IN THE WORLD BUT NO PARTE OF THE WORLD
The differences between a democracy and a theocracy are seen in the following quotations from Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
A government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
Government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.[1]
In their daily lives, Christians must make decisions on the basis of distinguishing between the two, between theocracy and democracy. The issue can be seen in the situation when Jesus was tempted by the Devil, and we read Matthew 4:8-10:
8 Again the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, 9 and he said to him: “All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me.” 10 Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”
This was a real temptation, and therefore, we must conclude that the Devil is the ruler of all the kingdoms of the world. This does not mean that the members of the governments of the nations are marionettes of the Devil and he makes decisions that they must follow. The members of the governments make their own decisions, and many of these decisions are good for the people. But these decisions are, to a great degree, permeated by the spirit of the Devil. We can, for example, see this in connection with wars, and in laws that allow abortions, where innocent fetuses are killed.
Jesus confirmed the supreme position of the Devil in relation to the world of humans in John 14:30:
30 I shall not speak much with YOU anymore, for the ruler (arkhōn) of the world is coming. And he has no hold on me.
The word kosmos refers to all humans in the world, and the word arkhōn has the meaning “one invested with power and dignity, chief, ruler, prince, magistrate.” (Mounce) So, while individual humans who are not Christian can lead a good life, there can be no doubt that the whole human society in the earth is permeated by the spirit of the Devil. How will this affect Christians?
The words of Jesus in John 17:6, 13-16 illuminate the issue:
6 “I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out (ek) of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word.
13 But now I am coming to you, and I am speaking these things in the world in order that they may have my joy in themselves to the full. 14 I have given your word to them, but the world has hated them, because they are no part (ek) of the world, just as I am no part (ek) of the world.
15 “I request you, not to take them out (ek) of the world, but to watch over them because of the wicked one. 16 They are no part of (ek) the world, just as I am no part (ek) of the world.
I will analyze these words. Apart from kosmos (“the world of humans”), the important word is the Greek preposition ek, which occurs six times in these verses. This preposition stands in a genitive relationship with kosmos in all occurrences, and its meaning is: “with genitive, from, out of, a place; of, from, out of, denoting origin or source.” (Mounce) Both meanings of ek are seen in these verses.
In verse 6, the meaning of ek is origin. The idea of the clause, “the men you gave me out (ek) of the world” is “the men you gave me from having been a part of the world”. The idea of origin is also seen in the four instances where ek is included in the expression, “no part of.” But in verse 15, the meaning is “out of a place,” and the meaning is not to take the followers of Jesus physically out from among humans.
So, the important point is that the followers of Jesus lives among the humans who together constitutes the world. But they were no part of the world. What would that mean for the practical life of the followers of Jesus among their fellow citizens and their governments? This has to do with theocracy versus democracy.
[1]. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theocracy
THE CHRISTIANS AS CITIZENS AND AMBASSADORS FOR GOD’S KINGDOM
What is the status of Christians in the countries where they live? What does it mean that they are “in the world” but “not a part of the world? I start with the discussion of citizenship.
THE ROMAN CITIZENSHIP WITH DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
When the books of the Christian Greek Scriptures were written, the Roman Empire was the world power. And because citizenship has a political aspect, I will look at the citizenship of this Empire.
The adjective rōmaios, with the meaning “Roman, Roman citizen,” occur 12 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. The citizenship was of different kinds, but it was highly valued because the citizens had different rights. We see this in the situation where a military commander in Jerusalem arrested Paul, and I quote Acts 22:25-29:
25 But when they had stretched him out for the whipping, Paul said to the army officer standing there: “Is it lawful for YOU men to scourge a man that is a Roman (rōmaios) and uncondemned?” 26 Well, when the army officer heard this, he went to the military commander and made report, saying: “What are you intending to do? Why, this man is a Roman (rōmaios).” 27 So the military commander approached and said to him: “Tell me, Are you a Roman (rōmaios)?” He said: “Yes.” 28 The military commander responded: “I purchased these rights as a citizen (polireia) for a large sum [of money].” Paul said: “But I was even born [in them].”
29 Immediately, therefore, the men that were about to examine him with torture withdrew from him; and the military commander became afraid on ascertaining that he was a Roman and that he had bound him.
As mentioned, adjective rōmaios means “Roman citizen,” and politeia means “group of people constituting a socio-political unit.” (Louw and Nida)
The situation with Paul shows that Roman citizens had certain rights, and the military commander was afraid to violate these rights. Roman citizens had the following rights:
- Rights to vote in the Republic/Empire.
- Right to participate in Ancient Roman government.
- Right to marry — Marriage was recognized by ancient Rome as lawful.
- Any child born to Ancient Roman citizens, who were legally married, was given citizenship as well.
- Right to create legal binding contracts.
- The right to a trial by an appropriate court.
- Could not be tortured.
- Could not be sentenced to death if he committed treason and was found guilty by a proper Ancient Roman court.
