A Biblical Perspective
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Foundation for Adventist Education Institute for Christian Teaching Education Department – General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists POLITICS: A BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE Jane Sabes, Ph.D. Andrews University Berrien Springs, Michigan USA 3rd Symposium on the Bible and Adventist Scholarship Akumal, Riviera Maya, Estado Quintana Roo, Mexico March 19-25, 2006 Politics: A Biblical Perspective by Jane Sabes “Praise be to you, O Lord, God of our father Israel, From everlasting to everlasting. Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power And the glory and the majesty and the splendor, For everything in heaven and earth is yours. Yours, O Lord, is the kingdom; You are exalted as head over all. Wealth and honor come from you; You are the ruler of all things. In your hands are strength and power to exalt and give strength to all. Now, our God, we give you thanks, And praise your glorious name.” 1 Chronicles 29:10-13 (NIV) This paper is anchored in the belief that Seventh-day Adventists should manifest a presence in temporal politics and governance, in fact, that God has always had representatives in earthly governments for the express purpose of blessing humankind and as a witness to His Supreme Sovereignty. This paper further contends that most laws established for ancient Israel have current and universal application for people and nations. A subsequent paper should consider how best the Seventh-day Adventist Church, its representatives, and its individual members might manifest a presence in politics. However, for now, this paper deals with one question: Is it proper, from a biblical point of view, for Seventh-day Adventists to occupy a place in politics and government? Because this discussion is intended principally for Seventh-day Adventist readers, extensive use is made of citations and references from the writings of Ellen White. In so doing, an attempt is made to utilize Scriptures along with specific counsel provided this church regarding politics. While considerable use is made of both the Scriptures and Spirit of Prophecy, other sources are called upon as well. SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES TO POLITICS We begin our examination of this question by considering passages from the Bible. Indeed, we can trace God’s authorship of government and connectedness to human government throughout history. Strong’s Concordance chronicles over four thousand scriptural references to politics with terms and concepts such as king and kingdom (2,958), govern and government (90), ruler and reign (546), nations (473), 1 citizens (3), ambassadors (13), authority (38), sovereign and sovereignty (14). Scriptures record stories of national valor – for example, Gideon called from the least significant tribe to serve as Israel’s military general. Scriptures relate tales of political intrigue and murder - Queen Jezebel killing Naboth in order to acquire his land, King Herod slaying all Jewish males two years of age and younger to rid his kingdom of would-be rivals, Herodias calling for the beheading of John the Baptist in retaliation of his speaking out against her illicit affair with the king, Caesar ravaged by worms as he delivers a public address, the Israeli FBI receiving assistance from the city prostitute, and the fracturing of a nation due to Rehoboam’s insensitive response to the citizens. Scripture also contains aphoristic accounts of young King Josiah calling his nation to a return to moral living, the government official Cornelius seeking spiritual truth, church member Tabatha providing for the social welfare of the community. And there is the playing out of direct democracy as the Athenians deliberate Paul’s “new philosophy” in the public square. In the Beginning… We see from the very beginning that God had every intention of providing structure, law and government for His people. Even before the creation of our world, the law of Jehovah had invariably been the foundation of His government. As it was in heaven, so also it was to be upon the earth. Starting with the Genesis account we read that “by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities.” (Colossians 1:16) In fact, God’s rule became the pivotal issue in the conflict between the Prince of light and the leader of the kingdom of darkness. As Ellen White comments in the Desire of Ages, “After tempting man to sin, Satan claimed the earth as his, and styled himself the prince of this world…. He thought to establish here his empire. He declared that men had chosen him as their sovereign. Through his control of men, he held dominion over the world.”1 Christ sought to disprove Satan’s claim to the throne. During the Time of Israel as a Nation One approach taken by God to overthrow the devil’s coup de’ tat of earth’s rule was to designate one holy nation, one separate people through whom God might demonstrably display His throne of love. At Mount Sinai, the Lord declared to the chosen nation, Israel, “You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” (Exodus 19:5-6) “At the beginning [of human history], the father was constituted priest and magistrate of his own family. Then came the patriarchal rule, which was like that of the family, but extended over a greater number. When Israel became a distinct people, the twelve tribes, springing from the twelve sons of Jacob, had each a leader. These leaders, or elders, were assembled whenever any matter that pertained to the general interest was 2 to be settled…. When the Hebrews settled in Canaan, judges were appointed, who resembled governors. These rulers were invested with authority to declare war and proclaim peace for the nation; but God was still the recognized king of Israel, and he continued to reveal his will to these chosen leaders, and to manifest through them his power. “But increase of population, and intercourse with other nations brought a change…. Dazzled by the pomp and display of heathen monarchs, they [the Israelites] tired of their own simplicity, and desired to be freed from the rule of their Divine Sovereign. As they departed from the Lord, the different tribes became envious and jealous of one another. Strife and dissensions increased, until it was vainly imagined that the installation of a king was the only means by which harmony could be restored…. “The days of Israel’s greatest prosperity had been those in which they acknowledged Jehovah as their king, - when the laws and the government which He had established were regarded as superior to those of all other nations…. And yet, notwithstanding the Lord had so often wrought mightily for their deliverance, the Israelites were now disposed to attribute all their disasters to their manner of government. The Lord permitted his people to follow their own course, because they refused to be guided by his counsels.”2 “The misfortunes of Israel were the result of Yahweh’s wrath, and every political crisis was a reminder for Israel to return to the laws of Yahweh and to renew the terms of the covenant.”3 If indeed, God’s preferred design for governance was that of a theocracy, why then should Christian citizens not strive to institute a modern-day theocracy? Ellen White explains: “A theocracy is a government which derives its power immediately from God…. Whenever men have endeavored to form such a government as that of Israel, they have, of necessity, taken it upon themselves to interpret and enforce the law of God. They have assumed the right to control the conscience, and thus have usurped the prerogative of God…. When men, with human frailties and passions, undertake to do this work, it needs no argument to show that the door is opened to unrestrained injustice and cruelty. The most inhuman crimes will be perpetrated, and all in the sacred name of Christ.”4 New Testament Times It is conventionally held that the New Testament brought an end to the Bible’s concern with civic law and government. Thus, there appears to be a difference between the Testaments. The Old Testament is social minded, and tends to deal with the Jewish people as a nation. In contrast, the New Testament appeals to the individual – it does not stress the ceremonial social religion of the Old, but rather a new revolutionary concept of an individual relationship with the Sovereign God. This change in focus, one might assume, would tend to have much less to say about social order and administration of national affairs. However, Christian political theorist, Alan Storkey, posits that there has been a failure of biblical scholars to recognize the political content and implications contained in the New Testament. Storkey attributes this neglect to two causes. First, biblical scholars 3 have largely been employed by the institutional church and have single-mindedly addressed the concerns of this Christian subculture. Second, secular powers have uniformly sought to exclude Christianity from politics – whether fascism, communism, liberalism or capitalism.5 Even Christ Himself, in his New Testament setting, seemed baffled as to how best to describe His kingdom. He queries, “What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it?” (Mark 4:30) Christ could not employ the kingdoms of the world as a similitude. In society He found nothing with which to compare it – neither oppressive Roman rule nor the unreasonable rigors of religiosity.