SELECTED ARTICLE
Sovereignty
Estimate time to read:
SOVEREIGNTY, AUTONOMY & DOMINION
While both Sovereignty and Providence speak of governance, Sovereignty is not Providence and Providence is not Sovereignty and for that matter, Governance itself does not equate to Sovereignty or Providence. Neither are they synonymous of each other. Each have their own distinct meanings and applications and if we desire that our interpretations of Sovereignty, Governance and Providence correspond to the truth of Scripture then our understanding of these distinctions becomes vital.
De Jure Sovereignty versus De Facto Sovereignty
Although the English definition of “sovereignty” has some non-legal, political, social, and economic implications, it is for the most part considered an abstract legal concept often described as a De Jure. The word “De jure” is just a fancy word to describe legitimate entitlement or claim; by right. Therefore, De jure, sovereignty is fundamental to the identity of a state entity, serving as an assigned marker of legitimacy, be it the legal, moral and or inherent right, of not necessarily who is, but rather who ought be the supreme, as per the highest hierarchical ranking source of power of authority, to in De Facto, independently exercise, free of accountability and coercion, its laws & judgements, its governance & constitutions and thus its controlling influence and rule, over its Domain and its population.
A significant distinction often made between a De Jure sovereign and a De Facto sovereign is that a De jure sovereign is a legitimate supreme power and or authority that “should be” obeyed, whereas a De facto sovereign is a legitimate supreme power and or authority which “is” factually obeyed. Without De Jure Sovereignty, one may De facto govern but they cannot be said to govern sovereignly. It is vital to understand that in order to govern as a De Facto Sovereign one must:
|
First: |
Have De Jure Sovereignty, which means they must have the legal, moral and or inherent right to govern over a domain and its population. |
|
Second: |
Have the ability to factually exercise free from accountability and coercion, its laws & judgements, its governance & constitutions and thus its controlling influence, over its Domain and its population. |
In other words, a De Jure Sovereign can exist in principle, apart from being a De Facto Sovereign, but A De facto Sovereign cannot exist apart from being a De jure Sovereign. While the neither the term “legitimate” nor “De jure” are specifically used as a qualifiers in all English dictionary definitions of the English word “sovereignty”, it is both implicit of the concept of authority and tantamount to, the core concept of, by law or by inherent and or moral right of that which Scripturally constitutes sovereignty. This definition corresponds to both the English definition and the Scriptural truth in regard to the concept of Sovereignty. As important to understand what Sovereignty is, it is equally important to understand what Sovereignty is not.
Note 1: Sovereignty is NOT a natural attribute
A natural attribute by its very definition is an essential attribute that in relation to God is best described not as something that God has but rather what God is. Therefore, God cannot not have that attribute because it is essential to His very being. However, sovereignty by its very definition can only exist where there is something or someone to have supreme power and authority over and thus have controlling influence and governance over. Therefore, God’s sovereignty, His right to exercise his ruling power and authority over someone or something, is contingent upon His creation of someone or something to be sovereign over. Thus, while God has always been autonomous, His sovereignty began at creation. If the sovereignty of God is to be considered as one of his attributes, it can only be considered a temporal one.
Note 2: Scripture Attests To Satan’s Rule but Satan is NOT Sovereign
Jesus called Satan the ruler of his world in John 12:31 ESV: “Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out”. However, while Satan in De Facto (factually) rules / governs the world, He is not in principle the legitimate, the rightful, the De Jure sovereign of the world and therefore is not De Facto Sovereign. Thus, governance does not in and of itself equate to Sovereignty.
Note 3: Sovereignty is NOT exclusive to God, nor is it always Providential
We equally read in 1 Samuel 14:47 NKJV: “So Saul established his sovereignty over Israel, …”. While the ESV uses the word “kingship” we can see that both words refer to governance. Saul’s sovereignty was at this time legitimized by God and Saul’s ability / power to rule in De Facto had likewise been provided him by God. Saul had not the supremacy of God, and yet Saul was the considered the supreme authority in terms of the most supreme corporeal authority amongst the population within the domain of Israel. Likewise, while one might argue that Saul’s method of governing / rule was at first Providential, it became corrupted rule / governance and remained corrupted governance right up and until he was replaced by David.
