and thou shal t be a
190 UNCONDITIONAL suRRsNDm
bl essi ng. And I wi l l bl ess them that bl ess thee, and
curse hi m that curseth thee: and i n thee shal l al l the
fami l i es of the earth be bl essed (Genesi s 12:1-3). A
man wi th no chi l dren who had reached age 75 was
promi sed hei rs. A man wi th no hei rs woul d have hi s
name made great. Thi s was a true i ncenti ve to pi ck
up and l eave ones home.
The future mattered to Abraham, even though
he woul d never see the entry of hi s hei rs i nto the l and
of Canaan. That promi se from God coul d be
trusted. I t was as good as done, four centuri es before
they entered Canaan (Gal ati ans 3:16-18). Hi s fami l y,
though presentl y wi thout bl ood hei rs, woul d recei ve
the l and of Canaan as i ts i nheri tance from Abraham,
by the grace of God.
Thi sfi tuw-oti entdi on i s central to the l i fe of a bi b-
l i cal fami l y. The domi ni on assi gnment was gi ven to
Adam, recoti ed wi th Noah, and i s now part of
the covenant between God and Hi s church, meani ng
i ndi vi dual s who bel ong to Hi s church. ?44 ar e to extend
the rule of Godk kzw across the fme of tfw eati. We are to
subdue i t and have domi ni on over i t. One of the
means of extendi ng domi ni on i s the fai l y. No won-
der one of the promi ses to Moses was that i f the na-
ti on remai ned fai thful to Gods l aw, wi ves woul d not
have mi scarri ages. Even the femal e domesti cated
ani mal s woul d avoi d mi scarri ages (Exodus 23:26).
The promi se of a growing stock of human ca@al i s basi c
to Gods covenant wi th Hi s fol l owers.
The f-i l y serves as a trustee of the most i mpor-
tant capi tal asset, the faitfi del i vered to the sai nts.
Thi s i s why Deuteronomy 6 requi res parents to
FAMILY WI
teach thei r chi l dren the l aw of God. By bnngrng
children under the dominion of God% kwq parents rear up
families ofdominion-minded children. The subordi nati on
to Gods l aw i naugurates the domi ni on aspect of
Gods covenant. Domi ni on-mi nded fami l i es then ex-
tend Gods rul e even further, as they bear more
chi l dren, who i n turn are brought under the rul e of
Gods l aw.
Chri sti ans have tinu on thei r si de. I t may not
al ways seem to be so, but i t i s. Ti me i s under Gods
soverei gn control . He al l ots ti me to everyone, but
He bl esses those who conform themsel ves to Hi s l aw.
Long l i fe and l arge fami l i es are both aspects of Gods
bl essi ngs to the fai thful . They are bl essed because
they use thei r capi tal i n ki ngdom-ori ented ways.
Chri sti ans can l ook to thei r earthl y futures i n
confi dence, even as Abram di d (before God renamed
hi m Abraham). They know that they have the tool of
domi ni on, Gods l aw. They know that God promi ses
bl essi ngs to the fai thful . They can rest i n Chri sts
work on the cross. The future bel ongs to them and
thei r hei rs. Thei r names wi l l extend i nto the fbtur e.
Gi ven thi s perspecti ve, i s i t surpri si ng that Chri s-
ti ans shoul d amass capi tal ? I s i t surpri si ng that the
Protestant Reformati on of the 1500s l ed to the
growth of capi tal i sm i n the next century? There i s a
Protestant ethi c, and i ts vi ew of ti me i s fundamental
to i ts success. Men who are confmkn.t concerning tk~ture,
in ti~ and on earth, can plan for a very long run: centwies,
Zf neceswy. Thei r vi si on extends beyond thei r own
graves. They see vi ctory i n terms of l i near devel op-
ment over ti me. They can i nvest a bl t of money to-
192 lJwommoML SURRENDER
day, even at a very l ow rate of return, and i f God
bl esses i ts growth l ong enough, the l aw of compound
i nterest takes over, l eadi ng to a l ong-run expansi on
of capi tal . I t i s reveal i ng that chari ti es establ i shed by
Puri tan busi nessmen i n London i n the l ate 1500s
and earl y 1600s were sti l l operati ng i n 1900. The ori -
gi nal capi tal base had been rei nvested over the
years, l eadi ng to an expansi on of chari tabl e acti vi -
ti es. The growth i n producti vi ty the basi c rate of
return was suffi ci ent to operate the chari ti es and
sti l l expand thei r i nfl uence.
Men will not sacrzzce for tti @ture of a bureaucratic
State with the same enthusiasm with which thg will sacrjice
present consumption for the sake of their families~tures.
The State i s a pseudo-fami l y, and men treat i t as
such. I f the State confi scates fami l y weal th at the
ti me of death of the foundi ng father, then the sons,
not to menti on the father hi msel f, wi l l have an i ncen-
ti ve to spend the fami l y fortune today, i f onl y to keep
the tax col l ector from getti ng the bul k of the estate.
Thti drastically shon!ens men% time perspective. The l ong
run becomes no l onger than the l i feti me of the
founder when the State confi scates the estate at hi s
death. A bi t of money i nvested today must make a
hi gh return i f i t i s to grow to any consi derabl e capi tal
base i n the l i feti me of one man. Such a return i s not
that easy to achi eve. Men turn to gambl i ng to make
the bi g ki l l i n< when they recogni ze the i mprobabi l i ty
of bui l di ng a capi tal base wi th todays few assets,
gi ven the ti ght boundari es of a si ngl e l i feti me.
The Roman Cathol i cs i n the Mi ddl e Ages
recrui ted thei r bri ghtest young men for the mi ni stry.
FAMILY 193
They requi red cel i bacy to i nsure thei r ful l commi t-
ment to the i nsti tuti onal church. I n contrast, medi -
eval Jews recrui ted thei r bri ghtest young men for the
rabbi nate. The fami l i es sacri fi ced to provi de such
trai ni ng. Then the young men were encouraged to
marry bri ght (or ri ch) young women and produce
l arge fami l i es of (hopeful l y) equal l y bri ght chi l dren.
The resul ts of the two soci al pol i ci es were very di ffer-
ent. The Jews expanded thei r geneti c pool of bri ght
peopl e, and trai ned them to be i ndustri ous. The
Roman Cathol i cs got one l i feti me of l abor out of
thei r best men, l eavi ng no fami l y hei rs behi nd to i n-
heri t the amassed capi tal . The Jews were to gai n i n-
fl uence vastl y out of proporti on wi th thei r numbers.
The di fference l ay, to a great extent, i n the i nsti tu-
ti onal trustee: church vs. fami l y. The ji u+ name i s
symbol i c of a l ot more than just a name.
Communi on
The fami l y i s a fellowship of faith. Concerni ng
Chri sti an fel l owshi p i n general , Paul remarked: Be
ye not unequal l y yoked together wi th unbel i evers:
for what fel l owshi p bath ri ghteousness wi th unri ght-
eousness? And what communi on bath l i ght wi th
darkness? (I I Cori nthi ans 6:14). Marri age, as a true
communi on, i nvol ves separati on from the enemi es
of God. A man needs a cooperati ve wi fe, who can
uphol d hi m, hel p hi m, and gi ve hi m encouragement
i n thei r shared tasks. He has to be abl e to share hi s
hopes and dreams wi th her, and she wi th hi m. I f
they dont share fi rst pri nci pl es, how can they share
thei r hopes for the future? Thei r hopes woul d be
shared onl y on the basi s of the l east-common-
denomi nator pri nci pl e. But a successful marri age i s
based on hi gher pri nci pl es than these.
A coupl es home i s a refuge agai nst the battl es of
the day. I f the man i s battl i ng the worl d, spi ri tual l y
and economi cal l y, he needs a pl ace to gai n new
strength. He needs rest and recreati on to hel p hi m
wi n the battl es of the worl d. Hi s fami l y l i fe shoul d
provi de a zone of mutual support agai nst the pressures
of the outsi de worl d. But what i f the same spi ri tual
battl es are i n store for husband and wi fe, si nce they
share di fFerent outl ooks? Li fe becomes a constant bat-
tl e, or at the very l east, battl es i nterrupted by tempor-
ary truces. Maniage shouki be more thun a t.mpora~ cea.se-
Jre. The warfhre of the spi ri t cannot easi l y be fenced
out at the t%ont door. The Chri sti an partner must sub-
due hi s mates i nfl uence i n the home, to the extent
that hi s or her i nfl uence i s at war wi th the unbel i evi ng
mates anti -Chri sti an fi rst pri nci pl es. Domi ni on i s
vastl y more di fEcul t for one who i s exhausted from
battl es i nsi de the home, as wel l as outsi de.
Marri age i s compared wi th the rel ati onshi p be-
tween Chri st and Hi s church. Godl y marri age i s there-
fore a true fel l owshi p, the archetypal fel l owshi p among
human i nsti tuti ons. Men cannot normal l y operate suc-
cessfi dl y wi thout wi ves, whi ch i s why God gave Adam
a wi fe. I f a man has no fel l owshi p, he i s normal l y l ess
effecti ve i n hi s domi ni on l abors. God provi des a wi fe
to provi de a man wi th a fel l ow l aborer, but al so wi th a
fel l ow dreamer, fel l ow l earner, fel l ow restorer. Men
work better when they are members of a ti ghtl y kni t
team. Marri age i s just such a team.
FAMILY 195
Concl usi on
God has establ i shed fami l i es. Gods own bei ng i s
a fami l y: Father, Son, and Hol y Ghost. I t has worked
wel l for God throughout eterni ty; i t can work wel l
for Hi s servants on earth.
The fami l y i s a uni t, yet i t i s made up of dti erent
i ndi vi dual s. I t i s both one and muny. I t provi des a
basi c di vi si on of l abor, and thi s l eads to greater pro-
ducti vi ty. I t provi des a zone of safety agai nst l i fes
battl es wi th a fal l en, recal ci trant envi ronment. I t
offers fel l owshi p and communi on to i ts parti ci pants.
I t provi des men and women wi th a stake i n the
future, both through chi l dren and economi c capi tal .
I t gears men to the future, and i n so doi ng, makes
possi bl e habi ts of thri ft that l ead to vast capi tal
growth. I t gi ves men some i dea of Chri sts l ove for
Hi s church. I t provi des wel fare and educati on for i ts
members. I t reduces the need for a huge State
bureaucracy, so i t acts as a weapon agai nst the i l l e-
gi ti mate expansi on of State power. I t wi l l not survi ve
i nto heaven (Matthew 22: 30), but short of heaven, i t
offers manki nd i ncomparabl e benefi ts.
Thi s i s not to say that i n a fal l en worl d, marri age
doesnt someti mes create probl ems for i ts members.
Paul even advi sed peopl e i n hi s day not to marry, i f
they coul d l i ve comfortabl y si ngl e (I Cori nthi ans
7). Some schol ars have argued that he probabl y was
referri ng onl y to hi s era, si nce he was concerned
about i mpendi ng judgment from the authori ti es
(whi ch came under Neros rei gn i n the 60s): But
thi s I say, brethren, the ti me i s short (I Cori nthi ans
7:29a). Hi s recommendati on: I say therefore to the
unmarri ed and wi dows, I t i s good for them to abi de
even as 1 (I Cori nthi ans 7:8). Paul was unmarri ed,
probabl y a wi dower, al though we cant be certai n of
hi s status as wi dower. Yet i n hi s fi rst l etter to Ti m-
othy, he advi sed younger wi dows to remarry (1 Ti m-
othy 5:14), whi ch seems to i ndi cate that hi s opi ni on
i n hi s l etter to the Cori nthi an church was temporary.
Paul admi ts that there are ti mes when the concerns
of marri age i nterfere wi th ones servi ce to God: He
that i s unmarri ed careth for the thi ngs that bel ong to
the Lord, how he may pl ease the Lord. But he that i s
marri ed careth for the thi ngs that are of the worl d,
how he may pl ease hi s wi fe (I Cori nthi ans 7:32-33).
I t i s i mportant for men to choose wi ves who are ful l y
commi tted to thei r husbands work before the Lord.
Wi thout thi s, the marri age threatens to compromi se
the mans acti ons as a responsi bl e agent of God.
When a man and a woman are worki ng together to
subdue the earth to the gl ory of God, sel f-consci ousl y
appl yi ng thei r l abors, content to be servants of God,
worki ng to produce a f2rni l y i n conformi ty to Gods
l aw, marri age i s a bl essi ng. I t i s not the onl y bl essi ng,
Paul tol d the Cori nthi ans, but i t i s sti l l a good thi ng.
For most peopl e, he i mpl i ed, the si ngl e state l eads to
sexual probl ems, so peopl e need the mari tal bond (I
Cori nthi ans 7:2). For most people, marriage is the most
e#ective institutwnal nwzn-s of dominion. Wi thout the fam-
i l y, the work of domi ni on coul d not conti nue effect-
i vel y. Men coul d not mul ti pl y and fdl the earth except
outsi de the fai th, i f Chri sti ans were forbi dden to
marry not wi thout breaki ng Gods l aw, anyway.
The fami l y i s Gods pri mary i nsti tuti on for domi ni on.
The church i s another i nsti tuti on whi ch assi sts
men i n the di sci pl i ne of @rsonal selj-government. The
church i s Gods speci al i zed i nsti tuti on for the preach-
i ng of the gospel , the mai ntenance of the requi red
sacraments (bapti sm and the Lords Supper), and
the di sci pl i ne of i ts members. These are the marks of
a true church. Wi thout these, there can be no i n-
sti tuti onal church.
Protestants tradi ti onal l y di sti ngui sh between the
institutional church and the invisible church. Some peo-
pl e wi thi n the churches are decei vers, possi bl y sel f-
decei vers. Jesus, i n Hi s parabl e of the sower, reveal ed
that of four pl anti ngs sown, onl y one grew to fi dl
maturi ty (Matthew 13:3-8). Thi s, He expl ai ned, re-
ferred to the entangl ements of the worl d and the
tri al s Chri sti ans suffer. A mi nori ty of those profess-
i ng fai th i n Chri st actual l y persevere i n l i fe. So the
i nsti tuti onal church, at any poi nt i n ti me, wi l l have
the devi l s troops on the membershi p rol l s. Peter
even warned agai nst fal se teachers: But there were
108 UN~NDiTIONAL SUR-DEN
fal se prophets al so among the peopl e, even as there
shal l be fal se teachers among you, who pri vi l y shal l
bri ng i n damnabl e heresi es, even denyi ng the Lord
that bought them, and bri ng upon themsel ves swi ft
destructi on. And many shal l fol l ow thei r perni ci ous
ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shal l be
evi l spoken of (I I Peter 2:1-2).
The i nvi si bl e church i s the assembl y of fai thful
peopl e who wi l l be found enteri ng heaven at death
and wi l l be found i n the new heavens and new earth.
These are those whom Chri st chose before the foun-
dati on of the worl d (Ephesi ans 1:4). I t i s thi s church,
whi ch overl aps the i nsti tuti onal church, but i s fewer
i n number than the i nsti tuti onal church, whi ch God
has promi sed to bri ng i nto Hi s heavenl y ki ngdom
(John 14:2). (We mi ght use the words hi stori cal
church to descri be al l bapti zed, professi ng Chri s-
ti ans, and eschatol ogi caJ church or fi nal -day
church to descri be the assembl ed sai nts on the day
of judgment.)
The i nsti tuti onal church i s of necessi ty hierar-
chical. I t refl ects the rel ati onshi p among the Persons
of the Tri ni ty wi th respect to the creati on. There are
separate functi ons wi thi n a congregati on. There are
rul ers, and there are fol l owers, just as we fi nd i n the
fami l y. There are bi shops (Greek word: e$i skopos),
al so cal l ed el ders (Greek word: preshderos), and the
terms are used i nterchangeabl y. There are al so
deacons. The deacons are assi stants to the el ders.
They wai t on tabl es, to use the graphi c term
descri bi ng the deacons functi on whi ch the twel ve
apostl es adopted (Acts 6:2). I nstead of burdeni ng
CHURCH 199
the earl y apostl es wi th the probl ems of cari ng for
wi dows, the peopl e were supposed to approach the
offi cers who hel d thi s newl y created posi ti on i n the
church. The deacons coul d bapti ze new converts i n
certai n si tuati ons, for the deacon Phi l i p bapti zed the
Ethi opi an eunuch (Acts 8:38). They were assi stants
to the el ders, yet they were abl e to perform some of
the tasks normal l y reserved i n modern churches to
the mi ni sters, meani ng ful l -ti me preachers. The re-
qui rements for both offi ces are al most i denti cal :
marri ed, wel l -reputed managers of thei r own house-
hol ds, sober. El ders are supposed to serve fi rst as
deacons: And l et these al so be proved: then l et them
use the offi ce of a deacon, bei ng found bl amel ess
(I Ti mothy 3:10). The offi cex% wi fe al so has to be
bl amel ess (I Ti mothy 3:11).
There are many ways to di vi de up the fi .mcti ons
of these offi cers: rul i ng el ders, preachi ng (teachi ng)
el ders, bi shops who supervi se other el ders, commi t-
tee members who supervi se church (denomi na-
ti onal ) af%i rs i n between church-wi de assembl i es,
evangel i sts, teachers. And he gave some, apostl es;
and some, prophets; and some, evangel i sts; and
some, pastors and teachers (Ephesi ans 4:11). Paul
di d not draw any sharp di sti ncti ons among offi ces;
he di d poi nt to dti erences of tal ents possessed by
men i n that si ngl e offi ce. But modern churches tend
to segregate separate ski l l s i nto separate offi ces, wi th
a far more ri gi d hi erarchy, and far more detai l ed
hi erarchy, than Chri st ever announced. What we
have seen i n the churchs offi ces i s I mreaucmti zati on.
The earl y church i mi tated the structure of the col l aps-
200 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
i ng ci vi l government of the Roman Empi re (whi ch to
some extent i t was actual l y repl aci ng). Modern
churches have done much the same thi ng.
The Ol d Testament recogni zed the head of the
househol d as the fami l ys pri est. The father l ed the
fami l y i n servi ces at the passover. And i t shal l come
to pass, when your chi l dren shal l say unto you,
What mean ye by thi s servi ce? That ye shal l say, I t i s
the sacri fi ce of the LORDS passover, who passed over
the houses of the chi l dren of I srael i n Egypt, when he
smote the Egypti ans, and del i vered our houses. And
the peopl e bowed the head and worshi ped (Exodus
12:26-27). When the Hebrews l eft Egypt, God estab-
l i shed a central i zed pri esthood (Levi ti cus 3), but thi s
pri esthood never repl aced the fami l y pri ests acti vi -
ti es; i t onl y suppl emented those acti vi ti es. The bul k
of the fami l ys worshi p was i n the home.
Just before God gave I srael Hi s Ten Command-
ments, He announced: And ye shal l be unto me a
ki ngdom of pri ests, and an hol y nati on. These are
the words whi ch thou shal t speak unto the chi l dren
of I srael (Exodus 19:6). Thi s prophecy was ful fi l l ed
by Chri sts comi ng, sai d Peter: %ut ye are a chosen
generati on, a royal pri esthood, an hol y nati on, a
pecul i ar peopl e; that ye shoul d shew forth the prai ses
of hi m who bath cal l ed you out of darkness i nto hi s
marvel ous l i ght (I Peter 2 :9). Ezmy believer Z3 a priest.
Thi s does not make hi m a sol i tary fi gure wi th un-
questi oned authori ty. I t does make hi m (or her) a
l awful pri est when he (or she) i s the head of a house-
hol d. Church authori ti es must be mal es, never
women, but wi dows are l awful pri ests performi ng
eHI Ri ctl 2ol
pri estl y duti es i n the home. Certai nl y wi ves are
pri ests, for they wait on tabl es conti nual l y, maKng
them assi stants to el ders i n the home.
On the questi on of femal e offi cers i n the church,
there i s no questi on among those who bel i eve i n the
testi mony of the Bi bl e. Anyone who rei %ses to acknowl -
edge thi s teachi ng doesnt bel i eve i n the Bi bl e. I t can
serve as a means of testi ng a churchs commi tment to
the Bi bl e. Paul wrote: Let the woman l earn i n
si l ence wi th al l subjecti on. But I suffer not a woman
to teach, nor to usurp authori ty over the man, but to
be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not decei ved, but the woman bei ng
decei ved was in the transgressi on (1 Ti mothy
2:12-14). Paul was adamant about thi s: Let your
women keep si l ence i n the churches: for i t i s not per-
mi tted unto them to speak; but they are commanded
to be under obedi ence, as also saith the law. And i f
they wi l l l earn any thi ng, let them ask thei r hus-
bands at home: for i t i s a shame for women to speak
in the church (I Cori nthi ans 14:34-35). Churches that
ordain wonum to positions of authon~, or which ordain them
as ministers of the gospel, are in open, f?agrant rebellion
against God. Thats what the Bi bl e teaches. (Sunday
school s are not general l y consi dered to be actual
church meeti ngs, al though they meet i n the church
bui l di ngs. Havi ng women teach the adul t Sunday
school , however, borders on rebel l i on, for most peo-
pl e consi der the Sunday school al most church; and
some seem to thi nk i ts more than church, si nce
they take thei r chi l dren to some l ocal Sunday school ,
but they never accompany thei r chi l dren i nto a
202 lJNcoNDnloNAL 8URRENDER
church meeti ng. Thi s, however, was the reason the
earl i est Sunday school s were devel oped i n modern
urban areas: to reach si nners through the conversi on
of thei r chi l dren. Tday, the Sunday school has tended
to be a repl acement for decl i ni ng parental , especi al l y
paternal , i nstructi on i n the home. Women can l egi ti -
matel y i nstruct chi l dren i n Sunday school , for they
are not exerci si ng authori ty over men.)
community
A commu~ip in communi on: thi s i s the standard for
the i nsti tuti onal church. I t i s the fami l y of God, wi th
al l the probl ems of a fmi l y. I t i s the assembl y of the
fai thful , meeti ng every week on what we unfortu-
natel y cal l Sunday (a rel i c of the Roman cal endar).
I t i s a true communi ty, based on shared goal s,
shared bel i efs, shared burdens, and shared bl essi ngs.
Chri st tol d Hi s di sci pl es: Thi s i s my command-
ment, That ye l ove one another, as I have l oved you
(John 15:12). Agai n, These di ngs I command you,
that ye l ove one another (John 15:17). John wrote:
Hereby percei ve we the l ove of God, because he l ai d
down hi s l i fe for us: and we ought to l ay down our
l i ves for the brethren (I John 3:16). I n fact, _We
know that we have passed from death unto Me,
because we l ove the brethren. He that l oveth not hi s
brother abi deth i n death (I John 3:14). Peter wrote:
Seei ng ye have puri fi ed your soul s i n obeyi ng the
truth through the Spi ri t unto unfei gned l ove of the
brethren, see that ye l ove one another wi th a pure
heart ferventl y (I Peter 1:22). The church i s to be an
i nsti tuti on of cooperati ng, l ovi ng peopl e. Thi s i s a
CHURCH 203
mature l ove by stable people, not wi l dl y emoti onal chi l -
dren: That we henceforth be no more chi l dren, tossed
to and fm, and carri ed about wi th every wi nd of doc-
tri ne, by the sl ei ght of men, and cunni ng crafti ness,
whereby they l i e i n wai t to decei ve, but speaki ng the
truth i n l ove, may grow up i nto hi m i n al l thi ngs,
whi ch i s the head, even Chri st, from whom the
whol e body fi tl y joi ned together and compacted by
that whi ch every joi nt suppl i eth, accordi i g to the
effectual worki ng i n the measure of every part, mak-
eth i ncrease of the body unto the edl ~l ng of i tsel f i n
l ove (Ephesi ans 4:14-16). Thats a l engthy sentence,
but i t says a l ot. The church i s Chri sts body, and He
i s the head. I t i s to edi fy i tsel f, through sound doc-
tri ne. I t i s not to be tossed to and fro by every wi nd
of new doctri ne that comes al ong. Chri st hol ds Hi s
body together by sound doctrine and mutual love. Both
are absol utel y vi tal to the survi val of the i nsti tuti onal
church. Sadl y, i n practi ce, churches seem to speci al -
i ze i n one or the other: sound doctri ne and frozen
peopl e, or l ots of l ove and no sense. I ts too often a
choi ce between mature stabi My wi thout vi si bl e i ndi -
cati ons of l ove, or el se bubbl i ng joy coupl ed wi th
shi fti ng crackpot doctri nes.
Love i nvol ves a strong personal commi tment.
We read that the l ove of money i s the root of al l evi l
(I Ti mothy 6:10a), whi ch i ndi cates a ~aspi ng or
cl i ngi ng on the part of the l over. I ts an unwi l l i ngness
to l et go, a systemati c dedi cati on of ones l i fe to
somethi ng el se. Thi i i s a good descri pti on of l ove,
and i t appl i es to human rel ati onshi ps, too. But thi s i s
a defi ni ti on wi thout content. We must ask oursel ves,
204 UNCDNDITION&L SURRENDER
Love i n terms of what? What are we to l ove i n our
fel l ow Chri sti ans? What are the standards of l ove?
How are we to act toward them? The answer i s
found i n Paul s l etter to the church i n Rome: Love
worketh no i l l to hi s nei ghbour: therefore l ove i s the
ful fi l l i ng of the l aw (Remans 13:10). Love i s l awful .
I t takes note of Gods standard of ri ghteousness. I t
seeks to appl y those standards i n every human si tua-
ti on. Men do not l i e about thei r fel l ow Chri sti ans or
turn them away empty-handed when a cri si s stri kes.
Love i s the vi si bl e mani festati on of the l aw i n acti on.
I t i s an emoti onal cl i ngi ng to l i ke-mi nded fol l owers
of Chri st, but a cl i ngi ng i n terms of reveal ed l aw. I t
i s not si mpl y ungui ded and di sti ncti onl ess emoti onal
commi tment; it is systematic commitnunt to the we~are of
others in terms of God5 law. Love i s not an excuse for
l awl essness.
By l i nki ng the l ove of God and the l aw of God,
we can better understand the cross. Gods l ove to the
worl d was mani fested i n the same event as Hi s ven-
geance agai nst l aw-breaki ng. God executes Hi s
judgment. He does so wi thout respect of persons.
For the LORD your God i s God of gods, and LORD
of l ords, a great God, a mi ghty, and a terri bl e [God],
whi ch regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward. He
cl oth execute the judgment of the fatherl ess and
wi dow, and l oveth the stranger, i n gi vi ng hi m food
and rai ment. Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye
were strangers i n the l and of Egypt (Deuteronomy
10:17-19). Si nce strangers were forei gners to Gods
covenant, unci rcumci sed dwel l ers i n the l and, Gods
judgment i n hi story was agai nst them. Neverthel ess,
CHURCH 205
men were tol d to l ove them. What di d thi s mean? I t
meant that the Hebrews were to deal honestl y wi th
them, gi vi ng them the ful l protecti on of the l aw of
God. God, who i s a uni versal soverei gn, requi res al l
men to heed Hi s commands. This h the biblical doctrzne
of love: to render honestjudgmnt, and bnng the rule of Godh
law over all men, including the strange. Love i s the ful fi l l -
i ng of the l aw. Thi s i s why the cross i s the supreme
symbol of both Gods l ove and Gods absol ute jus-
ti ce: Chri st di ed on the cross to sati sfy Gods justi ce,
and thi s sacri fi ce of Gods Son reveal s Gods i ncom-
parabl e l ove for Hi s adopted sons.
Conceptual l y, brotherl y l ove and l ove of money
are di fferent. Love of money i s sel f-ori ented, the ser-
vi ce of mans l usts. Brotherl y l ove i s ori ented toward
the wel fare of others, even as Chri st di ed for Hi s
fri ends. A man can l ove money, i f money i s to hi m
si mpl y a si gn of hi s effecti veness i n sel l i ng consumers
what they want at pri ces more competi ti ve than
other sel l ers are wi l l i ng to offer consumers. Money
wi thi n the framework of a competi ti ve free market
neednt be an evi l . I f men regard money as a ki nd of
i ndi cator of consumer sati sfacti on, then money i s
l egi ti mate, and the quest for money i s l egi ti mate.
But money sought for i ts own sake, i rrespecti ve of
the damage the quest does (sel l i ng pornography, for
exampl e, or cheati ng the poor), i s the si gn of
rebel l i ous mans god, hi msel f. I t i s the ori entati on of
a mans acti vi ti es that i s i mportant i n defi ni ng good
l ove from bad l ove. Agai n, the law of God provioks us
with standards that allow w to test the kind of love in our
h.mt.s.
206 uNaNDmaM SURRENDER
The heal thy church i s made up of many sorts of
peopl e. Paul descri bed the church i n terms of a
body: head, hands, eyes, l esser parts, but al l under
the di recti on of Jesus Chri st, the true Head of the
church (I Cori nthi ans 12). The di vi si on of l abor i s
basi c to any fi .mcti oni ng church. Di fferent peopl e
have di fferent ski l l s. The church needs al l sorts of
peopl e i f i t i s to be a fi ,mcti oni ng body, or l i vi ng uni t.
I t i s a col l ecti ve, responsi bl e before God for i ts col -
l ecti ve acti ons. Bl essi ngs come to i ndi vi dual s be-
cause of thei r membershi p i n col l ecti ves; so do judg-
ments. God i s both one and many; we are one and
many as members. Thi s i s why God wants a com-
prehensi ve church, one whi ch i s abl e to bri ng a sense
of meani ngful communi ty to i sol ated, l onel y men.
Men serve somethi ng hi gher than themsel ves. They
serve somethi ng that wi l l survi ve thei r bri ef l i ves.
They serve a cause whi ch i s permanent and whi ch i s
guaranteed vi ctory. The accent i s on servi ce. Men
serve God rather than Satan. The si gn of thei r ser-
vi ce to God i s thei r servi ce to other men, especi al l y
those i n the communi ty of fai th. The cri teri on for
[&ship in the church i s snvi ce to the church: . . . but
he that i s greatest among you, l et hi m be as the
youngeq and he that i s chi ef, as he that cl oth serve
(Luke 22:26). Chri st was the sufferi ng servant. Hi s
sufferi ng servi ce was i nstrumental i n establ i shi ng the
foundati ons of Hi s al l -encompassi ng vi ctory. He
served God and men; we must serve God and men.
He gai ned total power by Hi s wi l l i ngness and abi l i ty
to serve perfectl y; we gai n deri vati ve but comprehen-
si ve authori ty i n the same way, though as creatures.
CHURCH 207
The church has wel fare functi ons. I t cares for the
el derl y and for defensel ess wi dows (I Ti mothy 5). I t
cares for those members faci ng a cal ami ty, and not
just those who are members of the l ocal congregati on
(I I Cori nthi ans 9). But i ts chari ty i s not to be l awl ess
or i ndi scri mi nate. Paul wrote: _For even when we
were wi th you, thi s we commanded you, that i f any
woul d not work, nei ther shoul d he eat (I I Thessa-
I oni ans 3:10). The church i s the body of Chri st, and
Chri st has provi ded the church wi th eyes, ears, and
a standard of l aw, so that the l eaders mi ght not waste
the ti thes and offeri ngs of the fai thful . Chari ty must not
subsidize evil, as the pseudo-chari ty of the messi ani c
State has subsi di zed evi l , fai l ure, and the enemi es of
God throughout the 20th century. Chari ty must not
subsi di ze sl oth. I t must not subsi di ze rebel l i on
agai nst the l aws of God.
Covenant
God establ i shed Hi s covenant wi th Adam, and
agai n wi th Noah. I t was a domi ni on covenant. I t
was mans authori zati on to subdue the earth, but
under Gods overal l authori ty and under Hi s l aw.
God al so covenanted wi th Abram, changi ng hi s
name to Abraham, and i nsti tuti ng the si gn of Hi s
covenant, ci rcumci si on. He covenanted wi th Jacob,
Abrahams grandson, changi ng hi s name to I srael ,
promi si ng to bl ess Jacobs efforts (Genesi s 32:24-30).
God covenanted wi th Moses and the chi l dren of
I srael , promi si ng to bl ess them i f they conformed to
Hi s l aws, but to curse them i f they di sobeyed (Deu-
teronomy 8; 28). The covenant was a tmz~, and i t i n-
208 UNCONDMONAL suRRsNom
vol ved nzutud obligations and promises. The rul er, God,
offers the peace treaty to a sel ected man or group of
men, and they i n turn accept i ts terms of surrender.
The treaty spel l s out mutual obl i gati ons: protecti on
and bl essi ngs from the Ki ng, and obedi ence on the
part of the servants. I t al so spel l s out the terms of
judgment: cursi ngs from the Ki ng i n case of rebel -
l i on on the part of the servants.
Thi s same covenant i s extended to the church to-
day. I t covers the i nsti tuti onal church, and i t al so ap-
pl i es to nati ons that agree to conform thei r l aws to
Gods standards. Paul wrote: And as many as wal k
accordi ng to thi s rul e, peace be on them, and mercy,
and upon the I srael of God (Gal ati ans 6:16). He
al so wrote to the Genti l es at the church of Ephesus:
Wherefore remember, that ye bei ng i n ti me past
Genti l es i n the fl esh, who are cal l ed Unci rcumci si on
by that whi ch i s cal l ed the Ci rcumci si on i n the fl esh
made by hands; that at that ti me ye were wi thout
Chri st, bei ng al i ens from the commonweal th of
I srael , and strangers from the covenants of promi se,
havi ng no hope, and wi thout God i n the worl d. But
now i n Chri st Jesus ye who someti mes were far off
are made ni gh by the bl ood of Chri st (Ephesi ans
2:11-13). They were strangers no l onger to the
covenants of promi se; nei ther are we. God has made
a new covenant wi th us Genti l es, ful ti l i ng the pro-
phecy of Jeremi ah 31:32-34: For fi ndi ng faul t wi th
them, he sai th, Behol d, the days come, sai th the
LORD, when I wi l l make a new covenant wi th the
house of I srael and wi th the house of Judah: not
accordi ng to the covenant that I made wi th thei r
etilmcll 209
fathers i n the day when I took them by the hand to
l ead them out of the l and of Egypt; because they con-
ti nued not i n my covenant, and I regarded them not,
sai th the LORD. For thi s i s the covenant that I wi l l
make wi th the house of I srael after those days, sai th
the LORD; I wi Jl put my l aws i nto thei r mi nd, and
wri te them i n thei r hearts: and I wi l l be to them a
God, and they shal l be to me a peopl e (Hebrews
8:8-l o).
One of the most effecti ve ways that Satan has
del uded converts to Chri st i s to have convi nced mi l -
l i ons of them that they are not under Gods cove-
nant, despi te thei r own bapti sms, whi ch are the si gn
of Gods covenantal rel ati onshi p wi th i ndi vi dual s
and the church i n New Testament ti mes. Satan has
convi nced them that no covenant exi sts today,
despi te the cl ear testi mony of the New Testament
wri ters. I f there i s no covenant, then there i s no treaty
of peace between men and God. I f there i s no treaty
of peace, there are no terms of peace. I f there are no
terms of peace, then Gods covenantal l aw structure
no l onger appl i es. Al l of these concl usi ons are taught
i n many modern churches today. But i f such a nega-
ti on of the covenant has taken pl ace, then the domi n-
i on covenant i s gone, and men no l onger have gui de-
l i nes from the l aw: moral , judi ci al , and domi ni cal
gui del i nes. Wi thout Gods l aw, we have no tool of
domi ni on. Wi thout a tool of domi ni on, Satans
earthl y ki ngdom doesnt face the same sort of pres-
sure that i t woul d face i f men were acti vel y seeki ng to
subdue the earth to the gl ory of God i n terms of Hi s
l aw-order. Thi s has been the sad story of the church
over the l ast century. Having lost the doctrine of God3
covmantalpeace trea~, His people have lost the vtion of vu-
toYzous conquest. Hi s peopl e have not acted l i ke ambas-
sadors of peace comi ng to i nhabi tants of a rebel l i ous
ki ngdom whose monarch has recei ved a mortal
wound. They have come more as Pi ed Pi pers who
woul d l ead peopl e out of a supposedl y powerful , vi si -
bl e ki ngdom headed by a vi ctori ous monarch and
i nto the powerl ess, pi ti ful ki ngdom of a di stant mon-
arch who wi l l not return i n tri umph to bui l d up hi s
vi si bl e ki ngdom unti l the day of fi nal judgment. I t i s
as i f the spi es sent by I srael i nto Canaan had been
i nstructed to fi nd peopl e l i ke Rahab, i n order to con-
vi nce them to l eave thei r homes and to come to dwel l
i n the wi l derness wi th I srael , unti l the day of fi nal
judgment. You woul d concl ude from modem Chri s-
ti ani tys versi on of Chri sts ki ngdom that God
wanted Hi s peopl e to dwel l i n the wi l derness perma-
nentl y. Wi thout a doctri ne of the covenant a peace
treaty wi th speci fi c terms of surrender, i mposed by
an absol ute soverei gn who control s al l of hi story
the modem churches have l ost the fai th of pre-Chri st
I srael i tes. Yet i t was Chri sts mi ni stry whi ch was
supposed to i mprove mens comprehensi on of God
and Gods domi ni on assi gnment. He establ i shed a
better covenant, we read i n Hebrews 8 and 10; He
di dnt abol i sh the concept of a covenant and a cove-
nantal l aw-order. But you woul dnt know thi s from
the bul k of the sermons preached i n 20th-century
churches.
Cnumi ?iI
Sacr aments
Baptism i s the churchs si gn of the covenantal re-
l ati onshi p between God and man. Most of the refer-
ences to bapti sm i n the New Testament refer to the
bapti sm of John the bapti zer, who was Jesus second
cousi n, or at l east a cl ose rel ati ve, through hi s mothefs
si de of the fami l y (Luke 1:36). Hi s mi ni stry preceded
Jesus mi ni stxy, and i t was he who bapti zed Jesus at
the begi nni ng of Jesus mi ni stry (Matthew 3:13-16).
The word for bapti sm i n cl assi cal Greek can i ndi cate
i mmersi on, di ppi ng, or washi ng. The onl y i ndi ca-
ti on i n the New Testament concerni ng the mode of
bapti sm i s Hebrews 9:10, where the word (transl ated
washi ngs i n the Ki ng James Versi on) i s used for the
vari ous spri nkl i ngs of the Ol d Testament.
Most churches bel i eve that bapti sm i s the New
Testaments versi on of ci rcumci si on. We know that
Abraham ci rcumci sed every mal e i n hk househol d
(Genesi s 17:23). We al so know that whol e house-
hol ds were bapti zed by the apostl es i n the New Tes-
tament era (Acts 16:33). Thi s i ndi cates that bapti sm,
l i ke ci rcumci si on, i s a vi si bl e token of Gods cove-
nant, that the bapti zed person i s ri tual l y pl aced
under the terms of the covenant, Gods peace treaty.
He benefi ts from Gods protecti on, but he acknowl -
edges that any rebel l i on on hi s part agai nst God and
Gods l aw wi l l bri ng judgment.
The reason why whol e househol ds were ci rcum-
ci sed i n the Ol d Testament was not because every
person i n the house was regenerate. I t was because
t~ head of the household ha.dplaced hirnsef una% the terms
of th covenant, and si nce he was responsi bl e for exer -
212 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDSR
ci si ng domi ni on over hi s househol d, am-y member had
to acknowledge hzi indirect subsemience to God. Gods l aw
rei gned i n the househol d through the head of the
househol d. I t was a @sonal covenant with each member,
yet it was i mposed because of the collective respombil-
ity of all members i n the househol d under the master.
As we have seen before, Gods treaty i s two-
edged: unto blessing as a resul t of obedi ence, and un-
to destructi on as a resul t of rebel l i on. The man under
the terms of the treaty i s sanctj$ed. He i s protected.
He may not be born agai n. He has been set apart
because of Gods external rel ati onshi p wi th hi m as a
resul t of hi s posi ti on under the covenant.
We have a New Testament exampl e of just thi s
ki nd of non-regenerating sanctification. I t i s a marri age
between a bel i ever and an unbel i ever. Paul wrote:
For the unbel i evi ng husband i s sancti fi ed by the
wi fe, and the unbel i evi ng wi fe i s sancti fi ed by the
husband: el se were your chi l dren uncl ean; but now
they are hol y (I Cori nthi ans 7:14). Does thi s mean
that God automati cal l y regenerates a pagan hus-
band because of hi s wi fes regenerati on? Di d Paul
preach sal vati on by marri age? Obvi ousl y not.
Then what di d Paul mean? Thi s sancti fi cati on i s
Gods way of pl aci ng a man or wi fe under the
benefi ts of Hi s covenant, treati ng them di fferentl y
from those not under any acknowl edged covenantal
admi ni strati on. Li kewi se, thei r chi l dren. They are
ho~. They are set apart. They are si ngl ed out by God
to be deal t wi th i n a speci al way. They are not
guaranteed a pl ace i n heaven because of a parents
justi fi cati on by grace through fai th. T% are put under
CHURCH 213
the terms of the peace treaty, l i ke the ci ti zens of Ni neveh,
when Jonah preached to the ki ng and he repented
(Jonah 3:5-10). They bel i eved that col l ecti ve judg-
ment was i mmi nent, and they put on sackcl oth as a
si gn of humi l i ty.
Churches today say that bapti sm i s the New Tes-
taments versi on of ci rcumci si on, but few of them
trul y bel i eve thi s, as far as we can tel l . Churches do
not i nsi st on bapti zi ng every member of a newl y con-
verted mans househol d wi fe, chi l dren, rel ati ves
l i vi ng under hi s authori ty si nce they si mul taneousl y
argue that bapti sm i s al so a si gn of regenerati on.
What they real l y bel i eve i s that bapti sm i s a si gn of
the spi ri tual new bi rth. But ci rcumci si on was not re-
stri cted to spi ri tual l y regenerate peopl e. I t was ad-
mi ni stered to al l those under the fami l y authori ty of
a l eader who was vi si bl y subjecti ng hi msel f to the
covenant. An enti re ci ty-state was ci rcumci sed i n the
Ol d Testament when the son of the ki ng of a Hi vi te
ci ty wanted to marry Jacobs daughter, Di nah, and
the sons of Jacob tol d the ki ng that every man i n the
ci ty had to be ci rcumci sed (Genesi s 34).
Paul deal t wi th the meani ng of Abrahams ci r-
cumci si on. And he recei ved the si gn of ci rcumci -
si on, a seal of the ri ghteousness of the fai th whi ch he
had yet bei ng unci rcumci sed: that he mi ght be the
father of al l them that bel i eve, though they be not
ci rcumci sed; that ri ghteousness mi ght be i mputed
unto them al so. And the father of ci rcumci si on to
them who are not of the ci rcumci si on onl y, but who
al so wal k i n the steps of that fai th of our father Abra-
ham, whi ch he had bei ng yet unci rcumci sed (Rom-
214 uNeoNDI Tl oNAL SuRRENDm
ans 4:11-12). Abrahams ci rcumci si on was a seal of
the fai th he possessed pri or to hi s ci rcumci si on. We
are the spi ri tual sons of Abraham, Paul wrote:
Nei ther, because they are the seed of Abraham, are
they al l chi l dren: but, I n I saac shal l thy seed be
cal l ed. That i s, they whi ch are the chi l dren of the
fl esh, these are not the chi l dren of God: but the chi l -
dren of the promi se are counted for the seed (Rem-
ans 9:7-8). Who are the chi l dren of the promi se? Al l
bel i evers i n Chri st. mow to Abraham and hi s seed
were the promi ses made. He sai th not, And to seeds,
as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, whi ch i s
Chri st (Gal ati ans 3:16).
Ci rcumci si on was a seal of fai ths ri ghteousness
for Abraham. Neverthel ess, Abraham ci rcumci sed
hi s fi rst son, born of hi s wi fes bondwoman, Hagar.
I shmael was not part of the covenant l i ne (I saac,
Jacob, Judah), al though he may have demonstrated
savi ng fai th. I saac presumabl y ci rcumci sed the
twi ns, Esau and Jacob, yet God hated Esau from the
begi nni ng, before he had been born or done good or
evi l (Remans 9:11). I n other words, wi th respect to
ci rcumci si on, it served as a seal offaith to those who be-
lieoe~ but it also was adminzktered to infants and household
servants who did not believe.
Why i s bapti sm any di fferent? It is a si~ of God3
covenantd dominwn over man. The bapti zed i nfant
grows up under the si gn of that covenant. He faces
the real i ty of Gods promi ses: bfessin.gs to those who
abi de by the terms of Hi s covenant, through fai th i n
Jesus Chri st; czmings to those who do not. No more,
but no l ess than ci rcumci si on, bapti sm testi fi es to a
CHmcn m
hol y God who separates the sheep km the goats, the
saved from the l ost.
Wi th respect to the admi ni strati on of bapti sm,
what was cruci al i n the New Testament era was the
speed of bapti sm. Phi l i p bapti zed the Ethi opi an
eunuch i mmedi atel y, as soon as they drew near to a
body of water (Acts 8:36). The Phdi ppi an jai l er was
bapti zed before the ni ght was over. He washed the
brui ses of Paul and Si l as, who had been beaten by
the magi strates, and he and hi s whol e househol d
were bapti zed (Acts 16:33). They were bapti zed
strai ghtaway, or as the Greek word can be trans-
l ated, at once. Both men were bapti zed i mmedi -
atel y after mahg a professi on of fai th.
Oddl y enough, modern churches never bapti ze
peopl e i mmedi atel y. Si nce ci rcumci si on was per-
formed on the ei ghth day afi er bi rth, and si nce the
Lords Day i s the day of Chri sts resurrecti on, the
day after the sabbath and therefore the ei ghth day,
many chur ches bel i eve that it is most appropri ate to
count each Lords Day as an ei ghth day and bapti ze
on Sunday. Thi s at least makes sense, but onl y i f the
new convert is bapti zed on the very first Sunday fol -
l owi ng hi s professi on. And i f he wants i mmedi ate
bapti sm, he shoul d be al l owed to have it. Newl y
born chi l dren shoul d be bapti zed on the first Sunday
after bi rth, or as soon as possi bl e otherwise. Too
many churches del ay bapti sm, turni ng it i nto a bi g
social event. Or el se they r equi r e the new convert to
go thr ough some doctri ne class befor e he is per mi tted
to be bapti zed, whi ch destroys the grace of the gospel
by maki ng works the condi ti on of membershi p.
~6 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
What most Chri sti an churches formal l y state,
but do not real l y bel i eve, i s that bapti sm i s the New
Testaments versi on of ci rcumci si on. The meani ng of
the two sacraments i s the same, they say, but they
cannot seem to agree on what the meani ng real l y i s.
From what we have seen, the meani ng shoul d be
cl ear: a stgn of God? peace trea~ with men, to be adhered to
or broken. Adherence to i t, through fai th i n Chri st and
outward conformi ty to i ts provi si ons, bri ngs bl ess-
i ngs. Rebel l i on agai nst i t bri ngs judgment, some-
ti mes on earth, but al ways on the day of judgment.
I t i s a seal of the faidz of the ri ghteous, and a seal of
doom for the rebel s. Because ci rcumci si on was ad-
mi ni stered to househol ds and even whol e soci eti es,
bapti sm shoul d al so be admi ni stered to househol ds.
(We no l onger have ki ngs who represent a whol e
nati on covenantal l y, so nati onal bapti sm today
woul d not appl y. I f, however, a majori ty of voters
covenanted themsel ves wi th God, and agreed to con-
form the nati ons l aws to Gods l aws, ci ti zens who i n-
tended to remai n ci ti zens coul d l egi ti matel y be re-
qui red to be bapti zed, si nce thei r l eaders had agreed
to submi t the ci vi l government to God.) And i t
shoul d be administered speediZy. To del ay the admi ni s-
trati on of bapti sm symbol i zes a mans del ay i n pl ac-
i ng hi msel f and hi s fami l y under the care of God, a
del ay i n si gni ng the peace treaty. There i s no New
Testament evi dence supporti ng the l egi ti macy of de-
l ayi ng bapti sm.
