Over the last semester I’ve traveled to one school in the Far East and another in Southeast Asia along the Myanmar-Thai border and taught a course on the relationship of the Christian church to political power. Test your own biblical knowledge on what The Bible teaches on this relationship.

Here follows part of the final exam I gave my students, which covers the five different periods in biblical history of the People of God.

Section One: The Relation of the People of God to the Political Power of Pharaoh in Egypt

1. Question: In my discussions about Pharaoh’s exercise of political power over the Children of Israel I said that he trespassed. I chose this word carefully and used it precisely. What did I mean and how did Pharaoh trespass? (Answer) To trespass means to step over a boundary, to go beyond one’s rightful province, place or proper reach or station. In class we said that if a janitor cleaning the principle’s office heard a knock at the door and quickly sat down behind the principal’s desk and invited the visitor into the room and presented himself as the Principal he would be trespassing because he would be taking to himself duties and a dignity that did not obtain. Pharaoh was the top ruler of Egypt but this did not mean that there were no limitations to his power, even if in Egyptian law and culture no limitations to his power existed. The nature of righteousness is ultimately eternal. It is created by and grounded in God and is not the creation of men and women. The ruled and the rulers must attend to righteous boundaries. Pharaoh had a hard time realizing this (evidenced by his unwillingness to allow the Children of Israel freedom to worship their God and the bondage and exploitation he placed them in). He truly believed he owned them and had a right to complete control over them. It was not mere perversity of spirit that led him to recant repeated agreements to let “his slaves” go and worship. He believed he had total godlike power over them. There are at least three explicit ways the Exodus text reveals he trespassed. First he forbade them to go to the desert and worship their God. As such he claimed spiritual power over them acting as a God instead of a secular governor. He exploited the Hebrews for their labor placing them in what appeared to be irreversible unconditional bondage. They had no future. He acted as if he had ultimate total power over the Israelite people body and soul. In killing innocent babies he acted as if he had capricious power over life itself. From the bigger picture and revelation of righteousness given in Scripture and the emergence of the Kingdom of God Pharaoh trespassed because he exercised his power in areas of life that were beyond the province of his authority.
2. Question: Thinking about what happened to the Children of Israel in Egypt write me a short essay on the precise meaning of justice. When I asked you in class what justice meant you gave me answers like peace, fairness, equality. These are all the fruits of justice but what is the root meaning. Answer: Justice in the Bible has to do with restoring to a person or people what they need to live. By ‘live’ I do not mean merely surviving but live as free, purposeful and self supporting human beings under God. Justice restores the means of life, community and one’s place within community and ultimately one’s place with God. In Justice it is all about providing ground underneath people’s feet so as to build and live life. Sometimes through fault of their own, sometimes through no fault of their own people lose what is needed to live, build and sustain life. Because it includes mercy in its very character, justice turns a blind eye to what a person deserves, and instead graciously provides what they need.
3. Question Where did the Biblical concept of justice come from? How did it come into existence in the Bible and the church in both the Old and New Testament? Where did it start? How was it formed? These are all one question. Add to this question another one. Turning the pages of the Psalms and the Prophets one comes upon references that reveal where the idea of Justice began. Can you find one of these and comment on it? Answer Psalm 103:1-8 is one passage among many that answers this question. In verse 4 & 6 “God works justice for those who are oppressed.” Those who are caught in a ‘pit’ and cannot get out God redeems their life. “He redeems their life from the pit” (vs 4). Justice, in its essential meaning corresponds to those who have lost the means of life (physically, socially i.e. community and spiritually) and who cannot, using their own resources, get these means back again. The bondage in Egypt is a formative example of justice because the Hebrews could not extricate themselves from bondage/enslavement. They were, metaphorically speaking, in a pit and could not get out. Freeing them from bondage was the seminal act of justice in the Bible and this is what Psalm 103 goes on to state. “He (Yahweh) made known his ways to Moses …” (vs 7). Here in this deliverance the God of justice made his debut. Justice with the Hebrews did not begin with hard thinking but a signature act – the Exodus. This signature act of deliverance then becomes reflected on and this is how the conceptual meaning of justice, as it is found in Scripture, was formed.
4. Question: The Children of Israel were freed! Freedom, true freedom, the freedom we meet in Scripture always has two faces. It is like a coin with two distinct and different sides. Please tell me what these two sides are within the Exodus story and expand on them. After you have discussed this two-sided character of freedom within the Exodus setting think of this two-sided concept of freedom within the setting of the Christian life. Answer: Freedom in Scripture is always shaped in a from – to The Children of Israel were delivered from bondage to Egyptian/Pharaoh slavery. But this was followed by a call into a new covenant community where they would live on the land as God’s people with a new God given purpose and righteousness. In the New Testament in Galatians, freedom is freedom from enslavement to the law, but this from the law gives way to living life in a new way – in the Spirit and as a servant to others in love.

