abstract: The humanist says, 'You shall have no other gods beside me,' and, astonishingly, most professing Christians in principle agree.

Skip Navigation

by Brian Schwertley

Introduction

As the second millennium begins, the issue of civil government is a matter of serious debate among Christians. The reasons for this renewed interest are manifold. One reason is the rise of theonomy, or Christian Reconstruction, in the 1970s. The writings of R. J. Rushdoony, Gary North, Greg Bahnsen and others have impacted the small Reformed conservative denominations. Concurrent with the rise of the theonomic movement has been the rise of the "Christian Right." The prior rise of secular humanism as the dominant worldview among modern nations and the terrifying effects this worldview change has had upon culture and society is awakening many evangelicals from their pietistic slumbers.

It is commendable that many believers are fed up with what is going on in society and are willing to do something about. However, the fact that conservative Christians are involved in a type of spiritual-political and cultural warfare raises important questions. What exactly is the ultimate goal that Christians are fighting for? Are they attempting to turn the clock back to 1952,1 or 1789? If Christians become the majority in society should they establish an explicitly Christian state or should they keep the current system and just remove some of the more repulsive abuses (e.g., abortion, homosexuality, pornography, etc.)? Should Christians focus on implementing the moral principles of the Second Table of the law while ignoring the First Table?

The vast majority of evangelicals are in favor of keeping the current system of religious pluralism while eliminating some of the disgusting by-products of secular humanism. They regard the U.S. Constitution as practically on a par with Scripture. Thus, they want to keep the founding fathers' idea of religious liberty intact, yet move society away from a 1960's counter culture paradigm back toward a Lawrence Welk paradigm. They want the political realm to remain basically secular yet with a strong influence from the Second Table of the law. They want a nation that is vaguely Christian.

Evangelicals are also committed to religious pluralism. According to this view, the State should remain neutral with regard to religion. It should never favor one religious group or creed above another. It should seek to the best of its ability to balance all the conflicting viewpoints. It should teach tolerance toward all religions and all worldviews. After all, isn't that what America is all about? So evangelicals believe that the civil magistrate should not uphold the first table of the law and favor orthodox Christianity over Buddhism, Hinduism, Animism, Romanism, Satanism, Mormonism, and so on. The concept of religious pluralism has rightly been called "political polytheism."2

The purpose of this essay will be to prove that the dominant evangelical position is both irrational and unbiblical. Christians do not have the option of giving Jesus Christ lip service as King of kings and Lord of lords, while at the same time refusing to apply His law to the civil government. National repentance and reformation must involve all of the Ten Commandments. To think that God will bless a nation that punishes homosexuals yet countenances idolatry and Sabbath desecration is a gross delusion. To think that a lasting reformation of society can occur on the shifting sand of a vague notion of old-fashioned family values is absurd. To think that America can be a Christian nation without explicitly acknowledging Christ as King over all in the constitution, legislatures, and courts is ludicrous.

The Bible teaches that every nation has a moral obligation to submit to the authority of Jesus Christ and His law. An examination of God's law, the prophets, the Psalms, and the New Testament will prove that political polytheism is immoral. It is an idea that Christians must reject.

The First Commandment Applies To All Men and All Nations

The commandment that precedes all other commandments foundationally is the First Commandment, "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Ex. 20:3; Dt. 5:7). The God of Israel is the only God. He alone is the source of created reality, meaning, and ethics. His declared will is absolutely binding on all men and all nations for all time. The true God demands absolute loyalty, allegiance, and obedience. All men and nations live and function in a universe, not a multiverse. "God's order is absolute and absolutely binding on men and nations."3

To argue that a nation can be a Christian nation while permitting the open worship and propagation of false religions is a repudiation of the First Commandment. There is only one God--Jehovah. To permit the open worship of Baal, Marduk, Amon-Re, Krishna, etc., is to strike at the very root of God's law order for society. The Bible does not teach that God is one among many gods, or, even first among gods, but the only God. When the First Commandment was given, the world was full of polytheism and idolatry. Wines states: "A fundamental purpose of the Mosaic polity was the abolition of idolatrous worship, and the substitution in its place, and the maintenance, of true religion in the world."4

Most Christians would object to the statement that religious pluralism is an explicit rejection of the First Commandment. They would argue that First Table commandments were given to the covenant people and do not necessarily apply to heathen nations. It is true that the Ten Commandments were given to Israel after their deliverance from Egypt. However, there is abundant evidence that God requires all nations to follow all His moral precepts--especially the First Commandment.

In Deuteronomy 4:5-8, it says that Israel was to be an example to the pagan nations around them. If Israel was obedient to God's law, the surrounding nations would acknowledge the wisdom of Israel, Israel's close relationship to Jehovah, and the superiority of God's law. The Israelites were to be salt and light to the surrounding nations. They were to showcase God's law to pagan cultures and societies through obedience. Israel was to serve as a paradigm of covenant faithfulness to the one true God. The purpose of all this was not just so the heathen nations would see certain social benefits of the second table of the law but that the superiority of the Lawgiver would be clearly set forth.

To argue that heathen nations would acknowledge the justness and superiority of Jehovah's law and the blessedness of Israel's relationship to Jehovah while still rejecting Jehovah and serving idols is absurd. Although the spiritual transformation of pagan nations would have to wait until the coming of Jesus Christ (because of Israel's apostasy and Satan's deceptive power over the nations) the message of Deuteronomy 4:5-8 cannot be ignored. Pagan nations should own and obey Jehovah, the only true God.

