THE GREAT CONTROVERSY SERMON SERIES
|
|
| 23_theocratic_states_and_gods_kingdom_of_glory.pdf |
John Wycliffe, the Morning Star of the Reformation said, “The pope ought to leave unto the secular power all temporal dominion and rule, and thereunto effectually to move and exhort his whole clergy; for so did Christ, and especially by His apostles.” John Foxe, Acts and Monuments, vol. 3, pp. 49, 50.
In England, this concept of separation of religion and state did not settle in. About 40 years after Wycliffe, Martin Luther in 1521 at the Diet of Worms refused to recant his writings. In this time frame shortly afterward in 1527 King Henry the eighth of England requested from the pope an annulment of his marriage with Catherine of Aragon. The pope refused this request. The justification was probably twofold: both from a morality standpoint and also because the pope was afraid of Charles the 5th who was Catherine’s nephew.
At that time Henry began to resist the authority of the papacy by asserting that spiritual rule resided with the king. As a result on February 11, 1531 the church appointed King Henry 8th of England to be the head of the church. This separation from the Catholic Church proceeded step by step and in 1534 England’s separation from Rome was complete. In 1555 during Queen Mary and King Phillip’s time, the church in England once again was under papal authority. But this did not long remain so. In 1558 when Queen Elizabeth I acquired the throne, papal authority was once again rejected.
In the church of England, Catholic and Reform factions strove with one another the determine the church’s doctrines and ceremonies. In this environment, while the Church of England rejected Rome’s authority and creed, it held to rites and forms that remained from her.
Some people in the church reasoned thus, “The Bible does not openly condemn these rites and forms. They are not a matter of conscience. Thus they are not in themselves evil. Besides this, if we hold these rites and forms, Catholics will be able to easier accept the Protestant faith.”
Not everyone in the church accepted these thoughts. They said, “If the rites and forms that come from the Catholic faith reduce the chasm between Catholic and Protestant beliefs, we must reject them. We left there and do not wish to return. Those rites and forms symbolize slavery. The Lord, in His word, explains the worship concepts and rules, we have no right to diminish from them or add to them.” The corruption of the Catholic Church began by adding church authority to God’s authority and in the end prohibited what God had commanded.
The same danger exists today. The church is able to embrace what the Bible does not specifically forbid. But today’s church leaders should ask questions such as this: “Where do these concepts come from? Are the newly accepted ideas actually a part of another religion? Are these a clever trick of Satan? With these, which direction are our feet heading? Have we learned from history?”
The Church of Rome, in history, accepted many ideas and doctrines that actually come from paganism so that pagans would more easily accept Christianity. Today’s Christians need to be very careful. Have new members truly left the behaviors, concepts and customs of their old religion? Or are Protestant church leaders because they are not gaining many converts accepting ideas that come from other religions by compromising the pure and basic teachings of Jesus Christ?
In the Church of England, some people wanted to return to the early church’s purity and simplicity. They looked upon rites and forms that came from the papacy as reminders of paganism. Their consciences burned and they did not want to join in them. But the Church of England was bound to the king, that is, the state. As a matter of law, everyone was required to join in the worship of the Church of England. Religious assemblies outside of this were forbidden and the penalties were severe: imprisonment, banishment and death.
There is an interesting point here. When the Protestants who remained under the persecution of the papacy for hundreds of years achieved their freedom, regarding worship they did not recognize liberty of conscience for others. One of the worst procedures coming from the papacy was this. True freedom of worship was not yet understood.
These days in some countries there is no freedom of worship. Religious laws are the laws of the state. If anyone does not obey them, they are punished. O.K., for a people, for a nation, aren’t religious laws good? In the opposite situation, that is if religious rules are not the laws of the state, won’t society fall into an immoral chaos?
