Israel Was Formed as a Separated People

Israel was formed as a different kind of nation. The story of the formation of Israel begins in Genesis 12 immediately after the story of the formation of the earthly nations at Babel, where the people wanted to “make a name for themselves.”(Read more on Babel here) Contrasted against the rebellion of these nations, Israel’s history is introduced to us with God’s promise to Abram.

Now the LORD said to Abram,
“Go forth from your country,
And from your relatives
And from your father’s house,
To the land which I will show you;
And I will make you a great nation,
And I will bless you,
And make your name great;
And so you shall be a blessing;
And I will bless those who bless you,
And the one who curses you I will curse.
And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.” – Gen 12.1-3

Rather than Abram making his own name great, God was going to make a great name for Abram. But this promise hinged on Abram’s faith in God’s command to separate himself from the land of the Chaldeans.

This command to “go forth” from the Gentiles which begins here in Genesis 12,  is a theme which continues throughout Israel’s formation. The cities in closest proximity to Abram were destroyed for their wickedness (Gen. 19). Abraham and his nephew Lot were separated from one another. Hagar and Ishmael were then driven out, thus separating the Israelites from the Ishmaelites (Gen. 21). When it came time to find a bride for Isaac, Abraham would only allow Isaac to have a wife from among his relatives, thus keeping his family separate from the nations (Gen. 24). Jacob and Esau became detached from one another as Jacob stole the birthright, thus separating the Israelites from the Edomites (Gen. 27-28, 36). Like Isaac, Jacob took a wife from among his relatives, thus remaining separate (Gen. 29). Jacob was then estranged from Laban, thus further separating the Israelites (Gen. 31). Israel was then further separated as they departed to Egypt, where they remained as slaves for 400 years. Israel was then separated from Egypt as the final generation to have lived in Egypt died during the 40 years in the wilderness.

A key observation can be made here. In these early chapters, Israel’s separation was more than simply a “moral” separation. It was more than just living by different values than the world. At this point in the story, Israel’s separation was primarily a separation of familial, political, and religious association. They were separated on the basis of the authority under which they lived. By the time God became Israel’s lawgiver, they had been fully separated from every earthly king, with no affiliation with any earthly lawgivers or any other gods. The LORD was their one and only God. Israel was a “holy” or “set apart people,” whom He had chosen “for His own possession out of all the peoples” (Deut. 7.6).

Israel belonged to God and to God alone.

Israel Was to Remain Detached

Before Israel was given the Promised Land, they were warned to drive out all the inhabitants from the land, and were forbidden from making any sort of covenant with them.

I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you will drive them out before you. You shall make no covenant with them or with their gods. They shall not live in your land because they will make you sin against Me; for if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you. – Ex. 23.31-33

Be sure to observe what I am commanding you this day: behold, I am going to drive out the Amorite before you, and the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite. Watch yourself that you make no covenant with the inhabitants of the land into which you are going, or it will become a snare in your midst. – Ex. 34.11-12

Again, as Moses repeated the law to Israel just before entering the Promised Land,  we read the same warning.

And when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. – Deut. 7.2-3

Numerous other examples could be shown, but this is sufficient to show that Israel was forbidden from having any alliance, covenant, marriage, or any other kind of affiliation with these nations. The other nations, with their false gods, were to be completely cut off from the land, lest the competing authorities of other “gods” should become a snare to them.

Wait…“Utter Destruction”??

The opponents of Christianity will sometimes point to God’s commandments to destroy these Gentile nations to blasphemously accuse God of commanding genocide. It is therefore important to make some side notes. In so doing, we can draw another important conclusion about why Israel was to remain separate.

1) The separation of Israel from the nations had nothing to do with race, and it had everything to do with their wicked rebellion against God.

Do not say in your heart when the LORD your God has driven them out before you, ‘Because of my righteousness the LORD has brought me in to possess this land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is dispossessing them before you. It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going to possess their land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm the oath which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. – Deut. 9.4-5

 

2) God spared those Gentiles who repented:

It should also be noted that God had promised Abraham that he would have spared the city of Sodom if as few as ten righteous people could be found in the city (Gen. 18.32).

We also have the example of Rahab, a Canaanite woman, who forsook the commandment given to her by her king, forsook her earthly nation, and through the fear of the LORD, accepted His rule and cast her allegiance with the people of God.

