Episode Transcript
Carey Griffel: [00:00:00] Welcome to Genesis Marks the Spot, where we raid the ivory tower of biblical theology without ransacking our faith. My name is Carey Griffel, and today I have another question from a listener. This is from Leah, and her question centers on the idea of governance in the Bible, governance and dominion. How does governance look in the Old Testament and the New Testament and what was or is God's intended design for government on earth, in the Church, and outside of the Church? Or were we ever supposed to separate those two?
There's actually a broader context for this question, which is, in Genesis 1, and having dominion over the animals, it doesn't say we're supposed to have dominion over people. [00:01:00] So how do we think about that from the context of Eden, to outside of Eden, from Old Testament and New Testament and the Church, and even into the Eschaton?
We aren't yet in the eschaton, but eternal life does begin now. I really think we should struggle with the fact that not all of the answers are easy or necessarily clear, especially in our day to day actual contexts. I'm actually going to do the unthinkable, and I will talk a little bit about political divides and some philosophy and psychology as well, and how we can kind of apply those things in our day to day lives.
What we might call the Sunday School answer, is that Christ rules, we are the image of God, and we are being conformed to the image of Christ, and so we rule like Christ. And [00:02:00] it's not tyrannical, but it does have to do with slavery, which, see next week about that. And there is this element of an upside down reality, but it doesn't negate the reality that actually exists. So, it's not like there's no rule or dominion, it's just we have to see that in light of Christ.
Now, when I say that it's a simple Sunday School answer, I don't want you to get the impression that there's anything wrong with this answer, because it effectively sums things up. But we should ask what it means, right? What does it look like? And we should not oversimplify things either. I want to make sure it's applicable and practical and actually part of our lives because I think a theology that does not correspond with our actual lives is a problematic theology. And I say that because even though we have an [00:03:00] eschatological kind of ultimate goal, that doesn't mean that it can't be lived out in any way here. Because I think it can. And I think that's the part of God's kingdom here now.
There is something to be said for saying that humans aren't explicitly told to rule humans. Now, there's going to be some specific context to that term and idea of ruling there, but no, we don't rule over or subdue other humans, or at least we're not meant to, because subduing is a particular type of action. But I will say that we do rule over. But what does that mean? Well, it's in the context of authority, and all authority should be, of course, from God. And we are placed in a position of mediating that and I hope none of that is surprising to you when we think about the image of God and what that is.
All right, so let's get into a little bit [00:04:00] of this Old Testament context, and the Hebrew in particular. Now, apologies from the get go about my pronunciation of Hebrew. It's not great. We have Genesis 126. This is not actually the first time we see the concept of ruling because we see it earlier with the lights in the sky on day four.
But Genesis 126 from the NASB, 1995 version, says, quote, Then God said, Let us make man in our image according to our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, end quote.
Okay, so here we rule over fish, birds, cattle, over all of the earth, and over creeping things. The root of the word rule here is radah, and it has the [00:05:00] connotation of maybe treading. So this is a bit of a rough word.
Let's go to Genesis 128. It says, quote, God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it. And rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth. End quote.
Okay, so now we have another word. We have subdue, and we have rule, and they're in parallel here. And in Genesis 128, we have fish, birds, every living thing, so again, no people are involved here, as far as we can tell.
Let's keep going in Scripture. We have Psalm 8, verses 3 through 8. Now this is not the same word of rule that we have in Genesis 1 28, although it is the same word in Genesis 3 16, which we'll get to [00:06:00] here in a minute, but I'm bringing out Psalm 8 as a parallel to Genesis 1.
Psalm 8, verses 3 through 8, says, quote, When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars which you have ordained, what is man that you take thought of him, and the son of man that you care for him? Yet you have made him a little lower than God, or the angels, Elohim, and you crown him with glory and majesty. You make him to rule over the works of your hands. You have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes through the paths of the seas. End quote.
Okay, so here we have humans in authority over the world. Now, let's go back to Genesis 3 16, which again, this is the same word of ruling like in Psalm [00:07:00] 8. This is after the taking of the fruit. Quote, To the woman he said, I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children, yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. End quote.
That is the first explicit place that we see ruling of humans in the scriptures, right? And there's different interpretations, and people will take this different ways, saying either the woman is in the wrong here in this dynamic between the man and the woman, or that the man is, and you have interpretations that say both of them are in the wrong, and that both of them will be unrighteously ruling. I do think at least that it is the man who is unfairly ruling here. But again, that is open to some interpretation.
Okay, now let's jump to Genesis 45, 8. And this is in the context of [00:08:00] Joseph. This is again the same word as Genesis three 16. Genesis 45, 8 says, quote, Now, therefore, it was not you who sent me here, but God and he has made me a father to Pharaoh and Lord of all his household and ruler over all the land of Egypt. End quote.
This is in the context of Joseph being made a ruler so that people can continue to flourish in a bad situation, right? So it's not a negative thing here. And he is the ruler over all the land of Egypt? Well, it says land. Are we presuming that he's just over agriculture? Well, no. I think here is a pretty clear place that we can see the idea of land and people being in parallel. Because, yes, the land matters because of cosmic geography, but it only matters because there's people there. So [00:09:00] there's a very strong case to be made that sometimes, not always, but sometimes when the Bible is referencing land or even the ground, it could be referencing people specifically. And that can matter when you go back to that Genesis Eden account that talks about the ground.
