The Ancient Near-East: Hyperbolic Speech in Scripture

An exegesis on Ephesians 6:10-18

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints, (Ephesians 6:10-18 NIV).

 

    Ephesians 6:10-18 prepares believers for the struggle against the forces of the devil. The passage encourages the Ephesians to stand and fight in the midst of some struggle. It promotes Christians to stand firm against his evil schemes, to be strong in the Lord, and to put on the full armor of God. But, who or what are these things that the Christians in Ephesus struggle against? What are these “schemes” of Satan to which the apostle Paul refers and how does God’s armor enable believers to resist them? The emphasis Paul places on unity throughout the letter helps to clarify the nature of Christian struggling—the enemy wishes to divide and conquer. However, Paul exhorts the Ephesians “to stand” together on the foundation of truth. By taking up the full armor of God, the church becomes rooted in unshakeable grounds, protected by an impenetrable covering, and may be a living witness of the Gospel.

HISTORICAL AND LITERARY CONTEXTS

    Traditionally, biblical scholars have held that Paul wrote this letter specifically to the church in Ephesus, during his first imprisonment in Rome, between AD 60-62. The epistle identifies the author as Paul and makes several references to his detainment (3:1, 4:1, 6:20). Furthermore, modern translations and authoritative sources claim an addressee: “To God’s holy people in Ephesus…” (1:1b). However, some early manuscripts do not contain the phrase “in Ephesus;” and some recent biblical criticisms raise a number of objections concerning both the identity of the author, holding a position of pseudonymity, as well as doubts regarding the traditional time frame and audience of the letter.¹

    The vocabulary and style in Ephesians differs from Paul’s undisputed epistles. In terms of language, there are some words and phrases which do not appear in Paul’s other letters, such as “διαβόλου” (the devil) in 6:11 or “ἐπουρανίοις” (the heavenly realms) in v.12. Also, the composition, particularly in the first half of the epistle (1:3-3:21), heavily utilizes ecclesiastic doxologies and liturgical hymns. Therefore, the sentences tend to be longer than Paul’s usual style.² In addition to this, roughly a third of the material in Ephesians parallels the items in Colossians, and shares particular motifs not typical in other Pauline writings.³

    Perhaps even more suspect are the substantial differences in the author’s theology. There is the emphasis on believer’s present salvation (1:3-12; 2:4-10), as well as the domestic instructions to the church (5:22-6:9), which is characteristic of post-Pauline literature.⁴ Also, Ephesians tends to focus more upon the resurrection of Christ rather than His death. These perceived differences, in addition to the alleged shift from an earlier expectation of Christ’s imminent return to a more “realized eschatology,” convince most scholars that The Letter to the Ephesians is a later work, written by an anonymous author claiming the name of Paul.⁵

    While proponents of the pseudo-Pauline position are quick to point out that the growing majority of biblical scholars support their position, closer scrutiny reveals that there a lot of controversy exists amongst them concerning the basis for such a conclusion. Indeed, it is not at all uncommon for one scholar to contradict or even to uproot the arguments of another. The conflated proclamation that most scholars agree on pseudonymity is hardly impressive, and greatly misleading. Furthermore, it often seems that various interpretations are often made upon the presupposition that the letter was written in a later historical period, which in turn is offered as evidence supporting the writing of the epistle at a later historical period. However, the question which needs careful reflection regards the initial reasons for a particular interpretation.

    While it is not within the scope of this paper to provide an in-depth debate against apologists of pseudo-Pauline doctrine, I will offer a slightly modified traditional interpretation, which views the author as the apostle Paul, who understands his theology as being rooted in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but manifest itself in the diversity of nearly every circumstance—the only exception being the rejection of the gospel. Therefore, the so-called shifts in emphasis pertaining to Paul’s Christology and Eschatology are not necessarily significant issues. Also, concerning literary style and language, as DeSilva notes, the style of Ephesians is ninety to ninety-five percent in harmony to Paul’s usual style, is it more likely that Paul wrote Ephesians with some variations, or that another author matched Paul’s technique so accurately?⁶

    Paul’s central theological motif in this letter is the unification of diverse groups within the body of Christ. Both Jews and Gentiles are made as one in Christ, and their hostility is put to death on the cross (2:11-16). Interestingly, while the “parallelism and repetition of letter have been compared with Hebrew poetry…they are also used in epideictic rhetoric.”⁷ This mixture of Hebrew poetic forms and the Greco-Roman rhetorical style compliment Paul’s theology of unification of diverse groups rather well. If anyone had extensive knowledge of these various forms and could use them to unite Jews and Gentiles in Christ, it was Paul.

    Indeed, Ephesus itself was a major city at the time and housed a rather eclectic mixture of people. The city engaged in various cultic activities including emperor worship, astrology, and magic. It was also home to one of the great wonders of the world—the Temple of Artemis, which was also a treasury to some of the wealthiest families in the Roman Empire. The city thrived from the production of various statues devoted to Artemis.⁸ In Acts, Luke tells of Paul’s confrontation with a certain silversmith named Demetrius, who made silver shrines of Artemis (19:23-41). It was also the location Paul stayed for about two years during his second missionary journey, preaching to not only the Gentiles, but a significant Jewish population (19:8-19).

FORMAL ANALYSIS

    As a whole, the Letter to the Ephesians seems to be divided into two halves, the first of which begins with 1:3 and ends at 3:21 with a conclusive “Amen.” It is in this half of the letter where much of the doxological language and prayer reside. It is also in this half where Paul reveals God’s mysterious purpose to bring together Jews and Gentiles, and he ends it with a prayer:

14 For this reason I kneel before the Father, 15 from whom his whole family^a in heaven and on earth derives its name. 16 I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, 18 may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19 and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God, (Ephesians 3:14-19).

In the second half, no more mention is made about divisions between Jews and Gentiles. Rather, Paul urges all believers to “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace,” (4:3). Then, Paul goes on to say, “There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all,” (v.4).

    It is from this point on where the nature of division changes from hostility amongst the various Gentiles and Jews, to the unification of a variety of parts within one body, rooted in love, truth, and Christ:

14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. 15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. 16 From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work, (4:14-16).

    After having united all believers into one body in the first half of the epistle, Paul turns to exhort the new, unified body to grow into maturity (4:1-16), gives instructions for appropriate Christian living (4:14-5:20), and imparts exhortations for Christian households in the Roman Empire (5:22-6:9). Verse 21 in chapter 5, however, seem to be a transitional verse between Christian-living in general, leading into the sort of family life, expected of all Christians. It reads: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” While many English versions, such as the NIV here, translate this verse in the imperative, as a command, it is actually a participle—”submitting” or “being subject to”—which modifies the command in verse 18, to “be filled with the Spirit.” In other words, submitting to one another out of reverence to the Lord is an integral part of being filled with God’s Spirit. And, as Paul declares very early in his letter, it is by this Holy Spirit that we are sealed for our inheritance (1:13b-14).

    Ephesians 6:10-18, therefore, serves a variety of functions within the letter. It exhorts the universal church to be strong and to make a stand against the forces of evil. It serves as a peroratio as it recapitulates or sums up much of Paul’s previous instructions, although Paul is reinterpreting those instructions in the context of a great struggle. And, it can also be interpreted as the final portion of the probatio because it can be seen as adding a new situation to the letter. Furthermore, being brought together as one, Jews can enjoy Paul’s multiple allusions to Old Testament scriptures regarding God’s implements of war, while Gentiles can perceive the extended metaphor of the Roman warfare, which Paul employs. The section resembles the exhortations of generals given to their armies before a battle.⁹ In either scenario, both “sides” understand that they are called into the same battle by one God.

    The passage seems to provide some natural breaks, and suggests verses which can be grouped together. This allows for a convenient outline of the section:

Be strong in the Lord! (v.10)

Put on the full armor of God! (vv.11-13)

Stand firm with truth, righteousness, and readiness! (vv.14-15)

Take up faith, salvation, and the sword of the Spirit! (vv.16-17)

Pray and be alert! (v.18)

 

DETAILED ANALYSIS

    Be strong in the Lord! (v.1)

Paul starts with the imperative to be strong in the Lord and in the might of his strength. The aspect of the verb he uses here is continuous—they are to be continually strong in the Lord. Roman soldiers were expected to always stand their ground against enemy forces, not as separated individuals, but working instead working together in a series of ranks.¹⁰ This formation was called a phalanx, and when properly executed was considered practically invincible.

    There is much in the Old Testament about being strong before a battle. One such passage can be found in Deuteronomy:

2 When you are about to go into battle, the priest shall come forward and address the army. 3 He shall say: “Hear, O Israel, today you are going into battle against your enemies. Do not be fainthearted or afraid; do not be terrified or give way to panic before them. 4 For the Lord your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory,” (20:2-4).