In the Middle Ages we saw the terrible results of a religious state. Oppression, persecution, torture and execution were the means employed by the papacy against those opposing her. The Church of Rome turned Europe into a blood bath by punishing those who thought different from her own beliefs. Darkness fell. Without God’s blessing the Dark Ages appeared. O.K., if that is the situation, what is religion’s role in society? Doesn’t God want His laws to be the laws of the state? Isn’t a religious state God’s desire for this world?
A theocracy is a government that gets it power and authority directly from God. The syllable “Theo” comes from the Greek word Theos which means God. The syllable “cracy” comes from the Greek word kratia and means rule or government. We say, “democracy,” demo means people and kratia means rule. Democracy is rule by the people. Theocracy means rule by God.
In the time of ancient Israel the government was a true theocracy. From the burning bush, God Himself commanded Moses to take the Israelites out of Egypt. The Lord Himself set the Israelites free by signs and wonders. At Mount Sinai the Lord Himself gave them laws and corresponding punishments. The Ten Commandments are divided into two groups. In the first four commandments are described people’s responsibilities directly to God. In the last six, the responsibilities of people toward other people are explained.
In that period in the desert and the promised-land, the sins against God outlined in the first four commandments were punished. For example, sins like idolatry, cursing God, breaking the Sabbath and fortune telling were met with capital punishment. Some idolatrous nations were completely annihilated at the Lord’s command. These are all recorded in the Bible.
Not a few people in our day also put forth the idea that corresponding to these sins the death penalty should be employed by individuals or the state. Many people think that this is God’s will for every worldly government as it was in ancient Israel’s time. To accomplish this they reference the Bible. But while these people put such an idea forward they are forgetting a few things.
In the time of ancient Israel, when the death penalty for punishment of sins like idolatry, cursing God, using His name disrespectfully, breaking the Sabbath, and fortune telling was carried out, these sins were done directly in front of God. The Lord was by day a smoking pillar and by night a burning pillar. At Mount Sinai, God Himself spoke. The Lord did miracles in front of the people. In these situations, these sins were an open rebellion.
Along with this, the punishment of sins described in the first four commandments with the death penalty was done by the personal command of God who is able to read people’s motivations and who is merciful and who makes no mistakes. God, first to Moses and then to Joshua, was directly giving commands. The Lord communicated with the high priest. This communication was done by means of two stones called Urim and Thummim attached to the breastplate of the priest.
Exodus 28:30 "And you shall put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim, and they shall be over Aaron's heart when he goes in before the LORD. So Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel over his heart before the LORD continually.
We do not know how the Lord’s decision was communicated by means of these stones. Some people think that for the Lord’s positive answer, one of the stones would light up, for a negative answer the other would light up. That may be. However it was done, the Lord did not delegate to humans the right to physically punish sins against God like worship styles, opinions of doctrines, cursing the Lord, breaking the Sabbath. The church may dis-fellowship because of heresy, but it cannot mete out physical punishment.
The concept that the Lord gives to people the right to control the conscience lies at the foundation of oppression and persecution. Those who take up this work put themselves in God’s place and are guilty. In the Dark Ages we saw the results of this logic. The righteous were executed. The guilty were ruling.
The Bible shows us that the theocracy period came to an end. We do not live in a theocracy and it is not the Lord’s will that we set up a religious state. Let’s see.
In the time of the prophet Samuel, the Israelites desired a king. This was not God’s will. In spite of that, He did not force the people on this subject but gave permission. Saul was selected but because he did not continue in the Lord’s way, he was rejected by the Lord. Then David was chosen. Then his son Solomon sat on the throne. When he attained the throne, the following was recorded:
