QUESTION:

I'm a Christian who intends to become a constitutional attorney. I believe that one should follow God's moral law in government; that one should interpret the Constitution literally just as one should interpret the Bible literally and that one should defend the republican form of government. However, my beliefs have been challenged by other Christians. My questions: (1) Is there a Biblical form of government, or does God use all governments? (2) Can a Christian believe in the "inalienable" rights of our Declaration of Independence?

PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS REPLIES:

You ask two good questions, but I think we should discuss your assumptions too. Therefore, I'm expanding your set of questions to six.

1. Does the Bible tell us what form of government we should have?

2. If it doesn't, does that imply that all forms of government are equally good?

3. Are there really such things as inalienable rights?

4. Does a faithful interpretation of the Bible mean a literal interpretation of the Bible?

5. Does a faithful interpretation of the Constitution mean a literal interpretation of the Constitution?

6. Does the Bible require that all God's moral rules be enforced by the government?

As to the first question: No, the Bible doesn't tell us what form of government we should have. That hasn't stopped Christians in every age from thinking that it does! In the early centuries of the Church, for example, many Christians thought that the biblical model for government is kingship. After all, God had appointed and blessed some of the Old Testament kings, and in his first letter Peter had commanded believers to "honor the Emperor." They also reasoned by analogy: One God rules the universe, therefore one man must rule the commonwealth.

By contrast, in the American colonies just before the War of Independence, many Christians thought that the biblical model for government is self-government, and they had "proof texts" too. For God had warned the Hebrew people not to ask for kings in the first place, and through the prophet Samuel He had warned them that they would regret it if they did.

Yet a third view was held by the medieval Christian thinker Thomas Aquinas, who thought that the biblical model for government is a "mixed" form, partly kingship, partly aristocracy and partly democracy. He argued that God had chosen one man, Moses, to lead the Hebrew people (that was the kingly part); that Moses took advice from 72 elders (that was the aristocratic part) and that the elders were chosen both from the people and by the people (that was the democratic part).

There are all sorts of problems with these arguments. First, Israel was uniquely chosen by God for a special role in the history of salvation, so His political arrangements for Israel cannot be taken as a model for all people in all times. Second, God made various political arrangements for Israel at various times, and some of them were responses to Israel's sins. Third, there is a difference between saying that a ruler should be treated with respect, and saying that God wants you to have that kind of rulership. Last, although the Bible does teach that one God rules the universe, the "therefore" in the argument "therefore one man must rule the commonwealth" is added by man. It's based on an analogy which not everyone finds convincing, and the Bible doesn't tell us whether the analogy is good or bad.

As to the second question: No, the fact that there isn't a single biblical model for government doesn't mean that every form of government is equally good. We know that God wants governments to rule with justice and does not want them to violate His moral law; we should therefore use wisdom to discern under which form of government the rulers are most likely to do the former and avoid the latter. Be warned: Because we live in a fallen world in which "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," there is no perfect solution to the problem. Moreover, the best solution will not necessarily be the same for every people in every land.

As to the third question: Yes, human beings really do have certain inalienable rights, and they are very important — but in our day they are usually misunderstood. People try to use their rights to get out of their duties. That's backwards, because the only reason anyone has any rights is that there are duties; the rights are inalienable when (and because) the duties are inalienable. I have an inalienable duty to honor my parents; therefore my parents have an inalienable right to be honored by their son. The ground of this duty, and this right, is that I owe gratitude to them for the gift of life, not to mention the gift that came afterward of raising me in the love and fear of God. I have an inalienable duty to not murder you; therefore you have an inalienable right to life (the right to not be murdered by me). The ground of this duty, and this right, is that you are made in the image of God, and that you have been placed on this earth for His purposes, not mine.

Not all rights are equally important. Not all rights are inalienable. Nor does the fact that you have a right mean that you are always obligated to make a fuss about it. In fact, there will be times when love absolutely requires you to not make a fuss about it; see what Jesus said in Matthew 5:39-41. But there are also times when insisting on your right is exactly the right thing to do; see what Paul did in Acts 22:25-29. Telling such situations apart is not always easy, and requires discernment.

As to the fourth question: I wish we Evangelicals would stop using the word "literal" because it's not what we mean. To interpret the Bible literally would be to believe that it could never even use a figure of speech, so that when the Bible calls Jesus the "Lamb of God" we should think He has hooves, horns and a wooly coat. Rather than saying that we interpret the Bible "literally," we should say that our aim in interpretation is to find out the meaning rather than to escape from it. We believe that although some passages are hard to understand, the basic message of the Bible is plain and public rather than esoteric and convoluted. To see why we think so, take a look at Isaiah 45:19, Isaiah 48:16 and John 18:20.

As to your fifth question: As with the Bible, so with the Constitution, our aim in interpretation is to find out rather than to escape from its meaning. Here too, although some passages are hard to understand, the basic message of the document is plain and public rather than esoteric and convoluted — not because that happens to be true of the Bible, too, but because that is how the Framers tried to write. Yet talk about "literal" interpretation can be just as misleading here as it is in the case of the Bible. For example, it turns out that the Constitutional expression "freedom of speech" had one "literal" meaning in the English common law of that age, but another "literal" meaning in the everyday speech of that age. In a case like that, figuring out what the Framers really had in mind takes research.

Now for the sixth and final question: Yes, the most basic moral rules should be enforced by the government, but no, not every moral rule should be enforced by the government. Contrast these two Biblical commandments: (1) I must not shed innocent blood; (2) I must not divorce a faithful spouse. Both rules are binding on believers, but that's not the question. The question is whether they should be enforced by government — which means enforced upon believers and nonbelievers alike.

The rule against murder should certainly be enforced by government, because God expects every human being to know the wrong of murder, whether he believes in the Bible or not. That's why we can be confident that we have not overstepped in demanding that abortion be once again made illegal. But the second rule needs watering down before it may be enforced by government. How do we know that? Because in the time of Moses, God Himself had watered it down! You see, before the coming of Christ, not even God's people yet understood the true nature of marriage. That's why the people were amazed when Jesus forbade divorce. When they asked why the law of Moses had permitted divorce, Jesus didn't say, "because Moses was wrong"; rather he said, "because your hearts were hard." It took centuries of training under an imperfect law before they were ready to hear the perfect law.

May God bless your studies in law and government. We probably don't need more attorneys — but we certainly need more godly ones.

Grace and peace, PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

If you have questions you’d like to Ask Theo, send us an email and we'll pass it along to him.