- Could not be crucified — no ancient Roman Citizen was crucified as it was looked upon as a disgraceful death (usually was beheaded by guillotine).
- Could join ancient Roman legions.
- Many other rights and freedoms were granted to Ancient Roman citizens, although these freedoms and rights varied.[1]
Regarding the duties of Roman citizens, I make the following quotation:
The structure of the Roman Republic demonstrates that its people valued the concept of civic duty. “Civic duty” refers to the types of responsibilities that citizens have to their nation or country. In Rome, people could not rely on a king or dictator to rule them and make decisions for them. Instead, they had to take an active role in their government. Citizens could work towards the betterment of their community through economic participation, public, volunteer work, and other such efforts to improve life for all citizens. People also participated in other ways. Citizens were expected to defend the Republic when required. Citizens served the republic when enemies thretened its existence, and citizens helped defend it. Roman citizens took their civic duties seriously which helped the Republic remained strong and stable for a very long time.[2]
From the information above, we see that Roman citizenship was a real citizenship with rights and responsibilities, which can be compared with citizenships in modern countries today.
THE CITIZENSHIP OF GOD’S KINGDOM
In view of the words of Jesus that Christians were no part of the world, and in view of the fact that Roman citizenship was not in any way symbolic, but it literally included both rights and responsibilities, we must conclude that when the Christian Greek Scriptures speaks about the citizenship of Christians, this is also literally a citizenship with rights and responsibilities. Let us see.
BECOMING A CITIZEN OF GODS KINGDOM (SPIRITUAL ISRAEL)
Israel was the kingdom of God among other nations, and its inhabitants had certain rights and certain responsibilities, as also was the situation in Ancient Rome. The law of Moses regulated both the daily life and the religious life of the people, and following this law was a requirement for all Jews.
When God chose Israel as his people, he outlined one requirement that had to be fulfilled if the nation should continue to be his special property. We read in Exodus 19:5, 6:
5 And now if YOU will strictly obey my voice and will indeed keep my covenant, then YOU will certainly become my special property out of all [other] peoples, because the whole earth belongs to me. 6 And YOU yourselves will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you are to say to the sons of Israel.”
History shows that the Jews time and again violated God’s laws, and Daniel 9:24-27 shows that they were given a period of 70 weeks to repent. Because they did not repent, they were rejected by God, and spiritual Israel was created. Please note that Peter uses the same words in 2:9, 10 as God used when he chose Israel as his people:
9 But YOU are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that YOU should declare abroad the excellencies” of the one that called YOU out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 For YOU were once not a people, but are now God’s people; YOU were those who had not been shown mercy, but are now those who have been shown mercy.
Who were included in this holy nation? The first verse in the letter shows to whom the letter was addressed:
1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the temporary residents (parepidēmos) scattered about in Ponʹtus, Ga·laʹti·a, Cap·pa·doʹci·a, Asia, and Bi·thynʹi·a, to the ones chosen.
The important Greek word is parepidēmos, and its meaning is: “residing in a country not one’s own, a sojourner, stranger,” (Mounce) Peter uses this word again in 2:11, 12:
11 Beloved, I exhort YOU as aliens (paroikos) and temporary residents (parepidēmos) to keep abstaining from fleshly desires, which are the very ones that carry on a conflict against the soul. 12 Maintain YOUR conduct fine among the nations (ethnos), that, in the thing in which they are speaking against YOU as evildoers, they may as a result of YOUR fine works of which they are eyewitnesses glorify God in the day for [his] inspection.
In these verses, there are two words expressing the same idea. We find the words parapodemos (“temporary resident”) and the word paroikos with the meaning, “a neighbor; later, a sojourner, temporary resident, stranger.” (Mounce) Christians should be temporary residents among the nations (ethnos, plural) because they were residents of another nation, spiritual Israel (God’s kingdom).
In Ephesians 2:11-22, Paul uses the same ideas about citizenship that Peter used:
11 Therefore keep bearing in mind that formerly YOU were people of the nations (ethnos) as to flesh; “uncircumcision” YOU were called by that which is called “circumcision” made in the flesh with hands12 that YOU were at that particular time without Christ, alienated (apalotrioō politeia) from the state of Israel and strangers (ksenos) to the covenants of the promise, and YOU had no hope and were without God in the world. 13 But now in union with Christ Jesus YOU who were once far off have come to be near by the blood of the Christ. 14 For he is our peace, he who made the two parties one and destroyed the wall in between that fenced them off. 15 By means of his flesh he abolished the enmity, the Law of commandments consisting in decrees, that he might create the two peoples in union with himself into one new man and make peace; 16 and that he might fully reconcile both peoples in one body to God through the torture stake, because he had killed off the enmity by means of himself. 17 And he came and declared the good news of peace to YOU, the ones far off, and peace to those near, 18 because through him we, both peoples, have the approach to the Father by one spirit.
19 Certainly, therefore, YOU are no longer strangers (ksenos) and alien residents (paroikos), but YOU are fellow citizens (sympolitēs) of the holy ones and are members of the household of God.