I want to bring in one more passage here in Zechariah 9 verses 9 through 10 which again it has the same word of rule here. Zechariah 9:9-10 says quote, Rejoice greatly, oh daughter of Zion, shout in triumph o daughter of jerusalem Behold, your king is coming to you. He is just and endowed with salvation, humble and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey. I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the horse from Jerusalem, and the bow of war will be cut off, and he will [00:10:00] speak peace to the nations, and his dominion will be from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth. End quote.
I will definitely mention my previous episode about donkeys if you want a little bit more context for that passage. But here we have kings, dominion, and I brought forward the idea that being a king on a donkey is a king who is not going to be subduing the people in a military fashion. Okay?
So, that's really interesting with all of these words and things going on here, right? Very interesting that we don't have the same word in Genesis 1 as Genesis 3. Maybe we shouldn't say too much about different authors using a different word. We don't want to make it too much the case that one word only means one thing or [00:11:00] only has certain connotations, right? So I do think there's a sense in Genesis 1 and Psalm 8 and these other verses that are using this word that they are in parallel, but at the same time, I think we can see that there is potentially a difference here between ruling and subduing in a harsh, militaristic way versus ruling in a humble way like the king on the donkey.
Now, let's actually get into the definition of dominion or rule, because it's not always the language of subduing that we have, which I think we've already seen. The language of subduing, which is in Genesis 1, is not the word in general that's often used for having dominion or ruling, so we should not over conflate terms here.
So let's talk about some Hebrew terminology. We have the term malak. Which means to [00:12:00] reign. This is just the general verb that you're going to use in relation to a king. It expresses the activity of kingship and the reigning of kings.
Okay, another word. We have sarar. This is a verb that means to rule, and it means to become a prince or to reign as a prince. So very connected to governance and very connected to ruling in general or indications of official court and sometimes acting in a military capacity, usually in relation to a prince versus a king. This word doesn't often show up in the Old Testament, but its noun form does quite often. And the noun, which is sar, refers to a male in high authority who is subject to a king, thus we get the idea of prince. But we have it used as the commander of the Lord's army in Joshua [00:13:00] 5, 13 through 15, and the Archangel Michael in Daniel 10.
Then we have the word Rosh, which means head. We're talking about authority and leadership here, like the leader of a group, the leader of an army, the leader of soldiers, like in Judges 7, 16, and 1 Samuel 11, 11. And then we can have it attached to God in places like Isaiah 41, 4.
Next term is piquad. It's a verb, to see or to tend to, or to fulfill an assigned task. The core of this verb has to do with fulfilling obligations in a leadership role. So you have inspection in Psalm 17, 3, or to muster in Joshua 8, 10, to instruct in Numbers 4, 27 through 29. And it can just be about seeing something, like in Exodus [00:14:00] 3. 16. So there's an idea of oversight, and the leader who is overseeing things has an obligation to do something about what they're seeing.
Then we have shapat, which is a verb to mean to judge, which also is about governing, leading, deciding a case in a legal form. And this term appears in three different contexts. General leadership at large, judicial practice, and divine judgment. And leadership and judicial practice kind of overlap in a lot of ways, because the duty of a leader or a king would include passing judgment on a case.
Then we have the word mashal, which is a verb to rule. This is the word that we're talking about in Genesis 1. 18, not Genesis 1. 28, but Genesis 1. 18 in regards to the bodies in the sky. Genesis 3. [00:15:00] 16, Genesis 45. 8, Psalm 8, and Zechariah 9 all have this word here. And it's the general word to rule or have dominion over a designated area or group of people. It can have the connotation of being installed in a position of authority, which I think is what we have in a lot of these passages, right? The term often has political connotations, and so it's close to the meaning of the word malak, or king, but the Old Testament is pretty clear that God is the ultimate source of authority. And he is the one who really has that power, but he can use mediators and he can designate his power to other people or other beings.
Okay, couple of other words. We have shalat, which also means to rule. This one's a little bit more to domineer or be master over. We have it in Nehemiah 5. 15 and [00:16:00] Ecclesiastes 8. 9. The psalmist uses it to describe sin's mastery over a person in Psalm 119, verse 133. Ecclesiastes uses the term to describe God's gift of power or authority to people to enjoy their possessions or honor or wealth in Ecclesiastes 5. 19 and 6 2.
Our final word is radah, which is to rule or have dominion or dominate or lord over. This is the word we have in Genesis 1, 26 and 28, and it is parallel with the word subdue in Genesis 1, 28. It's used in Jeremiah for priests in Jeremiah 5 31. And it talks about the dominion of masters over slaves in Leviticus 25 43, for instance. But it's really less of a used word than some of these others that I've already mentioned.
Okay, so let's go [00:17:00] to International Standard Bible Encyclopedia for a moment about the word dominion. It says, quote, The Biblical terms generally denote the power to rule. The Old Testament verb radah has the meaning of tread or trample, and so dominate or rule. Cross reference the use in Joel 3. 13 for treading in the wine press. Mashal is a general term for ruling or having mastery over something or someone. The noun motah denotes in Ezekiel 30, 18 a bar or a yoke as a symbol of oppression. In the New Testament, the term most frequently rendered dominion is kratos, which means power or might. When used of God, it denotes His sovereignty. The Old Testament and New Testament scriptures confess that dominion belongs ultimately to God. However, the term is also used for man's mastery over nature, [00:18:00] political power over a realm, and sin's rule over man. End quote.
In Job 25 2, it says, quote, Dominion and awe belong to him who establishes peace in his heights.
Psalm 22, 28, this is quoted from the cross, which, okay, that's a really big conversation to have about the relationship of what Jesus is doing with this entire psalm, right?