As we can see, the author refers to having confidence in God’s ability to achieve His victory over His enemies. Also, whether speaking in the terms of Gentiles or Jews, it is the army functioning as a whole unity in the Lord’s strength.

    Put on the full armor of God! (vv.11-13)

This section follows an A-B-A pattern, called a chiasmus. V.11 demands that we put on the full armor of God in order to stand against the schemes of the devil. V.12 describes the nature of the battle. Then, v.13 reiterates v.11, emphasizing the utter importance of this armor.

    Just as no competent soldier would not venture into battle without being properly equipped, nor should the church. In v.11, Paul instructs his readers to be clothed, once for all, with the full armor of God. The significance is that it is God’s armor, or what He clothes us with. In the Book of Isaiah, the LORD appears in His armor as the Redeemer:

15b The Lord looked and was displeased

that there was no justice.

16     He saw that there was no one,

he was appalled that there was no one to intervene;

so his own arm worked salvation for him,

and his own righteousness sustained him.

17     He put on righteousness as his breastplate,

and the helmet of salvation on his head;

he put on the garments of vengeance

and wrapped himself in zeal as in a cloak, (59:15b-17).

The eleventh chapter of Luke tells an interesting story regarding this armor. After Jesus had driven out a demon, some had thought he did so by the power of Beelzebub. Jesus, knowing their thoughts, declares that “any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall,” (v.17). In short, such a division cannot stand. Jesus goes on to say:

When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up the spoils. He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters (vv.21-23).

Several things are clear in Luke’s account. First, God’s provisions demand unity, and not a church divided against itself. Second, the strong man’s own armor was not sufficient. And third, Jesus has overpowered Satan and plundered his house.

    The point to all this becomes abundantly clear when we consider what Paul says in Romans13:12-14:

12The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. 14 Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.^c

Jesus is the One who plunders the household of demons. Paul identifies Him as the armor with which we are to be clothed in order to resist the deceitful methods of the devil.

The central issue within Ephesians involves the very nature of the struggle, which is revealed in v.12. The translation of this verse in the NRSV is a bit unfortunate. It reads, “For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh….” The Greek of this text does not contain the words “enemies of,” and blood and flesh is not modifying the word “enemies.” Rather, they modify “the wrestling.” The general idea this verse conveys is that the battle itself is not of physical means, but spiritual. It does, in fact, involve enemies of flesh and blood, but it is not a physical battle. In Ephesians 4:14, Paul claims that it is men—not just demons—who engage in deceitful scheming, with false doctrines. Also, in John 8:44, Jesus refers to a group of men as children of the devil. Clearly, Scripture often treats demonic forces and unregenerate people as belonging to the same household, and Paul as well as Jesus refutes false teachers on numerous occasions throughout the New Testament.

Having established that the wrestling is not against flesh and blood, Paul turns to list what the spiritual struggle is against. However, v.12 does not appear to be simply a brief inventory of things the Ephesians must struggle against. There seems to be a general movement throughout the verse, which begins with things pertaining to flesh and blood—implying a physical nature—and dematerializes until we reach “spiritual forces” in the “heavenly realms.” Although they can pertain to spiritual forces, the words “rulers” and “authorities” most often denote human beings in places of power.¹¹ The next enemy, “the powers of this dark world,” seems even more ambiguous in terms of discriminating whether Paul means human powers or demonic beings. What seems to be happening in the text is that the emphasis moves away from human rulers and authorities toward demonic forces of evil. All of these are grouped together in the word, “κοσμοκράτορας,” which could refer to either demonic entities presiding over humankind, the world, or the cosmos; or it can refer to human rulers or both.¹² And, finally, Paul informs his readers that Christians are “against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” The Greek word indicating these spiritual forces, “πνευματικὰ,” pertains to the soul, “as distinguished from what concerns the body.”¹³ Therefore, we have an emphatic shift from the material world of flesh and blood to the spiritual realm of demonic forces or evil beings.

The purpose of v.12 is not to provide a list of demonic entities in Satan’s army—i.e., generals, privates, and such—as some commentaries indicate. Rather, the function of this verse is to show that the fight is not a physical one, to demonstrate who this spiritual battle is against using a broad spectrum, and to exhort believers to put on the full armor of God. This last exhortation, repeated in v.13 from v.11, is the most important. Not only does it emphatically contain all the contents of vv. 11 and 12, but it also applies an apocalyptic nuance with the reference to “the day of evil,” which pertains to “the devil’s schemes” mentioned in v.11.

Stand firm with truth, righteousness, and readiness! (vv.14-15)

After the command to put the full armor of God, Paul goes on to describe what that entails. He begins with the instruction, “Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist….” More literally, the text can be translated, “Stand firm, therefore, having girded your waist with truth….” The belt is implied, but is not actually mentioned in the Greek. The NIV translation is appropriate, nonetheless, although it is not word for word.

    Romans armor was, in large part, held together by a belt or girdle.¹⁴ It would have been one of the first things adorned because the rest of the armor fits over top of it. According to one commentary, “The belt of truth refers not to the facts of the gospel but to subjective truth, a believer’s integrity and faithfulness.”¹⁵ This statement, however, is not consistent with what Paul has written elsewhere in his letter to the Ephesians. This is the sixth, and last, occurrence for the word truth, “ἀληθείᾳ,” in this letter. It must be remembered that Ephesians 6:10-18 is summing up things which have already been stated earlier in the epistle. First, vv.11 and 13 say to put on the “full armor of God,” which is God’s armor, and was external from ourselves; and v.10 commanded Paul’s audience to “be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power,” (emphasis added). Furthermore, Paul consistently refers to truth as something external, and here it needs to be put on or adorned. Finally, in 1:13, this truth is equated with the gospel: “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation.” Clearly, there is more to the armor, as well as its individual pieces, than “subjective truth.”

    Instead, this is God’s truth with which we are to be clothed. It is the same truth that predestined God’s own unto salvation (1:11), and sealed us with the Holy Spirit to guarantee our inheritance (13b-14). Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to understand that it is by this same truth that we can resist the devil’s schemes, which seek to cause quarrelsome disunity within the body of Christ, because God’s purpose is “to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ,” (v.10b). This is done in the truth. Jesus claimed to be that truth:

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me,” (John 14:6).

    In Luke, we saw that Jesus claimed that a kingdom or house divided against itself cannot stand. He was referring, of course, to the devil’s kingdom and household. Satan, who is liar and speaks lies in accordance with his own nature, cannot have a lasting kingdom (c.f. John 8:44). The very nature of truth is that it is always consistent with itself and, therefore, will always stand. God cannot lie and always speaks the truth (Numbers 23:19; Nehemiah 9:32; Titus 1:2). He is consistent, or never changes (Psalms 90:2; Malachi 3:10; James 1:17; Hebrews 13:8). But, contrary to the truth, Satan is a liar by nature, and because of internal inconsistencies, his household divides and falls. Meanwhile, with the truth, we stand firm.

    While the belt, or girdle, held the other parts of the armor together, the breastplate of righteousness is to be worn in addition to the belt of truth. One of the main points to the passage as a whole is not precisely how God’s armor correlates with Roman armor, but that all of it needs to be put on in order to withstand the devil. Righteousness is acting in accordance to God’s truth, or law. However, since nobody is righteous, then we need the righteousness of Christ. On the other hand, this does not alleviate the believer from obeying God:

For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.^b Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient, (Eph. 5:5-6).

Some like to contend that since salvation is given to those who did not merit it—since it is apart from the law—then there is no need to observe the law. Such a conclusion, however, is contrary to Scripture. Since it is through the righteousness of Jesus Christ that we are saved, then how can we prefer immorality and evil, which condemned us, above righteousness, which saved us? It is impossible to be saved and not be renewed:

For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do, (2:10).

Paul purposefully links together the good works of the Christian to God’s unmerited grace. The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1 Corinthians 5:1-4). Those who are saved have put to death the old nature and have been raised up into the new with Christ, (Eph. 2:5-6; 14-18).

    Furthermore, in regards to those who insist upon not obeying the precepts of God, Paul writes:

20You, however, did not come to know Christ that way. 21 Surely you heard of him and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. 22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness, (Eph. 4:20-24).

Righteousness is in accordance with truth, and fulfills the law. God’s people are sealed with the Holy Spirit, who revels in the precepts of God, (c.f. James 4:1-7).

    The NIV translation loses its word-for-word value in this next verse because the Greek verb, “ὑποδησάμενοι,” means either to put on sandals or to be ready for action.¹⁶ Paul has made a pun from this verb. The Greek here actually indicates that our footing is in or on the gospel of peace. In other words, it is on the gospel that we find the sufficient traction to stand against the wiles or the devil and the wars he wages. There are no other grounds for adequate footing.