As the Old Testament continues, we read of numerous other Gentiles who aligned themselves with God’s people under God’s rule, and were blessed in so doing (Ruth the Moabite, Doeg the Edomite [1 Sam. 21.7], Uriah the Hittite [ 2 Sam. 23.37], Araunah the Jebusite [2 Sam. 24.18], Zelek the Ammonite [2 Sam. 23.37], and Ithma the Moabite [1 Chron. 21.46]). These examples show that while He required Israel to destroy these wicked nations while they lived according to their own authority and rebelled against God’s authority, God would also show mercy to those who would forsake their earthly nations and align themselves under God’s rule.

Israel’s detachment from these nations only extended as far as the individuals of those nations had detached themselves from God’s rule. But as long as the Gentiles continued living under their own rule, Israel was forbidden from having any affiliation or alliance with them, lest they too turn from God’s authority to man’s self-appointed authorities (Ex. 23.31-33; 34. 11-12).

But what does all of this mean for Christians?

When we come to the New Testament, Paul wrote that in Christ, barriers of separation are broken down between people, regardless of their nationality.

 There is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free man, but Christ is all, and in all. – Col. 3.11

But the theme of separation from the world continues. Although numerous scriptures could be examined (such as 1 John 2:15, Rom. 12:2, Eph. 5:11, Jas. 1:27, 4:4, and others), consider for a moment the words Paul wrote to the Corinthians:

 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness with lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said,
“I will dwell in them and walk among them;
And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,” says the Lord.
“And I will be a father to you,
And you shall be sons and daughters to Me.”
Says the Lord Almighty.
2 Cor. 6.13-18

Quoting from the Law, Paul applies the same separation principle to the church. As in Colossians 3.11, once we are in Christ, all separation is broken down. But once we are in harmony with Christ, we can no longer be in harmony with Belial.

Once we are part of God’s new temple, we must be completely and totally separated from the false authorities of this world. We cannot be bound to Christ while also being bound to unbelievers. We cannot maintain our allegiance to Christ and His Kingdom, while maintaining alliances with the world and its kingdoms. Not only will we be unable to serve two masters, but we are also divinely forbidden from attempting to do so. Once in Christ, our separation from the world must be complete.

So what can we do?

Prior to writing 2 Corinthians, Paul had undergone many afflictions, including beatings, imprisonments, hunger and poverty. Doubtless, the Corinthians were fearing the threat of these same persecutions. If there was ever a time when an alliance with the world would come in handy, this was certainly it!

Just prior to warning the church not to be bound to unbelievers, Paul, quoting from Isaiah, reminded the Corinthians:

“At the acceptable time I listened to you,
And on the day of salvation I helped you.”
Behold, now is “the acceptable time,” behold, now is “the day of salvation!” – 2 Cor. 6.2

The promised day when God would defend his people had come! “By the power of God” and “by the weapons of righteousness”, he had been “punished, yet not put to death” he was “sorrowful, yet always rejoicing” and he was “poor, yet making many rich.” (cf. 2 Cor. 6.7-10) In other words, Paul recognized that the power and protection of God was sufficient for his success, and he wanted the Corinthians to realize the same thing.

When the nations rage against the kingdom of the LORD, remember how God wants for his nation to relate to other earthly nations. Yoking together with unbelievers by partnering up and making alliances with the world is both unholy and unnecessary. Rather we should trust in the power of God, which is far greater.

Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. – 2 Cor. 7.1

The book of Genesis is where we read not only of the beginnings of the nation of Israel (chapters 12-50), but also of the beginnings of the whole world and the beginnings of the many nations that scatter the globe (chapters 1-11). Now of course this isn’t to suggest that by opening the book of Genesis we can read of the founding fathers of the United States, or the earliest settlers of the British Isles, or the story of the foundation of the city of Rome. But through the account of the events at Babel, Genesis teaches us why we have different nations in the first place. And even more importantly, Genesis gives us some insight into the attitudes that led to this division of the earth, and opens our eyes to the stark contrast that is drawn between the origins of the gentile nations and the origins of God’s nation.

“Which side will you take?” the world asks. “Which nations will you give you allegiance to? Will you support the Americans, or the Middle Easterners? Will you side with the Republicans or the Democrats? Will you lean towards the left or the right? The world is divided into different groups, and you have to pick a side.”

The book of Genesis asks the same question from a very different angle. “Which side will you take? Will you follow men, or follow God? Will you do things your own way, or do things His way? Will you side with the ways of Babel, or will you live with the faith of Abraham? The world is divided into different groups, but through the Seed of Abraham, all the different families and nations of the earth will be blessed.”