But Psalm 22, 28 says, quote, For the kingdom is the Lord's, and he rules over the nations, end quote.
Now an interesting passage I'm going to bring out here in 1 Peter 4, 11. It says, quote, Whoever speaks is to do so as the one who is speaking the utterances of God. Whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies, so that, in all [00:19:00] things, God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. End quote.
So we are representatives of God, and this is a priestly role, as we will see here in a moment.
Jude 24 and 25 is a doxology. It says, quote, Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of his glory, blameless, with great joy. To the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ, our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority before all time, and now, and forever. Amen.
Revelation 1 6, quote, And he has made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father. To him be the glory and dominion forever and ever, amen. End quote.
So this is making [00:20:00] us priests and not rulers and kings, right? But what do priests do? Priests were part of the Court and they were making things right with God. They're part of that legal system of ensuring right judgment. Priests were also in the context of teaching and imparting the wisdom of the law to the people.
Now, let's talk about the concept of dominance, which is not the same thing as dominion, necessarily, although I think we often conflate it, and we're not sure where the line is between the two things, right? I think that dominance is probably what we're thinking when we're asking these questions about Genesis 1, especially with that rule and subdue language. When we're talking about dominance, that doesn't take away or completely absorb the idea of authority and dominion in general, I think.
[00:21:00] I'm going to read a bit from the Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology and Counseling. It says, quote, The concept of dominance implies the notions of authority, control, and power. The dynamic which is involved in any state of dominance, is manifested when one function or figure determines the terms and conditions under which all other functions or figures must operate. To be dominant means to be in a position of superior influence or mastery, commanding and prevailing over many structures, entities, or people. In order to adequately understand the concept of dominance, one ought to consider other similar, yet not merely identical, concepts like authority, power, and aggression. Forceful and arrogant authority is typically viewed as intimidating and [00:22:00] destructive, while acceptable and legitimate authority is viewed as rightful and productive. When individuals possess formal authority and are assigned power justly, they are able to rationally demonstrate the appropriateness of their actions, opinions, or decisions, and meet the demands of the situation. Therefore, they can fulfill the moral and ethical standards required, and reflect the transparent truths involved. Legitimate power is based on competence, respect, and wisdom, while illegitimate power is based on coercion, irrationality, and manipulation. According to the Frustration Aggression Hypothesis, when people are frustrated by inner tensions and conflicts, or, are deprived of essential needs, they tend to act aggressively and display hostile behavior. In the world of animals, fighting and competing for food, [00:23:00] mates, and territory is a clear attempt to achieve security and dominance. Domination can be achieved by force (subduing people), money (purchasing followers), or mental persuasion ( changing people's convictions). Sometimes, dominant leaders are treated like gods, and in some cases are officially elevated and worshipped. for example, Roman emperors, also cross referenced Daniel 3. Ultimately, the freedom to participate or choose is better understood and practiced in the context of power, control, and authority. End quote.
Being in a position of dominance does not necessarily automatically put you in a place that is negative, right? You're not automatically using aggression or manipulation or coercion and all of these things that are on the negative spectrum, right? So I think if [00:24:00] we view the idea of dominion and dominance and power and authority on a spectrum and that there is a good side and a bad side that you could be tracking on with that, I think that is at least slightly helpful because what I think is pretty clear is that we do have these power structures or maybe I should say hierarchies of power and dominion and authority within human groups. And I don't really see how we could have it otherwise. But there's a particular way of doing that in a Christian framework, right?
Here's an interesting point. The term despot wasn't actually a negative term originally, and it really signified a master or a teacher, but we've now made it into this bad word, and it's meshed up with the idea of tyranny. So if you take that bad idea of [00:25:00] despotism, and it is a tyrannical structure and a tyrannical way of doing things, versus proper kingship, which a king is supposed to be, like, a wise man who is connected to God, right? A despot versus a king, which one do you want to be? And we've meshed those together, and a king can now be a despot, but he doesn't have to be, if he is in alignment with God.
So let's go back to this idea of having dominion over animals, the concept of subduing is harsh and it's used in militaristic language situations. And I've talked about that before in episode number 75, when I talked about death before the fall.
In 2 Samuel 8, 11, it says, quote, King David also dedicated these to the Lord, with the silver and gold that he had dedicated from all the nations which he had subdued. [00:26:00] End quote.
King David subdued nations in a military way. Now, does that inherently mean cruelty, though? Well, it depends on your standards, right? Depends on what your culture determines is cruel and not, right? Like, if you live in a harsh reality where you're raising, hunting, butchering your own meat, well, that's probably going to seem cruel to many people today. I mean, to be honest, it makes me uncomfortable. What if we raised rabbits? And I'm like, well, rabbits are kind of cute and fuzzy. I also know they're pretty mean and evil sometimes, so maybe that would kind of, you know, even things out. But I still would have a really hard time butchering rabbits that I have raised, right? They're so cute and fuzzy, right?
But people in the past didn't have the luxury of seeing animals in that light. They didn't have the [00:27:00] SPCA, but we do have the Bible, which has instructions on butchering animals, and those instructions are actually quite humane. They are not focused on cruelty and torture. They're about as good as we could possibly expect in the situation. There is no cruelty. There is no focus on the actual death of the animal. And if you want a little bit more on that, I would suggest Andrew Rillera's book, The Lamb of the Free, where he talks a little bit about ritual turning death into non death and how the sacrificial system really is not focused on death and torture and punishment.