In these verses, we find several important words, ethnos (“nation”), ksenos (“stranger”) paroikos(“temporary resident”), politeia (“citizenship”), paroikos (“temporary resident”), and sympolitēs (“fellow citizen”). I will sort these words out.
In verse 11, Paul points out that the Ephesians, to whom the letter was addressed, were people of the nations (non-Jews). Verse 12 tells that the Ephesians were alienated from the citizenship (politeia) of fleshly Israel and were strangers (ksenos) to God’s covenants. But verses 14 and 15 show that now God has created the two peoples (Jews and people of the nations) into one unit, expressed as “one new man.”
What is this new unit? Verse 19 shows that this new unit is the people of the holy ones. Because of this, the Ephesians were no longer strangers (ksenos) and temporary residents (paroikos) in relation to the people of God, as they had been when fleshly Israel were the people of God. But now they had become fellow citizens (sympolitēs) with the members of God’s nation. The Greek word politēs means “citizen” and syn (sym) means “together with.” The quotation is a detailed description where the words of Paul parallel the words of Peter.
Today, a person can apply for citizenship in another nation than the one in which he was born. In order to get citizenship a person has to fulfill particular requirements, and after that a judicial decision is made declaring the person to have become a citizen. The same is true in connection with becoming a citizen of spiritual Israel (God’s kingdom) , as both Paul and Peter show.
A person who wants to become a citizen of spiritual Israel must do something, namely, to change his way of living, his personality, in order to follow the laws and principles of God. Then, there will be made a judicial decision declaring that the person, man or woman, has become a citizen og God’s kingdom. In our time, receiving citizenship is based on the requirements outlined by the laws of the country. In connection with God’s kingdom (spiritual Israel), receiving citizenship is based on “the blood of Christ,” as verse 13 says. What does that mean?
We find the answer in Romans 3:26, 30:
26 so as to exhibit his own righteousness in this present season, that he might be righteous even when declaring righteous (dikaioō) the man that has faith in Jesus..
30 if truly God is one, who will declare circumcised people righteous (dikaioō) as a result of faith and uncircumcised people righteous by means of their faith.
The word dikaioō means “declare righteous,” and it represents a judicial decision. Now we can see that there are two steps that lead a person to becoming a citizen of God’s kingdom (spiritual Israel):
- Changing one’s personality and starting to live in accordance with God’s laws and principles.
- Showing faith in Jesus Christ and his ransom sacrifice.
When these two steps are fulfilled, God makes a judicial declaration by declaring the person as righteous. This means that becoming a citizen of God’s kingdom is not something abstract, just a name without contents. When a person has been declared righteous, he or she, literally is a citizen of God’ kingdom. And he or she has received particular rights and particular requirements.
I have been speaking of becoming a citizen of spiritual Israel, but spiritual Israel is the earthly part of God’s kingdom, just as fleshly Israel was in the past. Paul directly connects the citizenship of the Christians with God’s heavenly kingdom in Philippians 3:20, 21:
20 As for us, our citizenship (politeuma) exists in the heavens, from which place also we are eagerly waiting for a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will refashion our humiliated body to be conformed to his glorious body according to the operation of the power that he has, even to subject all things to himself.
The word politeuma has the meaning “the place or location in which one has the right to be a citizen.” (Louw and Nida) Jesus said that his followers were physically in the world of mankind, but they were no part of this world. (John 17:16). Paul’s words corroborate this by saying that Christians did not have citizenship in any nation of this world. But they had citizenship in God’s heavenly kingdom.
BEING AMBASSADORS OF GODS KINGDOM
The issues that are under discussion are how theocratic and democratic principles work in connection with the relationship between Christians and the nations of the world. I have stressed that Christians are citizens of God’s kingdom, and this separates them from the nations of the world.
I will now show that their position as ambassadors supports their separateness from the nations. I quote Luke 14:31-33 (above) and 2 Corinthians 5:18-20 (below):
31 Or what king, marching to meet another king in war, does not first sit down and take counsel whether he is able with ten thousand troops to cope with the one that comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 If, in fact, he cannot do so, then while that one is yet far away he sends out a body of ambassadors (presbeia) and sues for peace.
18 But all things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of the reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was by means of Christ reconciling a world to himself, not reckoning to them their trespasses, and he committed the word of the reconciliation to us.
20 We are therefore ambassadors (presbeuō) substituting for Christ, as though God were making entreaty through us. As substitutes for Christ we beg: “Become reconciled to God.”
The Greek word presbeuō means “to act as an ambassador,” and presbeia refers to “a body of ambassadors.” In the first century CE, the different nations did not have embassies and ambassadors in other countries, as is the case today. But when hostilities arose, a delegation of ambassadors was sent to negotiate peace. We see this in the words of Jesus in the quotation from Luke chapter 14 above.
