The Fundamental Purpose of Government

As I discussed in Reconstructing Marriage, Adam was put in the garden “to tend and keep it” (Genesis 2:15). The first word has the connotation of cultivating something. The second has the connotation of guarding or protecting something.

This is the foundation of government and reflects the two roles government has: to keep peace internally (through maintaining justice) and to protect from outside threats (through military defense). In keeping with this, the judges of Israel always first delivered Israel from their oppressors and then judged within the nation, starting with Moses, who saved a Hebrew from an Egyptian one day, then tried to mediate between two Hebrews the next day (Exodus 2:11-14).

Avoiding Political Pitfalls

In America, we like to say that the government exists to protect our rights, but that is not a biblical notion. The only thing the Bible mentions that we deserve / earn / are owed / are worthy of in this life is our labor wages (Luke 10:7; Romans 4:4). We do not have rights beyond that. Indeed, we speak foolishness when we blather on about all the things we “deserve” in life or that we “owe to ourselves” via some form of government largesse.

Instead, as our Creator, God has rights. He has the right to determine what we do and how we are to treat each other. Fortunately, He values us and wants peace and prosperity for us, so He has tasked us with responsibilities toward one another that will bring that about. Maintaining a godly civil government is about fulfilling those responsibilities and meeting those divine expectations.

Nowhere in the Bible does God ever task the government with ensuring equity, providing opportunity, or rectifying social injustice. A faithful society will experience a level of shalom that will be a blessing to all its members, but there will never be equal outcomes for all citizens. In fact, we know there will always be poor members of society (Deuteronomy 15:11; Matthew 26:11), so generosity and a limited welfare system is mandated to support the vulnerable.

Moreover, God connects a good work ethic to eventual financial success (Proverbs 10:4), and those who refuse to work must suffer the consequences (2 Thessalonians 3:10). In a godly nation, working diligently will provide all men with the necessities of life, like food and clothing, with which we should be content (1 Timothy 6:8). As Ecclesiastes 5:19 points out, if God chooses to bless some people with riches, they are allowed to enjoy it, but those who do not receive this blessing must never covet it, and they certainly shouldn’t leverage the government to punish the wealthy or steal the wealth God has blessed them with.

As Paul warns, “Those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows” (1 Timothy 6:9-10). A Christian society must therefore avoid the internal strife brought about by covetousness towards the wealth of others.

Soft Theonomy

As mentioned in Deconstructing American Politics, I believe the Bible presents the Law of Moses as a blueprint for what a godly government should look like. When God wrote the Bible, He spent an extraordinary amount of time covering civic law in fine detail. I believe He did so in part to provide a model for how godly nations are to self-govern. As Paul said, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, [and] for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). However, I believe the Old Covenant Law is intended to be a guide in the New Covenant, not a hard and fast rulebook (the former would constitute what I call “soft theonomy,” while the latter would be “hard theonomy”). In other words, we are concerned with the principles of God’s law, not the exact letter.

Now, one particularly important aspect of this guide concerns the scope of government: In other words, what is a government to do and not to do? In what realms does it have or not have authority?

In Deuteronomy 4:2, God instructed Israel: “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” (see also Deuteronomy 12:32). This illustrates a fundamental truth about God’s Law: it is holistically complete. The Law exists in a state of equilibrium: nothing is missing, nothing is extraneous. Add or remove anything, and a government will begin both to function less effectively and to violate human dignity. Hence, the scope of government should equate as closely as possible to the scope of the Mosaic Law.

Of course, the modern scope of government is contextually influenced by what came before and after the Mosaic Law in the Bible. For example:

• The godly Joseph established an emergency reserve of food for Egypt in Genesis 41:33-36. This suggests that even though emergency preparedness is not covered in the Mosaic Law (as far as I know), it’s still within the proper scope of government.
• A precedent of occasionally having government-sponsored national celebrations is established in 1 Chronicles 16:1-3.
• Jesus eliminated the food laws that symbolized the covenantal distinction between Jews and Gentiles (see Acts 10). Hence, we need no longer concern ourselves with that portion of the Law.