Not only is political polytheism a rejection of the First Commandment in the political and judicial life of a nation, it also is an explicit denial of the moral-civil case laws set up to protect a God-honoring nation. In Deuteronomy 13:1-18, false prophets, seducers to idolatry, and cities given over to idolatry are all condemned to death. Rushdoony states:

It should be noted that Deuteronomy 13:5-18 does not call for the death penalty for unbelief or heresy. It condemns false prophets (vv. 1-5) who seek to lead the people, with signs and wonders, into idolatry. It does condemn individuals who secretly try to start a movement into idolatry (vv. 6-11). It does condemn cities which establish another religion and subvert the law-order of the nation (vv. 13-18), and this condemnation must be enforced by man to turn away the judgment of God (vs. 17).5

A nation that becomes an explicitly Christian nation--covenants with God and adopts His law-order--cannot permit treason toward Jehovah or the open, systematic subversion of that law order. If religious leaders in a Christian nation apostatize, they must remain silent or perish. If a city rebels and goes over to a false religion or a cult (e.g., Mormonism), that city should be judged.

In a Christian nation, people are not forced to go to church or to believe in Christ, but, the open practice of idolatry is forbidden. It is a capital offense (Dt. 17:2-7). The Bible never accepts the modern concept of neutrality toward religion for the simple reason that neutrality is impossible. A Christian nation which allows public idolatry and blasphemy is on the road toward social suicide and judgment. "To assume that men are free to worship or not to worship without radical consequences for society is to negate the very meaning of biblical faith. The life of a society is its religion, and if that religion be false, then the society is headed for death."6

Many naïve believers in the past accepted neutrality in the political realm. They placed their faith in the constitution and in religious pluralism while apostates and unbelievers captured the major institutions in society. The humanists who came into power did everything they could to push Christians into an intellectual ghetto. The humanists implicitly recognized what most Christians did not--that religious neutrality is a myth.

The First Commandment is the foundation of all subsequent moral and civil law.7 The Second Table of the law cannot be consistently upheld apart from the First Commandment. When a person is told that theft, rape, homosexuality, adultery, and murder are wrong he needs to be told why such activities are immoral. A society that says that a man, or a court, or a legislature has decided to outlaw certain activities for the greater good of the community without any recognition of God the creator and lawgiver has made man the god of that society. The implicit message behind this humanistic view of law is that law is arbitrary and that all men are really a law unto themselves. This viewpoint leads logically to the attitude which says, "Do whatever you want, just don't get caught, and, if you get caught try to lie your way out of the situation." Any society not founded upon the First Commandment will eventually decay and be destroyed by God. All laws flow from a religious foundation or worldview, thus "every state or social order is a religious establishment."8 The consistent Christian says that we must have the triune God of Scripture as our starting point for knowledge, meaning, and ethics. No other god but Jehovah.

The humanist and many professing Christians say that this is not fair to other religious faiths; therefore, we must start with man as "the source of all true reason and morality."9 The religious pluralists have denounced the First Commandment and sided with the humanists against biblical Christianity. Bahnsen writes:

The pluralist's approach transgresses the first commandment by countenancing and deferring to different ultimate authorities (gods) in the area of public policy. Instead of exclusively submitting to Jehovah's law with fear, and openly following God's enthroned Son, the pluralist attempts the impossible task of honoring more than one master in civil legislation (Mt. 6:24) --a kind of "political polytheism."10

The humanist says, "You shall have no other gods beside me," and, astonishingly, most professing Christians in principle agree.

God Condemns Political Polytheism Even in Heathen Nations

The most common objection to what has been said above is that the First Commandment and the other First-Table laws were only for the Jewish nation. The Jews had a special relationship with Jehovah. They had a theocracy and were in covenant with God. Thus, these laws do not apply to Christian nations today but only apply to the visible church, God's spiritual nation. God does not expect or require heathen nations to outlaw and suppress idolatry. To this objection we ask one simple question. If pluralism is the norm for all nations except Israel then why did God judge heathen nations for idolatry? The severe judgments that God meted out on the heathen nations for idolatry presuppose that God expects every nation to obey the First Commandment in civil, social and cultural affairs. The following examples should make this point obvious.

In Deuteronomy 18, we are told that God drove the heathen nations out of their lands because He hated their false religions:

When you come into the land which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord , and because of these abominations the Lord your God drives them out from before you (Dt. 18:9-12).

Craige explains the purpose of these laws:

These foreign offices and practices, which were an abomination to the Lord, were to be forbidden in Israel precisely because they were part of the reason for God's judgment of the Canaanites, which would be seen in their ejection from the land. If the Israelites adopted similar practices, they too would become liable to ejection from the land.11

One could argue that the main concern of this passage is false forms of revelation. But, are not all false religions and cults founded upon false revelations?

In Isaiah 19, the prophet says that God will judge Egypt for its idolatry:

The burden against Egypt. Behold, the Lord rides on a swift cloud, and will come into Egypt; the idols of Egypt will totter at His presence, and the heart of Egypt will melt in its midst (Isa. 19:1).

The prophet Jeremiah says that God will bring judgment upon Egypt, Pharaoh and their false gods:

The Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, says: "Behold, I will bring punishment on Amon [a sun god] of No [ancient Thebes], and Pharaoh and Egypt, with their gods and their kings--Pharaoh and those who trust in him (Jer. 46:25; cf. Is. 46:1).

God singles out Amon the Egyptian chief deity of Thebes (No). 'Amon was later merged with Re to become Amon-Re, the king of the gods and peculiarly the god of the rulers of Egypt.'12 Pharaoh who lays claim to divinity is also singled out. Is it not clear that Jehovah punishes idolatry even in non-covenanted nations?

Jehovah, the only God, the Lord of the universe, hates religious pluralism. To Assyria God said:

Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger and the staff in whose hand is My indignation.... As my hand has found the kingdoms of the idols, whose carved image excelled those of Jerusalem and Samaria, as I have done to Samaria and her idols, shall I not do also to Jerusalem and her idols? (Is. 10:5, 10-11).

God proclaimed judgment against Moab for idolatry:

'Moreover,' says the Lord, 'I will cause to cease in Moab the one who offers sacrifices in the high places and burns incense to his gods' (Jer. 48:35).

Jehovah also crushed the idols of Babylon:

Declare among the nations, proclaim, and set up a standard; proclaim, and do not conceal it, say, 'Babylon is taken, Bel is shamed. Merodach [or Marduk, a Babylonian god] is broken in pieces; her idols are humiliated, her images are broken in pieces.... A drought is against her waters, and they will be dried up. For it is the land of carved images and they are insane with their idols' (Jer. 50:1, 2, 38).

