Salvation and Godly Rule

Salvation & Dominion

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Doctrinal Studies

Lesson: Salvation & Dominion

Genre: Speech

Track: 05

Dictation Name: RR136C5

Location/Venue:

Year: 1960’s-1970’s

Grace be unto you and peace from God the Father and from our Lord, Jesus Christ who gave himself for us that He might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. Let us pray.

Glory be to thee, Oh, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, who hast delivered us from this present evil world in Jesus Christ and given us the assurance of victory, who hast made us more than conquerors through him that loved us, and hast surrounded us with all thy mercies and thy providential care. We come to praise thee Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to rejoice in thy grace and mercy, to praise thee with all our heart, mind, and being, and to open wide out mouth that thou mightest fill it. In Jesus name. Amen.

Our scripture is three separate texts on the subject of Salvation and Dominion. Genesis 1:26-28, Genesis 3:15, and Romans 16:20. First, Genesis 1:26-28. “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

Genesis 3:15: “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

Then next, Romans 16:20: “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.”

A week ago Wednesday, in our history seminary, we dealt with the work towards Christian Reconstruction of John Wycliffe, and we saw, among other things, the importance of Wycliffe’s analysis of dominion, or lordship. We will now briefly review what Wycliffe had to say on that particular subject because it is so important in terms of scripture’s teaching.

Wycliffe, in his analysis of dominion or lordship, pointed out that dominion has two aspects. One is authority, the other is ownership. God is the universal Lord, or dominus, with absolutely dominion over all creation. All men, as God’s creatures, hold all things, Wycliffe said, as a feudal grant from God, and he used the feudal term “beneficium.” Every beneficium implies a corresponding service. The man who fails to render the service, loses the beneficium, or grant. In terms of this, Wycliffe said, the wicked indeed have power, but not dominion. By their apostasy from God and their failure to render to other men the due service God requires, they have lost dominion even though they retain power. Wycliffe summoned all godly men to commit themselves to the Lord by faith, and then to apply the word of God which he called God’s law, to everyday life, and thereby lay claim to dominion, without revolution, but by peaceable reconstruction. He declared every righteous man is lord over the whole sensible world. This he said in terms of our texts.

Now, the way to dominion is by the grace of God unto salvation very clearly, through saving faith which is the gift of God, and as Wycliffe pointed out, dominion requires a knowledge of the word of God. He declared scripture is alone of absolute authority, and as we saw further, he declared concerning the Bible when he translated it, he wrote in the preface, “This Bible is for the government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” When Lincoln borrowed that expression, he dropped the essential and biblical reference.

Now, Wycliffe’s appeal to feudalism is not unscriptural, because the essence of feudalism was a covenantal relationship between ruler and ruled, and this was simply an application to the times of the biblical concept of a covenant. God, having established a covenant by His sovereign grace with men, had made every area of life under him a covenantal sphere, and men thereby were to covenant with one another in terms of God’s law. Now, this doctrine of covenant and of beneficium and service is basic to an understanding of our history, because the Declaration of Independence rests entirely on the doctrine, as we saw a week ago Wednesday, that the charters between each of the several colonies and King George III were feudal, covenantal documents, which was true, and therefore, by violation of those charters, or covenants, King George III had renounced dominion.

Now, the word “dominion” appears in scripture first of all in our first text; Genesis 1:26-28. It is a Hebrew word, “ratha,” which means “to rule, to tread down, to trample down or to master.” In the New Testament, the word usually translated as dominion is “kratos,” which means “force, strain, might,” and it comes from the root word “kra,” from which we get the word probably “creator,” and it means “to complete, to perfect.” Now, this gives us therefore, a very interesting insight into the meaning of dominion. When God said to man after creating the earth, that it was his calling now to exercise dominion and to subdue the earth. It meant to tread on, to trample, to explore, to cover the earth, and to perfect, to complete, to bring the earth to the fullness of its potentiality, to develop it scientifically, agriculturally, in every way, to bring the earth to that which God intended man to do. Thus, God had, by His creative work, given man the earth and given man dominion over it.

Now it was man’s duty to complete that work by developing it, by exercising dominion over it, and bringing to completion, to perfection, to mastery, everything in the earth, but by his rebellion, man set himself outside God’s law. He sought power independently of God and His law word, and man sought authority and ownership, the two aspects of dominion, over the earth, in defiance of God. God’s immediate reaction was to dispossess man of the Garden of Eden. Then to dispossess him of the earth as it was under the conditions of the original creation whereby men lived to be nine hundred and more years of age, by means of a flood, so that man was dispossessed of the glory of the original creation and of the long lifespan of the original creation.