Given this approach, there would be twin sins for governments, the same as for individuals: the sin of commission and the sin of omission. Commission is when someone does something they’re not supposed to do. Omission is when someone doesn’t do something they are supposed to do.

A good test of whether a government’s approach to an issue is in scope vs. a sin of omission or commission is to see whether things get better or worse when the approach is changed.

Consider divorce. From the Bible’s perspective, no-fault divorce is a clear evil. No-fault divorce was permitted to a certain extent in the Mosaic Law but was later forbidden by Jesus (Matthew 19:3-9). And yet no-fault divorce has been legalized in the United States. And what has happened? No-fault divorces have exploded. There is no inherent reason that divorce rates would have needed to increase when no-fault divorce was legalized, but it clearly altered the mindset of the American people to change how they think about marriage and marital responsibilities. This is evidence that the proper scope of government includes the prohibition of no-fault divorce, and that failing to outlaw it is a sin of omission.

Consider also abortion. Again, from the Bible’s perspective, abortion is a clear evil. Murder was outlawed in the Mosaic Law. And yet abortion was legalized in the United States. And what happened? Abortion rates skyrocketed. There’s no inherent reason why legalizing abortions should automatically lead to more people having abortions. But the legalization of abortion led to people thinking differently about the nature of life. This is evidence that the proper scope of government includes the prohibition of abortion, and that failing to outlaw it is a sin of omission.

On the other hand, there were no anti-drug statutes in the Mosaic Law, even though drugs of the kind that we outlaw today certainly existed. Why? Because the distinction between drug use (for medicine) and drug abuse (for sinful pleasure) is not quantifiable in a way that the civil government can appropriately enforce (an example is how marijuana can be used to treat glaucoma).

There are few drugs that can be conclusively determined to be of purely sinful use and zero medical or reasonable recreational use whatsoever (any that do meet this criteria, such as cyanide, should be classified as a weapon). Thus, medical uses must be determined by the medical profession, reasonable recreational use should be part of our Christian liberty, and drug abuse must be dealt with by the Church, not the government. Note: This is implied in Galatians 5:20 when the abuse of drugs (often translated “sorcery” or “witchcraft”) is listed amongst a series of sins that are dealt with through Christian living, not legal prohibitions.

For this reason, outlawing drugs has led to an explosion of drug abuse, and every attempt to make drug laws more draconian has only worsened the problem. This is an aspect of morality that cannot be legislated, and attempts to do so are a sin of commission. Of course, even though alcohol abuse and related crime similarly exploded during Prohibition, ending Prohibition did not automatically eliminate alcohol abuse. We still have lots of that today. Sanctification is always essential to addressing spiritual issues.

Applying the Mosaic Law to Modern Government

As 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 shows, Christians cannot bring their legal disputes before non-Christian judges. This dovetails with the idea that if a nation were to convert as a whole and wished to implement a Christian legal system, the foundational aspect of that government would be that it be only open to Christians. A non-Christian cannot be expected to desire to establish godly laws and consistently enforce their execution.

Matthew 5:33-37 and James 5:12 indicate that Christians are not to swear oaths, but in a Christian government, all those holding office would be required to affirm that they acknowledge Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

The Separation of Church and State

Even though the government would consist of Christians, there would still be a clear boundary between “Church” and “State.” As explained in A Biblical Vision for the Church, the Church is not a bureaucratic institution, but rather a spiritual family with more mature Christians called elders guiding the spiritual development of less mature Christians. The elders of the New Covenant church correspond roughly to the elders of each city in the national Israel of the Old Covenant, who helped facilitate day to day affairs and resolve disputes. Elders are rarely mentioned in the Mosaic Law, only being referenced a handful of times in Deuteronomy, where their tasks still reasonably resemble the scope of the modern Church.