Everyone is dull-hearted, without knowledge, every metalsmith is put to shame by the carved image; for his molded image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them. They are futile, a work of errors; in the time of their punishment they shall perish.... Therefore behold, the days are coming that I will bring judgment on the carved images of Babylon; her whole land shall be ashamed, and all her slain shall fall in her midst.... 'Therefore, behold, the days are coming,' says the Lord, 'that I will bring judgment on her carved images, and throughout all her land the wounded shall groan' (Jer. 51:17, 18, 47, 52).

If God so hated the idolatry of the Assyrians, Moabites, Egyptians, Babylonians and Canaanites that He poured out His wrath upon them, why should He exempt the inhabitants of America, Canada, or Great Britain, for their idolatries? Political polytheism was a common practice in ancient nations--a practice condemned by God. There is no evidence in the New Testament that God has had a change of mind regarding idolatry.

The Prophets Foretold of a Time When Kings and Nations Would Serve Christ and Help His Church

Many Christians have a defeatist attitude when it comes to the progress of the gospel and the spiritual state of the nations. This attitude, however, is not warranted. God has promised a time when kings will serve Christ and aid His church. Isaiah prophesied,

Kings shall be your foster fathers, and their queens your nursing mothers; they shall bow down to you with their faces to the earth and lick the dust of your feet (49:23).

Does Jehovah promise a future of religious pluralism where the church has an equal status with Satanists, Buddhists, and Hindus? No, not at all. God speaks of a time when kings and nations forsake their idolatry and serve Jesus Christ alone. M'Crie writes:

These promises [Is. 49:23, 60:10, 12, 16] secure unto the church the public countenance of kings and kingdoms as such. Kings shall be her nursing-fathers; nations and kingdoms shall serve her. The authority and means competent unto them as such shall be employed on the side of the church, and for the advancement of the true religion; whereas they had formerly been employed against her, and for the support of a false religion. To limit the sense of the words to that common protection which is given to all subjects, and to any society, is to explain away the promises of God.... It is equally unreasonable to confine the meaning to the private or personal conduct of rulers, and of their subjects. This would never suggest itself to any who, in reading the passage, had not formed the notion that the church cannot be benefited by civil power. It offers violence to the plain meaning of the words. It does not accord with the context, which speaks of the public state of the church, and those means which tend to advance its interests in this view.13

This passage clearly teaches that a time will come when biblical Christianity will be the established religion of nations. Kings will suppress idolatry and support Christianity.

These promises cannot be squeezed into the pluralistic paradigm. Civil authorities are to use their power for the welfare of the Church. This was the common, standard Protestant interpretation.14 Calvin wrote,

He compares 'kings' to hired men who bring up the children of others, and 'queens' to 'nurses', who give out their labor for hire. Why so? Because 'kings' and 'queens' shall supply everything that is necessary for nourishing the offspring of the Church. Having formerly driven out Christ from their dominions, they shall henceforth acknowledge him to be the supreme King, and shall render to him all honour, obedience, and worship.15

Calvin said that civil magistrates have a duty to use their riches 'to raise up and maintain the Church of Christ, so as to be her guardians and defenders.'16 The civil magistrate must protect the church by 'removing superstitions and putting an end to all wicked idolatry...[by] advancing the Kingdom of Christ and maintain[ing] purity of doctrine, about purging scandals and cleaning from the filth that corrupts piety and impairs the luster of the divine majesty.'17 Calvin recognized that a restoration of the church was needed before a reformation of the state: 'we ought to hope for a restoration of the Church, and such a conversion of kings that they shew themselves to be "nursing-fathers" and protectors of believers, and shall bravely defend the doctrine of the Word.'18 Calvin did not believe in Erastianism. He knew, however, that if a magistrate is not for Christ, then he is against Him (Mt. 12:30).

What does the passage mean when it says that kings shall be 'foster fathers'? The Hebrew word used (ómnâ) has been translated as 'foster fathers' (NKJV, JB, NEV, RSV, NIV), 'nursing-fathers' (KJV, ASV, YLT)19, 'guardians' (NASB) and 'shall tend' (NTHSMT).20 'This noun speaks of Esther's having been sustained (strengthened and guided) by Mordecai as a child (Est. 2:20). '21 It can mean to nurture, sustain, bring up or support. In 2 Kings 10:1, 5, the same word is used to describe the rearing of Ahab's sons. It is used to describe a tutor, guardian, or attendant. In Numbers 11:12, it is used to describe supporting or carrying a child with an arm.22 E. J. Young wrote,

The foster fathers (lit. supporters) are said to be kings, and those who give suck to her are princesses (i.e., women of royal station, queens). Thus, the language advances. Even the highest and most powerful rulers of the heathen nations will reverence the Church and devote to her all their wealth and power. Like the two verbs in the preceding verse, foster fathers and those who give thee suck express the tender love with which the nations cherish Zion and her sons.23

Isaiah 49:23 is an important passage regarding the role of the state in a Christian nation. This passage however has been basically ignored by the modern theonomy movement. The likely reason for this is that this passage appears to give the civil government a role too active in religious affairs for many theonomists. Theonomists for the most part restrict the magistrate's role to the punishment of evil doers. One can understand why theonomists have avoided this passage when one sees how it was used in the past. Calvin says in his commentary on this passage,

Undoubtedly, while kings bestow careful attention on these things, they at the same time supply the pastors and ministers of the Word with all that is necessary for food and maintenance, provide for the poor and guard the Church against the disgrace of pauperism; erect schools, and appoint salaries for the teachers and board for the students; build poorhouses and hospitals, and make every other arrangement that belongs to the protection and defense of the Church.24

Calvin appears to argue for a type of Christian-welfare-statism. However, he does not say where all of the money will come from to pay for these state benefits. The Puritans and early Presbyterians were totally in favor of establishing state Christian schools. Rushdoony dismisses all such thinking in his Institutes,

