2 Samuel 7-8; Psalm 109; Romans 13

 June 10: Have we been doing it wrong? Conservative leaders in the USA have tended to be less vocal about the gospel until recently. It left a vacuum into which leaders espousing policies that are antagonistic to God's revealed will in numerous places. David was vocal about his ventures in faith, his zeal for the worship of the Lord, and God's blessing followed as a signal of God's approval. The Apostles opposed wicked government actions against them and prevailed.

2 Samuel 7-8: In these chapters, David is moved to build a Temple and God responds by giving him the Davidic Covenant, which points to Messiah’s eternal throne. He then begins to establish David in earnest, allowing him to subdue Israel’s enemies in preparation for the time of peace enjoyed under Solomon. What is the significance of a Temple vs. a Tabernacle? Why the rhetorical questions to David, “Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in? Whereas I have not dwelt in any house since the time that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle. In all the places wherein I have walked with all the children of Israel spake I a word with any of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people Israel, saying, Why build ye not me an house of cedar?” (2 Samuel 7:5-7) I’m concentrating on the words “dwell” and “walk” in God’s speech to David: the Temple does imply permanence, and an exhibit of wealth and beauty; the Tabernacle impermanence and simplicity - still beauty and craftsmanship, but the wealth is definitely concealed. God implies no permanent resting place by saying that He “walked in a tent.” And yet the Temple was still built. It’s making me think of 2 Corinthians 5:1 where Paul anticipates his earthly “tabernacle” being “dissolved” but an eternal “building” (oikodomē, <g3619>) made by God being given to him in heaven.

Psalm 109:15-31: Wouldn’t it be great if our critics could see God’s help for us for what it is, evidence of His hand in our lives? It seems like their skepticism would be debunked and they’d  have to acknowledge God. Alas, that’s rare: it's easier to rationalize employing some other explanation. 

Romans 13: How do we reconcile Romans 13:1, ff. with passages like 1 John 5:18,

“And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in [under the sway of] wickedness [the wicked one]”?

How does it work, practically, for every man to be submissive to a non-Christian government? This is a question that needs a clear answer for our generation, as government is getting more and more repressive toward Christianity. As it’s been often said, this was likely written under the reign of Nero, who is said to have lit Christians on fire to light his garden paths. What was Jesus’ posture toward Roman rule? He paid taxes, (Matthew 17:24-27, 22:17-22), indicating He was Himself subject to the civil authorities. He also was subject to the religious authorities, and taught the crowds to also do this, Matthew 23:1-3, to a point. Where their traditions invalidated the Word of God, He directly opposed them. Likewise, when the apostles were commanded not to preach and teach in Jesus’ name, they disobeyed, (Acts 4:19). If therefore, the higher law of love, (Romans 13:8-10), can be obeyed, and the government can be simultaneously be obeyed if we bear their restrictions, we must do so. It’s when they conflict with one another that it is our duty to disobey civil government.