    Perhaps it may be an irony that God’s army stands upon the “gospel of peace” in the midst of war. But, it must be remembered that this passage insists that this is not a physical war, but a spiritual one. Part of our calling involves being peacemakers and loving our enemies (1 Pet. 3:11; Matt. 5:44). And, as James 4:1-7 points out, part of our struggle is that we attack the hatred that causes war and division. Satan’s household divides members against members. We must preach the gospel of peace to its members. Furthermore, God’s kingdom unites its own members into one body:

2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit— just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all, (Eph. 4:3-6).

Paul’s words, in the verses above, are summed up in our section. Clearly, his words unify both each individual internally as well as externally to unify in peace. Yet, at the same time, the various allusions to implements of war inform them that they must stand together, if they are to succeed. Similarly, Roman warfare required that its soldiers held their ranks—called a phalanx—when they fought. According to the IVP Biblical Background Commentary, “as long as they [the Roman soldiers] stood together on a flat, open field and did not break ranks, their legions were considered virtually invincible.”¹⁷ Likewise, as long as God’s warriors stand upon their assigned grounds and do not break ranks, they are utterly invincible in truth. Throughout the rest of the passage, he makes use of this unity in a creative way, one which would have been familiar to many living in Ephesus and in surrounding areas.

    Take up faith, salvation, and the sword of the Spirit! (vs.16-17)

This section of our outline lists the additional items necessary to stand firm. Therefore, taking up the shield of faith becomes an essential part of put on God’s armor. According to Wiersbe, “The “faith” mentioned here is not saving faith, but rather living faith, a trust in the promises and the power of God.”¹⁸ However, did Paul not say that there is only “one faith?” (4:5b). Indeed, is not faith unto salvation also a trust in the promises and powers of God? Consider what else Paul says in Ephesians 3:12-13:

In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence. I ask you, therefore, not to be discouraged because of my sufferings for you, which are your glory.

Notice how we can approach God in freedom and confidence, which is saving faith. However, it is by that same faith that Paul says to the Ephesians not to be discouraged by his sufferings for them. What does the latter faith have to do with the former, unless they are the same? Paul has been imprisoned by his enemies—by those not of God. And through the same faith that saved us, he exhorts us not to be discouraged by the misfortunes that take place in this present darkness.

    For purposes of illustration, the distinction could be drawn between having faith in something as opposed to having faith about something. In James 2:19 it says, “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.” Demons have faith about God, but as is evident from their works, they have no faith in God. Their faith is in their evil methods, but they believe concerning God. Our faith is in God, as it ought to be apparent by our works because we are His workmanship, but also involves things about the devil. Their faith destroys people; but, faith in God builds up in unity.

    Therefore, Paul’s use of faith as a shield seems quite fitting. Faith is only as good as the thing it is invested in. If we believe in lies, then our hopes will come crashing down when those lies fall apart. But, if what we continually trust is the truth, then our hope will stand until it is fulfilled. Only in truth can anyone find any sure-footing because all other grounds collapse. Faith is the confidence or trust invested into something; and Paul wants us to be confident even in times of hardship, without becoming discouraged. In this way, faith is like a shield.

    The Roman shield was about four feet high, two feet wide, and made out of wood. The front was overlaid with leather. Before battles, the leather was dampened in order to extinguish arrows set ablaze by enemies. Furthermore, as the Roman armies held their ranks, they could bring their shields together. Those in the front row could hold their shields forward, while those behind them could raise their shields up. Through this kind of unity, each soldier working together and protecting each other, they were nearly impenetrable.¹⁹ How much greater is God’s armor than man’s?

    In v.17 Paul urges the Ephesians to take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Sprit. The verb, “take,” is not in the same sense of “taking up” as mentioned in the earlier verses. Rather than merely being dressed in salvation, the sense here is grabbing, taking hold of, welcoming, and believing. As mentioned earlier, while the emphasis rests upon the fact that we must take up the full armor of God, I do not conclude that Paul’s decision to correlate various pieces of Roman armor to God’s spiritual armor is completely arbitrary. The helmet protects the mind, and this letter is very interested in departing knowledge concerning the nature of God’s purposes in salvation and redemption to the Ephesians:

18 I pray…that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, 20 which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come, (1:18-21).

In 1 Thessalonians 5:8, putting on the hope of salvation as a helmet also means being sober. This does not merely imply abstaining from drunkenness, but indicates clear and rational thought. These, of course, must be based upon the truth as well as honesty. Not only do we stand firm in what we know, but we search the depths of God (c.f. Eph. 3:17-19). Returning to Ephesians 4:22-24, putting off the old self and renewing our minds to put on the new self, is a continuous process, as the Greek reveals. It is through experiencing this process that we can stand firm. It is also through this process that we develop the sensitivity to recognize and effectively apply God’s word:

Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be [continually] transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will, (Romans 12:2).

The sword of the Spirit, also called “the word of God,” is the offensive weapon included in the armor of God. The Roman sword measured approximately 20-24 inches long, and was used in close-range combat. Their sturdy yet slender construction allowed them to find their way into small openings or gaps in the armor. Similarly, “the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart,” (Heb. 4:12).

    In the same way that our wrestling is not physical in nature, neither is the sword of the Spirit. Instead, it is the word of God that Paul instructs the Ephesians to take hold of in order to pierce through the gaps of the devil’s armor. This it does boldly, preaching in order to include and unite members in the body of Christ (Eph.1:13; 2:17-22). Therefore, empty and deceitful words are condemned because they give the devil a foothold (4:24-32; 5:6-7). Self-righteous words of boasting are also excluded, because our speech is meant to build up the church (2:9; 5:18b-20). Once again, it is through unity, standing upon the grounds in which God has provided that the church is enabled to resist evil schemes.

    Pray and be alert! (v.18).

The final verse of our section seems an appropriate conclusion. The instructions given here, in v.18, reiterate the point of standing together in unity. Part of being subjected to one another involves interceding for each other in prayer (5:1,21). Christians are unified together by the Holy Spirit (2:19-22). As soldiers, they must “stand together in their battle formation, covering one another by moving as a solid unit.”²⁰ They were also to be alert, watching out for the enemy: “Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man,” (Luke 21:36).

 

SYNTHESIS

    In what way and to what extent should the church in Ephesus struggle against the world? One thing Paul makes clear in this section is that physical struggling, strife, and warfare are not included in the Christian soldier’s stand against the devil and his army. The nature of this battle, as Paul describes it, is completely spiritual. It is a war between the citizens of God’s kingdom and the forces of evil in the world. As Satan seeks to divide, intimidate, and discourage the church through confusion and persecution, the church arms itself with God’s provisions in order to stand firm. Only by standing together in God’s might can the believers in Ephesus withstand the devil’s forces. The unity of God’s people must stand upon the solid foundation of love and truth, each member working and praying for the benefit of the others.

REFLECTION/ APPLICATION

    God’s community emphasizes the importance of each individual. No one is a number or an expendable part of a larger collective, seeking material abundance in order to numb the pains of reality in a wretched existence. The unity Paul speaks to us about is genuine, being rooted in the truth and a sincere love sufficient for each individual. It is a unity that makes the most of its resources, as the gifts and abilities of its individual members become an integral and essential part of the whole. Neither is any given role viewed as more or less important than another. Each person has a voice and an identity. And, each individual has a unique and important existence within the whole.

In compliment to this, Paul’s letter also sets up the whole as a deeply cherished aspect within the hearts of individual believers. Just as single words and notes unite in order to make a hymn of praise, so too does each of God’s children unify to stand as a witness to the world, in its love for the truth—Jesus Christ. God’s word must be cherished as an authoritative focal point in the hearts and minds of each one of His people, as each of us cares for and cherishes the other.

What we need to realize and trust is that while His truth is absolute, unchanging, and completely dependable, His wisdom is infinitely manifold. He expresses Himself in more ways than any person can possibly comprehend. While it is imperative to accept that He is the only absolute truth, it must also be understood that diversity is not necessarily division. Rather, it may also be God’s infinite truth, being consistent with its nature, manifesting itself in diverse situations and individuals which we do not yet understand. We should always wrestle with the things we perceive in the world, faithfully and thoughtfully testing whether it comes to divide by contradicting God, or to build up by challenging us to see our each other and our Father more deeply and clearly.

 

 

 

 

NOTES

 

    ¹For further discussion, see the works of DeSilva, Lincoln, Keener, and Hagee.

 

    ²Andrew T. Lincoln, “Ephesians,” in The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul, ed. James D. G. Dunn (Cambridge University Press, 2003), 134.

 

    ³David A. DeSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods, & Ministry Formation, (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 719.

 

    ⁴Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean, “The Letter of Paul to the Ephesians,” in The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, 3rd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2001), 320.

 

    ⁵DeSilva, An Introduction, 718.

    

    ⁶Ibid., 717.

 

    ⁷Craig S. Keener, “Ephesians,” in The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 539.

 

    ⁸John McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2005), 254.

    

    ⁹Ibid., 553.