The heavily classical learning of medieval and Reformation scholars often led them astray. A verse sometimes cited as evidence of the parental role of the state is Isaiah 49:23. But this verse refers to the remnant of Israel, who shall be restored to Jerusalem and reestablished as a state under the protection of other states, who shall be as 'nursing fathers.' The reference is to the reestablishment of the Hebrew commonwealth under Nehemiah, with the protection of the Medo-Persian Empire. The imagery has nothing to do with a parental role for the state and everything to do with the superior protecting role of a great empire for a small civil order which is reconstituting.25

Although Rushdoony's desire to avoid the civil magistrate's active role in welfare programs, church funding and public schools is understandable, there is no need to restrict Isaiah 49:23 to Old Testament Israel.26 As noted, the vast majority of commentators believe it also applies to the New Covenant church; and, even if it did refer only to national Israel it still could be extended to the New Covenant era by way of application.

The word ómnâ, translated 'foster fathers,' does not necessarily imply a Christian welfare state. Calvin and the Puritans, in their exegesis of Isaiah 49:23, ignored the strict parameters in God's law which placed schooling in the hands of the parents, not the state; and charity in the hands of families, individuals, and the church, not the civil magistrate. There is simply no way that a state can pay for all the programs enumerated by Calvin without taxing the populace. Taxation without divine authorization is theft.27 Furthermore, Romans 13:1-6 limits the state to punishing evildoers and praising those who do good. Praise cannot be extended into welfare checks and socialized medicine. Calvin, the Puritans, and early Presbyterians were sometimes led astray by medieval notions regarding natural law. However, if a state came upon wealth through the spoils of a just war it could donate funds to church planting, printing, and missionary endeavors. The state's job is not to collect tithes for the church. Given the biblical teaching regarding the role of civil magistrate, the words 'foster fathers' should be interpreted that the civil magistrate is a guardian and protector of the church. The state is to have an active role in suppressing idolatry, damnable heresies, blasphemy, and punishing blatant Sabbath desecrators, etc.

There are many prophetic passages which teach the establishment of Christianity among the nations. Psalm 72:11-12 says that 'all kings shall fall down before Him; all nations shall serve Him.' In Isaiah 56:6 we are told that the Gentiles will keep the Sabbath. Isaiah says that Gentiles will embrace the Gospel. 'Gentiles shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising' (Isa. 60:3). Kings shall minister to the church (v. 10) and the wealth of the Gentiles will flow into it (v. 11). Young writes:

Some have applied the fulfillment of the prophecy to the work of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes Longimanus, but their actions were only a prelude to the real fulfillment in Jesus Christ and the preaching of the Gospel unto the Gentiles (cf. Ac. 15:15ff., where the rebuilding of David's booth is equated with the outcalling of the Gentiles). The prophecy is not speaking of the literal rebuilding of Jerusalem's walls, but of the building up of God's kingdom through the inclusion of Gentiles therein. Calvin well remarks that when kings serve Zion they do not lose their status as kings, but on the contrary are then enabled to carry out their proper function so as to glorify God and to manifest righteousness in their reigns. Happy is that nation whose ruler looks not to man for the solution of his problems but walks in the light of the Lord.28

The Bible says that 'the nation which will not serve you shall perish and those nations shall be utterly ruined' (Isa. 60:12). The church 'shall drink the milk of the Gentiles, and shall milk the breast of kings' (v. 16). John Owen writes:

Kingdoms are said to serve the church: and how can a kingdom, as a kingdom, serve the church, but as putting forth its power and strength in her behalf? What God hath promised, kings, magistrates, rulers, nations shall do, that is their duty to do.29

This (as noted above) does not mean a form of Christian socialism or welfare statism but that the state strictly follows the principles enunciated in both tables of the law and the moral case laws. Right after it says that the church will milk the breast of kings it says:

I will make your officers peace, and your magistrate's righteousness. Violence shall no longer be heard in your land, neither wasting nor destruction in your borders (Isa. 60:17-18).

In Psalm 2, the resurrected Christ is promised dominion over the nations. Kings and judges are to be instructed by Christ; they are to 'serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling' (Ps. 2:11). 30 If all magistrates are to sit humbly at the feet of Christ and learn His laws, serve Him with fear, and rejoice at His majesty, can one then conclude that serving Christ involves upholding arbitrary humanistic law? Does fearing the Lord involve permitting the open practice of idolatry and blasphemy? Do civil magistrates and judges tremble before the Son by allowing the open practice of sodomy?

We cannot escape the clear biblical truth that each and every earthly ruler stands under the divinely established moral obligation to 'serve Jehovah with fear [and] kiss the Son' (vv. 11-12). Serving the Lord with fear unquestionably means obeying His commandments (cf. Josh. 22:5; Ps. 119:124-126; Dt. 10:12-13). Doing homage to 'the Son' in the form of a kiss was an ancient ritual by which the authority of a leader was acknowledged (e.g., 1 Sam. 10:1). 31

The idea that the civil magistrate is only obligated to uphold the Second Table while ignoring the First is contradicted by Scripture. Magistrates do not honor the Son by supporting polytheism.

The Godly Kings of Judah Serve as Examples For Christian Magistrates

Many Christians regard the Old Testament nation of Israel as an example for the church but not for non-Israelite states, and certainly not for the modern nations. After all, wasn't Israel a theocracy? Didn't Israel have a special covenant relationship to Jehovah? Shouldn't modern nations be religiously pluralistic? Isn't the open practice of one's religion a fundamental human right?

Although it is true that Israel was a theocracy and had a special covenant relationship to God there is abundant scriptural evidence that the law system in Israel was to serve as a model for all nations.32 This was noted in our examination of Deuteronomy 4:5-8. If Israel's law system served as a model for the heathen nations during the old covenant era, then it also serves as a model for nations today. Furthermore, the great commission (Mt. 28:18-20) implies that whole nations will submit to Christ and become explicitly Christian nations. The goal of the great commission is that whole nations will be discipled, whole nations will make a covenant with Jesus Christ. This means that the behavior of the Old Testament kings does serve as an example of how Christian magistrates should or should not behave. Who was most pleasing to God? Kings who permitted freedom to openly practice heathen religions--who permitted open religious pluralism--or, kings who suppressed the open practice of false religions? A brief examination of some of the kings in Israel and Judah will prove that God hates religious pluralism.