On the contrary, while a deep dive into Hebrew words would be helpful in clarifying the exact responsibilities of each role, the Bible depicts governors of countries (Genesis 45:26; 2 Kings 25:22), tribes (1 Kings 4:7), cities (1 Kings 22:26), regions (Ezra 5:3), provinces (Esther 3:12), people groups (Ezra 6:7), etc. The granularity of governorship appears to be, as one would expect, proportional to population (i.e., a small people might have one governor, while a large nation might have a governor over each city).

These government officials are generally depicted performing civil functions like paying tribute, collecting taxes, etc. They don’t perform spiritual functions like teaching the Word or mediating interpersonal conflict. Hence, there is a logical division between Church and State in the Bible model.

Branches of Government

The way America is configured doesn’t line up with the Bible model. Instead, the Bible depicts three branches of governance:

Justice

The “tend” function of government involves administering justice by enforcing laws and resolving disputes. Exodus 18 depicts a hierarchy of judges who handled cases from small matters all the way up to big matters. Cases escalated based on the difficulty of the matter involved, with Moses at the top of the chain.

In modern governance, we could eliminate the endless appeals of the American legal system by requiring that all cases be handled at the lowest level and not be permitted to move up the hierarchy, except in two cases:

• A case is too difficult, significant or wide in scope and impact for a lower court.
• A wronged party can provide evidence that a lower court exhibited failure to enact justice, whether through active malice or neglectful dereliction of duty, thereby necessitating an appeal.

We can see in places like 2 Samuel 12:1-15, 2 Samuel 14:1-24, and 2 Kings 8:1-6 that the king, judge, or chief governor was the highest judge in the land, administering justice when the lower judges were unable to do so for whatever reason. Just as with Moses, the governor would be the highest appeal court.

The governor would thus manage the court system, which handles disputes after a wrong is committed. He would also handle the police, jails, and other peacekeeping functions of government, keeping wrong from happening in the first place and enforcing punishments on lawbreakers.

Military

The “keep” function involves national defense and war. In Bible times, the governor/judge/king mustered the army in times of war. Generally in Israel the military was a conglomeration of militias from cities or tribes that would gather together as needed to defend their nation or wage war against another nation. Of course, once a nation reached a certain size (like the Gentile empires that ruled Israel after the first destruction of Jerusalem), it made sense to maintain a force of professional soldiers who did the bulk of the warring. Nonetheless, it would still be prudent to maintain well-armed, well-trained militias to defend against invasion.

Administration

There needs to be a certain amount of bureaucracy to maintain a civil government. The administrative branch would handle the following non-exhaustive list of functions:

• Collecting taxes
• Keeping budgets and controlling government funds
• Maintaining a full-reserve commodity-backed currency
• Maintaining a system of weights and measures
• Maintaining maps
• Maintaining intelligence about allies and enemies
• Preparing for emergencies
• Controlling infectious diseases
• Running HR and payroll for government employees

Defining the Law

Note that I did not include a legislative branch in the previous section. The Mosaic Law was defined up front for the nation and generally did not change, only occasionally being added to later by divinely anointed leaders (such as in 1 Samuel 30:23-25).

Hence, the idea of a set of laws that is constantly being changed and updated is not biblical. The laws should express the scope, authority, and limitations of the government; should be as brief as possible; and should essentially be in the form of something as minimally changing as the Constitution. There would need to be a mechanism to allow for change, but it should be as difficult as amending the Constitution. Obviously any changes to the laws should be based on an attempt to better match the legal system to the blueprint laid out in the Bible.

Each level of government should be able to establish regulations and ordinances to enact the scope defined in the law, but such regulations and ordinances would not have such a force of law that they would require a legislative branch to change them. In fact, there would be no legislative branch.

Here’s an example of how this would work:

National Statute: Citizens shall set up protections on their property to keep their neighbors from hurting themselves accidentally (Deuteronomy 22:8)

County Ordinance: Residents shall erect a 6-foot fence around every in-ground swimming pool.