    

    ¹⁰Ibid., 553.

 

    ¹¹James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament), electronic ed., (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems Inc., 1994) GK 794.

 

    ¹²William D. Mounce, ed., Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2006), GK 3179.

 

    ¹³Ibid., GK 4461.

 

    ¹⁴Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), Eph.6:14a.

 

    ¹⁵John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck, & Dallas Theological Seminary, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983-c1985), 2:643.

 

    ¹⁶James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages, GK 5686.

 

    ¹⁷Craig S. Keener, “Ephesians,” 553.

 

    ¹⁸Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, Eph.6:16.

 

    ¹⁹Craig S. Keener, “Ephesians,” 554.

 

²⁰Ibid., 554.

 

 

Communism versus Socialism

The following I have taken from http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism. While I do not entirely agree with everything the comparison says, it should give us some idea about differences. The way I see it, socialism is simply another form of communism wrapped up in progressive’s clothing. Some of the differences are somewhat artificial, since “freedom” and “liberty” become relative terms in socialism. They are still given and taken away by the state, just as in communism. Anyway, here’s what the site says:

In a way, communism is an extreme form of socialism. Many countries have dominant socialist political parties but very few are truly communist. In fact, most countries – including staunch capitalist bastions like the U.S. and U.K. – have government programs that borrow from socialist principles. “Socialism” is sometimes used interchangeably with “communism” but the two philosophies have some stark differences. Most notably, while communism is a political system, socialism is primarily an economic system that can exist in various forms under a wide range of political systems.

Comparison chart

Improve this chart	Communism	Socialism
Philosophy:	From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Free-access to the articles of consumption is made possible by advances in technology that allow for super-abundance	From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. Emphasis on profit being distributed among the society or workforce in addition to receiving a wage.
Definition:	A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, with actual ownership ascribed to the community or state	A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of most property in common, with actual ownership ascribed to the workers
Political System:	One-party system. A dictator or elite leader has absolute control over citizens.	Multiple parties, but the ruling party usually goes by the name “Socialist”.
Social Structure:	All class distinctions are eliminated	Class distinctions are diminished
Ideas:	Human societies have always been divided into warring classes. The Industrial Revolution has enriched the wealthy and impoverished the poor. The workers must overthrow the bourgeois.	All people should be given an equal opportunity to succeed. Workers should have most say in their factory’s management. The free market suffers from problems like tragedy of the commons. Government regulation is necessary.
Economic System:	Wealth redistributed so that everyone in society is given equal shares of the benefits derived from labor. All means of production are controlled by the state	Wealth redistributed so that everyone in society is given somewhat equal shares of the benefits derived from labor, but people can earn more if they work harder. Means of production are controlled by the workers themselves.
Key elements:	An enhanced form of the principle of “Production for use”.	Economic activity and production especially are adjusted to meet human needs and economic demands. “Production for use”: useful goods and services are produced specifically for their usefulness.
Free Choice:	All choices, including education, religion, employment and marriage, controlled by the state	All choices, including education, religion, employment and marriage, are up to the individual. All health care and education is provided free to everybody
Ownership structure:	The means of production are commonly-owned, meaning no entity or individual owns productive property. Importance is ascribed to “usership” over “ownership”.	The means of production are socially-owned with the surplus value produced accruing to either all of society (in Public-ownership models) or to all the employee-members of the enterprise (in Cooperative-ownership models).
Private Property:	Abolished	two kinds of property, private property, such as land, houses, clothing, etc. owned by the individual. Public property, factories, and means of production owned by the state but with worker control
Economic Coordination:	Free-access distribution.	Planned-Socialism relies principally on planning to determine investment and production decisions. Planning may be centralized or decentralized. Market-socialism relies on markets for allocating capital to different socially-owned enterprises.
Religion:	Abolished	freedom of religion
Political Movements:	Leninism, Trotskyism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, Left-Communism	Democratic Socialism, Communism, Libertarian Socialism, Anarchism, Syndicalism
Discrimination:	In theory, all members of the state are considered equal	The people are considered equal, laws are made when necessary to protect people from discrimination
Key Proponents:	Karl Marx, Fredrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky	Robert Owen, Pierre Leroux, Karl Marx, Fredrick Engels, John Stuart Mill, Albert Einstein, George Bernard Shaw, Leo Tolstoy, Emma Goldman
Means of control:	Proletariat engages in violent rebellion.	Proletariat engages in taking charge of the factories and means of production.
Variations:	Include Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism	libertarian-socialism, and anarcho-socialism, anarcho-syndicalism
Way of Change:	Government in a Communist-state is the agent of change rather than any market or desire on the part of consumers. Change by government can be swift or slow, depending on change in ideology or even whim.	Workers in a Socialist-state are the agent of change rather than any market or desire on the part of consumers. Change by the workers can be swift or slow, depending on change in ideology or even whim.

Addressing the myth of neutrality, centrality, and the so-called “political spectrum”

Addressing the myth of neutrality, centrality, and the so-called “political spectrum”

Most of us have been indoctrinated into politics by use of terms such as ‘left” and “right,” as indicated by the spectrum graph above. We are given two “extremes” and what is normally construed as some sort of moderate or centrist view on politics. On the left, we see the extreme of Communism, such as what we would find in the Soviet Union or China. On the extreme right is Fascism, such as what we might find in Nazi Germany. Liberals and Democrats are positioned just left of the center, tending toward socialism, while Conservatives and Republicans tend toward Capitalism, somewhat right of center. In the middle, we are given some sort of happy medium, one that avoids any sort political leanings whatsoever.

There are some serious problems with this, however. For one thing, the middle is not really defined. In this case, we are given a Canadian flag to fill in the gap. This doesn’t work, though, since Canada is a nation with socialistic leanings, and we’ve already established that to be on the left. So how can it lean to the left and be at the center at the same time?

But as I saying, the center is actually undefined. How can a political party be undefined, having no leanings, but still be a political party? Indeed, what precisely is at the “center” of a spectrum from Nazism to Communism? It simply does not make sense.

The picture indicates a centrist party, having no leanings either for or against the extremes. But does this imaginary party have any political content to it? If so, is everyone else, who falls either to the left or the right, in agreement with it? Is everyone else in disagreement with the alleged “centrist view?”

Where do Anarchists and Libertarians fall on the spectrum? How about a Theocracy? Why aren’t they on there? Do they belong in the center too?

It gets worse….

Fascism IS Socialism. Hitler’s regime was a Socialist, worker-party movement. It was actually called the “National Socialist Party.” Nazi Fascism IS Socialism. So, we have socialism on the left AND the extreme right. And what is socialism? The dictionary defines it thusly:

Definition of SOCIALISM

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

So, here, we have our definition of socialism, which appears on both the left and the right, and is labeled as an “Authoritarian” form of government.

 As one would expect, if Nazi Socialism existed to the far right, then Communism would be its total opposite, right? However, our first indication of a problem with that is that Communism is labeled as a “Totalitarian” form of government—and we all know that totalitarianism is the total opposite of authoritarianism…right? No, they tend to be about the same. They are both ruthless tyrannies, dictatorships…which is also not on the political spectrum.

Perhaps the definition of Communism will help us to make the clear distinction, since these are supposed to be total opposites?

Definition of COMMUNISM

1a : a theory advocating elimination of private property

b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

2 a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production

c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably

Well, that helps clear it up. Communism is a political theory which eliminates private property and gives it to an authoritarian government, while Socialism is a political theory which eliminates private property and gives it to an authoritarian government. They’re total opposites and the centrist is right in the middle of the two.

To be fair, however, there are some differences between Socialism and Marxism, particularly in terms of their anthropology and their sociology. Elaborating these differences is definitely beyond the scope of this paper, but it is sufficient to say that the end results and the tyranny are essentially the same.

So, we have a bit of a problem here. There is no such thing as “neutrality,” since every belief and political conviction actually makes some sort of claim to truth, even if it is bent on denying it. The spectrum fails to explain what a “true middle” is or could ever look like, and is itself not unbiased. It fails to account for a good number of political theories, including the few I mentioned above. Also, the extremes are not at all anywhere close to being true opposites, but have much more in common than they are different. Indeed, both are dictatorships seeking to eliminate the rights of citizens to their own properties and creativities.

…And yet this is the political paradigm that has shaped our understanding and become the basis of our arguments? IT IS IRRATIONAL.

The spectrum seeks to capture you between the horns of a false dilemma in order shape your beliefs about politics. It almost guarantees a two-party system, where one is at odds with the other. It guarantees in-fighting, strife, while distracting us from the real issues. Does it really matter what excuse the government uses to enslave its members, stealing the work of their hands, harvesting their creativity as though the state should be like a farmer is to his crop? Does one actually excuse its tyranny, while the other fails do to so? Of course not! They are both dictatorships. They both murder people.