The situation in 2 Corinthians chapter 5 is that the whole human family expressed by the Greek word kosmos, are God’s enemies. Therefore, God’s purpose is to “reconcile a world to himself,” according to verse 19. To achieve this, God sends ambassadors to help the inhabitants of the nations become reconciled to God, which means that they have peace with God. Paul uses the Greek word presbeuō in the plural, showing that all citizens of God’s kingdom (spiritual Israel) are ambassadors and that they are separated from the world (=all humans outside spiritual Israel.)
An article in the Watchtower of November 1, 1999, pages 28, 29, shows that the members of the Governing Body fully accepted that the Witnesses were ambassadors for God’s kingdom and therefore would not become a part of the world, here, not voting in elections.
Second, the apostle Paul referred to himself as an “ambassador” representing Christ to the people of his day. (Ephesians 6:20; 2 Corinthians 5:20) Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Christ Jesus is now the enthroned King of God’s heavenly Kingdom, and they, like ambassadors, must announce this to the nations. (Matthew 24:14; Revelation 11:15) Ambassadors are expected to be neutral and not to interfere in the internal affairs of the countries to which they are sent. As representatives of God’s heavenly Kingdom, Jehovah’s Witnesses feel a similar obligation not to interfere in the politics of the countries where they reside.
This argument can also be applied to compulsory military service and civil service. A government in one country has no right to put ambassadors for another country under compulsory service. This I will discuss below.
Christians are:
Strangers and temporary residents in the nations of this world. Citizens of God’s heavenly kingdom. Ambassador of God’s heavenly kingdom to the nations of the world. |
I will now discuss the relationship between the citizens of spiritual Israel and the nations of the world.
[1]. https://www.empirerome.com/wordpress/?page_id=220.
[2]. https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/CVCS-Lesson1-VanAllen-f.pdf.
THE CITIZENS OF GOD’S KINGDOM AND THE SUPERIOR AUTHORITIES
Jesus said that his followers were in the world but no part of the world. Today, the citizens of God’s kingdom are spread in all countries of the world. On the basis of the words of Jesus, it is important to know how they should act in a theocratic way in connection with the requirements of different governments.
As a starting point, I quote the words of Jesus regarding the paying of taxes, and I quote Matthew 22:16-21:
16 So they dispatched to him their disciples, together with party followers of Herod, saying: “Teacher, we know you are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and you do not care for anybody, for you do not look upon men’s outward appearance. 17 Tell us, therefore, What do you think? Is it lawful to pay head tax to Caesar or not?” 18 But Jesus, knowing their wickedness, said: “Why do YOU put me to the test, hypocrites? 19 Show me the head tax coin.” They brought him a de·narʹi·us. 20 And he said to them: “Whose image and inscription is this?” 21 They said: “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them: “Pay back, therefore, Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God.”
The question was a trap, and Jesus did not answer it directly. But his words tell us one important thing, namely, that we have to pay back something to the government in the country where we live, and other things we have to pay back to God. Both situation require that we act in a theocratic way.
THE RELATIVE OBEDIENCE TO THE SUPERIOR AUTHORITIES
In his letter to the congregation in Rome, Paul discusses one side of the relationship between the citizens of God’s kingdom and political authorities. We read in Romans 13:1-8:
1 Let every soul be in subjection (hypotassō) to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions (tassō) by God. 2 Therefore he who opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will receive judgment to themselves. 3 For those ruling are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. Do you, then, want to have no fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; 4 for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear: for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword; for it is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath upon the one practicing what is bad.
5 There is therefore compelling reason for YOU people to be in subjection, not only on account of that wrath but also on account of [YOUR] conscience. 6 For that is why YOU are also paying taxes; for they are God’s public servants constantly serving this very purpose. 7 Render to all their dues, to him who [calls for] the tax, the tax; to him who [calls for] the tribute, the tribute; to him who [calls for] fear, such fear; to him who [calls for] honor, such honor.
8 Do not YOU people be owing anybody a single thing, except to love one another; for he that loves his fellowman has fulfilled [the] law.
The expression “be in subjection” is translated from the Greek word hypotasso, with the meaning, “to place or arrange under; to subordinate.” (Mounce) This means that Christians must obey the laws in the country in which they live. But there is one exception, and I quote Matthew 22:21 (above) and Acts 5:29 (below):
21 “Pay back, therefore, Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God.
29 In answer Peter and the [other] apostles said: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.
When Jesus got the question of whether it was right to pay taxes, he gave the answer that we see in the first quotation. When the authorities gave the order to the apostles that they should not preach in the name of Jesus Christ, they gave the answer that we see in the second quotation. These two quotations show that the subjection to the authorities is not absolute but relative. This means that the law of God (theocracy) has priority over the law of the secular authorities (democracy). When the authorities make a demand that requires a violation of the law of God, Christians will “give God’s things to God” and not follow the demand of the secular authorities.
On the background of this fact, that the subjection to the authorities is not absolute but relative, it is easy to misunderstand the words of Romans 13:1, that “the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions. The Greek word translated with the words “placed in their relative positions” is tassō, with the meaning, “to cause someone to be in a state involving an order or arrangement” (Louw and Nida); “to place in a particular order or relative position (A Greek-English Lexicon. H.G. Liddell and R. Scott).