Setting the Context: Why Babel Matters

Genesis 10 is sometimes overlooked as one of those “boring genealogy chapters.” But Genesis 10 is not just any ole’ list of names. After discussing the downfall of mankind (the sin of Adam and Eve, Cain’s murder of Abel, the flood, Noah’s drunkenness and Canaan’s sin), Genesis 10 and 11 build the bridge between those ancient events and the not-so-ancient pagan world that would surround the nation of Israel. Rather than being just a “boring genealogy chapter”, Genesis 10 is a table of nations. The table of nations is a “horizontal” genealogy rather than a “vertical” one. Its purpose is not to show ancestry, but rather to show the historical origins of the gentile nations.

Interestingly, the long list of descendants is interrupted in verses 8-11 to give us some additional details about one of these descendants, Nimrod.

Now Cush became the father of Nimrod; he became a mighty one on the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD.” The beginning of his kingdom was Babel and Erech and Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. – Gen. 10.8-11

This is all we know of this man Nimrod. He was a mighty man in ancient Mesopotamia. We also read of the kingdom he established. Interestingly, Nimrod’s kingdom established at Babel is the first time we ever read of any kind of human government anywhere in Scripture.

By sidetracking to tell us of the mighty ruler of the kingdom of Babel, the Holy Spirit connects the table of nations in Genesis 10 to the events at Babel in Genesis 11. So as we turn the page we should not make the mistake of reading the Tower of Babel as just an isolated Bible story. Rather we should be asking “How do these events at Babel tell us more about the origins of the gentile nations?” All nations, both then and now, that were scattered across the face of the earth can ultimately point back to the kingdom of Nimrod at Babel for their origin.

What was Babel’s Big Blunder?

Now the whole earth used the same language and the same words. It came about as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. They said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks and burn them thoroughly.” And they used brick for stone, and they used tar for mortar. They said, “Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.”– Gen. 11.1-4

At this point, everything was looking promising in Shinar. They were all of one language, ready and willing to work together in unity. They developed technology to make brick and asphalt. So what went wrong? Was it wrong to build a city? Was it wrong to build a skyscraper? Was God just upset because man was getting smart and successful? Did God just want for man to remain stuck in the dark ages?

If we look closely at the text we can see some pieces of evidence that paint a clearer picture of exactly what went wrong.

Clue #1: “Let us make a name for ourselves”

At first this short phrase may not jump out at us as meaningful, but “naming” something or someone was once a big deal. To “name” something was an indication of authority over that which is named. For example, notice how the book of Genesis points out that it was God who named man (Gen. 5.2), yet it was Adam who named Eve (Gen. 2.23; 3.20), and it was Adam that named the animals (Gen. 2.19-20).

The phrase “Let us make a name for ourselves” seems to imply that they wanted to be their own authority. They wanted to rule themselves.

Clue #2: “The beginning of his kingdom was Babel”

Once again, by reading Genesis 10 and 11 together as one unit, we notice that for some reason the Holy Spirit sidetracked from the list of Noah’s descendants to point out that Babel was a “kingdom” ruled by a “mighty man.” This side note in chapter 10 leads us into chapter 11 already looking carefully at the issue of might, kingship and authority.

Clue #3: God commanded Noah to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth.”

In Genesis 11:4, we read that the motive of the men of Shinar was to build a tower, “otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.” Their goal in building the tower was in direct rebellion to God’s commandment to Noah in Genesis 9.7.

Every indication from the text suggests that the sin at Babel was that of rebellion against God’s authority, by exalting themselves as their own rulers. Babel’s faith was in themselves. They wanted to build greatness on their own terms. They wanted to make a name for themselves. They wanted to be their own kingdom. They wanted to do things their own way in direct rebellion to God’s commandment.

The LORD’s Response to Babel

The LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. The LORD said, “Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them.” – Gen. 11.5-6

Once man takes God out of the picture, he recognizes no limits for his ideas and actions. This is not a good thing. Since the men of Babel had placed their confidence in themselves to succeed, the outcome would be limitless evil.

“Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.” So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth. – Gen. 11:7-9

Although they built a tower to maintain their unity, they left a legacy of babbling confusion. Although they wanted to make a name for themselves, they ended up being given the name Babel. Although they wanted to be their own authority, ultimately it was the LORD who ruled the day.

Babel went on to eventually become the Babylonians. The nations that were scattered ended up becoming Israel’s enemies throughout the Old Testament. The Egyptians, the Canaanite nations, the Assyrians, and the Romans can all point back to the rebellion at Babel for their origin since it was the confusion at Babel that scattered them in the first place.

The legacy of Babel lives on even today. Every border line drawn between nations continues to suggest that our world is still divided ethnically, culturally and politically. The world continues to babel on striving to make names for themselves rather than submitting to the rule of the LORD.