There really is no such thing as a perfect graph or spectrum that captures the multitude of complexities within governmental forms. Indeed, some things cannot even be quantified, but only qualified. How important are individual freedoms, for example. Could you really put a number on it? Nonetheless, while such graphs or spectrums are woefully insufficient to serve as a normative standard, they can be useful for illustrative purposes.

Consider this one:

It doesn’t matter which side the words appear—swap them if you’d like—because the real issue is about the concentration of law, authority and power and who has it. On the left, nobody has any at all, which would be a state of total anarchy. On the right, the government has all authority over its subjects, and has the power to do all that it pleases with them. So the issue is about the focus of law, authority, and power, where its location is. Does it rest in all men equally, thereby no one having any at all, resulting in anarchy? Or does it rest exclusively in government, while no one else has any?

We have already seen that both Socialists and Communists belong under the totalitarian heading, as do all dictatorships. This would also include oligarchies—rule of a few elites, the most common form of government—monarchies, as well as pure democracies, since the mob rules, and the rest have no power outside the majority.

What’s really in the middle here?

It’s called a Constitutional Republic. The key to this has everything to do with the nature of law, power, and authority; as such things do not arbitrarily derive from the will of the people, as in anarchy, nor from the whims of some, as in totalitarianism. In a Constitutional Republic, the law transcends man, standing over the individual, the group, and those that govern. Only in a Constitutional Republic is law seen as the objective and transcendent thing that it is. So, our spectrum looks something like this:

 

 

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com! This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.

Happy blogging!

Politics 101 from a Christian perspective part 5: Tying up some lose ends

Politics 101 from a Christian perspective part 5: Tying up some lose ends

Since this concludes my writings for “Politics 101,” I thought I would finish by tying up some loose ends. The purpose of these writings was just to convey the “big idea.” Politics has a creational cause and a design. It, like all things, depends upon a set of prior assumptions, a worldview which bestows upon it what human activities and ideas should be or what they mean.  As I continue to write more about the particulars of a Christian political system, the importance of this will become more and more apparent. Since the Christian rationale for politics is absolutely rooted in the creation event, as revealed to us by Scripture, it made sense to me to begin by expounding on that. The rest of my writings will explore different facets, honing in on various aspects of the design of the political sphere in greater detail, as I defend and expound upon them.

In my last writing, I left off with the formation of man’s unalienable rights—life, liberty, and property—and how those derive from God’s image and how they are expressed in the covenant God made with Noah.  I concluded with a quote by Claude Frederic Bastiat, an important, French political thinker, from his famous work in 1850, “The Law.”  In citing that source, I had used the word “right,” declaring that individual persons have “rights.” Since there are many in the Christian camp who would take issue with the use of this word, I thought to address that first.

The typical objection made in the use of that word, is that “People do not have “rights” before God.” That is true. God is able to take away life, liberty, and property as He pleases, since He is the one that bestows them in accordance to His will. If the word “rights” is distracting, due to objections of “enlightenment thinking,” then substitute the word, “duties.” While human beings have no “rights” before God, they do have “duties” before God to defend and protect His image, which is precisely why the Christian cannot withdraw from politics and still be ethical.

Nonetheless, truth does not stop being truth merely because it was discovered via “Enlightenment thinking.” I agree that there are a great many problems with such a system. They wanted to make “modern man” the center of their thought and worship, the light and hope emerging from a history of darkness (which is why it’s called “The Dark Ages,” by the way). But I hope my previous writings have made clear that I reject such a notion, since God’s glory is front and center in my view.

The reason these things do not belong to the state is not because they are “collective” or “individual,” but because you don’t belong to the state—you don’t even belong to yourself—but to God. This is why we have “unalienable rights.” They cannot be given or taken away by the state. They are of God. We have a stewardship of these things, a duty over life, liberty, and property, which belong to God. Either they will belong to God or to some idol—no neutral territory here. This is what the puritans of the Enlightenment would have meant by “rights.” They did not put the modern man as the object of their theology, nor do I.

To God, we have duties; to man, those duties are “rights.” The Christian has a vertical relationship to his God and Creator, and a horizontal relationship to his fellow man, or image-bearer. This relationship can be seen in Scripture, when Jesus speaks of the Law:

“And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”” (Matthew 22:37–40, ESV)

First, this demonstrates that there are lesser laws and greater laws. This means that lesser laws cannot violate greater laws. Also, as Jesus teaches, no laws or interpretations of those laws (“the Prophets”) may violate these two laws. Second, Jesus links these two laws by analogy. He says that the second commandment is “like” the first one. The first one describes man’s appropriate relationship to God (the vertical), while the second describes man’s appropriate relationship to his fellow man, the image of that God (the horizontal). Third, the reason God binds us by obligation to “love our neighbors” is because they are, by their intrinsic nature, the image of God. It is what they are by nature and how they were created (Gen 1:26). Their life, liberty, and property belong to God—it is their duty and their right. They do not belong to their fellow man, the state. The life is the image itself. The liberty is the worship, the noticing of and the basking in God’s glory. And, the property is the material expression of that worship. It is man’s dominion over the earth as an image-bearer, and his stewardship toward others for God’s glory, as per “The Good Samaritan.” It is for this reason that the law forbids covetousness and theft of properties.

To conclude, I would like to return to the posts of my original question involving God and politics. For recollection, here’s what I had asked:

“Was Jesus a political figure? Did He, or the Bible, have anything to say about politics? If you have the guts to post them, what are your thoughts?” (September 20, 2012)

Here’s the responses I received and a little some more reply from myself:

Post 1: “I think at times they (the religious leaders) tried to draw him in to the political realm. I cannot help believing that those who followed him had the mindset that he was setting up his kingdom there, and that he would lead them over the Roman Empire.”

I think this is true. But, more precisely, I think they were trying to get Christ to put His stamp of approval on their political misconceptions, their distortions of the political realm. As we have seen, God is the ultimate political figure; indeed, it was the Son who designed it. Jesus’ ministry was nothing but political, since it had everything to do with law, power relations, stewardship, and so forth. Christ did lead people over the Roman Empire, toward the very City which it erroneously tried to replicate. The sign that hung upon the cross in mockery of our Lord and Savior, even gave His “offense.” It read, “Jesus, King of the Jews.”

Post 2: “I think he was as he is God, as he desperately encouraged the worship of The Father who is above all and should properly run governmental or state affairs. The Old Testament describes a conversation with a prophet during which the people didn’t want God to run them, but they wanted a King. I believe Jesus wanted to see that reversed. Jesus frequently spoke of “social relations involving authority or power” which is what politics is in an attempt to make that a political reality.” (1 Sam 2.1-22 NLT)

Israel’s government went from the exegesis (the interpretation) of priests to the monarchy. From Deut 17 to 1 Samuel 8, the form of government changes from Priests/Judges to a Monarchy, or earthly king. This displeased God, but he also anticipated it back in Deut 17. In verse 8, we see the application of law expressed as “rights” and “assaults,” defending the divine image. Here, He gives the law in priests. However, whether the law is in priests, judges, or kings, the same law stands over them all.  So the law consists of individual rights and their defense. The priest or judge was an exegete (an interpreter) of the law. These officers, as a species of the citizenry, and not a third thing, were under the law, not the originators of it. In the Bible, they did not originate the law, but interpreted the law.

In 1 Sam 8, even though they went to a monarch, God anticipates this. The state, as an institution, and the law, as its information, originates in God’s expression to man, in His image, so that the civil sphere is a function of the divinely revealed covenant.

Post 3: “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and that which is God unto God.”

Yes! Some things belong to Caesar, and all things belong to God. We pay taxes unto Caesar because the money is God’s, and it should be given to support the statesman, who is given authority out of God’s authority (Roman 13). The authority is not given for the making of idols or the destruction of life, liberty, and property. It is given for the protection of those very things, and to administer justice when evil-doers break the law. Romans 13 expounds upon this teaching, showing what is appropriate and why it is so. If homage to Caesar causes us to violate the greatest commandments, then homage to Caesar no longer applies, since it would violate the very purpose of its existence. The Apostolic church had to deal with this very conflict. Here’s what happened and what Peter said about it:

“Then the captain with the officers went and brought them, but not by force, for they were afraid of being stoned by the people. And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them. But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honor by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while. And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men. For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!” So they took his advice, and when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name. And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus.” (Acts 5:26–42, ESV)

When a conflict occurs, we must obey God rather than the men who disobey God. Do not join with them in their disobedience.

Thank you for reading and blessings.

Politics 101 from a Christian perspective part 4: The image of God and the law

Politics 101 from a Christian perspective part 4: The image of God and the law

12  “Woe to him who builds a town with blood

and founds a city on iniquity!

13     Behold, is it not from the Lord of hosts

that peoples labor merely for fire,

and nations weary themselves for nothing?

