Introduction

Well, we come to yet another sermon that deals with politics. I was recently asked by someone why I have preached so much on the subject in the past year. And it's true that in this series I have. On Tuesday I counted the number of sermons that dealt with political issues in 1 and 2 Samuel, and it comes to 15 out of 66 sermons, or a little over 22%. So there have been a lot of sermons in this series that you could say were political sermons. And Providentially it has worked out quite well, since we are in a political season. But I would say the simplest answer to that question is that I don't want to skip over any passages in the life of David. I want to have the balance that the Scripture has, not an artificial balance. Michael Milton, the Chancellor of Reformed Theological Seminary recently wrote an article in which he was complaining that that pastors in America have gone in the opposite direction. They have failed to preach the whole counsel of God; they have failed to apply the Bible to politics at all, and as a result, they have failed to even address the biggest idols in society. They have allowed their parishioners to peacefully embrace the idols of our culture.

And part of it comes from a misunderstanding of the comprehensiveness of the Gospel. I read an article recently that asked if our Gospel that we preach can be derived out of the Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It's a great question. And interestingly, some pastors have admitted that they can't get the Gospel from the Gospels. One pastor friend of mine said that that's because the four Gospels have a different Gospel from Paul's. He claimed that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have the Gospel of the Kingdom for the Jews, and the Gospel for the Gentiles didn't start until part way through the book of Acts. The problem with that theory is that Paul says that He was preaching the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. If you've got a Gospel of Paul that contradicts the Gospel of Jesus, you don't understand the Gospel of Paul. It was a very eye-opening article and it shows the problem with modern pietism. The Gospel of Jesus applies to all of life, and we are robbing ourselves when we miss out on some of those applications.

And let me just illustrate that. I did a fun experiment on Tuesday. I got a red letter edition of the Bible and counted the number of pages in Matthew that have red on it. In other words, those are the pages where Jesus gave a speech while on earth. Of course, He gave the black letters too, but we will play their game. The total number of red letter pages in Matthew comes to 30 pages in my Bible. I then counted the number of those red-letter pages where Jesus directly gave guidance for politics, in some way critiqued politics, or where He addressed the political system of that time. And I was surprised by the results. It came to 20 pages, or 66% of the pages. So if you hear someone say that I have preached way too much on politics this year, you can tell them that I don't preach on politics anywhere near as much as Jesus did – 22% versus 66%. So I've got a lot of catching up to do. Well, not really. I still to the text.

The election of David

In this passage we have a summary statement of the election and the reign of David. And it is one of many passages that stood as a paradigm for Rev. John Witherspoon, a signer of the Declaration for Independence, and a mentor for many of those who were crafting the Constitution. They modeled the American Republic after the Hebrew Republic in the Old Testament. According to our second president, John Adams, it was very self-conscious. And if you want a major treatise on the subject, read E. C. Wines' book, The Hebrew Republic. And actually, for that matter, read his Commentaries on the Law of the Hebrews. Both books show how America was founded on straightforward exegesis of these Old Testament passages, with only a few variants thrown in.

Representatives from each tribe (v. 1a; with 1 Chron. 11:1)

Verse 1: "Then all the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron and spoke…" The parallel in 1 Chronicles 11:1 says, "Then all Israel gathered to David…" The key phrases are, "all the tribes of Israel came" and "all Israel gathered." This has posed a huge problem for some commentators, who have thought that it would be physically impossible for 80 million people to come to Hebron to choose David. But older writers see this language as representative and covenantal. Notice that verse 3 clarifies what verse 1 means when it says that "all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron." But Reformed writers have pointed out that you can't just take verse 3 and ignore the wording in verse 1. They interpret each other, and the wording of verse 1 is extremely important. When the elders come, they are representing the people, so it is appropriate to speak of them as the people and as all Israel. And you will find this kind of language all throughout the Old Testament. It was a representational form of government.