Now it had happened as they were coming home, when David was returning from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the women had come out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet King Saul, with tambourines, with joy, and with musical instruments So the women sang as they danced, and said: ‘Saul has slain his thousands, And David his ten thousand.’ Then Saul was very angry, and the saying displeased him; and he said, ‘They have ascribed to David ten thousand, and to me they have ascribed only thousands. Now what more can he have but the kingdom?’ So, Saul eyed David from that day forward” (1 Samuel 18:5-9). From then on, Saul’s jealousy escalated until he tried multiple times to kill David, so David fled. David gathered a following of men and moved from place to place. Saul would discover their location and send men to kill him. This pattern continued for about seven years until Saul went into a cave where David and his men were hiding. Even though his men urged him to kill Saul, he only cut off a corner of his robe without Saul knowing. After Saul left, David called out to Saul, showing him honor as king, and asked Saul to stop listening to people who claimed that David wanted to harm Saul. He had the perfect opportunity to kill him and did nothing because Saul was still God’s anointed king. Thus, while sovereignty speaks of legitimate governance, it does not equate to providence.
Note 4: Scripture Attests To Jesus Being De Jure Sovereign
Although Jesus never explicitly said the words “I am God,” he was while incarnate, conscious of his deity and made that awareness known to others. He identified himself closely with the Father, implying that he is God. Additionally, Jesus used the ancient title “I AM,” which was ascribed only to God Himself. Now this becomes important to understand that while Jesus (while incarnate) voluntarily and temporarily set aside (use of) His natural attributes of Omnipresence, Omnipotence and Omniscience, He did not set aside His Deity. Neither did He set aside His De Jure Sovereignty (that he ought rightfully to rule) even though He had temporarily set aside (use of) His ability to be De Facto Sovereign and submitted to the authority of God the Father while depending fully on the Spirit to perform his miracles.
The Scriptural doctrine of sovereignty teaches us that God as the creator and rightful owner of all things should rule as the absolute sovereign Lord and King over all creation (All is inherently / rightfully His Domain and population). The Scriptural doctrine of God’s natural attributes teaches us that God has both the absolute ability and capacity to rule as Lord and King over all creation free of any coercion. Therefore, God has both the absolute legitimate right and the absolute almighty ability to exercise His will, His authority, His sovereignty, absolutely free of coercion, scrutiny and or accountability from anything or anyone other than Himself. Job 42:2 ESV: “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted”. However, while the Scriptural doctrines of Sovereignty and Omnipotence teach of the De jure and the De facto that God is rightfully, effectively and absolutely sovereign, these two doctrines Sovereignty and Omnipotence) in and of themselves teach nothing of God’s Wisdom, God’s plans, God’s purposes, or of God’s “Providence” in His method of governance / rule as Lord, King of all things. Although the word “Providence” is not specifically used of God in our English Bibles, it expresses an idea which is clearly revealed in Scripture. Providence refers to the care (God’s Omnibenevolence), and the preservation, in which God ably and effectively exercises His sovereign governance and controlling influence over all things that He has created, so that they will accomplish the purposes He intends. Providence, then, is the divine, rightful (legitimate) and sovereign superintendence of all things, guiding them toward their divinely foreknown and predestined end. Thus, while De Jure + De Facto Sovereignty equates to the legitimate / rightful governance over a state and its population, Sovereignty does not in and of itself dictate the method / style of governance. Democracy, Communism, Authoritarianism, Monarchism are just a few of the many styles and methods of governance. Thus, sovereignty does not necessitate deterministic, micro-management of a population else neither Saul nor Jesus (during His incarnation) could be considered sovereign.
- When we speak of God’s sovereignty, we are proclaiming that God by His (De Jure) inherent right as creator of all things created, ought rightfully govern / have unaccountable and uncoerced authority over all His creation (His Domain).
- When we speak of God’s natural attributes (Omnipotence, Omnipresence and Omniscience etc.) we are proclaiming God’s power of ability to De Facto govern / have unaccountable and uncoerced authority over all His creation (His Domain).
- When we speak of God’s Governance, we are proclaiming that God does in De Facto govern.
- When we speak of God’s Providence, we are proclaiming God’s method / style of Governance.
How then do we distinguish God’s sovereignty from that of Saul, David or any other sovereign entity? We simply say that God is the Lord of all lords, the King of All kings, which in and of itself means that God is the Sovereign of all sovereigns. Daniel 7:27 reads: ”And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; his kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him” (NASB, emphasis added).
