Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
It's worth reading George Gillespie's comments
here.
Thanks Andrew.
I read though it (again, I had read it a long time ago), and while I think George Gillespie has good things to say, I do wonder if his tract tends to prove too much.
Gillespie explains the alliances that Abraham had with Aner, Eshchol, and Mamre and Abimelech, and that of Solomon with Hiram by saying those people were very likely pious men by their words about the Lord, but I am not sure that necessarily follows. In Daniel chapters 2 and 3, Nebuchenezzar also makes some wonderful comments about God, but shortly proves himself to be no true believer. He also did not address (unless I missed it) the examples of Daniel and Joseph, who I am sure would be considered to be 'associated' with the pagan kings they served.
I am also not sure I exactly understand the distinction he draws between civil and military covenants. I can understand the distinction logically, but where exactly does the bible make such a distinction? Also, if all military alliances with unbelievers are forbidden, why did John the Baptist tell soilders coming to him for baptism only to be content with their wages and stop extorting money?
Finally, he does make allowance for associations that are necessary because of 'calling', but might not then a ruler argue that the performance of his duties requires him to associate with his neighbouring countries? How would one determine, in the secular societies we live in what is necessary and what is not.
I do not want to risk sounding like I am downplaying the importance of the law, but its does seem to me that God was stricter in the associations he allowed his children to have with unbelievers under the old testament than he is in the new. Not that any
moral laws have changed or that sins are no longer sins, but it seems a natural consequence of the fact that we no longer live in our own christian nation and hence some association with unbelievers is inevitable.
Any thoughts appreciated.