14     For the earth will be filled

with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord

as the waters cover the sea. (Habakkuk 2:12–14)

Last time, I wrote about the ontological flow of the political sphere and how it gives rise to vocation, economy, and to civil law. I referred to the created order of being, which is an immutable principle running throughout all of Scripture. God created that universe and all that is in it for His own glory, including the political sphere. He created man to bear His image, witnessing His glory, and to respond in praise in worship. This is the purpose of humankind in all the he says, thinks, and does.  When this order of being becomes distorted or perverted, such as in politics, the purpose for even having laws and people in authority to enforce them become undermined. When the substance behind the expression vanishes, so too does its expression.

Simply put, what this means is that civil laws cannot undermine divine law. If it does, it is illegitimate. If a man builds a structure, but destroys the foundation, the structure falls with it. Civil law and politics are no different. Castles cannot be built in the sky, without plummeting to the ground.

In the biblical model, the order of being (the ontological flow) begins with 1) God’s glory. 2) Man as the image-bearer exists to notice and reflect that glory, in his life and worship. 3) Since man is made in God’s image, he is given dominion over the earth, commanded to be fruitful and multiply (to increase that image), to subdue the earth and have vocations (to increase God’s glory), and 4) to place sanctions on evil (to protect God’s image).  These four things flow out of God, following a logical progression. They are NOT subject to political “innovation” without creating idolatry, sin, death and destruction. Such “innovations” corrupt the understanding and knowledge of the citizenry. They lead to great wickedness and human suffering within a political body.

Civil law is a species of divine law. God’s law communicates the civil laws to us, meaning that within the law of God is a civil law. And whether anyone understands that or not does not change one iota of God’s universal and objective law. In order for anything to be true, then the truth must be what it is. It is not subject to human interpretation or desires. God’s law is no different in that regard. Human beings cannot create laws out of thin air. For then they are merely arbitrary, where might makes right.

So, if God’s law is objective and universal, in other words, binding on all people in all places, and in all times, then what are we to do with Old Testament laws, which are “no longer relevant to us today?”

The answer here is that they ARE RELEVANT to us today. Anyone who says that they are not relevant has some very serious biblical dilemmas to solve. For example, in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 it says, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (ESV). However, if massive chunks of Scripture—and the writer was referring to Old Testament Scripture here—are “irrelevant” to us, then this verse cannot be true.

In the Old Testament, we have three different dimensions of divine law. We have 1) ceremonial laws, which were binding upon the priest, the life and rituals of the temple. There were 2) moral laws and 3) civil laws. These dimensions of divine law, communicate something about God’s character to us because they are expressions of God Himself. For example, the Ten Commandments (The Decalogue) establish the life, the worship, and the property of mankind, God’s image-bearers and convey to us some of the particulars of the Creator as a moral agent. These are moral laws and, as Christians know, they are applicable today.

On the other hand, we no longer sprinkle blood or adorn an ephad, which are ceremonial laws. We also do not build tabernacles, arranging the most precious metals in the holy of holies to the plain, bland fabrics on the outside. The reason for this is not because these things are “irrelevant” to us, but because they were expressions, temporary manifestations of an eternal, invisible reality.

Jesus Christ is now our high priest, who makes intercession on our behalf to God because His blood was shed for us. We do not build tabernacles because our body is the temple of the Most Holy God. Rather, we are to sanctify Him in our hearts, as more precious and holy than everything else, dressing ourselves in modesty on the outside. The value was not in the gold, but God was the treasure that we separate from the rest of the world.

The truth that these laws teach is still relevant to us today. They are still profitable for teaching, correction, and training in righteousness. They are applicable even today, normative in what they teach about God, universal and objective. Indeed, in Matthew 5, Christ tells us that those who relax even the least parts of the law will be called the least in His kingdom. Jesus was not telling His followers to obey rituals which were fulfilled by Him, but pointing us away from the letter of the law to the Spirit of the law.

“Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you, or from you? You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all. And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses’ face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it. For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.” (2 Corinthians 3:1–11)

The old, Mosaic Law has passed, not because it has no bearing on us today, but because it was fulfilled in Christ, and exceeded by Him. It still instructs us concerning the things about God. The visible applications of these laws point to an eternal significance, which is still normative to all of us. The Spirit behind that letter is what is universal and objective. As stated before, in Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus says that whoever relaxes the least of law will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.

However, the letter of the law was not enough. It was, and is, our instructor, but not our savior. And because of our weakness in our flesh—our sinful nature—it condemned all of us. This does not mean, however, that the law is bad. Jesus submitted Himself to it, earning our righteousness on our behalf. It has not been abolished, but fulfilled in Christ, who lived for us, died for us, and rose again so that we might inherit eternal life.

“For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.” (Romans 8:3–9)

We have a normative use of the law of God because, while we no longer have the same form of government as ancient Israel, its moral truths inform our ethical behavior, as per Romans 8 above, the law is fulfilled within us though the Spirit. It is the invisible things that give rise to the visible: The Spirit of the Law–>Letter of the law, the substance of the law–>the form of the law.

Switching gears, the city is the concentrated, collective expression of the image of God. Just as God calls and raises up men for their worship and vocation, He also calls and raises up the city to do those things which are pleasing to Him. The city is the concentrated reflection of His glory, since it is constituted by His images gathering together in a location, in cooperation with one another, in a civil union.

The state is the collective expression of the physical defense of the image of God. The image-bearer (man) comes first, the state is the expression of man’s image. Therefore, the state is to protect that image. The city is to be fruitful and to multiply—we have more children so that more of God’s image might express itself on the earth and subdue it (Hab 2:14). When we devalue children, we are hating God Himself. The state exists to protect these activities. To devalue that dominion is to devalue that image. To have a totally different political program is to oppose God and His image. Thus, the city and the state are intimately connected.

So what we have emerging here is a Trinitarian expression of God in the political sphere. We worship a triune God—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is the Father who decrees, the Son who executes as King of Kings what the Father has decreed, and the Holy Spirit who enables the image bearer to respond appropriately. The fact that God is one divine being in three separate persons is known in theology as “the ontological trinity.” The fact that these persons cooperate, live in communion with one another, as the Son subordinates Himself to the Father, and the Holy Spirit points us to the Son is known as “the economic trinity.”

The elements of the civil sphere (of politics) seem to be triune as well. We have 1) the law, which its decrees stand over everybody. We have 2) the king (state/government) who executes those laws. And there is 3) the citizenry, who are to honor and support the lords of their land.

In the city, we have the densest concentration of image bearers, which gives rise to the state. The order/flow is God–> God’s image (the citizenry)–>the protection of God’s image (the State). This, I have reiterated many times, but so far I have been vague about what God has ordained the state to protect. We have seen already that rulers are a terror to bad conduct, but not to good conduct, in Romans 13. But what does it mean to “protect God’s image?”

1)      Life

To protect God’s image is to protect the life of the image-bearer, which Genesis 9 has already made clear. The murderer attacks the very image of God, and is to be put to death by other image-bearers. This does not nullify the state’s ability to yield the sword, executing law-breakers. It does, however, limit the state in the sense that it cannot kill at will, for its own schemes and purpose. This would be murder. It would give the rest of the citizenry just cause to erect another body to put murderous, renegade statesmen to death. The state is just the billy-club that mankind sets up in order to administer divine justice, and nothing more. The statesman is just another fellow citizen called upon to execute God’s law.

2)      Liberty

This refers to image-bearer’s activity in worship and expression. In Latin, “libertas,” or liberty, refers to the will, being free from coercion. That which demands the will—the liberty—of men, also demands the worship of men. God made man to worship Him, and Him alone. Since we are not God, then we are demanding the idolatry of a person when we demand their liberty. To liberate is to unshackle the will from bondage or coercion. Human beings are to be free in their pursuit of truth because it is truth which makes people free.

3)      Property

Property is the product of man, his creativity. It speaks of God, either accurately or inaccurately. It is the product of a man’s will and work, and, therefore, of his worship. What we do with it—how we are stewards over creation—will either lie about God or tell the truth about Him. Thus, it is never, ever neutral. Nonetheless, in order for the image-bearer to have stewardship, he must have dominion over his own things.

When any of these are compromised, one cannot worship God in purity. These three things—life, liberty, and property—precede any human law. They are the basis for any human law. A man’s life is invisible (liberty, his will) and visible (his property, that which he creates). When these are compromised at the directive of other masters, then we have idolatry, which is the kingdom of the devil.

“Life, liberty, and property. This is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. If every person has the right to defend, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus, the principle of collective right, its reason for existing, its lawfulness, is based on individual right.”—Fredric Bastiat, “The Law,” 1850

Politics 101 from a Christian perspective part 3: The formation of the political sphere

Politics 101 from a Christian perspective part 3: The formation of the political sphere               

Previously, I left off describing God’s covenant with Noah and how it provides the rationale for the existence of the city-state, citing the protection of God’s image as the reason for the existence of the state, or a governmental body. In other words, through a divine imperative God mandates the death penalty for the unlawful taking of human life, which is murder. It is a collective imperative, where the life of the murderer is to be taken by his fellow men.