Why water bapti sm? Because water symbol i zed
both cl eanszng and.judgment. Prophesi ed Ezeki el : For
I wi l l take you from among the heathen, and gather
CHURCH 217
you out of al l countri es, and wi l l bri ng you i nto your
own l and. Then wi l l I spri nkl e cl ean water upon
you, and ye shal l be cl ean: from al l your fi l thi ness,
and from al l your i dol s, wi l l I cl eanse you. A new
heart al so wi l l I gi ve you, and a new spi ri t wi l l I put
wi thi n you: and I wi l l take away the stony heart out
of your fl esh, and I wi l l gi ve you an heart of fl esh.
And I wi l l put my spi ri t wi thi n you, and cause you to
wal k i n my statutes, and ye shal l keep my judg-
ments, and do them (Ezeki el 36:24-27). Thi s proph-
ecy was ful fi l l ed wi th Chri sts death, resurrecti on,
and the sendi ng of the Hol y Spi ri t, the Comforter.
He has pl aced a new heart i n Hi s peopl e (Hebrews
8:10). As for water as a symbol of judgment, we have
the testi mony of the Red Sea, i n whi ch peri shed
Pharaoh and hi s army, not to menti on the great
water judgment of the fl ood i n Noahs day. Jonahs
three days i n the sea monster i s al so representati ve
(Matthew 12:38-41).
But what of the second sacrament, du Lurd3 Sup-
per, also cal l ed communi on? What are i ts ori gi ns? The
ori gi ns of the Lords Supper are si mpl er to trace.
Jesus met wi th Hi s di sci pl es i n the upper room the
ni ght before He was captured (Luke 22:12). Chapters
13 through 17 of the Gospel of John are devoted to a
summary of Chri sts words to Hi s di sci pl es at thi s
feast. I t was the Passover feast, the ni ght that the sac-
ri fi ci al l amb was to be sl ai n. I nstead of cel ebrati ng the
Passover feast wi th thei r fami l i es, the di sci pl es cel e-
brated i t wi th Chri st, the head of a new fami l y. The
symbol i sm i s obvi ous. As Paul wrote, Chri st our
passover i s sacri fi ced for us (I Cori nthi ans 5:7b).
At the ori gi nal Passover, hel d the ni ght of I srael s
rel ease from Egypti an sl avery, the men were re-
qui red to stand, your l oi ns gi rded, your shoes on
your feet, and your staff i n your hand; and ye shal l
eat i t i n haste: i t i s the LORDS passover (Exodus
12:11). God woul d pass over thei r homes, spari ng the
fi rstborn, because of the bl ood spri nkl ed on the door-
posts of every home (Exodus 12:13).
The Lords Supper was di fferent. They ate and
drank si tti ng down. No l onger were they a peopl e
about to escape the bondage of Egypt. Chri sts sacri -
fi ce was about to bri ng vi ctory over Satan. Now they
woul d go i nto forei gn l ands as Gods ambassadors,
bri ngi ng Hi s peace treaty to the nati ons. They sat.
Why? Chri st i nformed them of a new era: And I ap-
poi nt unto you a ki ngdom, as my Father bath ap-
poi nted unto me; that ye may eat and dri nk at my
tabl e i n my ki ngdom, and si t on thrones judgi ng the
twel ve tri bes of I srael (Luke 22:29-30). They were
now Chri sts~udges. They woul d bri ng the l aw to the
nati ons as ambassadors who were al ready appoi nted
judges. The war agai nst Satan was about to be won,
i n ti me and on earth, at Cal vary. Gods i nsti tuti onal
ki ngdom was about to burst the bottl es of nati onal
I sr ael .
One of the strangest aspects of modern Chri s-
ti ani ty i s that thi s passage fbm Lukes gospel , whi ch
gi ves us Jesus expl i ci t words concerni ng the mean-
i ng of Hi s supper, i s vi rtual l y never ci ted by pastors
who l ead communi on servi ces. The words of Chri st
poi nt di rectl y to conguest and abninion. Chri st ap-
poi nted Hi s peopl e a ki ngdom, and a tabl e, and
CWIRCH 219
thrones of judgment, but al l we ever hear about the
Lords Supper i s the secti on from Paul s fi rst l etter to
the Cori nthi ans, where he warned agai nst taki ng
part i n the servi ce unworthi l y. I n other words, as the
modern churches have i nterpreted the meani ng of
the Lords Supper, i t i s a moment of great fear, a
ti me of si l ent sel f-exami nati on. Chri sti ans havent
the sl i ghtest i ndi cati on that i t i s a cel ebrati on of vi c-
tory, the l aunchi ng of a new ki ngdom, and the trans-
fer of the power of judgment to Hi s peopl e.
We have very l i ttl e i nformati on on the nature of
the earl y churchs communi on servi ces. At Pente-
cost, when the Hol y Spi ri t appeared i n power, Peter
preached to the assembl ed masses. Then they that
gl adl y recei ved hi s word were bapti zed: and the
same day there were added unto them about three
thousand soul s. And they conti nued steadfastl y i n the
apostl es doctri ne and fel l owshi p, and i n breaki ng of
bread, and i n prayers (Acts 2:41-42). Here was the
fi rst cel ebrati on of the Lords Supper. One thi ng that
i s i mmedi atel y cl ear from thi s passage, and from
others, i s that the cel ebrati on of the Lords Supper
was part of the normal , weekl y l i fe of the church just
as much as the other thi ngs menti oned. Weekl y com-
muni on i s the rul e, i n the Bi bl e.
We know from Paul s warni ngs that there were
some who were mi susi ng the Lords Supper. We
know that i t was a meal , si nce some peopl e were
bri ngi ng food, some were dri nki ng themsel ves i nto
drunkenness, and others had no food and were hun-
gry (1 Cori nthi ans 11:21). They were bei ng di sor-
derl y. Paul tol d them to eat at home, so they coul d
= UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
then come to cel ebrate the Lords Supper. But that
supper was a real one, for Chri st had cel ebrated the
Passover meal wi th the di sci pl es. So Paul was ap-
peal i ng them to come wi th stomachs ful l enough not
to be growl i ng, but not so fi l l ed wi th wi ne that they
were drunken. He wanted an orderl y, meani ngfi d
cel ebr ati on.
I n the earl y church, peopl e got together to cel e-
brate the Lords Supper. They met i n homes or pos-
si bl y i n some hi red room. They were supposed to
recogni ze the rel i gi ous nature of the cel ebrati on.
Neverthel ess, i t was a celebration. I f you l ook at a
modern churchs cel ebrati on of the Lords Supper, i t
l ooks l i ke a funeral . Si l ent, sol emn peopl e gri ml y
swal l owi ng token bi ts of bread or unsal ted crackers,
then swal l owi ng a thi mbl e fi l l of wi ne, or even l ess
real i sti cal l y, grape jui ce. (Were peopl e l eavi ng the
Cori nthi an church drunk because they had con-
sumed too much grape jui ce?) Thi s i s a cel ebrati on?
More l i ke a cerebrati on. The modem Lords Supper
i s a symbol of a symbol of a symbol : a symbol i c meal
(a wafer and a thi mbl e ful l of wi ne) whi ch symbol -
i zed the Passover meal , whi ch i n turn symbol i zed
Chri sts sacri fi ce. But where i s the meal i n the Lords
Supper? And where i s the cel ebrati on? Why eat
crumbs and not l oaves?
The head of the househol d di rected the Passover
meal . He was to answer the questi ons of the chi l dren
concerni ng the meani ng of the meal (Exodus
12:26-27). The chi l dren parti ci pated i n the meal .
They parti ci pated, and so they asked questi ons
about i t. I n todays churches, the father says nothi ng.
CHURCH 221
The chi l dren are often not al l owed to parti ci pate.
The excuse i s gi ven that the chi l dren wi l l not be abl e
to di scern the Lords body i n the bread. What does
thi s mean? Paul warned, concerni ng the di sorderl y
nature of the Cori nthi an churchs cel ebrati on, that
they ought to recogni ze the Lords body i n the
church. Paul taught that the church i s Chri sts body,
and he used thi s anal ogy to defend the i dea of the
di vi si on of l abor wi thi n the church. He taught thi s
i mmedi atel y after he had deal t wi th the subject of the
Lords Supper (I Cori nthi ans 12). Thi s i s what he
meant when he wrote: For he that eateth and dri nk-
eth unworthi l y, eateth and dri nketh damnati on to
hi msel f, not di scerni ng the Lords body (I Cori n-
thi ans 11:29). Thi s i s too often i nterpreted to mean
that chi l dren do not recogni ze the symbol i c nature of
the Lords body i n the bread. But Paul was not tal k-
i ng about peopl es fai l ure to recogni ze symbol i sm i n
the bread when he warned them about not di scer-
ni ng the Lords body, si nce he never menti oned the
danger of not di scerni ng the Lords bl ood (the sym-
bol i c nature of the wi ne). He wasnt tal ki ng about
the theol ogi cal weaknesses i n the chi l dren; he was
tal ki ng about tl u si ns of thei r dhrupti ve Parents.
The Bi bl i cal pattern, seen i n I I Chroni cl es
35:10-19, i s for the el ders to di stri bute the bread and
wi ne to the househol ds, and for the head of the
househol d to gi ve i t to the househol d members. The
Levi tes determi ned church membershi p i n the Ol d
Covenant, just as the el ders i n the church do today.
Thus, the Power to admi ni ster the sacraments i s
gi ven to the i nsti tuti onal church, but the procedure of
222 uNmmmmusumENDm
admi ni strati on i s by househol ds. Today, the l ocal
mi ni sters have repl aced the fathers i n thi s cel ebra-
ti on, despi te the fact that al l bel i evers are referred to
as pri ests (I Peter 2:9). The chddren are often not
permi tted to eat the Supper, yet the Passover had
been i nsti tuted by God to serve as an i nstructi on
devi ce for chi l dren. The cel ebrati on has become the
emoti onal equi val ent of a wake. Woul d the earl y di s-
ci pl es recogni ze todays versi on of the Lords Sup-
per? I t% doubtfi d.
Shoul d the chi l dren parti ci pate? What di d Paul
say the cel ebrati on referred back to? The del i verance
of I srael ! Moreover, brethren, I woul d not that ye
shoul d be i gnorant, how that al l our fathers were
under the cl oud, and al l passed through the sea; and
al l were bapti zed unto Moses i n the cl oud and i n the
sea; and al l di d eat the same spi ri tual meat; and di d
dri nk the same spi ri tual dri nk: for they drank of that
spi ri tual Rock that fol l owed them: and that Rock
was Chri st (I Cori nthi ans 10:1-4). Di d the chi l dren
pass through the sea? Di d the chi l dren eat meat? Di d
the chi l dren dri nk from the rock Moses rod tapped?
(Numbers 20:7-11). Of course! Yet the chi l dren of to-
days churches are frequentl y prohi bi ted fmm parti -
ci pati ng i n the cel ebrati on that poi nts back to the ex-
peri ence of the Hebrew chi l dren-the sons and
daughters who conquered the l and of Canaan, after
thei r parents had di ed i n the wi l derness because of
thei r sl ave-l i ke fearful ness.
Perhaps some day we wi l l have churches that eat
real bread, and dri nk real wi ne, and i nvi te chi l dren
to parti ci pate. (Those who may be horri fi ed by the
enlmcn 229
suggesti on that wi ne, bei ng an al cohol i c beverage,
shoul d ever be served i n church, because l i quor i s
al ways forbi dden, shoul d reconsi der Deuteronomy
14:26, whi ch enjoi ned upon every fami l y i n I srael the
cel ebrati on of the ti the, a communi ty cel ebrati on:
And thou shal t bestow that money for whatsoever
thy soul l usteth ti er , for oxen, or for sheep, or for
wi ne, or for strong dri nk, or for whatsoever thy soul
desi reth, and thou shal t eat there before the LORD thy
God, and thou shal t rejoi ce, thou, and thi ne house-
hol d. And the next verse requi red the Hebrews to
i nvi te the Levi te pri ests to the cel ebrati on. Maybe
some commentators thi nk they can turn wi ne i nto
grape jui ce, the way that Chri st turned water i nto
wi ne [John 2], but there i s no way on earth that any
commentator can l egi ti matel y turn strong dri nk
i nto grape jui ce.) Perhaps these churches wi l l al l ow
fathers to take part i n the cel ebrati on, as they di d i n
I srael . Perhaps the chi l dren wi l l be al l owed once
agai n to enter i nto the festi vi ti es, as they di d i n
I srael . Perhaps. But I woul dnt spend a l ot of ti me
tryi ng to l ocate such a church today. Ti me i s too
val uabl e to waste i n fi -ui tl ess searches.
Di sci pl i ne
Gods l aw appl i es to al l spheres of l i fe. No area of
l i fe can stand up and procl ai m i ts i ndependence
from Gods l aw or i f i t does, i t has made a fal se
cl ai m. The church i s an agency of domi ni on. I t has a
l aw structure. I t stands or fal l s i n terms of i ts com-
mi tment to Gods l aw.
One poi nt must be stressed: government i s fi rst
224 uNcoNDI nONAL SURRENDER
of al l se~-government. No human i nsti tuti on can
succeed i n bri ngi ng i ts own members i nto conformi ty
to Gods l aw by means of coerci on al one. There are
too many deci si ons to be made by parti ci pants that
are outsi de the vi ew of a church offi cer. Whether i n
the fami l y, the church, or the ci vi l government, the
goal is to substitute se~-gouemmmt for bureaucratti gover-
nment. What i s needed i s sel f-governi ng i ndi vi dual s
who stand i n fear of God, and who devote personal
resources to subdui ng the l aw of si n i n thei r own
l i ves. As Paul cri ed out: But I see another l aw i n my
members, warri ng agai nst the l aw of my mi nd, and
bri ngi ng me i nto capti vi ty to the l aw of si n whi ch i s
i n my members. O wretched man that I am! Who
shal l del i ver me from the body of thi s death? I thank
God through Jesus Chri st our Lord. So then wi th the
mi nd I mysel f serve the l aw of God; but wi th the
fl esh the l aw of si n (Remans 7:23-25). I n every i nsti -
tuti on, Chri sti ans must devote thei r efforts to di scover-
i ng Gods l aws, and then to di ssemi nati ng thei r fi nd-
i ngs, so that sel f-di sci pl i ned men can begi n to subdue
thei r own members, and then thei r envi ronments.
Z% churchi pnnuny nwans of di.mjline is thepreachiqg
of h whole counsel of God. Nothi ng of any l asti ng val ue
can be accompl i shed by formal church courts i f the
mi ni sters are not constantl y preachi ng the whol e
Bi bl e, fi -om Genesi s to Revel ati on, hel pi ng each
member of the congregati on to become more aware of
hi s own personal responsi bi l i ti es before God and to
co~orm hi s l i fe to Gods reveal ed and concrete stan-
dards. The word of God i s the most effecti ve means of
el i mi nati ng si n from the dai l y l i ves of the members.
CHURCH 225
Neverthel ess, preachi ng i s not suffi ci ent to gov-
ern the l i fe of any church. God has establ i shed minis-
ters ofju.stice i n the church. Paul warned members of
the church at Cori nth a si n-burdened church i n a
corrupt ci ty that they shoul d not take thei r di sputes
wi th one another i n fi -ont of ci vi l magi strates. Do ye
not know that the sai nts shal l judge the worl d? And
i f the worl d shal l be judged by you, are ye unworthy
to judge the smal l est matters? Know ye not that we
shal l judge angel s? How much more thi ngs that per-
tai n to thi s l i fe? (I Cori nthi ans 6:2-3). Here we have
a recapi tul ati on and extensi on of Chri sts announce-
ment to Hi s di sci pl es at the Passover that they woul d
si t on thrones of judgment i n Hi s ki ngdom. Chri s-
ti ans are to become i nstrumental i n handi ng down
godl y judgment, i n ti me and on earth, as wel l as i n
heaven. The exerci se of godl y di sci pl i ne i n the i nsti -
tuti onal setti ng of the church i s one means of gai ni ng
the necessary trai ni ng.
Paul conti nued: I s i t so, that there i s not a wi se
man among you? No, not one that shal l be abl e to
judge between hi s brethren? (I Cori nthi ans 6:5).
The church members, Paul reported, were constantl y
goi ng to l aw agai nst each other, and before unbel i ev-
i ng magi strates. I snt i t better to be defrauded? (I
Cori nthi ans 6:6-7). I n other words, the Cori nthi an
Chri sti ans were subordi nati ng themsel ves to the
judgments of pagan representati ves of a pagan State.
They were supposed to subordi nate themsel ves to
Gods l aw, as admi ni stered by another Chri sti an who
was wi se i n the l aw. They were supposed to bri ng
themsel ves under Gods admi ni strati on, i n order
226 uNeoNDmeNAL SURRENDER
that they mi ght expand thei r i nfl uence and eventual l y
judge not onl y men but angel s.
The fi rst step i n i ni ti ati ng l awful church di sci -
pl i ne i s a personal confrontati on wi th the i ndi vi dual
who i ni ti ated the wrong. Moreover i f thy brother
shal l trespass agai nst thee, go and tel l hi m hi s faul t
between thee and hi m al one: i f he shal l hear thee,
thou hast gai ned thy brother (Matthew 18:15). I f a
di spute i s worth a tri al by the church, then i t must be
worth a prel i mi nary confrontati on. That way, si n
can be bottl ed up very earl y. The probl em can be
sol ved before i t cl ogs up the courts machi nery.
Someti mes men refuse to l i sten to a compl ai nt
agai nst themsel ves. But i f he wi l l not hear thee,
then take wi th thee one or two more, that i n the
mouth of I WO or three wi tnesses every word may be
establ i shed (Matthew 18:16). Thi s i s si mpl y a reca-
pi tul ati on of the Ol d Testaments provi si on: One
wi tness shal l not ri se up agai nst a man for any i ni -
qui ty, or for any si n, i n any si n that he si nneth; at
the mouth of two wi tnesses, or at the mouth of three
wi tnesses, shal l the matter be establ i shed (Deuter-
onomy 19:15). % New IZstan.wnt law structure Z3 the
same as the Old Testmz.ent .?UW structure, so the mteria of
evidence are the same.
The next step i s the churchs court: And i f he
shal l negl ect to hear them, tel l i t unto the church:
but i f he negl ect to hear the church, l et hi m be unto
thee as an heathen man and a publ i can (Matthew
18:17). To be as a publ i can! What a fearfi .d puni sh-
ment. A publ i can was a tax col l ector i n Jesus day.
Whether i n Cori nth or Jerusal em, whether among
CHURCH 227
Greeks or Hebrews, there was no publ i c offi ci al
more despi sed, more resented, and more l ooked
down upon than a tax col l ector. And thats al l an ex-
communi cated church member coul d compare hi m-
sel f to: the bottom of the soci al barrel .
So the basi s of church di sci pl i ne i s thi s. Fi rst,
personal sel f-di sci pl i ne. Second, personal confronta-
ti on wi th the i ni ti ator of the wrong. Thi rd, a second
confrontati on i n the presence of wi tnesses. Fourth, a
consi derati on by the church of the formal charges
bei ng brought agai nst a man. Fi fth, judgment by the
church. By adheri ng to thi s si mpl e procedural out-
l i ne, the church i s supposed to mi ni mi ze such con-
fi mtati ons. I t i s assumed that the earl y steps wi l l re-
move the probl em before i t becomes a publ i c di s-
grace and a matter of publ i c censure by the church.
I n modern ti mes, i t i s di ffi cul t to understand the
threat of excommuni cati on. The i dea that there i s
no sal vati on outsi de the church i s not taken seri ousl y.
Even the Roman Cathol i c Church has general l y
downpl ayed thi s venerabl e doctri ne si nce about
1950. There was even a pri est i n the Uni ted States,
Father Feeney, who conti nued to preach thk ol d
doctri ne so enthusi asti cal l y that the hi erarchy put
pressure on hi m to stop. He refused, and the church
excommuni cated hi m i n 1953. The i rony i s obvi ous:
by Feene#s standards, thi s was the worst thi ng pos-
si bl e, but by the Churchs new theol ogy, i t di dnt
real l y mean that much. He establ i shed a new
church, the Sl aves of the I mmacul ate Heart of
Mary. I n 1958 he establ i shed a rel i gi ous commune
west of Boston, Massachusetts. I n 1972, the excom-
= UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
muni cati on was removed. The Church had not been
converted back to i ts ol d doctri ne, however. Perhaps
i ts authori ti es just wanted to be merci fi d to an agi ng
hereti c whose heresy had been i ni ti ated by hi s total
commi tment to a tradi ti onal doctri ne whi ch had
begun to be an embarrassment to the Church after
1950. (Feeney di ed on Jan. 30, 1978.)
I n anci ent I srael , excommuni cati on was feared.
Seven days shal l ye eat unl eavened bread; even the
fi rst day ye shal l put away l eaven out of your houses:
for whosoever eateth l eavened bread from the fi rst
day unti l the seventh day, that soul shal l be cut off
from I srael (Exodus 12:15). Agai n and agai n, thi s
puni shment was threatened, one whi ch was con-
si dered al most equi val ent to executi on, si nce God
woul d Hi msel f deal wi th the offender. To be cut off
from the congregati on meant soci al separati on from
the i nsti tuti ons of l i fe.
I n modern ti mes, wi th a church on every corner,
men have fel t free to l eave any church threateni ng
them wi th di sci pl i ne. They are abl e to wal k across
the street and be wel comed wi th open arms. The
concept of the majesty of Gods l aw has been aban-
doned. The i deas of the soverei gnty of God, the
threat of excommuni cati on, and the concept of
meani ngfi d church di sci pl i ne, have al l been forgot-
ten. The church has become a soci al cl ub, a fri endl y
l ecture soci ety, a pl ace for maki ng busi ness contacts,
a dati ng servi ce for teenagers, a free nursery for
parents who want Sunday morni ng off, and a refuge
fkom the confl i cts usual l y associ ated wi th the worl ds
affai rs. The preachi ng of the modern church has
CHURCH 229
become a pal e i mi tati on of the prophets of I srael ,
who chal l enged the cul ture of thei r day, from the
ki ng down to the l owl i est prosti tute. Our churches
have begun to resembl e the meal y-mouthed centers
of status quo propaganda that the court pri ests of
I srael and Judah created i n order to remai n i n favor
wi th the peopl e and the ki ngs.
Whi l e i t may be possi bl e to gai n membershi p
whi ch enforces a l owest-common-denomi nator ethi c,
i f i t enforces any ethi c at al l , thti kind of membership h
wort)dess on the day ofjudgment. Such membershi p onl y
del udes men i nto thi nki ng that they are i n peaceful
fel l owshi p wi th God. I t keeps them from faci ng the
magni tude of thei r own transgressi ons and the mag-
ni tude of Gods promi sed judgment. Churches that do
not pay attention to Godk law also @ore their resfionsibilites
in extending Godk &minion covenant. They maybe l arge
churches, popul ar churches, and churches of hi gh
repute. They wi l l not be effecti ve churches i n ful fi l l -
i ng Gods domi ni on asi gnment.
IZestitution rules church l aw, as i t rul es ci vi l l aw
and cri mi nal l aw. When the cri me i s so great that no
resti tuti on wi l l suffi ce, then excommuni cati on i s the
churcht death sentence not physi cal death, but the sec-
ond death of eternal puni shment (Revel ati on 20:14).
Onl y repentance wi l l suffi ce, and publ i c humi l i ty
before the churchs l awful authori ty.
Membershi p i n a church i s seri ous busi ness. I t
shoul d not be undertaken l i ghtl y. Li ke marri age, i t i s
a permanent commi tment. Man puts hi msel f under
God i n a covenantd rel ati onshi p. Li ke any cove-
nant, i t has terms of obedi ence. I t has a mechani sm
220 mwormmow SURRENDER
of enforcement. Just as a si ngl e woman must con-
si der careful l y whether she wi shes to pl ace hersel f
under permanent subordi nati on to a parti cul ar man
i n marri age, so shoul d a prospecti ve church member
consi der carefhl l y the terms of the churchs covenant
and the consequences of afErmi ng hi s commi tment
to i t. Churches offeri ng minimal covenants and numer-
ous membem are dangerous to the soul .
Ki ngdom
The i nsti tuti onal church i s not to be equated wi th
the ki ngdom of God. I t i s an agency of the ki ngdom,
but i t i s not i denti cal to the ki ngdom. The ki ngdom
of God i s as broad as the worl d. The ki ngdom of God
i s the goal of Gods domi ni on assi gnment. I t i s the
rei gn of Jesus Chri st, under God the Father, by
means of the Hol y Spi ri ts acti on i n regenerati ng
men. I t i s the rei gn of Chri st i n terms of the l aw of
God, i mposed by i ndi vi dual s and i nsti tuti ons.
The extent of the ki ngdom can be seen i n Satans
temptati on of Chri st i n the wi l derness. Agai n, the
devi l taketh hi m up i nto an exceedi ng hi gh moun-
tai n, and sheweth hi m al l the ki ngdoms of the worl d,
and the gl ory of them; and sai th unto hi m, Al l these
thi ngs wi l l I gi ve thee, i f thou wi l t fal l down and wor-
shi p me. Then sai th Jesus unto hi m, Get thee hence
Satan: for i t i s wri tten, Thou shal t worshi p the Lord
thy God, and hi m onl y shal t thou serve (Matthew
4:8-10). Satan had offered Chri st what was al ready
Hi s, i n pri nci pl e: the ki ngdoms of thi s worl d. Satan
coul d not grant them to Chri st. He i s not the Lord of
creati on; God i s. Satan hel d them al l as stol en prop-
CHUSCH 221
erty. And he was about to l ose them al l to Chri st
anpvay, for wi th Satans judgment at the cross, he
was cast out of heaven and down to the earth. No
l onger can he accuse us before God, as he di d i n
Jobs day. The twel fi h chapter of the Book of Revel a-
ti on shows us that i t was Chri sts resurrecti on and
ascensi on i nto heaven (VS. 5) that l ed to Satans evi c-
ti on from the face of God (w. 7-9). And I heard a
l oud voi ce sayi ng i n heaven, Now i s come sal vati on,
and strength, and the ki ngdom of our God, and the
power of hi s Chri st; for the accuser of our brethren i s
cast down, whi ch accused them before our God day
and ni ght. And they overcame hi m by the bl ood of
the Lamb, and by the word of thei r testi mony; and
they l oved not thei r l i ves unto the death. Therefore
rejoi ce, ye heavens, and ye that dwel l i n them. Woe
to the i nhabi ters of the earth and of the sea! For the
devi l i s come down unto you, havi ng great wrath,
because he knoweth that he bath but a short ti me
(w. 10-12).
The ascensi on of Chri st to the ri ght hand of God
seal ed Satans defeat, and i t l aunched the internation-
alization of Christ3 kingdom. I t i s extended by Chri sts
ambassadors. The church i nsti tuti onal i s one trai n-
i ng center for thi s conquest. Another i s the Chri sti an
school . The ki ngdoms of Satan are bei ng brought
under the domi ni on of God. Of course, Satan wages
fi erce battl e agai nst Chri sts ambassadors. He rages,
for he knows hi s ti me i s short. The poi nt i s, the i n-
sti tuti onal church i s not to be i denti fi ed wi th the
kkgdom of God, for i t was the world% visible kingdoms
that Satan offered to Chri st. Satans forces are l osi ng
232 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
the battl e to mai ntai n control over these vi si bl e ki ng-
doms by means of Satans human fol l owers. They
cl ai m soverei gnty over the whol e worl d, so the struggle
between the two kingdoms k for the whoh world. Chri st
tol d Hi s di sci pl es: But seek ye fi rst the ki ngdom of
God, and hi s ri ghteousness; and al l these thi ngs shal l
be added unto you (Matthew 6:33). What thi ngs?
Food, dri nk, and cl othi ng (Matthew 6:32). We wi l l
have al l we need, for the ki ngdom of God wi l l be co-
extensi ve wi th the worl d, Satans former possessi on
by defaul t, but now under attack throughout the
worl d. Thats why he i s fi ghti ng for hi s l i fe and hk
ki ngdoms here on earth: he has l ost the battl e i n
heaven. l %i s k Satank lwt stund. Chri st wi l l be vi ctor-
i ous i n ewny stronghol d Satan now temporari l y
hol ds. Then cometh the end, when he shal l have de-
l i vered up the ki ngdom to God, even the Father;
when he shal l have put down al l rul e and al l author-
i ty and power. For he must rei gn, ti l l he bath put al l
enemi es under hi s feet. The l ast enemy that shal l be
destroyed i s death (I Cori nthi ans 15:2426). I t i s a
struggl e to the death for Satan; i t i s a struggl e to the
death for death. Whose i s the rul e, the authori ty,
and the power the Bi bl e i s speaki ng about? Obvi -
ousl y, someone other than Chri st. Chri st puts them
down abol i shes them. Where i s thi s rul e, author-
i ty, and power bei ng exerci sed? Obvi ousl y, no l onger
i n heaven. What was the extent of thi s ki ngdom geo-
graphi cal l y when Chri st came to earth? Al l the earth
except I srael . What, therefore, wi l l be the geograph-
i cal extent of Gods ki ngdom on that fi nal day of
judgment? The whol e earth.
CHURCH 233
The kingdom is more than the institutional church. It is
evay nook and cranny of Satan-!s present and past rei@. I t i s
al l of Satans earthl y stronghol ds. It is ewny sphere of
/ije. The i nsti tuti onal church i snt co-extensi ve wi th
every area of mans domi ni on assi gnment. I t i s, how-
ever, a trai ni ng center for domi ni on, for i t i s the
source of Gods ordai ned sacraments: bapti sm and
the Lords Supper. The church as an i nsti tuti on exer-
ci ses excl usi ve control over the use of these sacra-
ments. I t al so ordai ns el ders to exerci se church di sci -
pl i ne and preach the word of l i fe.
Concl usi on
The church i nvi si bl e (eschatol ogi cal ) must be
di sti ngui shed from the church vi si bl e (hi stori cal ).
There i s al so a church tri umphant: those i n heaven.
The church i nvi si bl e i s broader than the church vi si -
bl e i n i ts spheres of i nfl uence, but narrower i n mem-
bershi p than the vi si bl e church. Chri sti ans are re-
sponsi bl e for exerci si ng uni versal domi ni on, where-
as the i nsti tuti onal church i s responsi bl e for preach-
i ng, the sacraments, and i nsti tuti onal di sci pl i ne. I t i s
not the sol e authori ty on earth: fami l i es, busi nesses,
ci vi l governments, educati onal i nsti tuti ons, and
other godl y organi zati ons al so possess l i mi ted, but
l egi ti mate authori ty. I t unquesti onabl y has a mon-
opol y over spi ri tual affai rs because of i ts ri ght of ex-
communi cati ng members. God honors the excom-
muni cati on pronounced by a l aw-abi di ng church
agai nst an ethi cal rebel (Matthew 18:18).
STATE
The best pl ace to begi n a study of the Chri sti an
vi ew of the ci vi l government i s Paul s l etter to the
church at Rome. The fi rst pri nci pl e Paul l ai d down
was that i t i s not the responsi bi l i ty of the i ndi vi dual
ci ti zen to exact vengeance. Wearl y bel oved, avenge
not yoursel ves, but rather gi ve pl ace unto wrath: for
i t i s wri tten, Vengeance i s mi ne; I wi l l repay, sai th
the Lord (Remans 12:19). Does thi s mean that al l
puni shment must wai t unti l the day of judgment?
Not at al l . God has establ i shed an ordained ministry of
wngeance, the ci vi l government.
Let every soul be subject unto the hi gher
powers. For there i s no power but of God: the
powers that be are ordai ned of God (Remans 13:1).
Whi l e thi s statement i ntroduces a consi derati on of
the ci vi l magi strate, i ts frame of reference i s broader
than the ci vi l magi strate. Paul spoke of powers.
These powers are l awful authori ti es over us. But the
word i s pl ural , not si ngul ar. Paul di d not l i mi t hi s
concept to the ci vi l government al one. He was not
236 uwormmow sumamsfi
even speaki ng of the Roman State, as such. He was
speaki ng of the pluralistic authorities of all kinds over eah
man. There i s no si ngl e human authori ty over man
whi ch can cl ai m fi nal soverei gnty. There i s no abso-
l ute and fi nal court of appeal i n ti me and on earth.
There are mult+de authorities that must be respected,
each beari ng i ts authori ty from God.
Men are not to resi st hi gher authori ti es. To do so
i s to be damned (Remans 13:2). Thi s i s extremel y
strong l anguage. Paul l ai d down a fi mdamental
pri nci pl e of Chri sti an soci al thought: a revol uti on
agai nst all consti tuted authori ty, meani ng the pow-
ers of government (i ncl udi ng, but not excl usi vel y,
ci vi l government), i s rebel l i on agai nst God.
The thi rd verse of Remans 13 i s the transi ti on:
from authori ti es i n general to the ci vi l government i n
parti cul ar: For rul ers are not a terror to good works,
but to the evi l . Wi l t thou then not be afrai d of the
power? Do that whi ch i s good, and thou shal t have
prai se of the same. Rul ers are a threat to Satan.
The very exi stence of rul ers poi nts to a hierarchy of
power and responsibility i n the affai rs of men a struc-
ture created by God. Then Paul turned to the i n-
sti tuti on of ci vi l government: the power. Thi s
si ngul ar noun reveal s a narrowi ng of focus: the i n-
sti tuti on whi ch bears the sword. Paul wrote of the
ci vi l magi strate: For he i s the mi ni ster of God to thee
for good. But i f thou do that whi ch i s evi l , be afrai d;
for he bear eth not the sword i n vai n: for he i s the
mi ni ster of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon
hi m that doeth evi l . Wherefore ye must needs be
subject, not onl y for wrath, but al so for consci ence
STATE 237
sake. For thi s cause pay ye tri bute al so: for they are
Gods mi ni sters, attendi ng conti nual l y upon thi s
very thi ng. Render therefore to al l thei r dues: tri bute
to whom tri bute i s due; custom to whom custom;
fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour
(Remans 13:4-7).
Paul actual l y spoke of the ci vi l magi strate as a
mi ni ster of God. Thi s i s a cruci al concept. The
word mi ni stry i s normal l y associ ated onl y wi th the
i nsti tuti onal church. Paul argued that the mimkter of
justice, meani ng the mi ni ster who bears the sword, i s
al so a minister ordained by God. I n a very real sense, the
mi ni ster of justi ce i s as i mportant to the l i fe of a
godl y soci ety as the mi ni ster of the gospel i s. He has
a di fferent functi on, but he i s enti tl ed to tri bute,
meani ng tax payments. I n no way are these tax pay-
ments consi dered theft, as such. Undoubtedl y, the
messi ani c State can demand tri bute at l evel s that are
confi scatory. A monopol y of the sword empowers the
State at ti mes to become tyranni cal . But taxati on as
such shoul d not be desi gnated as theft, any more
than the ti the to God i s thefl . Men are paying for vital
sewices rec~ued suppressi on of vi ol ence, suppresson of
fraud, suppressi on of Satans evi l works.
I n the days before the peopl e of I srael demanded
a human ki ng, God was thei r soverei gn rul er.
Therefore, when they came to the prophet Samuel ,
he warned them agai nst the consequences of rai si ng
up a human to rul e them i n the ki ngdom. We have i n
I Samuel 8 as fme a summary of the aggrandi zi ng
State as there i s i n anci ent l i terature. Here i s what
your future ki ngs wi l l do, Samuel announced. The
ki ng wi l l take your sons and assi gn them to the anneal
forces (w. 11-12). He wi l l draft your daughters and
make them cooks (v. 13). He wi l l cofi scate the fi nest
of your fi el ds (v. 14). He wi l l extract ten percent of
your agri cul tural produce (v. 15). He wi l l draft the
l abor servi ces of your own servants, as wel l as your
beasts of burden (v. 16). He wi l l take the tenth of
your sheep: and ye shal l be hi s servants. And ye
shal l cry out i n that day because of your ki ng whi ch
ye shal l have chosen you; and the LORD wi l l not hear
you i n that day (w. 17-18). He wi l l not l i sten to you,
Samuel sai d, because He had tol d Samuel , they
have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me,
that I shoul d not rei gn over them (v. 7b).
What was the nature of thei r si n? Z7zey had substi-
tuted an eurth~ kingfw a heawdy King. They wanted to
be as the nati ons around them (w. 5, 20). I n other
words, they wanted to el evate a man to the posi ti on
of honor and power that God had exerci sed over
them. They wanted to be known among the nati ons
as just another kingdom of man. They wanted to remove
Gods name as thei r rul er and defender, and to
substi tute the name of mi ghty men. They wanted to
l i ve i n the ki ngdom of man and not the ki ngdom of
God. God granted them thei r wi sh.
We know the mark of tyranny, the mark of mans
ki ngdom. I t i s a kingdom which refuses to recognize the
sovere@zty of God. This i s mani fested by a level of tuxa-
tion thut equa~ or exceeds tlw tithe, meani ng ten percent
of ones producti on. The 20th century i s the age of
the uni versal humani st ki ngdoms, for al l the mes-
si ani c States, si nce Worl d War I , have i mposed
STATE 299
l evel s of taxati on far beyond I srael s prophesi ed l evel
of judgment. I n fact, there i s not a Western nati on
(l et al one one i n the Communi st camp), that woul d
not have to rol l back taxes by at l east 5070 i n order to
reach the mi l d taxati on of Egypt under the
Pharaoh of Josephs day, who extracted 20% of the
nati onal product (Genesi s 41: 34; 47: 24). Yet Egypt i s
regarded as one of the most powerfi d dynasti es i n the
hi story of man. Egypt was a ki ngdom based on the
supposed di vi ni ty of the rul er, Pharaoh. Egypt pos-
sessed the most comprehensi ve bureaucracy i n the
hi story of man, at l east unti l the advent of modern
nati onal bureaucraci es, whi ch began to take shape i n
the l ate ni neteenth century.
Sover ei gnty
Shoul d Chri sti ans regard the ci vi l government as
the fi nal court of appeal ? Not accordi ng to the testi -
mony of the apostl es. The i nci dent i n the earl y
church recorded i n the fi fth chapter of the Book of
Acts presents us wi th a basi s of l egi ti mate resi stance
to unwarranted State power. The hi gh pri est and
chi ef pri ests compl ai ned to the Roman authori ti es
concerni ng the conti nui ng preachi ng by Peter and
the apostl es. ~hen went the captai n wi th the
offi cers, and brought them wi thout vi ol ence: for they
f-red the peopl e, l est they shoul d have been stoned.
And when they had brought them, they set them
before the counci l : and the hi gh pri est asked them,
sayi ng, Di d not we strai tl y command you that ye
shoul d not teach i n thi i name? And, behol d, ye have
fi l l ed Jerusal em wi th your doctri ne, and i ntend to
240 UNCDNDtllONAl SURRENDER
bri ng thi s mans bl ood upon us. Then Peter and the
other apostl es answered and sai d, We ought to obey
God rather than men (Acts 5:26-29).
We ought to ob~ God rather than men. I s thi s i n
opposi ti on to Paul s doctri ne? Paul s i nstructi on sai d:
I f i t be possi bl e, as much as I i eth i n you, l i ve peace-
abl y wi th al l men (Remans 12:18). As much a.s possi-
b/e, be wi l l i ng to submi t to others. As i t /i es wzthinyou,
be peaceabl e ci ti zens. Render tri bute, custom, fear,
and honor to whom it & dw (Remans 13:7). Paul s i n-
juncti on concerns powers and power, the enti re
system of l egi ti mate i nsti tuti onal authori ty, i ncl ud-
i ng the authori ty of the ci vi l magi strate. I f thi s i nter-
pretati on of Paul s message i s i ncorrect i f Paul was
not speaki ng of the many (al l i nsti tuti onal authori ti es)
as wel l as the one (the ci vi l magi strate) then i t ap-
pears to be i mpossi bl e to reconci l e Paul s teachi ng
wi th the response of the apostl es. I f he was enjoi ni ng
total obedi ence to the ci vi l magi strate, to the negl ect
of other l egi ti mate authori ti es, then he was establ i sh-
i ng a theol ogy for the messi ani c State, whi ch woul d
save men through l aw (l egi sl ati on). But Paul was the
great theol ogi an of sal vati on by grace, not by works
of l aw.
Paul s general pri nci pl e i s that the autonomous
human conscience the i ndependent and undi sci pl i ned
human consci ence i s not soverei gn above all the
authori ti es. Wherefore ye must needs be subject,
not onl y for wrath, but al so for consci ence sake
(Remans 13:5). But thi s does not i mpl y that the
human consci ence cannot l egi ti matel y rebel agai nst
the di ctates of one of these establ i shed authori ti es, f
STATE 241
consci ence i s supported by one or more of the other
l awful l y consti tuted authori ti es. 1% make the dictates of
any single human institution thejinal voice of authonty in
time and on earth, k to divinize an aspect of the creation. h
i s to substi tute human authori ty for Gods authori ty.
The Protestant ReJor.mation was a revolution against this
vqY doctrine. I t was a rebel l i on agai nst the Roman
Cathol i c Churchs doctri ne that the i nsti tuti onal
church can speak i nfal l i bl y and wi th Gods authori ty,
i rrespecti ve of the opi ni ons of any other authori ty or
group of authori ti es. The Roman Cathol i c Church
had arrogated unto i tsel f a monopol y of authori ty,
not because i t sai d expl i ci tl y that there are no other
l awfhl authori ti es, but because i t sai d there was no
earthl y court of appeal beyond the Pope when he
spoke on moral or rel i gi ous i ssues. Yet because al l
i ssues are at bottom moral and rel i gi ous i ssues, the
doctri ne of papal i nfal l i bi l i ty was, i n fact, an asser-
ti on that i n pri nci pl e, al l other authori ti es are under
the fi nal soverei gnty of the Roman Cathol i c Church.
I n modern ti mes, al most nobody bel i eves i n the
i nfal l i bi l i ty of the i nsti tuti onal church, i ncl udi ng
most Roman Cathol i cs. The Pope certai nl y has
hesi tated to enforce hi s own pronouncements, l et
al one the pronouncements of al l of hi s predecessors,
by means of the churchs bureaucracy. What modern
men do bel i eve i n, however, i s the i nfal l i bi l i ty of the
State, or the Communi st party, or the l atest rei gni ng
bearer of power. And even when they have become
total l y cyni cal , bel i evi ng i n the soverei gnty of no
soci al i nsti tuti on, they retai n fai th i n the soverei gnty
of some other aspect of man: the hydrogen bomb,
242 uWommWAL SURRENDER
the technol ogy of man, the evol uti on-di recti ng
power of modern bi ol ogi cal sci ence, the man-occul t
l i nk, the geni us of the l onel y arti st, the power of
reason, the power of feel i ng, etc. Men seek sal vati on
by thei r own hands.
Because i n our day the pol i ti cal order has the
abi l i ty to concentrate the greatest earthl y power i n
any si ngl e aspect of human l i fe, the messi ani c State
has attai ned a God-i mi tati ng power. Si nce there i s
no earthl y court of appeal beyond the State, accord-
i ng to modern humani sm, there can be no God to
bri ng judgment on the State. A few rebel s thi nk that
the i nevi tabl e forces of hi story can judge the bour-
geoi s States (Communi st doctri ne), or that some
other factor i n the creati on can si t i n i zn@rsonal judg-
ment on the State. They do not bel i eve that a per-
sonal Creator God can or wi l l bri ng judgment on the
vari ous i nsti tuti onal ki ngdoms of man.
The State, however, i s mans most powerfi d
si ngl e enti ty, and i t exacts tri bute from i ts servants i n
the form of taxati on, regul ati on, and an endl ess
stream of new l egi sl ati on. I t i s therefore, deficto, the
hi ghest court of appeal s, the soverei gn power whi ch
most men must pl acate most of the ti me. A growi ng
number of peopl e throughout the worl dwi de ki ng-
dom of humani sm may wel l reject the theol ogy of the
State, but they dont agree on any theol ogy to
repl ace i t. The theol ogy of the messi ani c State i s sl i p-
pi ng i n the l ast decades of the 20th century, but i t has
not yet been repl aced by any other uni versal l y-
agreed-upon theol ogy. I t remai ns supreme by
defaul t.
Wel far e
The modern State has advanced i ts cl ai ms of
total soverei gnty by two strategi es: war and wel fare.
The most cruci al i nsti tuti onal aspect of the wel fi tre
strategy has been the government educati on system.
By requi ri ng peopl e to educate thei r chi l dren, and
by establ i shi ng State-fi nanced school s, the State has
created a priesthood, the State-certfi ed teachers, and
an estaldfihed church, the publ i c school system.
Wehre i n the Bi bl e i s al most i nvari abl y pri vate
i n nature. The few cases that i ndi cate the presence of
the ci vi l government are ambi guous wi th respect to
penal ti es, the agency of enforcement, and whether
the repl acement of the Ol d Testament ki ngdom i n
I srael by the New Testaments decentral i zed, i nter-
nati onal ki ngdom has transfemed enforcement and
responsi bi l i ty to another agency.
Perhaps the most effecti ve exampl e of the fi mc-
ti on of the ci vi l government i n the Ol d Testament
where the speci i i cs of pol i ti cal responsi bi l i ty are
spel l ed out i n greater detai l i s the case of leprosy.
The ci vi l government had the responsi bi l i ty of
preventi ng the spread of di sease. I t di d not do thi s by
means of a massi ve publ i c heal th program. On the
contrary, the Ol d Testament spel l ed out a system
whi ch made a publ i c heal th program fi nanced by
taxati on vi rtual l y i mpossi bl e to establ i sh. What the
Ol d Testament ci vi l authori ti es were requi red to do
was to procl ai m a quarantine. The ci vi l governments
functi on was enti rel y negatioe.
The l aws governi ng l eprosy are found i n Levi ti -
cus 13 and 14. The si ck man was to be brought before
244 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
the pri ests and exami ned thoroughl y. The si gns are
detai l ed i n Levi ti cus 13:3-44. And the l eper i n whom
the pl ague i s, hi s cl othes shal l be rent, and hi s head
bare, and he shal l put a coveri ng upon hi s upper l i p,
and shal l cry, Uncl ean, uncl ean. Al l the days where-
i n the pl ague shal l be i n hi m he shal l be defi l ed: he i s
uncl ean: he shal l dwel l al one; wi thout the camp shal l
hi s habi tati on be (Levi ti cus 13:45-46). The man or
woman was cast outsi de the ci tys gates. He coul d
not come i nto the congregati on, hi s home, or hi s
pl ace of empl oyment. He became an outcast the
outcast i n I srael , i f we dont count rel i gi ous rebel s.
Garments worn by l epers or showi ng the si gns of
l eprosy had to be exami ned. Except for those actual l y
bei ng worn by the l eper, they had to be burned
(Levi ti cus 13:57). He coul d not sel l them to rai se
money for hi s own support. Even a house coul d be
condemned. The pri ests were requi red to make a
careful i nspecti on of a house that was suspected of
l eprosy. The owner of the house was requi red to
report any si gns of l eprosy to the pri ests (Levi ti cus
14:35). Any house that gave si gns of l eprosy after the
pri ests exami nati on was torn down, and i ts remai ns
were carri ed outsi de of the ci ty and tossed i nto a
pl ace reserved for uncl ean (pol l uted, defi l ed) thi ngs.
What was the responsi bi l i ty of the pri ests, or of
the ci vi l government, i n compensati ng the vi cti ms?
Abthi ng. There i s not one word about any form of
economi c compensati on. The authori ti es came i nto
a mans house, i nspected i t, and tore i t down. The
fami l y was l eft wi thout a home. Yet the ci vi l govern-
ment was not requi red by bi bl i cal l aw to pay the vi c-
STATE 246
ti m anythi ng. Or consi der the l eprous man. He l ost
hi s occupati on. He was separated from hi s fami l y.
He had to spend hi s days wanderi ng outsi de hi s ci ty,
shouti ng Uncl ean, uncl ean. He became a soci al
outcast. Al l he coul d do was beg i n the area outsi de
the ci ty, or start a smal l garden for hi s food. He
coul d not produce anythi ng for sal e i n the market,
si nce al l the works of hi s hands were uncl ean. Thi s
was quaranti ne on a total basi s. The l epers had to be
separated from al l heal thy peopl e. The rol e of the
ci vi l government was enti rel y negati ve.
