Political Engagement as Biblical Mandate. Paul D. Hanson
Читать онлайн книгу.
from the perspective of God’s universal moral order, and they announce the consequences of perfidy and repudiation of the commandments, dire consequences for the realm of politics and the world of nature alike.
The second example we cite is the prophet Isaiah. Though he comes from the upper class, he shares the socially sensitive moral vision of his more humble predecessors, Hosea and Amos. His call vision in chapter 6 portrays with brilliant clarity the starting point of every prophetic act or pronouncement, the experience that there is but one ultimate reality in the universe, the Holy One of Israel. It is in the presence of the Holy One that the prophet grasps the nature of divine justice and its singular importance for the durability of societies and nations. The theme that runs throughout Isaiah’s prophecy is trust: “In returning and rest you shall be saved; in quietness and in trust shall be your strength” (30:15). Trust in the Holy One means patterning life, as individual and nation, after the divine example. Preeminently it means showing special loving attention to the weak, the ill, the friendless, and the alien. What Isaiah sees instead is “pride”: leaders claiming special privileges by merit of their offices, the wealthy exploiting the poor for personal enrichment, the noble class flaunting their items of luxury. Isaiah not only denounces such behavior as immoral; he claims that it is nothing less than a stinging insult to God. A disciple of Isaiah captures with vivid imagery the consequences of such public and national dereliction:
The earth dries up and withers, the world languishes and withers;
the heavens languish together with the earth.
The earth lies polluted under its inhabitants;
for they have transgressed laws, violated the statutes,
broken the everlasting covenant. (Isaiah 24:4–5)
A final arresting example that we shall give from the Hebrew prophets is from Jeremiah:
Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness,
and his upper rooms by injustice;
who makes his neighbors work for nothing
and does not give them their wages;
who says, “I will build myself a spacious house
with large upper rooms,
and who cuts out windows for it,
paneling it with cedar,
and painting it with vermilion.
Are you a king
because you compete in cedar?
Did not your father eat and drink
and do justice and righteousness?
Then it was well with him.
He judged the cause of the poor and needy;
then it was well.
Is not this to know me?
says the Lord. (Jeremiah 22:13–15)
Jeremiah contrasts two views on politics that are as old as the human race, one according to which leaders regard no authority above their own and predicate their policies and rules of conduct on the basis of self-gain, the other according to which all humans are equal in status under one universal, just Ruler, whose example and will they seek to follow. Of course, not only those holding office in political institutions face this basic decision; spiritual leaders do as well, and Jeremiah extends his critique to those who place their trust in the religious institutions to secure their security and well-being: “Do not trust in these deceptive words: ‘This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD’ . . . Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods . . . and then come and stand before me in this house . . . and say, ‘We are safe’” (7:4, 9–10).
The legacy of the political model of prophecy is profound: It sets forth the clear distinction between the ultimate authority of God and the limited, delegated authority of every human government. It defends the equality of every human under God’s rule and bitterly opposes anyone who violates the rights and the irreducible dignity of subjects, regardless of rank. It vehemently opposes the invocation of human constructs to lay claim to special divine favor, whether nation, cult, or social status. “Chosenness” in the Bible is a call to special responsibility, not special privilege. Amos took direct aim at the boasting of the people of Israel that their historical roots in the exodus provided proof positive that they were God’s favored nation:
Are you not like the Ethiopians to me,
O people of Israel, says the LORD.
Did I not bring Israel up from the land of Egypt,
and the Philistines from Caphtor and the Arameans from Kir? (Amos 9:7)
Any person of faith today who takes seriously the bearing of the Bible on society and world affairs will sit humbly and attentively at the feet of the prophets.
There remain three other political models in the Old Testament, each in turn leaving an important legacy for those seeking to understand the meaning of biblical faith for contemporary society and politics. Here we can only mention each of them briefly.
The sapiential model draws not upon the specific stories and laws of Israel’s history, but upon what amounts to an empirical study of the natural order. This is the reason the book of Proverbs, for example, does not infer rules for life from the Exodus or Mount Sinai, but rather from the patterns observed in the life of wise and foolish humans, from the behavior of ants and beasts, and from the forces of nature and the ordering of the heavens. Human institutions, like ethical norms, are regarded as parts of a universal order, and it is perhaps not surprising that submission to the authority of kings and judges rather than radical critique of existing social structures is the preferred style of sapiential politics. Consider Proverbs 24:21–22:
My child, fear the LORD and the king,
And do not become involved with those who seek change;
For disaster comes from them suddenly,
And who knows the ruin that both can bring?
Since many of the sapiential writings are tied to a royal court setting, it follows that a close connection is displayed between civil order and a strong monarchy with the king benefiting from a sizeable bureaucracy:
Where there is no guidance, a nation falls,
but in the abundance of counselors there is safety.
(Proverbs 11:14)
It would be a mistake, though, to conclude that the sages of the wisdom literature give blind assent to royal authority. Kings are authorized to rule by God, and their success and the happiness of their people depend on their embodying divine justice in their decrees and judgments. Though they are to enjoy the loyalty of their subjects, they themselves must submit to the laws of the Creator. It is thus accurate to say that the fundamental principle of biblical politics, the subordination of the penultimate authority of human leaders to the ultimate authority of God, remains intact in the sapiential writings of the Old Testament, as it still does in the description of governing authority in the New Testament by the Apostle Paul: “Let every person be subject to the ruling authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God” (Romans 13:1).
Rulers and judges are to study the writings of the sages of old as a source of wisdom and discernment, on the basis of which they are to provide a clear vision for their subordinates and subjects. We read from Sirach 10:1–3:
A wise magistrate educates his people,
and the rule of an intelligent person is well ordered.
As the people’s judge is, so are his officials;
as the ruler of the city is, so are all its inhabitants.
An undisciplined king ruins his people,
but a city becomes fit to live in
through the understanding of its rulers.
What is more, the emphasis of the prophets on even-handed justice