But God worked to restore man to his dominion, and in the fullness of time, Jesus Christ came, who is called in scripture the first fruits of the new creation. By His atoning work on the cross, He affected the work of our salvation, and began the work of reestablishing us in terms of our calling, our dominion.

But, the fall had radical implication for man’s dominion, both aspects of it, both authority and ownership. Let us examine these two aspects of dominion. First authority. According to a prominent scholar, who would by no means agree with us, James Iverack{?}, in writing on authority, has this to say: “Authority and obedience are co-relative terms, a supremacy being implied on the part of authority, and dependence on the part of those who have to obey. Authority has the right and the power to say the last word and to give a decision from which there is no appeal.” Now, that’s a very interesting and a very valid definition of authority. This is why only God has absolute authority, because only God’s word is one from which there is no appeal. Only God is one who must be obeyed without any question. Where God’s authority is acknowledged, then all other authorities are obeyed as a part of man’s obedience to God, and to the extent that God’s word requires it. There is no absolute authority apart from God. We obey. Authorities in church, state, home, in our work, everywhere, under God, and always subject to His law.

But, men having denied God’s authority, they have not, thereby, denied authority. They have simply transferred it elsewhere. Now, where will authority go if it is denied to God? It will, of course, go to something on the human scene, and it either goes to man individually or to man collectively. To man individually means anachism, every man his own god, doing that which is right in his own eyes, or if it goes to man collectively, it goes to the state, and the state then declares that men must obey it without any question, and of course, the logical outcome of this position most nakedly stated is Marxism. The absolute, the ultimate sin in Marxism is the question the authority of the dictatorship of the protetariet, because it is the will of history and the will of history is the incarnate god of this world, and therefore, no difference is permitted.

Thus, throughout history wherever men have denied God, they have made either the individual or the state the god of their system. Aristotle said the state is that institution which produces goodness, virtue, and justice in the citizens. In other words, very significantly, the state does not have to be good, true, or just. It’s the agency which makes people so. You don’t question the state. You cannot say of the state, “I expect you to be thus and so.” No, you are the creature of the state and therefore, you must be what the state says, not you questioning the right of the state to be anything, so the people must be what the state says they are. The state is the authority. It is the god of the system.

The same is true of ownership. Divorced from God, ownership, the other aspect of dominion, goes very sadly astray. Ownership means the exclusive right of possession. Now, if you look at the dictionaries, you find a very peculiar definition of ownership, because, of course, they are not theologically oriented, and they don’t know how to define it. Is ownership the right to property or is it the possession of property, and so they hedge. The dictionaries will say to you it is either the rightful ownership of property or it is the actual possession of property, and the two are not always the same, and this is the way it is in a sinful world, and of course, when you get out of the dictionary into the very real world of politics, and of scholarship today, it becomes even worse. The Dictionary of Sociology, for example, defines ownership thus: “Socially established, recognized, and enforceable command over any object involving the right to use, destroy, or transfer. Such rights may be complete or partial, exclusive or shared, but are always socially conferred and socially limited.” In other words, the god of the system is the society, the state. Property is socially conferred and socially limited, so the state can say you have the right of private ownership, or the state can wipe it out. Ownership is entirely subject to the law of the state. This is what sociology teaches today.

Now, according to scripture, ownership as an aspect of dominion belongs to the people of God. Man was given dominion over the earth. He lost it in the Fall, but the righteous have rightful dominion over the earth under God, and Christ, according to the book of Revelation, is busy dispossessing it in the name of the true heirs. Now, true ownership thus, is like authority. It is an aspect of dominion and can only exist in obedience to God. Therefore, it is important for us to recognize that scripture, when it talks about salvation, is talking about dominion. In Genesis 3:15, our second text, we saw that immediately after the Fall, God declared that Satan indeed had gained ascentency over man, and he would strike at the seed of the woman, Jesus Christ. “Thou shalt bruise his heel, but he shall bruise thy head.”

Now, the word “bruise,” like many other English words has, over the years, changed its meaning. The original meaning of the Hebrew word for bruised is “to quash, smash, shatter,” so that while indeed, Satan’s power shall be the crushing of our Lord’s heel, the cross, death, he, by that same cross, shall crush, shall shatter the head of Satan. Now, you can survive a crushed heel, but a smashed head is fatal.