Gi ven the defensel ess posi ti on of the l eper, we
woul d thi nk that i f the Bi bl e requi red publ i c assi st-
ance, i t woul d be i n thi s i nstance. The vi cti m faced a
di saster that was no faul t of hi s own. He was not
l azy. He may have been a property owner. I n the
case of Ki ng Uzzi ah, whose rebel l i ous act of burni ng
i ncense upon the al tar of i ncense God judged by
maki ng hi m l eprous (I I Chroni cl es 26:16-19), he was
quaranti ned, cut off from the Templ e, forced to l i ve
i n a speci al l y bui l t house (v. 21). Even the ki ng was
not exempt from the regul ati ons. I n other words, the
most i nfl uenti al peopl e i n soci ety, the decent
ci ti zens, coul d be cut down by l eprosy, but the ci vi l
government di d nothi ng for them. I f the ci vi l
government was not requi red to gi ve assi stance to
these vi cti ms of uncontrol l abl e forces, how i n the
worl d can a coherent case be made for Chri sti an
soci al i sm?
We~are tk to be a product of personal or ecclesimtical
decfiions. The State i s to be kept out of the wel fare
area because i t has a monopol y of tax col l ecti on. By
240 UNCONDITIONAL SURRSNDSR
provi di ng programs of tax-fi nanced assi stance, the
messi ani c State transfers weal th by force from some
peopl e to others. I t transfers soverei gnty from pri -
vate ci ti zens and vol untary agenci es to i tsel f. I t con-
sol i dates power i n the name of necessi ty. I t i s forever
seeki ng out new benefi ci ari es of other peopl es pro-
ducti ve efforts, i n order to consol i date raw pol i ti cal
power over peopl e. % we~arejiwticm, when central-
ized and math compuho~, leads to the creation of a nwssi-
anic State, and thi s State becomes arrogant.
Wi th responsi bi l i ty must come authori ty i n
human i nsti tuti ons. Wi th the responsi bi l i ty to hel p
the poor comes power and i nfl uence. The Bi bl e
makes i t pl ai n that centralizedpown is a threat to humun
society. Uzzi ah was not al l owed to act both as pri est
and ki ng; God cursed hi m wi th l eprosy and sepa-
rated hi m from the Templ e i n order to separate the
i nsti tuti onal powers of church and ci vi l government.
By transferri ng wel f=e functi ons to the State, voters
have establ i shed a central i zed agency beari ng a
monopol y of power through compul sory taxati on.
Local , vol untary countervai l i ng powers suffer a re-
ducti on i n power, for they suffer a reducti on i n re-
sponsi bi l i ty. Peopl e i n a cri si s l ook to the modern
State for thei r heal i ng (another use of the word %al va-
ti on, just as a sal ve heal s a burn). The countemai/iqg
power of pri vate wel fare agenci es i s steadi l y removed
by the i ncreasi ng wel fare functi ons of the State.
Because the modern State i s i nnatel y bureaucrati c,
chanty then becomes a mutter of publti law. Bureaucrati c
rul es are establ i shed governi ng the use of publ i c
funds. Thi s bureaucratic procedure is necessary i n order
STATE 247
to i nsure that fi nds extracted by the publ i c are used
by bureaucrats i n ways approved by the pol i ti cal
representati ves of the peopl e. But thi s means the
creati on of a vast systma of rules, re~lations, forms in
trz$licate, and investigating teams. Chari ty i s removed
from the scruti ny of those who are provi di ng i t, and
who must gi ve account to donors who can turn off
the funds. The personal judgment of the admi ni s-
trator i s hemmed i n by l egal restri cti ons, si nce the
State must l i mi t the %rbi tra# deci si ons of l ocal
bureaucrats. The cri teri a of poverty are central i zed,
reduci ng the i mportance of l ocal condi ti ons, and
l ocal judgments by chari ty provi ders concerni ng the
needs of reci pi ents. And al l the whi l e, the State i s ex-
pandi ng i ts power by creati ng a pmnent we~are ASS
whi ch owes i ts survi val (i t thi nks) to the conti nued
generosi ty of the State.
A uni versal responsi bi l i ty for provi di ng wel fare
wi l l eventual l y bankrupt the State. Li ke the con-
ti nual wars of an expandi ng empi re, the conti nual
wars on poverty carri ed on by messi ani c States wi l l
destroy them. There i s never suffi ci ent producti vi ty
i n the pri vate sector to redress al l i magi ned wrongs
or to compensate al l concei vabl e vi cti ms wi thi n a
soci ety. Capi tal i s l i mi ted. Nature i s cursed. There i s
uni versal scarci ty. But the messi ani c State refuses to
acknowl edge the l i mi ts on nature. I t l ocates endl ess
cases of poverty, di stress, and cri si s, but i t doesnt
have access to resources suffi ci ent to remove these
i nstances of poverty. W7zat the moo?errz we~are State o?Qes
is to assent its own diuini~. I t comes before men and
promi ses them a uni versal i nsurance pol i cy agai nst
248 uNcoNDmoNAL SURRENDER
fai l ure, cri si s, and Gods judgment. I t tel l s men that
nature can be redeemed from the l i mi ts of scarci ty
by the fi at word of the State. The State becomes an order
of saloation. I t promi ses to rol l back the curse of the
ground, not by means of bi bl i cal l aw, but by overcom-
ing the restraints i mposed by bi bl i cal l aw on ci vi l
gover nments.
I s i t any wonder that we shoul d wi tness the ri se
of the wel fare State i n the same era that we have wi t-
nessed the decl i ne of bi bl i cal fai th? Men must wor-
shi p somethi ng. They cannot escape thei r own
nature. They are under a soverei gn Gods power,
and when they rebel agai nst thi s form of subordi na-
ti on, they necessari l y substi tute another authori ty,
another source of soverei gn power, so that they can
serve i t. Thg need power to attempt their rebellion against
God% power. I n other words, you cant jight sonwthing
with nothing. You cant fi ght absol utel y soverei gn
power unl ess you cl ai m for yoursel f, or your repre-
sentati ve, absol utel y soverei gn power.
The wel fare State i s an aggrandi zer. I t i s a sel f-
procl ai med di vi ni ty. I t tri es to become a substi tute
fami l y and a substi tute church. I t tri es to provi de
men wi th i nsti tuti onal defenses agai nst al l di sasters.
A l ocal pri vate chari ty can l egi ti matel y admi t that i t
doesnt have the resources to sol ve every probl em,
but i t can concentrate i ts assets i n an attempt to
mi ti gate the effects of sow probl ems. A di vi si on of
l abor i n combatti ng di sasters can then fl ouri sh. But
the modern wel fare State cannot admi t defeat.
Defeat i s onl y for pri vate, l i mi ted, non-savi ng i n-
sti tuti ons. Any defeat suffered by a messi ani c State
Smn 249
i s bl amed on i ts enemi es: forei gn devi l s, domesti c
saboteurs, sel fi sh taxpayers, l oophol es~ i n the tax
l aws, or whatever. The messi ani c State must attri bute
i ts own fai l ure to i naugurate the mi l l enni um, i ts fai l -
ure to establ i sh heaven on earth, i ts fai l ure to over-
come scarci ty, to the moral rebelliousness of its polittial
enemies. The messi ani c State al so has a doctri ne of the
Fal l of man, and i t i s an ethi cal Fal l at that. I ts oppo-
nents are stubborn, or crazy, but i n any case they need
treatment. Men have transgressed the l egi sl ati on of
the State. Men have not turned over al l the assets
necessary to i nsure everyone agai nst di saster. Men
are i n rebel l i on agai nst the wel l -i ntenti oned sal vati on
of the pol i ti ci ans and the unel ected bureaucrats.
I t i s sad to say, but there are sympatheti c defend-
ers of the programs of the wel fare State who al so
cl ai m to be Chri sti ans. They tel l us that the Bi bl e
teaches that the poor and defensel ess must be de-
fended by the efforts of a wel fare State, wi th i ts pro-
grams of compul sory weal th redi stri buti on. But as
the hardest case known i n the Bi bl e demonstrates,
the case of the l eper and hi s househol d, du we~are
function of the civil government 23 exclusively negative, th4
protection of life andpropero. I n the case of the l eper, the
protecti on of the l i ves of those around hi m must be
the foremost concern of the ci vi l magi strate. The fact
that he suffers doubl y, from both the dreaded di sease
and the destructi on of hi s capi tal , i s not to deter the
ci vi l authori ti es. I n short, there i s no bi bl i cal case for
the constructi on of a hypotheti cal l y Chri sti an wel -
fare State. The Chri sti an soci al i st i s a sel f-del uded
(or demon-del uded) i ndi vi dual . Li ke the l eper, he i s
250 uNmNDmoNAl SURRENDER
i nfected. I n hi s case, he i s i nfected wi th a fal se theol -
ogy, the rel i gi on of humani sm.
The fact that there are so many Chri sti an
soci al i sts i n the worl d today testi fi es to the fai l ure of
orthodox, Bi bl e-bel i evi ng Chri sti ans to take seri -
ousl y the concrete revel ati on of the Bi bl e, especi al l y
Ol d Testament l aw. They have few answers for the
Chri sti an soci al i sts because they have such a defec-
ti ve versi on of the Bi bl e. The transl ati on i s not the
probl em; the unwillingness of moo%n conseroatiue Chris-
tians to accept as binding the whole of the Bibh i s the prob-
l em. The exi stence of so many Chri sti an soci al i sts
al so testi fi es to the success of the humani sts i n get-
ti ng the Chri sti ans to send thei r chi l dren to State-
certi fi ed, tax-supported, humani sti c school s. When
wi l l Chri sti ans l earn thei r l esson?
Di sci pl i ne
Every l aw-order must rest pri mari l y on sel f-
government. No l aw-enforcement agency can pos-
si bl y afford to trace down every vi ol ati on of the l aw,
or provi de for perfect justi ce. Certai nl y, no agency
can do thi s i n the mi dst of a l oss of fai th i n the l aw-
order whi ch that agency seeks to defend. I n an age of
l awl essness agai nst al l authori ti es whi ch Paul sai d
woul d l ead to damnati on l aw enforcement must be
l i mi ted.
The messi ani c State cannot admi t thi s. Every
wrong must be made good, every cri me must be
puni shed: thi s i s the offi ci al posi ti on of the messi ani c
State. But si nce thi s goal i s i mpossi bl e i n a worl d
of si n, l i mi ted resources, and rebel l i on, the States
offi ci al s must pi ck and choose. Whi ch l aws wi l l be
enforced, whi ch vi ol ators wi l l be prosecuted, whi ch
cri mes are i ntol erabl e? These questi ons must be asked
by every agency of government, pri vate or ci vi l .
Some l aw-order must be i mposed, yet no l aw-order
can be i mposed by an outsi de authori ty agai nst the
wi shes of the ~rotected ci ti zens. If a law-orb Z3 not
en$rced by se~-governmentjrst andforemost, then it cannot
hope to persevere.
Any l aw-order whi ch has no en$mement mechanism
i snt a l aw-order. The fami l y has a means of enforc-
i ng the deci si ons of the soverei gn agent, the father.
The church has a mechani sm for enforci ng the deci -
si ons of the churchs authori ti es. The ci vi l govern-
ment al so has mechani sms of enforcement. I n al l
cases, the i i rst means of enforcement i s se~-di sci pl i ne.
The Bi bl e provi des us wi th the fi rst pri nci pl e of a
l aw-order: The fear of the LORD i s the begi nni ng of
knowl edge: but fool s despi se wi sdom and i nstruc-
ti on (Proverbs 1:7). Agai n, Behol d, the fear of the
Lord, that i s wi sdom; and to depart from evi l i s un-
derstandi ng (Job 28:28). Fear God, and keep hi s
commandments: for thi s i s the whol e duty of man
(Eccl esi astes 12:13). Thejirst step in government is God-
jiaring se~govmmumt, meani ng commandment-abiding
se~-government.
I t i s the moral obl i gati on of parents to teach thei r
chi l dren the whol e of Gods reveal ed l aw (Deuteron-
omy 6:6-7). I t was al so requi red i n I srael that once
every seven years, the whol e l aw was read before the
assembl ed congregati on of I srael (Deuteronomy
31:10-13). Th terms of Godipeace treaty with men are to be
252 UNCONDITIONAL ~
univ.ersalfy known. Thi s, i n fact, wi l l mark the external
vi ctory of God over Satan, i n ti me and on earth,
when no man wi l l need to teach hi s nei ghbor the l aw
of God, because the l aw of God wi l l be uni versal l y
understood (Hebrews 8:11). Because of the spreadi ng
of the gospel i nto every nati on, i n pri nci pl e thi s
prophecy of Jeremi ah i s ful fi l l ed i n our age
(Jeremi ah 31:34). Z%e knowledge of Godi Lzw is the star-
ting point of every system of government, including civil
governm-mt.
The enforcement of Gods l aw i s necessari l y decen-
tralized. I n the church, an offense agai nst an i n-
di vi dual must be taken by the vi cti m to the gui l ty
party; from there, the compl ai nt, i f unsati sfi ed, i s
carri ed up the churchs i nsti tuti onal chai n of com-
mand (Matthew 18:15-18). The same pattern i s sup-
posed to be adhered to by the ci vi l government.
When the burden of provi di ng personal judgments
for al l the peopl e of I srael i n the wi l derness grew too
great for Moses to handl e effecti vel y, hi s father-i n-
l aw, Jethro, came to hi m and suggested an al ter-
nati ve. Teach them the ordi nances of God, he sai d,
and shew them the way wherei n they must wal k,
and the work that they must do (Exodus 18:20).
Thk i s the jirst step: convi nci ng the peopl e of thei r
responsi bi l i ty before God, and gi vi ng them the stan-
dards of sel f-eval uati on, Gods l aw. Second, sai d
Jethr o, appoi nt honest men over the peopl e to try the
cases, so that the whol e popul ati on doesnt have to
come to a si ngl e man for judgment (Exodus
18:21-22). Get the division of Jabor operati ng i n the
fi el d of judi ci al l aw. Moses agreed wi th Jethro, and
STATE 263
the system of hi erarchi cal judges was establ i shed (w.
25-26). Here i s the bi bl i cal pattern of di sci pl i ne: the
l aw at the top, se~-disciplined men at the bottom, and a ys-
tem of appeals courts in between.
The whol e system rests on the assumpti on that
men fear God, that they are stri vi ng to subdue them-
sel ves and thei r i mmedi ate envi ronment by the l aw
of God, that they are essenti al l y sel f-governed, and
that the courts are not cl ogged wi th endl ess appeal s.
I t assumes that men are wi l l i ng to accept the judg-
ment of other men because both the judges and the
judged are stri vi ng fai thful l y to conform to the re-
qui rements of bi bl i cal l aw.
Obvi ousl y, pagan States are not stri vi ng to i m-
pose bi bl i cal l aw. What i s the Chri sti an to do when a
command of the pagan authori ty comes i nto fl agrant
confl i ct wi th the commandments of God? Peter l ai d
down the basi c pri nci pl e: obgy God rather than men.
What a Chri sti an must determi ne i s whether a parti -
cul ar l aw of the State i s di rectl y threateni ng hi s posi -
ti on as an ambassador of Gods i nvadi ng ki ngdom.
Thi s i s where the other authori ti es are i mportant.
The Chri sti an needs to be abl e to appeal to the
Bi bl e, to el ders i n the church, and to magi strates at
the l ocal l evel who wi l l recommend resi stance to the
central government. But when al l authori ti es agree,
or at l east al l of those wi l l i ng to take a speci fi c stand
agree, then the Chri sti an must obey the ci vi l magi s-
trate. Paul s words i n Remans 13:2 are too cl ear. The
individualistic, autonomous resistance to the civil magistrate
by the Chrz3tian is prohibikd. He must conform to the
authori ti es, and i f they are agreed, he has no val i d
2s4 uNcoNDmoNAL WRRmDER
al ternati ve, except to l eave the juri sdi cti on of the
ci vi l government under whi ch he l i ves. Z%e Bib/e does.
not advocate anarchy.
Modem governments attempt to prejudge the
courts. Regul atory agenci es operated by tenured
bureaucrats are not a val i d bi bl i cal substi tute for the
hi erarchi cal system of appeal s courts. The central
government i s not to i ssue endl ess regul ati ons so
compl ex that even speci al i zed l awyers cannot de-
ci pher them. The i dea i s to i ssue tkws that all nwn can
understand and then hold ecwh man. responmbk for obey-
i ng them. The Bi bl e teaches us that se~-governnumt is
the only way any ci vi l government can expect to re-
tai n order and freedom at the same ti me. When cen-
tral governments become too powerful , when they
attempt to redeem every area of l i fe by means of
compl ex formal l aws, then they produce a combi na-
ti on of para$sti and anarchy. The central government
cannot understand the soci ety, nor can the members
of that soci ety understand the States l egi sl ati on. Both
order and freedom are akstroyed, for the State becomes
tyranni cal , unpredi ctabl e, and arbi trary, whi l e i ts
ci ti zens become hosti l e, l awl ess, and rebel l i ous to al l
consti tuted authori ti es.
The State unquesti onabl y has the power of execu-
ti on. Capi tal puni shment i s demanded by the Bi bl e,
and the State has no opti ons, once the cri me has
been determi ned and the cri mi nal convi cted. The
fundamental pri nci pl e of bi bl i cal l aw, however, i s res-
titution. The vi cti m i s to be compensated. The goal i s
ftdl restorati on, pl us a penal ty to compensate the
vi cti m for hi s troubl e, and al so to serve as a deterrent
STATE 255
agai nst fbture cri mi nal behavi or. Z%e State i s not to
save menfi om &mnation; it is to make possible godZy behav-
ior in a world in which the m-mind element G restricted and
almost compktdy eliminated. (The god of absol ute per-
fecti on, i n ti me and on earth, must not del ude us i nto
bel i evi ng that i t wi l l be attai ned, nor shoul d men at-
tempt to achi eve perfecti on by constructi ng a massi ve
State whi ch promi ses perfecti on. We may ai m at the
goal of perfecti on, but not at the expense of bi bl i cal
l aw, whi ch warns agai nst the total soverei gnty of any
human i nsti tuti on.) Bi bl i cal soci al peace reduces the
l aw-abi di ng mans costs of domi ni on.
Concl usi on
The ci vi l magi strate i s an offi cer establ i shed by
God for the restri cti on of evi l . The proper standards
of the ci vi l l aw are found i n the Bi bl e. Men are to
obey the ci vi l magi strate except i n cases where i t
woul d be i mmoral to obey, and where support for re-
si stance has been obtai ned from other ordai ned offi -
ci al s, meani ng l ower ci vi l magi strates, or el ders i n
the church. Anarchy i s forbi dden. Men are to obey
for consci ences sake.
Proper ci vi l government i s hi erarchi cal . A sys-
tem of courts must enforce the l aw by tryi ng speci fi c
cases brought to them. The ci vi l magi strate i s sup-
posed to procl ai m the terms of bi bl i cal l aw to al l
men, so that they may stri ve to conform themsel ves
to i ts standards. The pol i ti cal goal shoul d be se~-
gowrnmmt, not the rul e of bureaucrats. The goal
shoul d be universally proclaimed and universal~ under-
stood Zaw, not the rul e of i ncomprehensi bl e regul a-
266 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
ti ons. The goal i s not the creati on of an army of l aw-
yers, but of the rul e of l aw i n mens hearts. The State
i s not to become an agency of sal vati on. I t i s not to
procl ai m sal vati on by l aw or sal vati on by works. I ts
functi on i s to restrai n evi l , to provi de justi ce, to pro-
vi de a system of l aw i n whi ch acti ng men can work
,out thei r sal vati ons or thei r damnati on wi th fear
and trembl i ng. The ci vi l magi strate i s to suppress
evi l , pri mari l y vi ol ence and fraud. He i s to enforce
Gods peace treaty wi th men, or Gods judgment wi l l
be vi si ted upon the ci ty of man. The States functi on
i s mhuktmal, not sal vati onal . I t i s to restrain evil, not
create good men. When the State seeks to become an
order of sal vati on, i t produces an i mi tati on of hel l on
ear th.
As soci eti es become l arger and more compl ex,
the ci vi l government must remai n decentral i zed i n
order to achi eve i ts goal of creati ng soci al peace. The
fami l i ar argument of the soci al i sts and i nterventi on-
i sts that compl ex soci eti es requi re more central i zed
State i nterventi on i s ri di cul ous. The more compl ex
a soci ety becomes, the l ess abl e the States offi ci al s
are to di rect the soci ety. They are l i ke juggl ers who
are tryi ng to juggl e an ever-growi ng number of pi ns,
bal l s, oranges, pl ates, and other i tems. I t i s onl y by
means of self-government under Go#s bw that a compl ex
and devel opi ng soci ety can regul ate i tsel f. As the
French soci al phi l osopher Larnennai s sai d i n the
1830s, centralization produces apoplexy at the center and
anemia at the extremities. The pyrami d soci ety i s the
soci ety of Satan. I t cannot succeed. I t wi l l i nevi tabl y
destroy the soci al stabi l i ty necessary for conti nui ng
STATE 257
economi c devel opment, for the pri nci pl e of pol i ti cal
central i zati on i nevi tabl y comes i nto confl i ct wi th the
compl exi ty of a devel opi ng economy. The apopl exy
at the center cannot effecti vel y mai ntai n a heal thy
devel opment of the i ncreasi ngl y anemi c extremi ti es.
The use of pyrami d structures by pagan cul tures
i n the anci ent worl d i s no acci dent. The great
Cheeps pyrami d of Egypt was a representati on of
the whol e worl d an al most i nconcei vabl y preci se
mathemati cal monument. (The best book on thi s
subject i s Peter Tompki ns Secrets o~the Great @ramid.)
The basi c pri nci pl e of occul ti sm and magi c reverses
the order God establ i shed of reproduci ng the heav-
enl y pattern on earth: Thy wi l l be done on earth as
i t i s i n heaven. Occul ti sm says, our wi l l be done i n
heaven as on earth. Occul ti sm reverses the corre-
spondences between heaven and earth. The quest i s
for a magi cal tal i sman, or some other devi ce for the
representati on of the cosmos, to gai n power over the
external worl d, to get a handl e on the uni verse. I f
you can mani pul ate a mi crocosm (model ) of the
worl d, you can achi eve power over the worl d. The
most fami l i ar devi ce for most of us i s the voodoo
dol l : sti ck a pi n i n the dol l , and the person who i s
represented by that dol l i s supposed to be harmed.
The tower of Babel (Genesi s 11) was another rep-
resentati ve pagan archi tectural structure. I t was
probabl y somethi ng l i ke the Babyl oni an zi ggurat, a
tower made up of concentri c ci rcl es whi ch resembl ed
a l adder to heaven from whatever di recti on an ob-
server approached i t. Here i s the theol ogy that Satan
offered to Adam: autonomous mans way to heaven.
2s 8 uNcoNDllloNMsumENDa
The tower was a l i nk between heaven and earth, but
one whi ch men bui l t, not God. The pi nnacl e of the
tower represented the seat of power, the l i nk between
evol vi ng man and the gods. Manki nd, or at l east
representati ves of manki nd, woul d bri dge the gap
between man and the di vi ne. The earl i est pyrami d
i n Egypt was a step pyrami d, a transi ti onal structure
between the tower and the fami l i ar Cheeps-type
pyrami d. Li ke the Mesopotami an tower, the pyra-
mi d was a symbol of the l i nk between heaven and
earth. I t i s not surpri si ng, then, that the pyrami d has
l ong been a popul ar symbol for many occul t organi -
zati ons throughout hi story.
When we fi nd hi erarchi cal secret organi zati ons
ci rcl es wi thi n ci rcl es, secret i ni ti ati on ri tes, secret
passwords, arcane symbol s we shoul d be aware of
thei r theol ogi cal and phi l osophi cal ori gi ns. When
these organi zati ons are i nvested wi th power, espe-
ci al l y pol i ti cal power, we are face to face wi th the soci -
ety of Satan. The bi bl i cal pri nci pl e i s the very oppo-
si te of the one governi ng secret soci eti es: Ye are the
l i ght of the worl d. A ci ty that i s set on an hi l l cannot be
hi d. Nei ther do men l i ght a candl e, and put i t under a
bushel , but on a candl esti ck; and i t gi veth l i ght unto
al l that are i n the house. Let your l i ght so shi ne before
men, that they may see your good works, and gl orfi
your Father whi ch i s i n heaven (Matthew 5:14-16).
The si ngl e hi erarchi cal power structure, the secret
handshake, the i nner ci rcl e, the system of i ni ti ati on:
here i s Satans ri val program to Gods system of mul ti -
pl e hi erarchi es, reveal ed l aw, and open evangel i sm.
Chri sti ans shoul d understand the di fference.
The Engl i sh word, economy: i s deri ved from
the Greek word, oikonomia, meani ng management. I t
comes from two other Greek words, oikos, meani ng
househol d, and nomos, meani ng l aw. An economy i n
thi s l i mi ted sense i s the management of a househol d.
An oikonomos was a steward (Luke 2:2-4). Oikonomia
also refers to Gods di vi ne trai ni ng of Hi s peopl e, as
i n I Ti mothy 1:4, where the Ki ng James Versi on trans-
l ates i t as edi fi i ng: Nei ther gi ve heed to fabl es and
endl ess geneal ogi es, whi ch mi ni ster questi ons, rather
than godl y edi fyi ng whi ch i s i n fai th: so do. (The
l ast two words, so do: are not i n the ori gi nal Greek;
they were added by the transl ators.)
l %e steward h a manager of an owneds resources. He i s
responsi bl e to hi s empl oyer for al l the assets whi ch
he manages. Thi s i s the bi bl i cal doctri ne of steward-
shi p. me earth i s the LORDS and the ful ness thereofi
the worl d, and they that dwel l therei n (Psal m 24:1).
Who am I , and what i s my peopl e, that we shoul d
be abl e to offer so wi l l i ngl y after thi s sort? For al l
220 UNCONDMOMAL SURRENDER
thi ngs come of thee, and of thi ne own have we gi ven
thee (I Chroni cl es 29:14). Men are Gods appoi nted
representati ves on earth, but Jesus parabl es of
stewardshi p i ndi cate that the true owner wi l l not
del ay forever i n Hi s demand for a ful l accounti ng
from Hi s stewards (Luke 12:42-48; 16:1-8). I n fact,
the parabl e provi des us wi th the most i mportant and
cl earest i nstructi on i n the Bi bl e concerni ng Gods
fi nal judgment and i ts eternal consequences, and i t
l ays down the fundamental pri nci pl e: jiom him to
whom much is given, much is expected. But and i f that
servant say i n hi s heart, My l ord del ayeth hi s com-
i ng; and shal l begi n to beat the menservants and
mai dens, and to eat and dri nk, and to be drunken;
the Lord of that servant wi l l come i n a day when he
l ooketh not for hi m, and at an hour when he i s not
aware, and wi l l cut hi m i n sunder, and wi l l appoi nt
hi m hk porti on wi th unbel i evers. And that servant,
whi ch knew hi s l ords wi l l , and prepared not hi msel f,
nei ther di d accordi ng to hi s wi l l , shal l be beaten wi th
many stri pes. But he that knew not, and di d commi t
thi ngs worthy of stri pes, shal l be beaten wi th few
stri pes. For unto whomsoever much i s gi ven, of hi m
shal l much be requi red: and to whom men have
commi tted much, of hi m wi l l they ask the more
(Luke 12:45-48).
Thi s doctri ne ofjhllpersonal responsibilip bejore God
i s cruci al to our understandi ng of the Bi bl es message
of sal vati on. Al l men are si nners. No si nner can
stand before God al one and expect to survi ve Gods
eternal wrath. Wi thout Jesus Chri st as a mans si n-
bear er , meani ng a mans redeemer (a person who buys
ECONOMY 261
another person out of bondage), no man can survi ve.
Consi der yoursel f. You have read thi s book thi s
far. You have more knowl edge about Gods pl an of
sal vati on, not to menti on mans subordi nate pl an for
damnati on, than most peopl e have ever possessed.
Not that many peopl e have ever read a whol e book
on Chri sts work and i ts i mpl i cati ons for thi s worl d.
You are far more responsi bl e before God ri ght now
than you were before you pi cked up thi s l i ttl e book.
You wi l l have to gi ve an account of your response to
the i nformati on i n thi s book. You wi l l al so have to
gi ve an account to God of your handl i ng of al l your
personal fi nanci al assets, from thi s poi nt forward, i n
terms of the message of thi s book. There is no escape.
You now have the i nformati on, and i t i s your per-
sonal , i nescapabl e task for the remai nder of your l i fe
to work out the i mpl i cati ons of your fai th, i n terms of
the i nformati on thi s book has suppl i ed, i n fear and
trembl i ng (Ph~l ppi ans 2:12).
Ownershi p
The Bi bl e says that God owns the enti re crea-
ti on, i ncl udi ng al l the soul s i n the uni verse. He pro-
poses and di sposes. None can resi st Hi s wi l l . But
man, who was made i n the i mage of God and who
sti l l has a twi sted i mage of God at hi s very bei ng, has
been appoi nted to be Gods steward. Every man i s
an econonzos, or an economi st. Every man makes
deci si ons concerni ng the resources under hi s ad-
mi ni strati on. He chooses what thi ngs to do wi th
these assets. He says yes to one possi bl e use of any
gi ven resource, and no to al l other uses. We are
262 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
responsi bl e for every si ngl e deci si on we ever make,
and thi s i ncl udes our economi c deci si ons.
Al l economi c resources are i nescapabl y penon.d.
Ours i s a uni verse of cosmi c personal i sm. There are
no i mpersonal hi stori cal forces gui di ng our deci -
si ons. The worl d i s governed by a personal God. Al l
assets must be personal l y owned, for God owns them
al l . He may del egate the control over an asset to a
man, or to a fami l y uni t, or to a uni t of the ci vi l
government, but men are i nvol ved i n the al l ocati on
deci si ons at every l evel , i ncl udi ng col l ecti ve ad-
mi ni strati ve uni ts.
God i s both one and many. He i s a Tri ni ty.
Therefore, responsi bi l i ty can be both i ndi vi dual i sti c
and corporate. God hol ds i ndi vi dual s responsi bl e for
Hi s l aws, but He al so hol ds whol e soci eti es responsi -
bl e, whi ch i s why He wi ped out the Canaani tes. The
pure col l ecti vi sm, who bel i eves that al l property
shoul d be col l ecti vel y owned, that the State or the
Party shoul d own al l scarce economi c resources, i s
denyi ng one aspect of l awful economi cs, for he i s de-
nyi ng one aspect of mans refl ecti on of Gods very
nature, the i ndi vi dual i sti c. At the same ti me, the
pure anarchi st or i ndi vi dual kt who deni es the
l awful ness of the State as a property manager al so
deni es an i mportant aspect of human soci ety, the col -
l ecti ve, for he al so deni es one aspect of Gods bei ng,
the col l ecti ve shari ng of deci si on-maki ng respon-
si bi l i ty. The questi on for any economi c order i s
where the proper bal ance i s. What i s the @@r alloca-
tion of responsibility between the State and the i n-
di vi dual , or among the col l ecti ves l i ke the fami l y,
church, and corporate busi ness, and the i ndi vi dual
economi c actors?
We need biblizal revelation to guide us. Thi s shoul d be
the first printiple of Christian economics. Men wi l l rel y
on Gods testi mony concerni ng Hi msel f and Hi s
soci al creati on, or el se they wi l l rel y on thei r own re-
bel l i ous fantasi es, thei r own i deas of where the bal -
ance shoul d be.
What we must start wi th i s the sovereignty of God.
He i s the owner of al l the creati on. Second, al l own-
ershi p must be Persona/. Thi rd, al l men are fi dl y re-
sponsible for thei r economi c (and al l other) deci si ons.
Fourth, as we l earn i n Genesi s 3:17-19, the earth i s
cursed. I t now bri ngs up thorns and thi stl es to i nter-
fere wi th mans stewardshi p, whi ch i s a domi ni on
stewardshi p. I n short, God has i mposed scarnty.
What i s scarci ty? The best defi ni ti on that econo-
mi sts have come up wi th i s thi s one: At zero Pri ce,
there wi l l be more demand for an economi c good
than suppl y of that good. Ai r i s not an economi c
good i n most cases. At zero pri ce, there i s more sup-
pl y of i t than demand for i t. Thi s i s not true i n a
submerged submari ne, or on top of a tal l mountai n,
or i n the tanks on the back of a scuba di ver. I t i s al so
not true of cool ed ai r i n summer or warm ai r i n wi n-
ter. I t i s not true of fi l tered ai r i n a ci ty fi l l ed wi th ai r
pol l uti on or a farm area fi l l ed wi th dust. But for stay-
i ng al i ve i n most i nstances, i t i s not necessary to put
a pri ce tag on ai r. We dont need to al l ocate ai r to the
hi ghest bi dder. Such a good i s not an economie good. I t
may wel l be useful . I t may even be l i fe-sustai ni ng.
But i t i s not an economi c good. It is not a subject of
264 UNCONDITIONAL SURRSNDSR
fwman choi ce. I t i s not a resource whi ch requi res
mans deci si ons i n order to al l ocate i t.
Thi s seems si mpl e enough, but youd be surpri sed
at how many peopl e have never thought about i t
and how many have come up wi th defi ni ti ons that
are just pl ai n stupi d. The most i nfl uenti al economi st
of the 20th century was John Maynard Keynes, and
i n the concl udi ng notes (chapter 24) of hi s most i n-
fl uenti al book, The General Theoty of Employnwnt, Inter-
est, and Money (1936), he announced: The owner of
capi tal can obtai n i nterest because capi tal i s scarce.
But whi l st there may be i ntri nsi c reasons for the
scarci ty of l and, there are no i ntri nsi c reasons for the
scarci ty of capi tal (p. 376). But capi tal i s si mpl y the
combi nati on by man of land (whi ch he admi tted may
be i ntri nsi cal l y scarce) and labor (i ncl udi ng i ntel l ec-
tual l abor) over time. But i f one aspect of capi tal i s
scarce at l east one aspect, when i n real i ty al l three
are scarce then i nevi tabl y capi tal must al so be i n-
tri nsi cal l y scarce. Keynes was a l ogi ci an; he knew
thi s. Economi sts are students of scarci ty; they know
thi s. How, then, coul d Keynes have sai d what he
di d? Because hi s humani sti c system was a defense of
the State as sauior, the State as messtih, the State as
ma~ci an. As he sai d on the very same page, i t wi l l
sti l l be possi bl e for communal savi ng through the
agency of the State to be mai ntai ned at a l evel whi ch
wi l l al l ow the growth of capi tal up to the poi nt when
i t ceases to be scarce. He knew exactl y what he was
sayi ng.
Here i s the perpetual theme of al l soci al i sts and
Communi sts: the creation is not permanent~ cursed.
ECONOMY 265
Nature i s natural l y abundant, but mans i nsti tuti ons
have restrai ned thi s natural producti vi ty. I f we onl y
destroy pri vate property, we wi l l be abl e to l i ve once
agai n (as our anci ent forefathers di d) i n total l y abun-
dant communi sm. Thi s i s the Communi sts versi on of
Eden, the return to a gol den age, and i n the case of
Mami sm, a return i ni ti ated by bl oodshed and revo-
l uti on the theol ogy of human and soci al sacri fi ce,
as an al ternati ve to Chri sts sacri fi ce. They expect
the regenerati on of man and the regenerati on of na-
ture through the establ i shment of the col l ecti ve own-
ershi p of property. Man will regenerate himse~ by z@oot-
ing his present social and political institutions. Thi s i s an
anci ent heresy, goi ng back to the chaos festi val s of
the anci ent worl d, where annuai ri tual l aw-breaki ng
festi val s were supposed to put l i fe back i nto soci ety.
These festi val s served as symbol s of the comi ng
chaoti c revol uti on whi ch woul d eventual l y return
soci ety to the l ost Age of Gol d. (Mardi Gras i n the
Uni ted States and Carni val i n the Cari bbean are
festi val s that are remnants of the ol der chaos festi -
val s.) I t i s not by the i mposi ti on of Gods reveal ed
l aw-order that soci al i st revol uti onari es wi l l progres-
si vel y bri ng domi ni on over the earth, and progres-
si vel y reduce (though never compl etel y el i mi nate)
the effects of Gods curse on the creati on. I t i s by the
abol i ti on of Gods l aw-order, the comi ng revol uti on
agai nst al l bourgeoi s i nsti tuti ons, that Mami sts
bel i eve we wi l l el i mi nate natures scarci ty. The so-
ci al i sts may forego the use of vi ol ence, but they ex-
pect the i ncrease of State ownershi p to bri ng forth
total abundance. They rel y on the expansi on of State
power and the el i mi nati on of pri vate property to
bri ng i n paradi se. The State, as the hi ghest and most
powerful representati ve of man on earth, becomes
the source of personal regenerati on and soci al trans-
formati on. The State, in short, becoma the modern god. I n
the anci ent worl d of pagani sm, the State was seen as
the l i nk between heaven and earth. Modem pagans
offi ci al l y deny the exi stence or rel evance of the gods,
but because they deny the exi stence of any soverei gn
agency above the State, the effect i s much the same:
the State i s mans onl y avai l abl e god wal ki ng on
ear th.
I n bi bl i cal revel ati on, the soverei gn owner i s
God. He sets forth l aws of admi ni strati on by whi ch
responsi bl e men, both as i ndi vi dual s and as mem-
bers of col l ecti ve agenci es, are to al l ocate the resour-
ces of thei r empl oyer, God. Because of mans conti n-
ui ng tendency to el evate hi msel f i nto the posi ti on of
ul ti mate soverei gnty over the creati on, the Bi bl e
consi stentl y decentralizes responsi bi l i ty. The State i s
drasti cal l y restri cted by bi bl i cal l aw. I t announces
Gods l aw, enforces Gods l aw, and adjudi cates di s-
putes among men i n terms of Gods l aw through a
hi erarchi cal appeal s court system. But i ts functi on,
as we have al ready seen, i s al most whol l y nqgative i n
scope. The State i s not the i ni ti ator. I t i s rather the
a@iicator. It provi des the i nsti tuti onal support for
preservi ng peace; and men, acti ng as responsi bl e
stewards, both as i ndi vi dual s and as members of uol -
unta~ col l ecti ve associ ati ons, al l ocate the scarce
means of producti on.
Di sci pl i ne
By now, you can probabl y guess what I m about
to say. The pri mary posi ti ve form of di sci pl i ne of
Gods l aw-order i s se~-di sci pl i ne. Thi s i s true i n the
fami l y househol d, the i nsti tuti onal church, and the
ci vi l government. I t i s al so true of the eeonomy. I t i s
the i ndi vi dual worker who i s to exerei se domi ni on.
He i s called to hi s work by God. Thi s i s why we refer
to a mans job as hi s vocati on (the same Lati n root
underl i es wcaZ) or hi s cal l i ng. Man i s subordi nate to
God, ul ti matel y. Thi s i s why Paul s command i s the
central command for al l economi c acti vi ty: . . . work
out your own sal vati on wi th fear and trembl i n#
(Phi l i ppi ans 2:12b).
Accompanyi ng thi s subordi nati on to God, whi ch
al so exi sts i n the fami l y, the i nsti tuti onal church, and
the ci vi l government, the economy provi des i nterme-
diate Lmels of responsibilip. Li ke the other major human
i nsti tuti ons, there i s a human hiaamly, whi ch i n turn
refl ects the hi erarchy of the Tri ni ty i tsel f i n Gods re-
l ati onshi ps wi th the worl d. We have separate tasks as
l aborers. There i s a diuision of labor i n the worl d, just
as there i s i nsi de the other spheres of human exi st-
ence. And where there i s a di vi si on of l abor, there
must al so be a hi erarchy of command, si nce each
l aborer i s responsi bl e for hk work. He must answer
to somebody on earth, as wel l as to God. Wi eneuer a
person claims that in his own capaci~ he answers on$ to
God and to no other man or institution, b G asserting hti
own divinity in hzkto~. Li ke the mi sused doctri ne of the
di vi ne ri ght of ki ngs i n the earl y modern peri od of
European hi story, the doctri ne of unmediated authority
268 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
between God and man i s an asserti on of an i ndi vi d-
ual s i ndependence from earthl y judgment, an asser-
ti on of personal autonomy, an asserti on of antinon2-
iani.sm (that is, anti -l aw). I t means that an i ndi vi dual
i s free to rebel agai nst any authori ty and al l author-
i ty, i n ti me and on earth, i n the name of hi s sol e al l e-
gi ance to God. I t means that the i ndi vi dual doesnt
have to answer to anyone unti l he i s i n hi s grave. I t
means he i s a ki ng on earth, for no person stands
above hi m, i n the name of God, to cal l hi m to ac-
count. Whenever we fi nd thi s doctri ne agai nst the
fami l y, agai nst the i nsti tuti onal church, or agai nst
the ci vi l government we fi nd l awl essness, arro-
gance, and the scent of revol uti on, i f individuals ar e
decl ari ng the doctri ne. I f a parti cul ar institution i s
maki ng use of the doctri ne, then we fi nd tyranny, ar-
bi trari ness, and central i zati on, for the di rector or di -
rectors of that i nsti tuti on are sayi ng that they, as rep-
resentati ves of thi s i nsti tuti on, are beyond cri ti ci sm
from other men or i nsti tuti ons. Such a cl ai m i s al so
an asserti on of di vi ni ty i n hi story. Orthodox Chri sti -
ani ty rejects the doctri ne of unmedi ated earthl y au-
thori ty, whether used by anarchi sti c i ndi vi dual s or
power-seeki ng i nsti tuti ons. Orthodoxy rg>cts the divine
rzght of anything or anybody, in time and on earth, except
Jesus Christ, who humbl ed hi msel f before God and
man i n order to bri dge the ethi cal gap between God
and man. Chri st has a monopol y of di vi ne ri ght.
One of the greatest di ffi cul ti es i n descri bi ng the
worki ngs of a free market i s the apparent anarchism of
market rel ati onshi ps. Defenders of the market order
have been general l y unsuccessful i n expl ai ni ng to
ECONOMY 269
peopl e why such a seemi ngl y anarchi sti c system
shoul d possess any order at al l . The defenders have
fai l ed to convi nce men that the market system i s, i n
fact, a system. Soci al i sts and economi c i nterventi on-
i sts constantl y want the State to operate the econ-
omy, si nce there appears to be no man-servi ng sys-
tem of di sci pl i ne i n market rel ati onshi ps.
Neverthel ess, there must be di sci pl i ne for any
system to operate. We know that the fkee market has
paral l el ed the greatest growth of human economi c
wel fare i n the recorded hi story of man. Defenders of
the free market argue that thi s free market order has
produced the prosperi ty; soci al i sts deny thi s asser-
ti on, but they have to admi t that free market econo-
mi es have paral l el ed prosperi ty chronol ogi cal l y. So i t
i s i l l egi ti mate to argue that there i s no di sci pl i ne i n
market operati ons. The free market coul dnt have
survi ved for two centuri es i f there had been no i nsti -
tuti onal di sci pl i ne, no hi erarchy.
What we fi nd i n the i i ee market i s a two-way hierar-
chy. Because i t i s a true two-way system, men have
overemphasi zed one si de or the other. There i s a hi er-
archy downward, fmm the owner of the profi t-seeki ng
busi ness to the consumer. Yet there i s al so a /zi aarchy
upward, from the owner to hi s managers and then to
the sal es force. The man caught i n the mi ddl e i s the
manager. He must transl ate the si gnal s sent to hi m by
the consumers through the sal es force, so that the owners
or central managers can make accurate assessments
of market demand. At the same ti me, he must trans-
mi t the wi shes of the central managers to the sal es force,
adverti si ng force, or research and devel opment team.
270 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
Soci al i sts emphasi ze the power of l arge-scal e cor-
porati ons to determi ne what they wi l l produce and
then mani pul ate the consumer, forci ng hi m to buy
what they have produced. Free market economi sts
emphasi ze the soverei gnty of the consumer and the
i mpotence of the central managers to force the con-
sumer to buy anythi ng. They tend to de-emphasi ze
the power of the modern corporati on. Who i s correct?
No one i s absol utel y correct i n every i nstance.
There are monopol i es that can, for a ti me, i mpose
thei r wi l l on consumers. They can set hi gh pri ces for
thei r products or servi ces, and consumers thi nk they
have to pay. Of course, the consumers must then
restri ct thei r purchases of other goods and servi ces.
Thi s means that other corporati ons l ose busi ness.
They begi n to go out of busi ness. Capi tal i s shi fted to
serve the desi res of those persons who have achi eved
the monopol y.
The defenders of the market poi nt out that i n
almost all known instances of rnonopo~ the State is the
creator. The State uses the threat of vi ol ence to keep
competi tors out of the market. States grant l i censes,
or tar i l l s, or i mport quotas, or speci al l oans, or other
forms of assi stance to certai n l arge compani es, and
the consumer wi nds up payi ng a tax to these com-
pani es. The tax i s i mposed by these fi rms through
the coerci on of the State. The consumer has hk
choi ces restri cted by l aw, and the sel l er who has the
monopol y can then extract a pri ce hi gher than the
market woul d have permi tted, had open competi ti on
been permi tted by the State.
Consi der Lzbor union-s. How do the uni ons defend
ECONOMY 21
the workers from the expl oi tati on of the owners?
How ean they possi bl y i ncrease the share of the
product goi ng to l abor? After al l , i f someone who
sel l s a servi ce to a buyer of that servi ce starts charg-
i ng more than the buyer wants to pay, wont the
buyer search el sewhere for l ess expensi ve servi ces?
So how do the uni ons do i t?
I ts si mpl e, real l y. They get the State to make i t
i l l egal for competi ng l aborers to offer thei r servi ces to
busi nessmen who are buyi ng l abor. Or more preei sel y,
the State makes i t i l l egal for a buyer of l abor servi ces
to make the offer to buy at a pri ce bel ow that wage
l evel arbi trari l y determi ned by the uni on. The uni on
can extract hi gher pri ces for i ts servi ces for i ts own
members, but onl y by limitiqg the membership, and by
maki ng it illegal for other works who are not members to
sell thir services. The uni on benefi ts i ts members at
the expense of non-members.
What l abor uni on supporters never, ever admi t i s
that the labor unions provide a huge subsidy to bwnessmen
who are not in the unionized sectors of the economy. You see,
al l those workers who woul d l i ke to sel l thei r servi ces
to busi nessmen i n the uni oni zed sectors now have to
seek empl oyment i n the non-uni oni zed sectors. They
dont real l y want to work here, si nce they real l y
wanted to work i n the uni oni zed sectors for hi gher
pay or better worki ng condi ti ons. But the uni ons got
the State to freeze them out. The busi nessmen i n the
uni oni zed sectors are not permi tted to hi re them. So
they have to sel l thei r servi ces to busi nessmen i n the
non-uni oni zed sectors. These busi nessmen can then
offer l ower wages to these workers, si nce the ot%er
272 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
busi nessmen i n the uni oni zed sectors are not permi t-
ted to hi re these surpl us workers. Thei r competi tors
uni oni zed buyer s of l abor ser vi ces ar e not al l owed
by the State to bi d for l abor servi ces i n an open, free
mar ket.
What i s the economi c basi s of al l trade uni ons?
Ex@i tati m. The uni ons get together wi th the State.
They get a l aw passed whi ch benefi ts thei r member-
shi ps at the expense of other workers the maton~ of
workers who are not uni on members. They expl oi t
these other workers, and they al so expl oi t those busi -
nessmen who woul d have hi red these other workers,
but who are prohi bi ted by l aw from doi ng so. And
the i ndi rect resul t i s a transfer of weal th to busi ness-
men i n non-uni oni zed sectors. The exploiters are the
State, the uni ons, and (i ndi rectl y) the non-uni oni zed
busi nesses. The exploded are the non-uni oni zed
workers who must now seek to sel l thei r servi ces to
l ower-payi ng busi nessmen; al so expl oi ted are those
potenti al buyers of l abor servi ces who are forced to
pay hi gher-than-market wages to uni on members.
The ma.orip of workers are exploited by a nti non~ of work-
em, and i ndi rectl y, al so by the majori ty of busi nesses
that are doi ng the hi ri ng but whi ch are not yet
uni oni zed. I n the Uni ted States, for exampl e, onl y
25% of al l workers are uni oni zed, a fi gure whi ch has
remai ned constant for decades. Thi s means that up
to 75$Z0 of the l abor force i s bei ng expl oi ted. The
75%, who can vote, conti nue to vote agai nst thei r
own freedom, thei r own sel f-i nterest, because of
thei r envy agai nst bi g busi ness and thei r i gnorance
of economi c cause and effect. Envy pfus ignorance is a
ECONOMY 272
catastrophi c equati on i n pol i ti cal l i fe.