A study of First and Second Kings shows that godly civil magistrates are very concerned about promoting true religion in the land. This is done by enforcing the first table commandments and their case laws against idolatry or false religions. King Asa is praised by the Holy Spirit for his tough stance against false religions in Judah.

Asa did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, as did his father David. And he banished the perverted persons from the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. Also, he removed Maachah his grandmother from being queen mother, because she had made an obscene image of Asherah. And Asa cut down her obscene image and burned it by the Brook Kidron" (1 Kgs. 15:11-13).

King Jehu of Israel was not a godly king. However, he was blessed by God for what he did to the prophets, priests, and servants of Baal.

Now it happened, as soon as he had made an end of offering the burnt offering, that Jehu said to the guard and to the captains, "Go in and kill them; let no one come out!" And they killed them with the edge of the sword; then the guards and the officers threw them out, and went into the inner room of the temple of Baal. And they brought the sacred pillars out of the temple of Baal and burned them. Then they broke down the sacred pillar of Baal, and tore down the temple of Baal and made it a refuse dump to this day. Thus, Jehu destroyed Baal from Israel (2 Kgs. 10:25-28).

Under the godly leadership of the priest Jehoiada the wicked government of Athaliah was overthrown and replaced by Jehoash.

Then Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord, the king, and the people, that they should be the Lord's people, and also between the king and the people. And all the people of the land went to the temple of Baal, and tore it down. They thoroughly broke in pieces its altars and images, and killed Mattan the priest of Baal before the altars (2 Kgs. 11:17-18).

Did God think that the actions of Jehoash and Jehoiada were unfair or harsh? On the contrary the Bible says, "Jehoash did what was right in the sight of the Lord all the days in which Jehoiada the priest instructed him" (2 Kgs. 12:2). There is also godly Hezekiah of whom the Bible says, "He did what was right in the sight of the Lord " (2 Kgs. 18:3).

He removed the high places and broke the sacred pillars, cut down the wooden image and broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made; for until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it, and called it Nehushtan. He trusted in the Lord God of Israel, so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor who were before him. For he held fast to the Lord; he did not depart from following Him, but kept His commandments, which the Lord had commanded Moses. The Lord was with him; he prospered wherever he went (2 Kgs. 18:4-7).

Hezekiah did all that he could to remove false religion and worship from Judah. He also steadfastly refused to make alliances with the heathen as his father had (2 Kgs. 16:7), and also Asa (1 Kgs. 15:18-19).

Another great revival of true religion occurred under king Josiah. After the book of the law was found in the temple and read to the king, the king and the people covenanted with the Lord .

And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest, the priests of the second order, and the doorkeepers, to bring out of the temple of the Lord all the articles that were made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the host of heaven; and he burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields of Kidron, and carried their ashes to Bethel. Then he removed the idolatrous priests whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense on the high places in the cities of Judah and in the places all around Jerusalem, and those who burned incense to Baal, to the sun, to the moon, to the constellations, and to all the host of heaven.... He executed all the priests of the high places who were there on the altars, and burned men's bones on them.... Moreover Josiah put away those who consulted mediums and spiritists, the household gods and idols, all the abominations that were seen in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, that he might perform the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the Lord (2 Kgs. 23:4-5, 20, 24).

Josiah is commended above all other kings (2 Kgs. 23:25) because he turned to the Lord with his whole heart. He exterminated the outward gross idolatry, the syncretistic priests, the mediums and so on. Josiah (not Ronald Reagan or George Bush) is the type of king set forth as precisely what a Christian nation should strive for. Matthew Poole writes:

Like unto him there was no king before him, to wit, for his diligent study in God's law, and his exact care, and unwearied industry, and fervent zeal, in rooting out of idolaters, and all kinds and appearances of idolatry, not only in Judah, but in Israel also; and in the establishment of the true religion in all his dominions, and in the conforming of his own life, and his people's too, (as far as he could), to the holy law of God.33

One of the primary lessons from the book of Kings is that righteous civil magistrates uphold true religion by enforcing the penal sanctions against idolatry, witchcraft, sorcery, astrology, etc.; that is, all false religions which by nature enrage Jehovah and defy His law order.

Contrary to Christian socialists and certain paleopresbyterians,34 one does not observe these Old Testament godly kings establishing public schools, hospitals, welfare programs, orphanages, and so on. In accordance with the law and Romans 13:1-6, the righteous kings wield the sword against the wicked and praise the righteous. They execute and banish those who openly practice false religions; they obliterate all idols and the remnants of idolatry; and they completely destroy all idolatrous temples.

These kings recognized that a Christian nation that permits the open violation of the first commandment has committed spiritual adultery and has violated the covenant. Any nation that claims to have a commitment to Jesus Christ and His law must publicly covenant with Him. "Without a covenant, there is no law; a covenant requires law."35 That is why "every renewal of the covenant was a renewal of the law of the covenant. This was true of Josiah's reformation, and of every reformation in biblical history."36

Any national revival of biblical Christianity requires national repentance; national repentance requires the suppression of all false religions and requires a national covenant. To fully commit to Jehovah, a nation (a moral person) must put off political polytheism and replace it with a public commitment to God and His law word.37

Civil magistrates in a Christian commonwealth must submit themselves to the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Ps. 2:10-12; 20:9; 24:8-10; 47:2-3, 6-7; 84:6). They are to apply both tables of the law and the relevant case laws within their God-limited sphere of activity--punishing civil crimes. Godly magistrates are to do everything within their power to insure that the people within their borders are faithful to the covenant. Therefore, righteous magistrates have a duty to continually study the Word of God in order to apply the moral principles therein faithfully within the civil sphere.