A Blessing to the Nations

Go forth from your country,
And from your relatives
And from your father’s house,
To the land which I will show you;
And I will make you a great nation,
And I will bless you,
And make your name great;
And so you shall be a blessing;
And I will bless those who bless you,
And the one who curses you I will curse.
And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed. – Gen. 12.1-3

Strategically placed right after Babel’s rebellion, we are introduced to a man who desired a radically different kind of city.

By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance… For he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God. – Heb. 11.8, 10

In contrast to Babel wanting to build their own city, Abraham looked for God to build him a city. Rather than looking to make his own name, Abraham waited for God to make his name great. Rather than leaving a legacy of division, Abraham left a Legacy who would be a blessing to all nations.

What was the difference? Abraham understood that God is the one with authority. God is the only one who can rightfully rule over man. Abraham placed his faith in God’s rule, and believed in God’s commandments enough to obey them.

The Lord is sovereign whether man admits it or not. Abraham admitted it; Babel did not. Nimrod was described as a mighty man, yet ultimately it was God’s might that won the day at Babel.

May we strive to imitate the faith of Abraham, not the self-rule of Babel.

Part Two: Some Questions You May Be Asking

First read part 1 here.

“How do we know Satan wasn’t lying? He is after all the “Father of lies” (John 8:44)”

This is a very important question!

If we are to come to the conclusion that earthly governments are good, and we should therefore dedicate our efforts to restoring such a “good government”, we must first be able to conclude that Satan is not really the one in charge of human governments.

Is that a conclusion we can draw? Well, for one thing, you’re right about Satan. We can’t trust a single word that slips from his forked tongue.

But it is worthy of notice that Jesus never questioned the truth of His claim. This event is also described as a “temptation”. If Jesus believed Satan was lying to him, and was therefore unable to deliver on his promise, could we still say that his was a temptation?

But perhaps more importantly, we have the fact that Satan was not the only one to make this claim. Jesus several times refers to Satan as the “prince” or “ruler” of the world (John 12.31; 14.30; 16.11). Paul says that he is the “god of this world” and “the prince of the power of the air” (2 Cor. 4.4; Eph. 2:2). John says “the whole world lies in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5.18).

So no, we can’t necessarily trust that Satan was telling the truth, but I think it is fairly safe to assume that Jesus, Paul and John were telling the truth.

 “But Jesus is continually described as the King of Kings. We continually read that God rules over the nations. Jesus said in Matthew 28:18, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.” How then can we say that Satan rules human governments?”

Great question. This is why I said, under my 4^th point that Satan rules human governments “sort of.”  And we must conclude that there is at least a sense in which Satan does rule the nations, based on what we have observed already. But there is an even greater sense in which God always overrules Satan’s unlawful authority.

Since all authority has been given to Jesus, there is therefore no authority which has been given to Satan. So in whatever sense Satan does rule over the nations, his authority has been taken, not given. His “authority” is “unauthorized”.

When Satan is described as being the ruler of the world and the ruler of the kingdoms of this world, it seems to refer to this present evil system of opposition to God. As governments oppose God’s people, strive for earthly possession, kill their enemies, steal money, etc., they are in sinful rebellion to God. They are living under Satan’s control. Satan is leading their rebellion against God’s authority.

But the Bible never teaches that Satan is the ultimate ruler of this world. The book of Job gives us some insight into Satan’s limited power. Satan challenged God to remove Job’s blessings. God did allow Satan to remove Job’s blessings, but God restricted Satan from taking Job’s life. When Satan exercises his authority, it is because God allows him to do so (for now).

Another great example can be found in Isaiah 10:5-15. Isaiah teaches that God sent Assyria to punish Israel for her sins. The Assyrians did not know that they were being used for this purpose, and had a different wicked purpose in mind all along. Even though God used Assyria as his minister to execute vengeance, the Assyrian nation was proud, arrogant, and continued in their rebellion to God and their service to Satan. Yet God’s control of Assyria was so complete that He compared them to an instrument in His own hand, like an axe or a saw in the hand of a woodworker. God can and does use governments, of which he does not approve, which continually blaspheme His name, to ultimately do good for His righteous people.

So who ruled Assyria? God or Satan? The answer is both. Satan ruled Assyria in that they rebelled against God. But God overruled Assyria’s rebellion to accomplish good.

“But doesn’t Romans 13 teach that God created government for good, and therefore approves of government?”