You will find this in the Constitution of the United States of America. "We the people of the United States." How could 55 delegates dare claim to be "we the people"? Because they represented the votes of the State Conventions, and the state conventions represented the votes of the counties, and the counties represented the votes of the citizens. James Wilson, one of the members of the United States Constitutional Convention, said, "…in large states, the people cannot assemble together. As they cannot, therefore, act by themselves, they must act by their representatives." That's what we mean by representational government. The choice of rulers must represent the people, even when it is delegates voting. And the only way to reconcile verse 1,3 and 1 Chronicles 11 is to see it as representational government. It was no different than America.

Here's a bird's eye view of how it worked out in the Bible. 2 Samuel 16:18 says that the king must be "whom the LORD and this people and all the men of Israel choose." Those "ands" distinguish three groups: first, the Lord, second, "this people" (that would be the representatives) and third, "all the men of Israel" (that would be the heads of households voting). That in a nutshell is representational government.

Let me fill that out a bit more. In 1 Samuel 8, when it says, "the people … said [to Samuel], ‘No, but we will have a king over us…'" who were "the people"? It was representatives who had voted to oust Samuel's corrupt sons from ruling. They had just engaged in an impeachment process. The passage already noted the general discontent among the people at the local level, but they sent their representatives to speak about their concerns at the national level. And the national delegates were truly representing the people. But once a decision to choose a new king was made, Samuel said to these representatives of Israel, ‘Every man go to his city' (1 Sam. 8:19-22). Why would they need to go back to their city? Why couldn't they go ahead and just choose Saul right then and there? They were representatives. They were present. Well, the reason they had to go back to their cities was because they were now going to have to start the election process all over again because a new candidate had been presented, and the people hadn't voted on him. The representatives couldn't act independently of the people. And it was at the city level that the electoral process began. Every male 20 years old and above had a right to the vote in ancient Israel.¹ And I have a booklet on that if you want to see all the Scriptures. So when the actual vote took place to make Saul king, it was done by "all the men" in cities throughout the nation (1 Sam. 11:11-15), then it was taken to tribal conventions (2 Sam. 19:14,42,43; and that is also reflected in Numb. 1:1; Josh. 24:1ff; etc), and the representatives of those tribal conventions chose the king (2 Sam. 5:3; and also chapter 3:17; 19:11; 1 Chron. 11:3). And so it is clear that like our Electoral College system, it wasn't an absolute majority vote of the nation. They didn't just count votes across the nation, like the Democrats want us to do. That would play into the hands of power brokers. It would be so easy to cheat. And its even hinted at when you compare this passage with 1 Chronicles. 1 Chronicles 11 says, "all Israel," verse 1 here says, "all the tribes." Each tribe had delegates who voted, and so in 2 Samuel 19:43 the representatives of ten tribes said, "We have ten shares in the king." That's not absolute majority vote (like Al Gore got) but the majority of states (like Bush Junior got). On many levels the Hebrew representative system was similar to the American representative system. It was not a Parliamentary system like you've got in Canada. It had more checks and balances.

Representation has always been critically important to American Politics. But that is fast eroding, and we seem to be run by an Oligarchy that pulls the strings behind the conventions. That is why the recent rules changes in the Republican National Convention have garnered so much negative news. The Liberty Caucus had so much influence that it forced the power players to very publically cheat and to expose their dirty politics. They didn't have a choice. And the radicals in the Democratic convention have been the same with the Democrats – they didn't get two thirds votes when the Democrats changed their rules – not by a long shot.

But back to the Republicans, if Rule 16 had passed, it would have been like telling these thousands of elders who had come to vote in this chapter that the only ones who could have a voice would be the ones that David picked. That would destroy representational government. It would no longer have been all Israel, or the tribes, or the people who picked David; it would have been David who picked David through his own delegate selection process. And if Rule 16 had passed as Sununu wanted, it would have completely removed true representation within the Republican Party. Thankfully, Texas made such a stink about it, that they backed down. But the problem is, Rule 12 is still in place, which means that the rules can be changed at any time between conventions. It technically means they could put Rule 16 back in place tomorrow if they wanted to. That is a top down approach. This verse speaks of a bottom up approach. The whole of Israel was involved in the choice. That's the only way you can read that verse. And verse 3 indicates that they did so by sending delegates to Hebron to finally do what they have been asking to do for a long time.