Civil Sanctions

The Bible upholds the idea of a jail as a place of temporary confinement for a criminal who is being tried or sentenced (Leviticus 24:12). However, prison, AKA punishing criminals with lengthy or permanent sentences of confinement, is not biblical. Instead, the Bible offers the following three options:

• Restitution. In the Mosaic Law, adding 20% on top of the value of something stolen or a harm done was a general principle (Leviticus 6:1-5), although this amount was not universal (Exodus 22:1).
• Execution. After the Flood, Genesis 9:1-17 superseded the original dominion mandate for Adam and Eve, and thus the death penalty for violent crimes is still in effect. However, execution is not necessarily applicable for every capital crime in the Mosaic Law, as some of those were about enforcing holiness in the presence of God in their land prior to the sacrifice of Jesus.
• Exile. Stripping someone (especially a sojourner) of the right to dwell in the nation could be a reasonable punishment for certain crimes (2 Samuel 13:37-14:24).

Note that from a divine perspective, every sin deserves death, but we as humans are not required to administer that punishment for every sin. God designed His Law to create a functional society, not have us administer divine justice for every infraction, whether minor or major. That’s what Hell is for.

Global Government

In the event that covenant renewal extends beyond a single nation and into multiple nations worldwide, a global Christian governing cooperative may consist of a ruling council with a functional leader (like the chairman of a board of directors), but the role of King of kings belongs to Jesus and must not be filled by a mortal man. He is the world’s emperor.

Beneath the global cooperative, there would be international regions, nations, intranational regions (e.g., states and counties), cities, and even sections within particularly populous cities (such as the quarters of Jerusalem – 2 Kings 22:14). Christian governors would rule at every level.

Taxes

The Law of Moses makes pretty clear that the poor are neither to be given special favor nor taken advantage of:

You shall not show partiality to a poor man in his dispute. (Exodus 23:3)

You shall not pervert the judgment of your poor in his dispute. (Exodus 23:6)

Combined with the aforementioned warnings against coveting wealth, it is obvious that the idea of progressive taxation is unbiblical. Thus, taxation should be equally allocated amongst all citizens. There are two ways to do this: proportional amount taxes or absolute amount taxes.

A proportional amount tax would be, for example, a sales tax on all purchases of goods and services. If the tax was set to, say, 5%, then everyone would pay 5%, regardless of their wealth. Those who are rich and therefore buy more expensive items would end up paying more tax anyway, but in a way that does not involve targeting them for punishment or exploitation.

Note that an additive tax (someone pays the full price of a good to the vendor and then pays an additional percentage that is collected by the vendor and given to the government) resembles punitive fees in the Bible (Leviticus 5:16). A more biblical concept (closer to the idea of a tithe) would be for the vendor of a good or service to pay a percent of the income from the sale to the government as a tax (e.g., a vendor would sell an item for $20, keep $19, and pay $1 to the government).

If we defined services to include labor, this kind of sales tax could eliminate the following sources of revenue and produce a much fairer and far simpler taxation system:

• Income tax
• Inflation tax
• Borrowing money, except in national emergencies
• Gift tax
• Estate tax (the Bible absolutely does not grant the government the right to dip into what fathers pass along to their sons)
• Usury, e.g., from student loans (I will address usury in greater depth shortly)
• Personal property tax
• Real estate tax
• Capital gains tax
• Sin taxes (i.e., taxes targeted at “immoral” or “unhealthy” activities)
• Lotteries (no more generating government revenue by running a gambling racket)

An absolute amount tax, on the other hand, would be a head tax, where every citizen pays a fixed amount. This should be reserved for unusual circumstances, as it wouldn’t take much for a head tax to present an undue burden on the poorer members of the nation.