1 Chronicles 29:23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him.
Solomon sat on whose throne? He sat on the Lord’s throne. David’s throne was the Lord’s throne. The Lord permitted a person to sit on his throne but the Lord was Israel’s true king. After David a long list of kings sat on the Lord’s throne. In the end, a king named Zedekiah sat on the throne. Zedekiah entered a covenant before the Lord whereby he vowed to be subject to the king of Babylon. But Zedekiah broke the covenant. The Lord said to him:
Ezekiel 21:25 'Now to you, O profane, wicked prince of Israel, whose day has come, whose iniquity shall end, 26 'thus says the Lord GOD: "Remove the turban, and take off the crown; Nothing shall remain the same. Exalt the humble, and humble the exalted. 27 Overthrown, overthrown, I will make it overthrown! It shall be no longer, Until He comes whose right it is, And I will give it to Him." '
(In the Turkish version the word city appears twice). In the original Hebrew of this verse the word city does not appear. It was supplied by the translators of Kutsal Kitap. Actually these verses are not talking about a city, it is talking about the crown which represents a kingdom. In the Kitabı Mukkades translation it is better translated.
In Zedekiah’s time Israel was subject to Babylon. Babylon fell and the Medo Persian reigned over Israel. The Medo Persians fell and Greece came in its place. Greece fell and Rome came in its place. All together three times the government over Israel changed hands. In the verse it says three times that it would be overthrown, is that a coincidence? I don’t know. Continuing, what did the verse say? “It shall be no longer, Until He comes whose right it is, And I will give it to Him.” What would no longer be? The crown, the kingship would not remain in Israel’s hands.
O.K., whose “right is it”?
Luke 1:31 "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. 32 "He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 "And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end."
Did you take notice about the throne? The Lord God, will give to Jesus, David’s throne, that is the Lord’s throne. The night Jesus was betrayed he said:
John 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here."
Thus the kingdom, that is the Lord’s throne, will be given to Jesus. When will it be given? When Jesus comes it will be given, that is when this world ends, because Jesus kingdom is not of this world. When Jesus comes the second time, He will not come as a little baby, He will not come as someone suffering under the attacks of Satan, He will not come as a sacrifice. Jesus will come as King of kings and Lord of lords. At that time Jesus will sit on the throne and once again the government will be a theocracy.
Matthew 25:31 " When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 "All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.
This verse talks about Jesus’ throne of glory. This will be set up in the future. Right now, in this world, Jesus’ kingdom is a kingdom of grace.
Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
A throne of grace points to a kingdom of grace.
Until Jesus comes, Christ’s kingdom of glory will not be set up. His kingdom is not of this world. Jesus’ followers are like what Peter said:
1 Peter 2:11 Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul,
Yes the church can dis-fellowship someone because of heresy. But from the time of Israel’s theocracy until now, God did not give permission to anyone to set up a theocracy. God did not give rights to anyone to condemn someone about worship, and respect and duty that is due to Himself. No one can judge someone as a heretic and in justice before God physically punish someone because of their religious opinions and ideas and thus. That is God’s work.
Romans 12:19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord.
The Lord has given to governments the right to judge between human relations. If someone is caught in thievery, people can judge that. If someone is a murderer, they will be judged by people. The Lord gave this right. But God did not give right to people’s entering the realm of conscience regarding the worship, respect and duty due to God or religious ideas and opinions. People make mistakes when they try to do God’s work.
In the year 2007 a barber named Sabri Boğday was living in Saudi Arabia. He got into an argument with his neighbor who was a tailor from Egypt. When the police came, the tailor said to the police, “This man cursed God.” I don’t know this man Sabri. Anything is possible but I have been in Turkey for 14 years and I never heard a Turk curse God. Turks always show respect toward God. Even the atheists that I know do not use bad words about God, but simply say, “I don’t believe.” So it stretches my imagination to think that Sabri is guilty.
Regardless, just on the word of his neighbor, Sabri was thrown in jail for 13 months and brought to trial 8 times. The man who accused him ran off and cannot be found. In spite of this the court decided that Sabri deserved the death penalty. Starting with President Abdullah Gül, the then prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and foreign minister Ali Babacan’dan were requested to help from the family saying through their tears, “Please save Sabri.” In the end I don’t think he was executed but I am not sure.
What do you think about that?