Let me quickly remind you of that. Remember, Abner had been playing power politics and circumvented the representational process. Like the Republicans (and actually, like the Democrats at their recent convention), the people didn't get their way. And hopefully you will find this encouraging that corruption in politics isn't something new that we are helplessly facing. No, it is as old as mankind, and has been successfully resisted in the past. But the previous chapter shows that replacing scoundrels with others won't solve the problem. Our country needs the Gospel of Jesus Christ just like ancient Israel did. Without Christ's grace, human nature is just going to corrupt any process that we put in place. Anyway, take a look at chapter 3:17-18 again.

2Samuel 3:17 "Now Abner had communicated with the elders of Israel, saying, "In time past** [and we saw that this is referring to the last 7.5 years – "in time past"] **you were seeking for David to be king over you."

2Samuel 3:18 "Now then, do it! For the LORD has spoken of David, saying, "By the hand of My servant David, I will save My people Israel from the hand of the Philistines and the hand of all their enemies.'"

Abner knew what God wanted, but for seven and a half years he had been circumventing the process and playing power politics, all the while pretending to be serving the people and serving Ishbosheth. The Scripture is as relevant today as when it was originally written. Anyway, we saw that the elders, who were the local representatives of the people, were upset and they had been trying to get David in. And the pressures that they exerted finally hit their mark, and Abner caved in. He eventually had to; he had not choice. That's why I tell people not to give up simply because dirty politics has been played. The people can eventually get their delegates heard. But we can't do a cover up for them. And I for one am not going to reward them by playing their game and voting for Romney. If you want to, I can give you some arguments by which you can justify it. But at least consider the principles of this sermon.

So the various terms used for the people, Israel, and tribes shows a check and balance very similar to the Electoral College system and the primary system. So, point A – David was chosen by representatives of the people.

Based on citizenship (v. 1b)

Point B – David's kingship was based on citizenship. He had to be a fellow Jew. Verse 1 continues:

2Samuel 5:1 "Then all the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron and spoke, saying, "Indeed we are your bone and your flesh".

Commentators point out that this phrase, "we are your bone and your flesh" didn't mean that he was literally from David's tribe. That phrase points to two things: citizenship and exclusive loyalty. In fact it is a very similar phrase of connection used by Adam of Eve. But it spoke to citizenship and exclusive loyalty. David had showed himself loyal to Israel alone because he was a citizen of Israel alone. This was simply following the law. Deuteronomy 17:15,20 stipulated that all kings of Israel had to be citizens of Israel and could not have a dual loyalty or a dual citizenship. That should be so obvious that it shouldn't even need to be stated. The ruler of America should be an American citizen, and the ruler of England should be a British citizen. But it doesn't always work out that way. There have been times when kings or queens have come from other countries to rule in England. And because their roots were not in that country, their loyalties were mixed. They did not always have the country's best interests in mind.

Well, I would say the same about President Obama. While there has been debate about whether he meets the Constitutional requirements to be a president, I think the evidence is conclusive against it. You are free to dismiss my application of this qualification to Obama, but hopefully you can at least appreciate the wisdom of the law that is seeking to protect against the leader of the military having dual loyalties. Let's consider the case for Obama. (And by the way, we've got to apply the Scripture to our own real life situations or it's not preaching. Preaching is application. So let's apply it.)

