abstract: The king is a minister of God, bound by his oath on the Christian Bible to uphold the law as embodied in the Constitution as originally meant, based in Scriptural law.

Skip Navigation

by Ovid Need

This article is a response to and critique of Mike McHugh's article Statesman Versus Politicians, The Christian Statesman, Vol. 145, no. 4 (July - August 2002).

According to Webster's Dictionary, as found at http://www.your-dictionary.com/cgi-bin/mw.cgi, a statesman is:

1: one versed in the principles or art of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government or in shaping its policies

2: one who exercises political leadership wisely and without narrow partisanship.

I believe #2 is the closest to a biblical definition. The statesman is one who exercises civil leadership according to the wisdom of God, (Prov. 9:10) and without kowtowing to any one group (Deut. 1:17).

However, there are some who seem to think that a "statesman" is one who will sign agreements with constituents who vote, so the statesman can be held accountable in "measurable and definable terms" to that group of constituents. Who defines which group is the right group to "sign on" with? Are the ones making the demands seeking to be "king makers?" What if there are several groups making demands upon a candidate? A group of sodomites, a group of pro-abortionists, a group of pro-lifers, a group of anti-gun advocates, a group of tax-relief advocates, and a group of gun-owners all come to the candidate and demand he sign an agreement or their group will not support him. What if the gun-owners and the anti-abortion advocates differ in some major areas? (The list is endless.) Is the statesman the one who will sign an agreement with the group having the largest representation? (I once identified with a group of anti-zoning advocates. We presented 1,800 names against zoning in a county with only 15,000 registered voters. We simply said that those who voted for zoning would not get our vote. It kept zoning out of our county, and got some anti-zoning county councilmen and commissioners elected.)

Introduction

First, the following concerns these United States of America, and I must agree that here the people are king in the sense that they vote for those who best represent their views, which views are quite fallen at our point in time. Then the people are responsible to throw the bums out when they fail to uphold the law. (The people will be judged for not placing godly men in office, and for not removing men who prove to be ungodly [Isa. 24, Jer. 2:10ff, 6:26ff]. But we cannot get around the fact that God is the One who exalts and abases all authority by whatever means He chooses.)

Second, elected officials swear (covenant) on the Christian Bible to uphold the law as embodied in the Constitution as originally meant, based in Scriptural law. (My use below of the word "Constitution" will be in its biblical sense. We will not here go into the fact that the Constitution will not work without a Christian consensus, which has been destroyed. As a result, we are being governed by covenants made behind closed doors in order to get elected, rather than by the Constitution as our founders meant it to be.) Leaders, upon taking office, do not swear to uphold agreements made with one group or another. The Constitution, the law, is "the measurable and definable terms" by which leaders must be measured. The voters are to throw the bums out for violation of the law, not for violation of agreements they signed with special interest groups. Sadly, we all know that we are being governed by those who have made covenants with men rather than covenants with God to uphold the law of our land, the Constitution.

The final authority, the king, is not the people, but rather it is the law, i.e., the Constitution. It is not when a leader violates a signed covenant with a special group that he is to be removed. It is when that leader violates the Constitution, that he or she is to be removed. (But corrupt people get corrupt leaders who flagrantly violate the law with self-granted immunity.) America was not founded as a democracy, i.e., direct rule by the people, though those who desire to shape our thinking want us to believe America is a democracy. America's king is the law, embodied by the Constitution and based in God's law-word, though wicked men are doing all they can to replace the law with the covenants of men.

Third, the "measurable and definable terms" must be the faithful upholding of the Constitution, for that is what they swore to uphold.

Fourth, before an election, the candidate can make agreements that are based in the Constitution, holding to its original biblical law, which they will swear to uphold: i.e., "I agree to defend the right to bear arms, the right to life, the freedom to practice one's religion, and to protect the life, liberty, and property of others," or "I agree to fight against murder or against efforts to take away our right to bear arms." Are not those agreements upholding the godly principles upon which the Constitution was based? ("I agree to protect the sodomites and abortionists" was not in the minds of the framers of the Constitution.) And thus proper pre-election agreements between the individuals and the candidate are basically agreements to uphold the Constitution, as the candidate will publicly swear to do when he wins. As he upholds the Constitution, he will fulfill his pre-election agreements.