Calvinism (TULIP) and Reformism, in part, define God’s divine sovereignty by equating it to theistic determinism. (See Theistic Determinism) In equating God’s divine sovereignty to theistic determinism, they cannot acknowledge human autonomy, or human free will, believing it diminishes the divine sovereignty of God to predestine. However, even as a temporal attribute, such arguments against human autonomy and human free will fails to correspond to the truth of Scripture, and collapses upon itself as early as Genesis 1:28, where we read how God blessed Adam and Eve, giving them dominion over the earth. The English word Dominion is identified in Strong’s concordance as #H7287 and is translated from the Hebrew word “radah” and meaning to “prevail”, “have”, “rule”, and “reign”. The English word Dominion comes from the Latin word “dominus”, which means master. The term Dominion, that which is mastered or ruled was used by the British to describe their colonies or territorial possessions. Although there was no formal definition of dominion status, a pronouncement by the Imperial Conference of 1926 described Great Britain and the dominions as “autonomous” communities under sovereign rule of the British Empire.
While at first glance the words “Autonomy” and “Sovereignty” seem comparable and equally in opposition of authoritarian power or rule by greater authority, the word autonomy is considered a smaller, trickled-down article of self-liberty or freedom that has been granted by some greater, more authoritative entity. In comparison to autonomy, Sovereignty has the opposite relationship with power and rule and therefore sovereignty is always the more powerful article of self-liberty and freedom. Thus, if we looked at it on a hierarchical scale of pure Freedom of Will, autonomy resides below sovereignty. The question of where autonomy stops and sovereignty begins can only be answered by whomever is the “greater legitimate Judge”, whomever has the greater power and greater De jure authority to make the ultimate decision or overrule the decisions of others including those considered lesser autonomous entities. While a lesser entity could be considered to have autonomy, the fact that the greater power and greater de jure authority of law is not vested in the lesser entity, means that the lesser entity cannot be considered sovereign to or over that which is greater. Another way of looking at this is that a lesser article of autonomy cannot exist apart from the existence and the permission of a more powerful article of sovereignty. Thus, Sovereignty is unaffected by autonomy. In practicality this means that the Sovereignty of God is neither effected nor diminished by a lesser Autonomous entity like that of an Angel or Man and that both Angels and Man can only be as autonomous or as sovereign as our Sovereign God allows. Revelation 4:9-11 ESV: “And whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to him who is seated on the throne, who lives forever and ever, [10] the twenty-four elders fall down before him who is seated on the throne and worship him who lives forever and ever. They cast their crowns before the throne, saying, [11] “Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created”. Autonomy is not sovereignty. While autonomy refers to a spectrum (be it provisional or absolute) of independence, or self-governance as per a measure of being free from coercion it does not entail the governance or control over others. God is of absolute autonomy whereas all else that has autonomy and or sovereignty has the provisional / limited autonomy and or sovereignty given them from God (By His Will / His decision) who sovereignly governs over His creation as the King of all kings and the Sovereign of all sovereigns.
People often assign personal meanings to words, which leads to confusion and inconsistency when interpreting God’s Word. It is essential to use accurate and contextually appropriate definitions that align English translations with the original manuscript languages like Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek, or Latin. For instance, translating “melukah” as “kingship” or “royalty” preserves meaning, but using terms like “sovereignty” can introduce bias if inaccurately defined as “micro-management.” The issue arises not from the word itself, but from redefining it and inserting that definition into scriptural interpretation, a tendency known as confirmation bias. This problem is often intensified by the choice of English translation.
often referred to as “word-for-word” or “literal” translation. This method of translation aims to render texts as directly and precisely as possible from the source language to the target language. This approach seeks to preserve the grammatical structures, “word order”, and “vocabulary” of the original text, ensuring that the translation closely reflects the source material. In the context of biblical translation, formal equivalence is used to maintain the “original wording” and “meaning” as closely as possible.
Sovereign / Sovereignty by translation
Formal Equivalence Translations
KJV: In the King James Version (KJV), the words “sovereign” and “sovereignty” are absent.
NKJV: The New King James Version (NKJV) yields no occurrences of “sovereign” and only one instance of “sovereignty”. It is found in 1 Sam 14:47 and is used to replace the word “kingdom” as used in the KJV, which speaks of King Saul establishing his kingdom over Israel.
NASB: The New American Standard Bible (NASB) finds one occurrence of “sovereign” (1 Tim 6:15) and seven uses of “sovereignty,” five of which are found in Daniel (4:31, 36; 5:18; 7:27; 11:4).
ESV: The English Standard Version (ESV) shows only three occurrences of “sovereign” (Acts 4:24; 1 Tim 6:15; Rev 6:10) and no occurrences of “sovereignty”.