Was Obama born on US soil? I'm willing to concede that point, actually, just for the sake of the argument. This has not been decided, though it is hotly contested. But I do find it interesting that Obama's records are sealed. His first executive order in office was executive order No. 13489, which prohibits the release of Obama's personal and presidential records, during and after his presidency. By the way, that is a violation of the Freedom of Information Act. But beyond that technicality, why would he do something like that? If there is nothing to hide, why hide it? It would be so easy to resolve the question of citizenship by simply showing the evidence being demanded. But he has spent millions of dollars fighting court cases that are asking for his birth certificate. When the birth certificate that his supporters placed on the web was exposed as a forgery, they finally admitted it, but still would not present the real thing. They claim they have it, but they won't produce it. Why? The law of God demanded that the king be able to prove that he was a citizen; it didn't demand that citizens be able to prove that he was not. The burden of proof was on the candidate. And our constitution is the same. It demands that presidents be natural born citizens. There were people born in America who did not qualify when the Constitution was written, because, though born in America, they were not natural born. There is a difference. The Birther issue is not a legalistic, narrow, small minded, conspiratorial issue. It's not mean spirited. It is simply a defense of Constitutionalism. It was actually started by a Democrat, not a Republican. It's a bipartisan issue. We either live by a constitution or we do not.

Second question: were both of Obama's parents US citizens? The answer is clearly, "No." There isn't anyone who debates that. They just scoff at the necessity of it. In terms of original intent, this appears to have been a qualification. John Jay (a founding father and the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) said that the reason for this requirement is so that allegiance be to America alone. And it makes sense. Some of the court cases I have read have pointed out that since a parent confers citizenship upon his or her children, a child could have dual allegiances if both parents were not citizens. Now, it's true that the Indiana court of appeals has said "that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." But like other liberal decisions that ignore original intent, that is absolutely false. That stupid court case says that a child of two illegal aliens could by virtue of the child's birth in America, be qualified to be a president. But the constitution does not simply require a president to be a citizen. It requires him to be a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen was one who was both jus soli and jus sanguinis. You can study the meaning of those two terms yourself.

Are we being legalistic? No. The Constitution put a higher standard on presidents than it did on legislators. Legislators just had to be citizens; presidents had to be natural born citizens. And here is the definition that Emerich de Vattel gave in 1758, in his book The Law of Nations. He distinguished citizens from natural citizens. He said, "natural citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." We've got to look at original intent. And we've got to get the meaning of the term from the discussions going on when the Constitution was written. That's pretty close – 1758.

Some people argue that the Fourteenth Amendment changed all that. And I won't get into the complicated arguments surrounding that issue. But you can cut through the rhetoric by simply asking what the Post Fourteenth Amendment laws of America were when Obama was born. The laws in force when Obama was born required that the mother have lived in the United States for fourteen consecutive years, the last five of which were after her age of fourteen. Well, that disqualifies Obama too, because his mother was eighteen when she gave birth to Obama. The laws in force at the time did not consider him to be a natural born citizen. It's quite clear.

Fourth (and this will be our last point), dual citizenship disqualifies a person from office because it sets up dual loyalties. And to me, this is the most convincing of all the arguments – and there are many good arguments. The British Nationality Act of 1948 gave Obama British Citizenship. Second, Kenyan law gave Obama Kenyan citizenship through his father in 1963 even if he was born in the United States and even if he was an American citizen. Both countries automatically conferred citizenship upon the children of their citizens. So Obama's father conferred foreign citizenship upon him. There is also strong evidence that Obama had citizenship in Indonesia, though that is debated because it might have required a renunciation of American citizenship. And since it is debated, I'm going to ignore that, and we will just stick with what is clear - the Kenyan and British citizenships. From five court cases in the 1800's, I am convinced that this alone would disqualify Obama from being president and make every law that he has signed null and void. This of course disqualifies me from running for President because I am not a natural born citizen (though I am a citizen). It's not like I have anything against a person who doesn't make the qualifications for office. I don't qualify, and I'm not against me. So don't take it as a personal issue. But citizenship is a critical issue for presidency. Both the Bible and the Constitution require it. And we will apply this to the kingship of Jesus later.

