Part 2 of a Political Narrative of the New Testament

In the previous post we summarized the main political ideas in the Gospels. We noted that Jesus’ main message was the government [kingdom] of God that included some references to liberty and justice but primarily cited the commandments [Israel’s transcendent political priorities] as the standard for good governance. We also noted the primary idea of church being a citizen assembly, and the duty of God’s people to resist bad government. Good government was shown to be that which serves people and operates within a limited authority. One additional idea in the Gospels yet to be addressed was the importance of prophets in bringing better government. We will do so today as we start to examine political ideas in the Book of Acts.

[Note: This series of posts does not assert that politics is primary in the New Testament, however, there is still often overlooked principles and ideas that are worthy of attention. A primary tool in our study is to paraphrase certain terms by how it was understood at the time. Modern concerns over ‘Christian Nationalism’ are often misplaced because lack of understanding the democratic pluralistic context of Christians active in politics since the first century evident in Scriptures. ]

In the Gospels Jesus often spoke of Israel’s past prophets and said that He would also send prophets going forward (Mt 23:34). Again, modern Christians tend to view prophets with a religious lens and thus misinterpret their role. Of course they received insight from God and represented Him when speaking, but the focus of their work and messages was not in the temple or in the religious community (or primarily about personal redemption like the work of priests). Their focus was the larger culture and national affairs. Because of this they were understood in Israel as social strategists (or national strategy spokesmen). To prophesy was to see (and often speak) God’s social strategy. A prophecy was a strategic insight for society. These are paraphrased terms we will use.

After His ascension, Acts 1 tells us that Christ’s previously-elected emissaries [apostles] met together and typical of a democratic ecclesia of the time, they: “cast their lots (i.e. stones used as ballots to vote), and…Matthias…was elected a place with the eleven emissaries.” This vote was not some failure in spirituality among the church leaders [of course they prayed for guidance], but to vote for their leaders was exactly what they understood Christ expected of them as a functioning ekklesia or citizen assembly.

In Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost, they spoke in new tongues the same as when God made people speak new messages (like at Babel; Gen 10:8,10 & Gen 11). At Babel it was to stop the centralized government (of Nimrod) and this is the idea intended here also. Everyone understood the significance: God was again intervening in the affairs of nations as He did at Babel. The believers that day also prophesied, meaning they understood God’s strategic insights [worldview] for society. Peter explains it’s significance in terms of the messages of the social strategists Joel and David.

Both tongues and prophesying had a political significance. Peter said it indicated one thing: “God has made this Jesus …both Lord and Christ.” These two terms, Lord and Christ, are today viewed mostly as religious, but it was not how it was understood then. Lord simply meant the sovereign authority (a king or a lesser officer). It never was religious at that time, but often modern believers use it as a religious term.

Christ or Messiah meant the anointed one but this was in relation to governance. In early Israel a candidate for political leadership (i.e. king) would first be anointed with oil by a prophet as a way of publicly nominating (endorsing) to the citizens the best choice for their votes. Anointing never gave governing power – only the people’s choice (by covenant). Thus the Christ meant simply the pre-chosen ruler.

Of course the Old Testament always spoke of Christ as going to come, but the New Testament spoke of Christ having already come, but whose full rule was yet to be implemented in all earthly spheres. Peter clearly understood that the kingdom or government of God had now come and the tongues and prophesying indicated God was shifting power in the nations now to Jesus.

At the end of Acts 2 it says (using our paraphrased terms): “And the Sovereign added to the citizen assembly daily…” Salvation was a spiritual event but being added to the ecclesia was a social, political one. Salvation prepared them for eternity but being added to the citizen assembly positioned them for effectiveness on earth.

Acts 3 has many references to the social strategists [prophets] beginning with Samuel as Peter spoke of the “times of restoration of all things.” They understood it was more than just personal salvation and religious transformation. The paradigm was “all.”

When ordered by governing authorities to stop speaking in Acts 4 and 5, Peter and John said “we cannot but speak” and “We ought to obey God rather than men”…[so they] “did not cease.” This was the first act of resistance and disobedience by the citizen assembly to bad government (which Jesus had taught them to do). The citizen assembly also started to organize ways to support each other even financially in their time of need. Peter affirmed that giving of their private property was voluntary, not coerced by the ekklesia or the state.

In Acts 6 the Emissaries [apostles] chose to give all participants in the citizen assembly in Jerusalem the opportunity to vote for leaders to solve a social problem – the care of widows. “The multitude [i.e. all the citizen assembly]…chose (elected) Stephen…Philip (and others).”

When arrested in Acts 7 Stephen gave a history lesson of Israel that highlighted [among other things] different times in the past when governments were tyrannical and God’s people resisted them. He spoke of Joseph governing in Egypt, resistance to killing babies, Moses’ resistance to Pharoah, social strategists warning Israel and being killed just as they have done again now to Jesus. The authorities in Jerusalem then execute Stephen and escalate persecution of believers.

As a result, Acts 8 shows, the citizens “scattered” meaning they chose to resist by separating from the reach of the tyrannical government. This is what Jesus had taught was a second option – flee or separate – when government is abusive. They moved to safer rural places such as Samaria where Philip preached about “the government of God” and converted a Jewish leader in Ethiopia’s government.

Acts 8 also mentioned that Saul as a government officer was arresting and imprisoning believers until he was converted in Acts 9. God then told him that he will eventually impact heads of state [kings]. Later in that chapter Saul’s life was threatened so he had to flee twice. But eventually Acts 9 says that “citizen assemblies …had peace and…were multiplied.”

This summarizes the political narrative of the first 7 or 8 years in Jerusalem after Christ’s resurrection. The focus in Acts next moves to other locations and other ethnic groups which will be in our next post. [In the paid subscriber section today are verses from the Gospels that emphasize government and social strategists.]

……………………………….

Summary of new paraphrased terms:

prophets = social strategists or national strategy spokesmen

prophesy = see (and often speak) social strategy

prophecy = strategic insight [i.e. worldview] for society

to chose = elect

cast lots = vote (usually with stone ballots)

new tongues = new messages (against Babel model of state centralization/corruption)

lord = sovereign authority

christ = pre-ordained ruler