Does thi s mean that al l l abor uni ons are i m-
moral ? I n the 20th century, yes, thats exactl y what i t
means. However, there coul d theoreti cal l y be uni ons
whi ch do hel p workers wi thout usi ng the coerci on of
the State to expl oi t competi ng workers the majori ty
of workers. The uni ons coul d serve as i nformati on
gatherers, i nformi ng thei r members of better job op-
portuni ti es at other pl ants or i n other l ocati ons. Thi s
woul d tend to feed l abor i nto those markets i n whi ch
the hi ghest pay i s avai l abl e. Furthermore, the
uni ons coul d serve as vokm.tay chari ty soci eti es, hel p-
i ng members who face di sasters. But in the moa%n
world, where the Stite is used by special-intae.st groups to ex-
ploit the m@ri@ the compuko~ labor union is one of the
great ofiruiers. The modim trade union movement is unques-
tionab~ categoncal~ immoral. Chri sti ans shoul d not
come to any other concl usi on. Those who do are
envy-domi nated, or i gnorance-domi nated, or both.
Or worse, they may be members of coerci ve uni ons
who are sel f-consci ousl y mi l ki n# the system.
Where k the di+line of the market? In the wallets of
the consumers. I f the consumers refuse to buy from a
parti cul ar sel l er, that sel l er l oses i ncome. I f the sel l er
conti nues to offer goods or servi ces at pri ces the
buyers are unwi l l i ng to pay, he wi l l eve~tual l y go
bankrupt. Thi s threat of bankruptcy, or at l east
reduced sal es, i s what keeps the busi nessman al ert to
the desi res of the consumers. He must subordi nate
his esti mati ons of what the consumers ought to want
to the estimations of the consumers, who tel l
busi nessmen dai l y what they want. The market i s
274 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
merci l ess. Consumers are soverei gn. They deci de
what they are wi l l i ng to buy, and from whom, and
on what terms. Busi nessmen can work to convi nce
consumers to buy what they are sel l i ng, but thats
onl y a hope. The consumer makes the fi nal deal . He
i s the responsi bl e agent.
Of course, every consumer i s si mul taneousl y a
buyer, and vi ce versa. The producer i s buyi ng mon~,
whi l e the consumer i s buying gooak or services. A man
goes to work i n order to buy money, so that he can
l ater buy goods and seswi ces. We l abor i n order to
become future buyers. We sel l our resources i n order
to buy other peopl es resources. The system i s
mutual~ hierarchtial. I t depends on whether we are
enteri ng the market to buy money (as sel l ers of
goods) or to buy goods (as sel l ers of money).
Each party i n a transacti on i s Jegalo souerez@
Nobody has to buy or sel l . Each man i s fi dl y respon-
si bl e for hi s acti ons. Each person i s a steward b@ore
God over the resources, i ncl udi ng hi s i ntel l ectual and
l abor skdl s, under hi s authori ty. He has soverei gnty
over the di sposal of hi s goods or servi ces. He can use
them up hi msel f, or gi ve them away, or trade them,
or l oan them. I t i s hi s responsi bi l i ty to make thi s
deci si on. What the rest of us have the ri ght to do i s to
approach hi m wi th bi ds. Gi ve them to me! Loan
them to me! Sel l them to me! Pl ease. I l l make you a
fabul ous deal . . . ! And even when someone
refuses to l i sten to us, he suffers the consequences.
He forfei ts the goods, money, or servi ces we woul d
have provi ded hi m i f he had onl y traded or sol d to
us. Or he forfei ts the good feel i ngs he mi ght have
ECONOMY 275
had i f he had gi ven us the goods. He bears the costs
of hi s deci si on. He al so reaps the benefi ts (i f any).
What the market al l ows us to do i s to make our
own deci si ons about the al l ocati on of our own re-
sources. We seek the benefi ts. We pay the costs. We
make the eval uati on of benefi ts versus costs. We are
responsi bl e before God and men for our personal
economi c deci si ons. l l e geni us of th murket system is
this personal equution between costs and benejiti. The per -
son who i s moral l y responsi bl e before God for the
stewardshi p of Gods goods (i ncl udi ng the persons
l i fe) i s the same person who reaps the rewards of any
deci si on, whi l e beari ng the costs of that deci si on.
The free market i s the most remarkabl e i nsti tuti on
men have ever devel oped for maki ng accmate cost es-
ti mates. Nothi ng el se has ever been devel oped hktor -
i cal l y that even comes cl ose. Thi s i s very i mportant,
gi ven Jesus warni ng on maki ng accurate cost esti -
mates. For whi ch of you, i ntendi ng to bui l d a tower,
si tteth not down fi rst, and counteth the cost, whether
he have suffi ci ent to fi ni sh i t? Lest hapl y [i t happen],
after he bath l ai d the foundati on, and i s not abl e to
fi ni sh i t, al l that behol d i t begi n to mock hi m, sayi ng,
Thi s man began to bui l d, and was not abl e to fi ni sh
(Luke 14:28-30). Jesus was i l l ustrati ng a spi ri tual
pri nci pl e. He warned men to count the costs of di sci -
pl eshi p, whi ch i s the major theme of Luke 14. He i l -
l ustrated Hi s warni ng, however, by means of a si tua-
ti on whi ch was fami l i ar to Hi s l i steners, namel y, a
constructi on project. The man runs out of money
(resources) before he bri ngs i t to compl eti on. He
esti mated the benefi ts, but he fai l ed to esti mate ac-
276 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDEU
cur atel y the costs. Men are not supposed to make
thi s mi stake i n spi ri tual affai rs, nor are they to make
the mi stake i n economi c affai rs.
The free market i mposes a rigid disct~line of costs
on every acti on. There can be no escape. Each man
must make constant cost-benefi t esti mati ons. Each
man must face the col l ecti ve bi ds of al l competi ng
sel l ers when he sel l s, and al l competi ng buyers when
he buys. Thi s i s a fundamental premi se of a
devel oped free market: buyers compete against buyezs,
while sellers compete against sellers. Only i n those
rel ati vel y rare i nstances (i n a devel oped market,
anyway) where a si ngl e sel l er of goods or servi ces
(buyer of money) faces a si ngl e buyer of goods or
servi ces (sel l er of money) that we fi nd competi ti on
between the two. The competi ti on i s based on com-
parati ve knowl edge of the market (competi ng buyers
for the buyer, competi ng sel l ers for the sel l er), and
one of the parti es may know more. Or the competi -
ti on i s based on competi ng sal es ski l l s, wi th the
buyer dangl i ng money i n front of the sel l er, and the
sel l er dangl i ng goods or servi ces i n front of the
buyer. But the broader the market the more sel l ers
competi ng agai nst sel l ers, the more buyers com-
peti ng agai nst buyers the fewer cases there are of
buyers competi ng di rectl y agai nst sel l ers. Sel l ers
establ i sh rel ati vel y fi xed pri ces, and then say Take i t
or l eave i t. The consumers then deci de whi ch to do.
We usual l y thi nk of consumers as consumers of
goods and servi ces (sel l ers of money), and we thi nk
of sel l ers as sel l ers of goods and servi ces (buyers of
money). I n such a framework, the di sci pl i ne i s that
ECONOMY 2~
of an auction. Buyers and potenti al buyers bi d up the
money pri ces of those i tems that may i nterest them.
Sel l ers of such i tems are al so i n the aucti on, and they
compete by offeri ng l ower pri ces. When the buyers
purchase al l the goods that sel l ers want to offer at a
gi ven pri ce when there are no addi ti onal sel l ers or
buyers we say that the market has establ i shed a
clearing price. I t i s the search for thfi cleartng pnce by al l
potenti al buyers and al l potenti al sel l ers that consti -
tutes the great di sci pl i ne of the market. Thi s i s the
very essence of the market process. I t i s al ways an un-
cen%in search.
Lei ?s take a very si mpl e exampl e. Say that you
own a theater. You buy the tal ents of some per-
former or some movi ng pi cture, and then you try to
sel l seats at the theater. You hope to make more
money from the sal e of seats than i t costs you to rent
the performer, pay the el ectri ci ty bi l l , hi re ushers or
ti cket-takers, and pay for the adverti si ng. Si mpl e
enough? Fi ne. Now heres the bi g questi on: What
should the selling pnce of each ticket be? The sel l er of
ti ckets wants the l argest i ncome possi bl e. Does thi s
make hi m an expl oi ter? Hardl y. He just wants to
compensate hi msel f for the expenses of putti ng on
the performance, i ncl udi ng a return for the ri sks he
has taken. He real l y i snt certai n what the proper
pri ce i s. Thi s i s what so few cri ti cs of the free market
ever understand. The selkr cant be sure. What shoul d
he ai m at? That i s al so si mpl e. He wants to pri ce
each seat so that on the ni ght of the performance,
euay seat isjilled, and there is no one waiting i n line to buy
a ticket. I f he can fi gure out the cl eari ng pri ce of hi s
278 utwormmom. SURRENDER
theatefs seats for that performance, he wi l l make hi s
maxi mum i ncome.
27w discipline of the market k mernless. Consumers
expect sel l ers to make accurate esti mati ons of what
they will be wi l l i ng to pay for goods and servi ces.
The entrepreneurs (forecasters) who want to serve
the desi res of consumers then have to estimati what
consumers will want i n the i %ture, what i t wi // cost to
get what they want i nto thei r hands, what they wiU
be wi l l i ng to pay for these goods and servi ces, and
what wi l l be l eftover for themsel ves after al l expenses
are pai d. ~fiture is uncertain. The Bi bl e warns us
about thi s. Man cannot know everythi ng perfectl y.
He cannot know the future perfectl y. Yet he has to
deal wi th the future i n terms of hi s knowl edge and
hi s resources today. Men must count the cost of
reachi ng goal s i n the fi ture. And what we al l know
i s that we, and others, constantly makz mistakes when
we try to esti mate fi ture costs and fi ture benefi ts.
We are stewards. We are not to waste the re-
sources entrusted to us by our Master. We are to i n-
crease the val ue of the assets that are under our ad-
mi ni strati on, as Jesus warned us i n the parabl e of
the tal ents. Jesus sai d that the ki ngdom of God i s l i ke
a man who i s pl anni ng a journey to a far country,
and who sel ects several subordi nates i n terms of
thei r varyi ng abi l i ti es, and he gi ves each one some
coi ns. One man recei ves fi ve coi ns, another two, and
another onl y one (Matthew 25:15-16). Z%i s parable ab-
solute~ &nies the concept of equali~ of opportunity, if by
thi s doctri ne we mean equal starti ng posi ti ons i n the
race of l i fe, for the men have varyi ng ski l l s and vary-
ECONOMY 279
i ng i ni ti al capi tal bases. So i nfl uenti al i s thi s parabl e
i n Western thought that we refer to a mans tal ents
when we speak of hi s ski l l s, but the talent of the para-
bl e was a coi n: the i ni ti al capi tal , not the i ni ti al
ski l l s, of each steward. (The tal enfl was a uni t of
wei ght i n the anci ent worl d, one used i n wei ghi ng
coi ns.) Upon hk return, the master cal l s each man to
gi ve an account of hi s stewardshi p. He expects each
steward to have i ncreased the number of tal ents i n hi s
possessi on (Matthew 25:20-23). The ski l l s of each
man are di fferent, the i ni ti al capi tal i s di fferent, and
the ul ti mate rewards are di fferent. The onl y equal i ty
i n the parabl e i s the equal i ~ o~the hw under whi ch each
steward operates. None can escape the fi nal day of
reckoni ng. I n fret, the very term, day of reckoni ng,
means a day of gi vi ng an account, a fi nal counti ng.
Here we fi nd the fami l i ar themes of the whol e
Bi bl e: the soverei gnty of God, who i s the Creator
and therefore the owner; the assi gnment of domi n-
i on to i ndi vi dual men, for whi ch they are hel d ful l y
accountabl e; the provi si oni ng of them wi th re-
sources, i ncl udi ng the most cri ti cal resource of al l ,
tinzq their efforts to i ncrease thei r assets, as a si gn of
thei r successful domi ni on; and a day of fi nal judg-
ment, when the Master returns i n power to judge
every mans performance. And i t i s thfiee market, as
a system of maki ng accurate esti mati ons of costs and
benefi ts, through i ts system of freel y fl uctuati ng
money pri ces and open competi ti on, whi ch provi des
man wi th a crucial tool of dominion. I t i s mans counting
system. I t di sci pl i nes each man, forci ng hi m to keep
accurate records and make accurate predi cti ons.
220 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
The free market provi des us wi th mutual disci-
pline, for we are al l both producers and consumers.
There i s a himarchy, with consumers soverei gn over
the assets entrusted to them. There i s a system of
consumer sovereignty, whi ch i s of course a system of del -
egated soverei gnty from God, one whi ch i s i mpl i ed
by Hi s granti ng resources to Hi s peopl e and even to
Hi s enemi es, i n ti me and on earth. At the same
ti me, the di vi si on of l abor has l ed to the creati on of
organizations of production, i n whi ch rul ers and subor-
di nates cooperate i n order to meet consumer de-
mand. The factory i s a hierarchy, whi l e the market i s a
system of mutual discipline. But the factory, the sal es
force, and corporate management must be subordi n-
ate to the market i f the busi ness i s to prosper, unl ess
management i s abl e to get the State to step i n and
protect the fi rm from consumers soverei gnty, by
substi tuti ng State sovereignty and bureawatk sovereignty
i n pl ace of consumers soverei gnty.
I nterventi on
No earthl y i nsti tuti on i s absol utel y soverei gn.
We have to understand thi s pri nci pl e i f we are to un-
derstand the Bi bl es vi ew of God, man, l aw, and
human i nsti tuti ons. Therefore, thefiee market isnt ab-
solutely sovereign. There are areas for l egi ti mate i nter-
venti on by the State. We have al ready seen one of
these: quaranti ne i n the case of l eprosy (Levi ti cus 13
and 14). Another area i s the ri ght of the ci vi l govern-
ment to establ i sh mi ni mum safety standards. I n an-
ci ent I srael , the I srael i tes were requi red to put safety
rai l i ngs on al l new homes bui l t i n the l and of Canaan
ECONOMY 281
(but not on the homes whi ch had bel onged to the Ca-
naani tes), because i n those days, fl at roofs were used
for entertai ni ng guests (Deuteronomy 22:8). The
courts al so assi gned ful l responsi bi l i ty for damages
to a man who started a fi re on hi s property, whi ch
then spread to a nei ghbors property (Exodus
22:5-6). Thi s, by extensi on, woul d i ncl ude other
types of damage, such as ai r or noi se pol l uti on. I n
other words, the ci vi l government can step i n and
prohi bi t certai n types of acti ons that iqure innocent by-
standers, even though such acti ons al l ow producers to
produce l ess expensi vel y. There are certai n ki nds of
costs that can be passed onto other peopl e (smoke,
noi se, etc.) who are not benefi ci ari es. Costs then
ri se, but the benefi ci ari es (producers) dont bear al l
these extra costs. The equati on of costs and benefi ts
that the i ndi vi dual producer must make as a steward
before God (and as a profi t-seeki ng actor) becomes
unequal : the producer (sel l er of goods) becomes the
total benefi ci ary, but he passes on some of the costs
of producti on to i nnocent bystanders. The ci vi l gov-
ernment i s empowered to step i n and assess costs,
i mposi ng these extra costs on the potenti al benefi -
ci ary of the producti on process, namel y, the
producer-sel l er. The ci vi l government can therefore
act to reduce these spi l l over effects by requi ri ng res-
tduti on on the part of the gui l ty party to the vi cti ms.
The threat of maki ng resti tuti on thereby i ncreases
the l i kel i hood that producers wi l l bear a l arger pro-
porti on of the total producti on costs.
I t i s si mpl y i mpossi bl e to make a bi bl i cal case for
a zero-ci vi l government soci ety. Z7wre can never be a
valid case fw ~hrtkima anarchism, any more than a valid
case for lXistian soczkksrn. But a careful readi ng of
the Bi bl e reveal s that the ci vi l government i s basi cal l y
an i nsti tuti on for establ i shi ng Gods justi ce by means
of courts of l aw. The pri nci pl es of bi bl i cal l aw are to
be i mposed on the market: resti tuti on, preventi on of
coerci on, preventi on of fraud (fal se wei ghts and
measures: Levi ti cus 19:36), nati onal defense, l aw
enforcement, enforcement of contracts (i ncl udi ng
marri age contracts). The Bi bl e rejects the soci al i sts
utopi a of a caretaker State. The Bi bl es descri pti on
comes far cl oser to the tradi ti onal free market i deal
of a night-watchman State.
The State i s to prevent moral evi l . The Ol d Tes-
tament i s onl y too cl ear on thi s poi nt. Sexual devi -
ati on i s prohi bi ted: homosexual acts (Levi ti cus
20:13), prosti tuti on (Levi ti cus 19:29), besti al i ty (Ex-
odus 22:19), adul tery (Levi ti cus 20:10), and i ncest
(Levi ti cus 20:11). Z% State is not creating good man by
enforci ng such l aws; i t i s merel y pwwnting euil acts
between consenti ng, but devi ant, adul ts. These l aws
protect the fami l y, and the hol i ness of God demands
that the State enforce such l aws. The anarchi st
woul d not al l ow the State to puni sh a homosexual
adul t who sol i ci ted sexual favors from 8-year-ol d
boys i n exchange for heroi n. Those who procl ai m a
zero-State soci ety, whether i n the name of Chri st or
the name of reason, are forced by the l ogi c of thei r
posi ti on to come to just thi s concl usi on. The Chri s-
ti an doesnt have to accept thi s concl usi on. Pure
anarchi sm (anarcho-capi tal i sm) i s unbi bl i cal .
Why shoul d the State prohi bi t sexual acts by
ECONOMY 283
consenti ng adul ts? Who i s hurt? Outsi de parti es are
hurt. I nnocent bystanders are hurt. Why and how?
Because God promises visible, external, nationaljudgnwnt
on whole societies that violate His moral laws. The anar -
chi st assumes that there i s no God, or that God wi l l
not bri ng judgment to a whol e soci ety because of the
fl agrant and publ i c sexual rebel l i on of some mem-
bers of that soci ety. The Bi bl e tel l s us speci fi cal l y
that God has, does, and wi l l bri ng judgment on sex-
ual l y devi ant soci eti es, and that i t i s the si gn of a
soci etys respect for God mens fear of God that
the ci vi l government be empowered to puni sh sexual
devi ati on.
Obvi ousl y, such si ns must be publ i c acts. The
Bi bl e does not teach that the secret acts of a minority of
ci ti zens wi l l bri ng Gods judgment on the nati on.
The Bi bl e does not sancti on an army of i nqui si tors
who knock down doors and break i nto bedrooms.
The ni ght-watchman State of the Bi bl e does not
grant to the bureaucrats that many economi c re-
sources. They cannot afford to hi re such a standi ng
army of i nqui si tors. But i f the si ns are publ i c and
fl agrant, i f other members of the househol d cal l i n
the authori ti es to suppress the si n, or i f the evi dence
of the si n becomes avai l abl e to l aw-enforcement
offi ci al s i n the normal course of i nvesti gati on, then
the State must deal wi th the cri me. Even i f the free
markets mechani sm produces profi t for sel l ers of
moral evi l , the State i s empowered to prohi bi t i t.
The market i s not absol utel y soverei gn. We must not
defend the i dea of the di vi ne ri ght of the free
market. The Bi bl e tel l s us that there are l i mi ts on
284 UN~NDlllONAL SURRENDER
the market, as there are on every human i nsti tuti on.
But i t al so tel l s us that there arent as many l i mi ts as
modern soci al i sts woul d l i ke us to bel i eve.
I t i s al so i nteresti ng to note that John Maynard
Keynes, the 20th centurys most i nfl uenti al economi st
and a defender of i ncreased economi c i nterventi on
by the State, was a homosexual . Hi s associ ates i n
Bri tai ns so-cal l ed Bl oomsbury Group were notori ous
sexual devi ates. He di d appreci ate the fme market i n
one respect, however: hi s abi l i ty to travel to Tuni si a
on homosexual quests wi th hi s fti ends, where they
woul d purchase the favors of boys. Keynes was per-
verse i n more areas than just economi c theory. (For
a thoroughl y documented account of the Bl ooms-
bury Group, see Mi chael Hol royds two-vol ume bi o-
graphy of one i ts most notori ous members, Lytton
Strac/wy: 2%e Mars oj Achieuemnt, 19XM932 [1968]).
Keynes favored State i nterventi on i nto economi c
producti on, not sexual moral i ty. He favored con-
trol l ed markets and uncontrol l ed debauchery. The
Bi bl e al most exactl y reverses thi s perspecti ve.
Economi c Devel opment
Deuteronomy 8 and 28 l ay down the fundamen-
tal pri nci pl e of a growi ng economy. That pri nci pl e
i s si mpl e: conformi ty to the l aws of God, by i ndi vi d-
ual s and al so by the ci vi l government. Wel fare i s to
be vol untary; poverty i s to be el i mi nated steadi l y by
advanci ng per capi ta weal th. 27% economic argument
fir creating a we~are State is negated, since increasing per-
sonal wealth throughout the covenantal socie~ is su@tent to
ECONOMY 285
alleviate the nujbr causes of poveny. There wi l l al ways be
poverty, Chri st sai d. The poor shal l al ways be wi th us
(Matthew 26:11). The questi on i s, rather: What wi l l
the rel uti ve Povti y be between godl y soci eti es and un-
godl y soci eti es? The poor man i n a godl y soci ety wi l l
enjoy external bl essi ngs greater than those i n poor,
backward soci eti es. The funds avai l abl e for chari tabl e
gi vi ng are al so greater i n advanci ng economi es.
We know that we cannot expect economi c growth
forever. I n a fi ni te uni verse, nothi ng can grow for-
ever. After al l , i f the four bi l l i on peopl e i n the worl d
i n 1980 were to reproduce so that the total popul ati on
i ncreased at l ?ZO per year for a thousand years, there
woul d be 83 trtllion peopl e i n 2980. Obvi ousl y, thi s
wont happen. But the very fact that God promi ses
compound economi c growth to Hi s peopl e i n
response to thei r obedi ence to Hi s l aw i ndi cates that
we live in a world that is going to come to an end. We can-
not experi ence economi c growth forever. The Bi bl e
says we wi l l have compound economi c growth i n
response to our fai thful ness. Therefore, we can con-
cl ude that i f we are fai thful , we wi l l have economi c
growth, and thi s poi nts to the day of judgment,
whi ch wi l l cut ti me short.
The zero-popul ati on growth advocates and the
zero-economi c growth advocates are humani sts who
want to bel i eve that there wi l l not be a day of judg-
ment. They recogni ze that we l i ve i n a worl d of fi ni te
resources, and they dont want to admi t that ti me i s
i n very short suppl y. So they concl ude the obvi ous:
we cannot hope to have compound economi c growth
forever. But thi s i s the wrong concl usi on. I nstead of
286 UNCONDMDNAL WRREWER
argui ng for the State to cut short al l economi c
growth, they shoul d argue for Gods cutti ng short of
mans ti me on thi s cursed earth. They shoul d argue
for the new heavens and new earth (I sai ah 65; Reve-
l ati on 21, 22).
The Bi bl e cal l s for us to pursue economi c
growth. Long-term economic growth h a tip of God%
bZessing on Htk people. True, i t shoul d not be pursued
as such. But seek ye fi rst the ki ngdom of God, and
hi s ri ghteousness, and al l these thi ngs shal l be added
unto you (Matthew 6:33). All thae things: here i s the
promi se of economi c growth and prosperi ty i n
response to covenantal obedi ence. I t al so i ncl udes
l arge fami l i es, si nce both si ckness and mi scarri ages
wi l l be el i mi nated (Exodus 23:25-26), and l arge fami -
l i es are recommended (Psal m 127:3-5), and l ong l i fe
i s promi sed (Exodus 20:12). I f you have a hi gh bi rth
rate, and the chi l dren survi ve, and peopl e l i ve
l onger, you wi l l have a massi ve popul ati on expl o-
si on. i %e popubtion mplosion is a mearu of dominion. We
wi l l have both growi ng per capi ta weal th and r api dl y
i ncreasi ng numbers of peopl e. Thi s cant go on for-
ever, of course. I t goes on unti l the day peopl e rebel
agai nst God, or unti l the Day of Judgment comes.
Rapid growth is a blessing of God which points to our$nal
abliverancefim sin and bondizge.
Economi c growth comes to soci eti es that respond
to Gods cal l to repentance. Thi s doesnt mean that
every si ngl e redeemed man wi l l become ri ch or that
al l the si nners wi l l go broke. What i t means i s that as
a general phenomenon, those living under the mle of God%
km-orb will prosper and that those living in societies thut
EemoMY 287
are in rebellion to God will not prosper. Long-term eco-
nomi c growth for an enti re nati on i s a si gn of Gods
bl essi ng. Long-term poverty for an enti re nati on i s a
si gn of Gods wrath. Of course, i n a transition stuge
between fai thful ness and arrogance, weal thy soci -
eti es can conti nue to experi ence external economi c
growth. We fi nd thi s i n Deuteronomy 8:10-17. A re-
bel l i ous soci ety can be l ured i nto total destructi on by
i ts own external bl essi ngs. But /ong-temn poverty G
always a si@z of GwZs curse. The so-cal l ed underdevel -
oped soci eti es are underdevel oped because they are
soci al i st, demoui st, and cursed. Any attempt to bbne
the poverty of the underdeveloped world on the prospwp of
the West is absolutdy wrong. Thi s i s the ol d Marxi st and
soci al i st l i ne. I t bl i ndl y fai l s to acknowl edge the
wrath of God on demoni c, tyranni cal , and soci al i st
tri bal cul tures. There are too many books bei ng
wri tten by ostensi bl e Chri sti an schol ars, who are i n
fact outri ght soci al i sts and Marxi sts hi di ng behi nd a
few out of context Bi bl e quotes, that attempt to make
Chri sti ans feel gui l ty for thei r prosperi ty i n the face
of the Thi rd Worl ds poverty. I n fact, the Bi bl e tel l s
us that the citizens of the i%rd World ought to feel guilp,
to fal l on thei r knees and repent fkom thei r Godl ess,
rebel l i ous, soci al i st ways. 1%.ey shotddfwl guilty becawe
they are guil~ both individually and corporate~. As God
warned the I srael i tes: And i t shal l be, i f thou do at
al l forget the LORD thy God, and wal k afi er other
gods, and serve them, and worshi p them, I testi fi
agai nst you thk day that ye shal l surel y peri sh. As
the nati ons whi ch the LORD destroyeth before your
face, so shal l ye peri sh; because ye woul d not be obe-
288 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
cl i ent unto the voi ce of the LORD your God (Deuter-
onomy 8:19-20).
Guilt-manipubtion by mi sgui ded or i n some cases
unscrupul ous schol ars shoul d be seen for what i t i s.
The bl ood of Jesus Chri st has removed our gui l t.
Our adherence to bi bl i cal l aw, wi th i ts requi rement
of the ti the, i s suffi ci ent to remove the power of the
professi onal gui l t-mani pul ators. Thi s i s one reason
why ti thi ng i s so i mportant for the ki ngdom: i t re-
moves the psychol ogi cal l everage that Chri sti an so-
ci al i sts have over modem Chri sti ani ty, especi al l y
over the Chri sti ans who have subjected themsel ves
i ntel l ectual l y to the soci al i sti c, Marxi an, and
Keynesi an humani sms of the modern uni versi ty.
The cal l for economi c justi ce: meani ng soci al i st
programs of weal th redi stri buti on, wi th the ci vi l gov-
ernments of the West fi nanci ng the soci al i st tyranni es
of the Thi rd Worl d, i s a sham. I t i s a l i e. I t bl ames the
West for the generati ons and even mi l l enni a of
perverse wi ckedness on the part of the Thi rd Worl ds
demon-worshi ppi ng tri bes. When the soci al i st-
Marxi st government of Zi mbabwe (formerl y
Rhodesi a) el evated wi tch doctors back i nto a posi -
ti on of promi nence i n the summer of 1980, those
l eaders hel ped to seal the doom of Zi mbabwe. We
shoul d not be del uded about who i s responsi bl e for
the l ack of economi c growth i n the Thi rd Worl d.
Thg are responsi bl e. Thei r abject poverty i s eco-
nomi c justi ce: Gods economi c justi ce. He promi ses
that same poverty for al l nati ons that rebel agai nst
Hi m. Poverty i s exactl y what they deserve.
Di d I srael send forei gn ai d to the Canaani tes?
ECONOMY 289
Was I srael to be burdened by gui l t feel i ngs because
Jeri cho resi dents had l ost thei r housi ng? Di d God
tel l I srael that the nati on shoul d be taxed, especi al l y
the ri ch, so that I srael coul d l aunch a program of i n-
ternati onal forei gn ai d? Yet Chri sti ans who ought to
know better have swal l owed thi s soci al i st propa-
ganda because a group of soci al i sts paradi ng under
Chri sts banner have wri tten books tel l i ng them that
theyre gui l ty, and that we need more soci al i sm,
more confi scatory taxati on, and more State-to-State
forei gn ai d schemes. Chri sti ans who fal l for thi s non-
sense are hel pl ess to defend themsel ves because they
si mpl y dont know what the Bi bl e says about eco-
nomi cs, poverty, and the messi ani c soci al i st State.
They are wi l y man@dated because they are wi l fi i i y
ignorant.
Men dont want to bel i eve that there i s a rel ati on-
shi p between moral rebel l i on and economi c cri ses.
Even free market economi sts refuse to consi der such
a possi bi l i ty. Al most al l modern economi sts, for ex-
ampl e, l ook at the Great Depressi on of the 1930s and
concl ude that capi tal i sm was a fai l ure, that i t col -
l apsed, that stati st i nterventi on was needed to save
the capi tal i st system. Yet what preceded the Great
Depressi on? The Roari ng Twenti es; wi th i ts de-
baucheri es, i ts moral rebel l i on, i ts erosi on of the
fami l y, i ts revol uti onary art, i ts humani sm, i ts ri di -
cul e of Chri sti ani ty. Al l over the West, the nati ons
turned from God to man as the source of prosperi ty.
Man coul dnt be stopped. Man was on the way to
Easy Street. Man was now the ki ng.
Then there were the massi ve war debts from
= UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
Worl d Wu I . Al l the nati ons had fl oated huge l oans to
fi nance the war. Thei r central banks had pri nted up
b~l ons of dol l ars or pounds or francs or marks to
ti ance the war. I ni l ati on became a way of l i fe i n the
West when the War broke out. The gol d standard was
abandoned. Credi t was extended everywhere. Mar-
ket specul ati on was rampant -a rati onal , i f danger-
ous, response to the i nfl ati onary pol i ci es of the State.
Then, when the monetary i nfl ati on l ed, as i t al ways
does, to contracti on, bankruptci es, bank hol i days,
and depressi on, the vari ous governments i ntervened
to pass tari ffs, l egi sl ate fi ed pri ces (when pri ces
shoul d be fal l i ng to cl ear the market of unsol d goods),
and i i x wages (when wages ought to be fal l i ng to cl ear
the l abor market of unempl oyed men). Men grew
despondent. Pessi mi sm overtook the capi tal i st
system, preci sel y because men had worshi ped mam-
mon, had i nfl ated thei r nati ons currenci es, and had
made debt anew way of l i fe. Was thi s the faul t of cap-
i tal i sm? Or was thi s the faul t of warti me economi cs,
domesti c monetary i nfl ati on, the arrogance of man,
and a moral rebel l i on agai nst God? And more to the
poi nt, was the modern humani st State any better abl e
to sol ve economi c probl ems than the humani sti c free
market? I s the market as such a fai l ure, or the
humani sts who buy and sel l i n that market, fi nanci ng
the system wi th government-created fi at money?
Concl usi on
The Bi bl e teaches that by servi ce to men a man
becomes a l eader. Jesus tol d Hi s di sci pl es: And
whoever wi l l be chi ef among you, l et hi m be your
servant: even as the Son of man came not to be mi n-
i stered unto, but to mi ni ster, and to gi ve hi s l i fe a
ransom for many (Matthew 20:27-28). The theme of
the sufferi ng servant who l ater tri umphs, who serves
fai thfi dl y and ti en succeeds economi cal l y, i s a fami l -
i ar one i n the Bi bl e. Jacob served hi s l awl ess uncl e,
Laban, under di fhuh condi ti ons, but then became
ri ch (Genesi s 31:1, 36-42). Joseph served fai thful l y i n
Poti phars house, onl y to be cast i nto pri son on fal se
charges (Genesi s 39). But from the pri son, Joseph
rose to the second i n command of al l Egypt (Genesi s
41:38-43). Davi d served ki ng Saul fai thful l y, i n war
(I Samuel 17) and i n peace (I Samuel 16:15-23). Yet
Saul turned on Davi d and sought to ki l l hi m, agai n
and agai n (I Samuel 18:10-11; 19:10; 23:7-8,15). Saul
had to admi t that Davi d had served hi m fai thful l y,
and that Davi d was more ri ghteous than he was (I
Samuel 24:17-19). And Saul al so recogni zed what
Davi ds servi ce had won hi m: And now, behol d, I
know wel l tl at thou shal t surel y be ki ng, and that
the ki ngdom of I srael shal l be establ i shed i n thi ne
hand (I Samuel 24:20). Davi d became the ki ng. Ser-
vke I eai k to successful dominwn.
The market encourages men to serve thei r fel l ow
men i f they wi sh to i ncrease thei r own weal th. Each
man faces market demand. Consumers are bi ddi ng
agai nst each other constantl y i n order to buy what
they want. These si gnal s i n the form of pri ces tel l
potenti al producers what the costs of any acti on are.
They tel l entrepreneurs that there are potenti al
profi ts avai l abl e to those who successfi dl y forecast
future demand, and who recogni ze an opportuni ty
for profi tabl e sal es that competi ng entrepreneurs fai l
to recogni ze. Thats where profi ts come from. Entre-
preneurs who thi nk they see an opportuni ty for
future sal es to consumers go i nto the resource mar-
kets and buy up scarce economi c resources raw
materi al s, capi tal equi pment, l abor servi ces, etc.
at l ow pri ces. The pri ces of these resources are l ow
because other entrepreneurs have fai l ed to see the
potenti al for future sal es to consumers. So entrepre-
neurs buy l ow and sel l hi gh, but not at the expense
of consumers. They are sel l i ng consumers the goods
they want at pri ces they are wi l l i ng to pay. T%e projit
comes jrom the othr entrepreneurs, who fai l ed to recog-
ni ze an opportuni ty, and who therefore hesi tated to
buy up the producers goods earl i er. Tb consumers are
benejlted. After al l , what i f even thi s entrepreneur
hadnt seen what they were goi ng to want to buy i n
the future? Then consumers woul d have been forced
to sel ect from even fewer of these now-demanded
products. The consumers have been hel ped; the
profi t comes from the successful entrepreneurs abi l -
i ty to~orecast the consumers desi res, and then to or-
ganize production qjiciently and profi tabl y.
I n short, pro~table stiwards in afiee market are faith-
ful servants. They need not be sufferi ng servants. Per-
haps they make conti nual profi ts by thei r conti nui ng
abi l i ty to forecast the future. After al l , thats how
Joseph was abl e to benefi t Pharaoh: he knew the
ti ture state of suppl y and demand. But he had re-
cei ved Gods revel ati on whi ch i nformed hi m of the
comi ng bounti ful harvests and the seven years of
fami ne that fol l owed (Genesi s 41). He knew the
ECONOMY 292
future, and he gave sound advi ce to Pharaoh about
how to deal wi th the predi cted future condi ti ons. But
you and I arent l i ke Joseph. You and I dont know
the future that perfectl y. You and I must bear the
ri sks of uncertai nty the unknown future whi ch we
al l must deal wi th, one way or another, as l ong as
were sti l l breathi ng and mal dng deci si ons.
What the fi -ee market does i s to establ i sh a cl ose
rel ati onshi p between @sons/ costs and personal hwjits.
What i t al so does i s to establ i sh a system of money
cakw!utions, whereby we can make more accurate
esti mati ons of costs and benefi ts. What the market
does i s to process everyones best efforts i n predi cti ng
the future, and the resul t i s todays array of pri ces.
What the market does i s to force each man to bear
the costs of hi s own efforts. I t weeds out those who
waste scarce economi c resources, who fai l to serve
consumers at the l east expendi ture of resources.
What the market does i s to provi de the personal
j?eedom for each man to work out hi s cal l i ng before
God wi th fear and trembl i ng. What the market has
produced i s the greatest output of goods and sewices in the
recor&d histo~ of man.
The market i s nonethel ess despi sed by soci al i sts,
Marxi sts, and other defenders of sal vati on by stati st
acti on. They worshi p the State. They see the con-
centrated power of the messi ani c State as rnanhds
one hope of justi ce. They reject the noti on that per-
sonal economic freedom is among the most important fieeabms
that apolitical order can ofir to its citizens. They cal l for
ever-more i nterventi on, ever-more regul ati on by the
central government. And some of them do so i n the
294 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENOER
name of Jesus. They concl ude that Jesus wanted us
to establ i sh a stati st order because there i s i njusti ce
i n the worl d. Concl usi on: the State i s the source of
justi ce, the onl y means of ri ghti ng the wrongs pro-
duced by the market. The resul t, al l over the worl d?
A ri si ng ti de of stati sm, and a ri si ng ti de of resent-
ment, envy, and revol uti on. God wi l l not be mocked.
The whol e worl d faces a seri es of potenti al economi c
catastr ophes.
The nwrkd proviah dtic$line: mutual di sci pl i ne of
buyers and sel l ers, wi th buyers competi ng agai nst
buyers, and sel l ers competi ng agai nst sel l ers. I t al so
provi des a nwzsure of success for servi ng consumers
fai thful l y: pnyit. I t provi des a hierarchal enforcement
system, with consumers on top, si gnal i ng thei r desi res to
mi ddl e and hi gher management by means of buyi ng
or refusi ng to buy from any gi ven company. The
hi gher managers must tel l the l ower managers what
to do, general l y, though not i n the detai l s, and mi d-
dl e managers must carry out these general gui de-
l i nes. The consumers then vote for or agai nst the
pr oducts.
The market i s no better than the consumers. I f
they want evi l thi ngs, the market wi l l provi de them
effi ci entl y. Thi s market shoul d not be autonomous.
Just because sel l i ng some product or servi ce may
produce a profi t doesnt mean that the State shoul d
permi t i t to be sol d wi thout the threat of puni sh-
ment. But for most of our needs, most of the ti me, the
market provi des the jinmt integrating deutie known to
man, a system whi ch al l ows producers and consum-
ers to mesh thei r i ndi vi dual pl ans by means of a
competi ti ve pri ce system. The harmony of humunity i s
fostered by the competi ti on produced through the
free market. By servi ng hi s own i nterests, the profi t-
seekl ng producer must seek the good of others. Here
i s Jesus gol den rul e i n acti on: do unto others as you
woul d have others do unto you (Matthew 7:12). And
the marvel ous feature about the free market i s thi s: i f
you do i t wel l , you may make a very handsome
profi t. You can do very wel l by doi ng good.
The economy i s not a government i n the sense
that fami l y, church, and state are. I t cannot l awfi .dl y
compel men to take a sezf-maledicto~ oath i n whi ch
men cal l down Gods judgment on themsel ves i f they
l i e. Neverthel ess, perhaps the most i mportant fea-
ture of the free market i n the fi nal decades of the
20th century i s thi s: its success mahzs unnecessary themes-
sianic Stute. When mens i ncomes are growi ng, and
thei r personal responsi bi l i ty i s i ncreasi ng, and thei r
range of choi ces i s i ncreasi ng, they have even l ess ex-
cuse for cal l i ng on the god of the State to save them,
protect them, care for them, and bear al l responsi bi l -
i ty for them. The market renders satanic man with even
Zess excuse. For domi ni on men, i t provi des the eco-
nomi c framework for l ong-term economi c growth
and l ong-term cul tural domi ni on. The soci al i sts wi l l
fai l , massi vel y, when the soci al i st system paral yzes
the producti ve, domi ni on-ori ented producers. And
when i t does, stati sms i ntel l ectual defenders wi l l be
recogni zed fi nal l y for what they are, namel y, defend-
ers of the economi cs of Satan.
SUMMARY OF PART II
Soci ety entai l s res~onsi l de cooperation among men.
I t rel i es on the concept of seZJgovernmnt. Any soci al
order whi ch mi ni mi zes sel f-government, substi tut-
i ng the rul e of any si ngl e pol i ci ng i nsti tuti on, i s
doomed to fai l ure. God has establ i shed mu@le insti-
tutional authonties, and these l awfd i nsti tuti ons re-
strai n i ndi vi dual s, as wel l as restrai n each other. The
i dea of checks and ba/antes i s i mpl i ci tl y Chri sti an. Such
a concept of soci al order stems di rectl y from the
Bi bl es doctri ne of the total depravi ty of man. Man
has rebel l ed agai nst God; therefore, no man and no
human i nsti tuti on can be ful l y trusted. Si nce man
was unwi l l i ng to subordi nate hi msel f to God, he i s
therefore unfi t to rul e absol utel y as a pseudo-God.
Even i n Eden, the Bi bl e i ndi cates, no si ngl e i n-
sti tuti on was absol utel y soverei gn. Only God is ab-
solute~ sowrei~, even when man G ethicaliy petfect. The
presence of the fami l y i n Eden was i nescapabl e, but
before there was a fami l y, Adam had an assi gnment.
Thi s assi gnment was i ntel l ectual i n nature, but i t
al so i nvol ved the i dea of choi ce and al l ocati on. So
296 wucmmmorw summDER
there was an economy i n Eden. Adam was a rul er as
a husband, but he woul d have been a rul er as a
father. He was al so a pri est, and as a pri est, He owed
God fi l l worshi p. Thi s i mpl i es the exi stence of a
church, a communi ty of worshi p. I t i s most di ffi cul t
though not i mpossi bl e to make a case for the ci vi l
government i n Eden, and i t i s i ndi cati ve of the
nature of pagani sm, anci ent and modern, that the
State becomes the pri mary i nsti tuti on i n soci ety.
Any attempt on the part of rebel l i ous man to
el i mi nate the fami l y, or to subordi nate the economy
to the State, or to rul e the State by the i nsti tuti onal
church, or to abol i sh al l i nsti tuti ons except the fam-
i l y and the market, or any other combi nati ons or
permutati ons of rebel l i on, cannot hope to survi ve i n
the l ong run. There are ti mes when any one of these
i nsti tuti ons i s subordi nate to another (i n warti me,
for exampl e, the State mi ght be seen as temporari l y
domi nant), but no i nsti tuti on i s absol utel y subor-
di nate. Even i n warti me, the Bi bl e says, newl ywed
husbands cannot be drafted i nto mi l i tary servi ce for
twel ve months, for the sake of the wi ves (Deuteron-
omy 24:5).
What we have i n the bi bl i cal soci al structure i s
balance. What we have i s both soci al order and Pemond
freedom. What we have i s se~govemment under God.
What we have i s ful l responsi bi l i ty of men and i nsti -
tuti ons under the l aw of God. What we have, i n
short, i s biblkai covenantali.sm.
What we dont have i s bureaucrati c stagnati on.
What we dont have i s a soci al pyrami d, wi th a si ngl e
human i nsti tuti on on top, and wi th al l other i nsti tu-
SUMMARY OP PART II 299
ti ons dependent on that one i nsti tuti on for gui dance
and support. What we dont have i s the uni tary
State. The uni tary bureaucrati c State i s i mpl i ci tl y
demoni c, for i t i s Satans rul e of top-down power, not
Gods system of upward responsi bi l i ty, where those
on the bottom are the i ni ti ators, and those on the top
are adjudi cators.
The pyramid system is evil. I t i s the tower of Babel .
I t i s the Pharaohs archi tecture of the di vi ne-human
l i nk. Wherever i t exi sts, human freedom i s stamped
out. What i s needed to counteract the pyrami d soci ety
i s a system of multiple hierarchzk, none of whi ch i s
absol utel y soverei gn over the others.
Consi der the probl em of adul tery. Obvi ousl y, the
fami l y i s i nvol ved. The whol e authori ty pattern of
the fami l y i s shattered by adul tery. The l aw of God
has rul es deal i ng wi th adul tery for the fami l y. I t has
ways for sol vi ng the probl em. But adul tery al so has
i mpl i cati ons for the i nsti tuti onal church. The
churchs government structure steps i n and begi ns to
bri ng sol uti ons to the probl em, as a l awful i nsti tu-
ti on exerci si ng authori ty over fami l y members. But
the ci vi l government al so has parti al authori ty over
the fami l y i n thi s case. A covenant has been made
between two parti es, and thi s i s a ci vi l covenant.
Who i s to gai n custody of the chi l dren? Who i s to be
judged the vi cti m of the adul terous partner? Who
i s to be gi ven al i mony or assessed some sort of
damages? The State i ntervenes to provi de l egal
answers that are bi ndi ng on the partners. Then, too,
the economy i s affected. Wi l l both parents enter the
l abor force? Wi l l one of them wi ndup on the chari ty
300 uNcoNDmoNAL SURRENDER
rol l s? Wi l l the chi l dren be abl e to go to col l ege? Who
wi l l fi nance thei r educati ons? What consequences
wi l l there be for the economi c structures of any new
fami l i es that are formed by the di vorced fami l ys ori -
gi nal partners? The economi c consequences of adul -
tery cannot be avoi ded.
Thi s i s what a system of mul ti pl e hi erarchi es i s
al l about. No i nsti tuti onal structure has absol ute and
fi nal soverei gnty i n handl i ng the probl em. At the
same ti me, al l may have l awful authori ty to take
steps to deal wi th the probl em, i nsofar as Gods l aw
reveal s the speci fi c areas of responsi bi l i ty to the ad-
mi ni strators of each governmental uni t. Al l of them
i nvol ve government or rul e. The State, meani ng the
ci vi l government, i s not the government. I t i s onl y
one governi ng body among many.
Thi s i s what bi bl i cal soci al order i s al l about.
Where we fi nd the pyrami d structure i nstead of mul -
ti pl e hi erarchi es, we know we are enteri ng the soci -
ety of Satan.
Part 111
EXPECTATIONS
INTRODUCTION TO PART Ill
By now, you are becomi ng aware of the remarka-
bl e al ternati ve that Chri sti ani ty offers to the modern
humani st cul tures. I t offers stubility, wi th the promi se
of growth. I t offers l aw, but wi th fi .dl personal respon-
si bi l i ty for respondi ng to i t. I t rests on the i dea of se~-
gowrmnent wul er God, by means of Gods l aw, rather
than conformi ty to a massi ve messi ani c State, wi th
i ts endl ess regul ati ons, tyranni es, and arbi trari ness.
I t offers increasing wealth for the vast majori ty of those
who l i ve under i ts l aws. I t offemfi eedorn of choice on a
scal e never dreamed of by anci ent man, or even man
i n the 1930s. I t offers meani ng i n hfito~, for i t pro-
cl ai ms an absol utel y soverei gn God who bri ngs al l
thi ngs to pass al l thi ngs, not just some thkgs. I t
puts us i n communi cati on wi th a God who knows
everythi ng, control s everythi ng, and reveal s Hi msel f
to us. We deal wi th a God of absolutijustice, who en-
forces the terms of Hi s l aw to the l ast jot and ti ttl e,
yet a God of absolute m.eq, who spared not Hi s onl y
begotten Son, that whosoever shal l bel i eve on Hi m
shal l have everl asti ng l i fe.
304 uNmNDmONAL SURRENDER
Chri sti an soci al theory offers us a doctri ne of the
Tti ni ty whi ch tel l s us much about our soci al i nsti tu-
ti ons. We l earn that God i s both me and muny, that
He i s ful l y personal . Thi s God empl oys the division of
labor, wi th each Person of the Godhead performi ng
separate functi ons wi th respect to the creati on, yet
wi th each Person equal i n majesty to the other two.