Dear listener: the Lord did not give to you the responsibility to judge people regarding their worship, respect and duty to God. The Lord Himself will judge regarding disrespect to Himself. The Lord did not give you the right to shout, “heretic” and judge and punish someone because of their religious ideas and opinions. The civil governments can only judge in subjects among people.
In England, this concept of separation of religion and state did not settle in. About 40 years after Wycliffe, Martin Luther in 1521 at the Diet of Worms refused to recant his writings. In this time frame shortly afterward in 1527 King Henry the eighth of England requested from the pope an annulment of his marriage with Catherine of Aragon. The pope refused this request. The justification was probably twofold: both from a morality standpoint and also because the pope was afraid of Charles the 5th who was Catherine’s nephew.
At that time Henry began to resist the authority of the papacy by asserting that spiritual rule resided with the king. As a result on February 11, 1531 the church appointed King Henry 8th of England to be the head of the church. This separation from the Catholic Church proceeded step by step and in 1534 England’s separation from Rome was complete. In 1555 during Queen Mary and King Phillip’s time, the church in England once again was under papal authority. But this did not long remain so. In 1558 when Queen Elizabeth I acquired the throne, papal authority was once again rejected.
In the church of England, Catholic and Reform factions strove with one another the determine the church’s doctrines and ceremonies. In this environment, while the Church of England rejected Rome’s authority and creed, it held to rites and forms that remained from her.
Some people in the church reasoned thus, “The Bible does not openly condemn these rites and forms. They are not a matter of conscience. Thus they are not in themselves evil. Besides this, if we hold these rites and forms, Catholics will be able to easier accept the Protestant faith.”
Not everyone in the church accepted these thoughts. They said, “If the rites and forms that come from the Catholic faith reduce the chasm between Catholic and Protestant beliefs, we must reject them. We left there and do not wish to return. Those rites and forms symbolize slavery. The Lord, in His word, explains the worship concepts and rules, we have no right to diminish from them or add to them.” The corruption of the Catholic Church began by adding church authority to God’s authority and in the end prohibited what God had commanded.
The same danger exists today. The church is able to embrace what the Bible does not specifically forbid. But today’s church leaders should ask questions such as this: “Where do these concepts come from? Are the newly accepted ideas actually a part of another religion? Are these a clever trick of Satan? With these, which direction are our feet heading? Have we learned from history?”
The Church of Rome, in history, accepted many ideas and doctrines that actually come from paganism so that pagans would more easily accept Christianity. Today’s Christians need to be very careful. Have new members truly left the behaviors, concepts and customs of their old religion? Or are Protestant church leaders because they are not gaining many converts accepting ideas that come from other religions by compromising the pure and basic teachings of Jesus Christ?
In the Church of England, some people wanted to return to the early church’s purity and simplicity. They looked upon rites and forms that came from the papacy as reminders of paganism. Their consciences burned and they did not want to join in them. But the Church of England was bound to the king, that is, the state. As a matter of law, everyone was required to join in the worship of the Church of England. Religious assemblies outside of this were forbidden and the penalties were severe: imprisonment, banishment and death.
There is an interesting point here. When the Protestants who remained under the persecution of the papacy for hundreds of years achieved their freedom, regarding worship they did not recognize liberty of conscience for others. One of the worst procedures coming from the papacy was this. True freedom of worship was not yet understood.
These days in some countries there is no freedom of worship. Religious laws are the laws of the state. If anyone does not obey them, they are punished. O.K., for a people, for a nation, aren’t religious laws good? In the opposite situation, that is if religious rules are not the laws of the state, won’t society fall into an immoral chaos?
In the Middle Ages we saw the terrible results of a religious state. Oppression, persecution, torture and execution were the means employed by the papacy against those opposing her. The Church of Rome turned Europe into a blood bath by punishing those who thought different from her own beliefs. Darkness fell. Without God’s blessing the Dark Ages appeared. O.K., if that is the situation, what is religion’s role in society? Doesn’t God want His laws to be the laws of the state? Isn’t a religious state God’s desire for this world?