Usury

Nowadays we define “usury” as “excessive interest” on a loan of money, but in the Mosaic Law, any interest was defined as usury. Lending at interest was strictly forbidden (Deuteronomy 23:19) and was referenced repeatedly as an evil behavior (for example, Jeremiah 15:10; Ezekiel 18:3-13; Nehemiah 5). In fact, the Hebrew word nāšaḵ that is used for interest in that Deuteronomy verse has the literal meaning of “serpent bite.” The imagery is of being bit by a serpent and then being slowly poisoned to death by the spreading venom, which is a pretty accurate depiction of the experience of being in debt.

There are only two reasons for borrowing at interest: someone is poor and in need of essentials he can’t afford, or he covets something he can’t afford. In the former case, lending without interest is merciful (Psalm 37:25-26; Psalm 112:5; Proverbs 19:17), but exacting interest is taking advantage of the one in need and profiting off his poverty, which is evil. In the latter case, we are not to encourage others to sin and then profit from their sin – rather, we are to encourage everyone to live within their means, accepting the financial lot they have been assigned by God. We certainly don’t want to use their sin to financially enslave them and rule over them (Proverbs 22:7).

Hence, a biblical government would outlaw borrowing at interest.

Welfare

The Mosaic Law did not recognize property rights as 100% sovereign in a purely capitalist sense, instead establishing a rudimentary welfare system to make provision for vulnerable members of society:

And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather every grape of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger: I am the Lord your God. (Leviticus 19:10)

When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field when you reap, nor shall you gather any gleaning from your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger: I am the Lord your God. (Leviticus 23:22)

When you reap your harvest in your field, and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be for the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. When you beat your olive trees, you shall not go over the boughs again; it shall be for the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not glean it afterward; it shall be for the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. (Deuteronomy 24:19-21)

Thus, the land of Israel was full of fields and vineyards with the excess of the harvest lying around for those who were struggling to survive.

In a modern Christian nation, this could reasonably be extended to a broader picture of providing essential services to the needy, such as food, shelter, medical care, basic education, etc. However, there is an important principle in Biblical welfare:

When you come into your neighbor’s vineyard, you may eat your fill of grapes at your pleasure, but you shall not put any in your container. When you come into your neighbor’s standing grain, you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not use a sickle on your neighbor’s standing grain. (Deuteronomy 23:24-25)

This law forbade Israelites from making a living off of their neighbor’s property. They could eat what they could grab with their hands, but they couldn’t carry away excess in a container or start harvesting their neighbor’s wheat. Accordingly, Ruth went into Boaz’s field daily to gather what she could carry and had to beat it out every day (Ruth 2).

This implies that we are not allowed to live on one another’s livelihoods without purchase or gifting. In other words, welfare payments are out of the question. We can provide services that help people along day-to-day, but we cannot pay them to be poor. Hence, biblical charity would take forms such as a soup kitchen or homeless shelter, where someone has to go and obtain their sustenance or protection every day. Note that the early Church followed this principle by supporting needy widows with a “daily distribution” (Acts 6:1), which took the form of daily food (the apostles referred to providing the distribution as “serving tables” – Acts 6:2).

Such a system could be funded from the excess of what is gathered via taxation, in accordance with Deuteronomy 14:28-29 and Deuteronomy 26:12-13.

Immigration

Immigration is certainly a hot-button issue today, with many conservative Christians veering toward xenophobia in their political outlook. However, God told Israel:

You shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the heart of a stranger, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt. (Exodus 23:9).

And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. (Leviticus 19:33-34)

[God] administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. (Deuteronomy 10:18-19)

You shall not pervert justice due the stranger or the fatherless, nor take a widow’s garment as a pledge. (Deuteronomy 24:17)

Cursed is the one who perverts the justice due the stranger, the fatherless, and widow. (Deuteronomy 27:19a)

The Lord watches over the strangers. (Psalm 146:9a)

God loved the strangers who dwelt in Israel and grouped them with widows, orphans, and the poor as vulnerable classes of people whom the Israelites were expected to protect.