The creati on refl ects thi s arrangement. Man l i ves i n
a soci al worl d whi ch i mposes ful l personal responsi -
bi l i ty on the i ndi vi dual , yet at the same ti me i mposes
responsi bi l i ty on the col l ecti ve associ ati ons of man-
ki nd. Soci ety i s ther~ore one and rnuny. Nei ther anarchi c
i ndi vi dual i sm nor col l ecti vi sti c hol i sm i s bi bl i cal . At
the same ti me, God has reveal ed through Hi s l aw
the standards of responsi bi l i ty, so that a proper baZance
between the one and the many can be establ i shed i n
human soci ety.
We therefore avoi d the twi n pi tfal l s of total de-
central i zati on (fragmentati on) and total central i za-
ti on (stati sm). We achi eve a baZanced sotial order, in
whi ch nei ther of the extremes of power-seeki ng and
judgment-avoi di ng rebel l i ous men can be estab-
l i shed.
But i t i snt enough to procl ai m the foundati ons of
a godl y soci ety, nor i s i t suffi ci ent to descri be some of
the i nsti tuti onal arrangements of such a soci ety.
What i s needed i s a @amti, a psychol ogi cal l y
moti vati ng i mpul se to gi ve godl y men confi dence
that thei r efforts are not i n vai n and that thei r work
for the ki ngdom of God wi l l have meani ng i n the
future, not just i n heaven, but i n ti me and on earth.
We need a goal to sacr i ti ce for, a standard of perform-
INTRODUCTION TO PART Ill ~
ante that i s at the same ti me a l egi ti mate quest.
What i s needed i s confi dence that al l thi s tal k about
the marvel s of the khgdom of God becomes more
than mere tal k. What i s needed i s a vi ew of hi story
that guarantees to Chri sti ans external, visible uicto~ in
time and on earth, as a prel ude, a down payment, to
the absol ute and eternal vi ctory whi ch Chri sti ans are
confi dent awai ts them after the day of judgment.
Here i s where most attempts at sketchi ng a
Chri sti an soci al order break down. Some Chri sti ans,
of course, reject the whol e noti on of a di sti nctl y
Chri sti an soci al order, even as a hypotheti cal i deal .
Others thi nk that thi s i deal i s cl oser to humani sti c
soci al i sm, or perhaps medi eval gui l d soci al i sm, than
i t i s to the decentral i zed soci al order descri bed i n thi s
book. Others may bel i eve i n the ki ngdom bl uepri nt
descri bed here, but they have concl uded that the
church wi l l fai l , i n ti me and on earth, to i nsti tute the
rei gn of God through Hi s peopl e and thei r construc-
ti on of l aw-honori ng, decentral i zed i nsti tuti ons. Sti l l
others who say they agree wi th the bl uepri nt thi nk
that Chri sti ans wi l l rei gn, i n ti me and on earth, but
not before Chri st comes physi cal l y to set up Hi s
earthl y ki ngdom, whi ch Satan and hi s troops wi l l
rebel agai nst just before the day of judgment, a thou-
sand years after Chri st returns physi cal l y to set up
Hi s ki ngdom. Unti l He returns i n power to smash
Hi s opponents, however, the church wi l l become
more and more i mpotent, more and more perse-
cuted, and we can expect no vi ctory as a resul t of our
efforts, but onl y by means of a great di sconti nuous
event, the second comi ng of Chri st. Unti l He
So6 UNCONDITIONALWRRMDER
returns, our l ot wi l l be progressi ve defeat, i n ti me
and on earth. There i s no rel ati onshi p between what
the church accompl i shes i n hi story and what Chri st
wi l l i naugurate i mmedi atel y after He returns.
But what i f these opi ni ons are total l y i ncorrect?
What i f the fol l owi ng scenari o were the case? Fi rst,
God saves men through the preachi ng of the gospel
of Jesus Chri st. Second, these men respond i n fai th
to Gods domi ni on assi gnment, gi ven to us through
our fathers, Adarn, Noah, and Chri st i n the great
commi ssi on (Matthew 28:18-20). Thi rd, these re-
generate men begi n to study the l aw of God, subdu-
i ng thei r own hearts, l i ves, and areas of responsi bi l -
i ty i n terms of Gods comprehensi ve l aw-order.
Fourth, the bl essi ngs of God begi n to fl ow toward
those who are acti ng i n Hi s name and i n terms of
Hi s l aw. Fi fth, the stewardshi p pri nci pl e of servi ce
as a road to l eadershi p begi ns to be acknowl edged
by those who cal l themsel ves Chri sti an, i n every
sphere of l i fe: fami l y, i nsti tuti onal church, school s,
ci vi l government, economy. Thi s l eads to step si x,
the ri se to promi nence of Chri sti ans i n every sphere
of l i fe, as Satani sts become i ncreasi ngl y i mpotent to
handl e the cri ses that thei r worl d-and-l i fe vi ew has
created. Seventh, the l aw of God i s i mposed progres-
si vel y across the face of each soci ety whi ch has de-
cl ared commi tment to Chri st. Ei ghth, thi s provokes
forei gn nati ons to jeal ousy, and they begi n to i mi tate
the Chri sti an soci al order, i n order to recei ve the ex-
ternal bl essi ngs. Ni nth, even the Jews are provoked
to jeal ousy, and they convert to Chri st. Tenth, the
conversi on of the Jews l eads to an unparal l el ed ex-
lNTRoDuelloN l-o PART Ill 907
pl osi on of conversi ons, fol l owed by even greater ex-
ternal bl essi ngs. El eventh, the ki ngdom of God be-
comes worl dwi de i n scope, servi ng as a down pay-
ment by God to Hi s peopl e on the restorati on whi ch
wi l l come beyond the day of judgment. Twel fth, the
forces of Satan have somethi ng to provoke them to
rebel l i on, after generati ons of subservi ence outwardl y
to the benefi ts-produci ng l aw of God. Thi rteenth,
thi s rebel l i on by Satan i s i mmedi atel y smashed by
Chri st i n Hi s fi nal return i n gl ory and judgment.
Fourteenth, Satan, hi s troops of angel s, and hi s
human fol l owers are judged, and then condemned to
the l ake of fi re. And fi nal l y, fi fteenth, God sets up
Hi s new heaven and new earth for regenerate men
to serve i n throughout al l eterni ty.
I f men real l y bel i eved that thk scenari o i s possi bl e
i ndeed, i nevi tabl e woul d they redoubl e thei r
efforts to begi n to subdue the earth? I f they knew
that thei r every effort woul d be credi ted not merel y
to thei r account i n heaven, but to the account of
Gods hi stori cal church, and al so to the persons ac-
count here on earth, woul d they work to subdue the
earth? I f they knew that Godi Pl an for history is cunuda-
tioe and that each effort by Hi s sai nts adds up,
bui l di ng the foundati on for the i nsti tuti onal rei gn of
Chri st, i n ti me and on earth, woul d they redoubl e
thei r efforts? I f they bel i eved that no great catacl ysm
i s goi ng to bai l them out, that no mi racul ous return
of Chri st physi cal l y to pul l thei r chestnuts out of the
fi re i s goi ng to happen, woul d they work more effi -
ci entl y to get thei r l i ves i n order, thei r zones of re-
sponsi bi l i ty i n order, and thei r chi l dren better trai ned
308 utwtxmmorw SURRENDER
to fi ght Satans l i es? I f they bel i eved, i n short, i n the
conti n+ of vi cto~, i n ti me and on earth, precept by
precept, l i ne upon l i ne, here a l i ttl e, there a l i ttl e,
unti l the peopl e of God wi l l stand vi ctori ous, havi ng
subdued most of the earth by means of Gods regen-
erati ng grace and Gods sancti fyi ng l aw, woul d they
begi n to work i n worl d-subdui ng ways? Or woul d
they wai t passi vel y, for better, stronger, and more
commi tted Chri sti ans to establ i sh thei r pi ece of the
ki ngdom, commi tted Chri sti ans l i ke Cal eb-85-year-
ol d Cal eb (Joshua 15:6-15) when he and hi s fami l y
entered the l and of Canaan?
We need to know what the Bi bl e says about
Gods ki ngdom. We need to know i f we are expected
to bri ng the ki ngdom i nto vi si bl e power by our own
efforts, under Gods di recti ng soverei gnty, or whether
we are to expect conti nual fai l ure, unti l some sort of
di sconti nuous event breaks through hi story, over-
comes our fai l ure, and el evates us to seats of power
despi te our demonstrated weakness and i ncompe-
tence. We need to know whether God real l y expects
us to wi n, just as He expected and commanded the
I srael i tes to wi n, when they entered Canaan. We
need to know whether we can expect fai l ures as great
as those suffered by the Jews, even though we preach
the gospel of Jesus Chri st, and Hi m resurrected. We
need to know whether the gospel of Chri st i s no more
powerful as an hi stori cal force than the shadows pos-
sessed by the Jews i n the years before Chri sts death
and resurrecti on.
And when we know, and bel i eve, and procl ai m
the truth, the worl d wont know what hi t i t.
9
THE KINGDOM OF GOD
The best pl ace to begi n a study of the kh-i gdom of
God i s to go to the parabl es and anal ogi es regardi ng
the ki ngdom whi ch Jesus gave to Hi s di sci pl es. Some
of them are what we mi ght cal l pocketbook para-
bl es; deal i ng wi th economi c anal ogi es. The parabl e
of the tal ents i s an exampl e (Matthew 25:14-30), or
the parabl e of the cl ever steward (Luke 16:1-11), or the
parabl e of the unjust servant (Matthew 18:23-35), or
of the fi el d i n whi ch a treasure i s buri ed (Matthew
13:44), or of the anal ogy of the pearl of great pri ce
(Matthew 13:45-46). Others are agri cul tural para-
bl es: such as the parabl e of the four soi l s (Matthew
13:3-23), or the parabl e of the mustard seed (Mat-
thew 13: 31-32). But one of the most i l l umi nati ng i s
the parable of the wheat and tares. Another parabl e put
he forth unto them, sayi ng, The ki ngdom of heaven
i s l i kened unto a man whi ch sowed good seed i n hi s
fi el d. But whi l e men sl ept, hi s enemy came and sowed
tares among the wheat, and went hi s way. But when
the bl ade was sprung up, and brought forth frui t,
310 UNCONDITIONAL ~
then appeared the tares al so. So the servants of the
househol der came and sai d unto hi m, Si r, di dst not
thou sow good seed i n thy fi el d? From whence then
bath i t tares? He sai d unto them, An enemy bath
done thi s. The servants sai d unto hi m, Wi l t thou
then that we go and gather them up? But he sai d,
Nay; l est whi l e ye gather up the tares, ye root up al so
the wheat wi th them. Let both grow together unti l
the harvest: and i n the ti me of harvest I wi l l say to
the reapers, Gather ye together fi rst the tares, and
bi nd them i n bundl es to burn them; but gather the
wheat i nto my barn (Matthew 13:24-30).
Thi s parabl e confused Hi s di sci pl es. I t was del i b-
eratel y i ntended to confuse the masses who came to
l i sten to Hi m, as He expl ai ned: Al l these thi ngs
spake Jesus unto the mul ti tude i n parabl es; and
wi thout a parabl e spake he not unto them: that i t
mi ght be ful fi l l ed whi ch was spoken by the prophet,
sayi ng, I wi l l open my mouth i n parabl es; I wi l l utter
thi ngs whi ch have been kept secret hor n the founda-
ti on of the worl d (Matthew 13:34-35). When the di s-
ci pl es asked Hi m why He spoke al ways i n parabl es,
He tol d them: Because i t i s gi ven unto you to know
the mysteri es of the ki ngdom of heaven, but to them
i t i s not gi ven (Matthew 13:11). He spoke i n para-
bl es, ci ti ng I sai ah 6:9-10, i n order to keep the l i sten-
ers i n darkness: Tor thi s peopl es heart i s waxed
gross, and thei r ears are dul l of heari ng, and thei r
eyes have cl osed; l est at any ti me they shoul d see
wi th thei r eyes, and hear wi th thei r ears, and shoul d
understand wi th thei r heart, and shoul d be con-
verted, and I shoul d heal them (Matthew 13:15).
TNE KINGDOM OF QoO 311
There have al ways been peopl e who havent l i ked the
i dea that God deliberate~ bibs the saving grace of the gos-
pelfiom some rebellwu.s men, but He does. I sai ah sai d
so, Chri st sai d so, and Paul sai d so (Acts 28:27).
So the di sci pl es were confused by the parabl e of
the wheat and tares. Chri st expl ai ned i t to them. He
answered and sai d unto them, He that soweth the
good seed i s the Son of man. The fi el d i s the worl d;
the good seed are the chi l dren of the ki ngdom; but
the tares are the chi l dren of the wi cked one. The
enemy that sowed them i s the devi l ; the harvest i s
the end of the worl d; and the reapers are the angel s.
As therefore the tares are gathered and burned i n the
fi re, so shal l i t be i n the end of thi s worl d. The Son of
man shal l send forth hi s angel s, and they shal l gather
out of hi s ki ngdom al l thi ngs that offend, and them
whi ch do i ni qui ty; and shal l cast them i nto a fi .umace
of fi re: there shal l be wai l i ng and gnashi ng of teeth
(Matthew 13:37-42). And the crowni ng tri umph:
Then shal l the ri ghteous shi ne forth as the sun i n
the kkgdom of thei r Father. Who bath ears to hear,
l et hi m hear (Matthew 13:43).
The tares and the wheat conti nue to grow
together i n the fi el d. The ti no rooting up of ntha tares
or wheat until the~nal day of]udgment. Thi s i s extremel y
si gni fi cant as an i nsi ght i nto Gods pl an for hi story.
Hi story unfol ds as a fi el d pl anted wi th two ki nds of
seed. One seed grows unto ri ghteousness, and the
other seed grows unto perdi ti on. But the two grow
si de by si de i n the worl d. Nei ther i s rooted up before
i ts ti me, and both are rooted up on that fi nal day.
Each seed works out i ts parti cul ar desti ny, and each
312 uNcoNDmoNAL SURRENDER
type of seed devel ops accordi ng to i ts i nherent char-
acteri sti cs. Thi s i s a parabl e descri bi ng the conti nui ty
of histo~, on earth. There i s no di sconti nui ty i n the
devel opment of the two ki nds of seeds. There i s no
premature rooti ng up of the wheat. From seeds to
ful l -grown pl ants, there i s no break i n the process.
Then comes the day of harvest, whi ch i s the day of
burni ng for the tares.
I f anyone l ooks at the parabl es of the ki ngdom,
he fi nds thi s concept of hi stori cal conti nui ty re-
peated. The parabl e of the tal ents teaches that each
man devel ops hi s capi tal , worki ng out the i mpl i ca-
ti ons of hi s fai th, i n responsi bl e or i rresponsi bl e
stewardshi p. Then comes the day when the Master
returns. Agai n and agai n, the parabl es poi nt to the
conti nui ty of hi story, wi th good men and bad men
worki ng si de by si de i n the same worl d, unti l the re-
turn of God i n fi nal judgment. There i s onl y one re-
turn. There i s onl y one judgment. There i s onl y one
peri od of rewards and puni shments. There h no great
intermedzizte discontinuous break in the development of the
two pnnciples, good and evil. The evi l seeds have no
warni ng of the i mpendi ng judgment. They wi tness no
peri od i n whi ch the wheat i s pul l ed up, and then i s re-
pl anted after a peri od of ti me, whi ch woul d testi fy to
the tares of what i s comi ng at the end of the age.
Speaki ng of the fi nal judgment, Chri st i nstructed
Hi s di sci pl es: But as the days of Noah were, so shal l
al so the comi ng of the Son of man be. For as i n the
days that were before the fl ood they were eati ng and
dri nki ng, marryi ng and gi vi ng i n marri age, unti l the
day that Noah entered the ark. And knew not unti l
THE KINQDOM OF QOD ti 3
the fl ood came, and took them al l away; so shal l the
comi ng of the Son of man be (Matthew 24:37-39).
There was no break wi th hi story pri or to the great
Fl ood, Chri st sai d. There was no warni ng that a
mi ghty change was al most upon them. There was no
warni ng. They coul dnt l ook back and see that some-
thi ng l i ke the Fl ood had happened before. Nothi ng
l i ke the Fl ood had ever happened, and nothi ng qui te
l i ke i t wi l l ever happen agai n, as the rai nbow testfi es
to us (Genesi s 9:15-17). But the day of judgment i s
anal ogous to the Fl ood, i n thi s sense: i t i s a mi ghty
di vi di ng poi nt, i n whi ch the sons of Satan wi l l peri sh
utterl y, and the sons of God wi l l not. The natural
sons wi l l peri sh, and the adopted sons wi l l not. And
the poi nt of Chri sts words dare not be mi ssed: thew
wi l l be no warning, no discontinuous event whi ch breaks
wi th the fami l i ar patterns of l i fe, to sound the al arm
for the ethi cal sons of Satan to hear.
Thi s i s what the Bi bl e teaches about the ki ngdom
of God. For many of you, i t wi l l seem very pecul i ar.
Perhaps the i dea of the day of judgment sounds too
i mpossi bl e to bel i eve, and you wi l l poi nt to the con-
ti nui ty of hi story to make your poi nt. I can wel l
understand thi s approach to such a message of the
comi ng perdi ti on. I ts the same response the peopl e
of Noahs day made to Noah. But what astounds me
i s that there are l i teral l y mi l l i ons of Chri sti ans who
dont bel i eve what these parabl es teach about the
devel opment of good and evi l . They bel i eve that
there wi l l be a massi ve di sconti nuous event, possi bl y
more than one, i n whi ch Chri st wi l l come fi rst for
Hi s peopl e (the wheat), gather them up i nto the sky,
314 uNcoNDi noNu SuRRmmm
and keep them suspended there for up to seven
years. Then He wi l l repl ant them, except that they
wi l l be fi dl y grown and al ready harvested, ri ght next
to the tares, and to make thi ngs even more com-
pl i cated, He wi l l sow the fi el d agai n wi th another
batch of wheat seeds. How i n the worl d coul d the
tares mi ss the si gni fi cance of events l i ke these? What
a warni ng of the radi cal l y di sconti nuous event to
come, namel y, the l ast day! Yet Chri st poi nted out
that at that fi nal day, peopl e wi l l go about thei r
busi ness as they di d before the Fl ood i n Noahs
day not after the Fl ood, not after a great warni ng
had been sounded, but before. I f a great hi stori cal
di sconti nui ty i n between the pl anti ng of Chri sts
ki ngdom and the fi nal harvest i s actual l y comi ng,
why di dnt any of our Lords parabl es or anal ogi es so
much as menti on such an event or events to come?
I f we are to take the parabl es seri ousl y, then we
have to begi n to thi nk about the cmti zwi o ojhzhy i n
between Pentecost and thejnal judgment. I f there i s no
great break comi ng whi ch wi l l di vi de thi s peri od i nto
two or more segments, then whatever happens to the
worl d, the fl esh, the devi l , and the church (i nsti tu-
ti onal ) must happen wi thout di rect, catacl ysmi c i n-
terventi on, ei ther horn God or Satan. The process
wi l l be one of growth or decay. The process may be
an ebb and fl ow, headi ng for vi ctory for the church
or defeat for the church, i n ti me and on earth. But
what cannot possi bl y be true i s that the churchs vi c-
tory process or defeat process wi l l be i nterrupted and
reversed by the di rect, vi si bl e physi cal i nterventi on
of Jesus Chri st and Hi s angel s. No dficontinuity of
THE KtKWOM OF GOD 315
history which overconux the very processes of histo~ in one
catac@mic break will take pke. Chri sti ans must not
base thei r hopes for col l ecti ve or personal vi ctory on
an hi stori cal l y unprecedented event i n hktory whi ch
i s i n fact the destructi on of hi story. They wi l l si nk or
swi m, wi n or l ose, i n ti me and on earth, by means of
the same sorts of processes as we see toulzy, al though the
speed wi l l i ncrease or decrease i n response to mans
ethi cal conformi ty to Gods l aw, or hi s rebel l i on
agai nst that l aw.
Gr owth
Another parabl e put he forth unto them, sayi ng,
The ki ngdom of heaven i s l i ke to a grai n of mustard
seed, whi ch a man took, and sowed i n hi s fi el d:
whi ch i ndeed i s the l east of al l seeds: but when i t i s
grown, i t i s the greatest among herbs, and becometh
a tree, so that the bi rds of the ai r come and l odge i n
the branches thereof (Matthew 13:31-32). From
somethi ng ti ny to somethi ng substanti al , from some-
thi ng al most i nvi si bl e to somethi ng that gi ves sup-
port and shel ter: here i s the way that the ki ngdom
operates i n ti me and on earth. I t i s a growth process
- conti nuous, not catacl ysmi c whi ch l eads to i ts
vi si bi l i ty among men, and i ts support for men.
Another parabl e spake he unto them; The
ki ngdom of heaven i s l i ke unto l eaven, whi ch a
woman took, and hi d i n three measures of meal , ti l l
the whol e was l eavened (Matthew 13:33). Fi rst of
al l , before anyone jumps to concl usi ons, leaven is not a
symbol ofwn. The Hebrews were not permi tted to eat
l eavened bread at the Passover, but l eavened bread
316 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENOER
was used i n the sacri fi ce of the peace offeri ng (Levi ti -
cus 7:13). The l eavened bread was offered as the
fi rst-frui ts of the Lord, meani ng the best of a fami l ys
producti vi ty: Ye shal l bri ng out of your habi tati ons
two wave l oaves of two tenth deal s: they shal l be of
fi ne fl our; they shal l be baken wi th l eaven; they are
the fi rst-frui ts unto the LORD (Levi ti cus 23:17).
Leaven is the best man has to ofeq the bread he eats with
pksure. I t i s mans offeri ng to God. The Passover
avoi ded l eaven. I n the Passover, peopl e al so ate bi t-
ter herbs wi th thei r unl eavened bread (Exodus 12:8).
Thi s bread and bi tter herbs symbol i zed the hard
ti mes i n Egypt, the worl d out of whi ch God had
del i vered them. Unl eavened bread avoi ded the addi -
ti onal time necessary for yeast to ri se a symbol of a
major hi stori cal di sconti nui ty, for God del i vered
them from Egypt overni ght. Unl eavened bread sym-
bol i zed Gods overni ght del i verance, si nce i t was not
the best of what man had to offer God. God broke i n-
to the dai l y affai rs of Hi s peopl e and del i vered them
from bi tter herbs and unl eavened bread. He
del i vered them i nto a l and fl owi ng wi th mi l k and
honey, a l and i n whi ch men have the weal th and
ti me to bake and eat l eavened bread. They were to
offer thi s bread to God i n thankful ness. Leaven i s a
symbol of time, of continuity, and of dominion.
But what was the meani ng of unl eavened bread?
Why were the Hebrews requi red to eat i t at the
Passover? Why were they requi red to get ri d of al l
l eavened bread i n the l and for a week before the
feast? (Exodus 12:15). Because the ori gi nal Passover
was cel ebrated i n Egypt. I t was J??gypti l eaven whi ch
THE KINGDOM OF GOO 317
had to be purged out of thei r mi dst, before they l eft
the l and. I t was a symbol of Egypts cul ture, and
therefore of Egypts rel i gi on. Leavened bread was
representati ve of the good l i fe i n Egypt, al l of those
benefi ts i n Egypt whi ch mi ght tempt them to return.
So God requi red them to cel ebrate a dticontinuous
euent, thei r overni ght del i verance from bondage.
They were to take no l eaven wi th them none of
Egypt?s gods, or rel i gi ous practi ces, or cul ture to
serve as starter.
Once they entered the l and of Canaan as con-
querors, they were required to eat l eavened bread and
offer i t as a peace offeri ng to God. Thi s was the l eav-
ened bread of the fi rst-fkui ts offeri ,ng. Thi s i s why
Chri sti ans are supposed to eat l eavened bread when
they cel ebrate Communi on (the Lords Supper). I t i s
a symbol of conquest. Ware now on the oflensiue, cany-
ing th haven of holiness back into ll~pt, back into Babylon.
We are the l eaven of the worl d, not corrupti ng the
unl eavened dough, but i ncorrupti ng i t bri ngi ng
the message of sal vati on to Satans troops, teari ng
down the i dol s i n mens hearts. Godi ho@ /eauen i s to
repl ace Satan3 unholy leaven i n the dough of tb creation.
Leaven i s therefore not a symbol of si n and corrup-
ti on, but a symbol of growth and domi ni on. I ts not a
questi on of an %ml eavened ki ngdom vs. a qeavened
ki ngdom; i ts a questi on of which (whose) l eaven. I ts
not a questi on of domi ni on vs. no domi ni on; i ts a
questi on of whose domi ni on. The dough (creati on) i s
here. Whose l eaven wi l l compl ete i t, Gods or Satans?
The ki ngdom i s l i ke l eaven. Chri sti ani ty i s the
yeast, and i t has a l eaveni ng effect on the pagan,
~6 UNCDNDMONAL SURRENDER
satani c cul ture around i t. I t permeates the whol e of
thi s cul ture, causi ng i t to ri se. Z7te bread which fi pro-
duced by this leaven is the pwj%rred bread. I n anci ent
ti mes i ndeed, ri ght up unti l the 19th century
bread was consi dered the staff of l i fe, the symbol of
l i fe. I t was the source of mens nutri ti on. Gi ve us
thi s day our dai l y bread: we are to ask God (Mat-
thew 6:11). The ki ngdom of God i s the force that pro-
duces the fi ne qual i ty bread men seek. The symbol i -
sm shoul d be obvi ous: Chri sti ani ty makes l i fe a joy
for man. I t provi des man wi th the very best. I t i s
what al l men real l y prefer, when they have the ti me
and money to obtai n i t. Leaven takes ti me to produce
i ts product. haven is a symbol of historical continui~.
Men can wai t for thei r l eavened bread, for God gi ves
them ti me suffi ci ent for the worki ng of Hi s spi ri tual
l eaven. They may not understand how i t works, how
the spi ri tual effects spread through thei r cul ture and
make i t a del i ght, any more than they understand
how yeast works to produce l eavened bread, but
they can see the bread ri si ng, and they can see the
progressi ve effects of the l eaven of the ki ngdom.
They can l ook i nto the warmi ng oven and see the
ri sen bread. I f we real l y push the anal ogy, we can
poi nt to the fact that the dough i s pounded down
several ti mes before the fi nal baki ng, al most as the
worl d pounds the ki ngdom; but the yeast does i ts
work, jd so long as thjres of the oven are not lit @rnu-
tureZy. I f the ful l heat of the oven i s appl i ed to the
dough before the yeast has done i ts work, both the
yeast and the dough are burnt, and the burnt mass
must be thrown out. But gi ven suffi ci ent ti me, the
TNE KINGOOM OF GOD W9
yeast does i ts work, and the resul t i s the bread men
prefer.
What a marvel ous descri pti on of Gods ki ngdom!
Chri sti ans work wi th the cul tural materi al avai l abl e,
seeki ng to refi ne i t, to permeate i t, to make i t i nto
somethi ng fi ne. They know that they wi l l be success-
ful , just as yeast i s successful i n the dough, i f i t i s
gi ven enough ti me to do i ts work. Thats what God
i mpl i ci tl y promi ses us i n the anal ogy of the l eaven:
enough time to accomplish our individual and our coltiwtive
tasks. He tel l s us that Hi s ki ngdom will produce the
desi rabl e bread. I t wi l l take ti me. I t may take several
poundi ngs, as God, through the hosti l i ty of the
worl d, kneads the yeast-fi l l ed dough of mans cul -
tures. But the end resul t i s guaranteed.
But what about the terri bl e thi ngs that the whol e
worl d suffers? What about bl oodshed, chaos, fear?
Chri sts words are fami l i ar to many Chri sti ans: And
ye shal l hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that
ye be not troubl ed: for al l these thi ngs must come to
pass, but the end i s not yet (Matthew 24:6). The
words may be fami l i ar, but are they real l y under-
stood? Jesus has announced a remarkabl e prophecy:
there shal l be wars and rumors of wars. We shoul d
expect thi s. We shoul d not be troubl ed. Why not?
For the end i s not yet. But how are we to know for
certai n that the end i s not at hand? Preci sel y hmwse
there are wars and rumors of wars. Why cant
modern Chri sti ans understand thi s? Because we
hear of wars, and because they keep breaki ng out,
we know that the end i s not yet. We need not be
troubl ed, for thi s, too, shal l pass. What shal l pass?
320 UNCONDITIONAL SURWNDER
Wars and rumors of wars. What Chri st tol d Hi s di s-
ci pl es i n no uncertai n terms i s thi s: there must come an
era in whtih Chrzstzizns shall not be besieged with wars and
rumors of wars. And thi s peri od i s not on the fhr si de of
the day of judgment, for the end i s not yet. When
shal l the end come? A* a peri od i n whi ch men do
not make war, and the rumors of wars fi nal l y cease.
What el se coul d Chri sts words mean? The sign to iYis
people that the end is not immimnt is the vay existence of
wars and rumors of wars. For as l ong as they exi st, the
end i s not yet. After they cease, we can start thi nki ng
seri ousl y about the possi bi l i ty of the end of thi s fal l en
worl d. When the worl d i s subdued to the gl ory of
God, then we face the i ncreasi ng possi bi l i ty of the
end. When the yeast has done i ts cul tural work, and
men are at l ast eati ng the fi ne l eavened bread that
the Chri sti an yeast has produced, then they can con-
templ ate the fi nal judgment. When al l men have
before thei r eyes the testi mony of God to the success
of Hi s l aw and the success of Hi s ambassadors i n
bri ngi ng peace and justi ce to the worl d, then the
rebel s wi l l have somethi ng to rebel agai nst i n that
l ast desperate act of Satan and hi s host (Revel ati on
20:7-9a). That rebel l i on wi l l be i mmedi atel y crushed
(Revel ati on 20:9b-10).
I t i s one of Satans most successful l i es that Chri s-
ti ans l ook at thei r defeats on the battl efi el d of fai th,
that they l i sten to rumors of wars, and see wars on
thei r tel evi si on screens (Li ve and di rect by satel l i te:
nucl ear hol ocaust! Ful l detai l s at el even.), and they
concl ude that Jesus i s comi ng soon. But Jesus i s not
comi ng soon, i f we accept Hi s words at face val ue.
TNE KINQOOM OF QOO 321
We are sti l l besi eged by wars and rumors of wars.
Gods kneadi ng process i s sti l l goi ng on. The yeast
has not done i ts work yet. The dough i s not ready for
the oven. The ti me has not come for cooki ng the cul -
tural dough. There are sti l l wars and rumors of
wars; therefore, the end is not yet.
Now i t mi ght be possi bl e to argue that Chri st
meant that wars and rumors of wars wi l l conti nue,
and that Chri sti ans wi l l be pounded down, unti l the
hypotheti cal fi rst return of Chri st, when onl y Hi s
peopl e wi l l be raptured i nto the sky, after whi ch He
shal l return wi th them (now ful l y transformed, pos-
sessi ng thei r perfect bodi es) i n power to set up Hi s
earthl y ki ngdom. Thi s coul d be i nterpreted as the
era of the oven, when Gods l eavened bread wi l l be
baked, and men wi l l l ove one another and eat the
bread of ri ghteousness i n peace. Wars and rumors of
wars coul d then be seen as poi nti ng to the fi rst return
of Chri st, and therefore our end our prel i mi nary
end does draw ni gh i n the mi dst of wars and
rumors of wars. But thi s i nterpretati on i s i n fl agrant
opposi ti on to Chri st% parabl es of the kkgdom,
whi ch rel y on the i dea of continuity in histoy, the
unwi l l i ngness of God to separate the wheat fkom the
tares unti l the fi nal judgment, when the tares wi l l be
burned. Accordi ng to thi s mi si nterpretati on, the
tares are not burned at the hypotheti cal fi rst return
of Chri st i n power, whi ch i s to be fol l owed by a
thousand-year di rect rei gn, i n ti me and on earth.
The tares remai n i n the fi el d, al ong wi th a mi xture of
fi dl y redeemed Chri sti ans i n thei r new, perfect
humani ty (I Cori nthi ans 15:52), si de by si de new
922 uNeoNDmoNAL SURRENDER
converts to Chri st, i n thei r normal bodi es the ki nd
Chri sti ans presentl y battl e wi th and si de by si de
the tares. What ki nd of agri cul ture i s thi s? What
ki nd of agri cul tural parabl e can be conformed to thi s
sort of di sconti nuous agri cul ture, an agri cul ture of
premature uprooting?
What modern Chri sti ans have abandoned i s the
concept of sl ow but steady growth. Chri sti ans some-
ti mes want vi ctory for the church, i n ti me and on
earth, pri or to the fi nal judgment. They bel i eve i n i t.
But they are so di scouraged by the si gns of the
churchs present i mpotence and the vi si bl e power of
Satans troops that they concl ude that they need a
di vi ne mi racl e, a radi cal l y di sconti nuous i nterventi on
i n hi story, i n order to bri ng them the cul tural and
pol i ti cal vi ctory they l ong for. Thi s was the error of
the Hebrews i n Jesus day: they expected the messi ah
to set up an i nstantl y successful Jewi sh ki ngdom i n
ti ny Pal esti ne. Thats why the crowds rushed to
wel come Jesus to Jerusal em at the begi nni ng of the
Passover week, and thats why they cruci fi ed Hi m at
the end, when He fai l ed to gi ve them what they
wanted: a mi racl e el evati ng them to total power,
despi te thei r own fai l ure to exerci se power on earth i n
terms of Gods l aw. They had rejected the pri mary
tml used i n Gods domi ni on assi gnment. They had
broken the terms of Hi s peace treaty. They had vi o-
l ated Hi s reveal ed l aw conti nual l y, havi ng substi tuted
the words of men. Yet they expected the messi ah to
pl ace the keys of domi ni on ri ght i n thei r l aps. Chri st
rejected thei r offer of an earthl y ki ngshi p on thei r
l awl ess, treaty-breaki ng terms. They cruci i i ed Hi m.
THE IONQDOM OF QOD g=
I snt thi s basi cal l y what the modern church
wants? Dont Chri sti ans expect God to promote
them overni ght from buck pri vate at l east to cap-
tai n? Some of them are corporal s, and they expect to
become fi el d grade offi cers, preferabl y bi rd col onel s,
i n one move. Chri sti ans want to become fi el d mar-
shal s, just l i ke the nati ve corporal s i n Afri ca became
fi el d marshal s once the Bri ti sh and French pul l ed
out. But what ki nd of fi el d marshal s shoul d we ex-
pect on thi s basi s? We have seen the %el d marshal s
i n the Afri can democraci es. A hundred years ago
we woul d have cal l ed them tri bal tyrants. Men who
have no i dea what a ki ngdom i s el evate themsel ves
i kom Wresi dent for Li fe to Emperor for Li fe i n
Afki ca. And a few years l ater, or l ess, they are
assassi nated. A short rei gn i ndeed. But Chri sti ans
expect Chri st to bai l them out of thei r present trou-
bl es, and to stand behi nd them, l i ke a cosmi c bi g
brother, i n the comi ng ki ngdom where He wi l l rul e
di rectl y on earth. He wi l l tel l us exactl y what to do,
and He wi l l back us up, day by day, moment by mo-
ment. He wi l l gi ve us a total l y central i zed pol i ti cal
system, and we shal l be obedi ent bureaucrats, i ni ti at-
i ng nothi ng, resci ndi ng nothi ng, maki ng no mi s-
takes, and maki ng no responsi bl e progress. We shal l
serve i n a real ki ngdom as pl ay-pretend rul ers. We
shal l carry out our orders. We shal l not mature per-
sonal l y. God wi l l subdue the earth usi ng us as crude
tool s, si nce we have fai l ed to subdue i t as maturi ng
stewards. We are perpetual fai l ures.
Such a vi ew i s a counsel of defeat. I t means that
Gods pl an i n Eden has been successfi dl y overthrown
324 uWoNDmoNA1. SIJRRENDSR
by Satan. Gods hope to have man, speci fi cal l y
created to exerci se domi ni on, actual l y exerci se
domi ni on as a fai thful , ful l y responsi bl e subordi -
nate, has been destroyed. God fi nal l y cal l s the exper-
i ment to a hal t. Get down there, Son, He says to
Jesus, and cl ean up thi s mess. They cant rul e, they
cant bui l d anythi ng permanent, theyre a bunch of
foul -ups, and youre goi ng to have to get i n there and
fi x i t up. Dont gi ve one of them an ounce of personal
responsi bi l i ty. Dont l et one of them make an i n-
dependent deci si on. No mi stakes, from now on. I m
ti red of thei r mi stakes. Theyre a wash-out. Gi ve
them thei r offi cers epaul ets, make every one of them
at l east a second l i eutenant, but You gi ve every com-
mand. They coul dnt ti e thei r own shoel aces wi thout
mti l ng a mess of i t.
And Satans response? I ts just what I tol d you. I
tol d you so about Job, and I tol d you so about them.
They i gnored Your l aw. They woul dnt bear any
seri ous responsi bi l i ty. They were cul tural l y i mpo-
tent. Your ki ngdom pl ans are a shambl es. Sure,
Youre a Bi g Shot. You can al ways get i n there and
strai ghten thi ngs out. Everyone knows that. But
Your pl an was a fai l ure, Your hopes for man an i l l u-
si on, for You di dnt pl an on me. I stopped You. I
messed them up. I may not be the Al mi ghty, but I
sure am pretty mi ghty. I was mi ghty enough to
thwart the very defi ni ti on You gave to man, the very
bei ng You made hi m: dominion man. Hes no domi n-
i on man. Hes nothi ng but a rotti ng robot. Thats i t,
God, Your great work of art, the capstone of creati on,
the bei ng who possesses Your very i mage, i s nothi ng
THE KINQDOM OF QOO 325
but a breathi ng robot. Personal i ty? Nonsense. Hes
a robot. Youre ri ght, man cant ti e hi s own shoes;
not even Your adopti ng can change that. I may be
goi ng i nto the l ake of fi re, but I proved my poi nt.
Your second l i eutenant, redeemed man, i s no more a
second l i eutenant than some brand-new recrui t.
And I m the one who di d i t to You!
Chri sti ans bel i eve thi s al l too often. Maybe they
havent thought through the i mpl i cati ons of thei r
hope i n a premature rapture i nto the cl ouds, and
thei r hypotheti cal return i n gl ori fi ed bodi es to rul e
the earth as robot bureaucrats, but they ought to
thi nk about i t. They have deni ed the real i ty of the
parabl es of growth. They have deni ed the real i ty of
Gods domi ni on assi gnment. Mi l l i ons of them ex-
pl i ci tl y deny thei r obl i gati on to use Gods reveal ed
l aw as a tool of domi ni on, or i n any other way. Yet
they hol d out hopes for a promoti on. They al l want
to become offi cers, but few of them want to attend
offi cers candi date school . Boot camp, they bel i eve,
i s just about al l they can handl e. Thats what the
generati on of the exodus thought, too, and they di ed
i n the wi l derness. They al l di ed i n boot camp, except
Joshua and Cal eb.
The parabl es of growth poi nt to a ful fi l l ment of
Gods pl an, i n ti me and on earth. They poi nt to a
stedy expamon of the leaven of the gospel. They poi nt to
an expansi on of Gods ki ngdom, i n ti me and on
earth, as the l eaven makes somethi ng edi bl e of the
fallen dough of creati on. The fallen dough will rise. I t
takes l eaven. I t takes kneadi ng. I t takes ti me. But
the fden dough of the cursed creati on wi l l ri se. God
a26 uNWNDmoNAL SURRENDER
promi ses thi s. But Chri sti ans sti l l refi ne to bel i eve i t.
When Chri st announces The ki ngdom of God i s l i ke
unto . . . ; they repl y, Yl h, come on, i t coul dnt be
l i ke that. No, i ts real l y l i ke thi s . . . Some Chri s-
ti ans substi tute a parabl e of uprooted wheat, whi ch
i s then repl anted, though fi l l y mature, al ongsi de of
the sti l l -maturi ng tares, and al ongsi de of newl y
pl anted wheat. Others, who do bel i eve i n hi stori cal
conti nui ty, have rejected thi s vi si on of a premature
uprooti ng. But they have no coti dence i n Chri sts
earthl y l eaven, ei ther. They wi nd up argui ng for the
tri umph of Satans earthl y l eaven. Satans l eaven wi l l
steadi l y push out the few remai ni ng traces of Chri sts
cul tural l eaven. Onl y at the fi ned judgment wi l l
Chri st return i n power, i nstantaneousl y remove
Satans l eaven, and i nstantl y i i r e up the oven, l eav-
i ng Hi s earthl y l eaven, the church, to do i ts work i n-
stantl y, rai si ng the dough i n the mi dst of the oven. I n
other words, thei r vi ew of the l eaven of the church
vi ol ates the whol e anal ogy, that i s, the steady ri si ng
of the dough before the ovens fi nal baki ng.
Both approaches are popul ar. Whi chever of these
two substi tuti ons a man accepts, he has abandoned
the anal ogy of the l eaven. He has abandoned the
pri nci pl e of godl y growth over ti me. He has aban-
doned Chri sts expl i ci t teachi ng concerni ng the true
nature of Hi s ki ngdom. He may deny the conti nui ty
of growth (uprooted wheat). He may deny the con-
ti nui ty of vi ctory (Satans l eaven wi ns). Chri sts
domi ni on man must fai l , i n ti me and on earth. I n
the second vi ew, Satans l eaven tri umphs, and God
doesnt even bother to go through the breathi ng
THE KINQDOMOFGOD 327
robot stage, wi th the di rect rul e of Chri st, i n Per-
son, through Hi s robots. God just scraps hi story,
wi pi ng out Satan. God redeems the earth i n an i ns-
tant, makes Hi s peopl e i nto ful l y redeemed, perfect
domi ni on men, who now can exerci se domi ni on over
a ful l y redeemed creati on. The garden of Eden was a
fai l ure as a trai ni ng camp for domi ni on; the l and of
Canaan was equal l y a fai l ure as a trai ni ng ground
for domi ni on; and fi nal l y, the church ofJesus Chri st,
the New Jerusal em, wi nds up an hi stori cal fai l ure as
a trai ni ng ground for domi ni on. Nothi ng worked, so
God wi l l scrap the whol e program i n an i nstant and
i ntervene graci ousl y to gi ve us the vi ctory on a pl at-
ter. Here i s a revi sed versi on of the parabl e of the
mustard seed: just add i nstant judgment (si nce ti me,
Gods l aw, and the ethi cal subordi nati on of Chri sts
church to the Master obvi ousl y fai l ed, and si nce the
preachi ng of the gospel fai l ed, and si nce Chri sti an
i nsti tuti ons fai l ed), and presto: an instant mustard tree.
So much for conti nui ty.
What does God expect to accompl i sh, total vi c-
tory? Yes. Does He expect to achi eve total vi ctory, i n
ti me and on earth? No. He doesnt offer total vi ctory
to cursed manki nd. Paul s fi rst l etter to the Cori n-
thi an church spel l s thi s out i n consi derabl e detai l .
We must be changed, i n the twi nkl i ng of an eye (I
Cori nthi ans 15:52). The fi nal di sconti nuous event,
the ascensi on of the sai nts (someti mes cal l ed the
rapture) and thei r i nstant transformati on, bri ngs
the fi nal judgment and the creati on of a new worl d,
that jinal oven in which the leaven-jlled, risen kingdom is
baked. Peter wr ote: ~ut the day of the Lord wi l l
328 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDSR
come as a thi ef i n the ni ght; i n the whi ch the heavens
shal l pass away wi th a great noi se, and the el ements
shal l mel t wi th fervent heat, the earth al so and the
works that are therei n shal l be burned up. Seei ng
then that al l these thi ngs shal l be di ssol ved, what
manner of persons ought ye to be i n al l hol y
conversati on and godl i ness, l ooki ng for and hasti ng
unto the comi ng of the day of God, wherei n the
heavens bei ng on fi re shal l be di ssol ved, and the
el ements shal l mel t wi th fervent heat? Neverthel ess
we, accordi ng to hi s promi se, l ook for new heavens
and a new earth, wherei n dwel l eth ri ghteousness (I I
Peter 3:10-13). The whol e earth i s goi ng to be burned
up, produci ng a new l oaf. The whol e earth i s subject
to that fi nal transformati on. Thi s i mpl i es that the
whol e earth shal l have been fi l l ed wi th the l eaven of
the gospel not perfect, but ready for the oven.
Then our bodi es wi l l be transformed, gl ori i i ed, for
fl esh and bl ood cannot i nheri t the ki ngdom of God;
nei ther cl oth corrupti on i nheri t i ncorrupti on (I Cor-
i nthi ans 15:50). The conti nui ty of hi story i s fi nal l y
i nterrupted. Thi s i s the end of the worl d.
But thats the poi nt: i ts the end of the whole
worl d. What area of l i fe wi l l avoi d thi s fi nal
confl agrati on? Whi ch part of the l eavened dough
wi l l be untouched by the bl i ndi ng heat of the oven?
Whi ch part of the l oaf wi l l be l eft unbaked? None of
i t. The boundari es of Gods ki ngdom are the boun-
dari es of the whol e earth. I t i s the task of every
Chri sti an to serve as yeast for a fal l en worl d. I t i s a
task that cannot l egi ti matel y be avoi ded. Can we
poi nt to whol e porti ons of the unl eavened dough and
TNE KINGDOM OF QOO 3=
say: Wel l , thats not the responsi bi l i ty of Chri sti ans.
The l aw of God doesnt appl y there. The domi ni on
assi gnment doesnt cover that zone. Satan owns that
secti on, l ock, stock, and barrel ? What does Satan
own? Why, the very gates of hel l cannot prevai l
agai nst the church (Matthew 16:18). Satan doesnt
hol d ti tl e to anythi ng. He l ost ti tl e at the cross. Or
better put, hi s l ease was cancelled. Jesus announced i n
the vi si on gi ven to John: I am he that l i veth, and
was dead; and, behol d, I am al i ve for evermore,
Amen; and have the keys of hel l and of death (Rev-
el ati on 1:18). Satan i s a lawless squatter. The worl d be-
l ongs to God, and He has desi gnated i t as our i nher-
i tance. But we are tol d to subdue it, to l ease i t back
from God by demonstrati ng our commi tment to the
terms of Hi s peace treaty wi th us. We conquer by the
preachi ng of the gospel . Out sword i s the sword of the
gospei. I t i s sti l l our assi gnment to subdue the earth,
and by the sword of the gospel we wi l l conquer.
The Last Outpost
There are too many Chri sti ans who have read
Chri sts statement about the gates of hel l not prevai l -
i ng agai nst the church. They have i nterpreted these
words as i f Chri st had sai d: . . . and the gates of the
church shal l prevai l agai nst hel l . They thi nk of
Satan as a captai n of an i nvadi ng army, and we are
fai thful l y defendi ng Gods fortress. We expect to see
our suppl i es cut off. We expect rati oni ng of water.
We expect to see our comrades pi cked off by the
sharpshooters i n Satans vast army. But at the end,
we know that the gates of the church shal l prevai l .
990 uNeoNDrnoNAL su~
The shri nki ng boundari es of Chri sts ki ngdom shal l
not be reduced to nothi ng. We know that at the mo-
ment when al l seems l ost, Chri st wi l l come ri di ng up
on a whi te horse, wi th the mai n army. We wi l l hear
the trumpet soundi ng Charge! just before the
satani c i nvaders bash down the gates. That wi l l
show them! They wi l l snatch defeat from the jaws of
vi ctory, whi l e we wi l l snatch vi ctory from the jaws of
defeat.
Who i s we i n thi s reworked parabl e? What
have we accompl i shed? So we have hel d the fort.
The l i ttl e pi ece of earth that fl i es the fl ag ofJesus wi l l
have been defended. Bi g deal . What God tol d Adam
to do, and what He tol d Noah to do, was to extend Hz3
kingdom over thfae of the earth. He announced our ful l
responsi bi l i ty i n thi s domi ni on assi gnment. Chri st
came down as our Supreme Al l i ed Commander and
announced: Al l power i s gi ven unto me i n heaven
and i n earth. Go ye therefore, and teach al l nati ons,
bapti zi ng them i n the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Hol y Ghost, teachi ng them to
observe al l thi ngs whatsoever I have commanded
you: and, 10, I am wi th you al ways, even unto the
end of the worl d. Amen (Matthew 28:18-20). So
what are we so proud of? That we defended the out-
post? That we were wi l l i ng to fi ght to the l ast man?
