Joining The Dots - Day 13

My name is Samuel Ride, and I want to thank you on behalf of everyone here. One point I forgot to mention earlier is when God said, 'Let them make for me a sanctuary, and I will dwell among them.' God is not saying He will dwell or live in a sanctuary; He is going to dwell among them. This means that they can all work together, overcome their conflicts and differences, and harmonise to build the sanctuary. Then God will dwell in the community and in the family because we are all working together with a sincere heart to offer something to God. This creates a foundation for God to dwell among them, not just in a tent but in their families and the whole community. God wants to dwell in the hearts and lives of people, allowing them to experience Him in their relationships with each other.

The Israelites entered Canaan after leaving behind many things in the desert. Different tribes settled in various places, and they had to establish some kind of political structures. If we look at the political structures they established in the desert before moving into Canaan, one was the separation of religion and state, or church and state. Here, you have two different roles: the king and the priest, who are different people. In the desert, Moses was in the role of the king or prophet, while his brother Aaron was in the role of the priest. This was very innovative in the ancient world, where the king was often considered a god, such as the Pharaoh or Roman emperors. There was no separation, and the king would lead both the government and religious ceremonies.

From the very early time, we see a separation between church and state, or religion and state, or between king and priest. The reason for this separation is that when both roles are combined, criticizing the king feels like criticizing God, making it difficult to have social criticism or reforms. Pharaohs and emperors called themselves gods to legitimise their authority, which instilled fear in people when they criticised them. This creates a problematic situation where religion is used for political purposes, which we see is not the right thing to do when studying the Ten Commandments.

Another separation that came about later was between priests and prophets. Both are religious roles, but they are different kinds. The priests held a dynastic role, where the son of a priest would become the next priest. This was because priests needed to know the rituals inside out, and the best person to learn from was their parent. The priesthood was passed down from Aaron and his descendants, known as the Cohens. Priests wore robes of office, representing that they were not there as individuals but fulfilling a specific role. They conducted sacrifices and rituals not in their personal capacity but as priests, which made their personal characteristics less significant.

The priests also had a sense of routine, with specific rituals and celebrations throughout the year, similar to the church calendar in Catholic or Orthodox churches. They represented the religious establishment and maintained order. In contrast, the prophet represented a different kind of religiosity. The prophet was a charismatic figure, and people listened to them because they felt that God was speaking through them. Unlike priests, prophets had no inherited authority; God would choose someone to be a prophet based on a personal encounter with Him. Prophets addressed contemporary issues rather than following a routine, demanding justice and compassion from the powerful.

Prophets were social critics, exposing corruption and injustice, and demanding that people practice the law and show compassion. They represented the voice of God, which often made them unpopular. In modern times, journalists often fulfil this role, exposing wrongdoing and facing danger for their work. Just as prophets were sometimes killed for their messages, journalists today can also face severe consequences for exposing the truth. The verse from the prophet Isaiah states, 'The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, and the Lord is our king; He will save us.' This reflects the idea that only God can rule alone, but in the real world, there is a separation of functions and powers.

In Israel, there were three different functions: the king, the priest, and the prophet. When we translate this into the modern world, the king represents the executive branch of government, while the legislature corresponds to the priests, passing laws that the government must follow. The judiciary represents the prophets, bringing judgment and holding criminals accountable. This understanding of separation of powers is not a modern invention; it dates back 3,000 years and reflects God's nature. Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Montesquieu drew their ideas from the Bible, which was their main source of political philosophy.

The primary function of government is to defend the nation, which is why early kings were often warriors leading their armies into battle. The second function is to uphold justice, ensuring that criminals are punished and the innocent are free. The government should defend the powerless, speaking up for those who cannot defend themselves. The concept of separation of powers into three branches of government was advocated by Montesquieu, who sought to prevent the concentration of political power in a single individual or institution. This separation was to be characteristic of the ideal society that God has been working to realise.