Also it shall be, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this law in a book, from the one before the priests, the Levites. And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statutes, that his heart may not be lifted above his brethren, that he may not turn aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left, and that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children in the midst of Israel (Dt. 17:18-20).

Matthew Poole writes,

That his heart be not lifted up; he intimates, that the Scriptures, diligently read and studied, are a powerful and probable means to keep him humble, because they show him that, though a king, he is subject to a higher Monarch, to whom he must give an account of all his administrations, and actions, and receive from him his sentence and doom agreeable to their quality, which is sufficient to abate the pride of the haughtiest person in the world, if he duly consider it.38

Summary of the Old Testament Evidence

Thus far we have noted that the First Commandment, the moral case laws, God's judgment upon heathen nations for idolatry and divination, the promises and predictions of the Old Testament and the examples of the godly kings of Judah all lead to the conclusion that the civil magistrate has a moral obligation to support biblical Christianity within his realm. In fact, the prophecies imply that a time is coming when many Gentile nations will establish Christianity as the religion of the land. M'Crie writes:

God addresses the nations in a collective capacity, reproves them for their idolatry, and calls them to his worship, Isaiah xxxiv. 1, xli. l. 21-29. He proposes Christ, as his anointed servant, to them, chap. xlii. 1, declares that he has given him the nations for his inheritance, and that he shall inherit them all, Psal. ii. 8, Isa. lii. 15, lv. 5. Christ addresses himself not only to individuals, but to whole islands, Isa. xlix. 1; nations join themselves to him, own and worship him, Isa. ii. 2, Mic. iv. 1.2, Zech. ii. 11, viii. 20-22, bless themselves, and glory in him, Jer. iv. 2; all nations and dominions serve him, Dan. vii. 14. 27; they consecrate all things in them, and employ them in his service, Isa. lx. 6-12, Zech. xiv. 20, 21; he owns the nations as his, and blesses them, while he breaks in pieces and wastes others, Psal. xxxiii. 12, cxlv. 15, Isa. xix. 25, Ps. ii. 9, 12, Isa. lx. 12.39

Circumventing the Old Testament

That the Old Testament does not countenance political polytheism is easy to prove from Scripture. This fact, however, does not impress most Christians today for they simply dismiss these proofs as Old Testament teachings. They argue that the New Testament does not forbid political polytheism; in fact, they say the New Testament endorses political polytheism as the normal state of affairs until the second coming of Christ. Those old Puritans and Presbyterians were led astray by their postmillennial eschatology and their over dependence on the Old Testament. They also argue that in the New Covenant era the civil magistrate's power is restricted to the Second Table of the law.

With regard to these typical comments, we ask the following questions. First, where in the New Testament are the responsibilities of civil magistrates annulled or altered? Second, where in the New Testament does God endorse political polytheism? Third, where in the New Testament does God restrict the civil magistrate's power to the Second Table? Fourth, how can a person who claims to be Reformed dismiss the Old Testament teaching on the civil magistrate and demand a proof exclusively from the New Testament without becoming a dispensationalist? If one dismisses the Old Testament teaching on the civil ruler simply because it is Old Testament, then how shall they defend Sabbath keeping, covenanting, and covenant theology? Wylie states:

Many otherwise intelligent Christians with preconceived opinions of this whole matter, influenced largely by popular but false views as to the proper relation of nations to Christ and His religion, take the secular position, which is nothing more or less than atheism in political garb. This political anti-Christ is one of the most potent agencies for evil that the devil has yet devised.40

Those who want to dismiss the magistrate's responsibility to uphold the First Table of the law must also explain how moral laws based on God's nature and character, can be set aside by God. Idolatry, theft, false witness, adultery, and so on are always wrong because they are ethical absolutes. They are inconsistent with God's nature. Can God forbid murder and child sacrifice in one era and then allow them in another? Absolutely not, for they are not ceremonial or positive laws. Therefore, God can no more countenance the practice of idolatry today than he can approve of bestiality, homosexuality, or murder. The only consistent manner in which a person could argue that First Table laws have been set aside by God is to argue that all biblical laws are purely positive or arbitrary. Such a view, however, is outside the pale of Christian orthodoxy.

There are some people of premillennial and amillennial persuasion who argue that since the church in the new covenant era will always be a tiny remnant among the nations, God desires, and Christians should work for, political pluralism in each nation. Although it is certainly true that Christians fare much better under a "pluralistic" system than under a communistic or Islamic dictatorship, that does not mean that God accepts pluralism as the ideal. Stealing a candy bar is less offensive than triple homicide, but that does not make theft acceptable to God. Furthermore, even if premillennialism or amillennialism were true, God's decretive will does not disallow His preceptive will. Even if in God's plan there was never to be a Christian nation, that does not mean that political polytheism is acceptable to Jehovah. God's will regarding the civil magistrate's responsibility to suppress the open practice of idolatry, witchcraft and all heathen religions is clear. It should be the ultimate political goal of all Christians.

[Part 2 of Political Polytheism will appear in the November - December issue of The Christian Statesman.]

Brian Schwertley is an ordained minister in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of the United States and the pastor of Chalcedon Christian Church in Haslett, Michigan. He is the author of various articles and books on subjects relating to the family, church, and state. His work can be found and downloaded at www.reformedonline.com.

Endnotes

1. An excellent description of America's general attitude toward religion and national life in the 1950's was given in 1958 by John C. Bennett. He wrote: "What are we to say about this national acknowledgment of God which because of our religious pluralism cannot have more content than a vague theism? It is easy to dismiss it as insincere or as little more than a harmless anachronism or to see special irony in the fact that the words, 'In God we trust,' appear on our coins, and that the word 'God' appears so frequently in political perorations. The association of this theism with current popular forms of religious reassurance and especially with the current desire for religious sanctions for the American way of life has caused many theologians and religious leaders to criticize it very sharply. The soundest criticism is that in practice we often find ourselves engaged in the ritual of a third faith--not Christianity or Judaism. As Will Herberg says, we have an American religion which may begin as a common den ominator of our historic faiths but which becomes in practice a substitute faith. This American faith is often nationalistic and it can become chauvinistic, though, for the most part, we have escaped that. It lacks emphasis upon the transcendent judgment of God. It is often a folk-religion with some Christian overtones. The association of the current revival of religious interest with the justification of America as against atheistic Communism, and the fact that this religious interest coincides with great emphasis on social conformity and on material prosperity increase the religious distortion that is involved. So enhanced are our national self-righteousness in relation to the world and our national complacency in relation to ourselves" (Christians and the State [New York, NY: Charles Scribner & Sons, 1958], pp. 6-7).