That we kept Chri sts fl ag from bei ng torn down by
Satans host? We, meani ng Chri sti ans l i vi ng i n ti me
and on the earth, are the vi ctors? I n what sense? We
stood fi rm, of course, and were al most wi ped out.
We advanced nothi ng, extended nothi ng, and were
nearl y overrun. Why, we di dnt even do as good a
job as the I srael i tes di d i n Canaan. They were tol d to
wi pe out the Canaani tes, but were onl y abl e to dri ve
out some of them. And we wi l l supposedl y be found
on that fi nal day as the Hebrews found the Ca-
naani tes: hol di ng down the fort, wi th our feet
pl anted by the wal l s of the ti ny town, doi ng our best
to keep from bei ng overrun, and prayi ng ferventl y
for Gods supernatural troops to show up and del i ver
us from i mmi nent defeat the l ast defeat. But l ets
not gi ve up! The gates of the church wi l l prevai l
agai nst hel l ! To the ramparts boys, and dont fi re un-
ti l you see the whi tes of thei r eyes! Dont gi ve up,
boys, therel l be medal s of honor for us al l when
Jesus comes wi th the mai n army!
Medal s of honor, i ndeed. For whom? For a
bunch of i nsubordi nates? For a bunch of fearful i n-
competents who shoot themsel ves i n the foot every
thi rd vol l ey? For defendi ng the l ast outpost from an
attack from al l di recti ons, when they were ordered to
advance i n al l di recti ons?
The modern church sees i tsel f as the reserves.
The mai n army i s i n heaven, and were the reserves,
fi ghti ng to defend Chri sts fort. Why Chri st i s
wai ti ng to send i n the mai n troops i snt qui te cl ear.
Reserves are notori ousl y i ncompetent. The army
cal l s them up and sends them i n to hol d on unti l the
mai n troops can be assembl ed, armed, and sent i nto
the fray. The reserves have to hol d on unti l the mai n
army comes. You cant expect much from the
reserves, after al l . Nobody ever does. Al l they can do
i s hol d out unti l rel i ef comes.
Thi s pi cture i s al l wrong. The church, ever si nce
322 uNcoNDrnoNAL SURRENDER
the day of Pentecost, has been the i nvadi ng army.
The chwch h the mai n army. The reserves are i n
heaven, wai ti ng to del i ver the fi nal , crushi ng bl ow to
Satans forces. Angel s serve men. We shal l judge the
angel s (I Cori nthi ans 6:3). We are made i n the i m-
age of God; the angel s arent. We were assi gned the
domi ni on work, not the angel s. We are attacki ng
Satans terri tory, not the other way around. Satan i s
tryi ng to hol d down the fort, not us. We know hi s
fort wi l l not prevai l i n that fi nal day. We wi l l have
Satans troops bottl ed up i nsi de that fort just before
Satan tri es one l ast counterattack, when the angel s
come to bri ng fi nal judgment on thi s worl d. Godi
angels do thejinal mopping-up operatwn. The basi s of vi c-
tory wi l l al ready have been establ i shed: the preach-
i ng of the savi ng grace of Jesus Chri st, and the en-
forcement of Hi s ki ngdoms peace treaty, nati on by
nati on, one by one.
Chri sti ans have to ri d themsel ves of Satans l i e,
namel y, that the church i snt the mai n army duri ng
i ts stay on earth. The church tri umphant i n heaven
cant hel p those of us who remai n. Al l the church i n
heaven can do i s prai se God, and cry out: How
l ong, O Lord, hol y and true, dost thou not judge
and avenge our bl ood on them that dwel l on the
earth? (Revel ati on 6:10). Chri st i s waiting for i%
church to surround Satun5 last outpost. Christ is waiting>r
the work of the leaven to repluce Satan% leaven in the dough of
~eation. But the modern church cant bel i eve thi s.
They see themsel ves as surrounded, outpost by out-
post, denomi nati on by denomi nati on. Each outpost
has seen others fal l to Satan: to theol ogi cal
THE KINGDOM OF QOD 333
l i beral i sm, to evol uti oni sm, to Marxi sm, to l i bera-
ti on theol ogy. The few outposts remai ni ng are fi l l ed
wi th di scouraged troops. Chri st just has to come
soon wi th the mai n army. We dont bel i eve that we
can wi n now. Weve spread our forces too thi n. Each
l i ttl e band i s surrounded. Theyve cut us off from
each other, and now theyre goi ng to pi ck us al l off,
one by one. The best each l i ttl e garri son hopes to
accompl i sh i s to be the l ast outpost standi ng when
Chri st fi nal l y sends i n the mai n force. Each one
wants to be the l ast l i ttl e band sti l l on i ts feet. For to-
days Chri sti ans, thats consi dered a major vi ctory.
Thi s i s the mental i ty of the reserves, and green
reserves at that.
Chri sti ans gi ve far too much credi t to angel s.
Angel s are powerfi d, and Gods angel s protect us
from the devi l s angel s, and someti mes from the
devi l s earthl y troops (I I Ki ngs 6:15-20). But they
arent that i mportant i n human hi story, or el se Gods
word woul d have reveal ed more about them. What
Gods word does warn us agai nst i s si n: to serve the
evi l purposes of Satan, to worshi p gods other than
the God of the Bi bl e. What i s central to mans
hi story i s not the comparati ve power of angel ar-
mi es, but the ethical &cisions ofm.en. Satan onl y pul l ed
a thi rd of the angel s wi th hi m (Revel ati on 12:4), so i f
i t were a questi on of the comparati ve strength of the
two armi es, the i ssue woul d have been settl ed i n
Chri sts day, or even before man was created. Thi s
shoul d tel l us that the angel s are secondary. What i s
@i nuuy i s the war between the kingdom of Satan and the
kingdom of God, in time and on eatih. The angel s are our
reserves; were not the angel s reserves. Satans men
have fden angel s to serve them, unti l the day when
those angel s attack Satans own earthl y troops (for
hi s i s a di vi ded ki ngdom), as Revel ati on descri bes:
And the fi fth angel sounded, and I saw a star fal l
from heaven unto the earth: and to hi m was gi ven
the key of the bottoml ess pi t. And he opened the bot-
toml ess pi t; and there arose a smoke out of the pi t, as
the smoke of a great fknace; and the sun and the ai r
were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pi t.
And there came out of the smoke l ocusts upon the
earth: and unto them was gi ven power, as the scor-
pi ons of the earth have power. And i t was commanded
them that they shoul d not hurt the grass of the earth,
nei ther any green thi ng, nei ther any tree, but onl y
those men whi ch have not the seal of God i n thei r
foreheads. And to them i t was gi ven that they shoul d
not ki l l them, but that they shoul d be tormented fi ve
months: and thei r torment was as the torment of a
scorpi on, when he stri keth a man (Revel ati on
9:1-5). Who gets tormented? Satank fol l owers. I t
remi nds us of the pl agues of Egypt, when the pri ests
of Pharaoh were successful onl y i n addi ng to the
pl ague i mposed by God, not i n removi ng the pl ague.
Egypt wound up worse off because of the Egypti ans
pri ests connecti on wth Satans demoni c host: more
frogs (Exodus 8:7), rather than fewer frogs. I t may
have made Pharaoh secretl y happy when they tri ed to
demonstrate thei r equal i ty wi th Moses and Aaron by
addi ng to the pl ague of l i ce, and fai l ed (Exodus
8:18).
By thi nki ng of the angel i c host as i f they were the
THE KINGDOM OF QOD ~
cri ti cal factors i n the devel opment of Gods pl an,
Chri sti ans have mi sl ed themsel ves. Z71e centml ~hctor
i n histoty is Jesus Christ, the Incarnation. Thi s shows us
where the i ssues of hi story and eterni ty are bei ng
fought out: i n ti me and on earth. Ski rmi shes are
fought between the angel i c armies, but these are sec-
ondary i n i mportance. Satans ki ngdom i s being con-
quered by the gospel, not by the sheer force of Gods
angel i c host. The terms of surwno!er are ethical. The offer
of sal vati on is not bei ng made to Satans angel i c
host, but to hi s earthl y troops. Chri sti ans are stead-
i l y seei ng the defeat of Satans human forces, for
Satan s@2rs continual defections. As the power of the
gospel i ncreases its zone of sovereign mastery, even
more wi l l defect. He will have only the remnants of
an army when the final trumpet sounds. He will be
trying to hol d the fort in the l ast outpost. And the
gates of hell shall not prevai l .
Stages of Conquest
We know that thejirst step in the tr ansfor mati on
of the earth is Gods sover ei gn grace in extendi ng sal -
vati on to i ndi vi dual s. He regenerates them, adopts
them, and calls forth from them an acknowl edgment
of Hi s l ordshi p. He extracts from them, i n pri nci pl e,
thei r uncondi ti onal surrender. By grace are men
saved, through fai th, and that not of themsel ves; it is
a gift of God, lest any man shoul d boast (Ephesi ans
2:8-9).
The second step is the response of men i n
acknowledging the assi gnment of Gods domi ni on
covenant. Men are to subdue the earth (Genesi s
*6 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
1:26-28; 9:1-7). Thi s assignment is basic to mans be-
i ng, and men carry i t out, ei ther under the l ordshi p
of Satan or the l ordshi p of Chri st. The Satani sts,
havi ng no autonomous l aw, and therefore no tool of
domi ni on, are unabl e to carry out thi s assi gnment.
We know that i n hel l and then the l ake of fi re, men
are i mpotent, passi vel y bei ng consumed forever,
where thei r worm di eth not, and the fi re i s not
quenched (Mark 9:48). When sal t i s poured on a
ci ty, i t i s destroyed; nothi ng wi l l grow i n that soi l
(Judges 9:45). A l i ttl e sal t acts as a savor, whi ch i s
why Chri sti ans are referred to as the sal t of the earth
(Matthew 5:13), and why sal t was requi red i n the
ani mal sacri fi ces i n the Templ e (Levi ti cus 2:13), but
too much sal t i s a si gn of Gods total judgment,
whi ch i s why Lots wi fe was turned to a pi l l ar of sal t
(Genesi s 19:26). Thi s i s the curse of hel l : total impo-
tence. For every one shal l be sal ted wi th fi re, and
every sacri fi ce shal l be sal ted wi th sal t (Mark 9:49).
Si n requi res a sacrti ce, and i f man does not choose
to cl i ng to Chri sts sacri fi ce, then he shal l become the
sacri fi ce. Rebel l i ous man becomes an eternal sacri -
fi ce burni ng before God.
God is using His people a-s salt. They are the sal t of
the earth, as a savor, but they al so serve as sal t to
Satan and hi s ki ngdom. Christians are salting over th
city of Satan, akstroying it, causing it to beconw impotent.
Thi s i s the sal t of the gospel . I t i s savor to the regenerate
and death for the unregenerate. I t i s l i ke sal t i n a mans
di et: too l i ttl e makes for bori ng foods, and too much
can make us si ck.
Thus, when men who are regenerate take
THE KINQDOM OF QOD 337
seri ousl y Gods domi ni on assi gnment, and they
adopt Gods l aw as thei r tool of domi ni on, they begi n
the process of sal ti ng Satans ki ngdom, whi ch i s the
other si de of the domi ni on coi n. The $ourishing of
Go#s kingdom is the salting over of Satank.
The thi rd step i s the use of the l aw to subdue ones
fl esh, and then ones envi ronment. Paul s angui sh
concerni ng the war between hi s fl esh and hi s spi ri t
tel l s us what we are up agai nst (Remans 7). So does
Paul s descri pti on of our spi ri tual warfare i n Ephe-
si ans 6: Tut on the whol e armour of God, that ye
may be abl e to stand agai nst the wi l es of the devi l
(v. 11). Troth, ri ghteousness, the gospel of peace, the
shi el d of fai th, the hel met of sal vati on, the sword of
the Spi ri t, and the word of God: here i s our equi p-
ment (w. 14-17). The word of God provi des us wi th
our moral gui del i nes.
The l aw of God al so provi des us wi th a tool of ex-
ternal domi ni on. God promi ses bl essi ngs for that
soci ety whi ch surrenders uncondi ti onal l y to Hi m,
and then adopts the terms of Hi s peace treaty (Deu-
teronomy 8 and 28).
Fourtfi, the bl essi ngs of God begi n to fl ow i n the
di recti on of Hi s peopl e. A good man l eaveth an i n-
heri tance to hi s chi l drens chi l dren: and the weal th of
the si nner i s l ai d up for the just (Proverbs 13:22). As
Benjami n Frankl i n sai d, honesty i s the best pol i cy.
Capi tal fl ows to those who wi l l bear responsi bi l i ty,
predi ct the future accuratel y, pl an to meet the needs
of consumers wi th a mi ni mum of waste, and deal
honestl y wi th both suppl i ers and customers. Agai n,
Deuteronomy 8 and 28 show us the nature of thi s
= UNCONDITtONAL SUNRENDER
weal th-transfer process. Thi s weal th-transfer pro-
gram i s through market competi ti on and conformi ty
to Gods l aw. tin% kingdom k progressve~ decapitubd.
F@h, the stewardshi p pri nci pl e i s uni versal i zed.
God owns the whol e earth: The earth i s the LORDS,
and the ful ness thereofi the earth and al l they that
dwel l therei n (Psal m 24:1). The steward must
acknowl edge hi s Lords total authori ty over hi m, yet
he i s expected to admi ni ster thi s property fai thful l y,
effi ci entl y, and profi tabl y, as Jesus taught i n the par-
abl e of the tal ents (Matthew 25:14-30). God fi nal l y
comes as the owner to dispossess those who have not
recogni zed Hi s absol ute soverei gnty over Hi s own
l and, as Jesus warned the Jews i n Hi s parabl e of the
vi neyard (Matthew 21:33-41). h euery i nsti tuti on, God
dispossesses Satan% subordinate and rept?aces them with His
subordinates. To retai n deri vati ve soverei gnty over the
earth, men must honor the ori gi nal owner. Every-
thi ng i s hel d by h-se. Thi s l ease has terms attached to
i t, and the terms are spel l ed out i n Gods l aw. The
whol e i dea of the Jubi l ee year, where every 50 years
the l and of Canaan returned to the ori gi nal Hebrew
fami l i es, poi nts to a fi nal Jubi l ee, when God returns
the l and to Hi s adopted sons (Levi ti cus 25:8-17).
Domi ni on men purchase back redeem every i n-
sti tuti on that they can afford, steadi l y, unti l that fi nal
day, just as Jacob purchased hi s bi rthri ght from hi s
ol der twi n brother Esau, even though God had prom-
i sed Esaus bi rthri ght to Jacob (Genesi s 25:23,
29-34). As God makes more capi tal avai l abl e to Hi s
peopl e more money, more tool s, more i nfl uence
they can ti ord to l ease even more of Satans ki ng-
THE KINGDOM OF QOD 339
dom, whi ch he hol ds as a squatter anyway. Gods
l aw begi ns to domi nate every sphere of l i fe, across
the face of the earth.
S&t/t, the ri se to promi nence of those who con-
form themsel ves to Hi s l aw, and who subdue thei r
envi ronments by the appropri ate l aws. Thi s i s what
God sai d woul d happen to I srael , as nati ons marvel l ed
at I srael s l aws (Deuteronomy 4:5-8). Men who seek
responsi bi l i ty i n terms of thei r fai th i n God tend to
have the responsi bi l i ty gi ven to them by those who
resi st taki ng responsi bi l i ty. Joseph was master of
Poti phars house, al though he was a sl ave offi ci al l y
(Genesi s 39:6). Then he was pl aced i n pri son, and
soon he was the real keeper of the pri son (Genesi s
39:22). Fi nal l y, he became second i n command i n al l
of Egypt (Genesi s 41:40-43). Ungodl y men can exer-
ci se domi ni on onl y i n terms of power, si nce they re-
ject Gods l aw, and God steadi l y removes thei r power
from them. Satan refuses to subordi nate hi msel f to
anyone or anythi ng, but dominion is ahoays exercised by
those who are subordinate to the One who exercises soverei~
power. Satan becomes whol l y subordi nate on the l ast
day, but then al l power i s removed from hi m. He
never surrenders, and therefore he i s destroyed. He
refuses to surrender to God uncondi ti onal l y; he i s
therefore destroyed absol utel y.
Seuenth, the treaty of peace i s extended to al l areas
of those cul tures that surrender to God uncondi -
ti onal l y. The whol e of soci ety must be put under
domi ni on. Soci eti es can rul e under Gods soverei gn
authori ty, as I srael was cal l ed to do, or they can
become tri butari es to Gods conqueri ng ki ngdom, as
~ UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
the nati ons far from I srael were expected to do (Deu-
teronomy 20:10-11), or el se they are to be destroyed
(Deuteronomy 20:12-15). There i s no Ki ngs X: no
escape hatch.
Eighth, thi s provokes the nati ons to jeal ousy
(Deuteronomy 4:5-8). They see the wi sdom of Gods
l aw. The church i s to be a ci ty on a hi l l , for we Chri s-
ti ans are the l i ght of the worl d (Matthew 5:14). We
are not to put our l i ght under a bushel (Matthew
5:15-16). People want external blessings. These bl essi ngs
are the product of a soci al order whi ch respects the
l aw of God. They have to get the bl essi ngs on Gods
terms. They must capitulate. Any bl essi ngs recei ved ex-
cept i n terms of Gods l aw-order are prel udes to
destructi on (Deuteronomy 8:11-20).
Ninth, even the Jews wi l l be provoked to jeal ousy.
Paul ci ted Deuteronomy 32:21 concerni ng the Jews:
But I say, Di d not I srael know? Fi rst Moses sai th, I
wi l l provoke you to jeal ousy by them that are no peo-
pl e, and by a fool i sh nati on I wi l l anger you
(Remans 10:19). The Genti l es have recei ved the
great bl essi ng. I say then, Have they [the Jews]
stumbl ed that they shoul d fal l ? God forbi d: but
rather through thei r fal l sal vati on i s come unto the
Genti l es, for to provoke them to jeal ousy (Remans
11:11). Thi s becomes a means of converti ng the rtmnant
of Israd in the jidure, and when they are converted,
Paul says, just thi nk of the blessings that God wi l l
pour out on the earth, gi ven the fact that the fal l of
I srael was the source of great bl essi ngs for the Gen-
ti l e nati ons. Now i f the fal l of them be the ri ches of
the worl d, and the di mi ni shi ng of them the ri ches of
the Genti l es, how much more thei r ful ness?
(Remans 11:12). When the Jews recei ve thei r prom-
i se, the age of bl essi ngs wi l l come. When they sub-
mi t to Gods peace treaty, the growth of the ki ngdom
wi l l be spectacul ar. Thi s i s what Paul means by hi s
phrase, how much more.
Thi s l eads to stage ten, the expl osi on of conver-
si ons and bl essi ngs. I f God responds to covenantal
fai thful ness by means of bl essi ngs, just consi der the
i mpl i cati ons of wi despread conversi ons among the
Jews. When the ful ness of the Genti l es has come i n,
then I srael wi l l be converted (Remans 11:25). The
di sti ncti on between Jew and Genti l e wi l l then be
fi nal l y erased i n hi story, and the ki ngdom of God
wi l l be uni ted as never before.
Ekw-nth, the ki ngdom of God becomes trul y worl d-
wi de i n scope. Thi s i nvol ves the begi nni ng of the
restorati on of the cursed worl d. The curse wi l l then
be l i fted progressi vel y by God. One resul t i s l onger
l i fe spans for man. Thi s i s a down payment on the
paradi se to come after the fi nal judgment. God says:
Per, behol d I create new heavens and a new earth:
and the former shal l not be remembered, nor come
i nto mi nd (I sai ah 65:17). But thi s process of creati on
i s part of hi story, to be concl uded by the fi nal
confl agrati on. I t has prel i mi nary vi si bi l i ty, i n ti me
and on earth. How do we know thi s? Because of
verse 20, one of the cruci al teachi ngs i n the Bi bl e
concerni ng Gods prel i mi nary bl essi ngs: There shal l
be no more thence an i nfant of days, nor an ol d man
that bath not fi l l ed hi s days: for the chi l d shal l di e an
hundred years ol d; but the si nner bei ng a hundred
242 UNCONDlllONAL SURRENDER
years ol d shal l be accursed. I sai ah 65:20 therefore
poi nts to a ti me b~ore the)naljudgment, when peopl e
sti l l di e and si nners sti l l operate, but whi ch resem-
bl es the l ong l$e spans of those who lived bej$ore Noah\
Flood. This passage cannot possi bl y be referri ng to
the worl d beyond the fi nal judgment, yet i t poi nts to
external bl essi ngs, namel y, l ong l i fe, that do not ex-
i st i n our worl d. These words cannot l egi ti matel y be
spi ri tual i zed. They refer to l i fe on earth. They refer
to a speci fi c bl essi ng on earth. I t i s a bl essi ng that i s a
down payment on paradi se, a testi mony of God that
He can del i ver thi s fal l en cursed worl d. Thi s testi -
mony, however, i s not based on a radi cal break wi th
the processes of hi story, but i s i nstead a testi mony
that stems from the steady expansi on of Gods ki ng-
dom. There i s conti nui ty i n hi story, and there i s al so
@ogress i n external affai rs. Thi s i s not some hypothet-
i cal i nternal ki ngdom, but a vi si bl e ki ngdom of fl esh
and bl ood.
Twe~h, the forces of Satan then have somethi ng
concrete cul tural l y to rebel agai nst. They wi l l have
the testi mony of the swcess of God% kingdom, in ti me
and on earth, to poi nt to thei r fai l ure. They wi l l have
to conform themsel ves outwardl y, as spi es do, i n
order to retai n the external bl essi ngs of God. They
wi l l be as the forei gners dwel l i ng i n I srael were:
under the l aw, protected by the l aw, and bl essed i n
terms of the l aw. They wi l l have to become su60r-
dinate in order to gai n access to the blessings. Yet eth-
i cal l y, they cannot remai n subordi nate forever.
Satan coul dnt i n heaven, so he wi l l not on earth.
Nei ther wi l l hi s fol l owers. But they must rebel against
THE KIN-M OF QOD ~
something. Thei r ki ngdom i s bei ng i nvaded, not
Chri sts. 2%9 are fi ghti ng the defensi ve strategy; we
arent. They are headed back toward the l ast out-
post, not us. They wi l l rebel (Revel ati on 20:7-9a),
but they wi l l not succeed.
Thin%enth, Satans rebel l i on i s i mmedi atel y
smashed by Chri st and Hi s angel s (Revel ati on
20:9b-10). Satan tri es one l ast ti me to defeat Chri st,
but he rebel s from a posi ti on of weakness. He sought
i n Eden to beat God by usi ng Hi s creati on, man-
ki nd, agai nst Hi m. God has reversed the tabl es on
Satan. He has defeated Satans ki ngdom by usi ng
man as Hi s i nstrument of domi ni on, exactl y as He
sai d he woul d i n Genesi s 1:26-28. Satan has no vi c-
tory to cl ai m. He has been proven wrong about the
i mpotence of Chri sts human fol l owers, just as he
l earned from Job, once God had taught Job what He
was al l about. God did not save Job by a miraculous inter-
ventwn, after all. God saved Job by the testimony of His
word, by carejid~ tea.ehingJob the doctrirze of the soverezgn~
of God. Then He restored Jobs heal th and weal th.
Why shoul d we expect somethi ng di fferent on thi s
si de of the cross? Why shoul d we expect Satans vi c-
tory now, when he was deci si vel y beaten i n hi s chal -
l enge agai nst Job? At the end of hi story, Chri st and
Hi s angel s vi si bl y defeat Satan, where he i s trapped
i n hel l , desperatel y hopi ng that the gates of hel l shal l
prevai l agai nst the church. Yet the hi story of Chri sts
vi ctori ous ki ngdom, i n ti me and on earth, wi l l alre~y
have destroyed the basi s of that l ast hope of Satan.
Fourteenth, the fi nal judgment l eads to Satans
confi nement to the l ake of fi re. The contents of hel l
~ UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
are dumped i nto the l ake (Revel ati on 20:14). Thi s i s
the end of Satans quest for domi ni on apart from
subordi nati on to God.
Ftj?eenth, God creates the fi nal versi on of the new
heaven and new earth, wherei n grows the tree of
eternal l i fe (Revel ati on 22: 2). Men now have access
to i t. No l onger i s i t i n Eden, wi th a fl ami ng sword to
keep men from gai ni ng access to i t on the basi s of
thei r own works and power (Genesi s 3:24). He dem-
onstrates that Hi s down payment on thi s fi nal dwel l -
i ng pl ace had been whol l y rel i abl e.
I t i s strange that Chri sti ans today cannot envi -
si on the program for conquest God has establ i shed
for Hi s peopl e. They l ack confi dence i n themsel ves,
i t seems. They l ack confi dence i n thei r understand-
i ng of thei r own responsi bi l i ti es. They have mi sread
the pl ai n teachi ng of the Bi bl e, fi ndi ng al ternati ve
outl i nes that remove thei r gui l t for i nacti on. Thy pre-
fm not to acknowledge thirpersond ethical burden ofstriuing
tofi~il the terms of Guts dominion a.ssi~ment, And even
when they admi t that thi s assi gnment real l y was
gi ven to man by God, and i s sti l l i n force, they con-
cl ude that i ts an i mpossi bl e task, and God never has
bel i eved that regenerate men can ful fi l l thei r assi gn-
ment, i n ti me and on earth. They l ack confi dence i n
Gods program for earthl y vi ctory.
I t woul d be very i nteresti ng to be abl e to go back
to the era of the Judges, i n order to di scover i f theo-
l ogi ans and popul ari zers of the defeati st fai th i n that
era had rewri tten Gods domi ni on assi gnment re-
gardi ng Canaan. We can i magi nati vel y reconstruct
some of the possi bl e arguments. The fi rst approach
TNE KINQOOM OF ~ ~
mi ght have gone somethi ng l i ke thi s: Wel l , yes, God
tol d us ei ther to dri ve the Canaani tes out of the l and,
or to destroy them utterl y from the face of the earth.
But, of course, Hi s l anguage must be understood as
referri ng to spzntuul uzcto~. God i n fact has al l owed us
to conquer i n Hi s name. We are not to have any-
thi ng to do wi th the gods of Canaan. We are to l i ve
as though we had successful l y dri ven them out of the
l and. I n pri nci pl e, we have, si nce we have dri ven
Canaans gods out of our hearts, our l i ves, and our
congregati ons. Of course, we l i ve as strangers i n the
l and whi ch God had promi sed for our i nheri tance
(Judges 2:34). We are not, however, spi ri tual
strangers to the l and of promi se. No i ndeed! We
dwel l vi ctori ous i n the l and i n the hi l l s, perhaps,
si nce the Amori tes wont l et us come i nto the val l ey,
but uictoriou-s in spirit. And when they fi nal l y attack us
i n our mountai n stronghol ds, as we know they wi l l ,
and burn our wal l ed ci ti es, as surel y they must, we
wi l l hol d out, prayi ng to God for martyrdom, or el se
Hi s tri umphant return wi th Hi s angel s, whi ch wi l l
defi ni ti vel y prove to everyone that we are more than
conquerors . Thi s i s the conti nui ty of defeat ver-
si on, al so known as the tri umph of Satans l eaven, i n
ti me and on earth.
Another vari ati on mi ght be the temporary i nter-
l ude of defeat versi on. I t mi ght have gone some-
thi ng l i ke thi s: Yes, God tol d the generati on whi ch
came out of Egypt that they coul d conquer i f they
were fai thful to Hi s covenant. But they werent fai th-
ful to that covenant. So God abrogated that cove-
nant. He brought our fathers to the very edge of the
346 uNcoNDmoMAL SURRENDER
l and (Deuteronomy 34), but they di d not pass over.
Hi s covenant has been suspended duri ng our peri od
of hi story. He wi l l bri ng Hi s peopl e i nto the l and,
dri vi ng the Canaani tes compl etel y out of the l and,
but not unti l He returns i n power and mi ght wi th
Hi s angel s. 27wn He wi l l re-establ i sh Hi s covenant
wi th Hi s peopl e, and the Canaani tes had better l ook
out then! But God di d not pl an on our entry i nto the
l and. True, we are here i n the l and, but God has a
new admi ni strati ve pri nci pl e for our generati on. We
are to preach the gospel to the peopl e of the l and, but
we know that they wi l l not convert i n huge numbers,
and they wi l l seek to dri ve us out of the l and. But
they wi l l not succeed. Just before they try, Chri st wi l l
appear secretl y, and secretl y remove us to heaven.
After seven years we wi l l return, i n our restored
bodi es, to serve as pri nces wi th Jesus, subdui ng Ca-
naan for a thousand years, Mfi l l i ng Gods command
gi ven to our forefathers i n Egypt. So i ts not our re-
sponsi bi l i ty to dri ve the Canaani tes out of the l and.
(Besi des, those guys are tough!)
Excuses, excuses, excuses: man never runs short
of excuses. The probl em i s, God never accepts them.
Adam and Eve di dnt escape, just because each of
them bl amed somebody el se for the probl em. God
hol di I l k peopl e responsible for iizboring continually to sub-
due the earth to His gkwy by nwans of the grace of law. That
responsi bi l i ty i s wi th evg generati on, and God ex-
pects Hi s peopl e to extend the domi ni on of Hi s ki ng-
dom, generati on by generati on, cul ture by cul ture.
He has tol d us that Chri sti ans can do i t, and that
eventual l y Hi s peopl e WU do i t. I t may take a thou-
IFIE KINGDOM OF @D 347
sand years, but they wi l l do i t. Man was created for
thi s very purpose, and Satan wi l l not successful l y
thwart Gods pl an. Angel s wi l l not take the credi t for
Satans l ong-term retreat i nto hi s l ast stronghol d; the
redeemed adopted sons of God wi l l take the credi t,
under the soverei gnty of God.
Del egati ng Authori ty
As we have seen i n earl i er chapters, Gods i nsti -
tuti onal outl i ne provi des for both central and l ocal
deci si on-maki ng. God i s both one and many. Hi s
rul e gi ves equal ul ti macy to the uni ty and di versi ty
of l i fe. But i t shoul d be obvi ous that God i s the head.
He i s the fi nal authori ty. He i s the absol ute sover-
ei gn. He i s the onl y true source of commands. Chri st,
as the I ncarnate God, who was ful l y human and ful l y
di vi ne, two natures i n one Person, i n uni on but
wi thout mi xture, i s the on~ link between heaven and
earth. No other bei ng, no other i nsti tuti on, can l egi ti -
matel y assert a cl ai m to di vi ni ty. No other i nsti tuti on
i s perfect. No other person or i nsti tuti on i s i nfal l i bl e.
None. Not the fami l y, not the i nsti tuti onal church,
not the ci vi l government, not the economy.
Therefore, we have a system of covnplementa~, com-
peting authorities. The Bi bl e tel l s us: Where no coun-
sel i s, the peopl e fal l : but i n the mul ti tude of counsel -
ors there i s safety (Proverbs 11:14). h a multitua% of
lawjid soverez~ties there is also safe~, in ti me and on
earth. Each authori ty has i ts assi gnments, defi ned
by Gods l aw, but no si ngl e authori ty has absol ute
authori ty i n any gi ven sphere of l i fe. Onl y God has
absol ute soverei gnty. Therefore, the Bi bl e establ i shes
~ UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
a system of checks and bal ances, and Gods l aw pro-
vi des the pi vot poi nt.
There must be a major authori ty i n any gi ven i n-
sti tuti on, but that authori ty can be chal l enged by
other l awful authori ti es. A father must rul e hi s
househol d, but a wi fe can someti mes overri de hi m,
as Rebekah overrode I saacs choi ce of evi l Esau as
the son to recei ve the bl essi ng. (She di d have Gods
promi se to gui de her [Genesi s 25:23; 27:1-17 ].) A
father may not murder hi s chi l dren, ei ther. The ci vi l
government can l egi ti matel y defend them from
death. Parents may choose to abort an unborn chi l d,
but the Bi bl e says thi s i s murder, and the cri mi nal s
must be executed, whi ch woul d i ncl ude the physi -
ci an who was a parti ci pant (Exodus 21:22-25).
The authori ty structure i n any i nsti tuti on i s hi er-
archical, but i t i s never absol ute. I t faces awful chal -
l enges from other ordai ned i nsti tuti ons. I t al so faces
the possi bi l i ty of appeal from one l ower on the chai n
of authori ty to a hi gher i nsti tuti onal authori ty. i l e
proper structure of responsibility is upward, from the respon-
sible individual to a supervisor. The man beneath i s to
exerci se sel f-government, but the man above may
establ i sh terms of performance, i f they are i n con-
formi ty to Gods l aw, and he may supervi se perform-
ance. Each institutzi)n acts as a miniature court. There i s
an executi ve functi on wi th the head of the i nsti tuti on
to establ i sh general rul es, goal s, and standards of
performance, as wel l as to establ i sh puni shments
and rewards. But any functi oni ng system whi ch i s
top-heavy becomes bureaucrati c, l ethargi c, and un-
producti ve. No man i s omni sci ent. No man i s God.
THE KINQDOM OF ~ M9
Therefore, a wi se man decentralizes authority, makhg
each subordi nate ful l y responsi bl e for hi s own per-
formance, and a wi se rul er sets up a reward system
whi ch encourages self-motivatwn and se~-government.
Si nce no man can pol i ce everythi ng under hi s au-
thori ty, the wi se rul er acknowl edges thi s fact and del -
egates authori ty downward. He &legates precise~ be-
cause he wants to extend his own dominion. Del egati ng
authori ty i s not a retreat from responsi bi l i ty, but the
essence of responsi bi l i ty. Few deci si ons i n l i fe are
more di ffi cul t, more l aden wi th responsi bi l i ty, than
the selection of a subordinate to take over a parti cul ar
task. (Sel ecti ng a wi fe i s one exampl e.) Yet i t must
be done i f i nsti tuti ons are to grow. Any i nsti tuti on
whi ch rel i es on a central governi ng commi ttee to
achi eve i ts goal s i s goi ng to be a bumbl i ng, bl i nd,
and woeful l y i neffi ci ent organi zati on.
God del egates authori ty to man. He tel l s man to
subdue the earth. I f a soverei gn, omni sci ent, omni -
potent God del egates authori ty to a creature, then i t
i s i mperati ve that men fol l ow Gods l ead. Most gov-
ernment shoul d be sel f-government. I n fact, most
government is alreudy se~-government, and a system that
i snt bui l t on thi s assumpti on cannot hope to succeed
i n the l ong run.
By creati ng theologies of despaiq men have en-
couraged the creati on of a huge central government,
meani ng the State or the i nsti tuti onal church, or a
combi nati on of the two. I f we i nsi st that God fai l ed
i n Hi s choi ce of a competent subordi nate when He
del egated authori ty to man, then we become hesi -
tant to del egate authori ty oursel ves. I f God
= UNCONDillONAL SURRENDER
Al mi ghty sel ected man to subdue the earth, and
man was not onl y i mmedi atel y defl ected fi -om hi s
assi gnment, but was permanently defl ected, despi te
the grace of God, then what possi bl e hope can mere
men have i n l ocati ng subordi nates who wi l l become
domi ni on-mi nded and rel i abl e sel f-governors? I f
Gods pl an for man to subdue the earth was per-
manentl y defl ected by Satan, then onl y a fool woul d
del egate much authori ty to a subordi nate. A wi se
man under such a theol ogi cal assumpti on woul d
hol d onto every shred of power he had, as i f hi s
fhture depended upon i t. He woul d never devel op
i nsti tuti onal arrangements that foster i ndependence
among subordi nates. He woul d del egate onl y as a
man del egates to a machi ne or a total l y submi ssi ve
servant. He woul d choose onl y breathi ng robots,
rotti ng machi nes, known as bureaucrats, to ful fi l l hi s
purposes.
Thi s i s basi cal l y the ki nd of bl uepri nt for the mi l -
l enni um that mi l l i ons of Chri sti ans have today. God
supposedl y chose the wrong bei ng to exerci se domi n-
i on. Satan rul es i n power on earth, and poor,
patheti c man even (we mi ght say especial~) regen-
erate man cannot hope to tri umph, i n ti me and on
earth. So Chri st wi l l just have to i ntervene di rectl y i n
the hi stori cal process, remove man from al l rul i ng
authori ty, and return physi cal l y to start gi vi ng
orders to Hi s servants. I f God has to i ntervene
di rectl y i n the process of hi story, and change the
rul es of hi story to establ i sh Hi s ki ngdom on earth
(for exampl e, by i ntermi ngl i ng Chri sti ans i n trans-
formed bodi es wi th Chri sti ans converted after
THE KINGDOM OF QOO 351
Chri sts return, not to menti on the devi l s servants
tares who never were removed from hi story), then
we shoul d expect a bureauwatic kingdom Qn earth, the
l i kes of whi ch manki nd has never seen. Egypts bu-
reaucrati c consol i dati on becomes a joke i n compar-
i son wi th Chri sts supposed comi ng ki ngdom. No
more del egated authori ty. No more responsi bl e i ndi -
vi dual i ty. No more personal maturi ty through sel f-
govemment. Just a massi ve, unquesti oni ng system
of bureaucrati c government the hi erarchy to end
al l hi erarchi es, the pyrami d to end al l pyrami ds.
Al l thi s fol l ows di rectl y from a parti cul ar theol -
ogy of despai r. Thi s theol ogy of hi stori cal defeat, thi s
cosmi c pessi mi sm regardi ng the abi l i ti es of regener-
ate men under Gods soverei gnty, l eads i nescapabl y
to the acceptance of bureaucracy. Those who hol d
thi s theol ogy of hi stori cal defeat and who al so bel ong
to some non-denomi nati onal church whi ch has no
i nsti tuti onal chai n of command none whi ch any-
one wi l l admi t to, anyway have become pessi mkti c
wi th regard to reversi ng the soci al i st worl ds march
i nto bureaucracy. Satan k a consummate bureaucrat,
who wants di rect power, but who has no l aw struc-
ture that i s rel i abl e and no subordi nates who can be
trusted. Yet hi s ki ngdom i n thi s century has pushed
around Chri sti an cul tures, preci sel y because the
Chri sti ans have become reconci l ed to the i dea of the
tri umph of bureaucracy. They see no defense agai nst
i t, except a bi gger and better bureaucracy to be es-
tabl i shed by Jesus when He comes to rul e i n person
for a thousand years. I t you cant beat the system,
joi n i t. I f you cant joi n i t, i ni tate i t.
252 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
Because Chri sti ans just dont trust Gods judg-
ment i n sel ecti ng them to rul e the earth, wi thout
Gods physi cal presence, they dont trust themsel ves.
They dont trust i n thei r own judgment. They have no
fti th i n thei r own dependent and responsi bl e efforts to
subdue the earth, under God and by means of Hi s
l aw. They want di recti ons. They want to be tol d what
to do. X#ey are afraid of raponsibk se~-govmnnent.
We are sheep. The Bi bl e cal l s us sheep. But we
are to be obedi ent sheep, and we are to stri ve to be-
come shepherds, as the apostl es become shepherds.
Because of se~-govemment under God% Lrw and under
God~ law~l~ constituted atihonties, we sheep can be-
come shepherds. We can then become rul ers. As
sheep, we must never forget the voi ce of the Good
Shepherd (John 10). He i s the source of our strength.
The means of advanci ng from sheep to shepherds i s
through sel f-government under God and i n terms of
Hi s l aw. We are not to become spi ri tual bur eaucr ats
the ul ti mate human sheep but law-abiding shephemh
(John 21:15-17). We must l earn to trust the judgment of
those who assi gn us new responsi bi l i ti es, just as deacons
are supposed to trust the judgment of el ders who assi gn
them responsi bi l i ti es (Acts 6). The way to advance
from sheep to shepherds i s by conti nual del egati on of
responsi bi l i ty downward, not by the conti nual expan-
si on of central i zed, bureaucrati c power at the top.
Cofi dence and Leadershi p
For a successful program of del egated respon-
si bi l i ty to persevere, the church must become con-
vi nced that such del egated authori ty can produce
THE KINGDDM OF QOD =
l ong-term benefi ts. 77u church must becon conjio%nt in
its own earth~ jiitzwe. The church must become con-
vi nced that i t i s an honor to bear new responsi bi l i -
ti es, i n ti me and on earth, i n every area of l i fe. The
church and I mean the mul ti tude of Chri sti ans act-
i ng as domi ni on men must become convi nced that
we arent Gods cannon fodder, that we arent desti ned
to defend the l ast outpost. Who wants to take re-
sponsi bi l i ty for commandi ng despondent troops who
wont take responsi bi l i ty themsel ves? Who wants to
l ead an army of i ncompetents whose own Supreme
Commander has supposedl y tol d them that the army
i s desti ned for temporal defeat? Who wants to be a
commander i n a l osi ng cause? Who wants to com-
mand troops when i t i snt safe to del egate authori ty
to any of your subordi nates a l esson whi ch you
l earned from your Supreme Commander, who made
thi s mi stake at the very begi nni ng of the war?
Nobody sensi bl e woul d do i t. And I submi t that thi s
i s a major factor i n expl ai ni ng why Christians have
nobody sensible ieading them in this centwy. Or at l east
very, very few sensi bl e peopl e.
What shoul d be our fi rst step i n l ocati ng a gener-
ati on of competent l eaders? Moses sel ected Joshua to
l ead I srael i nto the l and because Joshua was one of
onl y two spi es who had returned to I srael , 40 years
before, to recommend that they march i n ri ght then
and take the l and that had been promi sed to them
(Numbers 14:6-10). Cal eb, the onl y other spy to
agree wi th Joshua, al so entered the l and, as God had
sai d he woul d (Numbers 14:24). Onl y two men were
opti mi sti c. Not an auspi ci ous begi nni ng for I srael i n
= UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
the wi l derness. But God has al l the ti me necessary to
achi eve Hi s goal s. He si mpl y wai ted for al l of the
ol der ones to di e off, except Cal eb and Joshua. Then
they marched across the Jordan Ri ver and began the
conquest.
The younger generati on took Gods word more
seri ousl y than thei r parents had. They entered Ca-
naan bel i evi ng that God woul d gi ve al l the nati ons of
Canaan i nto thei r hands. They di dnt remai n true to
thi s fai th; they were unsuccessful i n di sl odgi ng sev-
eral of the tri bes (Judges 1). They were, however, far
more confi dent than the generati on of the exodus
had been, and far more successfi d.
Therefore, the fi rst step i n l ocati ng rel i abl e l ead-
ers i s to reuerse the para@ng pessimism of 20th-centuy
Christianity. We must take God seri ousl y. When God
gave man hi s domi ni on assi gnment, God meant
busi ness. He was seri ous. He bui l t the domi ni on i m-
pul se i nto man, and onl y a progressi ve dei oni za-
ti on of men can begi n to thwart that i mpul se. I n hel l
and i n the l ake of fi re, the domi ni on i mpul se cannot
fi nd expressi on. Part of hel l s horrors i s the eternal
thwarti ng of that i mpul se. For regenerated men, the
adopted sons of God, there can be no questi on con-
cerni ng the conti nui ng nature of the domi ni on
assi gnment. Si nce i t was bui l t i nto mans very bei ng
the task whi ch defi ned mans purpose from the be-
gi nni ng the progressive ethtial untwtiting of the presently
distorted image of God in mm will bring the dominion im-
puke into theforefront of the lfe of man. The ki ngdom of
God i s an ethical i mperati ve, but si nce man bears
Gods i mage, and hi s bui l t-i n purpose i s to exerci se
domi ni on over Gods creati on, the ki ngdom of God
i s al so an mtobgi ad i mperati ve an i nescapabl e
aspect of the bei ng of regenerated manki nd.
I srael was defi ned i n terms of Gods promi se to
Abraham (Genesi s 15:13-16). God woul d gi ve the
seed of Abraham the l and. Thi s was an uncondi -
ti onal promi se, for Abraham had surrendered to
God uncondi ti onal l y. God had dragged Abraham to
Hi msel f. He had dragged Abraham out of Ur of the
Chal dees and Haran. He tol d Abraham what He
woul d do for Abrahams hei rs, and He woul d ful fi l l
Hi s promi se (Gal ati ans 3:16-19). I srael woul d enter
Canaan. I srael was destined to enter Canaan. Yet
I srael was al so commanded to enter Canaan, and the
ol der generati on refused to obey. Thei r puni shment:
to di e i n the wi l derness. But I srael di d enter the l and
eventual l y.
Redeemed manki nd must subdue the earth. I t i s
Gods domi ni on assi gnment. We camot evade i ts
i mpl i cati ons wi thout sufferi ng puni shment. Our
generati on may try to evade i ts responsi bi l i ti es i n
thi s regard. Our generati on may conti nue to decei ve
i tsel f, argui ng that the Bi bl es promi ses of vi ctory, i n
ti me and on earth, are to be i nterpreted as spi ri tual
vi ctori es onl y, the i nternal vi ctory over si n, but wi th
endl ess defeat i n the external worl d of cul ture, unti l
Chri st fi nal l y returns to del i ver us from destructi on.
Men may try to justi fi thei r fai l ure i n the external
worl d by poi nti ng to thei r own hypotheti cal vi ctory
over si n i n thei r spi ri tual l i ves. Chri sti ans who do
thi s wi l l vi ew the i nsti tuti onal church as a haven of
refuge, Gods port i n the storm, and they wi l l turn
= UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
i nward, concerni ng themsel ves wi th endl ess bureau-
crati c eccl esi asti cal squabbl es, si gni fyi ng practi cal l y
nothi ng. Or Chri sti ans may take another approach,
and try to postpone the establ i shment of Gods vi si -
bl e ki ngdom unti l after Chri st returns physi cal l y to
gi ve us total di recti on, pl aci ng us i n vari ous bureau-
crati c posi ti ons where we wi l l be al l owed to fol l ow
detai l ed orders from the cosmi c Command Post.
General Headquarters wi l l i ssue comprehensi ve
orders, and we wi l l obey them to the l etter. We wont
ever agai n have to make responsi bl e deci si ons, fi t-
ti ng the l etter of the l aw to external ci rcumstances
wi thout devi ati ng from the spi ri t of the l aw a di ffi -
cul t, though responsi bl e, process. The future exter-
nal , vi si bl e ki ngdom wi l l therefore not be our re-
sponsi bi l i ty to bui l d, but Chri stk.
By usi ng ei ther of these two approaches, todays
Chri sti ans seek to justi fi thei r own cul tural i mpo-
tence, thei r own l ack of domi ni on. They internalize the
kingdom, poi nti ng to supposed vi ctori es i nsi de thei r
soul s vi ctori es that never resul t i n cul tural i nfl u-
ence. Or el se they poi nt to a comi ng discontinuous event,
whi ch wi l l bri ng power to them onl y i n terms of the ,
creati on of a massi ve supernatural bureaucracy. I n
the meanti me, both vi ews preach pessi mi sm con-
cerni ng thi s age. Both views prophesy the defeat of the
church external~ in this age. Both vi ews create a desi re
to escape from the responsi bi l i ti es of thi s worl d the
comprehensi ve responsi bi l i ti es of cul tural domi ni on.
Both vi ews rei nforce our rebel l i ous tendenci es to
de~ God, deny the domi ni on assi gnment, and re-
treat i nto a cl osed, i sol ated soci ety to si ng our
THE KINQDOM OF QOD 357
hymns, pray our prayers for del i verance, and eat
our mess of pottage.
We have tri ed to sel l our bi rthri ght to the devi l .
Let him exerci se domi ni on! Let him bear the respon-
si bi l i ti es! Let him rul e i n ti me and on earth, i f onl y he
wi l l gi ve us a l i ttl e more ti me to pray and si ng.
Maybe i f we grant hi m hi s ri ght to rul e temporari l y,
hel l be ni ce and l et us al one. Let Satan rule, ~ Satan
lets us alone thi s i s the battl e cry of 20th-century
Chr i sti ani ty.
We need to revi ve our hope i n God. We need to
revi ve our hope i n Hi s good judgment. We need to
revi ve our hope i n oursel ves, as redeemed men, so
that we can face the domi ni on assi gnment wi th con-
fi dence. We need to regai n our confi dence i n the
power of Gods reveal ed l aw as a tool of domi ni on.
