Q&A on Christian Reconstruction, Part 5
Answers provided by Martin Selbrede, Chalcedon Vice-President
Where do you see Reconstructionism in terms of influence and growth in the future both on a national and international scale?
Given the explicit promises that God has graciously enunciated in the Holy Scriptures, we hold that one day all people will be reconstructionists. We find ourselves currently in the situation described in Hebrews 2:8 -- "... In putting everything under Him, God left nothing that is not subject to Him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to Him." The certainty that this partial subjection will slowly transition into a total subjection is not pitted against the current situation as opposing it, but mere as a stepping stone during the centuries-long transition to fulfillment. The promise of Isaiah 2:2-4 will be fulfilled on the national and international scale -- the fourth verse of this prophecy promises the permanent cessation of war between the nations. As the leaven spreads into the three whole measures of meal, as the mustard seed grows into a tree so large that "every bird under heaven lodges in its branches," we will come to the era when "no man need teach his neighbor, saying 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know Him, from the least to the greatest." Psalm 87 enunciates the trans-national nature of Zion, where the various nations are announced by God Himself as those who are "knowers of Me," such that "each and every man shall be born in her (Zion)." The translation "each and every" rather than "this man and that man" follows from the correct rendering of this clause that also appears in Esther 1:8, as noted by Hengstenberg.
We expect the promise to be true that "the isles shall wait for Thy Law," thus reversing the situation described in Psalm 2 where the heathen seek to "cast His cords away" and "burst His bonds." Isaiah 19 explicitly enunciates the coming-in of Egypt and Assyria (bitter enemies of Israel) into God's fold prior to Israel's coming in ("as the third part"), in keeping with the covenantal interpretation of Rom. 11:25-26. (I note in passing that hard-core exegetes -- such as H.A.W. Meyer -- adopt a brutally literal interpretation of passages like this, or of John 12:32, that fully supports the validity of reconstruction's claims. It is NOT as though reconstructionism has no exegetical basis -- it is rather, as Meyer states it, that critics routinely turn their back on exegesis (e.g., "Luther was induced to depart from literal exegesis out of dogmatic considerations..."). As Meyer said in response to a long list of specious attempts to evade the literal sense of Rom. 11:25-26, wherein the critics offered up their eschatological conceits to battle the straightforward exegesis of the text, that Paul's "simple, clear words do not cease to offer resistance" to the compromised distortions promoted by even the most eminent commentators. Lutheran scholar Lenski all but admits this to be the case when he scornfully notes that "only an exegete" would take the Romans 11 passage literally. THAT is where the issue stands, and has always stood. Painting it in such a way as to suggest reconstructionists have failed the exegetical challenge is gross dishonesty: the opposite is actually the case. Reconstructionism is, first and foremost, exegetical in outlook. This compounds its offense in the eyes of its critics.)
In short, I resort to Scriptural representations to predict the influence and growth of reconstructionism, insofar as I believe that reconstructionism is the most consistent application of the Scripture and its truths, duties, and promises that has yet been articulated. While non-reconstructionists may find this identification to be gratuitous, I've not seen a credible refutation as of this date, although I've often seen a "counsel of despair" floated in lieu of reconstructionism. The offense of reconstruction is its unapologetic appeal to the Scripture for every matter, in keeping with Isaiah 8:20's assertion that unless men speak according to the Law and the Testimony, there is no light in them. If reconstructionism is hated, it is the same hatred that is directed to God's light in general: "we will not have this man to reign over us." The stone the builders have rejected WILL become the head of the corner: that is our confidence. One day, all Christians will be reconstructionists, as Warfield effectively asserts in his extraordinary exposition of Matt. 5:18 (cf. his article "Jesus's Mission According To His Own Testimony" published in "Biblical Doctrines").
Where do you see Reconstructionism in terms of influence and growth in the future both on a national and international scale?
Given the explicit promises that God has graciously enunciated in the Holy Scriptures, we hold that one day all people will be reconstructionists. We find ourselves currently in the situation described in Hebrews 2:8 -- "... In putting everything under Him, God left nothing that is not subject to Him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to Him." The certainty that this partial subjection will slowly transition into a total subjection is not pitted against the current situation as opposing it, but mere as a stepping stone during the centuries-long transition to fulfillment. The promise of Isaiah 2:2-4 will be fulfilled on the national and international scale -- the fourth verse of this prophecy promises the permanent cessation of war between the nations. As the leaven spreads into the three whole measures of meal, as the mustard seed grows into a tree so large that "every bird under heaven lodges in its branches," we will come to the era when "no man need teach his neighbor, saying 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know Him, from the least to the greatest." Psalm 87 enunciates the trans-national nature of Zion, where the various nations are announced by God Himself as those who are "knowers of Me," such that "each and every man shall be born in her (Zion)." The translation "each and every" rather than "this man and that man" follows from the correct rendering of this clause that also appears in Esther 1:8, as noted by Hengstenberg.
We expect the promise to be true that "the isles shall wait for Thy Law," thus reversing the situation described in Psalm 2 where the heathen seek to "cast His cords away" and "burst His bonds." Isaiah 19 explicitly enunciates the coming-in of Egypt and Assyria (bitter enemies of Israel) into God's fold prior to Israel's coming in ("as the third part"), in keeping with the covenantal interpretation of Rom. 11:25-26. (I note in passing that hard-core exegetes -- such as H.A.W. Meyer -- adopt a brutally literal interpretation of passages like this, or of John 12:32, that fully supports the validity of reconstruction's claims. It is NOT as though reconstructionism has no exegetical basis -- it is rather, as Meyer states it, that critics routinely turn their back on exegesis (e.g., "Luther was induced to depart from literal exegesis out of dogmatic considerations..."). As Meyer said in response to a long list of specious attempts to evade the literal sense of Rom. 11:25-26, wherein the critics offered up their eschatological conceits to battle the straightforward exegesis of the text, that Paul's "simple, clear words do not cease to offer resistance" to the compromised distortions promoted by even the most eminent commentators. Lutheran scholar Lenski all but admits this to be the case when he scornfully notes that "only an exegete" would take the Romans 11 passage literally. THAT is where the issue stands, and has always stood. Painting it in such a way as to suggest reconstructionists have failed the exegetical challenge is gross dishonesty: the opposite is actually the case. Reconstructionism is, first and foremost, exegetical in outlook. This compounds its offense in the eyes of its critics.)
In short, I resort to Scriptural representations to predict the influence and growth of reconstructionism, insofar as I believe that reconstructionism is the most consistent application of the Scripture and its truths, duties, and promises that has yet been articulated. While non-reconstructionists may find this identification to be gratuitous, I've not seen a credible refutation as of this date, although I've often seen a "counsel of despair" floated in lieu of reconstructionism. The offense of reconstruction is its unapologetic appeal to the Scripture for every matter, in keeping with Isaiah 8:20's assertion that unless men speak according to the Law and the Testimony, there is no light in them. If reconstructionism is hated, it is the same hatred that is directed to God's light in general: "we will not have this man to reign over us." The stone the builders have rejected WILL become the head of the corner: that is our confidence. One day, all Christians will be reconstructionists, as Warfield effectively asserts in his extraordinary exposition of Matt. 5:18 (cf. his article "Jesus's Mission According To His Own Testimony" published in "Biblical Doctrines").