What does “relative positions” mean? This word could explain what Paul calls “a triumphal procession” (2 Corinthians 2:14). Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2. Page 1128 describes the triumphal procession:
The Roman procession moved slowly along Via Triumphalis and up the winding ascent to the temple of Jupiter atop the Capitoline Hill. Musicians playing and singing songs of victory were at the front, followed by young men leading the sacrificial cattle. Then came open carts loaded with booty, and tremendous floats illustrating battle scenes or the destruction of cities and temples, and perhaps topped with a figure of the vanquished commander. The captive kings, princes, and generals taken in the war, with their children and attendants, were led along in chains, often stripped naked, to their humiliation and shame. Next came the general’s chariot, decorated in ivory and gold, wreathed with laurel, and drawn by four white horses or, on occasion, by elephants, lions, tigers, or deer. The conqueror’s children sat at his feet or rode in a separate chariot behind him. Roman consuls and magistrates followed on foot, then the lieutenants and military tribunes with the victorious army—all bedecked with garlands of laurel and gifts, and singing songs of praise to their leader. In the vanguard were the priests and their attendants bringing along the chief victim for sacrifice, a white ox.
As the procession passed through the city, the populace threw flowers before the victor’s chariot, and burning incense on temple altars perfumed the way. This sweet odor signified honors, promotion, wealth, and a more secure life for the victorious soldiers, but it signified death to the unpardoned captives who would be executed at the end of the procession. This fact throws light on Paul’s spiritual application of the illustration at 2 Corinthians 2:14-16.
The Greek word tassō could be applied to the relative position of the victorious general, his army, and his family: The general’s chariot came first, then his children, the consuls and the magistrates, then one legion, then another legion, and so forth. Each part of the triumphal procession was parading before those standing along Via Triumphalis in their relative order.
In a similar way, throughout history, one government had the power, then it was replaced by another government, and then this government was replaced by yet another government, and so forth. These governments were parading before the onlookers of history, one after the other in their relative positions. This seems to be what Paul had in mind when he said that the superior authorities were placed “in their relative positions.”
God did not create all these governments but he allowed them to exist in order to avoid chaos and instead create some order among the human population, as Romans 13:3 says, “For those ruling are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad.” So, we see that the expression “relative positions” does not refer to the relationship between the governments and their subjects, that the subjects only in a relative sense are subjected to the governments. But the expression refers to the relationship between the different governments, that comes and goes. But regardless of which government that exists, the theocratic principle is that disregarding whether a government is democratic or dictatorial, Christians must obey all the laws that clearly do not violate the laws of God.
While to Greek word tassō in Romans 13:1 does not imply a relative obedience to the superior authorities, the words of Paul in Colossians 2:13-15 can show this kind of obedience.
13 Furthermore, though YOU were dead in YOUR trespasses and in the uncircumcised state of YOUR flesh, [God] made YOU alive together with him. He kindly forgave us all our trespasses 14 and blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees and which was in opposition to us; and He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake. 15 Stripping the governments (arkhē) and the authorities (eksousia) bare, he exhibited them in open public as conquered, leading them in a triumphal procession by means of it.
The Jews were under the Law of Moses, and they had to obey this law. When Jesus died on the stake, he abolished the law and made it invalid. One way to invalidate a document in ancient times was to pierce it with a sharp tool. Jesus was pierced to the stake by nails, and Paul uses this in a symbolic way, saying that the law was pierced, and therefore abolished when Jesus was fastened to the stake by nails. This means that the authority and power of those in Israel who administered the law of Moses were lost.
But that was not all because verse 15 speaks of “governments and authorities.” In most instances, the Greek word arkhē has the meaning “beginning.” But in the plural, as is the case in verse 15, it can have the meaning “ruler, authority.” (Mounce) The word eksousia can have the meaning “power, authority.” (Mounce) The word eksousia is the Greek word that is used in Romans 13:1 in the expression “superior authorities” with reference to the governments of the countries.
The death of Jesus that released humans from their inherited sin and abolished the law, also took the supreme power away from all the governments and authorities of the world. Paul uses the illustration that they are led in a triumphal procession in verse 15:
15 Stripping (apekdyomai) the governments (arkhē) and the authorities (eksousia) bare, he exhibited them in open public as conquered, leading them in a triumphal procession by means of it.
The Greek word apekdyomai means “to take off or strip off clothing” (Louw and Nida). The defeated soldiers who were led chained in the triumphal procession were often stripped of their clothes and were naked. Paul’s use of apekdyomai shows that the governments and authorities were stripped naked and led in a triumphal procession; they were defeated, and they no longer had absolute authority. This was caused “by means of it.” The pronoun “it” is masculine singular dative, and its antecedent must be the Greek word stauros (“stake”) on which Jesus was hanged because this noun is also masculine singular dative and is the last word in verse 14.