We need an eschatol ogy of vi ctory, i n ti me and on
earth an opti mi sm concerni ng our abi l i ty to extend
domi ni on and subdue the earth, maki ng mani fest
the comprehensi ve ki ngdom of God, i n ti me and on
earth, before Chri st fi nal l y comes i n vi ctory to
remove Hi s peopl e from a worl d whose potenti al has
been used up because Gods peopl e have ful fi l l ed the
terms of Gods domi ni on assi gnment.
This requires unconditional surrender. We must sur-
render to Gods absol ute soverei gnty. We mustnt
mouth the words, the soverei gnty of God, i f we
real l y mean, The soverei gnty of God, wi th a l i ttl e
soverei gnty to man. We have to read Job 38-41,
Romans 9, and Ephesi ans 1 agai n and agai n, unti l
we recogni ze God? total sovereignty. Then, once we see
who i s real l y soverei gn, we can have fai th i n our-
sel ves, as redeemed and progressi vel y restored am-
bassadors of God on earth. Then, and onl y then, wi l l
we bri ng Gods peace treaty before the ci ti zens of
Satans shri nki ng and defensi ve ki ngdom, cal l i ng
them to si gn the treaty now, to submi t uncondi ti on-
al l y to i ts terms of surrender, and to make a covenant
wi th the God of the i nvadi ng ki ngdom. Those who
are meek before Gud shal l i nheri t the earth.
The ki ngdom of Satan i s very much l i ke Jeri cho
i n Joshuas earl y days. The church of God has i ts
marchmg orders. I t i s to conquer the l and, dri vi ng
out the i nhabi tants. Thi s ti me, we are not to use
force, as the I srael i tes di d, but we are to use the
sword of the Lord, the preachi ng of the gospel . We
are ambassadors, not spi es, thi s ti me. We announce
the comi ng of the ki ngdom. We warn the resi dents of
todays ci ti es of the comi ng judgment. I n Deuteron-
omy 20:10-15, God gave us the command not to
destroy a di stant ci ty wi thout offeri ng i t the oppor-
tuni ty to si gn a peace treaty and to become tri butar-
i es. Thi s i s the same treaty God sends to the nati ons
today. Thei r ti me i s runni ng short. Gods ki ngdom i s
comi ng. They must capi tul ate now, or el se spend
eterni ty as fi ery sacti ces to God. I t i s to thei r advan-
tage to become members of Gods ki ngdom.
God gave the peopl e of Canaan ti me to thi nk
about Hi s arri val , i n the person of Hi s peopl e. They
knew what was comi ng a generati on i n advance, and
they trembl ed (Joshua 2:9-11). Perhaps they grew
temporari l y cofi dent when the I srael i tes of Moses
day grew fearful , and deci ded to remai n i n the
wi l derness, cul tural l y i mpotent, fed by Gods
THE KINQOOM OF QOD %9
mi racul ous manna (Exodus 16:15,31-35). God gra-
ci ous~ spoon-fed these pathetic fovmer skoes until thy died.
The Canaani tes were gi ven an extra generati on to
fi l l up thei r cup of i ni qui ty (Genesi s 15:16). But the
day God parted the waters of the Jordan Ri ver, the
manna ceased forever (Joshua 5:12). God woul d
spoon-feed these peopl e no l onger. The mi racul ous
manna woul d never agai n appear on thei r l and. The
l and was now permanent l and; they woul d have to
subdue i t under Gods l aw. That spel l ed the end of
the road for most of the Canaani tes, and had I srael
been more fai thfhl , i t woul d have been the end for al l
of them.
Thi s l eads us to a cruci al l y i mportant pri nci pl e:
when Godh people seek continuul miraclesfiom God, rather
than victory by means of labor under God? revealed law-
ordq thg are admitting o!@eat. When Gods peopl e pre-
fer to be spoon-fed rather than to exerci se responsi -
bl e domi ni on, the ki ngdom of Satan i s gi ven another
stay of executi on. I t i s thi s conti nual prayi ng for
mi racl es, for di sconti nui ti es i n hi story rather than
the continui~ of victo~ uno%r law, whi ch has paral yzed
the expansi on of Gods ki ngdom. Pessimism concern-
i ng the churchs abi l i ty to extend Gods comprehen-
si ve ki ngdom, coupl ed wi th the slhuek hope in
miraculous, diwontinuous o%liverance, have kept the
church wanderi ng i n the wi l derness for several
generati ons. Shoul d we be surpri sed at the second-
-rate offi cers we have today, gi ven the state of mi nd of
the troops? Shoul d a generati on of sl aves, who wai t
trembl i ng for thei r master to tel l them exactl y what
to do next, expect anythi ng better than thi rd-rate
bureaucrats to l ead them? When men fl ee from the
burdens of responsi bl e sel f-government, as men of
both ki ngdoms are doi ng al l over the worl d today,
shoul d we expect to see God% freedom under God% hw
demanded by Hi s peopl e?
Let us fl ee the wi l derness. Let us abandon hope
i n our dai l y manna, our dai l y mi racl es. Let us aban-
don the need to be spoon-fed by God. Let us begi n to
act l i ke shepherds. Let us begi n to accept the bur-
dens of responsi bl e sel f-government under the
gui del i nes provi ded by Gods l aw. Si nce the l aw i s no
l onger a threat to us eternal l y, because we are del i v-
ered by Chri st from the curse of the l aw, l et us approach
Go#s Lzw as a masti cra@nun approaches a tool that he
understands and respects, and not as apprenti ces who
are afrai d of the tool and the responsi bi l i ti es of usi ng
that tool i n thei r l abor. When Chri sti an l eaders see
that they are cal l ed to l ead confi dent troops who un-
derstand the responsi bi l i ti es of sel f-government, and
who are wi l l i ng to bear these responsi bi l i ti es because
they understand the l aw of God, thei r tool of domi n-
i on, we wi l l fi nd better qual i ty l eaders accepti ng
thei r posi ti ons of responsi bi l i ty, not just i n the i nsti -
tuti onal church, but i n every i nsti tuti on, i n every
wal k of l i fe.
Concl usi on
The ki ngdom of God i s comprehensi ve. I t i n-
vol ves the i nner l i fe of man, as wel l as the envi ron-
ment around man. Both soci al and natural envi ron-
ments are i n vi ew. There can be no zones of neutral -
i ty. No area of l i fe can be segregated from the rest,
THE KINGDOM OF QOO 361
and marked as a neutral zone between Gods ki ng-
dom and Satans ki ngdom. Every area of l i fe i s goi ng
to be part of one or the other ki ngdom. Therefore,
Chri sti ans are cal l ed to serve as ambassadors of
Chri st and as subduers of the earth, throughout the
earth. Di d Chri st exempt any area of the face of the
earth from Hi s gospel ? Or di d He tel l Hi s peopl e to
preach the gospel everywhere? We are commanded
to di sci pl e al l nati ons (Matthew 28:18-20). But thi s
i nevi tabl y means that al l nati ons are under the re-
qui rements of the l aw, for they are al l i n need of
Chri sts redempti on Hi s buyi ng back from the
curse of the l aw.
I s the l aw parti al ? I s the l aw anythi ng but al l -
encompassi ng? Are men not total l y i n need of spi ri t-
ual del i verance because of the comprehensi ve nature
of the l aws demands? The law is comprehensi ve, Christ%
&kk-rance is comprelumsive, and God5 kingdom is compre-
hensive, in time and on earth. I f thi s were not true, then
men woul d not be requi red to repent, i n ti me and on
earth. I f they fai l to repent before they di e, or before
Chri st returns i n judgment, then they must become
permanent salted sac-i+ices, burni ng on Gods awful
al tar, forever (Mark 9:49). The comprehensi ve na-
ture of Gods puni shment shoul d testi fy to the com-
prehensi ve cl ai ms of Gods l aw, and the comprehen-
si ve scope of Gods ki ngdom, i n ti me and cm earth.
To argue i n any other way i s to mi ni mi ze the extent
of Chri sts sacri fi ce on the cross, to l essen i ts si gni fi -
cance, and to l essen i ts cost to our Lord.
Any soci al movement whi ch i s seri ous about
changi ng the shape of hi story must have at l east two
= UNCONDITIOWAi SURRENDER
features. Fi rst, i t must have a doctri ne of the possi -
bi l i ty ofpositiue social change. I f men dont bel i eve that
hi story can be changed through concerted effort,
then they are unl i kel y to attempt to change very
much. Second, i t needs a unique doctnne of law.
Men need to bel i eve i n thei r abi l i ty to understand
thi s worl d, and by understandi ng i ts l aws, change i ts
features. They need a detai l ed program for soci al
change, i n other words.
There i s another feature of a successful program
of soci al reconstmcti on whi ch i s usual l y present, and
whi ch i s undeni abl y powerful : the doctnne ofpredestina-
tion. The doctri ne of hi stori cal i nevi tabi l i ty strength-
ens the soul s of those who are convi nced that thei r
si de i s goi ng to wi n, and i t weakens the resi stance of
thei r enemi es. A good exampl e i n the Bi bl e i s the op-
ti mi sm of the Hebrews under Joshua, and the pessi -
mi sm of the peopl e of Jeri cho (Joshua 2:8-n).
Where have we seen a fusi on of al l three el e-
ments? Where have we seen si mul taneousl y the doc-
tri ne of predesti nati on, the doctri ne of the possi bi l i ty
of posi ti ve soci al change, and the doctri ne of l aw? I n
the 20th century, we have seen al l three doctri nes es-
poused by the three most powerful soci al and rel i gi -
ous movements of our ti me: Marxi an communi sm,
modern sci ence, and (i n the fi nal decades of the cen-
tury) mi l i tant I sl am. Al l three have a dynami c of
hi story. Al l three bel i eve that external affai rs can be
control l ed by el i tes. Al l three have a doctri ne of
worl d conquest. Al l three have evangel i cal wi ngs.
Al l three, therefore, are rel i gi ons, for they espouse
di sti nct (and moral l y mandatory) ways of l i fe.
THE KINQWM OF GOD 333
Z7ze war i s on. The major parti ci pants recogni ze
thi s war. Too many contemporary Chri sti ans have
not seen i t, or el se they have mi si nterpreted i ts i mpl i -
cati ons for themsel ves and the church. The war i s
between Jesus Chri st and the more mi l i tant forms of
anti -Chri sti ani ty, especi al l y those that procl ai m thei r
versi ons of al l three doctri nes.
Al l three doctri nes need to be hel d for maxi mum
l everage i n thi s worl d of rel i gi ous confl i ct. The doc-
tri ne of predesti nati on can l ead to soci al i mpotence i f
i t i s coupl ed wi th pessi mi sm concerni ng the l ong-run
tri umph of the church, i n ti me and on earth. Those
who hol d both the doctri ne of predesti nati on and an
eschatol ogy of earthl y, hi stori cal defeat have a ten-
dency to turn i nward, both psychol ogi cal l y and
eccl esi asti cal l y. They worry too much about the state
of thei r soul s and the state of the i nsti tuti onal
church and not enough about the state of the ki ng-
dom of God i n i ts broadest sense. Such a theol ogy i s
guaranteed to produce defeat, and we shoul d expect
such theol ogi es to remai n backwater vi ews of back-
water groups, as they are today and have been i n the
past.
The Communi sts have al l three doctri nes: pre-
desti nati on, i nevi tabl e vi ctory, and l aw. But thei r
l aw-order doesnt work. I ts parasi ti c. I t has pro-
duced endl ess economi c di sasters from 1917 unti l the
present. I t cannot succeed i n the l ong run.
The questi on i s therefore not ~redesti nati on vs.
no predesti nati on. The questi on i s: Whi ch predesti -
nati on? The questi on i s: Whose predesti nati on?~
Gods? Modem sci ences? I sl ams? Communi sms?
~ UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
The battl e for worl d supremacy wi l l be waged
among the competi ng predesti nari an worl d vi ews.
Everyone el se i s si mpl y goi ng al ong for the ri de. Wi l l
i t be the soverei gnty of God or the soverei gnty of
man?
We must become optimists concerni ng the vi ctory
that l i es before Chri sts peopl e, i n ti me and on earth.
We must be even more opti mi sti c than Joshua and
Cal eb, for they were onl y asked to spy out the l and of
Canaan. They were cal l ed to gi ve thei r report pri or
to Chri sts sacri fi ce at Cal vary. Why shoul d we be
pessi mi sti c, l i ke that fi rst generati on of former
sl aves? Why shoul d we wander i n the wi l derness,
generati on after generati on? Why shoul d we
despai r? Why shoul d we adopt the mental i ty of
sl aves, or the mental i ty of the bel eaguered garri son
i n the l ast outpost? I t i s Satans garri sons that are de-
fendi ng the outposts, and when Chri sti ans recogni ze
thei r responsi bi l i ti es for bui l di ng the ki ngdom, and
when they master the l aw of God as a tool of domi n-
i on, and when they gai n a vi si on of freedom through
sel f-government, and when some vi ctory-ori ented
l eaders step forth to l ead them i nto battl e i n every
area of l i fe, then Satans troops wi l l fi nd themsel ves
defendi ng thei r l ast outpost. And the gates of hel l
shal l not prevai l agai nst Gods church.
10
A STRATEGY FOR
There i s onl y one Supreme .
DOMINION
Al l i ed Commander,
Jesus Chri st. There i s onl y one source of a compre-
hensi ve strategy that i ncl udes every possi bl e tacti c.
God has that integated strategic-tactical plan, and He i s
putti ng i t i nto operati on, moment by moment,
across the whol e uni verse.
Satan al so has a strategy, and he al so has tacti cs,
but he i s not omni sci ent, omni potent, omni present,
or omni -anythi ng. He i s a fal l en creature, a rebel -
l i ous creature, a creature who has abandoned Gods
l aw, the tool of domi ni on. He has refused to be sub-
ordi nate to God, and therefore he cannot possi bl y be
successful i n subdui ng the earth. I t i s i mpossi bl e to
subdue the earth wi thout bei ng subordi nate to God.
For cr eatur es, dominion requires subordination. The onl y
power Satan has i s by Gods di screti on, whi ch i s why
Satan had to come before God i n order to gai n Gods
permi ssi on to destroy Jobs assets (Job 1). He i s
under God, so he does have power, but because he
refuses to subordi nate hi msel f ethi cal l y, he has i n
= UNCONDITWNAL SuRREmER
pri nci pl e abandoned domi ni ons fi rst pri nci pl e. Hi s
ki ngdom cannot succeed. Hi s strategy i s negated
from the very begi nni ng, for i t rel i es on the doctri ne
of autonomous power the power of the i ndepend-
ent, sel f-exi stent creature and thi s doctri ne i s
wrong. It isnt possible to have autonomous power as a crea-
ture. But Satan wants i t, and more i mportant, al l hi s
subordi nates want i t. Nobody wants to be under
Satan, but hi s troops put up wi th hi m for the sake of
the power he gi ves them i n exchange for thei r al l e-
gi ance. But when God reduces Satans power, what
wi l l he possess then to compel , or buy, the al l egi ance
of hi s troops? Mercenary armi es have one thi ng i n
common: they never defeat a determi ned, dedi cated
home guard. Satans army i s a mercenary army.
Gods army i s a home guard. The onl y thi ng that i s
hol di ng up the vi ctory of Gods home guard i s the
home guards l ack of confi dence, l ack of trai ni ng,
and l ack of tacti cs.
We have al ready surveyed our l ack of confi dence
i n the chapter on the ki ngdom of God. Chri sti ans
have adopted, al most uni versal l y, vi si ons of defeat.
Chri sti ans have abandoned the responsi bi l i ti es of
Gods comprehensi ve domi ni on assi gnment. To gai n
a true understandi ng of our assi gnment and our pros-
pects, we need tore-exami ne the popul ar eschatol o-
gi es of def=t. We need to adopt an eschatolo~ ~vtity
a doctri ne of the l ast thi ngs that i s opti mi sti c con-
cerni ng the next-to-the-l ast thi ngs. We have to rec-
ogni ze the continui~ of history, the continuity of victory,
and the conti nui ~ of Godk Zaw. We have to abandon
our rel i ance on promi ses of cosmi c mi racl es-not
A STRATEQY FOR DOMINION =
l ocal mi racl es, of course, but great, sweepi ng, cos-
mi c mi racl es that are supposed to bai l out Gods
fai l ures, Hi s church. We have to abandon any ver-
si on of the conti nui ty of defeat, the tri umph of
Satans l eaven i n creati ons fal l en dough.
But i f we do thi s, what el se wi l l we need? I f we
adopt a d-k of hirkny, as the Marxi sts have adopted
opti mi sm concerni ng mans fi .m.we, i n ti me and on
earth but a better-grounded opti mi sm than the
Marxi sts possess, what el se wi l l we need? A compreh-
ensive, detailed knowledge of God% revealed law. We need
a dynami c of hi story, meani ng a worl d-and-l i fe vi ew
whi ch i s promi sed success by God, but we al so need
a tool of dominion. God made the earth, and He made
man i n Hi s own i mage. He establ i shed moral and
physi cal l aws, and these l aws are comprehensi bl e to
man, for man i s made i n Gods i mage. These l aws
correspond both to the mi nd of man and the external
envi ronment, i ncl udi ng mans i nsti tuti onal envi ron-
ment. The prtncipla of God% kaw are found i n Hi s Tm
Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17). The detai l s are
Gods case-kzw applications of the pri nci pl es, and these
are found pri mari l y i n the second through the fi fth
books of the Ol d Testament.
We have been gi ven both a dynami c of hi story
and a tool of domi ni on. We have done our best to i g-
nore them both. We have, especi al l y i n the l ast hun-
dred years, retreated fi -om both i n the name of
Chri sti an l i berty: or separati on from the worl d.
But such an approach i s doomed to defeat. Those
who adopt such an atti tude wi l l become l ess and l ess
i nfl uenti al i n the worl d they have abandoned to the
= UNCONDlllDNAL SURRENDER
devi l i n the name of God. Those who adopt an
eschatol ogy of vi ctory and a commi tment to Gods
l aw wi l l steadi l y di spl ace the retreati sts. The retreat-
i sts get what they expect: dgfeut, both by the devi l and
by those Chri sti ans who have deci ded to take charge.
The retreati sts, or as they are al so known, the @t-
i sts, are the modern equi val ent of the I srael i tes of
Moses day. They are not happy wi th the wi l derness,
but they know nothi ng el se, and they are convi nced
that i ts not thei r responsi bi l i ty to march i nto Ca-
naan and take charge. They see themsel ves as am-
bassadors of a di stant ki ngdom whose Master has
kept most of the ki ngdoms assets and weapons wi th
Hi m i n that di stant l and. They know He wi l l return
eventual l y, but wi thout warni ng, wi thout sendi ng i n
back-up troops unti l the l ast moment. Todays Chri s-
ti ans are not confi dent ambassadors for Chri st, for
they do not recogni ze the comprehensi ve nature of
thei r assi gnment and the i ncomparabl e power of
Gods tool of domi ni on. They al so dont recogni ze
the state of di sarray of Satans forces l awl ess, cove-
tous, i nnatel y rebel l i ous, wi thout a phi l osophy of
l i fe, and wi thout hope of l ong-run success. They are
not effecti ve ambassadors, for they dont recogni ze
the i mmi nence of Gods ki ngdom not the Second
Comi ng of Chri st i n power, but the nearness of
power avai l abl e to them for the task of domi ni on.
Str ategy
God reveal ed Hi s strategy i n Chri sts fi nal words
wi th Hi s di sci pl es. Go ye therefore, and teach al l
nati ons, bapti zi ng them i n the name of the Father,
A STRATEGY FOR DOMINION 369
and of the Son, and of the Hol y Ghost: teachi ng
them to observe al l thi ngs whatsoever I have com-
manded you: and, 10, I am wi th you al way, even unto
the end of the worl d. Amen (Matthew 28:19-20).
The New Engl i sh Bi bl e transl ates the fi rst sentence
as: Go forth therefore and make al l nati ons my di s-
ci pl es. We are to put the nati ons under discipline.
Di sci pl i ne i mpl i es a set of rul es. I t al so i mpl i es a sys-
tem of l aw enforcement, a chai n of authori ty. And,
as we have seen agai n and agai n, i t i nvol ves fi rst and
foremost the i dea of se~-discipline unakr God by means
of Gods l aw.
Teaching is ajiwm of discipline. A teachi ng method
wi thout a rul e, and wi thout di sci pl i ne, especi al l y
sel f-di sci pl i ne, wi l l not succeed. We are to teach the na-
tions, which ineuitab~ means thut we are to put tkzm under
the rule of God. I f any person or cul ture rei %ses to di s-
ci pl i ne i ts acti ons by the l aw of God, then that per-
son or nati on wi l l be judged by God. Ti e hzw wi l l
mu-shyou or eleuateyou, but it cannot be auoio%d. I t i s part
of Gods creati on-order. I t i s basi c to mans very be-
i ng, for i t i s basi c to the domi ni on assi gnment.
Thi s assi gnment by Chri st i s si mpl y a recapi tul a-
ti on of the domi ni on assi gnment gi ven to Adam and
Noah by God. I t i s the same assi gnment. Now
Chri st announces Hi s power over hi story, for He has
suffered i n hi story: And Jesus came and spake unto
them, sayi ng, Al l power i s gi ven unto me i n heaven
and i n earth (Matthew 28:18). Thk i s the hi stori cal
foundati on for Hi s recapi tul ati on of the ori gi nal
domi ni on assi gnment. The I ncarnated Chri st an-
nounced Hi s absol ute power all power over hi s-
370 uNeoNornoNAL ~DEn
tory. No l onger must men l ook forward to Hi s sacri -
fi ce; i t i s now behi nd us. No l onger must the vi si bl e
si gn of Gods vi ctory over Satan be foreshadowed i n
the sacri fi ces of the tabernacl e of the Templ e
(Hebrews 8:5). We have seen the vi ctory. I t i s before
us forever. Now we have no$rther excuses for&hying the
dticipling of th natwns. The l and of Canaan i n Pal es-
ti ne i s no l onger the trai ni ng ground-boot camp
for Chri sts troops. We have been cal l ed to i nvade
Satans ki ngdom, the nati ons. Satan i s now bound i n
hi story, as he had not been pri or to the resurrecti on;
thi s i s what the meani ng of the chai n i s i n Revel ati on
20, where we are tol d that Satan i s chai ned for a
thousand years. He i s restri cted, for hi s ki ngdom i s
under attack. Onl y at the end wi l l he be l oosed for a
l i ttl e ti me, onl y to be crushed on the fi nal day
(Revel ati on 20:7-9). Hi s l ast attempt to escape hi s
doom, when he surrounds the camp of the fai thful
whi ch i s the worl d i tsel f i s i mmedi atel y defeated,
wi thout a shot bei ng fi red, or so the text i ndi cates.
He cannot recl ai m hi s l ost ki ngdom from the vi ctor-
i ous troops under God. Hi s counterattack i s i mmedi -
atel y burned up by the fi nal di sconti nui ty i n hi story:
judgment (Revel ati on 20:10).
I t i s di scouragi ng to real i ze how many Chri sti ans
refuse to acknowl edge the enormous si gni fi cance the
wsunrection of Christ had i n human hi story. They see
that i t wi l l have personal si gni fi cance for them at the
ti me of death and at the l ast judgment, but thi s i ndi -
vi dual i sm negl ects the si gni fi cance of the resurrec-
ti on for the hi story of the human race, i n ti me and
on earth. Chri st made i t very pl ai n: i t served as the
basi s of a massive tran#ir of visible sover@gnty. He now
has al l power, i n heaven and on earth. God al ways
di d have thi s power, but now thk power has been
mani fested i n hi story. God entered the processes of
hi story through Hi s I ncarnati on. The Second Person
of the Tki ni ty came to earth as a perfect man, l i ved a
perfect l i fe, met the terms of the l aw, and di ed as a
substi tuti onary sacri fi ce. Yet modern Chri sti ans act
as though al l of thi s hi stori cal acti vi ty has meani ng
pri mari l y i n transhi stori cal afFai rs: i n the soul , i n
heaven, at the i i nal judgment, and i n the new heav-
ens and new earth beyond that fi nal judgment. They
act as though the supreme drama i n al l of hi story has
very l i ttl e si gni fi cance for hi story.
Chri st sent Hi s troops out i nto the worl d, i nvad-
i ng Satans nati ons from that i ni ti al base i n Pal es-
ti ne. God had brought them out of bondage i nto Pal -
esti ne 1500 years before Chri sts sacri i i ce. Now He
was usi ng Pal esti ne as the i ni ti al base of operati ons
for a worl dwi de i nvasi on. Havi ng taken al l power
ovm hi story by means of Hi s sacri .i i ce in hi story,
Chri st was then o?degati ng new authori~ to His subordin-
ates. Di d thi s Supreme Al l i ed Commander l ack
power? No. Di d He possess al l power? Absol utel y.
Do Hi s troops l ack permi ssi on to draw upon these
reserves of power? Not si nce Pentecost, when the
Comforter came. But ye shal l recei ve power, after
that the Hol y Ghost i s come upon you: and ye shal l
be wi tnesses unto me both i n Jerusal em, and i n al l
Judea, and i n Samari a, and unto the uttermost part
of the earth. And when he had spoken these thi ngs,
whi l e they behel d, he was taken up: and a cl oud
373 uNeoNDl l l oNAL WRRENwm
recei ved hi m out of thei r si ght (Acts 1:8-9).
How much pl ai ner coul d Chri st have spoken?
He tol d them He has al l power. He tol d them they
woul d recei ve power. Then He was carri ed away
from them i nto the heavens, demonstrati ng i n the
most graphi c way concei vabl e that He WU.S delegating
power to them, and that they shoul d not expect Hi m to
exerci se domi ni on, i n ti me and on earth, i n Hi s phy-
si cal body.
The earl y di sci pl es got the message. They
became Hi s ambassadors across the face of the
earth. So successful were the earl y di sci pl es i n thei r
spreadi ng of the gospel that Paul coul d write to the
church at Col ossae concerni ng the hope of the gos-
pel , whi ch ye have heard, and whi ch was preached to
every creature whi ch is under heaven (Col ossi ans
l :23b). He meant, presumabl y, that the gospel had
been del i vered throughout Satans ki ngdom, that no
area had been desi gnated as off l i mi ts by God for
Hi s di sci pl es. What is so di sturbi ng i n the l atter dec-
ades of the 20th centur y is that so few of Hi s di sci pl es
today recogni ze what the earl y di sci pl es di d: that it is
the gospel , and not some comi ng di sconti nuous
event i n hi story, whi ch wi l l di sci pl e the nati ons.
They knew where thei r terri tory was: the whol e
worl d. They knew what they had to do: disciple the
nations. They understood the domi ni on assi gnment:
to subdue th earth.
What is the message we are to bri ng to the na-
tions? To bel i eve i n Jesus, but not to conform
themsel ves to Hi s i mage? To accept Jesus as Savi or ,
but not as Lord? To offer a concept of l ordshi p
A STRATEGY FOR DOMINION 373
whi ch doesnt i nvol ve total obedi ence as the standard
of performance? Of course not. Our task i s to teach
al l nati ons to observe al l thi ngs whatsoever I have
commanded you (Matthew 28: 20). He told them that
he came to confirm the law of God, not to abrogate or annul it
(Matthew 5:17). He gave Hi s di sci pl es a compl eted
copy of Hi s l aw, so that they, as Hi s ambassadors,
mi ght announce the terms of wwn~ to Satans
troops. The terms of peace are the terms of sur-
render. They are al so the tool of domi ni on.
When Rahab gave her commi tment to the spi es
of I srael , was she a ci ti zen of Jeri cho any l onger?
Obvi ousl y not. She was maki ng a couenant wi th the
God of I srael , through the spi es (Joshua 2:12-13).
She became treasonous agai nst the ki ngdom of
Jeri cho, al though for a ti me she remai ned i n the ci ty
as i f her ci ti zenshi p were sti l l i n Jeri cho. The poi nt i s
thi s: you belong to one kingdom or the other. There i s no
thi rd ki ngdom to whi ch anyone can fl ee. You have
ci ti zenshi p papers i n heaven or hel l . You are re-
corded i n the book of l i fe or you arent (Exodus
32:32; Revel ati on 21:27).
Every ki ng requi res obedi ence. Every ki ngdom
has l aws. Men are al ways under the l aw of some
ki ngdom. The standard phrase, Were under grace,
not l aw, i s utter nonsense. W are always under law.
The questi on i s: W$ose l aw? Gods l aw or Satans? To
be under Satans l aw i s to be a ci ti zen of hi s ki ng-
dom. Then hi s l aw wi l l condemn you, for the work of
the l aw i s wri tten on every human heart (Remans
2:15). Everythi ng val uabl e that Satan hol ds, he hol ds
because he stol e i t. Al l good gi fts come from God
374 UNCONDITIONAL SURRSNDSR
(James 1:17). Satan i s a thi ef. Therefore, to com-
mand hi s ki ngdom, he needs l aw, and he rel i es on
the twi sted remnants of the l aw of Godthe work of
the l aw to whi p hi s troops i nto submi ssi on. Anyone
who rel i es on hi s own moral strength as an obeyer of
Gods l aw i s under the curse of Gods l aw. Anyone
who l ooks i nto hi s consci ence and says that thi s wi l l
be hi s gui de i s under the curse of Gods l aw. Even the
work of the l aw i n hi s heart i s cl ose enough to Gods
l aw to condemn hi m. We are al ways under l aw. The
l aw of God al ways condemns si nners. The questi on
i s: wi l l we liue by the l aw or di e by the l aw? Wi l l we
escape the curse of the l aw by Gods grace through
our fai th i n Chri sts atoni ng sacri fi ce, or wi l l we pre-
sent oursel ves as a spotted sacri fi ce, to be sal ted and
burned forever? Wi l l we use the l aw to conform our-
sel ves to the i mage of God, or wi l l we use the l aw to
el evate oursel ves above the grace of God, i n a des-
perate attempt to become hol i er than God?
The politual quation faci ng the ci ti zens of any na-
ti on i s thi s: I s i t better to be under the rul e of Gods
reveal ed l aw or some satani c i mi tati on of that l aw? I s
i t better to be under Gods l aw or Satans crude,
twi sted i mi tati ons? You woul d thi nk that the answer
i s obvi ous. Why, then, have Chri sti an l eaders and
theol ogi ans i n thi s century answered the questi on i n-
correctl y? Why have they procl ai med that we are no
l onger bound by Gods l aw? I f we are not bound by
Gods l aw on earth, then we are bound by that l aw i n
eterni ty, i n the l ake of fi re. The l uw k binding on may
creature: i n heaven, on earth, i n hel l , and (fi nal l y) i n
the l ake of i i re. The questi on i s: Wi/1 it bind a man to
A STRATEGY FON DOMINION 373
l ye or to dkzth? Wi l l Jesus Chri st wrap you i n Hi s
arms, as the confi rmer of the l aw, or wi l l Satan wrap
you i n hi s arms, as the rebel agai nst the l aw, so that
both you and Satan wi l l be bound by the curse of the
l aw for eterni ty? Wi thout Chri st, you are al ready i n
Satans arms.
The preaching of the gospel to every person, and the
teachi ng of the luw to every person, i s the basi s of dis-
npling the nations. The ambassadors come to a new
peopl e and i nstruct them i n ri ghteousness. There are
standards of ri ghteous behavi or. These are reveal ed
to us i n Gods l aw. The ambassadors make di sci pl es
out of the former ci ti zens i n Satans ki ngdom. He
del egates authori ty to them when they have begun to
master the l aw of God i n thei r parti cul ar area of l i fe.
Then they act as new ambassadors, carryi ng the
message of the gospel to new peopl e, wi th new areas
of i nfl uence to capture.
No institution is eawnpt: church, state, fami l y,
economy, school , farm, etc. Every i nsti tuti on has a
structure of responsi bi l i ty and standards of perfor-
mance. What Chri st demands i s a di sci pl i ne of
men and i nsti tuti ons by means of Hi s standards of
ri ghteous performance. I f the ci vi l government bears
the sword, then i t shoul d bear the sword i n terms of
Gods l aw. I f a corporati on makes a profi t, then i t
shoul d make a profi t i n terms of Gods l aw. I f a farm
pl ants a crop, then i t shoul d pl ant i t i n terms of
Gods requi rements for agri cul ture. I n short, as l ong
as you have to operate i nsti tuti ons i n terms of some
standards, you shoul d operate them i n terms of God%
standards. I ts never a questi on of no standards vs.
376 utwxtmmow SURRENDER
Gods standards. I ts al ways a questi on of whose
standar ds.
Tacti cs
The strategy of di sci pl i ne through preachi ng the
whol e counsel of God i s the uni versal l y val i d strat-
egy. The questi on of tacti cs must al ways be l ocal and
hi stori cal l y bounded. Every cul ture, every i nsti tu-
ti on, every aspect of l i fe must be subdued, so i ts the
responsi bi l i ty of l ocal peopl e to fi t Gods strategy i nto
thei r hi stori cal and cul tural ci rcumstances. The
strategy provi des us wi th the w+iedprogram; the tac-
ti cs provi de us wi th the multiple appltiatzons.
Whatever the l ocal tacti cs, every avai l abl e i nsti -
tuti on shoul d be used. The i nsti tuti onal church must
be the focus for assembl i ng fami l i es together, but the
fami l y i s the fi rst i nsti tuti on. Teachi ng materi al s for
fathers are extremel y i mportant, so that the father
can re-establ i sh hi msel f as a househol d pri est. He
must begi n to rul e over the fami l y, trai ni ng hi s
chi l dren i n the Bi bl e, and maki ng ready another
generati on of ambassadors.
The church wi l l normal l y screen such materi al s,
si nce the pastors and el ders are devoti ng thei r ti me
to thi s sort of work. The church i s not the sol e au-
thori ty, but i n most si tuati ons i t wi l l be the source of
the prel i mi nary wri tten and taped resources. The
church shoul d work wi th heads of househol ds to es-
tabl i sh regul ar fami l y programs of trai ni ng. Z%
church must learn to decentralize its teaching ministries, and
t~~rst place to begin is with the families.
Fi nanci al resources are al ways l i mi ted, especi al l y
A STRATEQY FOR DOMI NI ON 377
i n new ventures. The tape recorder, because of the cas-
sette tape, provi des the prel i mi nary mechani cal i n-
structi onal tool , for the church can produce as many
tapes as i t can sel l , but not ti e up a l ot of capi tal i n
ori gi nal producti on, unl i ke books and pamphl ets.
Printed materaals are i mportant, begi nni ng wi th
tracts for members to use as evangel i sm tool s, and
goi ng to newsl etters. A newsl etter shoul d be i nform-
ati ve, and not just a pl ace for weekl y noti ces. A
newsl etter shoul d probabl y i ncl ude a smal l er i nsert
wi th ti mel y noti ces of events that are soon forgotten.
Newsl etters are not that expensi ve to produce. Even
a mi meograph machi ne i s acceptabl e i n the i ni ti al
stages of a publ i shi ng mi ni stry.
Pamphl ets, reproducti ons of sermons, repri nts of
contemporary arti cl es, and si mi l ar materi al s can be
produced i nexpensi vel y, when a church or other
group wants to target a speci al audi ence for evangel -
i sm. Bread and butter evangel i sm, wi th speci fi c
materi al s ai med at speci fi c audi ences wi th speci .ti c
probl ems to sol ve i s probabl y the best way to i ntro-
duce the gospel to new peopl e. Tri g want to know what
dt#iwnce Christianity nukes. I f the evangel i st can dem-
onstrate that Chri sti an pri nci pl es do appl y i n the
speci fi c probl em areas faci ng the potenti al converts,
he has made consi derabl e i nroads. Evangel i sm that
i s not geared to provi di ng speczjc biblical answers to real
problemsfmed by realpeople i s weak, and i t tends to pro-
duce converts who dont understand the comprehen-
si ve cl ai ms of Chri sts ki ngdom responsi bi l i ti es.
Special nwetings deal i ng wi th probl ems faced by
peopl e i n the l ocal communi ty are especi al l y useful
978 uNeoNDrnoNAL SURRENDER
as an evangel i sm tool . Probl ems centeri ng i n fami l y
l i fe are al ways a burden, so speci fi c answers here are
i n demand. Other areas of l i fe can be covered at
di fferent meeti ngs: busi ness, communi ty cri me,
al cohol , drug abuse, and so forth. Thi s ki nd of evan-
gel i sm i nvol ves careful pl anni ng and speakers who
have somethi ng uni quel y Chri sti an to present.
Each i ndi vi dual can provi de hi s ci rcl e of associ -
ates wi th materi al s that deal wi th probl ems that he
knows faces these peopl e. Peopl e want hel p. They
may not want to admi t that they need hel p i n thei r
spi ri tual l i ves, or they may not grasp the magni tude
of the eternal threat faci ng them, but they know that
they have probl ems i n more mundane areas. Chri s-
ti ani ty presents comprehensi ve cl ai ms on a mans
l i fe, and consi stent Chri sti ani ty presents compre-
hensi ve answers.
Thi s i s dominion-oriented evangelism. I t i s more than
the typi cal feel good evangel i sm of the modern
worl d. Feel good evangel i sm i s used successhl l y by
Satan: I f i t feel s good, do i t. Chri sti ans have i mi -
tated thi s approach: Get hi gh on Jesus was a fami l i -
ar sl ogan i n Ameri ca i n the l ate 1960s. Maxi mum
Sex was another popul ar Ameri can campus evan-
gel i sm program i n the mi d-1970s. But sl ogans are
not much good i f the content of the fai th i s mi ssi ng.
Si tti ng around i n groups worki ng up overwhel mi ng
emoti onal feel i ngs goes onl y so far. An emoti onal
bi nge may make peopl e feel better temporari l y, but
the same ol d worl dl y probl ems persi st when the par-
ti ci pants fl oat down fkom thei r mountai n-top ex-
per i ence.
A STRATEQY FOR DOMINION g~
Books on a mul ti tude of topi cs are needed. Wi th-
out books, no movement ever succeeds. Books are
what makes Chri sti ani ty and Judai sm uni que. The
rel i gi on of the book i s a real phenomenon. The care
whi ch the anci ent Hebrews took to preserve accurate
copi es of the Bi bl e shoul d testi fy to the central i ty of
the wri tten word. Books on personal probl ems,
books on practi cal i ssues, books on theol ogy, books
on every aspect of l i fe: here i s a program that can
make a di fference. Chri sti ans who have not dkci -
pl i ned themsel ves to read conti nual l y are at the mercy
of thei r envi ronment. They wi l l quote those i deas
that fl oat around i n our humani sti c soci ety. We need
to be the peopl e provi di ng the popul ar i deas that
fl oat through a soci ety, not a bunch of amateur di s-
tri butors of used i deas devel oped by humani sts and
demoni sts.
Training programs are basi c to any successful busi -
ness organi zati on. They are basi c to any mi l i tary or-
gani zati on. They are, of course, central to any edu-
cati onal organi zati on. That% why conti nual trai ni ng
for every member of every Chri sti an organi zati on i s
absol utel y fundamental . I f no trai ni ng i s goi ng on
i nsi de a Chri sti an organi zati on, i t i s safe to say that
i t wont survi ve for l ong. An i nsti tuti on wi thout
trai ni ng trai ni ng that rel i es on the devel opment of
personal sel f-di sci pl i ne i s a sui ci dal i nsti tuti on. We
need teaching, and we need @.ctice.
Newslettm networks must be bui l t up. Transl ati ng
servi ces wi l l eventual l y become mandato~. The
i nternati onal Chri sti an communi ty must bui l d up
al ternati ve systems of communi cati on. The i nter na-
~ UNCONDMONAL SURRENDER
ti onal di vi si on of l abor must be appl i ed to the
spreadi ng of the gospel . We dont know when some
new i dea, some new techni que for conquest, wi l l
come out of some obscure corner of the worl d. No
stone shoul d be l eft unturned i n the quest for better
teachi ng and trai ni ng techni ques.
Evangelism should be issua-oriented. What probl ems
are botheri ng a parti cul ar i ndi vi dual ? What answers
does the Bi bl e provi de hi m? The messenger must
search the Bi bl e to fi nd out what answers there are to
peopl es probl ems. But thi s takes work, i ntel l i gence,
and a wi l l i ngness to master the l aw of God. Thi s i s
what anci ent I srael requi red of i l l i terate ci ti zens of
the ki ngdom. What excuses can l i terate, medi a-
con$ci ous Chri sti ans come up wi th to l et them off the
hook? None that God wi l l l i sten to.
Chr i sti an schook are absol utel y fundamental to
any successful strategy. I wi l l go farther than thi s,
Any program whi ch does not advocate the creati on
of Chri sti an school s i s automati cal l y doomed. These
school s shoul d be ful l y i ndependent, ful l y parent-
fi nanced (except for schol arshi ps), and preferabl y
profi t-seeki ng. Thi s i ncreases the parents control of
the school s, and i t gi ves the headmaster a fi nanci al
i ncenti ve to conform to the parents wi shes. But any
Chri sti an school profi t-seeki ng, ful l -cost tui ti on
though non-profi t, or church-operated i s better
than no Chri sti an school at al l . Al l educati on i s i n-
tensel y rel i gi ous. No educati on can ever be neutral .
Therefore, al l Chri sti an chi l dren shoul d be trai ned
by Chri sti an teachers who are usi ng a ful l y consi s-
tent Chri sti an curri cul um. Any Chri sti an who
A STRATE6Y FOR DOMINION 381
al l ows hi s chi l dren to l earn the fundamental s of
knowl edge i n a government-fi nanced, secul ar hu-
mani st school has betrayed hi s chi l dren. Peri od. No
qual i fi cati ons, no excepti ons, no excuses.
Speci al i sts and General i sts
The God of the Bi bl e i s one and many. The
Chri sti an communi ty i s a uni ty, but i t i s al so di verse.
There are unzfiing themes that every Chri sti an and
every Chri sti an communi ty must acknowl edge as
fi mdamental . There are al so applications of basi c
pri nci pl e that onl y a few peopl e maybe aware of or
concerned wi th. What we need i s a generati on of
Chri sti ans who dedi cate themsel ves to getti ng an i n-
tel l ectual and practi cal grasp of the general truths of
the fai th, yet who at the same ti me devote ti me, re-
sources, and prayer to masteri ng at l east one speci al -
i zed area i n order to bri ng i t under the rul e of Chri st.
Every Chri sti an shoul d be cal l ed upon to gi ve
seri ous consi derati on to Gods standards i n hi s own
sphere of i nfl uence. The communi ty as a whol e
shoul d have these speci al i sts on tap at any ti me, so
that they can contri bute thei r experti se to the domi n-
i on assi gnment.
Mi l i tary organi zati ons understand thi s pri nci pl e.
There are dedi cated speci al i sts i n every mi l i tary or-
gani zati on who can be rel i ed on to suppl y detai l ed
and accurate knowl edge to troop commanders when-
ever condi ti ons cal l for i t. A good commander knows
enough about the vari ous fi el ds under hi s command
that he knows when to cal l for assi stance, whom to
cal l to gi ve i t, and how to i ntegrate i t i nto the overal l
operati ons of the army. Commanders l i ke thi s are
rare. They must be wi del y read. They must unders-
tand the whol e pi cture. They must be abl e to spot
producti ve subordi nates. They need to be abl e to si ft
through the i rrel evant detai l s to l ocate the rel evant
detai l s. They have to act fhst. They have to act
deci si vel y. They have to bear ftdl responsi bi l i ty for
thei r deci si ons. Wi thout peopl e l i ke these, no army
can be vi ctori ous.
Our overwhel mi ng advantage as Chri sti ans i s
that we have such a Supreme Al l i ed Commander.
God hus knowle~e of the whole and the detaais. He knows
where every subordi nate i s, what he can accompl i sh,
and how he can be used best. God knows both the
whol e and the parti cul ars. Satan, though a powerful
creature, cannot know the whol e and the parti cul ars.
Satan i s l i ke a juggl er who i s havi ng an i ncreasi ng
number of oranges tossed at hi m. He i s juggl i ng
furi ousl y, but God keeps tossi ng i n more and more
oranges. Satan doesnt have the abi l i ty to match God
on the battl efi el d. Besi des, he i s sufferi ng from the
effects of a mortal bl ow. He i s a bl eedi ng, overworked
juggl er .
What we need to do as subordi nate offi cers i s to
prepare ourselves for the upcoming battles. We need to be
fi t servants. We need to spend ti me masteri ng at
l east one area, whi l e mai ntai ni ng at l east a passi ng
knowl edge of both the fi mdamental s of the fhi th
and the general dri ft of the two ki ngdoms. We need
to be abl e to appl y our knowl edge to speci i i c situa-
ti ons. As Peter tol d us: But sancti fy the Lord God i n
your hearts: and be ready al ways to gi ve an answer
A STRATEQY FOR 00MINION =
to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope
that i s i n you wi th meekness and fea# (I Peter 3:15).
Meekness and fear are toward God, not men; be-
cause men are meek before God, they can be cofi -
dent i n the face of the chal l enges the worl d di rects at
them. And the si~ of a man who is meek Z@ore God is his
knowledge of Godi requirements @r him. As Peter went
on, Havi ng a good consci ence; that, whereas they
speak evi l of you, as of evi l doers, they may be
ashamed that fal sel y accuse your good conversati on
i n Chri st (I Peter 3:16). When we know what God
wants fmm us, we can di sci pl i ne oursel ves so that we
wi l l be abl e to provi de whatever i t i s, whenever He
cal l s for i t.
There i s no earthl y Supreme Al l i ed Commander.
There i s no absol utel y soverei gn human i nsti tuti on.
Yet there i s al so no supreme demoni c commander on
earth. He, too, i s l i mi ted by peopl e who are not
qui te sure what thei r job i s, or how to get i t done.
Both commanders are l i mi ted by thei r troops: God
by choi ce, and Satan by necessi ty. Chri sti ans spend
too much ti me worryi ng about the strength of Satan
when compared to themsel ves, but the probl em i s
not i n mans weakness. God i s absol utel y soverei gn.
He has no probl em. He has pl enty of ti me. He can
bi de hi s ti me. Satan cant. We shot.dd compare the
strengths of the two supreme commanders. Then we wi l l
get the proper perspecti ve.
God bi ded Hi s ti me wi th the Canaani tes. He
gave them some extra rope to hang themsel ves wi th.
He l et them M up the cup of thei r i ni qui ty. Then He
smashed them. The Arnori tes are gone. The Jebusi tes
384 uNcoNDmoNAL SURRENDER
are gone. The Hi tti tes are gone. The Egypti ans are
al most al l gone; mostl y Arabs now l i ve i n Egypt.
The I srael i tes persi st i n thei r i nfl uence, al though
many, i f not most, of those cal l i ng themsel ves I srael -
i tes today are real l y descendants of caucasi an con-
verts, the Khazar ki ngdom of the medi eval peri od,
before the Russi ans conquered them. Onl y the
I srael i tes persi st i n i nfl uence. God wi l l deal wi th
them as a peopl e agai n (Remans n). The rest of the
anci ent ki ngdoms are gone. God can afford to bi de
Hi s ti me. Satans ki ngdoms ri se and fal l , but Gods
peopl e persi st, i ncreasi ng thei r numbers, and pre-
pari ng (though few seem to real i ze i t) for the estab-
l i shment of Gods comprehensi ve, uni versal ki n-
gdom, i n ti me and on earth.
Concl usi on
The i nternati onal ki ngdom of God must be decen-
tralized. No new tower of Babel wi l l do Chri sti ans
any good. We recogni ze the permanence of nati onal
di sti ncti ons, al though thi s or that nati on i s i mperma-
nent. We can have no Supreme Al l i ed Commander
on earth, gi vi ng di recti ons, and promoti ng us i n a
l i teral army or bureaucracy. But person by person,
church by church, occupati on by occupati on, nati on
by nati on, the worl d i s to be brought under the do-
mi ni on of God.
The pro~am of conquest must be pri mari l y educa-
tional. So then fai th cometh by heari ng, and heari ng
by the word of God (Remans 10:17). But heari ng i s
not enough. But be ye doers of the word, and not
hear er s onl y, decei vi ng your own sel ves. For i f any be a
A STRATEGY FOR DOMINION 9*
hearer of the word, and not a doer, he i s l i ke unto a
man behol di ng hi s natural face i n a gl ass [mi rror]:
for he behol deth hi msel f, and goeth hi s way, and
strai ghtway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
But whoso l ooketh i nto the perfect l aw of l i berty, and
conti nueth therei n, he bei ng not a forgetfhl hearer,
but a doer of the work, thi s man shal l be bl essed i n
hi s deed (James 1:22-25).