As a result, what Genesis 3:15 tells us that the act of salvation, the cross of Christ, will not only affect our salvation through the sovereign grace of God in Jesus Christ through his atoning blood, but it shall one and the same time crush the head of Satan. It will be the first step toward reestablishing man in his dominion. St. Paul then, take the same figure, the same statement, and in Roman’s 16:20 he declares, “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.” The Greek word, “suntribo,” for bruise is again, to break or to shatter. James Mofet renders this sentence, “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.” Thus, the promise of the savior in Genesis 3:15 is a promise of salvation and of dominion, so that St. Paul, as he looks at the cross of Christ says, this is the conclusion of it. You have been saved. Dominion has been given to you again. The enemies of God shall be crushed when the people of God obey God’s law and exercise dominion in terms of it. Thus, dominion is inseparable from salvation, and when the people of God recognize the meaning of salvation and dominion, they will exercise it.

In Deuteronomy 28:1-14, we have a series of promises given to us concerning what will happen when the people of God, His redeemed ones, are obedient to His law word. Blessed shalt thou be in thy going in and thy coming out, in all things, the fruit of thy body, the fruit of thy field, thy store, thy giving, thy taking. Blessed in all things, because salvation thereby reestablishes man in the dominion for which God intended him. We cannot therefore, separate dominion from salvation, and the creation mandate from the redemption of our Lord, Jesus Christ. We have been called to come and we have been saved, to exercise authority and dominion over all things. This is our destiny in Jesus Christ. Let us pray.

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of thy grace and mercy has called us to be thy people, and who, in thy grace, has looked upon all our past, all our waywardness, and has declared that thou dost make all things work together for good to them that love thee, to them that are the called according to thy purpose. We give thanks, O Lord, that all things work together for our good, and our dominion in Jesus Christ, that we have so glorious a destiny in time and in eternity. O Lord, our God, how great thou art. We come to thee mindful of these things, to commit ourselves, our hopes, our past, present, and future into thy gracious and omnipotent hands. Use us, O Lord, and do thou show forth thy dominion in and through us. In Jesus name. Amen. Are there any questions now, first of all, with respect to our lesson? Yes?

[Audience] {?} authority and dominion {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes. Exactly what Wycliffe was talking about when he spoke of beneficium, and beneficium meaning service. To accept dominion means that we must serve God and also serve men under God.

[Audience] {?} responsibility {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes, and therefore, a very good point, you see. We shall come to the matter of covenant a little later, but just briefly, at this point, a covenant is literally a treaty between two peoples, in which each promises something and each is liable to certain penalties for failure. Now, it implies an equality between the two parties. This is why the fact of the covenant between God and man is shear grace, because God is placing himself on our level, and he requires of us certain things; obedience, and He declares that He will do certain things for us. Now, covenant is a covenant unto death, if necessary, a person who’s made a covenant with another man must be ready to die for that other person if the circumstances require it. God is faithful to the covenant even though man was faithless, and so God, in Christ, kept the covenant by giving His life for man’s sin. So, God bound himself to the covenant even though man was faithless to it. Now, that’s a brief summary of what we will be dealing with in some detail a little later. Yes?

[Audience] {?} conventions {?}

[Rushdoony] Originally, treaty and covenant, and convention were the same thing, but it no longer is, because treaties today have lost their significance, and conventions, too. Yes?

[Audience] Conventions {?} and treaties {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes, but a convention of nations was always for a treaty once. That’s all gone. A treaty was literally a covenant and for people to convene together was to establish a bond of blood, for nations, that is. The meaning is gone. Yes?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes, that’s true.

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Law is extremely conservative in its language, and it retains definitions and meanings that have long since disappeared. I’ve forgotten what it was, I think it was last Wednesday that I called attention to what has happened to the word “seize” in law. The word seize once meant “to hold in rightful ownership,” but, because the law itself became corrupt in England between the time, say, of Wycliffe and the modern era, the Enlightenment, it has now come to mean “to take forcible possession of illegally,” but you will still find, in older legal papers, seizin, or seissin, as a term for ownership, and you will still find occasionally the expression “seizin in right’ and “seizin in fact.” So the law will retain very old definition and terms. Yes, another question?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes. A covenant has both penalties as well as advantages. Yes?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Any other questions? Well, if there are no further comments, I’d like to call your attention to a very interesting editorial in The American Rifleman, on the ecological dilemma over the pachyderms, or what to do about elephants, and I think this is a very interesting, well, I will go into the implications of it, a very interesting editorial. To read it, with increasing intensity, conservationists and preservationists have engaged in a war of words about the future of the world’s game. Most conservationists favor maintaining a wildlife balance by means of limited, regulated hunting. Most preservationists would ban all hunting by human beings and let nature take its course. Preservationists regard hunting as uncivilized and out of date. Hunting conservationists tend to view preservationists as impractical idealists who ought to be 100% vegetarians. Upon the dusty playing fields of this fine global controversy, there has now lumbered majestically, perhaps the ultimate question of issue on the subject. What do to about elephants?