Romans 13 teaches that God ordained government. The definition of the word “ordain” means to “establish as a law; order; fix; decide”.  The word does not imply approval, neither by its definition, nor by the context of Romans 13. Throughout Scripture, God ordains many things of which He does not approve. He ordained that Israel should have a king, yet he did so in anger (Hos. 13.11). He ordained the wicked nation of Assyria as a minister to punish the wickedness of Israel, yet He did not approve of their actions (Isa. 10.5-15). God “foreordained” that Jesus would be crucified, yet He did not approve of the actions of those murders (Acts 2.22-23; 1 Cor. 2.7).

Romans 13 never teaches that earthly governments are good. But it does teach “it is a minister of God to you for good” (v. 4). There is a difference between calling something good, and saying that something is “for good.” Assyria was created “for good”; the Babylonians were created “for good”; the Romans were created “for good,” but God never calls them good. Consider how Paul used the phrase “for good” just a few verses earlier:

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. – Rom. 8:28

Does Romans 8:28 teach that all things are good? Is tribulation good? Is distress good? Is persecution good? No. But through God’s providence, they all work together for good.

Romans 13 means exactly what it says, and it can’t be twisted to mean things that it doesn’t say. Romans 13 does not teach that God approves of government, or that he calls them good.

“If government functions under the rule of Satan, how could God command us to obey Satan in anything?”

Submitting to Satan? That certainly has a weird ring to it doesn’t it? The good news is that is not what Christians are commanded to do.

1 Peter 2:13 commands us to “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king or as to one in authority.” Why are we commanded to obey? Not for the government’s sake; not for Satan’s sake; but for the Lord’s sake. When laws conflict with the rule of God, of course we must break them (Acts 5.39). But otherwise, we are to submit to them, for not doing so would unnecessarily get in the way of our mission to build up God’s kingdom.

Neither does Paul in Romans command us to obey Satan. He does, however, command us not to be “overcome by evil, but to overcome evil by good.” How do we do that, Paul? “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities.” Paul describes our subjection to government as an application of overcoming evil by good.

“I concede that governments are very often corrupt, reflecting the values of Satan rather than the values of God, but aren’t there exceptions to this generality? For example, when governments help the poor, limit alcohol consumption, or improve workplace safety, how can it be said that this is Satan’s work?”

Firstly, let us remember that Satan has always been more than willing to compromise with those with those who will serve him if by so doing he is able to extend his dominion. Is this not precisely the offer Satan made to Jesus in the wilderness? Satan was willing to allow Jesus to rule over all the kingdoms of the world if Jesus would simply concede to bow down to him as the ultimate authority. Have you ever considered how many “good laws” Jesus could have passed if he held political office? He could have ruled with great love and compassion, yet by so doing, Satan would have been the victor.

As Christians we proclaim that Jesus is our King. If we act as if the kingdom of God is insufficient to accomplish God’s work without the assistance of kingdoms of men, we are proclaiming an insufficient Christ. Should it surprise us that Satan would offer beautiful compromises accomplish this end?

Secondly, we should remember Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians:

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. – 1 Cor. 10.3-4

Christians are not to use fleshly weapons to accomplish our goals. Fleshly weapons are the only power earthly governments possess. How do they improve healthcare? How do they limit alcohol consumption? How do they end poverty? By passing laws.

What gives these laws any force? Government officials with fleshly weapons. Fleshly weapons are the only strength governments have to enforce any of their authority. To use political means to accomplish good is to use weapons Christians are not to use.

“Can a Christian ever serve in political office? Should they even vote? Should they serve in the military or even in the police force?”

These are great questions. We are not of this world, but we are in the world. This tension creates some difficulties that are not always easily resolved. I am content with putting forth what Scripture teaches, and leaving it at that. In Scripture, human governments are introduced to us in rebellion to God, they always continued as enemies of God’s people, their very character is contrary to service to God and they are (at least in a sense) ruled by Satan. To answer questions such as these, which are not plainly taught in Scripture, we must honestly reflect on what we can understand from Scripture and apply those teachings the very best we can. We are never to judge fellow Christians for the decisions they make in service to God (Rom. 14), but we also must be careful not to twist the Scripture’s teachings to fit our preconceived conclusions.

As Christians, we serve only one master. In light of this, we should recognize that “All the nations are as nothing before Him, They are regarded by Him as less than nothing and meaningless” (Isa. 40:17). Our job is to seek first His kingdom and His righteousness. Nothing must distract us from this task.

I leave it each individual to apply this in their lives as they conclude it best in their service to God.