The death of Jesus and his ransom sacrifice had huge consequences for the world of mankind. All the descendants of Adam were bought by Jesus. And all of them who are not incorrigibly wicked will get a resurrection on Judgment Day so they can choose if they want to live forever on the earth. According to Matthew 28:18: “All authority has been given me [Jesus] in heaven and on the earth.” This shows that “the superior authorities” that are mentioned in Romans 13:1, are “superior” in relation to their subjects in a relative way — they are allowed by God to exist, so there can be some order in human society. But the real “superior authority” is Jesus Christ who is the king in the Kingdom of God.
Thus, the words of the apostles that express their theocratic viewpoint, “We must obey God as ruler rather than men” are fully justified!
THE RELATIVE OBEDIENCE IN PRACTICAL LIFE
The basic principle for obedience to the superior authorities is as follows: Because Christians are citizens of God’s kingdom, they will behave in the same way as a person who is a citizen of one country but lives in another country. So, the basic theocratic question for Christians is: Will a person with citizenship in another country follow this or that requirement from the government in the country in which I live?
CHRISTIANS WILL NOT TRY TO REFORM THE LAWS OR SOCIAL CUSTOMS OF THE COUNTRY IN WHICH THEY LIVE
It is important to keep in mind that even if the laws of the land where they live, in a grossly way violates the law of God, they should not work for reforms. This is their theocratic viewpoint. One example illustrating this is the issue of slavery.
According to the law of the Roman Empire, citizens were allowed to keep slaves, and the slaves had no rights. The article “The Roman Empire in the first century” says:
All slaves and their families were the property of their owners, who could sell or rent them out at any time. Their lives were harsh. Slaves were often whipped, branded or cruelly mistreated. Their owners could also kill them for any reason, and would face no punishment.[1]
Slavery itself, and the way slaves were treated according to Roman law, was a violation of several of God’s laws. How should Christians view this situation? Because the Christian Greek Scriptures show that all humans have the same value and they should be treated in the same way with love and compassion, they understood that every side of slavery was wrong. However, because Christians were citizens of God’s kingdom, they had no right to try to reform the laws or the social customs of the Roman Empire. This means that while they saw that the laws about slavery were wrong, they would obey these laws and be subjected to the Roman Empire, as Paul shows in Romans 13:1.
One example of this is Philemon and his slave Onesimus. Philemon was a beloved brother, but he was also a slave owner. I quote Philemon 4-7:
4 I always thank my God when I make mention of you in my prayers, 5 as I keep hearing of your love and faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus and toward all the holy ones; 6 in order that the sharing of your faith may go into action by your acknowledging of every good thing among us as related to Christ. 7 For I got much joy and comfort over your love, because the tender affections of the holy ones have been refreshed through you, brother.
Onesimus was a runaway slave whom Paul met in Rome, and Onesimus became a Christian. Onesimus became close to Paul, and Paul calls him “a brother beloved” in verse 15. Paul respected Roman law, and therefore, he sent Onesimus back to Philemon, even though Onesimus was ministering to Paul. However, Paul could not force Onesimus to return, so, it is clear that Onesimus agreed with Paul concerning this. According to Roman law, Philemon was the owner of Onesimus. This had to continue, but the relationship between the two had changed because both had become Christians. Paul writes in verses 15-17:
15 Perhaps really on this account he broke away for an hour, that you may have him back forever, 16 no longer as a slave but as more than a slave, as a brother beloved, especially so to me, yet how much more so to you both in fleshly relationship and in [the] Lord. 17 If, therefore, you consider me a sharer, receive him kindly the way you would me.
That Paul sent Onesimus back to Philemon shows that the formal relationship between the two, as a slave owner and a slave, still existed. But their relationship had changed because of God’s norms.
It was not only Philemon among the Christians who was a slave owner, and in Ephesians 6:5-9, Paul gives advice to slaves and slave owners as to their relationship:
5 YOU slaves, be obedient to those who are [YOUR] masters in a fleshly sense, with fear and trembling in the sincerity of YOUR hearts, as to the Christ, 6 not by way of eye-service as men pleasers, but as Christ’s slaves, doing the will of God whole-souled. 7 Be slaves with good inclinations, as to Jehovah, and not to men, 8 for YOU know that each one, whatever good he may do, will receive this back from Jehovah, whether he be slave or freeman. 9Also, YOU masters, keep doing the same things to them, letting up on the threatening, for YOU know that the Master of both them and YOU is in the heavens, and there is no partiality with him.
We can sum up the Christian view of slavery by quoting 1 Corinthians 7:21, 22:
21 In whatever state each one was called, let him remain in it. Were you called when a slave? Do not let it worry you; but if you can also become free, rather seize the opportunity. 22 For anyone in [the] Lord that was called when a slave is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he that was called when a freeman is a slave of Christ.
Paul says that if a slave can be set free in accordance with the Roman law, he should seize the opportunity. The conclusion to this subject is that because Christians are not citizens in the countries in which they live, they will not try to make reforms in the laws of the country or the social relationships between the people. Slavery clearly is against the laws of God, but it is not their duty to work against it.