What about the world and the environment? Do we have dominance or control over those things? Well, there's several different ancient perspectives. As we've seen in the Book of 1 Enoch recently, there [00:28:00] is the concept of angelic oversight in the world, and so we also have human oversight. And it kind of depends on what text you're reading and who you're asking as to whether or not It's mostly angels who are in charge of what's going on in the world, controlling the weather, things like that.
Most of the time we don't see humans having control over weather, right? We do have Elijah in 1 Kings 18, where he is vying with the prophets of Baal, and they're doing that battle on the mountain of the gods, right? Who's going to make it rain? Is it going to be Yahweh, or is it going to be Baal? But we don't really have the sense that the prophet there is the one really controlling things. He's involved as a mediator of God. But it's God who's doing it, right?
And I've talked before about how I think it's probably not really all that biblical to see us as having completely corrupted [00:29:00] all of creation in the Fall. But on the other hand, even if we didn't do that, we still obviously have major effects on the world. And in our global society, that's far more impactful than what we've had in the past. And I'm not talking about man made climate change, but we do have effects on the environment, and it's silly to suggest otherwise. I mean, you go to a place that has a whole lot of concrete and building and you compare that with a place that doesn't, and there really are major environmental differences and that shouldn't be very controversial.
What about disease? Do we have authority and dominion over those things? Well, we have pharmaceuticals, for one thing. And there's other things we could do, like the scale of human interaction, for instance. If we are designing our society where more humans are interacting, especially young humans, like [00:30:00] in a public school situation, you're going to naturally get more sickness and disease because of that transmission. Right? So, it's not like we don't have some control over things.
There's also a lot of work being done in the psychological community that is talking about trauma and our body response, and how our actual situations in trauma and our mental and psychological landscapes lead directly to our state of health. Lots of material out there that you can track for that. One book that is really interesting and that I might suggest is called The Myth of Normal, if you want to read a little bit about that. Not saying it has it all right. Like, I don't have a way to really judge scientific matters myself because I'm not deeply into that type of material and information right now. But I do think there's a lot out there to look at. [00:31:00] And if you think about the fact that our psychological states can have so much to do with our bodily health, then when we get into situations of sin, exile, and bad places in community where we are traumatizing each other, well, we're probably going to be more sick than we otherwise would.
So, basically what I'm saying is that we do have influence, possibly authority, definitely effect in many of these areas, and we should be smart about the things that we can influence.
Okay, so back to the context of Genesis 1 through 3. Mankind has dominion over the animal kingdom, we might say in a literal way, right? And this is kind of the harsher version of the concept of dominion, which, I mean, kind of makes sense because you're out there butchering animals. That doesn't really mean we can't loop in the [00:32:00] concept of ruling in general, because, like I said, you go from Genesis 1 to Psalm 8, and you have the same concepts there.
Another point I would bring out is that it may be the case that the list that we have in Genesis 128 is not an exclusive one. Just like the diet that we're given in Genesis 1 doesn't have to be exclusive. Note that that diet says nothing about milk or honey, for instance. So if you broaden out the view here, the concept is order, flourishing for humans, and right ways of doing things in God's authority.
Then we go on into the garden. Why does Adam name all of the animals? Well, in this ancient context, naming gives you dominion and authority over something. Then you go onto the question of why is the serpent [00:33:00] described as a serpent and not anything else like a spiritual being? And I've said this before, but I think really that the literal description as a literal snake is there for a point because Adam had just named the animals. He named the animals before Eve was separated out. Therefore, Eve should have had dominion over the serpent. She had authority over that creature.
Alright, now we can ask, what about zones of authority? What about spiritual beings versus humans, and how do we see that? We do have the potential possibility of authority of spiritual beings in Genesis one on day four, right? With the heavens and the moon and the sun and the stars all having some sort of governing power. Now, whether that's just referencing those physical bodies in the sky, or whether it's also [00:34:00] referencing spiritual beings, they do have this power in and of themselves. Right? I think it's lessening that concept, but that doesn't mean it's not there. We see it all the time in Second Temple Judaism literature. We see it in the New Testament. Look at Ephesians 1. 21 and Colossians 1. 16, where we've got the idea of thrones, authorities, principalities, powers.
And let me go back to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia to read a little bit about this. I think they kind of get a little bit of this off a little bit, but we'll talk about that here in a second. It says, quote, In these passages, Paul is combating the heretical belief that these beings acted as mediators between Creator and creation, and that they had the power to shape the destiny of the world. Paul contends that these beings, too, if they exist, owe their existence to Christ, [00:35:00] for all things were created through Him and for Him, and are subservient to Him. For God has put all things under his feet. Christ alone is the mediator and in him alone rests the full power of God. It is not distributed among a multitude of intermediary spiritual End quote End quote.
So from one perspective, I will agree with that. If the idea is that these powers and principalities have pieces of God's authority in like some real sense, rather than being just mediators of God's authority, then okay. Yes Christ alone as mediator. But we also know that humans are literally called priests and mediators so the fact that there are multiple beings who also have authority doesn't in any way diminish Christ alone as a mediator. But there's, you know, a little bit of nuance there that can be tough to see.
Now I would be remiss if I [00:36:00] didn't mention the concept of bondage and redemption from bondage. Because we can be under the influence or the dominion or the power of things that have us in bondage. We have rulership and right order that in a land of chaos and rebellion means that we need to be saved from the bad types of dominion and put under good types. We want to be in the kingdom of God instead of in another kingdom.