Part One: Recognizing The Rebelliousness of Man

The Bible often speaks of governments, kingdoms and nations. Government can be defined as the authority which rules a nation or state. The word kingdom can be understood as the realm over which the king or governor(s) reign. The word nation would then refer to the group of people who live under the dominion of a common government. For the sake of this article, when I use these terms I am using them to describe human government, earthly kingdoms and earthly nations as opposed to the government and kingdom of God.

Government affects our lives daily. From the smallest details, such as how fast we should drive, to life altering events, such as whether or not we are at war, we daily feel the impact of government. For better or worse, the pages of history have been written by politicians.

It is therefore understandable that most people place their hopes on “right” political views (their own, of course) overcoming the “wrong” views, the “right” person (their own candidate, of course) overcoming the “wrong” person in elections, the “right” government (their own government, of course) gaining power over the “wrong” governments, and the “right” militaries (their own, of course) gaining victory over the wrong militaries.

Unfortunately, far too many Christians have allowed their political passions for what is “right” (i.e. their own political opinions) to lead to distraction and division. They are distracted, as they pour their hearts into building up earthly kingdoms. They cause division as their contentions for what is “right” politically puts them at odds with other Christians who have different political loyalties.

One of the most basic reasons Christians get distracted and divided by politics is because of an assumption that government, in spite of continual corruption and rebellion against God, should be viewed as a righteous institution on the same levels as the family and the church. And since it is thought that governments hold such an important influence on the pages of history, we should therefore contend for our “right” views.

It is time for us to reconsider God’s view of government. Jeremiah stated that man is wholly incapable of ruling and directing himself.

I know, O LORD, that a man’s way is not in himself,
Nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps. – Jeremiah 10.23

In contrast to the words of Jeremiah, human governments are founded upon confidence in man’s self-sovereignty. God recognizes the unrighteousness and disobedience of all human governments as being in rebellion to His authority.

“But wait, this can’t be right. God created government. He calls government good. Your position is inconsistent with the clear teaching of Romans 13.”

I realize there will be some questions and objections. I intend to examine some of these in light of scripture in part two. But for now, please consider the following points.

1. Earthly Kingdoms are Introduced to Us in Rebellion to God

The first time we read of a “kingdom” in scripture is the kingdom of Nimrod in the land of Shinar, that is, Babel (Gen. 10.9-11). Too often the “Tower of Babel” has been taught as just a children’s Bible story about disobedience to God. We need to get back to recognizing how the Babel incident fits into the narrative of the book of Genesis.

The book of Genesis has two major themes: 1) to identify the origins of Israel’s enemies, the Gentile kingdoms, and 2) to identify the origins of God’s kingdom of Israel. Genesis 10-11 identifies the origins of the kingdoms which descended from Japheth, Shem, and Ham. Right in the middle of this table of kingdoms we find the account of the tower of Babel, where the rebellious character of these Gentile kingdoms is revealed. This was written, not just to give a random example of disobedience to God, but to tell us why these kingdoms were scattered over the earth and to introducing us to the rebellious nature of these kingdoms. Therefore, earthly kingdoms are introduced to us in rebellion to God. (I’ve written more on this point here.)

“But the New Testament teaches that God created government for good.”

You’re right. We’ll discuss this more in part two. But first, keep reading.

2. Human Governments Continued as Enemies to God’s People

Human governments continually fill the role of being the enemies of God’s people. This is true from the time we are introduced to Babel in Genesis, to Pharaoh and Egypt, to the Canaanites nations, to the Assyrians, to the Babylonians, all the way until Rome is described as Babylon in the book of Revelation. They continually worship other gods, exercise violence, and live according to their own desires.

As Paul addressed the wickedness of the Gentiles in Romans 1, he very specifically identified the issue of who they chose to honor, give thanks to, look to for wisdom (v. 21-22), and worship and serve as their authority (v. 23- 25). We can conclude that much of what made the Gentile people wicked in God’s eyes was their decision to serve their own authorities rather than serving under God’s government.

We do have numerous examples such as Ruth and Rahab, who, though being Gentiles, forsook their allegiance to their own nations and accepted the Lord’s rule, and joined themselves with His people. This shows that God has never been a respecter of persons. But Paul shows that God has always been displeased with those who would trust in their own authority. Not only were human governments introduced to us in rebellion, they also continued in their rebellion all throughout the Biblical narrative.

3. The Character of Human Governments is Contrary to the Character of God’s Servants

God’s servants are to lay up their treasures in heaven. (Matt. 6.19-21).Yet gentiles and their governments continually strive to gain and protect more earthly treasures.