At the time of the covenant, the state did not yet exist. However, beyond Genesis 9:6, God does arrange governmental forms, delegating such roles in order to defend His image, as we shall see. But as the covenant with Noah make apparent, life and justice existed before the state was specifically ordained to defend it. Therefore, the purpose of this writing is to elaborate upon that.

The word “ontology” consists of two Greek words. The first is “ontos,” which means “being.” It refers to “being,” or “that which is,” “that which exists.” The second term is “logos,” which is translated as “word,” as in John 1:1: “In the beginning was the word [logos], and the word [logos] was with God, and the word [logos] was God.” It is interesting to note that John goes on to describe that in Him—the logos—is life, which is the light of men. Logos refers to the reason for something, or the explanation of something. Therefore, the term “ontology” refers to the study of being.

God created the universe by His word (cf., Genesis 1-2, John 1:1ff). All that exists came into being through the logos and for the logos. Therefore, there is an order to the being of the entire universe, which begins with God. Indeed, the very word “universe” means “one word.” And the term “university” is the study of all things as a part of one, coherent system.

So why am I telling you this and how does this bare upon our conversation about politics?

The order of being, its very ontological nature, can be summed up in the statement: “essence precedes being.” The eternal essence of things comes before their being. They exist as thoughts in the mind of God prior to their expression, their coming to being, in the universe. So, when I talk about the ontological flow of things, I am referring to the flow of reality, how things come out of God as their source AND their purpose. God is both the source AND the purpose to all things. It is for this very fact that the apostle Paul writes:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.” (Romans 1:18–23, ESV)

In these verses, Paul refers directly to this ontological flow—this order of being. Let us consider it for a moment:

Creator–> Creation

Invisible–> Visible

Eternal–> Temporal

Spiritual–> Material

Necessary being–> contingent beings

What we see above, is that the universe, which is visible, temporal (having time and boundaries), material, created, and contingent (relying on something else for its existence), comes out of that which is invisible, eternal, spiritual, not-created but creating, and non-contingent or necessary. When Paul writes about men turning away from their Creator, and turning to things which are created, he is clearly referring to the distortion and perversion of the order of creation, or the ontological flow. It looks like this:  “God’s attributes–>creation (including man, God’s image)–> images of creation/images of men. But those who pervert this claim otherwise, confusing God for things which are merely creations.

In the political sphere, it is God who gives rise to politics and all the things within it or having to do with it. We have laws because God is lawful by His very nature. The very images which those laws seek to protect, receive their likeness from God. It is God who acts, and we who are acted upon, and not the other way around. It is God who is the objective thing, and us who are the subjective thing. We were created in His likeness by Him, through Him, and for Him.

So why would God create and organize the political sphere? Well…for the same reason He creates and organizes everything else: For His glory!

“For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.” (Romans 11:36)

“Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to your name give glory, for the sake of your steadfast love and your faithfulness! Why should the nations say, “Where is their God?” Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.” (Psalm 115:1–3)

God does all that He pleases, and for His own glory. The image-bearer receives this message of His glory, generally from that which God has created, but specifically from Scripture, and seeks to glorify Him. This is called “worship.” So from Scripture, it is written:

“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.” (19:1–3)

““Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!”” (Isaiah 6:3)

God’s glory is the object to which man sees, comprehends, and either subjects himself to it or suppress it in his unrighteousness. But all of mankind sees it and knows it intuitively. He sees the vast beauty of the deep sea, the unsearchable reaches of the heavens, the hopeful warmth of the rising sun. Therefore, God’s glory is the object, or the objective thing, being revealed by His creation. Man’s response, by design, is the subjective thing. He is to worship the God illuminating and emanating His glorious light through creation. Worship is a subjective act, responding to God’s objective glory. Worship is the noticing of and the basking in that glory, as we are a personal reflection of His glory.

“So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” (1 Corinthians 10:31)

So this is the created order of all things. 1 Corinthians 10:31 is the fundamental principle of all Christian ethics. Whatever we do, we do unto His glory. God is not glorious because worship exists. Rather, worship exists BECAUSE He is glorious. The image-bearer, which is you and me, receives this message of glory through the things which God has made (Ro 1:19-20).

For His glory, God gives dominion over the things of the earth to His image-bearers (Gen 1:28, 9:5-6). Mankind is instructed to subdue the earth, giving man his vocation and his reason for work. The word “dominion” comes from the Latin word “domine,” which means “lord.” The commandment does not mean to “lord” things over one another, but it does mean that mankind is given lordship over the earth—it’s plants and animals, the soil that is to be trampled and tilled, the natural resources that humankind extracts from the earth.

From all of this activity mankind receives a vocation from his Creator. Someone must harvest; someone must plant. Someone must cut; someone must bind. It is from out the earth that we receive our sustenance, our medicine, our clothing, housing, and everything else. One person cannot do everything, so we are given our division of labor. Someone must gather or hunt for food, grow crops, make herbs and remedies, build homes, and so forth. This is the basis for the economic system. We have the division of labor: the tiller, the hunter, the builder, the medicine man, etc…. There must also be a system of cooperation, in order to work together to make such things. This involves education, culture and language. The young must receive their education from their elders, where they learn language, how to cooperate with others, and are taught trade skills. Arranging such matters is precisely what politics is. Where, how, and why people gather and cooperate, dividing labor and assigning tasks, has everything to do with economics, the polis…in short, politics.

The role of the state—of the government—is to protect the image-bearer, or the citizen, who engages in the vocation of subduing the earth, as Genesis 9 commands. The state is not a separate entity from the rest of the citizenry. Rather, it is simply another role delegated to certain individuals for a particular purpose. When God spoke to Noah, He commanded that the murderer be put to death BY HIS FELLOW MAN. The state consists of those who are called out to ensure that this mandate be followed. In other words, the state is our “fellow man,” drawn out of the citizenry in order to uphold the law.

We need guys that have the ability and the authority to uphold such laws. God ordains it. This is not just some obsolete command that God uttered to Noah in the Old Testament. It is also not something irrelevant to the modern-day church. Indeed, it is thoroughly reiterated in the New Testament to the church:

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.” (Romans 13:1–7)

Here, we see God’s affirmation of the state. Nowhere does Paul refer to it as a “necessary evil,” but as God’s handiwork, which is good. These authorities are ministers of God, called to their offices, their vocations, for the distinct purpose of bearing the sword against the evil-doer, the law-breaker, for the glory of God.

I understand that many of us, Christians especially, are tempted to read this, and with an eye on our current administrators, reject it as irrelevant to our current system and modern conditions. However, Paul wrote this to the church in Rome, exhorting the church to be subjected to Caesar. Nero reigned in Rome from AD 54 to 68, at the time Romans was written. He was a secular authority and was no friend to Christianity. When Paul penned this letter to the church, the state was a place of murder and intrigue. Nero was a murderer, well known for his great evil, and thought of himself as “the savior of the world.” Indeed, some Christians today believe that Nero was the Antichrist, a belief, perhaps, with a reasonable degree of merit.

So was Paul, the apostle of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, who wrote massive chunks of the New Testament, just blinded by his own optimisms about the state? Or one could argue the other way, claiming that Paul was well aware of evils of the state, but endorsed them anyhow. Believe it or not, both of these explanations are used, even by Christians. However, both have their problems. For one thing, anyone who’s read Paul’s writings beyond Romans 13 knows full well that Paul saw the struggle of the Christian as a spiritual war against ‘the rulers and authorities of this present darkness’ (Ephesians 6:12). Being a Pharisee and a Jew, Paul was no stranger to evil rulers in Old Testament Scripture. He read about Nebuchadnezzar, King Saul, Abimelech, and so on. His own people even lived under the Roman state as vassal slaves, paying homage to Caesar. He was anything but blind. On the other hand, Paul also did not condone evil…ever. Indeed, Romans 13 does not regard the authority of the state as a “necessary evil,” but as a God-ordained institution, a servant of God, given to us to punish the evil-doer.

Paul was neither naive nor a promoter of “necessary evils.” He knew about the Antichrist  that this man of lawlessness would be an official of the state; and he also knew that government was in the hands of the devil, doing the bidding of the devil. However, Paul also knew that the government was in the hand of God, and that it was designed by God. He did not confuse the temporal distortion of this present darkness with the eternal design. Romans 13 is about the DESIGN. It tells the Christian his appropriate response to ruling authorities as well as why God has ordained the state and given the statesman His authority. In other words, this section in the Bible does not just tell people to submit, but also why God instituted the state, and why they bear the sword. God gives them power FOR something, a creational cause.