So, again, there's no sense that we cannot have a hierarchy here, or that we can't have some sort of authority. I've mentioned before that Adam is presented as a king, he is presented as a priest, then we have the fall, and we could ask, well, what happens to all of that? Is he now a bad king? Well, probably, because Eve is now under his rule in an unrighteous way. So we have the first [00:37:00] fall of the first king happening in Genesis 3, basically.
But I do want to read a little bit about the idea of a tyrant or tyranny, and this comes from the Dictionary of Biblical Imagery. It says quote, although the terms tyrant and tyranny rarely appear in English translations of the Bible, the image of one who seizes power unconstitutionally and then exploits and oppresses subject people is common in the biblical text. Much of the Old Testament is slave literature arising from a culture oppressed by foreign tyrants. As in other slave literature, a mocking tone is often discernible, accompanied by a pervasive fear, based on an awareness of how miserable life under a tyrant can be. In the Bible, the power that a tyrant seizes belongs rightfully only to God. The sin of the tyrant is the refusal to confess and live under God's [00:38:00] sovereignty. Accompanying themes include justice, and God's impending judgment against tyrants and tyranny. End quote.
I actually want to keep reading this section here, but I'm going to stop to say something about it, because I'm not really sure I agree with how it characterizes Satan from a Genesis 3 perspective, at least before the taking of the fruit. I don't think Satan has authority in the sense that he can be a tyrant. Now, he is given authority after the fruit as a result of what's happened here. So yes, he has tyrannical authority, but he doesn't have it till we give it to him or until we sin and we put ourselves under his dominion.
Alright, continuing on with the Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, it says, quote, The history of tyranny in the Bible goes all the way back to the fall of Genesis 3. Satan is the original [00:39:00] usurper who seizes what is not legitimately his and then exploits the human race. End quote.
Again, this is where I'm disagreeing. I don't think he originally did that. I think he tricked us into being under his power, and that's slightly different. Because I think he does have quote unquote legitimate authority after that, but it is authority that is against God. Because it is authority over death and humans and sin.
Continuing on, quote, Once human beings fall into sin, the tendency to tyranny characterizes human life in the world. We see this tendency in the problematic Genesis 6, 1 through 4. Whatever the identity of the Sons of God in Genesis 6, 2, the focus is on the hubris of the Sons, who strive for fame and fertility. As a symbol of how corrupt the world had become, these Sons sexually exploit the [00:40:00] daughters of men. The result of the union is a race of mighty men of renown, a reference to the use of political power to exploit. Nimrod is another tyrannical figure. Because his name seems to be connected with the Hebrew verb, to rebel, tradition has identified him with tyrannical power. He founded the earliest imperial world powers, Babylon and Assyria, as we see in Genesis 10, 10 through 11. In Genesis 10 9, he is identified as a mighty hunter, a trait characteristic of the ruthless, tyrannical Assyrian kings. In post biblical literature, for example, the Jewish Haggadah and Muslim texts, Nimrod is singled out as the greatest sinner since the Flood, whose crowning evils were his claim to be divine and his willingness to sponsor the Tower of Babel, the very symbol of human rebellion against God. There is no more famous human tyrant in the Bible than Pharaoh, and by [00:41:00] extension, the Egyptians who made Egypt a house of bondage for the fledgling Israelites nation, withstood the plans of God for his chosen nation, and pursued the Israelites with the intent to enslave them anew. While never minimizing the terror represented by such tyranny, the narrative is told in such a way as to mock the tyrant, showing his efforts to be futile, and satirizing him by recounting his unwitting contribution to his own downfall by preserving the future leader Moses, and even paying his mother to care for her own infant. A similar tone pervades the story of Ehud's assassination of Eglon in Judges 3. It is evident also in the story of the New Testament counterpart to Pharaoh, Herod, who does horrible things in the slaughter of the innocents and the beheading of John the Baptist, but is ultimately outwitted by the wise men who return home by a different route and by flight into Egypt of Jesus's [00:42:00] parents. End quote.
Okay, so it goes on to talk about Nebuchadnezzar and King Solomon, who was a tyrant in the eyes of the Northern tribes. We have Ahab and his Queen Jezebel. We have the whole book of Ezekiel where God charges the leaders of Israel to have ruled with force and severity and dominated their charges. Then, of course, there's Satan who becomes the epitome of all of this.
Continuing on later in the Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, it says, Quote, But in all cases, the Bible affirms the defeat of tyranny. Tyrannical power violates God's justice and sovereignty and always meets with judgment and destruction. Therefore, the New Testament depicts the arch tyrant, Satan, as already defeated at the cross. His ultimate doom is judgment in the lake of fire. The tyranny that exploits will then be replaced by the benevolent, just rule [00:43:00] of the kingdom of God. End quote.
There's quite a few things that we could say about governing outside of Eden versus inside. And this presumption that if things hadn't broken, and if Adam had been able to proceed out of Eden as that ideal priest, that Eden would have been spread around, and it would have resulted in righteousness, shalom, and order.
But that doesn't mean no law, though. Because even in Eden, there was a law. But, what happened instead now makes outside Eden a state and a place of exile. We have wild and waste versus order and flourishing. And so the ideal is order and flourishing. And probably, I think, there is a major suggestion here that you can't have order and flourishing without hierarchy. Okay? So, we're not saying there's no [00:44:00] hierarchy.
So now let's get into this nitty bitty bit of information from a more modern perspective. Here's a question. Can we, today, have a government without harm? And that's a hard question. And I think it should be a hard question. And while we can bring in the eschaton and the idea of what we should be doing into this, I don't think that it is less hard. I really don't.
