Join The Debate!

Jerubaal and Psalm 2

You're conflating "the government" with "the rulers of the earth". That's an easy thing to do in a monarchical age, when "the King" and "the Government" were basically the same in small kingdoms and only separated from one another in large kingdoms by bureaucratic inertia and the power-fiefdoms of nobles.

But in an age of Constitutionally-Limited Democratic Republics, "the government" and "the rulers" should be understood to be different things entirely. "The government" is a legal fiction comparable to a corporation; it is ultimately run by officers and the officers are determined by shareholders, but when we speak of the company doing something, we say that "The Company" has done it; a distinction is drawn between what the company does and what an individual officer or shareholder may do when not representing the company.

Similarly, there are two groups of people who may be regarded as "the rulers" in an age of Republics: (1.) Our representatives, and (2.) Ourselves.

You quote the Psalmist, saying:

"10 Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
be warned, O rulers of the earth.
11 Serve the Lord with fear,
and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son,
lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled."

...and then state that "the government should not serve the Lord with joy and fear"; but that's putting new words in the Psalmist's mouth. He only specifies "the rulers" -- human beings.

There are no "legal fictions" (either representative governments or corporations) described in the Bible, so it is impossible that the Psalmist could say "O corporations of the earth, serve the Lord with fear", or "O representative democracies of the earth"...but even had there been, I am convinced that the Psalmist would NOT HAVE SAID IT.

After all, "the Lord looks at the heart"; "a man must be born again"; "Whosoever believeth in Me"...these are all oriented toward a personal, individual, faith.

It is clear that, in Christianity (unlike in the nastier forms of Islam), there IS NO SUCH THING as a "conversion by force", because such a thing would not be heartfelt, and to God, only the heart matters, not merely outward observances. This is why the Inquisitors of the Middle Ages were not merely mistaken, but heretics: Their attempts to convert by the sword constituted not mere evil, but a complete misunderstanding of what Jesus said about salvation.

The government cannot "fear the Lord"; it is, as it were, a robot or machine, its levers pulled by representatives. It is THEY who can "fear the Lord."

More importantly, were the government to usurp the role of God by enforcing Christian observances on a citizen unbeliever, those who formulated such a policy would be guilty of the same heresy (however well-intentioned) as the Grand Inquisitor of centuries past: Thinking God cares about outward observances, when what He desires is the type of heartfelt obedience and love which can only come from an UNFORCED individual decision.

In this context, a "government" cannot serve God, only individuals can. "Governments" are therefore left to do whatever it is they're constituted for doing. (Like forming more perfect unions, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing liberty's blessings for current and future generations.)

Were the "rulers" of the U.S.A. to obey the Pslamist's injunction to "...be wise" and "serve the Lord with fear", here is what would happen:

(1.) Representatives (who are the most immediate "rulers") would serve Him through individual piety.

(2.) Citizens (who, under God, are the actual, ultimate, "rulers" in a republic) would serve Him through individual piety.

(3.) The Government would enforce only those policies sufficient to ensure that people do not violate one anothers' rights through force or fraud, and are defended from enemies foreign and domestic. The Representatives would only be involved in so far as it was necessary to craft legislation to fulfill this role.