Are elected officials responsible to those with whom they make agreements, or are they responsible to the law, the Constitution?

Can Two Walk Together?

"Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3.) This is the Lord saying that He will not walk with anyone who does not agree with Him, and He threatens His judgment against those who refuse to walk with Him. The common agreement of two groups should be the common agreement to uphold the Constitution, as supported by the law-word of God. Amos 3:3 tells me that I can only walk with and support those who see God's law-word as He sees it--that is, it alone is the final rule of all faith and action (2 Tim. 3:16). The Shibboleth that separates is one's attitude towards God's law-word.

Biblical courage is standing against special interest groups, and standing up for the Constitution, as it embodies God's laws, regardless of the costs. The magistrate's "measurable and definable terms" is his covenant with men to uphold the Constitution in terms of God's Word, for God alone is the one who defines good and evil (Rom. 13:1-5). If men demand that a candidate sign a pledge outside of God's standard of good and evil, are not those men defining what is good and evil in their own eyes? Moreover, though the magistrate may be elected by men, God alone is the one who exalts him, even wicked men, to places of civil authority. The "measurable and definable terms" is the Constitution, not the agreements with men.

Who Exalts Leaders, God or Man?

Nebuchadnezzar had to eat grass for "seven times" until he learned "that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men." What will God have to do to the corrupt men of our day before they will learn that God is the one who raises up and puts down all rulers, and those rulers are responsible to Him according to every word that proceeds out of His mouth? (Deut. 8:3, Luke 4:4). The pagan king, Nebuchadnezzar, had to learn that even his covenant was with the God of heaven and earth, and that his responsibility was to that God, and his place in this world was not the result of any action of any man or group of men. "The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?" (Dan. 4:30. See, 4:17, 25, 32, 35, 5:21.)

Though men elect their leaders, those leaders are placed there by God as His servants (Rom. 13:1-6). Are they required to covenant with God's people, or are they required to covenant with God in terms of God's defined good and evil? Solomon's high priestly prayer was not a covenant with God's people. Rather, it was a covenant with God (1 Kings 8:22ff). Was God's wrath against His people because their king did not keep his covenant with the people or because the king and the people did not keep their covenant with God? (2 Kings 22:16ff). Is it not arrogance on the part of man to think that God moves in terms of a standard man sets rather than in terms of the standard God has established in His law-word?

I have found from my 35 years working with people as an associate pastor and as a pastor, that God's people seldom have the genuine desire to "think and act biblically"--that is, follow God's law-word. More often than not, the people are looking for leaders who will meet their particular demands, and most of the time, those demands are not biblical. Was that not the history of God's people throughout His dealings with Israel? I was pastor of a church for 20 years; who was I to represent, the people who voted me in, or the Lord God? Though men brought me in, who was my "covenant" with, men or God? When I stood my ground and represented God, many of the ones who voted me in sought other churches where the preacher would give them what they wanted. The pastor is there to uphold the law-word of God, not to meet the demands of a group of people.

According to Scripture, who are the leaders to represent, God or the people who vote? If they are established by the people, then they answer to the people, but if they are established by God, then they must answer to God.

A Covenant

I might also ask, Will a covenant with those who "appoint them," (the "king makers") keep politicians from flip-flopping? My past 27 years experience in the political arena has found that it will not. Covenants are, many times, used to obtain what one party wants, and then after he obtains his desired goal, he does whatever he desires. A politician can be, and more often than not is, whatever one wants him to be in order to get elected. Once in the place of authority, the agreements are forgotten. (Before the election, there was a rumor of George W. Bush leading a teen to the Lord. After the election, his staff said it was just that, a rumor. Who started the rumor? How many votes did it get for him from gullible Christians?)