Based on track record (v. 2a)

The next verse indicates that a solid track record of service to the country is a qualification for office. You don't just pop up out of nowhere. Verse 2:

2Samuel 5:2 "Also, in time past, when Saul was king over us, you were the one who led Israel out and brought them in;…"

It was through such military service that David showed his qualifications to be the Commander in Chief. It was through such military service that he was able to demonstrate the Biblical qualifications of wisdom (Deut. 1:13) of ability (Ex. 18:21,25), and other qualifications. All the way back in 1 Samuel 18, God showed David to be exemplary in his military service, his loyalty, his leadership abilities, and his prowess. It's a track record.

And during the next thirty years, you will have plenty of opportunity to be voting for people based on their track record. Ignore their promises; look at the track record. Promises are meaningless with politicians; track record means a lot. Enough said. I think you can apply that pretty easily.

Vote seeking to reflect God's choice (v. 2b; see 1 Chron. 11:3 – "according to the word of the LORD through Samuel.")

Point D gives another reason why they were asking David to be king – they said that God approved of his candidacy. Verse 2 again:

2Samuel 5:2 "Also, in time past, when Saul was king over us, you were the one who led Israel out and brought them in; and the LORD said to you, "You shall shepherd My people Israel, and be ruler over Israel.'"

I don't see voting as having any other goal than pleasing God and seeking to put into office the one whom you think God would put in. My goal is not to win unless it is God's purpose that we win. My goal is to please God in how I vote. On the other extreme, my goal is not to vote against someone. Protest votes are only legitimate if they truly please God. We cannot in good conscience criticize politicians for not being principled if our own politics are not principled. And before you stone me, let me point out that I have said over and over again that the Bible gives flexibility on voting and takes practical matters into consideration. So you and I may end up on different sides of a vote. That's OK. But this is one of many passages that calls upon us to try to the best of our ability to choose the one that we think God would choose. And by the way, God did not always pick perfect candidate. But, if God would reject the candidate from being president (as He eventually rejected Saul), we have no business electing him into office no matter how fearful we are. Let me repeat that: if God would reject the candidate from being president, or legislator, or judge, we have no business electing him into office. Why would we choose someone that we know for sure God would reject? To me it is as simple as that.

A two-part covenant involving David, elders, and God – "before the Lord" (v. 3)

The fifth interesting feature of this process of choosing a king was that a covenant was made before the Lord. Verse 3 says,

2Samuel 5:3 "Therefore all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron, and King David made a covenant with them at Hebron before the LORD. And they anointed David king over Israel".

We talked last week about the two-part covenant. This was a critical feature in justifying the Huguenot resistance to tyranny in France during the 1500's. It was critical to justifying the Scottish Reformation's resistance to British tyranny in Scotland. It was also critical to justifying the American resistance to British tyranny in 1776.

Early America Modern America


I've put the chart from last week into your outlines again. The Reformed view of civil government sees not only a covenant between the citizens and the king, but there is also a covenantal responsibility between the king and God and between the citizens and God. The king enforces the law of God against citizens who violate God's law, but the citizens (through their representatives) have a duty to enforce the law of God against the King who violates God's law. This can be by way of nullification, impeachment, secession, or even by way of war. It's not a one-way street. Because God's law is in the equation, there are checks and balances. The American War for Independence was perfectly justified as the enforcement of God's law against a tyrannical government in Britain that had broken covenant.

In contrast to that left hand chart, Rousseau and Robespierre threw God out of the equation and made the covenant between the rulers and the people. That sounds nice until you realize that the ruler sets up all the rules and the people who put that ruler in place through revolution have no recourse to oppose his tyrannical rules. It leads to the kind of bloodbath and tyranny of the French Revolution.

Again, this means that Biblical civics cannot be merely pragmatic. Both rulers and the ruled must take God into the equation. The election is a covenant you are keeping before the Lord; it's not just a covenant that the king is keeping before the Lord. When you see your vote as part of a covenant before God, it helps to inform your voting.