Section Two: The Relation of the People of God to Political Power in Babylon (Lessons about Political Power from the Book of Daniel)

1. Question In Daniel 2, king Nebuchadnezzar had a dream. I argued that this dream contained two features that ‘downsized,’ or put into proper perspective, the kingly glory, power and greatness of his kingdom – Babylon. What were these two features and why or how do they help put things into proper perspective. If you disagree explain your reasons. Answer: The first of these is time. By setting Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom inside the greater context of the rise and fall of nations over the great sweep of time, he was given perspective. Viewed from where Nebuchadnezzar was standing in his myopic moment in time Babylon almost surely seemed to the king like the be all and end all. But from the vantage point of the dream, that captured the great sweep of time, the significance of Babylon was greatly reduced and the ‘mortality’ of Babylon made visible. The second feature that ‘down sized’ the grandeur of Babylon was that in the dream this grandeur was depicted in light of the Kingdom of God, a truly great and everlasting kingdom. Before the dream Babylon’s greatness was viewed alone after the dream Babylon viewed in light of something greater and more enduring. This dialectic saved him and it saves us from nation idolatry.
2. Question: In Daniel 2, describing what was going on in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, at one point the Scripture describes the emergence of the Kingdom of God in the stream of time as something like unto “a stone was cut without hand”. What is the significance of this phrase without hands? If possible expand on the significance for the work of the church, religion and the work of secular political power. Answer: “Cut without hands” signifies how this everlasting kingdom did not come into existence. All kingdoms in the course of time, as represented in the dream, were made by human hands. The “Everlasting Kingdom” is not made by human hands. Stone here may correlate to the stones upon which structures are built upon. This stone is by inference cut from invisible divine hands. The kingdoms of this world are not part human and part divine, they are all human just a the entire stature of an awesome man represents (they are mortal and corruptible) and like humans they grow old, decay and die. In the dream an entirely different kind of kingdom, from a different order and origin, emerges into existence and protrudes into eternity. As such this dream stands over against every king and kingdom, ruler and nation that forgets its mortality. Only by contrast to something greater and enduring are great earthly kingdoms able to comprehend their humble transient station on this earth. Again a dialectical versus a monolithic presentation of reality saves Nebuchadnezzar and all kings and people who reads the book of Daniel from idolatry or is at least intended to.
3. Question: In my lecture-discussions I said, referring to Daniel 5, that king Belshazzar was “fired.” Suddenly whilst having a great party he was “fired.” What did I mean by asserting this and how could an ancient a king be “fired?” Correlate this to the descriptive language in Romans 13 verses 4 & 6. Here is a clue and please follow after this lead. How is it that a political leader is to embody two postures one over and one under, king and servant, master and steward? Answer: The book of Daniel is political from A to Zed and here in this chapter the political lesson is that the invisible God is not only above kings and princes on the earth but may remove them if they fail the trust and responsibility given them. All princes who rule over humankind rule from a position under God whether they realize it clearly or not. Two postures not one is to characterize all rulers. One is over and the other is under – over Humankind and under God. As both free sovereign and accountable servant rulers are to fill their position. Remove the latter from the former and tyranny lies in wait. Weaken the former altogether and anarchy reigns.
4. Question: In Chapter 3 Daniel’s three friends got into trouble with Nebuchadnezzar and ended up in a fiery furnace. Explain how sometimes, and in this particular case, disobedience to political power is not rebellion or anarchy but a form of obedience. Disobedience and obedience were joined. Please explain and if possible apply this couplet to a modern setting. Answer: The three Hebrews that were thrown into the fiery furnace were not simply claiming their right to enjoy religious freedom and not conform to a form of religious service that offended their conscience. This would of course be a modern reading into the text. All that the three Hebrews could say in defense of themselves is that they could not do this thing and sin against God. This was not about ‘their rights’ nor was it rebellion against the king’s power and word. Their disobedience resulted from their obedience to one higher than the king. Since their actions were about a higher claim on their life, disobedience and obedience were united together. Reflecting on the modern principle of individual rights, and religious freedom not to conform but follow one’s conscience, in light of this story, one can see a difference. The upside of the modern principle is that no one need conform to the majority, or to the State’s religious will or sensibilities for culture should one come to bear, or to suffer for not conforming, but one is free to follow her conscience or simply his own will in all cultural and religious matters as long as no explicit injury occurs. The down side of the modern notion is that the individual who acts on the basis of her rights tends to become magnified. Dissent in the modern setting, viewed from the values and ethics of the Judeo-Christian teaching, as important as dissent may be in any given situation, can contribute to a swollen heroic individual. Individualism inevitably lies at the door of any national polity that underwrites the freedom and right of the individual. While the modern political principle is an important milestone in political history even so for Christians obedience to God, political provision or no political provision for practicing one’s individual right, suffering or no suffering, is the primary basis for one’s action. Two different kinds of person’s emerge from these distinctions. One is more deeply grounded in God (as is evident from the 4^th person walking in the fire among the three who dissented) and the other tends to promote a self more deeply grounded in the naked and innate right of oneself.