The message of domi ni on i s se~-govemnwnt under
Godt Zuw, by the grace of God, through fai th i n Jesus
Chri st, and Hi m cr uci l i ed. Nothi ng l ess wi l l suffi ce.
We need organi zati ons. They must be hierarchical i n
structure, but not pri mari l y bureaucrati c. They
must be more l i ke courts of l aw, wi th rul es on top,
and supervi sors who i ssue judgments i n a hi erar-
chi cal chai n, but the rul ers are onl y to munage by ar-
ception. They are to handl e the probl ems that ari se
from bel ow, not i mpose a command system from the
top. I snt thi s Gods way? Dont we face a day of fi nal
judgment? Doesnt God gi ve us spheres of i nfl uence,
for whi ch we are fi l l y responsi bl e? I snt the &vel oP-
ment of maturtty based on the progress of se@z.st~
over time, through tri al s and tri bul ati ons?
Then l et us stop l ongi ng for a cosmi c mi racl e to
bai l us out. The bl essed hope we shoul d have i s
Chri sts return i n power and gl ory, as the capstone of
hi story, when He wi l l del i ver up a completid ki ngdom
to Hi s father, after He has put down al l Hi s op-
ponents (I Cori nthi ans 15:24-26). He wi l l not del i ver
up an unl eavened l oaf as a peace offeri ng to God,
but a fi ne l oaf, fi dl y l eavened, fi .dl y ri sen (Levi ti cus
7:13), ready for that fi nal baki ng. The satani c
386 UWONDMWM suRRENDaR
l eaven, Satans ki ngdom, He has reserved for burn-
i ng. Satans ki ngdom i s bei ng repl aced by Gods
l eavened dough.
Let us eat no more unl eavened bread. The sacri -
fi ce i s over. Let us eat no more bi tter herbs. Let us
dri nk the wi ne of cel ebrati on. Chri st i s our Passover.
We no l onger l ook for an overni ght del i verance from
bondage, as the Hebrews di d. We are free men, am-
bassadors of Chri st, bri ngi ng to the ki ngdom of
Satan Gods peace treaty, and i ts terms are si mpl e:
unconditional surrena%r. The vi ctory, i n pri nci pl e, i s
over. And I appoi nt unto you a ki ngdom, as my
Father bath appoi nted unto me; that ye may eat and
dri nk at my tabl e i n my ki ngdom, and si t on thrones
judgi ng the twel ve tri bes of I srael (Luke 22:29-30).
We are the judges. We shal l judge the angel s
(I Cori nthi ans 6:3). Why shoul d we conti nue to si t
qui etl y, huddl ed i n our ti ny congregati onal for-
tresses, as i f Satan were about to sound hi s trumpet,
and we were defendi ng the l ast outpost? The next
ti me Satan tri es that stunt wi l l be the day of judg-
ment for hi m. Unti l then, he i s i n a defensi ve battl e.
Let us make i t hot for him. Let hi m get a foretaste of
thi ngs to come. Let us get the si gnatures of the bul k
of hi s fol l owers on the peace treaty whi ch God offers
to al l peopl e who wi l l surrender uncondi ti onal l y.
SUMMARY OF PART Ill
Get to work.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
W i s Cl n_i sti ani ~? Thats a tough questi on. You
mi ght want to answer i t /zi stonca/@. What has i t been,
and what i s i t today? That approach wi l l take a l i fe-
ti me of work, and i t wi l l make a pessi mi st out of al most
anyone who attempts i t. Chri sti ani ty i s a l ot of
thi ngs hi stori cal l y. But i t has general l y been a rel i g-
i on of thi s worl d a rel i gi on based on conquest, to
one extent or another, a rel i gi on of expl orati on and
domi ni on. I t has al so been a rel i gi on of the wri tten
word, of creeds and tracts and theol ogi cal treati ses.
I t has been a rel i gi on that has stressed commi tment
to a soverei gn God who i ntervenes i n the processes
of ti me.
Wi at i s Christianity? Thi s questi on can al so be
answered t/zeo/ogi ca/~. Thats what I ve tri ed to do i n
thi s l i ttl e book. I have l ooked at i mportant questi ons
that Chri sti ani ty has answers for: What i s God?
What i s man? What i s l aw? And what do our
answers have i mpl i cati ons for: fami l y, church, state,
economy? What does the Bi bl e tel l us about these
aspects of human thought and cul ture? I n other
392 uNcoNDmoNAL SURRSNDSR
words, what difiwnce can Chri sti ani ty make i n thi s
wor l d?
Here are a few of the i mportant themes of thi s
book. I f my arguments are general l y fai thfi l to the
Bi bl e, then these themes are bi bl i cal themes:
The Tri ni ty (One and Many si mul taneousl y)
The Tri ni ty (ontol ogi cal and economi cal )
The soverei gnty of God: predesti nati on and
provi dence
The personal i sm of creati on (cosmi c personal i sm)
The i mage of God i n man
Mans subordi nati on to God (personal and l egal )
Natures subordi nati on to man
Mans ethi cal rebel l i on: total depravi ty
The two sonshl ps: natural and eti l cal (adopti on)
The curse of nature (scarci ty)
Hol i ness (set apart-ness): God and man
Sal vati on: defi ni ti ve, progressi ve, fi nal
Sal vati on: justi fi cati on, sancti fi cati on, domi ni on
Bi bl i cal l aw: judi ci al , moral , domi ni cal
Natures restorati on under l aw
Gods peace treaty: surrender and conquer
The i mpossi bi l i ty of neutral i ty
Resti tuti on
Decentral i zati on (anti -pyrami d)
Sel f-government under bi bl i cal l aw (responsi bi l i ty)
Courts of appeal (hi erarchi es)
Mul ti pl e soverei gnti es (competi ti on and cooperati on)
Gods l aw and Gods l ove: correl ati ve
Covenants and sacraments
Bureaucracy vs. responsi bi l i ty
cmauwor t 3S3
Del egated authori ty and domi ni on
Gods l aws vs. Satans l aws
Gods l aw and economi c growth
Satans l aws and poverty
Ki ngdoms as l eaven: growth and maturi ty
Evangel i sts as ambassadors
Evangel i sts as educators
Strategy and tacti cs (Gods omni sci ence)
The l ast outpost: Gods or Satans
The basi c theme, as i t appl i es to man, i s redwned
mans domi ni on over creati on, i n ti me and on earth.
I t i s not the vi ctory of Satan, i n ti me and on earth.
My hope i s that a growi ng number of Chri sti ans
wi l l begi n to take seri ousl y Gods domi ni on assi gn-
ment. They wi l l take seri ousl y Hi s l aw. They wi l l
take seri ousl y the bi bl i cal teachi ng of the conti nui ty
of vi ctory, i n ti me and on earth. They wi l l then begi n
to trai n themsel ves for the battl e. They wi l l start
readi ng more and getti ng i nvol ved i n the battl es
confronti ng the ki ngdom of God. They wi l l begi n to
take personal responsi bi l i ty for appl yi ng Gods l aw
to thei r area of personal i nfl uence.
There are four kinds of sheep i n thi s worl d: rams
that l ead, ewes that fol l ow, wanderi ng sheep that get
sheared, and l ost sheep that get roasted. What I m
recommendi ng to al l of Gods sheep i s that they
ei ther become rams or fol l ow rams. I m convi nced
that the overwhel mi ng majori ty of Chri sts sheep i n
thi s century are wanderi ng sheep who are fol l owi ng
equal l y l ost sheep, and they are certai n to get shorn
by the enemy. We have adopted a theolo~ of inevitable
394 uNeoNDl noNAL WRREWER
sheanng and a psycholo~ of the about-to-be-shorn. Unti l
we adopt a theol ogy of vi ctori ous head-butti ng, mak-
i ng rams of our herd rather than dri fti ng sheep, we
wi l l not escape our pl i ght. God wi l l al l ow thi s gener-
ati on to be sheared.
I i ntend to do my best to butt my head agai nst
the satani c goat and hi s ki ngdom. I suggest that you
do the same. I f I di dnt have compl ete confi dence i n
the Good Shepherd, I woul dnt ri sk the headaches. I f
I werent convi nced that He has del egated head-
butti ng responsi bi l i ti es to Hi s sheep, I woul dnt ad-
vocate the effort. But He i s trustworthy, He di d del e-
gate the assi gnment, and He di d promi se vi ctory to
Hi s sheep. I fi gure the best way not to get sheared i s
to butt heads wi th the enemy, not run wi l dl y i nto the
enem~s pens. I ts a shame that so many professi onal
wanderi ng sheep have adopted a theol ogy whi ch tel l s
them that bei ng sheared i s i nevi tabl e, or even more
i mprobabl y, that Chri st wi l l secretl y sneak down and
unl ock the gate of the pen to l et Hi s sheep out, when
nobody el se i s l ooki ng. The best advi ce I can gi ve
you i s to shy out of the pen in thejrstplace. Lets bui l d a
pen for the goats. They bel ong i n the pen, not us.
One of the aspects of modern Chri sti ani ty that
most di scourages me i s the unwi l l i ngness of Chri s-
ti ans to di sci pl i ne themsel ves to read. Thi s i s true
even of pastors, who shoul d be the l eaders i n any
program of Chri sti an reconstructi on. Judai sm has
emphasi zed the i mportance of educati on and l i fe-
l ong readi ng, and the resul t has been the i nfl uence of
Jews i n modern l i fe way out of proporti on to thei r
numbers. But thi s i s preci sel y what we shoul d ex-
CONCLUSION *5
pect: bl essi ngs i n terms of Gods requi rements.
Chri sti ans sel dom read. They read si mpl e thi ngs
when they read at al l . Thi s i s sl owl y begi nni ng to
change as the Chri sti an school movement grows, but
i t i s l i ke movi ng an i ceberg. I l l -i nformed peopl e can-
not take effecti ve l eadershi p posi ti ons. Unti l we are
wi l l i ng to read, as a peopl e, we wi l l be the fol l owers
rather than the l eaders. Unti l we are ready and wi l l -
i ng to offer systemati c al ternati ves to the worl d of
humani sm workabl e, wel l -thought-out al ternati ves
we wi l l remai n capti ves, just as surel y as the
Hebrews were capti ves i n Egypt, Assyri a, Babyl on,
and Medo-Persi a. The pri ce of our del i verance i s
our wi l l i ngness to master the Bi bl e, whi ch i n turn
means masteri ng the worl d, for the Bi bl e i s an al l -
encompassi ng document cal l i ng men to a progmun of
comprehensi ve domi ni on.
The books and materi al s are avai l abl e. Each
Chri sti an shoul d at l east be wi l l i ng to master hi s own
cal l i ng, meani ng the publ i shed materi al s i n hi s pro-
fessi on. He shoul d be readi ng steadi l y to see what
the Bi bl e has to say to hi m concerni ng hi s work.
Thats the mi ni mum requi rement. But the task i s
broader than thi s. We must be speci al i sts and gener-
al i sts si mul taneousl y. He who reads can usual l y
teach. He who teaches gai ns i nfl uence. The teacher,
i f he has prepared hi msel f, has taken PeteFs words
seri ousl y: But sancti fy the Lord God i n your hearts:
and be ready al ways to gi ve an answer to every man
that asketh you a reason of the hope that i s i n you
wi th meekness and fear (I Peter 3:15).
I have recommended books for further readi ng
fol l owi ng the i ndexes. Thats al l I can do. The rest i s
up to you.
INDEXES
1
1:2
1:3
1:11-12
1:14-16
1:24
1:2425
1:26
1:26-28
2:5
2:7
2:10-14
2:15
2:17
2:19-20
2:20
3:4
3:5
3:8
3:12
3:13
3:15
3:17-19
3:21
3:22
3:24
4
4:4
9:1-7
SCRIPTURE INDEX
OLD TESTAMENT
134, 162
28
15
16
133
184
85, 112
27, 36
35, 136f. , 177,
336, 343
37
35
39
39
41, 85
177
38
40
20, 40
28
52
52
41
52
56
62, 138
344
61
27
162, 177, 336
Genesi s
9:15-17
11
11:7
12:1-3
15:2-3
15:13-16
15:16
15:18
17:1
17:23
18:32
19:26
25:23
25:29-34
27:1-7
31:1
31:36-42
32:24-30
34
39
39:6
39:22
41
41:34
41:38-43
41:40-43
47:24
Exodus
5
313
257
28
190
189
355
359
51
22
211
111
336
338, 340
338
348
291
291
207
213
291
339
339
292
239
291
339
239
33
Exodus
8:7
8:18
12:8
12:11
12:13
12:15
12:26-27
16:15
16:31-35
18:20-22
18:25-26
19:6
20:1-17
20:5
20:6
20:12
21:15
21:17
21:19
21:22-25
21:24-25
21:30
22:5-6
22:18-20
22:19
23:10-11
23:25
23:25-26
23:26
23:29-30
32:32
Levi ti cus
2:13
3
7:13
13
13:3-44
13:45-46
334
334
316
218
218
228, 316
200, 220
359
359
252
253
200
367
24, 149
149
142, 184, 286
118
118
117
348
116
117
281
118
282
112
144
286
144
108
373
336
300
316, 385
243 f., 280
244
245
Levi ti cus
13:57
14
14:35
19:1-2
19:29
19:36
20:7
20:10
20:13
20:26
23:17
25:8-17
25:25
Numbers
14
14:6-10
14:24
20:7-11
245
243f. , 280
245
22
282
282
22
118, 282
282
23
316
338
140
124
353
353
222
Deuter onomy
4:5-8 90,99, 121, 148
6 190
6:4 29
6:6-7 181, 251
7:6-8 113
8 58, 101, 207,
284, 337
8:10-17 287
8:10-20 59
8:11 105
8:11-20 320
8:17-18 105
8:18 148
8:19-20 103, 288
10:17-19 204
14:26 223
14:28-29 188
16:20 142
Deuter onomy
19:6
19:15
20:10-11
20:10-13
20:10-15
20:12-15
21:17
22:8
22:23-24
24:5
28
28:1-14
28:15-68
31:10-13
32:21
34
Joshua
2
2:8-11
2:9-11
2:12-13
5:12
Judges
1
1:2
2:34
9:45
I Samuel
8:5-20
16:15-23
17
18:10-11
19:10
23:7-8
14)
226
340
98
358
340
186
281
118
298
58>101, 207,
284, 337
138, 166
15, 102, 137,
166
251
340
346
99
362
358
373
359
362
108
345
336
238
291
291
291
291
291
ScRI PTu= l NDDt
I Samuel
23:15 291
24:17-20 291
I I Samuel
12:14 91, 101
I Ki ngs
18:21 159
11 Ki ngs
6:15-20 333
I Chroni cl es
26:21 245
29:14 260
11 Chr oni cl es
ZO:1O-1Y
Jot
1:6-12
28:28
38-41
42
Psal ms
24:1
24:1-2
51:5
90:1-2
90:10
94:12
119:9-12
127:3-5
139:7-8
Proverbs
1:7
11:14
Z43
365
44
251
63, 162,
63
259, 338
17
96
19
145
74
88
180, 286
18
251
347
4ol
357
Pr over bs
13:22
19:18
21:1
22:6
Eccl esi zstes
12:18
I sai ah
6:9-10
28:13
43:13
45:5-7
53:45
55:8-9
57:15
W6
65
65:17
65:17-25
65:20
65:24
{*zb
Matthew
3:13-16
4
4:8-10
5:5
5:13
5:14
5:1416
5:15-16
5:17
337
74
19
182
251
310
115
19
136
25
17
17
27
286
144, 341
146
14, 341
144
97
fyph
31;32-34
31:34
50:34
Ezeki el
1:3
36:24-37
36:26-27
Dani el
3, 4
5, 6
Amos
3:2
Jonah
3:5-1o
Mal achi
3:6
NEW TESTAMENT
Matthew
211 5:17-18
54, 86 5:48
230 6:10
100 6:11
336 6:24
340 6:32
258 6:33
340 7:12
373 7:15-19
98
208
252
112
112
217
66
3
103
24
111, 213
85
86
22
137
318
47
232
232, 286
295
89
Matthew
7:16
10:3436
12:25
12:30
12:38-41
13:3-8
13:3-23
13:11
13:15
13:24-30
13:29-30
13:30
13:31-32
13:33
13:3435
13:37,39
13:37-42
13:43
13:4446
16:18
16:25-26
18:15-17
18:18
18:23-35
20:27-28
21:33-41
21:43
22:14
22:30
24:6
24:35
24:37-39
25:1430
25:15-16
25:20-23
25:41
26:11
28:18-20
111
123
167
122
217
197
309
310
310
310
150
100
309, 315
315
310
150f.
311
311
309
42, 83, 329
7
226
233
309
141, 291
338
154
65
87, 195
319
85, 156
313
309, 338
278
279
42
285
140, 306, 330,
369
Matthew
28:20
Mar k
2:22
9:48
9:49
13:31-32
1436
14:61-64
Luke
1:36
2:2-4
2:49
3:38
10:33-35
12:42-48
12:48
14:28-30
16:1-8
22:12
22:26
22:29-30
2446-47
John
1:1
1:1-5
1:3
1:10-12
1:13
2
3:3
3:6-8
3:36
6:38
6:38-40
6:44
10
373
108
336
336, 361
30
30
30
211
259
140
76
185
259
139
275
259
217
206
218, 386
70
157
60
157
60
69
223
67
67
138
14Q
155
:;2
404 UNCONDI TI ONAL SURRENDER
$?7
.
14:2
14:6
14:26
15:12
15:17
16:7
16:13
21:15-17
Acts
1:8-9
2:41-42
5:26-29
6
6:2
8:36
8:38
13:48
16:33
17:26-28
25:11
28:27
Romam
1:18
1:18-20
1:18-25
2:14-15
2:15
3:20
3:23
3:24
3:31
4:11-12
5:6-8
5:12
6:1-2
6:23
217
198
31
28
202
202
28, 174
29, 174
352
372
219
240
352
198
209
199
70
211, 215
61
118
311
59
91, 97
48-49
97, 121
373
73
46
73
93
214
25
46
93
46
Remans
7
7:7
7:7-12
7:9
7:22-23
7:23-25
8:1-4
8:7
8:13-15
8:19-23
8:26
8:29
8:30
8:33-34
8:38-41
9
9:7-8
9:11
9:11-15
9:15-16
10:8-10
10:17
10:19
11
11:11
11:12
11:25
11:36
12:18
12:19
13:1-3
13:4-7
13:5
13:7
13:10
337
89
92
142
110
224
142
89
62
81
29
71
72
72
65
357
214
214
95
137
63
384
340
384
340
341
341
19
240
235
235
235f.
240
240
204
I Cori nthi ans
1:18 67
1:27 66
I Cori nthi ans
1:29
2:14
3
5:7
6:2-3
6:3
6:5-7
7
7:2
7%
7:14
7:29
7:32-33
9:24
10:1-4
11:8-9
11:11-12
11:21
11:29
12
14:34-35
15:14
15:24-26
15:28
15:45
15:50
15:52
66
67, 70
72
217
225
332, 386
225
195
196
195f.
212
195
196
71
222
177
178
219
221
206, 221
201
152
149, 232, 385
140
116
328
321, 327
I I Cori nthi ans
3:17 174
5:17 67
5:21 76
6:14 90, 193
9 207
Gal ati ans
3:10 94
3:13 94, 141
Gal ati ans
3:16
3:16-18
3:16-19
3:24
6:16
Ephesi ans
1:3-6
1:4
1:4-5
2:1-10
2:8
2:8-9
2:10
2:11-13
4:11
4:14-16
5:11
5:14-16
5:22-28
6:11
6:14-17
6:19-20
Phi l i ppi ans
2:4-8
2:12
3:14
3:20
Col ossi ans
1:15-17
1:23
2:9
3:18-21
214
190
355
89, 110
208
45
198
63, 65
64
70
225
74
208
199
203
90
142, 157
179
337
337
99
32
81, 261, 267
71
18
157
372 ~
140
179
I I Thessal oni ans
3:10 245
I Ti mothy
1:4
2:12-14
2:14
3:2-12
3:10-11
5
5:3-13
5:14
6:10
I I Timothy
1:9
4:7-8
Ti tus
2:14
Hebr ews
1:10-12
5:8-9
8
8:5
8:8-1o
8:10
8:11
9:27
10
10:10
10:12-14
12:1
12:6
James
1:17
1:22-24
1:22-25
2:10
2:17-18
I Peter
1:3-5
259
201
50, 179
181
199
207
188
196
203
45
71
141
20
141
210
370
209
217
252
130
210
115
115
71, 111
74
374
4
385
68
110
71
I Peter
1:22
2:9
3:1
3:6
3:7
3:15
3:16
I I Peter
2:1-2
3:10-13
I John
1:5
1:6-10
3:4
3:14
3:16
4:8
Revel ati on
1:18
6:10
9:1-5
11:15
12:4
12:5-12
12:9
20
20:7-9
20:7-10
20:9-10
20:14
20:14-15
21
21:7
21:8
21:24, 26
21:27
22:2
202
200, 222
178
178
178, 179
383, 395
383
198
328
E
26
202
202
13
329
332
334
140
333
231
20
104
343
320, 370
320, 343
26, 149, 229,
344
145
86
137
138
114
373
114, 150, 344
Abel , 27, 58, 61
Aborti on, 348
Abraham, 111, 187, 189-191,
207, 350
ci rcumci si on, 211, 216
Abundance, 58
Accounti ng, 279
Adam, 59, 108, 142, 201
assi gnment, 53, 57 f., 207,
297
basi c tr ai ni ng, 55
cal l i ng, 39, 53, 57 f., 177
curse, 51ff., 59
i ntel l i gence, 56
ori gi nal si n, 25, 40ff., 45f.,
54, 75, 80, 138f., 143,
156ff.
pri est, 298
tested Gods word, 20,
42f., 105
treaty, 96
Adopti on, 45, 60ff., 75 f.,
79ff. , 105, 338
Adul tery, 118, 282, 299
Afri ca, 323
Ai r, 262
Al l ocati on, 264
Ami l l enni al i sm, 145, 147, 153,
167
Ambassador, 99f., 107, 108,
210, 218, 231, 358, 368,
375f.
Amori tes, 345
Anarchy, 254f., 268f., 282
&dS, 50, 55, 150, 311, 332,
333, 343, 386
AlltiS, 85
Answers, 4f.
Anti chri st, 152
Anti nomi ani sm, 268, 375
Ari stotl e, 15
Army, 329ff., 353
Athei sm, 21
Athl ete, 71
Atonement, 24f., 50, 92, 164
Aucti on, 277
Authori ty, 347ff.
del egated, 348 f., 372
structure of, 267
Autonomy, 240, 253, 366
Babel , 257
Babyl on, 103, 112, 122, 317
Bal ance i n soci ety, 298, 304
Bapti sm, 211
Basi c trai ni ng, 55f.
Bathsheba, 91
Bel shazzar, 104
Besti al i ty, 282
408 UNCONDMONAL SURRENDER
Bi g Bang, 132
Bi tter herbs, 316
Bl essi ngs, 141, 146, 147, 149, 154,
166, 307, 337, 340ff.
Bl oomsbtuy Gr oup, 284
Boot (Xl l p, 370
Born agai n, 67
Brotherhood of man, 61
Bureaucracy, 195, 199, 224,
246f. , 351 f., 356
Bystanders, 281
Cai n, 59, 61
Cal eb, 124, 308, 353f.
Cal l i ng, 38, 47, 55, 65ff., 267
Cal vary, 110, 143
Canaan, 23, 108, 257, 308, 338,
346, 354f.
Canaani tes, 262,288,331, 358f.,
383
Capi tal , 264, 338f.
growth, 191
preservati on, 189
Capi tal puni shment, i 18f., 254f.
Carni val , 265
Cel ebrati on, 219, 223
Central i zati on, 246, 256f., 323
Chaos festi val s, 265
Chari ti es, 192
Chari ty, 207, 247
Chi l dnzm
domi ni on, 191
Lords Supper, 220ff.
tool of domi ni on, 181
Choi ce, 264, 303
Chri st
Commander, 365
di vi ne, 229ff.
l aw of God, 75f., 86f.
perfect man, 70, 73, 141
resti tuti on, 124
substi tuti on, 26, 94, 165
Chri sti an reconstructi on, 9, 394
Chri sti an soci al i sm, 188
Chur ch, 42, 197ff.
agency of domi ni on, 223
bureaucracy, 199
Chri sts l ove, 178
communi ty, 202ff.
di vi si on of l abor , 206
doctri ne, 202f.
eschatol ogi cal , 198
excommuni cati on, 226ff.
hi erarchy, 198
hi stori cal , 198
i mpotence, 305
i nfal l i bl e, 271
i nsti tuti onal , 197
i nvi si bl e, 197
ki ngdom and, 230K.
l eadershi p, 206
offi ces, 198ff.
sacraments, 211ff.
soci al cl ub, 228
vi si bl e, 167
women offi cers, 201
Ci rcumci si on, 211, 213, 216
Ci ti zenshi p, 18
Ci ty on hal l , 90, 258, 340
Ci vi l government, 300
Cl ean sl ate, 95
Cl ock, 16
Coer ci on, 27i f.
Col l ecti ve, 206
Col l ecti ves, l l l f.
Commander-i n-Chi ef, 40, 53 f.,
383
Commanders, 383
Communi on, 27; see Lords
Supper
Communi sm, 8
Communi st party, 241
Competi ti on, 276
Compl exi ty, 256f.
Compound i nterest, 192
Confessi on, 26
Conquest, 107f.
Consci ence, 240f.
Consumer, 269f., 273, 280
Conti nui ty, 157, 326f.
h~story, 223, 312ff. , 316ff. ,
321, 342, 366
vi ctory, 256, 359, 363, 366
Conti nui ty of defeat, 345
Control , 87
Co-operati on, 58, 297
Cosmi c chess, 42
Cosmi c cl ocks, 133
Cosmi c egg, 14
Cosmi c personal i sm, 132, 161f.
Costs, 275 f., 281, 293
Court of l aw, 73
cour ts, 348
Covenant, 147, 207i T.
church, 229f.
fami l y, 211f.
si gn, 214
str uctur e, 135ff., 155f.
CovenantaI i sm, 175
Creati on, 14ff., 130-134
personal , 36f.
Cr eator , 14ff.
Creator-creature di sti ncti on,
17ff., 131, 161
Cross, 109, 205
Curse
of ground, 57 f., 247, 264, 287
of l aw, 93, 141
of ti me, 139
removal of. 80f.
Imax 409
Curses, 114, 166
Cycl es of ti me, 132
Dar i us, 103
Darwi n, Darwi ni sm, 131, 134
Davi d, 91, 291
Day, 15f.
Day of judgment, 229f.
Death, 44, 76, 149, 152
Decapi tal i zati on, 338
Decentral i zati on, 174f., 252,
256f. , 266, 349
chur ch teachi ng, 376
Defeat, 366f.
Defecti ons, 335
Defi ni ti ve sancti fi cati on, 70
Dei sm, 18
Del egati on, 347ff., 371f.
Depravi ty, 68, 297
Depressi on, 289f.
Despai r, 249, 251
Devi l , 20
Devol uti on, 56
Di nah, 125
Di sci pl i ne, 223 f., 369
market, 278, 294
Di sconti nui ty, 312ff., 350f., 356
Di si nheri tance, 62, 83, 96
Di vi ne ri ght, 268, 283
Di vi si on of l abor, 195, 206, 248,
252, 267, 280, 304
Dr. God, 19
Doctri ne, 203
Domi ni on, 35, 77, 279
del egati on, 349, 371
evangel i sm, 378
i mage of God, 36ff.
i mpul se, 354
l aw and, 114, 337, 362
Lords Supper, 219
marri age, 195
popul ati on and, 286
servi ce and, 291
sonshi p and, 76f.
subordi nati on, 47, 339, 365
whose?, 317
Domi ni on ass&nment, 57, 81,
162, 177, 329, 344, 347E. , 372
Domi ni on covenamt, 35, 162,
207, 209, 229
Domi ni on man, 48, 77,324,327,
353
Doubl e porti on, 186
Dough, 317f. , 325f.
Drunkenness, 219
Earth, fl at, 128
Economi c commentary, i x
Economi c good, 263
Economi c growth, 286
Economi c justi ce, 288
Eden, 38 f., 57, 95, 265, 297,
323, 344
Educati on, 182 f., 394
Egypt, 109, 122, 123, 239, 316f.,
334
Egypti ans, 21, 33
El ecti on, 60, 65f., 96
El i jah, 159
Emperor, 7
Enemi es of God, 97
Entrepreneurs, 278, 291
Envi ronmental i sm, 52, 54
Envy, 272, 294
Esau, 187, 214, 338, 348
Eschatol ogy, 357, 366
Ethi cs, 23, 42, 46, 51, 83, 137,
167, 335, 354
EtMopi an eunuch, 215
Evangel i sm, 120f., 377
Eve, 20, 38
Evi l , 312
Evol uti on, 21, 32, 56
Excommuni cati on, 227f., 233
Expl oi tati on, 272, 277
Eye for eye, l 16ff.
Factory, 280
Facts, 37
Fai th, 63f., 69f., 79, 110, 190,
193
Fal l , 40E. , 249 (see Adam)
Fal se teachers, 197f.
Fami l y
capi tal , 189f.
capi tal puni shment, 118
Chri st di vi des, 122f.
chur ch ofi ce, 181f.
domi ni on, 38f., 194, 196
fel l owshi p, 194f.
future-ori entati on, 190
hi erarchy, 92, 178f.
judgment, 181
Lords Supper, 218f.
mutual obl i gati ons, 183f.
name, 193
sel f-government, 188
trai ni ng, 181f., 376
trustee, 98ff. , 189ff.
war agai nst, 207, 298
wel far e agency, 184ff., 188f.
Fatherhood of God, 61
Fear of God, 251f.
Feeney, Father, 227
Fel l owshi p, 25
Fi re, 318, 328
Fi rstborn, 218
Fi rst-frui ts, 317
Fl ood, 143, 152, 156, 162, 313,
342
INDX Ml
Forgi veness, 25
Forei gn ai d, 288
Four Gs, i x
Frankl i n, 337
Freedom, 293, 298, 360
Free market, 268f. (see Market)
Frui t, 89
Frui ts, l l of.
Funeral , 220
Future, 278, 293
Future ori entati on, 190
Gambl i ng, 192
Gates of hel l , 42 f., 82f., 123,364
Goat, 394
ri ml y of, 54f. , 323, 353
Commander, 40, 53ff.
court of l aw, 73
Creator, 14ff.
Dr., 19
enemi es of, 97f.
fatherhood of, 61
fear of, 251f.
forgi veness, 25
hol i ness, 22 f., 87
Hol y Spi ri t, 27ff., 174 (see
Hol y Spi ri t)
i mage of, 35ff., 61, 65, 83,
162f.
jeal ous, 24
justi ce, 303
ki ngdom of, 104
l aw of, 67, 73, 75 f., 209f.
l ove, 13f., 202f.
mercy of, 98, 303
one-many, 33, 206, 262, 304,
347
ownershi p, 16f., 259f.
personal , 27, 37
Persons, 27tl
promi se, 189
promi ses, 191
property, 23, 36
provi dence, 16, 32
soverei gnty, 16, 36, 38, 63,
175,180, 263,297,347,357
Tri ni ty, 27ff., 112, 198, 262
WOrd of, 43f. , 85
Gol d, 290
Good Samari tan, 185
Gospel , 92, 108
Government, ci vi l , 300
Grace, 63, 69, 105, 138
Grape jui ce, 109, 220
Great commi ssi on, 306, 330,
361, 368f.
Growth, 149, 303, 314ff., 325
Gui l t, 288
Hagar, 214
Haran, 189
Harmony, 295
Hear t, 17,66,70, 217f., 310,373
Heat death, 132, 143
Heaven, 18, 82
Hebrews, 23,108, 111
Hel l , 42,51,77, 93 f., 329ff., 336
Hel pmeet, 38f.
Heroi n, 282
Hi erarchy, 178, 198, 236, 253,
258,267, 269,280, 294,348,
351, 385
Hi gh pri est, 29, 239
Hi story, 9, 72, 115, 132H.
conti nui ty, 168, 366 (see
Conti nui ty)
dynami c, 362, 367
Hi vi tes, 213
Hol i ness, 22ff., 87, 89f., 212
412 UNCONDnlONAL SURRENmR
Hol y Spi ri t, 28ff., 152, 153, 157,
174
Homosexual i ty, 282, 284
Househol ds, 213, 220
Hughes, Archi bal d, 146
Humani sm, 182, 250
Humi l i ty, 17
Hypocri sy, 91, 93
I dol s, 217
I mage of God, 35ff., 49f., 57,83,
131, 162
hatred of, 61
twi sted, 49, 65
I ncest, 282
I nheri tance, 62, 83, 137, 154,
186f.
I nsti tute for Chri sti an
Economi cs, i x
I nvestment, 192
I saac, 186, 214, 348
I shmael , 187, 214
I sl am, 362
I sr ael , 113, 207, 318, 340
Jacob, 94,187,207, 214,338
Jeal ousy, 340
Jer i cho, 289,358
JerusaI em, fal l of, 145
Jethm, 252
Jews, 193,306,340
Job, 343
Jonah, 120,213,217
Jordan, James, x
Jordan Ri ver, 354
Joseph, 103,139,339
Joshua, 124, 353 f., 362
Jubi l ee, 338
Judge, 43
Judges, 89, 218,225,386
Judgment, 89,130,137, 368
fi nal , 129, 132, 151, 313, 321
nati onal , 283
Justi ce, 225,288,303
Justi fi cati on, 72ff.
Karma, 129f.
Keynes, J. M., 264, 284
Ki ngdom, 82, 99, 218
bureaucrati c?, 351
central i zed, 323
chur ch and, 230ff.
i nternal , 356
i nternati onal , 231
mans, 238
Satans, 42, 123
vi si bl e, 231f.
whol e worl d, 341f.
Ki ngdom of God, 104
bureaucracy?, 352
comprehensi ve, 360
decentral i zed, 384
whol e earth, 318
Ki ngdom of Satan, 42, 123
Labor uni on, 270ff.
Lake of fi re, 145
Lamennai s, 256
Last outpost, 329K.
Law, 105, 250, 367 (see al so
Law of God)
confi rmati on, 373
curse, 131, 360, 374
di sci pl i ne, 375
equal i ty under, 279
Gods, 59
l ove, 204f.
New Testament, 226
read to al l , 251
school master, 165
si n and, 26
tool of domi ni on, 124, 164,
209, 325, 336, 346, 362,
367
Law of God, 67 (see al so Law)
Chri st and, 86ff.
Chri sts conformi ty to, 73
curse, 93f.
gospel , 92
hol i ness, 91f.
l ove, 204f.
permanent, 86
power, 88
school master, 89, 92
soci al order, 174
standards of judgment, 89ff.
three uses, 75f.
tool of domi ni on, 88f., 112,
i 14, 191, 360, 367
treaty, 209
uni versal , 190
work of, 121, 373f.
Leadershi p, 353f., 359, 362
Lease, 329, 338
Leaven, 315E., 325, 385
Leprosy, 243i T., 280
Lewi s, C. S., xi
Li fespan, 144f., 342
Li ght, 13
London, 192
Lor d
Ti -i ni ty, 304
Lords Supper, 217
chi l dren, 220f.
domi ni on, 218f.
househol d, 219ff.
vi ctory, 219
Lot, 111
Love, 13, 202ff.
INDEX
Man
brotherhood, 61
creature, 36ff.
depravi ty, 68, 297
domi ni on, 37ff., 47f.
fd of, 40ff. , 249
i mage of God, 36ff., 50, 57,
162
judge, 42
perfect, 68, 73
pseudo-creator, 20f.
responsi bl e, 45, 50
steward, 39
subordi nate, 40, 44, 47ff.,
53f. , 164
Manager, 269
Manager s, 294
Manna, 359
Mardi gras, 265
Market
di sci pl i ne, 278
soverei gnty, 280
Market process, 276
Marxi sm, 265, 287, 362,.367
Maturi ty, 184, 203, 385
Meani ng, 72, 162
Meekness, 358, 383
Mer cy, 44, 98, 303
Messi ah, 25, 32
Mi ddl e Ages, 192
Mi l l enni um, 153, 321
Mi r acl es, 359
Mi stakes, 278
Money, 205
Money cal cul ati on, 293
Monopol y, 270
Moses
judgment, 252
Moti vati on, 304
Murder, 57, 118, 348
414 mcotmrnow wnmmnm
Mustard seed, 315
Mustard tree, 327
Myths, 14
Nathan, W
Nati ons, 368f.
Natural l aw, 59, 107, 121
Natural men, 68f.
Nature, 58, 80f.
curse, 53, 164
i ncompl ete, 37
r ebel l i on, 53
redempti on of, 80f.
Nebuchadnezzar, 33, 103f.
Nei ghbor, 185
Nero, 195
Neutral ky, 54, 107, 122, 162,
360f.
New heavens, 144f., 150, 341
Newsl etter, 377
Newsl etters, i x
Ni neveh, 111, 213
Noah, 162, 312, 330
Oath, 169, 295
Obedi ence, 142
One-many, 33, 112, 195, 206,
304, 347, 382
Opti mkm, 191, 353, 362ff.
Oven, 318, 321
Ownershi p, 359ff.
Pagani sm, 130f.
Pal esti ne, 108f., 120, 322, 371
Panthei sm, 18
Parabl es, 209ff., 325f.
Paradox of Deuteronomy ei ght,
102
Passover, 217ff., 225, 322
Paul , 139
Peace, 256, 320 (see al so
Treaty)
Pentecost, 219, 314
Perfecti on, 24ff., 255
Personal i sm, 132, 262
Pessi mi sm, 147, 290, 349, 351,
354, 359
Phi l i p, 215
Pi ed Pi pers, 210
Pi eti sm, 368
Poor, 285 (see al so Poverty)
Popul ati on, 285
Posi ti ve feedback, 148
Poti phar, 339
Poverty, 58, 77, 82, 188, 247,
287E.
Power, 51, 80, 88, 339
servi ce, 206
Powers, 235
Prayer, 79
Predesti nati on, 65, 72, 363
Premi l l enni al i sm, 147, 151, 153
Pr i ce, 276K, 295
Pri est, 200, 298, 376
Pri son, 139
Profi t, 291f.
Progress, 81, 158, 341f.
Property, Gods, 17, 23, 36
Prosperi ty, 102, 105, 286f.
Prosti tuti on, 282
Provi dence, 16, 32, 161f.
Publ i can, 226
Publ i shi ng, 377
Puri tans, 192
Pyrami d, 56, 174, 256, 298
Quar anti ne, 243
Questi ons, 3ff.
Rahab, 92, 210
INDEX 415
Ransom, 141
Rapture, 151, 321
RebekaA, 348
Rebel l i on, 50, 53, 104, 298
Red Sea, 222
Redempti on, 141, 154
Reformati on, 191
Regenerati on, 67ff.
Rei ncarnati on, 129f.
Rel i gi on, 3, 6
Representati on, 137
Responsi bi l i ty, 50, 164, 260,
262, 267, 324, 348
Resti tuti on, l 15ff., 124, 229,254,
281
Restor ati on, 63, 79ff.
Resumecti on, 142
Return of Chri st, 312 f., 321
Revel ati on, 59, 121
Revol uti on, 164
Roari ng Twenti es, 289
Robot, 324f. , 327
Roman empi re, 7, 200
Sacraments, 211ff.
Sacri fi ce, 25, 115, 124, 192, 336,
361, 370
Sal t, 336, 361
Sal vati on, 59ff., 81
by man, 242, 258
state, 248f.
Sancti fi cati on, 665., l l Of., l 13f.,
115, 166
Sanhedri n, 30
Satan, 40, 82, 145, 156, 158
autonomy, 253
bureaucrat, 351
capi tul ati on to, 357
commander, 383
decapi tal i zati on, 338
defeated, 108, 336, 370
defeats God?, 55, 82, 154,
324
defecti ons, 335
evi cti on, 231
fami l y revol uti on, 179
ki ngdom, 99ff., 104, 123,
166ff. , 217ff., 373ff. , 386
l ast outpost, 332, 364
l ast rebel l i on, 343
l ast stand, 232
l eaven, 323
l i es, 209, 320, 332
power, 51
rebel l i on, 104
represented, 152, 153, 159
soci ety of, 122, 174
squatter, 329, 339
tempter, 43f., 230
thi ef, 374
Saul , 291
Scal e of bei ng, 18, 129, 131
Scarci ty, 58, 247, 293f.
School , 380
School master, 82, 89, 165
Sci ence, 16, 129
Second death, 26, 51, 80, 229
Second Li eutenmt, 38f., 48,53
Seeds, 311f.
Sel f-government, 189, 197, 224,
227, 250ff., 255ff., 267,
297, 349, 352, 360, 369,
385
Sel l ers, 276
Separati on, 23
Servi ce, 206, 290 f., 306
Sheep, 393
Si ckness, 144
Si gns, 139
Si l as, 215
Si n, 25f., b, 51, 71,76, i l l , 224,
226, 283
Si nners, ~4
Sl aves, 359, 362
Soci al i sm$ 188, 269
Soci al acti on, 9
Soci al chdnge, 362f.
Soci al order, 174, 298, 304
Soci ety of Satan, 122, 174
Sodom, 111
Sonshi p, 62
Soverei gnty, 36, 38, 63, 175,
248, 280, 274
fi nal , 240f., 255
l egal , 274
of God, 16, 180, 263, 297, 347,
357
of i nsti tuti ons, 173
vi si bl e, 371
Spark of di vi ni ty, 15, 21, 38
Speci al i sts, 381
Stabi l i ty, 303
Standards, 22ff. , 88, 110, 208,
375f.
State, 235ff.
caretaker, 282
di vi ne, 21, 33
educati on, 182
fear of, 21
Gods l aw, 121f.
i nfal l i bl e, 241
l egi ti mate functi ons, 243, 249
magi ci an, 264
messi ani c, 50, 183, 239ff.,
243ff. , 264, 295
mi ni ster i al , 237, 256
negati ve, 243 f., 249, 266
ni ght watchman, 282
pri esthood, 243
pseudo-fami l y, 184, 187, 192
puni shment, 166f.
savi or, 33, 50
vengeance, 235
wel fare, 186
Steward, 259, 274
Stewards, 292
Stewardshi p, 39, 58, 279
Strachey, Lytton, 284
Strangers, 208
Strategy, 376ff.
one-many, 382
Strong dri nk, 223
Subordi nati on, 31, 40, 44, 47,
54, 106, 165, 180, 339, 342,
365
Substi tute, 24ff., 75, 117, 165
Sufferi ng, 206
Sunday school , 202
Superi ori ty, 180
Surrender, 335, 357, 373
Sword, 329
Tal ent, par abl e of, 278f.
Tares, 150, 309ff., 321
Tari ffs, 270
Tax col l ector, 226
Taxes, 192, 237ff., 289
Temptati on, 20, 54, 103, 230
Ten Commandments, 367
Thi rd Worl d; 287
Ti ckets, 287
Ti me, 47, 55, 74, 104, 127 E.,
191, 192, 264, 279, 315, 318,
383
bur den, 138ff.
ci rcul ar, 128ff.
conti nui ty & di sconti nui ty,
157
covenantal , 135ff., 147
cursed, 138ff.
INoEx 417
escape from, 130
Gods control of, 136
Gods presence i n, 135f.
Gods transcendence of, 135
judgment and, 130, 137
l i near, 127ff., 130ff, 136
obedi ence and, 142
progressi ve, 143
purposeful , 133ff., 136
redempti on of, 139ff.
representati ve, 152E.
Tkhe, 223, 288
Tompki ns, Peter, 56, 257
Tkeaty, 94ff., 102, 114, 165,
207ff. , 216, 322, 329, 358
uni versal knowl edge, 251f.
Tr ee, 40, 46
Tree of Knowl edge, 87, 163
Tree of Li fe, 62, 138, 149, 150
Tki ni ty, 27ff., 112, 161, 198, 262,
267, 304
economi cal , 31
ontol ogi cal , 31
Trustee, 189ff.
Tuni si a, 284
Uncertai nty, 278, 293
Uncondi ti onal surrender, 107,
114
Unequal yokes, 193
Uni ons, 270ff.
Unl eavened bread, 228
Upper room, 217
Uzzi ah, 245
Vengeance, 116, 225
Vi cti m, 115, 117, 252
Vi cto~, 42, 114,152, 155, 164,
168, 206, 232, 252, 305
conti nui ty, 308, 366
eschatol ogy of, 357
i nter nal , 345, 356
Lords Supper, 219
scenar i o, 307
spi ri tual , 345
Vohmtari sm, 266
War, 96, 333
wars, 319ff.
Way of l i fe, 3
Weal th, 293, 303
Wel fare, 184ff., 244E., 284
Wel fare state, 284
Wheat, 309ff., 325, 326
Wi l derness, 210, 359, 368
Wi ne, 108, 223
Wi neski ns, 108f.
Wi tchcraft, 118
Wi ves
husbands and, 174
Worl d War I , 290
Worm, 336
Zi mbabwe, 288
I @s the Bi bl e Redly Have the Answers?
The Bible has she answers to life.
Wel l -mean@ Chr i ati ar ta say this to nmt-
. .
Cbmmans. @dotbey really meanit?
Its one thing to tell people that the
Bible has $e aoswem m all of lifes
problems. 10s another thing to& able to
provide ehese answers, arxl also provide
the biilical kvidence.
Its risky to tell aomecme that the Bible
hasallthe smweraif youdont know
where eolcokup theanswers in the
Bible. Sort@ne may call your bluff.
Meanw~e, mast Chriadan college
prcdWma tell us The Bfile isnt a text-
Lwok on [my academic subject]. In
othet wordd, they deny that the Bible baa
answers to Ilifes questions. They deny
that tk Bible tells them what they shmdd
believe in their areas of authotity.
lwnomfc.-m
Wbatif&rnecm SSba CbriWimthiS
Whats the Bibles answer to poverty?
To irdlati~? To arrerqloyrnent? To ws
policy? To economic depressiort? What
should the Christian answer? He will
probably rtbt hOW WhSt tO MY.
The I nadtate for Christian Economics
was eatabliihed in 1976 to provide blbli-
CSI amweq for economic questions like
tfteae. The ICE ia dtdkated to s@yillg
the Bible to emacrmic theory aral plicy.
The II+ has been publiildng detailed
book on ecmomic questions Sinw 1982.
Gary North, the founder of the ICE, has
written f+ volumes of his Economic
Commentary MS the Bible Cienesii
through Leviticus. He has also written
dozens ofother txmks relating to-
nomica, history, and tlwlogy.
Ifyc+Jwsnt snawera, youmdrid
-hti=ebka,mhm ofti
ICES mwskttera: ~fiCd Erorrmdcs
Today, Uuiwirm Recmrmudon, and
Bibfimf Chronology, which are aertt to
ICES SuppMem.
H~ Js Baukrnpt
For * ti es, Cbri adam l i ave
l i ved onthemspth athavefal l enfrom
s table. But hummims table
hasalwaya LwerrtWdw id161cda tolen
from the Bible.
Now he hurrrsrdsta pantry ie almost
bare. A hamaniats have abandoned
belief in aa orderly mrivetse, in rlxed
moral law, and moral cause and effech
theyhsvebegunto lm.efaithinwienw.,
eecbnolw, aad the free market.
HmrtanMa are afraid of polhltioq
ml+d of economic growth, afraid of
bogeymen such as the greenhouse effeu
(no evidence of worldwide warming), the
_ hole in the ozone kiyer (KM
swiderce that ozone holes keep _
or that aerord sprays cause them), acd
other non-existent hormra.
I I I ewayto Tuml wl t&s&wrnd
Cbr i adana cant &t somethi ng wi th
m.~hmmmi smi swro%.~
where am the uniquely biblical aaawera?
If ChriatiSUS caanot wsseat arly, why
shmdd the public pay atterrdon to them?
Christiam @ biblical amwers.
To get amwers, sign up for a free aix-
month aabscripdorr to the ICE newalet-
tera. send your request to ICE, Box
m, Tyler, Tx 75711. Just say, Si
mettp for my free aubscsipdcm.