God’s servants are commanded,

Do not worry then, saying ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear for clothing?’ For the Gentiles eagerly seek these things; for your Heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. –  Matt. 6.31-32

To the extent that our trust is in God, servants of God do not worry. Gentile people and their governments do nothing but worry! (Just watch the news for 5 minutes and this point will be confirmed).

God’s servants are to be known for their humility and gentleness, placing the needs of others above their own (Eph. 4.2; Jas. 4.10-12, 1 Pet. 3:8, Phil. 2.3-5). Most all political fights and national fights are based upon both sides feeling like they are better than the other.

God’s servants are commanded to be, well, servants. This is vastly different from the kingdoms of this world, which are all about exercising power over others.

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” – Matthew 20.25-28

God’s servants are commanded love their enemies (Matt. 5.43-47). Kingdoms of this world continually fight against their enemies. Jesus seemed to understand that human governments cannot be sustained without fighting, for he said “If my kingdom were of this world, then My servants would fight.” But then he quickly added, “My kingdom is not of this realm.” (John 18.36-37).

Not only are human governments introduced to us in rebellion to God, and not only are they continually presented to us as enemies of God’s people, but their very character is completely contrary to what is pleasing to God.

“You make some interesting points, but I’m not sure that this is a fair description of all governments. What about when political action is used as an avenue for service, for example, passing a bill that improves medical care, decreases drunk driving, or limits prostitution? All of these are wonderful and good uses of government. How can these be wicked?

Let’s mark this as one of the questions to address later. But for now let’s at least agree that God’s servants have a very different set of values from those of the world. As a general rule, governments do not reflect the righteous values of God’s servants, but rather the wicked values of the world. Can governments possibly be used by Christians to promote Godly values? Before answering this, please consider point number four.

4. Human Governments are Ruled by Satan

At least sort of…

And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, “I will give You all this domain and its glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore if You worship before me, it shall all be Yours.” Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him only.'” – Luke 4.5-8

It is important to notice that Jesus did not dispute the devil’s claim that he owned all the kingdoms of the world, and that he could deliver them over to Jesus if he wished. There is nothing in the text to indicate that Jesus doubted Satan’s ability to make good on this offer.

How much trust should Christians place in human governments that are ruled by Satan? As much as Jesus trusted them, which is none at all.

It is also important to notice that Satan was only willing to give these kingdoms to Jesus if He would worship him. Since worshiping God and worshiping Satan are mutually exclusive, it would have been just as mutually exclusive to worship God while ruling those earthly kingdoms.

Ok, you’ve been very patient. Thank you. Now let’s address some of those questions in part 2.

Editor’s Note: Thomas Campbell, upon withdrawing from the Seceder sect of the Presbyterian church, had gained considerable influence among the Christians in Washington County, Pennsylvania. In 1807 Thomas Campbell and several other like minded Christians formed the “Christian Association of Washington” for the purpose of promoting Christian unity and encouraging denominations to unite together on the faith and practices revealed in the Bible. Neither Thomas Campbell nor any other member of the association had any intention of forming a new sect. (It is therefore important to remember that at this time the phrase “Church of Christ” was used not to refer to one particular sect, but was rather used to describe the one universal church). In order to clarify the intentions of their newly formed association in a clear and definite manner, a “Declaration and Address” was written and adopted by the association. The following thirteen propositions were written to encourage Christians to put an end to controversies caused by matters of opinion, expediency, and human inferences. These thirteen propositions will continue to be of great interest to any who desire to see greater unity among Christians.

Let none imagine that the subjoined propositions are at all intended as an overture toward a new creed or standard for the Church, or as in any wise designed to be made a term of communion; nothing can be further from our intention. They are merely designed for opening up the way, that we may come fairly and firmly to original ground upon clear and certain premises, and take up things just as the apostles left them; that thus disentangled from the accruing embarrassments of intervening ages, we may stand with evidence upon the same ground on which the Church stood at the beginning. Having said so much to solicit attention and prevent mistake, we submit as follows:

PROP. 1. That the Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and of none else; as none else can be truly and properly called Christians.

2. That although the Church of Christ upon earth must necessarily exist in particular and distinct societies, locally separate one from another, yet there ought to be no schisms, no uncharitable divisions among them. They ought to receive each other as Christ Jesus hath also received them, to the glory of God. And for this purpose they ought all to walk by the same rule, to mind and speak the same thing; and to be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment.

3. That in order to do this, nothing ought to be inculcated upon Christians as articles of faith; nor required of them as terms of communion, but what is expressly taught and enjoined upon them in the word of God. Nor ought anything to be admitted, as of Divine obligation, in their Church constitution and managements, but what is expressly enjoined by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles upon the New Testament Church; either in express terms or by approved precedent.