Jesus spoke strong words that apply against any national, vague, ecumenical theism, "Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven" (Mt. 10:32-33). "He who is not with Me is against Me" (Mt. 12:30).

2. Greg Bahnsen in Gary Scott ed., God and Politics: Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1989), p. 30.

3. R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1977 [1973]), p. 17.

4. E. C. Wines, The Hebrew Republic (Uxbridge, MA: American Presbyterian Press, 1980), p. 65.

5. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 39.

6. Ibid., p. 66.

7. The positive formulation of the first commandment is found in Deuteronomy 6:4-5. Rushdoony writes, " Deuteronomy 6:5 is cited by Christ as 'the first and greatest commandment' (Mt. 22:37; Mk. 12:30; Lk. 10:27), i.e., as the essential and basic principle of the law. The premise of this commandment is however, Deuteronomy 6:4: 'Here, O Israel, The Lord our God is one Lord.' The Christian affirmation of this is the declaration, 'We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity.' It is the faith in the unity of the Godhead as opposed to the belief in 'gods many and lords many.' The consequences for law of the fact are total: it means one God, one law." (The Institutes of Biblical Law, pp. 16-17).

8. R. J. Rushdoony, Christianity and the State (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1986), p. 7.

9. Ibid.

10. Greg Bahnsen, "The Theonomic Position," in Gary Scott Smith (ed.), God and Politics: Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1989), 30.

11. Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976), p. 261. Another passage which reveals God's attitude toward pagan religions is: "But you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the Lord your God has commanded you, lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the Lord your God" (Dt. 20:17).

12. A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 694.

13. Thomas M'Crie, Statement of the Difference Between the Profession of the Reformed Church of Scotland, as Adopted by Seceders, and the Profession Contained in the New Testimony and Other Acts, Lately Adopted by the General Associate Synod, etc. (Edinburgh: C. F. Lyon, 1871), pp. 137-138.

14. The English reformer Cramer wrote, "Worldly dominion should tend to this, viz., to seek the best advantage of the Church of God, and maintain its protection. Otherwise, if God were not concerned about His Church, kings, and princes would be of no use on earth" (in Carl Nagelsback, Langes Commentary on The Holy Scriptures [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1960 (1877)], Vol. 6, p. 541).

Matthew Poole wrote, "Kings and queens shall have a sincere affection and tender regard unto thee and thy children, which was in some sort fulfilled by Cyrus, Ahasuerus, and some few others of the Persian kings or queens, but much more truly and fully by those many kings and emperors of the Gentile world, which after Christ's time did both themselves embrace the true religion, and also set it up in their several dominions" (A Commentary on the Holy Bible [Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1962 (1700)], Vol. 2, pp. 439-440).

John Gill said that this passage refers, "literally of the kings and queens of the earth; and is thought to have had its fulfillment, at least in part, in Cyrus, Ahasuerus, Esther, and others; but more so in Christian kings and queens, as Constantine and Helena, Theodosius and Placilla, and others; and will have a far greater accomplishment in the latter day glory; see Isa lx. 3, 11, 16: they shall bow down toward thee with their faces toward the earth; which expresses the great veneration and respect these great personages shall have for the church of God, and their entire submission and subjection to the Gospel of Christ, and the ordinances of it, and to the laws and discipline of his house; for they shall now become members of the Christian church, and be entirely under the government of it, as to religious things; see Rev. iii. 9" (Exposition of the Old Testament [Streamwood, IL: Primitive Baptist Library, 1970 (1810)], Vol. V, p. 292).

Matthew Henry wrote, "The Christian Church, after a long captivity, was happy in some such kings and queens as Constantine and his mother Helena, and afterwards Theodosius, and others, who nursed the church with all possible care and tenderness. Whenever the scepter of government is put into the hand of religious princes, then this promise is fulfilled. The church in this world is in an infant state, and it is in the power of princes and magistrates to do it a great deal of service" (Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible [McLean, VA: MacDonald Pub. Co., n. d. (1712)], Vol. IV, p. 281).

Patrick Fairbairn wrote, "when Isaiah makes a promise to the church, of kings being her nursing-fathers, and queens her nursing-mothers, of the forces of the Gentiles coming to her, and kings ministering to her (chap. xlix. 23, lx. 10, 11)--with many more of like kind. Such passages plainly imply, that while the struggle was still pending between the cause of Christ and the powers of the world, while the people of God were still in need of help for the conflict in which they had to engage, different nations with their rulers, would successively give in their adherence, and contribute their aid to the final result" (Prophecy [Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976 (1865)], p. 286).

15. John Calvin, Commentary on the Prophet Isaiah (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1981), Vol. 4, p. 39.

16. Ibid., Vol. 4, p. 40.

17. Ibid., Vol. 4, p. 40.

18. Ibid., Vol. 4, p. 41.

19. Young's Literal Translation.

20. "The Prophets" from A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 1982).

21. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1980), Vol. 1, p. 52.

22. See Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (Milford, MI: Mott Media, 1979 [1857]), p. 539.

23. Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), Vol. 3, p. 291.

24. John Calvin, Vol. 4, pp. 40-41.

25. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 198.