David is anointed by elders, not vice versa (v. 3b)

The last half of verse 3 gives the simple point that David is anointed by the elders, not vice versa. He was coronated by the elders, not vice versa. It says, "And they anointed David king over Israel." This again is a necessary implication of representational government or bottom-up government. During the middle ages there was a tug of war between church and state with the church insisting on supremacy and the state insisting on supremacy. There were times when the church officer put the crown on the king's head and other times when the king put the crown on his own head. That was symbolic of two different top-down approaches that were both involved in power politics. And it violated the Biblical jurisdictions of church and state. Those are separate jurisdictions.

The Biblical position says that both were wrong. We reject Ecclesiocracy where the church rules over the state and we reject Erastianism where the state rules over the church. Instead, the order implied in the last few points that we have gone through is the order given in the Constitution of the United States – Jesus, then the people, then the states, then the Federal government, which is the least of the governments. The church is not in there. Now, pastors can be in two or three jurisdictions because they are citizens, but that is not ecclesiocarcy. That is a citizen taking his place in government just like Rev. Witherspoon was part of the founding documents.

Let me show that order. The Constitution ends Article VII by dating the document not only as the twelfth year of the nation, meaning the Declaration of Independence is the first legal document (and it clearly puts our nation under God), but it also dates it as "in the year of our Lord." Our nation has a Lord, and that Lord is Jesus Christ. America was established as a Christocracy – where Christ "our Lord" was the highest authority. Was it perfectly consistent with that proposition? No, absolutely not. But it was clearly stated to be a Christocracy.

Who is next in the line of authority? It's not the president. It's "we the people." But you can't see "we the people" as the highest authority or you will have a different kind of tyranny. Though the Constitution begins with "we the people" it ends with a declaration that Jesus Christ is "our Lord"² – in other words, the Lord of we the people. He is above we the people. Since Christ was indeed the Lord of "we the people," (which is an indisputable fact of history) the Constitution that we the people did "ordain and establish" (Preamble) cannot consistently be said to reject Jesus Christ as Lord. In other words, the Preamble should not be interpreted so as to conflict with Article VII of the same document. If it was indeed a secular revolution, as some people think, then why date the government to the Declaration of Independence. Why not date it year one? And if it was indeed a secular revolution, why date it in the year of our Lord?

But moving on, the Constitution also distinguishes between conventions of the people within the states and between the states. And if you study these phrases carefully, you will see that our founders adopted a theory of government where the chain of command was:

Jesus "our Lord"

People (via conventions within the states)

States themselves

Federal government

And it is in that order. The Federal government was the weakest of the governments and had no powers not explicitly given by the people to it in the Constitution. And that's what went on in this passage. When the representatives of the people anointed and coronated David, it was an assertion that the people had greater authority than the king, and that the king was the servant to the people. His power derived from God, yes, but through the people, and through the States. So even though this is a very short passage, it is a wonderful passage on civics.

The reign of David

Began at age thirty (v. 4a)

But let's look quickly at the reign of David. Verse 5

2Samuel 5:4 "David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years".

His reign began at the age of thirty – seven and a half years before. Now, there is no mention of this being a minimum age for king, but it is implied in the requirements for elders and priests. And at least maturity was implied in two mandates of a king in Deuteronomy 17. Now, our constitution makes the age of a president 35, which is a bit higher, but the issue of maturity is a key one in looking for a candidate.

No term limits (v. 4b)

And of course, David reigned for forty years. That means there were no term limits. To insist on term limits is to rob people of the right to select their representatives, including corrupt ones. Term limits is a lazy way of getting rid of corrupt magistrates. There was always the ability to impeach or vote out of office, and we have already looked at Israel doing exactly that with Samuel and his sons in 1 Samuel 8. But God gave no term limits, and the original constitution did not. I don't think they are helpful. I think they are a shortcut to more mature civic involvement. Both before and after the time of David, the people used their God-given right to ask a ruler to step down from office. You've got to have backbone to do that, but if lower magistrates and citizens don't have backbone, then they deserve the tyrant that they get.