This should be a difficult and uncomfortable conversation. Because what do we do with conflict when people have different ideas and they disagree? How do we order things? And it's super easy to say that all we need to do is go into the Bible and have a biblical mindset about things, and that things will then be perfectly right and ordered.
I'm [00:45:00] not convinced that things are supposed to be that easy because now we live in a situation where we have different cultures, different societies, and those different cultures and different societies are now thinking in different ways. We have different concepts of what's right, and it's not that one group necessarily has to be wrong and another group has to be right. It's quite often the case they're just different. I would say it's quite often the case that people just have different perspectives a lot of the times.
I'm going to talk now about the Moral Foundation Theory, which is brought out by Jonathan Haidt. He has a great book. It's a little bit older now, but I still think it's really worth reading. It's called The Righteous Mind. Jonathan Haidt's book, The Righteous Mind, made such a massive impact on me [00:46:00] because it helped me to understand how different people who are equally wanting good things, having good desires, and even possibly embedding their positions in a biblical way. Yet, they still fundamentally and majorly disagree on how something should look. And people will land on different sides of the political spectrum. And maybe that political spectrum is a modern construct that will just be dismantled, and maybe it should be dismantled.
But we are now working in this world where we are supposed to be bringing Eden everywhere. And I would suggest that means that we do so in the real context of our real lives, which unfortunately at the moment often is a political thing.
I don't have time to really lay out too much of this moral foundations theory. So I'm going to sum [00:47:00] it up very briefly. The idea involves different moral foundations, and each of these moral foundations is a good thing. There's six of them.
There's care and harm, and this foundation is focused on empathy, compassion, protecting other people from suffering. That obviously sounds very biblical, very much what the Bible is talking about, right?
Okay, so second foundation, we have fairness and cheating. This emphasizes justice, reciprocity, cooperation, and maybe this kind of goes towards a more modern concept of justice versus a biblical concept of justice, but at the same time, we can kind of center this on cooperation and that should be kind of a biblical way of doing things, right? We're not forcing people to do something. We're not coercing them. We [00:48:00] are not being tyrants.
Okay, pillar number three. This is loyalty and betrayal. This centers on allegiance to groups and fosters unity and trust. So we can kind of loop in the idea of allegiance and loyalty and group identity.
Okay, pillar number four, authority and subversion. This respects social hierarchy and traditions and promotes order. Alright, well, like I've just been saying, I think we have to have some social hierarchy.
Foundation number five, sanctity and degradation. This protects against contamination and is about purity and sacredness. Obviously something the Bible is very concerned with.
Foundation number six is liberty and oppression. Advocates for autonomy and resistance to domination. [00:49:00] Again, a very biblical concept, right?
Okay, so again, the moral foundations. Care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity, and liberty. Now here's the thing. Different people are going to prioritize different foundations. Even to the point where they might not care at all about some of them. Again, there's nothing really wrong with any of these foundations. But one person versus another person is going to have different pillars that they are founding their morality on.
And Jonathan Haidt's work brings out the point that the liberal or left side of the political spectrum will tend to prioritize care and fairness, whereas the conservative side, or the right side of the political spectrum, will value all of the foundations more evenly.
So this is a [00:50:00] really big point, okay? this was mind blowing to me back in the day to realize that, oh, there is a reason some people will focus on some things more than others.
It's not that any of these pillars are wrong, and we can certainly prioritize them and create a little hierarchy to say this one matters a little bit more than this one, and that kind of a thing. But it's fascinating to me that different people on different sides of the aisle will have different foundations.
Then you also go into more psychological information that will give you personality types that line up to one side or the other, or they will tend to. Now, why does all of this matter? Well, it matters because when you are making moral decisions as to what law should look like, what governance should look like, what [00:51:00] the national state should be doing in relation to this issue or that issue, you are making those determinations according to your moral foundations.
And as Christians, we are presuming that our moral foundations are biblical, and we are probably right. But what we are also presuming is that the other side of the issue has defective moral foundations, and that they are not making their determinations according to biblical foundations. It is often the case that both sides of the aisle are determining their stances and their positions on laws according to biblical standards on these moral foundations.
Now, even if Jonathan Haidt's work is based on Western civilization and the framework of [00:52:00] Western weird, W E I R D, if you know what I mean there, constructions of psychology and culture and all of that, what his work does at minimum is that different people with different formulations on what authority and law should look like might just rely on different moral pillars. And we can still continue to say that our moral pillars are the best ones, and that everyone should go according to what we think, because this is the most balanced way to look at it, or the most biblical way, or whatever.
We all have our justifications.
But what I want to bring out here is the fact that if we can understand each other from these different perspectives and see that just because they disagree with the way that I'm viewing it doesn't mean that they're not biblically sound, I think that can get us really far in [00:53:00] conversation as Christians with one another and in the wider political realm.
Is the only way forward a sense of compromise? And I would suggest that is possibly the case, that we just have to find ways to disagree, or if we have to work together, then there has to be some compromise. But I suggest to you that that is not necessarily the case.
Let's take this from the perspective of two people in a relationship of some sort and they are in conflict or disagreement. Is it always the case that one person has to get their way while the other person doesn't? Or maybe neither one of them gets to have their way? Again, that's possible, but it is also possible to work through things so that no one loses, but everyone gains, even if that requires some changing of parameters.