We see that 3,000 years ago, there was a vision of separation of powers, where those in different offices should live spiritual lives and be guided by God. No single person should have a monopoly on authority; instead, there should be a team working together. This is reflected in practices like Parliament opening with prayer in Britain today. The movement from slavery into freedom is significant; the Israelites entered Canaan, defeated the Canaanites, and divided the land. Joshua gathered all the tribes for a final talk before they settled in their homes, retelling their story over the last 400 years, which gives meaning to their actions.

On the other side of the Euphrates, they served other gods, among them was Terah, the father of Abraham. Terah, of course, was an idol maker. I took Abraham, your ancestor, from the other side of the Euphrates and led him through the whole land of Canaan. I gave him Isaac, and to Isaac I gave Jacob and Esau. Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt. Then I sent Moses and Aaron; I plagued Egypt with what I did to them, and after that, I brought you out. I brought your ancestors out of Egypt, and you came to the sea. The Egyptians chased your ancestors with chariots and horses to the Red Sea. Then they cried for help to God, who said there would be darkness between you and the Egyptians. He brought the sea down on them and covered them. With your own eyes, you saw what I did to the Egyptians, and then you lived in the desert for a long time.

This retelling of the story defines identity, both as individuals and as a community. After that, you crossed over the Jordan and came to Jericho. The citizens of Jericho attacked you; they were the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Girgashites, and Jebusites. But I gave them into your power. It wasn't your sword or bow that did this; I gave you land on which you had not toiled and cities that you had not built, and you settled in them, enjoying produce from vineyards and olive groves that you did not plant. The authority for this, as God explains, is that all the earth is God's. He has the authority to allocate land to whomever He chooses, and that is what God is emphasising. You do not have the right to live in Canaan without acknowledging this.

Now He says, 'Revere the Lord, serve Him honestly and faithfully, put aside the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates and in Egypt, and serve the Lord.' But if it seems wrong in your opinion to serve the Lord, then choose today whom you will serve. Choose the gods whom your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you live. But as for my family and me, we will serve the Lord.' This call to choose today whom you will serve is a profound statement about religious freedom. God brought them here, but at the end of the day, they must decide where they ought to worship God or if they want to worship idols. The choice is voluntary; we are all here as volunteers participating in this community.

The people then answered, 'God forbid that we ever leave the Lord to serve other gods.' This was a shocking idea; they affirmed that the Lord is their God. In response, they recount the story themselves, reaffirming their own understanding of their identity as the people of God. They acknowledge that He is the one who brought their ancestors up from the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. He has done mighty signs in their sight and protected them throughout their journey. They declare, 'We too will serve the Lord because He is our God.' They are recommitting themselves to God.

Joshua then said to the people, 'You can't serve the Lord because He is a holy God; He is a jealous God. He will not forgive your rebellion and your sins. If you leave the Lord and serve foreign gods, He will turn around and do you harm, finishing you off in spite of having done you good in the past.' This is an interesting challenge from Joshua. He tells them that they cannot serve the Lord half-heartedly. God desires a full commitment, not just a superficial one. The people responded, 'No, the Lord is the one we will serve.' This reminds me of how my father would often challenge us to examine our commitment deeply.

Joshua said to the people, 'You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen to serve the Lord.' They affirmed, 'Yes, we are witnesses.' He then urged them to put aside the foreign gods among them, their bad habits, and wrong attitudes. They had only recently left Egypt, and it was difficult to put aside old habits and attachments. Joshua challenged them to focus their hearts on the Lord, the God of Israel. This relationship is not merely about obedience; it is about love. They should love the Lord with all their heart, soul, and strength.

On that day, Joshua made a covenant for the people and established just rules for the nation. They were reaffirming the covenant made at Mount Sinai, renewing it as my father did through the holy wine ceremony. Joshua wrote these words in God's instruction scroll and took a large stone, placing it under the oak in the sanctuary of the Lord. He declared that this stone would serve as a witness against them, reminding them of the covenant they made. This act of placing a stone is reminiscent of how my father established holy grounds around the world, marking them as places of prayer and remembrance.

