Speaking Ill of National Leaders
I was struck – pun intended – by Paul’s
comment: “You should not speak evil of a leader of your people.” (See Exodus 22:28) I was wondering if that was God’s law to
God’s people about the leader of God’s people or if it was a general law to
both Jews and Gentiles alike. Going back
to Exodus and realizing that the law is from a section about social laws and
justice among civilized people, I am taking it in the context that this is not
a specific purity law for Jews. In fact,
most theologians concur with this evaluation.
Speaking ill about one’s leader is right next to speaking ill of God.
Of course, that puts me in a bit of
immediate quandary. When I live in a
world that has assumed a secular government that is keen on enforcing laws that
support the secular right to govern and shows no interest in enforcing
Christianity, am I bound to the same principle?
Don’t get me wrong. Speaking from an American mindset and applying
this thinking to my own government, I know America was founded on freedom from
religion. I’m not arguing that the
government is going against its founding principles. I might be arguing that the founding
principles are flawed and that what we need is not a government free from
religion but a government that supports the peoples’ freedom to have religion.
I don’t know the answer to that
one. I know I am accountable to God
first. I know that speaking evil of a
leader of the people is not something God wants me to do. But when the leaders are going against God,
is it also not my job to voice such a thing?
To be honest, this is precisely the quandary that Dietrich Bonheoffer
found himself in during World War II in Germany. He knew Hitler was bad and he knew that
Hitler was going against God’s ways. But
how do you speak out against them without speaking ill of them?
As I pondered this, I think I was
brought to truth. Exodus tells us to not
speak evil about them. It doesn’t say
that we should not tell them they are going down the wrong path. After all, look at Nathan and David after
David has sex with Bathsheba and together they conceive a son! [See 2 Samuel 12:1-15] Nathan does not speak evil about David, but
he does speak evil about what David has done!
This sounds familiar to another person who advocated seeing our leaders
as God’s hand of justice: Martin Luther.
Luther advises us to love the sinner always but to hate the sin
always. And here I think we find truth. We should actually never speak evil about
anyone – leader or not. When we speak
evil about someone we are sinning. It is
God’s place to judge them into condemnation or receive them into life. We are simply to speak to their actions. We cannot judge their hearts, but we can
judge their actions.
Therefore, I should not speak ill about
the leader himself or herself. But I am
free to speak about the fruit of their life for better or for worse. I am free to demonstrate where their policies
and ideas have been good or flawed. But
I must do it in such a way that does not presupposed myself making a judgment
on whether the person is good or evil.
Internal Conflict
Paul is spared from the Sanhedrin
through the truth. Paul speaks out that
He is on trial because of the resurrection – which in a sense he is on trial
for that. Jesus was killed; and He was
raised. Jesus came to Paul and told him
to proclaim that this resurrection is available to all. Paul has done that among the Gentiles. Had Jesus not been raised to new life, none
of this would have happened and Paul would still have been a Pharisee among the
Jews. So in a way he is very much on
trial for the resurrection.
Jesus’ Response
Jesus acknowledges Paul’s testimony. But notice something here. Jesus also tells Paul that he is not done. Paul has done well, but there will be more
asked of him.
Foolish Oaths and Government Intrigue
Fearing Paul’s death, the tribune pulls
Paul out of the situation and keeps him securely. This leads a good number of people to take a
foolish oath. They say that they will
not eat or drink until they have killed Paul, and we know full well that Paul
lives well more than a week after they take the oath.
So I wonder, did they keep their oath
and not take any food or drink and die from dehydration and the toxic build-up
that comes from not drinking water? Or
do they break their oath and drink even when they have sworn to not do so? In either case, it is a lesson against taking
foolish oaths.
It is also a lesson in testing for
truth. If God had been the impetus behind
the oath, Paul would have been killed.
Paul was not killed and their oath is shown to be wrong. Right there people should have begun to
question the faction among the Jews that wanted Paul dead. Clearly they are not following God in taking
the oath because their prophetic testimony does not come true! Clearly their oath was of their design and
their human emotion, not of God.
Paul is sent to Felix where he will
stay for two years – see Acts 24:27. Oh
those poor people who had taken a foolish oath!
God actually uses Rome to secure Paul’s testimony. Rome may not believe in God, but they are not
outside of His influence. Claudius
Lysias may not have been a follower of the Way, but he certainly does the
bidding of the Lord here.
Nobody is outside of God’s
influence. Anyone can do the bidding of
God. But it also means anyone can turn
to God and know that they are not outside of God’s ability to hear their
confession, either. God is too big for
any of us to think we can escape His influence or escape His forgiveness. All we must do is receive His forgiveness
upon repentance.
<><
No comments:
Post a Comment