How then can we accommodate God’s heart for strangers while also protecting our national sovereignty and the stability of our economy? The answer lies in the use of the concept of “sojourners” in immigration policy.

Restoring the Sojourner Status

First of all, it is essential to define the terms in play here. The term “immigrant” refers to someone who has left their homeland to live permanently in a foreign country. The biblical term “sojourner,” on the other hand, refers to someone from a foreign country dwelling temporarily in another land (I prefer “sojourner” to “stranger,” the NKJV’s term, for these purposes). Now, the line between permanent dwelling and temporary dwelling could easily be subjective. However, if an immigrant decides to make his stay permanent, he will often try to become a “citizen,” a person with full privileges in the nation he dwells in.

Generally speaking, a foreigner would sojourn in ancient Israel because he wanted to experience the manifold blessings that God bestowed upon His special nation. The same is true for America today: many sojourners come to America to escape persecution, to enjoy the kind of liberty that isn’t found elsewhere, and to experience the economic blessings that America enjoys. If they decide they love America and want to make it home, they pursue citizenship.

The problem with America’s broken immigration system is not that we are too welcoming to sojourners and immigrants, but rather that certain malicious actors are attempting to use uncontrolled (illegal) immigration to bring in additional constituents who will become dependent on government welfare and therefore inclined to vote a certain way if they are eventually granted the right to vote, or to destabilize our country by bringing in and harboring large numbers of criminals.

The balanced solution (supported by the Bible) would adhere to the following guidelines:

• Generally speaking, sojourners would be allowed to enter a host nation and then live and work there as long as they wish, as long as they follow the host nation’s laws, including paying taxes.
• Host nations would not vet sojourners based on some perceived standard of “value” they provide, any more than they would vet the children of their own citizens for what they contribute to the nation. They would also not use visas to restrict how long sojourners could stay or what jobs they could or could not work.
• Sojourners would be documented upon entrance and receive identification that clearly indicates that they are sojourners and not citizens. Sojourners identified as terrorists, criminals, or otherwise causes for concern (such as being infected with a contagious disease) would be restricted in their stay, quarantined, or denied entry altogether.
• Sojourners who commit crimes or terrorism in their host nation could be expelled and either temporarily or permanently denied re-entry. Of course, they could also be fined or executed, according to the same guidelines that apply to citizens.
• Sojourners would be denied certain privileges that belong to citizens who are formally allied with and committed to their home nation, such as the right to vote, eligibility to hold public office, and eligibility to hold commissioned office in the military. Sojourners would need to become citizens to obtain these privileges. Precedent for this is found in places such as Exodus 12:48, where circumcision was the mark of Jewish citizenship and entitled someone to keep the Passover. Deuteronomy 17:15 also provides precedent for restricting the holding of political office to citizens.
• For all taxes and laws not governing special privileges for citizens, application and enforcement for sojourners would be the same as for citizens (Exodus 12:49; Leviticus 24:22; Numbers 15:15-16). Even though citizens would have the right to vote, while sojourners would not, the nation’s legal system should explicitly forbid ever assigning second-class citizenship to sojourners in any law not governing a special privilege that is inherently tied to allegiance to the nation.
• Sojourners would be entitled to the same welfare resources as citizens (if you review the Bible verses I quoted in the welfare section above, you will see that all of them explicitly mention “strangers”). Our current “pay people not to work” welfare system would be unsustainable even if we denied welfare to all sojourners, so the solution is to fix welfare by following biblical principles, not by denying welfare to a class of people identified specifically by God as vulnerable, needy, and beloved in His sight.
• Sojourners would be expected to honor Christ’s ultimate authority in their host nation and not import false religions and idolatrous worship practices from their own homelands.
• If a sojourner decided to make his host nation his home and wished to become a citizen, the process would be as simple as ensuring the person understands the basics of the functioning of his new home nation, pledges allegiance to his new home nation, and potentially renounces his allegiance to his old home nation (depending on whether his new home nation permits dual citizenship with his old home nation). Because permission to dwell and work in the host nation would be granted to all who follow the nation’s laws, instead of being tied to citizenship, there would be no massive backlog of people seeking citizenship just so they could have a tolerable life. Note: this would also remove the need for birthright citizenship, as sojourners could dwell and work without having to “anchor” in their host nation.
• If a sojourner’s home country were to go to war with his host nation, the host nation would have the prerogative to require the sojourner to either be deported, be interned, or perform some kind of loyalty exercise to remain in his host nation (potentially including becoming a citizen and renouncing his allegiance to his home country). 