A theocracy is a government that gets it power and authority directly from God. The syllable “Theo” comes from the Greek word Theos which means God. The syllable “cracy” comes from the Greek word kratia and means rule or government. We say, “democracy,” demo means people and kratia means rule. Democracy is rule by the people. Theocracy means rule by God.
In the time of ancient Israel the government was a true theocracy. From the burning bush, God Himself commanded Moses to take the Israelites out of Egypt. The Lord Himself set the Israelites free by signs and wonders. At Mount Sinai the Lord Himself gave them laws and corresponding punishments. The Ten Commandments are divided into two groups. In the first four commandments are described people’s responsibilities directly to God. In the last six, the responsibilities of people toward other people are explained.
In that period in the desert and the promised-land, the sins against God outlined in the first four commandments were punished. For example, sins like idolatry, cursing God, breaking the Sabbath and fortune telling were met with capital punishment. Some idolatrous nations were completely annihilated at the Lord’s command. These are all recorded in the Bible.
Not a few people in our day also put forth the idea that corresponding to these sins the death penalty should be employed by individuals or the state. Many people think that this is God’s will for every worldly government as it was in ancient Israel’s time. To accomplish this they reference the Bible. But while these people put such an idea forward they are forgetting a few things.
In the time of ancient Israel, when the death penalty for punishment of sins like idolatry, cursing God, using His name disrespectfully, breaking the Sabbath, and fortune telling was carried out, these sins were done directly in front of God. The Lord was by day a smoking pillar and by night a burning pillar. At Mount Sinai, God Himself spoke. The Lord did miracles in front of the people. In these situations, these sins were an open rebellion.
Along with this, the punishment of sins described in the first four commandments with the death penalty was done by the personal command of God who is able to read people’s motivations and who is merciful and who makes no mistakes. God, first to Moses and then to Joshua, was directly giving commands. The Lord communicated with the high priest. This communication was done by means of two stones called Urim and Thummim attached to the breastplate of the priest.
Exodus 28:30 "And you shall put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim, and they shall be over Aaron's heart when he goes in before the LORD. So Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel over his heart before the LORD continually.
We do not know how the Lord’s decision was communicated by means of these stones. Some people think that for the Lord’s positive answer, one of the stones would light up, for a negative answer the other would light up. That may be. However it was done, the Lord did not delegate to humans the right to physically punish sins against God like worship styles, opinions of doctrines, cursing the Lord, breaking the Sabbath. The church may dis-fellowship because of heresy, but it cannot mete out physical punishment.
The concept that the Lord gives to people the right to control the conscience lies at the foundation of oppression and persecution. Those who take up this work put themselves in God’s place and are guilty. In the Dark Ages we saw the results of this logic. The righteous were executed. The guilty were ruling.
The Bible shows us that the theocracy period came to an end. We do not live in a theocracy and it is not the Lord’s will that we set up a religious state. Let’s see.
In the time of the prophet Samuel, the Israelites desired a king. This was not God’s will. In spite of that, He did not force the people on this subject but gave permission. Saul was selected but because he did not continue in the Lord’s way, he was rejected by the Lord. Then David was chosen. Then his son Solomon sat on the throne. When he attained the throne, the following was recorded:
1 Chronicles 29:23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him.
Solomon sat on whose throne? He sat on the Lord’s throne. David’s throne was the Lord’s throne. The Lord permitted a person to sit on his throne but the Lord was Israel’s true king. After David a long list of kings sat on the Lord’s throne. In the end, a king named Zedekiah sat on the throne. Zedekiah entered a covenant before the Lord whereby he vowed to be subject to the king of Babylon. But Zedekiah broke the covenant. The Lord said to him:
Ezekiel 21:25 'Now to you, O profane, wicked prince of Israel, whose day has come, whose iniquity shall end, 26 'thus says the Lord GOD: "Remove the turban, and take off the crown; Nothing shall remain the same. Exalt the humble, and humble the exalted. 27 Overthrown, overthrown, I will make it overthrown! It shall be no longer, Until He comes whose right it is, And I will give it to Him." '
(In the Turkish version the word city appears twice). In the original Hebrew of this verse the word city does not appear. It was supplied by the translators of Kutsal Kitap. Actually these verses are not talking about a city, it is talking about the crown which represents a kingdom. In the Kitabı Mukkades translation it is better translated.