Sometimes there's a third way. Sometimes there's a different perspective. [00:54:00] Sometimes when we find out where other people are coming from, we find out that we actually fundamentally agree in many ways, and we can build upon that. And no one is actually compromising anything in such a state. I would suggest that a lot of times, our conflict is in the state of differences in position where we're not even talking about the same exact thing. And so we really need to find where the conflict actually lies, because it might not be where it seems to be upon first blush.
We also need to ask if it is, in fact, a zero sum game, because frequently, it's actually not. Maybe we don't actually have the kind of conflict that arises in regards to a misalignment in wills, but rather in decision of how best to carry out a plan.
And that's a tough situation to be in. But I would [00:55:00] submit that we should remember that we are in eternal life now. And while things will be better in the Eschaton, we are called to start living a life of righteousness here.
So what if differences in things like moral foundations don't go away? You would think, perhaps, that Jesus would have one set of propositions here and one set only, and that is the end of it. But what if part of our differences aren't because somebody's right and somebody's wrong, but really these differences are a feature and not a bug, and they produce growth and development and innovation?
Because we really get keyed in on being right, don't we? And let's get real. Even in the eschaton, we're going to remain human, and we're going to be imperfect compared to God. And so I think that kind of lays a [00:56:00] foundation where we can find ways to be creative.
What is compromise? Well, usually it's one side getting what they want and the other side doesn't, or neither side gets what they want. But putting down our will and dying to self? Well, that is really a compromise, isn't it?
It's about a way of life where you are self giving and you are not standing on a foundation where you're saying, I am right and you are wrong, and I have a good perspective and you don't. So, this brings us to the concept of mutual submission. I still want to acknowledge the difficulty. We need to realize that even though we think we have the corner on how moral and ethical decisions ought to intersect with something like political life or authority or law, honestly, we don't. At least, not here and now, just yet. And not when we're working within a culture or a place where [00:57:00] we have to allow for massive differences, both politically and in personality type.
Just because you're a Christian, and someone else is a Christian too, doesn't mean we're going to be in alignment on political questions. And it's a person- conscience issue as well, as to how you're going to interact with that and see it. And different people are going to see it in different ways, and, again, it doesn't have to be about right or wrong, but it should be a place where we don't just leave the conversation. Because you can't find unity that way. I personally don't think that Christians have to give up political intercourse and involvement, just because Christ wasn't political in the sense that we see things today.
I mean, again, all of this is going to depend on your perspective and the way you're seeing things. I do think that the church is very countercultural, and it always [00:58:00] has been. It's very anti political in ways, because you have the world and the way that the world is doing things, and, you know, Satan as the god of this world, all of those things, right, that are substandard, that are not in alignment with God.
And then on the other hand, you have Jesus bringing in the kingdom of God. And he's not bringing in a political statement and a set of political things to be in alignment in some particular way, right? Although, you can't get away from that, either. Because when you're all about flourishing life, then that is going to enter into the political discourse of taking care of the young, taking care of the oppressed, taking care of the poor. And how do you intersect with the life of society in ways like for war and military, things like that. Those are hard things, right? And I think we should [00:59:00] acknowledge that and not just give the cookie cutter answer and say, well, there you go now.
Here is a current day topic that we could kind of loop into this difficultness here. And that is the idea of Christian nationalism. Some of us have heard a lot about Christian nationalism. Some of us have heard less about it. And I'm not here to land on one side or the other. I'm here to tell you that maybe the sides are a little bit more fuzzy than we want them to be.
I suggest that the idea of Christian nationalism is a pretty wishy washy category to begin with. Because who is determining it? And is it even a self label or is it not? I think a lot of times, it's not. I think a lot of people who are talking about this topic are doing so in a way that is far too vague, far too broad to be helpful or [01:00:00] good.
I mean, there are groups and there are individual people who will say, We are Christian nationalists. Okay, fair enough. They are taking on that label and they are defining it in a way that is particular to them. But what I see in the conversation is that other people who are outside of that are taking that label and they're using it in a broader way, to the point that it makes no sense anymore. To the point that it sullies the definition, and it, is completely unhelpful and you can't tell who's a Christian nationalist, who is not, who just happens to be on this side of the aisle or that side of the aisle, right? And the people who are doing this are taking this label and saying, Look at this problem we have in the world. We need to fix this problem.
If you see a problem in the [01:01:00] world and you want to address that, I would encourage you to do so in conversation with a lot of people, right? Okay, that's fine. You go ahead and do that. But this is worrisome to me personally, not because I really care about Christian nationalism or the label itself or a movement or anything like that, but I care that people are mischaracterizing people and they're creating a problem that is too broad to even talk about.
Now, I'm not going to talk about particular people or particular books, but there are a few popular ones out there right now, and I'm not trying to say that they can't be helpful, and that they can't have something good to say, but you write a book about a group of people that you say exists, and then broad brush those people, and, for instance, claim that maybe it's the case that you should go in and disciple them, [01:02:00] because instead of politics, what they need is the gospel.
I think that everyone needs the gospel and that we can all benefit from hearing the gospel from friends and family. But if you're making this vague group of people to be the problem that needs to be redeemed, because they are somehow not really true Christ followers because of their political affiliations or their political opinions. Well, I personally find that to be a problem. Because as much as you might say that you're not approaching it politically, there's a suggestion, a very strong suggestion, that the people over here on the far right, let's say, are not Christian, and they just need to be discipled into right opinion.
So you're, like, not politically orienting it, but you still are politically orienting it, because you've [01:03:00] constructed the thing like that. You're coming to the problem saying these people aren't Christ followers. They need to be redeemed. They need to have the gospel preached to them. And if they do that, then suddenly they will have correct or better or different political opinions.