Concerns about whether there’s enough room to host everyone who wanted to dwell in a specific nation don’t hold up when you consider that if there’s enough room for future citizens to dwell in, there’s enough for sojourners. Population restrictions (if such a thing could ever be justly implemented) would have to be applied universally across citizens and sojourners.

Likewise, if the American population can expand from 4 million people in 1790 to 342 million in 2025, with the amount of jobs expanding to incorporate the additional people, a host nation’s economy would expand to accommodate sojourners (who would function as additional consumers, savers, and investors within the economy). There would be no need to fear sojourners or immigrants “stealing all the jobs.”

Foreign Policy

Until the world is united in following the gospel, a Christian nation would need to concern itself with allies and enemies. In the Bible, Israel had allies in ways God approved of (for example, David and Solomon allied with Hiram of Tyre), but Solomon’s decision to engage in the arms trade of his day (horses and chariots – 1 Kings 10:28-29), in violation of God’s commandment in Deuteronomy 17:16, strengthened the very Syrians who became such a vicious enemy for Israel later (indeed, in America we have frequently battled those whom we previously armed). Thus, balance would be needed in foreign policy.

America’s mantra is to “make the world safe for democracy,” but in the Bible, democracy is just one facet of a Christian nation, not its central tenet. A proper Christian foreign policy should include two considerations:

• Facilitating the spread of the gospel around the world.
• Avoiding entanglements with nations that do not acknowledge Jesus as Lord and are therefore not under His protection.

I propose what I call the “Flesh and Bone” foreign policy, whereby how a Christian nation engages with other nations depends on their friendliness to the gospel. Here’s an example of how it would work, as a scale from least friendly to most friendly:

• Nations that engage in or threaten hostilities against the Christian nation (including surreptitious attempts to sow instability or steal resources): Respond with military force, economic sanctions, trade restrictions, and other defensive measures as appropriate.
• Nations that are not actively hostile to the nation but oppress Christians within their own territory: Engage in trade, but do not allow companies and corporations within one’s own nation to conduct operations in the foreign nation (such as having a manufacturing plant within its borders).
• Nations that do not oppress Christians but are not explicitly Christian themselves: Allow companies and corporations to engage in commercial operations in the foreign nation, but do not sell the nation weapons or allow military businesses to engage in operations there.
• Nations that are explicitly Christian: ally with them militarily, provide them with weapons, and allow military business operations within their borders.

To define what “oppressing Christians” means, a nation would need to draft a concept of a Christian “bill of rights” that a nation must adhere to in order to not oppress Christians, with ideas such as:

• Christians shall have the freedom to worship in their homes or designated places of worship without being disturbed.
• Christians shall have the freedom to preach the gospel to non-Christians, distribute Bibles, etc.
• Any member of the nation may freely convert to Christianity without penalty.
• Christians shall have the right to point out injustices performed by the government without fear of reprisal.
• Christians may not be specifically targeted with restrictions for travel, commerce, or other aspects of civil life because of their faith.
• All members of the nation must be aware of these rights.

Religious Pluralism

The Bible does not agree with the modern American veneration of religious pluralism and respect for all faiths. A nation seeking to please God would forbid false religious teachings and idolatrous forms of worship within its borders (Deuteronomy 13). The definitions of false teaching and idolatry would have to be carefully calibrated so as not to outlaw any legitimate forms of Christianity.