In our days, slavery, like that of the Roman Empire, does not exist. But there have been, and are, many laws in different countries that in some respects are like the laws on slavery in the Roman Empire. This has particularly been the case in countries with dictators. I will give one example showing the theocratic view of Christians in our times, that they do not engage in political or social reforms, even though some laws clearly violate the laws of God. I use South Africa and its laws of apartheid as an example.
In the years 1959 and 1960, I visited Cape Town and Durban several times. What I remember is that when I walked in a park, I saw some benches with the sign “For white people” and others “For colored people.” I was warned that if I had contact with black people, the police could arrest me, and I could be sent to jail. Segregation of people on the basis of color violates the laws of God because all people have equal value.
How would Jehovah’s Witnesses act in connection with these laws? One demand from the authorities was that at Christian meetings and at assemblies, the audience had to be separated according to color, and Jehovah’s Witnesses accepted this. This was not because they agreed that segregation of humans was right, but because this was the law of the country. When apartheid was no longer a part of the laws of the country, meetings and assemblies were held when all kinds of people worshipped Jehovah in unity.
THE BEHAVIOR OF CITIZENS IN ONE COUNTRY WHO LIVE IN ANOTHER COUNTRY
I have stressed that the theocratic question we must ask in connection with our subjection to the superior authorities is: “Would a citizen in another country follow this or that demand from the authorities in this country?”
PAYING TAXES TO THE SUPERIOR AUTHORITIES
I use Romans 13:7 as an example:
7 Render to all their dues, to him who [calls for] the tax (foros), the tax; to him who [calls for] the tribute (telos), the tribute; to him who [calls for] fear, such fear; to him who [calls for] honor, such honor.
The Greek noun foros is translated with the noun “tax.” Its meaning is “a payment made by the people of one nation to another, with the implication that this is a symbol of submission and dependence.” (Louw and Nida) In the days of Paul, Jews paid taxes to the Roman government. But because the Roman government (the emperor) was the supreme authority over Judea, today, foros may refer to taxes that the inhabitants of one country pay to their government. The word telos has the meaning “payments customarily due a governmental authority,” (Louw and Nida), and today, it may refer to paying customs duties or other fees introduced by the government.
Would a German citizen working in Norway have to pay Norwegian taxes? The answer is yes. So, there can be no objection to a Christian who is a citizen of God’s Kingdom to pay taxes, custom duties and different fees to the Norwegian authorities.
JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES AND COMPULSORY SERVICE
In many countries, the authorities demand that young men, and in some countries, also young women, must do compulsory military service. What is the theocratic view of this kind of service?
If a German citizen who worked in Norway was summoned to do compulsory military service in Norway, he would refuse because he was not a Norwegian citizen. Suppose that the authorities accepted his refusal but would demand that he had to do alternative civil service. How would he react? He would refuse this service because he is not a Norwegian citizen.
The important point here is that a national government cannot demand that a person who is a citizen of another country does compulsory service of any kind in its country.
As I have stressed, the Christian Greek Scriptures show that Christians are citizens of God’s Kingdom and ambassadors for this Kingdom to the nations of the world. If a Christian views this as a reality and not just as empty talk, he or she will take the same standpoint to compulsory service as a citizen and ambassador from one country who lives in another country.
After World War II, in the year 1946, the book Let God be True was published. This was a book that was used to study the Bible with interested persons. Chapter 18 is entitled “Salutes and Politics.” It shows that Christians are citizens of God’s kingdom and ambassadors to the nations of this world, and that this position requires total neutrality vis-à-vis the nations of the world.
When Witnesses in Norway were summoned to do military service after world War II, they refused. Then, they were offered alternative civil service, which they also refused. Then they were sentenced to a jail term corresponding to the length of the military service. The situation changed in the year 1950. A new law was passed regarding forced civil service under the administration of the prison authorities.
I became a Witness in the year 1961. The next year I started in the full-time service, and one of my duties was to brief young brothers before their appearance in court for refusing alternative civil service.
My discussions with the young brothers went along the following lines: Suppose that you get a parking ticket, and you are certain that your car was parked in the right way. If you pay the ticket, you admit that you are guilty. Therefore, you refuse to pay. Then you are taken to court, and the judge sentences you to pay the ticket. If you then pay, you do not admit that you are guilty, but acknowledge that you are powerless against the court decision and the authorities. If you do not pay, you must go to jail, so you cannot avoid the sentence.
We refuse military service because we are citizens and ambassadors of God’s kingdom who do not accept that the state has the right to put them under compulsory military service. When we refuse this service, the state says that we have to do alternative civil service. If we accept this service, we admit that the state has the right to put us under compulsory service. So, we refuse this service as well. Then we are taken to court, and we are sentenced to do civil service under the administration of the prison authorities. Then we acknowledge that we are powerless against the court, and we accept the service. If we do not accept, we have to go to jail.