YLT: Regarding older, literal translations, Young’s (1862) shows no instances of “sovereign” or “sovereignty”
Darby: Darby’s (1890) has one use of “sovereign” (Rev 6:10) and two uses of “sovereignty” (1 Kings 21:7; Dan 2:44).18
Dynamic Equivalence Translations
NIV: New International Version (NIV), the word “sovereign” turns up 303 times, of which only five are found in the NT. The word “sovereignty” yields two instances, both occurring in Daniel (5:18; 7:27), and neither refers to God.
NLT: The New Living Translation (NLT) has 294 occurrences of “sovereign”, with three appearing in the NT, while the word “sovereignty” occurs four times, all in the book of Daniel (2:37; 5:18; 7:14, 27), with Daniel 7:14 speaking of sovereignty granted to the Lord Jesus.
NET: The New English Translation (NET) tallies 368 uses of the word “sovereign”, with four instances occurring in the NT, and seven uses of “sovereignty”, with only one occurrence in the NT (Rev 17:18).
The disparity between the Formal Equivalence and the dynamic equivalence translations is far from subtle. The dynamic equivalence translations have taken great liberty in its use of the word “sovereign” and or “sovereignty”, considering that at the of the reformation the words “sovereign” and or “sovereignty” would not have been found within the KJV. Thus, it would be most beneficial to our understanding if we look at the Scriptural evidence of original (contextual) meaning by investigating which Hebrew and or Greek words have been translated as “sovereign” and or “Sovereignty”.
Biblical Evidence of Meaning
The single occurrence of “sovereignty” in the NKJV is 1 Sam 14:47; it speaks of King Saul, and the original Hebrew uses the word melukah, which means “kingship, royalty.” In discussing this word, Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB) gives no consideration to the idea of “supreme controller,” nor to any thought of a meticulous foreordination of everything that will ever occur. The NASB lists 1 Tim 6:15 as the only use of the word “sovereign,” which translates the Greek dynastēs, “one who is in a high or exalted position.”
In the ESV, the translators of Acts 4:24 and Rev 6:10 use the words “Sovereign Lord” to render the Greek despotēs—“one who has legal control and authority over persons, such as subjects or slaves” or “one who controls a thing”. The Reformed theologian might claim that these verses, and the Greek word, support their view of the word “sovereign.” But the use of this word in Scripture sometimes refers to a “master” and his relationship to his servants (1 Tim 6:1-2; Titus 2:9; 1 Pet 2:18). None of these instances refer to God or Jesus Christ. The word can also simply mean “master” of a house (2 Tim 2:21), “Lord” as it refers to God (Luke 2:29), or “Master” as it refers to Jesus (2 Pet 2:1; Jude 4). None of these uses referring to Jesus or God give any indication of complete rule or meticulous foreordination. The translation of despotēs as “Sovereign Lord” is simply the translator’s choice.
One should also question why the use of despotēs in Acts 4:24 and Rev 6:10 has been translated as “Sovereign Lord” when kurios (usually translated “Lord”) is not found in either text. Thus, “Master” is a fine translation, but in no way does BDAG (or the context of each of the passages cited) lead the reader to understand the word despotēs to mean “complete, foreordained control.”
The uses of “sovereignty” in the NASB are found in the book of Daniel. In 4:31, 36, and 5:18, variations of the word are translated as “kingship” and “kingdom.” Each reference involves King Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel 7:27 reads: ”And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; his kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him” (NASB, emphasis added). This passage speaks of a future time when the kingdoms (first two instances) under heaven will be given to the saints of God, and the kingdom of the Lord will stand forever with all other powers and authorities serving Him. Finally, Dan 11:4 uses the word “kingdom” twice; both instances refer to the future kingdom of Alexander the Great. These occurrences are derived from the Hebrew root word melek, which means “royalty, reign, kingdom”, and are political in nature. However, none of these uses speak to unswerving, meticulous foreordination or to a “supreme controller”. Even in Dan 7:27, God’s “everlasting kingdom” is shown to be that which all “dominions” will “serve and obey.” This says nothing of “supreme control.”
Gordon Olson considers this word’s use in the OT: There is not a hint in any of these passages of any exhaustive direct control by which God decreed every event to take place in the universe. Indeed, the imagery of king and kingdom could not possibly communicate such an idea to ancient middle eastern peoples unless it were spelled out explicitly. These terms were not only used for the rulers of great empires, but also for the heads of small cities and thus do not support such an idea. Not even the greatest kings exercised direct control of all events in their domain. Their decrees were carried out indirectly by government officials. Therefore, there is no way that direct control of all events by a sovereign could be indicated by the cultural usage of the word’s “king” or “kingdoms”.