4. That although the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are inseparably connected, making together but one perfect and entire revelation of the Divine will, for the edification and salvation of the Church, and therefore in that respect can not be separated; yet as to what directly and properly belongs to their immediate object, the New Testament is as perfect a constitution for the worship, discipline, and government of the New Testament Church, and as perfect a rule for the particular duties of its members, as the Old Testament was for the worship, discipline, and government of the Old Testament Church, and the particular duties of its members.

5. That with respect to the commands and ordinances of our Lord Jesus Christ, where the Scriptures are silent as to the express time or manner of performance, if any such there be, no human authority has power to interfere, in order to supply the supposed deficiency by making laws for the Church; nor can anything more be required of Christians in such cases, but only that they observe these commands and ordinances as will evidently answer the declared and obvious end of their institution. Much less has any human authority power to impose new commands or ordinances upon the Church, which our Lord Jesus Christ has not enjoined. Nothing ought to be received into the faith or worship of the Church, or be made a term of communion among Christians, that is not as old as the New Testament.

6. That although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God’s holy word, yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so; for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power and veracity of God. Therefore, no such deductions can be made terms of communion, but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the Church. Hence, it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths ought to have any place in the Church’s confession.

7. That although doctrinal exhibitions of the great system of Divine truths, and defensive testimonies in opposition to prevailing errors, be highly expedient, and the more full and explicit they be for those purposes, the better; yet, as these must be in a great measure the effect of human reasoning, and of course must contain many inferential truths, they ought not to be made terms of Christian communion; unless we suppose, what is contrary to fact, that none have a right to the communion of the Church, but such as possess a very clear and decisive judgment, or are come to a very high degree of doctrinal information; whereas the Church from the beginning did, and ever will, consist of little children and young men, as well as fathers.

8. That as it is not necessary that persons should have a particular knowledge or distinct apprehension of all Divinely revealed truths in order to entitle them to a place in the Church; neither should they, for this purpose, be required to make a profession more extensive than their knowledge; but that, on the contrary, their having a due measure of Scriptural self-knowledge respecting their lost and perishing condition by nature and practice, and of the way of salvation through Jesus Christ, accompanied with a profession of their faith in and obedience to him, in all things, according to his word, is all that is absolutely necessary to qualify them for admission into his Church.

9. That all that are enabled through grace to make such a profession, and to manifest the reality of it in their tempers and conduct, should consider each other as the precious saints of God, should love each other as brethren, children of the same family and Father, temples of the same Spirit, members of the same body, subjects of the same grace, objects of the same Divine love, bought with the same price, and joint-heirs of the same inheritance. Whom God hath thus joined together no man should dare to put asunder.

10. That division among the Christians is a horrid evil, fraught with many evils. It is antichristian, as it destroys the visible unity of the body of Christ; as if he were divided against himself, excluding and excommunicating a part of himself. It is antiscriptural, as being strictly prohibited by his sovereign authority; a direct violation of his express command. It is antinatural, as it excites Christians to contemn, to hate, and oppose one another, who are bound by the highest and most endearing obligations to love each other as brethren, even as Christ has loved them. In a word, it is productive of confusion and of every evil work.

11. That (in some instances) a partial neglect of the expressly revealed will of God, and (in others) an assumed authority for making the approbation of human opinions and human inventions a term of communion, by introducing them into the constitution, faith, or worship of the Church, are, and have been, the immediate, obvious, and universally acknowledged causes, of all the corruptions and divisions that ever have taken place in the Church of God.

12. That all that is necessary to the highest state of perfection and purity of the Church upon earth is, first, that none be received as members but such as having that due measure of Scriptural self-knowledge described above, do profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures; nor, secondly, that any be retained in her communion longer than they continue to manifest the reality of their profession by their temper and conduct. Thirdly, that her ministers, duly and Scripturally qualified, inculcate none other things than those very articles of faith and holiness expressly revealed and enjoined in the word of God. Lastly, that in all their administrations they keep close by the observance of all Divine ordinances, after the example of the primitive Church, exhibited in the New Testament; without any additions whatsoever of human opinions or inventions of men.

13. Lastly. That if any circumstantials indispensably necessary to the observance of Divine ordinances be not found upon the page of express revelation, such, and such only, as are absolutely necessary for this purpose should be adopted under the title of human expedients, without any pretense to a more sacred origin, so that any subsequent alteration or difference in the observance of these things might produce no contention nor division in the Church.