Does 1 Timothy chapter 2 assume that Paul looked for Christian magistrates?
A friend of this site wrote me concerning this question as
apparently he has encountered not a few Dominionists who attempt to make this
argument. We read in 1 Timothy chapter 2:
1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers,
intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a
quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the
knowledge of the truth.
Actually it's one of the texts that is explicitly opposed to
the Dominionist viewpoint and assumptions. Whenever Paul speaks in these terms
like in 1 Thessalonians 4 and 2 Timothy 2 (for example), the idea is that we're
leading a disentangled and relatively quiet life, a step removed from the world
and its concerns – and its traps and entanglements that both Christ and Paul
warn us about. This is not to imply that we're inactive but rather that the
things we pursue and give our time to are not things the world understands or
from their perspective have any meaning or bearing. To put it in contemporary
terms we're operating on a completely different level that's not going to make
any sense to the world. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal.
The Dominionists are assuming their argument and then coming
to1 Timothy 2 and forcing it on the text. You would never get that from that
natural reading and besides the rest of the New Testament militates against
this. We can't be sure, but it may be that Paul (in 1 Tim 2) was correcting a
view in which some of these Christians were actually getting political and
arguing that we should agitate or oppose certain rulers. If so, then Paul is
silencing this tendency. Were these men arguing that rulers should be replaced
with Christian rulers? Maybe. Or that only Christian rulers were legitimate?
Maybe. I think a lot of these errors were running amok in the New Testament
Church and are being rebuked and corrected at various points.
Or, (and this is the view I lean toward) some might have
been arguing that since we all know the rulers are evil, we shouldn't pray for
them or submit to them. Paul corrects this but he doesn't dispense with the
idea that rulers are evil or that the office is incompatible with the gospel.
He simply says we want to lead quiet lives and thus we pray for them. Hopefully
they'll leave us alone is what he's implying and there's the hope that even
such men can be saved. There's nothing about praying that they'll impose
righteousness at the point of the sword – which would mean that the weapons of
our warfare are in fact carnal.
At the point of a magistrate's conversion, I would argue as
saved Christians the covenant ethics of Romans 12 (for a start) kicks in or is
activated and such converted rulers should resign - or hold on until a conflict
arises which probably won't take long. Some of that will depend on the
individual's conscience, their spiritual maturity, and what they choose to see
or not see.
To the best of our knowledge this was also how the early
Church approached the idea of Christians in the army. You couldn't just get out
and so if converted you pressed on and hopefully your unit was just building
roads and bridges. But if the time came wherein you were called to take up the
sword you were to refuse and face the consequences. But one thing that was not
tolerated was a Christian enlisting. That was grounds for discipline and the
same should be true today for Christians that join the legions or actively seek
political office.
The Dominionist argument is begging the question (petitio
principii) and thus producing a non sequitir. In recent years the same kind of
eisegesis has been employed with reference to The Great Commission of Matthew
28. Make disciples of the nations is transformed into 'disciple the nations'.
Instead of focusing on the redemptive-historical shift and the torn veil of the
temple – in other words the end of the Jewish Old Covenant order and the idea
that the Spiritual and largely invisible Kingdom now extends to all nations as
the altar-Temple is no longer tied to a specific geographic locale and
political entity, instead the Dominionists read an assumed 'Christianisation'
of the nations programme into the verse. It's nowhere suggested in Christ's
teaching and is not found anywhere else in the New Testament. In fact many
passages such as 1 Timothy 2 assume the very opposite. Since it necessarily
redefines what Christianity is, it qualifies as another gospel.
As far as the argument stated in your last paragraph, I
think Romans 13 destroys these assumptions. The powers that be are ordained by
God and have a purpose - even what we can call in terms of Providence, a
'ministry'. And this was no less true of Nero who reigned when Paul wrote those
words. From a Christian standpoint it doesn't get much worse than Nero. In the
Old Testament we find the same 'servant' and 'minister' language associated
with the Bestial empires of Assyria, Babylon, and Persia. The ministry in this
case is not covenantal but Providential and thus their argument falls flat.
Additionally if the Dominionists are right then I guess
Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 6 is nullified or has the potential to be. I
can go to a 'Christian' judge, right? And if we're in a 'Christian' society and
I go to a 'Christian' judge then I'm not in violation of Paul's commands. I can
even sue other Christians as there is no 'outside' anymore, there is no
world so to speak as all of society is Christian and thus an extension of the
Church. Dominionism fails to see or chooses not to address just how much of the
New Testament and its imperatives are canceled out by their doctrine or would
be if they were to 'win' and assume control of society and culture. That's one
of the reasons why it is pernicious. The line of demarcation between the world
and the Church is erased. It's hard to imagine a more dangerous error than
that.
The governing assumption of the New Testament is that the
state is not Christian and cannot be. We are always strangers and pilgrims in
this age and persecution is normative. That's not a gospel the
Dominionist-Evangelical world is interested in.
Returning to 1 Timothy, if the Church in Ephesus was having
problems understanding authority - Paul seems to address this, the magistrate
though wicked and unchristian is still legitimate. Pray for them and hope that
they'll leave us alone so that we may go about our tasks. Likewise women need
to recognize the proper authority in the Church and cannot teach. He then lays
out the office of Bishop and so forth. There's a flow to his reasoning
that is incompatible with the Dominionist line.
He's dealing with Church order and problems that undermine
the authority of the Church and the Christian life - money is a big one later
in the book which again is inseparable from power. The entire thrust of Dominionist
thinking, their entire ethos is simply alien to the New Testament and this
forced reading is no exception.