If the man does not fear God, then he will not fear man, and he will have no problem turning from a signed covenant that he made with "king makers." However, if he fears God rather than man, then I do not need a signed covenant from him. He will do what is right before God, and I have no fear of him violating the Constitution he swore to defend (Rom. 13). Obviously, the ideal of Romans 13 is godly men in authority, which has seldom been the case. Regardless, according to Scripture, are civil leaders sent by God or by people to administer the rule of law?

If one's goal is to win the loyalty of men rather than to win the loyalty of God, then has he not established his own will as the god over those men? It is when the individual sets out to please God in whatsoever he does that God will unite the hearts of certain others to him (1 Cor. 10:31). David and Jonathan made a covenant, called a covenant of the Lord--that is, it was made in God's name and fear, and it was before the Lord as the witness of it (cf. John Gill, 1 Sam. 20:8). The covenant was not so one could gain power over another; rather, it was both parties submitting to do the right thing before the Lord God. The covenant in 2 Kings 23 was between the king and the people, but it was not the king agreeing to abide by the people's wishes. Rather, it was both the people and the king agreeing to "think and act biblically." That is, "to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments...with all their heart and soul, and to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book" (See Deut. 6:5, 10:12, Matt. 22:37, Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27). Moses called upon the people to enter into a covenant, but that covenant was not between him and the people; it was between the people and God (Ex. 19:5-8). Do not arrogant men seek to make others subservient to their desires through "covenants," rather than subservient to the Constitution in our system of Government, and to the Word of God?

Where does the strength and courage to stand up to the party leadership, Republican or Democratic, come from? Does it come from "entering into a covenantal agreement with us, the people" acting as king? If so, then someone needs to correct Peter, for his strength came from his covenantal agreement with God. (Acts 5:29: "Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.")

Do not men who demand and make agreements that go farther than defending and upholding the Constitution violate their oath to God? (Deut. 1:17, godly men agree not to respect persons in judgment, and that means even people with good motives. Godly men will not enter into covenant unless that covenant is agreeing together to uphold the law, God's Word, as did men like David and Jonathan.) In a republic, the leader swears allegiance to the law (Constitution), for the law is king. (That battle over who is king was fought in the 1200s, and resulted in the Magna Carta, 1215. "The Great Charter" said that the law is king, and no one is above the law. See also Lex Rex.)

This nation was founded upon a covenant between men and God, and that covenant needs to be renewed. That covenant was the Mayflower Compact. Before they stepped off the Mayflower, the founders of this nation agreed among themselves as a unified body, and they covenanted together with God that the purpose of the civil nation they were about to start was for the glory of God and for the advancement of the Christian faith. And they agreed that that Christian faith revolved around the sovereign grace of God and the finished work of Christ. They further agreed together that the laws governing their new nation would be basically God's laws as found in His Holy Word. They also called upon the Lord to break out in wrath against those who would breach such a covenant, and we are facing that wrath today. (cf. Gary DeMar, God and Government, The Restoration of the Republic, vol. III. xi.)

Certainly, covenants between men are justified, and even called for. They are agreements together to uphold the Constitution and to glorify God in their places of civil authority. (See also The Christian Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, B.F. Morris, Introduction, p 52. G.W. Childs, Philadelphia, PA, 1864.) Our prayer is that God will deliver us from "politicians" and "king makers" who will not make this kind of a covenant to glorify God according to 1 Corinthians 10:31.

Which do we want, a republic where the leaders are held accountable to the law, or a democracy where the leaders are held accountable to the majority of the voters? Therefore, a statesmen serves the king, and in our republic, the law (the Constitution) is the king, not the people.

I do not desire to see one of "our people" in places of leadership, even in churches. My experience has been that when "our people" get there, they become one of "them." The goal of a Christian (including his prayers and support with his time and money) must be to see one of "God's people" in those places, people who will not bow to the demands of even good people with pure motives. Certainly, a godly person in authority will accept counsel, but his decision must be based upon what God would have him do in that particular situation (Prov. 11:14, 19:20).