Section Three

1. Question: In the Gospel of Matthew and Mark in answer to those who were questioning him about whether the Jews should pay taxes to Caesar (The Roman emperor) Jesus said “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and unto God the things that are God’s”. Please write a short essay on Jesus’ meaning including the historical reason that motivated this question. Answer: The first thing we discussed about this text is that it was preceded by a question that almost surely was formed in order to reveal whether Jesus was a Zealot. Zealots refused to pay taxes to Caesar and where intent on over throwing Roman Rule. Zealots effectively placed in jeopardy all other Jews who were trying to accommodate the Romans so as to not lose the measure of peace, security and freedom they had under them. Jesus kingdom preaching immediately raised the anxiety level of the dominant religious parties and leaders in Judea. Jesus answer “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s” befuddles those who had him pegged as a Zealot. Jesus’ kingdom preaching must ride on its own theoretical pinions. It cannot be collapsed with the Zealot kingdom message. But Jesus’ answer possesses his own brand of radicalism. By separating Caesar and God’s territory Caesar ceases to enjoy divine privilege and worship. Caesar is made mundane! This is a radical idea in the first century and one Rome was a long way from adopting. On the other side, the Zealot side, Jesus’ little answer contains a major revolution because it suggested a division between political power and religious power where as Zealots conceived the restoration of the unity these two as the key to the future. In the Zealot mind the religious things of God – priestly power and the Political things of the state, kingly power, must be united again. The division of religious and political realms is wrapped into this saying and is part of Jesus’ movement and teaching. The emergence of his Kingdom is not dependant on the people of God seizing political power again. There is however a potential problem with this text because it seems to teach a dualism. In other words it seems to teach a separation where spiritual duties have their own autonomous realm and the state has its own autonomous realm. This is not what Jesus is teaching. The unified witness of Scripture is clear – every realm of human existence is to be lived under God and worked out according to the will of God to the glory of God.
2. Question: In John 18:36 Jesus said “my Kingdom is not of this world” Please write a short essay on Jesus’ meaning. Answer Jesus is addressing Pilot’s anxiety that Jesus is a Zealot. It is almost certain the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem on ‘Passover’ weekend played the Zealot card even though they knew it did not fit Jesus’ kingdom preaching. This they did in order to get rid of Jesus. If the Lord’s Prayer (“Your will be done your kingdom come on earth”) along with many other passages of Scripture testifies to the earthiness of Christ’s kingdom then the meaning of this verse is not that Jesus’ kingdom belongs to another spatial world. Neither is this kingdom about a mystical subjective experience – an inner kingdom in the heart. Rather it is how this kingdom comes into being that I believe Jesus answer to Pilot is addressing. Not by force and violence does this kingdom gain its wheels but by truth, by the spiritual power of God and by suffering Jesus’ this kingdom is born and grows in this world. Note the text speaks of “truth” and Jesus’ messianic vocation as one of bearing witness to the truth.
3. Question Write a short essay describing what is similar and what is different between the Zealot view of the Kingdom and Jesus view of the kingdom. Answer The Zealots evidently viewed the kingdom as the restoration of the Davidic rule. This rule is pictured several place in Scripture such as Isaiah 9. A righteous mighty deliver would liberate the people of God from their enemies (the Romans) and restore their autonomy on the land. Evildoers would be punished and the righteous vindicated and rewarded. In the mouth of the righteous king the law of God would prevail. The Zealots sponsored several messiahs to carry forward this vision but they failed. Everything about Jesus’ Kingdom vision is contrary to Zealot thinking and human logic. Here are a few signature strands in Jesus kingdom fabric. First God would bestow the kingdom “ be of good cheer it’s the father’s pleasure to give you the kingdom”. The Romans cannot obstruct the kingdom nor the Zealots empower it through their relatively small but fierce military attacks on the enemy (a antecedent of modern terrorism). The kingdom is a gift (bequest or inheritance) not a violent task, not an accomplishment by men and women and their militarily blessed messiah who with righteous zeal could prevail over their enemies. This first difference betrays a second most important feature of Jesus’ kingdom, namely that it comes through suffering and weakness. Jesus kingdom is born in defeat and suffering and this suffering is that which comes not only from bodily pain of the cross and the social shame it was invented to inflict but the removal of spiritual shame and guilt. The estrangement and displeasure of God. Not the lack of military prowess but humans not reconciled to their God is the ultimate obstacle to the kingdom and Jesus fulfilling the vision of 2^nd Isaiah (chapter 53) removes this obstacle. Everything that obstructs the kingdom from coming Jesus must remove, and this is the witness the Apostles give us. There are other ways to mark the distinctive way Jesus’ kingdom comes into existence. For instance Jesus transforms righteousness so that it ceases to be understood in neat categories where the righteous and the wicked get what they deserve, where godless enemies are punished and the righteous restored to their rightful place. Instead the law of grace overcomes the law of just deserts. This new ethic of grace starts from a seminal point and spreads outward over the whole earth and destroys the traditional antithesis of the righteous and the wicked. In bestowing grace righteousness is transformed and the traditional righteous – wicked antithesis transformed. All who receive grace, whether great enemies or malicious neighbors are called into the Kingdom of God together.