The Israelites were governed as a federation, held together not by political authority but by unity of race and faith. They had no king, just a federation of families. This community was founded on a voluntary covenant, contrasting with many nations formed through force. Joshua emphasised that self-government was carried out not only in each tribe but in every group of at least 120 families. Among these families, they would choose wise leaders to represent them at a tribal level. This bottom-up approach ensured that there was no privilege of rank; everyone was equal before the law.

In the ancient world, different laws applied to different classes of people, but here, the same law applied equally to everyone. This principle of voluntary self-governance was essential for the Israelites. They sought a society where God was their king, and they would follow their conscience, guided by their original mind. This vision of an integrated and interdependent society, rooted in a vertical relationship with God, would allow them to cooperate naturally with one another.

To create an integrated, interdependent society where people voluntarily work together, we need to build structures like the tabernacle. This society should not be based on a king giving orders, but rather on individuals taking the initiative and cooperating with each other. However, to achieve this, one must live a spiritual life, guided by a conscious need for spirituality. Initially, during the period of the judges, there was an attempt to establish such a society, which was quite anarchic. There were various charismatic judges whom God raised up from time to time, regarded as the wisest individuals. People would seek their advice, knowing that they could feel God's voice speaking through them. These judges had no formal titles, but they were respected and worked for a while, about 80 years. Unfortunately, after that generation passed away, another arose that did not know the Lord or what He had done for Israel.

The problem was that the next generation did not know God or the stories of His deeds. Joshua was very careful to recount the entire story, urging everyone to pass it on through generations. Moses, before leading the people out of Egypt, instructed them to love the Lord with all their heart, soul, and strength, and to teach their children about God's actions. This tradition was meant to be passed down through stories told during significant occasions like the Sabbath and Passover. However, the Israelites eventually forgot to do this and began to do evil in the eyes of the Lord, serving Baal and becoming materialistic and secular. Consequently, the Lord allowed them to be plundered by raiders, and when they turned back to Him in prayer, He raised up judges to save them from their oppressors.

Initially, the system worked well, but problems arose. Deborah, the only female judge, was incredibly wise and respected. When the Canaanites attacked, she instructed Barak to raise an army. However, four tribes refused to participate, thinking the Canaanites were too far away. This lack of cooperation was a recurring issue, as seen later with Gideon, who fought against the Midianites but only received support from a few tribes. Gideon became angry with the tribe of Gad for not sending young men to join the army, leading to violence. Another judge, Jephthah, made a tragic vow, promising to sacrifice the first living creature he saw upon returning home, which turned out to be his daughter. The situation continued to deteriorate, culminating in civil war, highlighting the difficulties of maintaining a cohesive society without a central authority.

The absence of a king led to chaos, as everyone did what was right in their own eyes. This anarchic state resulted in tragic events, such as the Levite whose concubine was raped and murdered by men from the tribe of Benjamin. Outraged, the Levite dismembered her body and sent pieces to the tribes of Israel, inciting a violent response. The Benjamites refused to surrender the culprits, leading to a brutal civil war that nearly wiped out their tribe. This reality illustrates the challenges of managing a society without a governing body to maintain order and uphold justice. The lesson here is that without a state, there is nothing to prevent descent into depravity and chaos.

Recognising their inability to manage themselves, the people approached Samuel, asking for a king to lead them like other nations. They had tried to operate on a voluntary principle for 400 years, but it had descended into anarchy. They believed a king could mobilise an army fairly and ensure representation from all tribes. Samuel, a good judge, felt rejected by the people's demand for a king, but God reassured him that it was not Samuel they were rejecting, but God Himself. This situation highlights the importance of consent in governance; God respected the people's wishes, indicating that if they desired a king, they could have one.

The desire for freedom can be an illusion. Newly liberated people often seek someone to bear the responsibility for them, as true freedom entails making choices and facing the consequences. This can be terrifying, leading many to wish for someone else to decide for them. God wanted the people to make an informed decision about having a king. He warned them that a king would take their sons for soldiers, their daughters for servants, and their best fields for his own use. The implications of their choice were significant, and they needed to understand the potential consequences of their desire for a monarchy.