The standpoint I have described above is the theocratic standpoint, which means that the Witnesses, including their leaders, took the Bible truth that Christians are citizens and ambassadors for God’s Kingdom at face value.
However, in the year 1996, a democratic standpoint was introduced. In contrast with the biblical stance that all Witnesses had for the past 51 years, the Governing Body now accepted that the governments had the right to put Christians under compulsory service, and each Witness had to decide whether he or she would accept alternative civil service.
The new standpoint of the members of the Governing Body showed that they no longer believe that Christians are citizens of God’s kingdom and its ambassadors to the nations. When they now speak of the Witnesses being citizens and ambassadors of God’s kingdom, this is celebratory speech, empty words with no content.
In his book In Search of Christian Freedom, Raymond Franz, who was a member of the Governing Body from 1972 to 1980 tells that the issue if compulsory civil service was discussed several times at the meetings of the Governing Body. Franz was strongly in favor of a change, and his book shows that he did not fully understand what the issue really was about. In order for a case to be decided by the Governing Body, two thirds of the members had to vote for it. But that did not happen as long as Franz was a member of the Governing Body.
However, in his book, pages 262 and 263, he quotes a part from a memorandum to the Governing Body, written by the Governing Body member Lloyd Barry, who was the leader of Writing Department and was responsible for everything that was published in the Watchtower literature. The memorandum was not dated but the context suggests that it was written shortly before the year 1980:
Those who have studied out the matter on the basis of the Bible and who have been through the experience, have no question about maintaining a stand of “no compromise”—unless someone comes along and tries to plant such a question. A change of viewpoint sponsored by the Governing Body would be very upsetting for these countries and brothers, where they have fought for so long in behalf of their uncompromising stand…
In this, the issue is not taxation, employment, etc., but COMPROMISE. We are agreed that we should not take up arms for the military. Then we should be agreed, too, that if the military or any other agency asks us to do something as a substitute therefore, we do not accept the alternative. That is our action. Then, if we are handed over to a court, and a judge sentences us, that is his action. We accept the sentence. We have not compromised. We are integrity keepers. It is as simple as all that.—Job 27:5.
In contrast to Franz, Barry had a clear understanding of the principles behind the strict neutrality of the Christians. His points are crystal clear, and his conclusion shows that the decision of the Governing Body in the year 1996 is a compromise. In other words, it is a democratic viewpoint that violates the position of Jehovah’s Witnesses as citizens of God’s kingdom and as ambassadors for this kingdom.
The members of the Governing Body have left the theocratic viewpoint of strict neutrality in relation to the nations of the world and introduced a democratic viewpoint. They have compromised their position of being citizens of God’s kingdom and ambassadors of this kingdom by accepting the right of the nations to put Christians under compulsory service. |
A detailed study of this issue is found in the article, “We cannot trust the evershifting views and decisions of the Governing Body”
[1]. https://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/slaves_freemen.html.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Being theocratic means to think the thoughts of God that are found in the Bible and follow God’s lead. Being democratic means to think the thoughts of humans and follow the lead of humans.
During the 21st century, the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses has been led away from the previously theocratic position towards an autocratic position. The members of the Governing Body have given themselves dictatorial power, and any Witness to refuses to accept everything that they do will be disfellowshipped.
The new position on compulsory civil service is one of the many decisions showing how the members of the Governing Body have led the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses to become more and more like the world, contrary to the words of Jesus that his followers were no part of the world.
Deep studies of biblical passages are no longer published in the Watchtower literature, and the Witnesses are no longer encouraged to do deep Bible study and taught how this can be done. The thoughts of the members of the Governing Body have to a great degree replaced the thoughts of those who wrote the books of the Bible.
This is seen in The Watchtower of February 2022, article 6, paragraph 15 (above), and from a talk by Kenneth Flodin at JW broadcasting on April 24, 2023 (below):
As the end of this system of things draws near, we need to trust in Jehovah’s way of doing things as never before. Why? During the great tribulation, we may receive instructions that seem strange, impractical, or illogical. Of course, Jehovah will not speak to us personally. He will likely provide direction through his appointed representatives. That will hardly be the time to second-guess the direction or to view it with skepticism, wondering, ‘Is this really coming from Jehovah, or are the responsible brothers acting on their own?’ How will you fare during that crucial time in human history? The answer might be indicated by how you view theocratic direction now. If you trust the direction we receive today and readily obey, you will likely do the same during the great tribulation.—Luke 16:10.
The Governing body could be likened to the voice of Jesus, the head of the congregation. So, when we willingly submit to the faithful slave, we are automatically submitting to Jesus’ authority and direction.
The first quotation says that even if something published by the Governing Body seems strange, impractical, or illogical, we must believe that it comes from God. The second quote says that what the Governing Body publishes can be likened to the voice of Jesus, and when we willingly submit to the Governing Body, we automatically submit to the authority and direction of Jesus. This is adoration and devotion to humans rather than adoration and devotion to Jehovah God. It is based on democratic considerations rather than on theocratic considerations.