Well, what if they don't? What if they do hear the gospel and what if they do come into communion with God and they are a disciple of Christ and they still have political opinions that you disagree with, that you don't like. Do you see what I'm saying here? What I'm saying here is that this is not a situation of mutual submission and self giving offering to other people.
This is a situation where you have placed yourself in a one up position and you said I know what's best and my moral foundation is the way we should all be [01:04:00] doing things, and if I just go over here to this group of people and talk to them in the right way I will manipulate them and convince them in the right way.
You see what I'm saying here? Like this is a particular approach and if that's how you want to approach things, I'm not saying that you can't, but I'm asking you to look in the mirror and say, am I really doing this out of humble listening to the other person to really get something from what they're saying? Or am I going over here and trying to be friends simply to disciple them into what I think they should think and how I think they should be politically?
And it's interesting because these same people that will be suggesting these basically one up positions where you're out to redeem other people like this will still talk about things like not letting division happen, but I'm sorry, if you [01:05:00] are saying that this group of people out here exists, and it's regardless of whether or not they even would put themselves within that group in particular, and they would define themselves like that, I don't think that's really letting both sides of the aisle talk.
And from a practical standpoint, the fallout that I see from people talking about these books, and maybe this isn't a chicken and the egg thing, and that correlation doesn't have to equal causation, but I literally see people talking about how Christians shouldn't be talking about political things because it's divisive. Well, I'm just thinking, how are you not being divisive by telling people that they shouldn't be talking about the things that they want to talk about and that they really feel passionate about?
Now, look, I know that I am in an American culture and that my value systems include things like free speech and that [01:06:00] that's important to me and that speaking truth to me means that people should be able to talk, and that we should be able to listen to them. So that's part of my value structure here that I'm already coming at things from. And maybe that's not really an objective, universal value. We're coming at things in America from the culture of this, and within the government system that requires voices. It requires people to say things. It requires different opinions in order to avoid the tyrannical state of affairs.
So to me, a Christian saying that other people shouldn't be talking about political discourse because it takes away from the gospel message is a faulty message. And I mean, if that's the message that's on your heart to say, then by all means, you should say it, and it's probably going to reach somebody who [01:07:00] needs to hear it in a particular context.
That's the beauty of the Holy Spirit and the Church working, that we will be led to hear the things that we need to hear in a particular situation to be led in our own personal discipleship paths.
. But I just want to caution and bring forward the idea that the differences in personality, in moral foundation, and many other things means that your particular position is not necessarily the uniquely Christian position. And I would further suggest that the idea of dominance and hierarchy and ruling is rooted very deeply within the construct of submission to one another, letting other people have their individual sovereignty, and if that leads them down a path that's negative and that they're going to end up sorry for, well, [01:08:00] that's still their, quote unquote, right to do so. God put people on Earth and gave them choices, and he is always present so that we can come to him.
But now here's where I enter the realm of absolute pure speculation with the eschaton and how things might look. Because, you know, nations aren't said to be completely gone in the Book of Revelation, and a nation doesn't have to be a political sovereign state per se, in the Eschaton, where people are coming together in a bulk of humanity, from different cultures, different ideas, different societies, we are going to hold different values. And look at the state of the church today. People look at it and it seems fractured. It seems so divisive and everyone is doing their own thing. Well, what if [01:09:00] there's no single way to work together?
What if it is up to us to be creative in order to make that manifest on the earth so long as it is under Shalom? Why not have a monarchy or a republic or a tribal system if that is the organization we tend to like because that is our situation? Why would life in the Eschaton need to be under one cultural umbrella when we've never had a set divine culture on earth to begin with, even back in the Old Testament. The Israelites culture was not divinely inspired, and we have so many instances of God accommodating himself to that and using it.
What if different people are comfortable in different structures and different cultures, and with different manifestations of the law? Why should our beautiful differences be erased? I mean, [01:10:00] all of the things that are not in alignment with God, that are not producing shalom, will obviously be done away with. That doesn't mean there's only one way to do it, though.
Alright, so I'm going to leave you with that here for this episode, and I hope that I've just given you some ideas to think about and some things to consider. I'm not trying to pull you to one side or the other. I'm trying to say that there are different ways to look at things and multiple things could be biblical. Multiple things could be Christian and on a Christian foundation, understanding that different people are going to align that and organize that in different ways. And to consider mutually submitting to one another, and that's a difficult thing.
We have a lot of hard things going on, especially right now. I know a lot of people are in states of fear, states of [01:11:00] uncertainty, and lot of people are really concerned about the world and their individual situations. So I would just encourage you to enter into conversation and real relationship with other people, not to manipulate them over to what you would prefer to see, but because you will be able to learn from them. They will teach you things that you did not know.
All right. I will be continuing this conversation next week in a slightly different, but I think very related topic. So thank you for the question, Leah. Really appreciate it. It's a fantastic question, and I hope that this conversation has ignited some good thoughts and some things to think about.
As always, I appreciate you guys listening. I appreciate you guys sharing the episodes, rating the podcast, giving me reviews, or just contacting me and giving me some feedback. Really appreciate that. Anybody who [01:12:00] has any questions can get a hold of me either on Facebook or through my website at GenesisMarksTheSpot. com where you can find blog posts, guest profiles, my store, and ways to help financially support me. And I want to give a big shout out to those of you who do. Thank you guys so much for all of that. But for now, I wish you a blessed week, and we will see you later.