So, it's going to take 110 to the harvest; that's the taxes. Then he's going to take 110 to the flocks, more taxation. God warned that you might end up as slaves again, in a state of complete dependency upon the king. He said this takes over your entire life. That was God's warning: if you're going to do this, that's your choice, your decision, but just realise this is what might happen. The people said, 'Okay, we understand that, but we still want our king anyway,' because it was really difficult for them. They hadn't been able to manage this kind of society without a king. So, God sent Samuel to find a king for them. He said, 'Here is the king you wanted; this is Saul, the king you asked for. God has let you have your own way.'

This government operates by consent. God has let you have your own way and given you a king. If you fear God, worship Him, and obey Him, and do not rebel against what He tells you, if both you and your king follow God, there will be no problem. God will be sure to save you. But if you do not obey Him and rebel against what He tells you, you will fare no better than your fathers. That's really the point: if you don't follow God, whether you have a king or not, it will be just as bad as it was for your fathers under the judges. Samuel pleaded, 'I beg of you, fear God and worship Him honestly and wholeheartedly.' If you live badly, both you and your king will be thrown out.

God gives them a king, but this authority is not just from the king; it is from God. If we look at the principle here, in an ideal world, the three branches of government—the legislature, judiciary, and executive—would interact in harmonious and principled relationships when they follow God's guidance as conveyed through Christ to the people of God. This is a combination; it is through the people and through the king that they must work together. From the very beginning, God wanted to create the basis for a good society where people could live with each other in peace and justice. The three branches of government are essential for this.

When governments are divided into three branches, political parties take on distinct roles. Established from constitutional democracy, the framework for the ideal political system was set up. This was what they were trying to do thousands of years ago in the desert: set up a basic framework for a sustainable community, both spiritually and politically, which could continue for hundreds and thousands of years. This is always a challenge because many countries come and go; they fall to pieces. How do you create something sustainable?

Moses said, 'When you enter the land that God your God is giving you and take it over, and settle down, do not say,

I'm going to get me a king, a king like all the other nations around me.

Libertarians advocate for a minimal state because they value liberty, economic freedom, and social freedom. However, there is a common misconception that fascism is far-right. This raises the question of how one can transition from libertarianism to fascism. If we are moving towards more freedom, the political discourse, including the views of politicians and academics, inaccurately categorises fascism as far-right, suggesting an increase in freedom that ultimately leads to fascism. This political language is misleading and distorts reality.

A more accurate way to understand the political spectrum is not in terms of left and right, which can be misleading, but rather in terms of freedom. At one end, we have zero freedom, represented by totalitarian regimes like communism, where there is no private property, freedom of association, or freedom of speech. Fascism shares similarities with communism, aspiring to a national form of socialism, but it still offers very little freedom. Moving along the spectrum, we encounter socialist countries that provide some freedoms, such as freedom of speech and religion, but limited economic freedom. Liberalism allows for more freedoms, including freedom of association and the ability to start businesses, although government still plays a significant role.

On the far end of the spectrum, we find libertarianism and anarchism, where there are no laws and complete freedom reigns. This spectrum can be viewed as a biblical one, with totalitarianism and imperialism at one end and the period of the judges at the other, which ultimately descended into anarchy. The founding fathers of America aimed to create a free society, positioning themselves within this spectrum.

The biblical vision is not one of a single empire or a unified world but rather a world of peace among nations. This vision, dating back to Noah's time, includes the idea that each nation has its own laws, languages, customs, and traditions. The prophet Isaiah speaks of a time when God will judge between nations and settle disputes, leading to a cessation of conflict. Nations will respect each other's integrity, living in harmony without war.

This vision of the Messianic Kingdom respects the diversity and integrity of each nation, forming a kind of confederation. The biblical perspective on nationalism is not the negative connotation often associated with the term today; rather, it highlights the virtue of independent nations. A recommended book on this topic discusses the family as the foundation of society and elaborates on the importance of traditional family structures.

As we move forward, I plan to delve deeper into the political landscape and explore how God's principles have developed over the last 2000 years, leading towards the establishment of constitutional democracy, which I believe is the ideal. I appreciate your engagement in this course and look forward to continuing our discussions in the next session.