Section Four

1. Question. Write a short essay on Romans 13:1-7 and answer the following. (1) Is the authority that is exercised by political power innate or relational? (2) What words in these 7 verses supports your answer? (3) Why is this distinction important to the church and important for how political power understands itself? (4) For extra credit (not required) Google the Barmen Declaration and find article number 2 Declaration five and compare how political power is described there in that Declaration (#5) and the theological importance this Declaration has for protecting the church from misunderstanding Romans 13:1-7 Answer The nature of political power is relational. This is true in modern governance where government is accountable to the people. But it is ‘absolutely relative’ because in Scripture and here in Romans 13 political authority derives from God and is God’s servant. Using the KJV. Verse 1 states that political power comes from God and is ordained or appointed by God. Verse 2 repeats this word translated ordinance or appointment. Verse 4 calls the ruler a minister of God administering punishment on evildoers. Verse 6 continues to name the ruler as God’s servant. All of these words depict the ruler as possessing relational authority. His or her power comes from God and corresponds to a task God wants done – namely administering justice and righteousness in the world so that relative peace, harmony and justice prevail and chaos and evil do not take over the earth like weeds can take over a garden. The reason this relational understanding of authority is so important to the church is that it prevents rulers from being viewed as being a law unto themselves. As appointed servants called to do a particular job that God wants done, their power corresponds not to their position, but their task and the fulfilling of said task and also staying within the bounds of their task, especially this understanding of not going beyond their task and becoming totalistic is captured in Declaration # 5. The Barmen Declaration especially declaration number 5 clarified this.

The following extra credit question is not Required

1. Question Daniel 7:15-22 tells us what a beast is, revelation 12:7-9 tells us who the dragon is, and Revelation 13:1-8 depicts a 4^th beast who worships the dragon and becomes itself worshipped. Please write a short essay about what can and has happened to political power based on these texts and church history. Answer These verses depict a particular phenomenon. In the course of history there are times in which political power seeks to transcend its God appointed limitation, its mundane character, and trespasses into that realm that belongs to God alone. When this occurs it trespasses the honor and respect which is its rightful due and requires a reverence, i.e. worship and subjection, that belongs only to God. When this occurs the people of God who refuse to render this homage suffer greatly. The struggle that is behind all struggles Revelation depicts as spiritual – namely robbery. Human powers ascending to those heights where they attempt to rob God of God’s primacy over His people putting themselves in His place. Here the meaning of the common word for sin – ‘trespass’ involves the sinner in the most virulent of all sins blasphemy – trespassing one’s human mortal station and appropriating to oneself divine power and prerogative – even nature. Revelation depicts this as both the original struggle in heaven and the final struggle on earth. From a human standpoint power is always subject to a unique temptation – to take itself too seriously. From a spiritual standpoint this taking oneself (self identified with one’s power) too seriously incurs two elemental sins the blasphemy of a leader involving the people in idolatry.
2. Postscript Question for Reflection – How do you read the text? For instance how do you read the Exodus story? Among many options three options present themselves. (1) Hard unbiased history (2) faith history (3) Religious Myth. The first eliminates the influence that the handlers of the stories might have had on the stories and views the text as an objective eye witness historical account. The second view of the text holds that the stories and history that the texts scripts are real historically rooted stories (Hebrew and Christian) and in the text these stories and history, by the power of the Spirit, live inside the life of the people of God. Real events that transpired, real people that existed and real purposes of God for His people, first by oral transmission and then by scripted transmission became the fire and fuel that rekindled again and again the identity of the people and kept their identity alive and purified this identity. In this way the text, which was preceded by oral transmission, sought to connect a signature redemptive past to the present people of God over time so as to keep their faith identity and purpose alive and call the people of God back to these. And the text in doing this fulfills the purpose and claims stated in 2 Timothy 3.16 (3) the text is an invention and is far removed from real history and came to be cleverly constructed to teach spiritual lessons.

Stay tuned for the next post where I will discuss his lectures on The Barmen Declaration, a document dating to 1933 when the Nazi’s attempted to take over the Church.