Here’s what I am getting at: The rulers, which God has ordained to uphold the law, are under the law themselves. When a ruler murders, he is to be put to death, since Genesis 9 is a command to ALL people, not just a few. It is not a rebellion or a revolution, since such a label legitimizes the sins of the ruler, but a police action. The ruler is the one who is usurping God’s throne, and rebelling against God. When the people, the images of God, kill the tyrant for murder or treason, as a collective police action, they are upholding God’s command. Indeed, when Saul sinned against God’s rule, God rose up David to take the throne. It is God’s authority to give; and it is also God’s to take away (1 Sam 9.16; 16.1; 1 Ki 2.15; Dan 4). God’s law applies to the evil-doer, not to those who do what is right. When the authorities are the doers of evil, they are also subjects of divine law:

“When you come to the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,’ you may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again.’ And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold. “And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.” (Deuteronomy 17:14–20)

So, once again, we see that ontological flow: Divine Law–> civil laws. Divine Authority–> civil authorities.

I leave you with some food for thought: When the leaders commit evil atrocities in the land, God punishes not just the leaders, but those nations as well. The reason is because God has given ALL of us a command to protect His image. When we fail to bring the murderer, the lawless man, to justice, God’s wrath falls upon the entire nation precisely because we have failed to uphold His commandments. 

Politics 101 from a Christian perspective part 2: The substance of the political sphere

Politics 101 from a Christian perspective part 2: The substance of the political sphere

“By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God.” (Hebrews 11:8–10, ESV)

In my last paper, I focused on my Facebook question, briefly interacting with the replies I received, and set forth to demonstrate the connection between politics and the Bible. In that writing, I defined politics using a modern, secular source, the Merriam-Webster dictionary, as a means of tying it to a Christian worldview. However, in this paper, focus is being shifted from politics as a human endeavor to politics as a divine creation, from the distortion of the political sphere to the design of the political sphere.

Giving further definition to the meaning of “politics,” the word comes out of a Greek word, used numerous times throughout the New Testament (NT). The Greek word, meaning a town, city, or a city-state is “polis,” and is used 163 times in the NT in 154 verses.  The same word meaning “city” in Latin, is “civitas.” While the Hebrew word for city is “’ir,” which sounds like the English word “ear,” and it appears 1,091 times in 932 Old Testament (OT) verses.

The term “city” indicates a concentration of human beings, a population, within a place, which is a defined set of boundaries, under a particular jurisdiction or rule. So, it is a people, in a place, under a common law. Politics, then, refers to how this concentration of people, in a particular place, under a common jurisdiction is organized, structured, and how they cooperate. In other words, politics is about the stuff of the city. It is a study and a science and an art form, involving the minds of men and the life of the city.

The City of God is a concentration of human beings, who have been justified and set apart, within Christ, under His Lordship. This is the design. We are a political body by our very nature. And this eternal Kingdom draws men unto itself, out of the corruption, by the Father’s will, as God is designing it and building it, even as you read this. About Christ Jesus we read:

“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.” (Isaiah 9:6–7)

Jesus Christ is the zeal of the LORD of host, and His body is the foundation of our city (cf., John 2:13-22).

It is undeniable that God fully intends to design and build a city, which is precisely what politics is about. A politician is one who is involved in the designing and organization of a city—the people—he is a leader of the people, in one sense or another. It might bother you to hear it, but Jesus is the ultimate politician. And if that word is just packed too full of jaded meanings for you, substitute it for “the One who makes and designs the city of God, and organizes the affairs of His people.” He does so for the protection of its inhabitants—those who live in Christ—for cooperation between the King and his subjects as well as the between the citizens themselves, and for the division of labor by gifting His citizens through His graciousness.

What this is not, however, is mass-manipulation. God’s design of the political sphere is not the degeneration of public discourse or the manipulation of its members, but the protection against those very things. Politics, then, is good by its design. It reflects His glory and was, as all things, created for His glory.  The city was and is created and organized by God for the specific purpose of glorify God.

But the church is a spiritual city and God is the ruler, not the physical city made by sin-filled men here on earth. What has Hitler’s Socialism or Stalin’s Marxist Communism got to do with that?

They are distortions of God’s design, not the design of the political sphere itself, which has roots in the creation of mankind, and begins with God’s covenant to Noah and to all his descendants. The way in which a people, or its leaders, design the state begins with their worldview assumptions. The very fact that Hitler or Stalin would be used as examples of corruption, fully communicates that something good exists in regards to the political sphere to corrupt.

If we truly believe what Scripture reveals, then by resistless logic my conclusion follows:

Premise 1: God designed all things to speak of Him specifically, for His own glory.

Premise 2: The political sphere is a thing.

Conclusion: Therefore, God designed the political sphere to say something specific about Himself, for His own glory.

In other words, what we say about God—our doctrine of God, including His attributes, characteristics, and who He is—immediately causes us to deduce things about the political sphere. Likewise, the inverse is true as well: What we say about the political sphere says something about God. Either it lies about Him or tells the truth about Him.  Now, as to why this is will be the matter under discussion going forward.  Nonetheless, the Hitlers and Stalins of the world are not challenges to my claim.

As I mentioned earlier, the ordination of the state goes back to the days of Noah, after the flood, when God made a universal covenant of peace with Noah and all his descendents. Within the terms and conditions of that covenant, God sets forth the following requirement:

“And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” (Genesis 9:5–6)

The verses that follow establish this covenant as universal, and not just belonging to the church, but to every living thing. The promise was made to every living thing. From mankind in particular, God requires that murderers be put to death by his fellow man. Why?

Does it say that it is for vengeance? No. Is it because man is just? No.  Rather, this covenant has a mandate to defend life, where the punishment fits the crime. If I take five dollars, then I should forfeit five dollars. If I take a life, then I forfeit my life. To not do so, communicates the idea that the life of the assailant is more than the victim. However, the reason that the Bible gives for God requiring this reckoning is BECAUSE we are made in His image. God requires the justice; man is to execute that justice for God.  The purpose is because to attack an image of God is to attack the God of that image. It is a personal offense to Him to murder the very vessels that He created for His glory.

This covenant refers back to the creation event found in the first and second chapters of Genesis, where God made man in His image, both male and female were made in His image (Gen 1:27). Furthermore, the creation commands found in Genesis 1:28-30 to be fruitful and multiply, to have dominion over the earth, and to subdue it are reinstated in God’s covenant to Noah and all his descendants (Gen 9:1-4). What is interesting about comparing and contrasting these two sections is that they are almost the same covenant. They even use the same words, sentence structures, and correspond in their respective order. However, where they differ is that one is prior to sin and death entering the world, while the other was after. In other words, the covenant made between God and Noah takes into account the presence of sin and of death within creation, while the one before it does not. Thus, God institutes within His covenant of peace to Noah and all his descendants a just use of force against those who would use unjust force, murdering God’s image-bearers out of their own iniquity. To murder the image-bearer is to profane the very image of God Himself, who made man in His own image for His own glory.

Nonetheless, one objection to raise is that this does not talk about government. So why would anyone use these verses to demonstrate the ordination of the state?

It is true that God does not refer directly to the creation of the state in these verses, but these are the seeds of an entire political system, nonetheless. God is giving the rationale—the substance—prior to the form.  Consider what His commands are:

1)      Be fruitful and multiply: The institution of reproduction, family, and growth. This multiplies God’s image. The family is the seed and beginning of the city.

2)      Subdue the earth and have dominion over it: We are to subdue the planet under God’s image for His glory, tilling fields, sharing food in fellowship, extracting natural resources for the good of our fellow men. We are also to have dominion, or rule, over it. This creates borders for the city-state, property, and so forth.

3)      Do justice on those who violate God’s image, execute the murderer: Requires the investigation of cases, people to protect God’s image, using just force to uphold the law.

All of these are collective imperatives and necessitate cooperation among groups of people—God’s images—in order to administer and execute. Beyond God’s covenant with Noah in Genesis 9, God does institute the forms, which we will discuss in more detail later. However, what is important here is that the rationale—the substance—of the city-state exists prior to its form. The reason is given BEFORE the structure.

Adam was a man BEFORE the state ever existed. Therefore, mankind is not defined by the state, but the state is defined by mankind. The law gave rise to governing bodies and those exist because of divine law; the state did not arbitrarily give rise to laws out of thin air, and laws do not exist because of the state. The image of God existed prior to the protection of it, not the other way around.

And that, my friends, is the point.

Once again, I hope and pray that these will be read and thoroughly considered. What we see here is God’s eternal kingdom, His city-state, penetrating the darkness of this world. It is for His city that we are all created. It was God who designed the political sphere, and it is after the fashion of His design that all nations build their own, either by following it or by corrupting it through what they perceive as an improvement. The substance of the polis exists PRIOR TO the form of the polis. The importance of this will become more apparent as I move forward and further define its meaning and significance.

Blessings.