Our danger is not from the leaders, religious or civil, who fear God; rather, our danger is from those who demand that specific covenants be made other than the covenant to glorify God in supporting and defending the Constitution in its biblical context, and from those who try to be all things to all men in order to get elected.

A statesman fears God, so his covenant will be to glorify the One who has the power to exalt or abase. Covenants with men other than 1 Corinthians 10:31 have, quite often, hindered one from doing as God would have him do.

Clearly, I am not pleased with the way our nation is going, and I agree that radical change is necessary. The radical change is not to make our elected officials accountable in "measurable and definable terms" to the "king makers" nor to the electorate. The change needed is to make them accountable in "measurable and definable terms" to the Constitution, as it reflects God and His entire law-word. But the problem that I have encountered over the years is that people refuse to be held accountable to anything, or to be under authority, particularly not under the authority of the law, whether the Constitution or God's law-word. Every man wants to be his own god, able to determine for himself what is right and wrong (Jer. 23:17). The God-promised result is that He will give us leaders after our own independent spirit, leaders who will go their own way. The radical change needed is willing submission to God's law-word, if we expect to see God change the hearts of our leaders, as only He can do (Jer. 2:17, 4:18, 5 :19, 6:19, 17:10, Prov. 21:1, Hosea 4:6). God's people are destroyed because they refuse to submit themselves to Him and His law-word, not because they do not sign agreements one with another (see 1 Sam. 8). The "measurable and definable terms" are the Constitution.

Let me close this article with the following quote:

Can a Christian cast his vote, then, for a candidate who does not meet the biblical criteria defined in Exodus 18:21 and echoed in the Reformed Presbyterian Testimony? What if none of the candidates pass the Scriptural test? Should the Christian choose between the "lesser of two evils"? Here is the real difficulty. Let me make a couple of suggestions.

... [T]he principle of representation must be rightly understood. An elected official is a representative, but of what? He is not, first and foremost, a representative of the people's desires. This is a man-centered view. The God-centered view sees the magistrate as a "minister of God" who represents God's authority over the people. He is an agent of God to bring blessing upon the righteous and judgment upon the ungodly. While God can bring blessing to His people even through the agency of an ungodly ruler, such as Cyrus who was called "the Lord's anointed," He is not honored when His people willingly appoint rulers who are known to be covenant-breakers. (For the godly civil magistrate, the covenant is with God, not with the people. Ed.)

If we understand the representative nature of civil government to be man-centered, then we are justified in choosing between the lesser of two evils based upon which of them will most consistently meet our personal agenda for the nation. But if the representative nature of civil government is God-centered, then we cannot possibly be justified in electing an official who hates God. ...(And ignores God's law-word, Ed.) (Douglas Comin, "For Whom May Christians Vote," The Christian Statesman, vol. 137 no 3.)

The civil ruler's entire duty, as is all of our duty, is wrapped up in the following:

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether [it be] good, or whether [it be] evil (Eccl. 12:13, 14).

The civil ruler's duty and responsibility is not to those who desire to be "king makers," by forcing him to sign a paper. His responsibility is to fear God, and keep His commandments. He must answer to God, not to man. We need men who fear God in all places of authority--civil, family, occupational, religious, &c. We have suffered long enough under men who have been persuaded to respect persons in judgment.

Rev. Need seved as an associate pastor for 10 years, and then as a Reformed particular Baptist pastor for 20 years. He resigned the pastorate in 2002 so he could pursue theological writing. His book, Death of the Church Victorious, tracing the roots and implications of modern otherworldliness, (473 pgs, $17.50 paper back, $28, hard back, plus $5.00 postage, Christian Literature World, PO Box 4908, Lafayette IN, 47908) should be ready as you read this. He has published The Biblical Examiner(TBE, PO Box 81, Bentonville, VA 22610) since 1985. tbe@biblicalexaminer.org, +1 540 622 2525.

back to top