In Zedekiah’s time Israel was subject to Babylon. Babylon fell and the Medo Persian reigned over Israel. The Medo Persians fell and Greece came in its place. Greece fell and Rome came in its place. All together three times the government over Israel changed hands. In the verse it says three times that it would be overthrown, is that a coincidence? I don’t know. Continuing, what did the verse say? “It shall be no longer, Until He comes whose right it is, And I will give it to Him.” What would no longer be? The crown, the kingship would not remain in Israel’s hands.
O.K., whose “right is it”?
Luke 1:31 "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. 32 "He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 "And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end."
Did you take notice about the throne? The Lord God, will give to Jesus, David’s throne, that is the Lord’s throne. The night Jesus was betrayed he said:
John 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here."
Thus the kingdom, that is the Lord’s throne, will be given to Jesus. When will it be given? When Jesus comes it will be given, that is when this world ends, because Jesus kingdom is not of this world. When Jesus comes the second time, He will not come as a little baby, He will not come as someone suffering under the attacks of Satan, He will not come as a sacrifice. Jesus will come as King of kings and Lord of lords. At that time Jesus will sit on the throne and once again the government will be a theocracy.
Matthew 25:31 " When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 "All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.
This verse talks about Jesus’ throne of glory. This will be set up in the future. Right now, in this world, Jesus’ kingdom is a kingdom of grace.
Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
A throne of grace points to a kingdom of grace.
Until Jesus comes, Christ’s kingdom of glory will not be set up. His kingdom is not of this world. Jesus’ followers are like what Peter said:
1 Peter 2:11 Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul,
Yes the church can dis-fellowship someone because of heresy. But from the time of Israel’s theocracy until now, God did not give permission to anyone to set up a theocracy. God did not give rights to anyone to condemn someone about worship, and respect and duty that is due to Himself. No one can judge someone as a heretic and in justice before God physically punish someone because of their religious opinions and ideas and thus. That is God’s work.
Romans 12:19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord.
The Lord has given to governments the right to judge between human relations. If someone is caught in thievery, people can judge that. If someone is a murderer, they will be judged by people. The Lord gave this right. But God did not give right to people’s entering the realm of conscience regarding the worship, respect and duty due to God or religious ideas and opinions. People make mistakes when they try to do God’s work.
In the year 2007 a barber named Sabri Boğday was living in Saudi Arabia. He got into an argument with his neighbor who was a tailor from Egypt. When the police came, the tailor said to the police, “This man cursed God.” I don’t know this man Sabri. Anything is possible but I have been in Turkey for 14 years and I never heard a Turk curse God. Turks always show respect toward God. Even the atheists that I know do not use bad words about God, but simply say, “I don’t believe.” So it stretches my imagination to think that Sabri is guilty.
Regardless, just on the word of his neighbor, Sabri was thrown in jail for 13 months and brought to trial 8 times. The man who accused him ran off and cannot be found. In spite of this the court decided that Sabri deserved the death penalty. Starting with President Abdullah Gül, the then prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and foreign minister Ali Babacan’dan were requested to help from the family saying through their tears, “Please save Sabri.” In the end I don’t think he was executed but I am not sure.
What do you think about that?
Dear listener: the Lord did not give to you the responsibility to judge people regarding their worship, respect and duty to God. The Lord Himself will judge regarding disrespect to Himself. The Lord did not give you the right to shout, “heretic” and judge and punish someone because of their religious ideas and opinions. The civil governments can only judge in subjects among people.