One is the Onlyist Number of Sovereignty
Friday, May 11, 2007 at 11:17PM the … only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords …
(1 Timothy 6:15)
sov·er·eign·ty (sŏv’ər-ĭn-tē)
n., pl. -ties.
- Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign … .
By definition, to be sovereign over something means to have the highest (or supreme) authority or rule over it. Therefore, there can be only one sovereign over any one thing, and sovereignty over any one thing can’t be shared, since there can only be one supreme authority or rule over any single thing.
If you accept this definition of sovereignty (and you should, since both the dictionary and the verse say so), and you believe that there is one Sovereign over all the universe (and you should, since this verse and others says so), then you must believe that this one Sovereign has the highest authority over every single thing in it.
Given this definition of sovereignty and that God is the one Sovereign over all the universe, here are few absurd phrases seen on the Baptist Board this week in regards to God’s sovereignty:
- Limited sovereignty. God’s sovereignty cannot be limited, because, first of all, he is sovereign over every single thing in the universe, so his sovereignty cannot be limited in regards to the number of thing he is sovereign over. Secondly, God’s sovereignty cannot be limited in regards to the extent of his sovereignty over any one thing because highest rule can never be less than highest rule and still be highest rule.
- Shared sovereignty. God can’t share sovereignty, because he is sovereign over every single thing, and sovereignty over any single thing can’t be shared, since …well …there is only one supreme ruler over every single thing.
- Remitting sovereignty. God cannot remit sovereignty, because to remit sovereignty over any one thing would mean that someone or something else would be sovereign over that one thing, and God would not be the one Sovereign over all the universe. And if he were not the one Sovereign over all the universe, he would not be the one God of the Bible.
- Allowing others to have sovereignty. God cannot allow others to have sovereignty. Everything said about God remitting sovereignty applies here as well, since the ideas are the same. There is only one with sovereignty because there in only one Sovereign.
Reader Comments (9)
Wouldn't a Sovereign of Sovereigns mean that the Sovereign has in fact allowed others to have Sovereignty?
So where do you find the term "sovereign of sovereigns" used? Every dictionary I looked in gives the definition of sovereignty as supreme authority. How can you have a supreme authority over supreme authorities?
Anyway, besides the dictionary, there's that verse in 1 Timothy (6, I think, sorry, in a hurry) that says God is "the only Sovereign, the Lord of lord, and King of kings." In other words, he's the Lord above all other lords, the King above all other kings, but the only one for whom the label Sovereign fits. He allows—actually, he appoints—others be lords and kings, but no one else can be Sovereign.
Okay, I added that verse to the post, and changed things a bit in the post to include it in the text as well.
Sovereign:
One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit, as:
a. A king, queen, or other noble person who serves as chief of state; a ruler or monarch.
1 a : one possessing or held to possess sovereignty b : one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere c : an acknowledged leader
That's a definition of sovereign, not sovereignty. :)
But anyway, your definition still has to do with the one who exercises supreme authority, too. If we're speaking humanly, sure, we see a head of state as having the ultimate authority over a nation or kingdom. But as Christians, don't we have to see God as the one who exercises the supreme authority in every sphere? Are there any spheres outside his ultimate control?
God can allow others to exercise authority over a sphere, but he can never allow them to exercise highest authority over a sphere, because that's his place always on account of him being God.
So how can we talk about God sharing sovereignty? Or remitting sovereignty? In order to remit sovereignty over one sphere, he's have to stop being God over that sphere.
That's a definition of sovereign, not sovereignty. :)
Ha! I always have a problem with dictionary definitions because they often include the root word (ie: sovereign) and I often find that for Christians the words tend to have a different meaning.
So how can we talk about God sharing sovereignty? Or remitting sovereignty? In order to remit sovereignty over one sphere, he's have to stop being God over that sphere.
Surely not remit or share but He does allow others to have sovereignty over a sphere even if He witholds the right to overule their decisions. The entire book of Daniel attests to that: Men ruling as sovereigns over the sphere of men and doing so with God's blessing and punishments as God so chooses. That's not to say that the sphere of Men is outside His control (the book of Daniel attests to that) but it does say that it's not under the promised control that He will set up (which the book of Daniel also attests to). Two different stages of God's operation over the sphere of Man's Government but one which is ordered by Men and one that dominates the entire world and brings the others to an end which is divinely formed (cut without hands).
Heck Nebby's satraps, judges, sherriffs, officials and wise-mens were sovereings excercising sovereignty over their sphere but Nebby decides to cast into fire or make homes into garbage piles if they go against his desires!
I often find that for Christians the words tend to have a different meaning
Well, lots of times the biblical definition will be a little different than the word is used commonly. But the sovereignty discussion was on the Baptist Board, so I'd like to think the terms ought to be defined biblically.
but He does allow others to have sovereignty over a sphere even if He witholds the right to overule their decisions.
I think the word you want to use here, then, is authority rather than sovereignty. If someone truly has sovereignty over a sphere, then no one has the power to overrule them, because they are the supreme authority. But someone can have authority, and still be subject to being overruled by someone with higher authority.
I understand the point you are making about a future direct and visible rule of God. But that doesn't mean he's not the highest rule over every sphere right now, does it?
What do you think that verse in 1 Timothy means, if it doesn't mean that while there are other rulers of various sorts underneath him, God is the only sovereign?
That unlike Pontius Pilate who submitted Jesus Christ to death (and had his decision overturned by God) the one who makes the decision to reveal Christ as Crowned doesn't have anyone over Him to do likewise leaving Him the Highest, the King of Kings (a Sovereign above sovereigns) and the Lord of lords (the Master above masters), His revelation of Christ an unalterable and glorious fact.
Theological vs. lexical definitions are a bother.
That unlike Pontius Pilate who submitted Jesus Christ to death (and had his decision overturned by God)
See, I wouldn't even think "overturned" is a very good word to use in regards to the way God governed over Pilate. After all, Pilate submitted Jesus to death exactly according to God's plan for redemptive history. Pilate actec according to God's providential workings in history, and according to what God's rule (or power) had determined would be done.
I think I may understand what you mean by it: You mean that Pilate intended for Jesus to stay dead, and God resurrected him against Pilate's intentions. But Pilate's intention to submit Jesus to death was in line exactly with what God intended for Pilate to do. What authority Pilate had was used only as God intended—according to his redemptive plan—for it to be used.