Importantly, the Christian covenant is always voluntary, so it would be wrong to force anyone inside the nation to proclaim Christianity (“conversion by the sword”). Citizens and sojourners alike would always be permitted to raise reasonable objections to the faith, ask difficult questions, or choose not to profess Christianity if they do not genuinely believe. Nonetheless, they would not be permitted to teach that Jesus is not the Son of God or is not the Messiah, nor would they be allowed to engage in idolatrous worship.

Note that concerning foreign policy, a Christian nation would not concern itself with whether adherents of false religions are able to worship freely in other nations. The desire of a Christian nation should always be to attempt to create a sphere of liberty within the world for those who commit themselves to Christ, not to protect idolatry either at home or abroad.

Miscellaneous

Some odds and ends for applying the Mosaic Law to modern governance:

• The age of adulthood should be 20 (Numbers 14:26-35).
• Divorce should only be permitted for adultery, abuse, or abandonment (see Reconstructing Marriage).
• Education should be a parental responsibility, not a public one (Deuteronomy 6:6-7). Basic education might be a service provided to the needy as part of the welfare system, but the government should never have the power to control how its nation’s residents are taught to think and perceive the world.
• A just penalty for false witness should be commensurate to the damage that was caused or could have been caused by the witness’ lies (Deuteronomy 19:15-21).
• The government should have authority to use quarantining to control infectious diseases (Leviticus 13:1-46).
• Witchcraft, fortune-telling, sorcery, being a spiritual medium, or any other form of magic should be illegal (Deuteronomy 18:10-11).
• Kidnapping, especially to sell someone into slavery, should be severely punished (Exodus 21:16).
• Because the boundary between Jew and Gentile has been broken down (Ephesians 2:11-18), the authorization to enslave those outside Israel no longer applies. Instead, the ban against enslaving one’s fellow citizen has been extended to all nations (Leviticus 25:42-46), just as God’s covenant has. Slavery should thus be completely illegal.
• If someone’s negligence leads to destruction of someone else’s property, he must make the loss whole (Exodus 21:33-34, 36).
• If property is destroyed in a way that was not possible to anticipate, a reasonable arrangement should be worked out (Exodus 21:35).
• Intellectual property is not mentioned in the Bible. Trademarking should be enforced to prevent fraudulent business practices, but there is no biblical precedent for restricting distribution of an infinite resource (such as information) according to the notion of “property.”
• Defrauding should be illegal (Mark 10:19). A general anti-fraud law along these lines might help eliminate the bulk of the regulations we have in America today: “No provider of any good or service may misrepresent the nature of the good or service, nor may they misrepresent its benefits or risks. Providers must make a reasonable effort to identify and disclose all significant risks associated with a good or service.”
• Intentional murder should be a capital crime (Exodus 21:14).
• Unintentional killings should carry no punishment (Exodus 21:13). Manslayers without murderous intent only had to dwell in a special city until “the death of high priest who was anointed with the holy oil” (Numbers 35:25). Now that Jesus the Messiah (literally “anointed”), our High Priest (Hebrews 3:1), has died on the cross and risen from the dead, never to die again (Romans 6:9), this requirement has been abolished permanently.
• Deaths caused by negligence that isn’t criminal should carry no punishment (Exodus 21:28). But if the negligence is criminal, it should be a capital crime, although the victim’s family should be permitted to set a price for the criminal to pay them to spare his life (Exodus 21:29-31).
• Those who injure others in a physical altercation should be financially responsible for lost wages and medical costs from the victim’s recovery (Exodus 21:18-19).
• Careful consideration must be given to “degrees of bloodshed” (Deuteronomy 17:8) for difficult cases involving violence and harm and the resultant punishments.

Of course, there is plenty more guidance available in the Torah for the diligent student to uncover. A Christian nation establishing a biblically guided legal system would need to more thoroughly research the Mosaic Law and apply it to the best of its ability, adjusting its laws as necessary over time to incorporate new insights.