26. A reading of Isaiah 49:23 within its context clearly refers to something more than what occurred under kings Cyrus and Darius. Verse 22 indicates many nations, not just Medo-Persia. Cyrus received a direct revelation from God directing him to rebuild the temple (2 Chr. 36:23; Ez. 1:2) yet it is doubtful that he truly believed in Jehovah and bowed down to the one true God. He was a polytheist like Darius. Darius funded the temple from revenues collected from conquered peoples ("at the king's expense"-- Ezra 6:8). He warned political powers in his empire to stay away from Israel (Ezra 6:6), and, threatened anyone who disobeyed his edict with the death penalty (Ezra 6:11). Yet, Darius was a rank polytheist who did the same for many other religions. "He had a special interest in restoring specific cults in his empire and contributed to their restoration liberally. We know of these activities from the West among the Greeks, and even in Egypt (e.g., the cult of Neith).... [Darius wanted] to make sure he was in the favor of every god in his empire" (F. Charles Fenshane, The Books of Ezra & Nehemiah [Grand Rapids, MI: 1982], pp. 89-90). Thus, commentators are fully justified in seeing the literal fulfillment of Isaiah 49:23 in Christian kings serving Christian nations.

27. "Since the government produces no goods, it can distribute only what it takes from others. When an election, or in some countries a coup, changes the identity of plunderers and plundered, yesterday's injustice becomes today's justice. In a redistributive society, the law is a thief" (Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction [Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1983], p. 118). Note, that the Israelites rebuilt the temple with voluntary tithes (Ezra 1:6; 2:68-69) and with money from the king's treasury (Ezra 6:8). The money given by Darius was not taken from a tax on the people of God but from his own private stash "Let the cost be paid at the king's expense" (Ezra 6:8). This was from tribute money from other conquered nations that belonged to the king and could be used in any way he pleased. The heathen tyrant Darius can not be used as a proof for "Christian" socialism unless one wants to argue that a state should conquer other nations to get money for Christian projects. Although God used a pagan dictator to help His people that does not mean that God approved of Darius' method of collecting funds. The Old Testament poll or head tax clearly would not produce sufficient funds for any type of Christian socialism. Charity and schooling were left to the family and the church.

28. E. J. Young, Isaiah, Vol. 3, p. 450.

29. John Owen quoted in Thomas M'Crie, p. 139.

30. Psalm 47 also refers to Christ as the mediatorial king who subdues the nations: "Oh, clap your hands, all you peoples [i.e., both Jews and Gentiles]! Shout to God with the voice of triumph! For, the Lord Most High is awesome; He is a great King over all the earth. He will subdue the peoples under us, and the nations under our feet. He will choose our inheritance for us, the excellence of Jacob whom He loves. Selah. God has gone up with a shout, the Lord with the sound of a trumpet [this refers to Christ's ascension]. Sing praises to God, sing praises! Sing praises to our King, sing praises! For God is the King of all the earth; sing praises with understanding. God reigns over the nations; God sits on His holy throne. The princes of the people have gathered together...." Psalm 102 says, "So the nations shall fear the name of the Lord , and all kings of the earth Your glory...When the peoples are gathered, and the kingdoms to serve the Lord " (vss. 15, 22). References could be multiplied on this point..

31. Greg Bahnsen, in Gary Scott Smith ed., God and Politics, p. 30.

32. "What, then, was the true province of the theocracy? What were its leading objectives? These objectives, as I conceive, without excluding others, were chiefly two. One was to teach mankind the true science of civil government. It corresponds with the goodness of God in other respects, that he should make a special revelation on this subject. I hold it to have been an important part of the legislation of the Most High, as the lawgiver of Israel, to show how civil authority among men should be created, and how it should be administered, so as best to promote the welfare and happiness of a nation; and also how the relations between rulers and ruled should be adjusted and regulated. But another object of the theocratic feature of the Hebrew government, and the leading one undoubtedly, was the overthrow and extirpation of idolatry. The design was, first, to effect a separation between the Israelites and their idolatrous neighbors, and, secondly to make idolatry a crime against the state, that so it might be punishable by the civil law, without a violation of civil liberty. A fundamental purpose of the Mosaic polity was the abolition of idolatrous worship, and the substitution in its place, and the maintenance, of a true religion in the world. The only agency, adequate to the production of this result, as far as wisdom can see, was the very institution of the Hebrew theocracy" (Vines, The Hebrew Republic, p. 65).

33. Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1962 [1685]), Vol. I, p. 770.

34. Paleopresbyterians refer (generally speaking) to certain Presbyterian conservatives who uncritically regard everything done during the period of the Second Reformation period in Scotland as scriptural. They argue that since John Calvin, John Knox, and the Scottish church believed in a public school system, etc. it must be biblical. They also argue that since theonomists disagree with Calvin, Knox and the Second Reformation on some issues as to the limited role of the state, theonomy must be wrong. Although the modern theonomy movement has a poor record on the issues of worship, ecclesiology and the keeping of the Sabbath, its stance regarding the roles of the family, church, and state in education and charity are exegetically sound. The only passages which could be used to support the paleopresbyterian position on public schools would be Isaiah 49:23 and Isaiah 60:16. However, since the clearer portions of Scripture must be used to interpret the less clear and what the Law, the history of Israel, and the New Testament say about the state, the author must side with the theonomists on the issue of public schools, and state charity.

35. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 676.

36. Ibid.

37. Most modern Christian political reform movements act as if Christians can pick and choose which laws should be applied to modern society. The First Table laws which obviously are the most unpalatable to American ears are a priori ruled off limits by most Christian reform leaders. These reform movements also work and act as if we can have a Christian nation without a national public commitment to Jesus Christ. There is no question that the pluralistic Baptist paradigm for culture has had and continues to have a strong influence on America's conservative Christian political leaders. Once, Christians understand that natural law theory alone cannot be a basis for Christian civilization and that God's law is covenantal, they will be left with the only biblical alternative: a society modeled after God's law and public national covenanting.

38. Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, Vol. 1, p. 371.

39. Thomas M'Crie, "Statement of the Difference etc.", pp. 140-141.

40. Richard C. Wylie, Christ's Government of the Nations, in William Einwechter, ed, The Christian Statesman, Vol. 140, No. 4, p. 12.

back to top