And by the way, it wasn't hard to get rid of a king with the kind of small government that the Bible advocated. The reason it is so hard to get rid of scoundrels today is because of the enormous proportions that government has grown. It has become what the older writers referred to as Leviathon. So no term limits.

At the discretion of the people through their representatives (v. 5)

And then verse 5 indicates that David continued to rule at the discretion of the people through their representatives.

2Samuel 5:5 "In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months, and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty-three years over all Israel and Judah".

Now, that is not just giving us dates, though it is certainly doing that. It is also reminding us that David could not enter office without the approval of the people in Judah. Even though God had called him to office years before that, he couldn't become king until the people picked him. And just because he was the king of Judah did not mean he could force the people in Israel to accept him. The war was not something David started. It was a war of Northern Agression. It took seven and a half more years before the delegates of Israel finally got their way. Rulership was always at the discretion of the people.

Conclusion – Applied to Jesus

We've applied this passage to politics, but I think there is an application of this passage to Jesus that we have already hinted at. But let me first of all say that the danger of reading Jesus back into every Old Testament passage is that it is usually eisegesis, not exegesis. Jesus gave us the Scriptures, and it is true that kingship in general definitely points to Jesus, who is our Prophet, Priest, and King. But we do need to be careful. If the Bible does not make something a type or symbol, we shouldn't. So I don't want to overdue the application in this conclusion.

But it is interesting that Jesus entered office at the age of thirty, has no term limits, and rules through His representatives in family, church, and state. And it is interesting that His representatives are also our representatives because of God's two-way covenant. Jesus enforces God's laws against citizens who break them and it was citizens who enforced God's law against Jesus when they put Him on the cross as one who was our substitute for having broken the covenant. If that's as far as it went, we would all be in trouble, but Jesus was not just a king; he was also a priest and a sacrifice for us. He died to atone for all of our sins, and because of our union with Him, Scripture not only says that He is our king, but he has seated us with Him in the heavenlies and made us priests and kings who reconcile the world to God and who take dominion of the world as His representatives. What an awesome privilege!

Furthermore, Jesus is our representative to God and God's representative to us. He took on His office by becoming our flesh and bones in the Incarnation. Everything in the plan of salvation would be messed up if He was not our elder brother. He also became our prophet, priest, and king because of His track record. And unlike David's track record, Christ's was perfect. And of course, though we choose Christ to be our king, it is ultimately God who anointed Jesus and chose Jesus to be our King. Though John the Baptist willingly baptized Jesus with water, it was only a symbol of the fact that God anointed Jesus with the Spirit. Psalm 110 presents the situation of God's choice coming first, and then God making us volunteers in the day of His power.

So though I am loath to force passages to point to Jesus if they don't clearly point to Jesus, the Scripture over and over again calls Jesus the second David. David was a type or a foreshadowing of Christ's kingship over His people. And just as the people of that day rejoiced in David's kingship, I call this church to rejoice in Christ's kingship over you. His rule is not harsh and arbitrary like Saul's and like Abner's was. Christ's rule produces liberty because He rules in terms of what James calls His Perfect Law of Liberty. At His ascension Jesus said, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." All authority. That means that the cry of our founding fathers – "No King but Jesus" must be our cry. All other kings are merely representatives. Jesus is the only one with absolute authority and absolute sovereignty. For any state to claim absolute sovereignty is blasphemy. Their sovereignty is delegated sovereignty. They are servants of Christ. And any who claim absolute authority should be asked to step down from office. That's exactly what Psalm 2 says about kings who refuse to kiss the Son. So Psalm 2 says that we can only rejoice in Christ's kingship as we have experienced His salvation. Psalm 110 does the same and links Jesus priesthood and kingship. And we experience the joy of those passages by putting our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and submitting our lives unconditionally to Him. Let's rejoice in Christ our King. Amen.