One of the largest concentration of elephants still in the wild or natural state exists in Tsavo National Park in Kenya, E. Africa. The number in an area about the size of Massachusetts has been estimated at 25,000 and up. Under normal conditions, something which, in itself a world rarity these days, an average three ton elephant spends two-thirds of every day, presumably to keep up his weight. He is strictly a vegetarian, which probably scores points for him with the preservationists. Even when trampling a few natives or a white hunter, he refrains from sampling the result, but he consumes 100 to 150 pounds of vegetation a day, most of it stripped from trees which then die. When it comes to clearing forests, the elephant is nature’s own bulldozer. The insatiable hunger of elephants has, it now develops changed much of Tsabo National Forest from forest to grassland in recent years. Last year, nature added a crusher. The rains were far below normal. Searing droughts dried up water holes. Vegetation crispened and withered. The elephant herds ranged farther than usual, but began to go thirsty and hungry. Soon, their ground courses could be tracked by flocks of ready vultures overhead, waiting to prey on the fallen giants. Seasons of wilderness hor{?} ensued. In this instance, as in others involving North American game, such as deer, the preservationists are stoutly defending the right of an elephant to die slowly and miserably of thirst and hunger.

One of the senior game wardens in the area, and a research director in ecology whose program is financed by the board foundation, both take a leave-it-to-nature position and oppose any hunting to reduce the elephant herd and quicken the decimation. They say the fittest survive as it is and resist proposals of scientific {?} by regulated hunts. Meanwhile, elephants have died by the hundreds and possibly by the thousands. The situation, sad from any viewpoint, leaves unanswered questions. Elephants are the largest packages of meat on the hoof on earth. Should they be prey for vultures or food for natives? Is it kinder to let them die by slow degrees or by bullets? What is really best for the ecology? Anyone is free to reach his own answers.

Now, of course, what could be added is that some of the same people who are bucking any attempt to stop the destruction of the forests there by reducing the herd of elephants, these same people are very strong for abortion, which is not surprising. Apparently, they want the elephants to have dominion and not man, but meanwhile, the forests there, which were supposed to have been preserved scientifically, is being destroyed, the elephants are dying, it’s a drought time and the natives are going hungry because they are not allowed to kill the elephants who are going to die anyway, and the ecologists are demonstrating the truth of scripture, which declares, “The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” And certainly, this is a prime example of that kind of cruelty.

It is interesting, on the subject of abortion, that Triumph magazine has had a reporter calling up psychiatrists, here in Los Angeles, posing as a Jewish reporter, and he asks them questions about abortion and they are, of course, very strongly for it, the doctors whom he talks to, and then he says, “Well, there’s one thing that disturbs me. What’s the difference between this and what Hitler did? Killing them before birth or after birth?” and it is interesting that they have no answer for it, and they say the question is irrelevant, and one psychiatrist has insisted that anyone should have a right to do as he pleases and by implication, Hitler as well as he, that it’s a do-it-yourself world. Every man should do his own thing, so that their answers have certainly been to the “nth” degree, unprincipled. It’s been a very interesting series. Yes?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes. Henry Ford can get a permit to hunt elephants but not the native. Yes?

[Audience] {?} 480,000 abortions in the United States {?}

[Rushdoony] 480,000 abortions. Yes?

[Audience] {?} the abortions {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes, a good point. Yes, you had a question.

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Our time is just about up. I’d like to remind you of the Chalcedon Guild dinner meeting this Saturday evening at Garden Grove at the Cattleman’s Steakhouse. It’s six dollars per person, including the dinner. It’s a rare opportunity to hear Dr. Truman Davis speak on the medical aspects of Christ’s crucifixion. I don’t think you’ll ever forget this lecture. I think it will be very important for you as a Christian to hear it, and I urge your attendance. I’m not sure whether we have any forms in the back, do we? If not, please see Mrs. Thurston or Mrs. Bazzard after the meeting and make your reservations with them. The Cattleman’s Steakhouse is quite easy to reach. Just take the Santa Ana Freeway and turn off on Harbor Boulevard, and it is on your right not more than a few miles after you leave the freeway. It is a most unusual analysis of the meaning of the crucifixion, and Dr. Davis is one of a handful of authorities in the world today on the subject. He has written, to my knowledge at least, two studies of this for medical journals. He is an unusually able speaker, so I trust you will plan to be there.

Let us bow our heads now for the benediction. And now go in peace. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost bless you and keep you, guide and protect you this day and always. Amen.

End of tape.