In America, professional pundits have been prophesying the end of democracy for decades. Fiscal hawks believe our debt will destroy us. Republicans warn Democrats will bring socialism or communism, Democrats warn Republicans will bring oligarchism or Authoritarianism. Pastors claim our immorality will destroy us. It seems many are ready to dispense with democracy. But perhaps Winston Churchill said it best:
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.
So what does the Bible say? Regarding democracy directly, absolutely nothing. But the Bible does provide an important model of the ideal form of government from God’s perspective. That government is illustrated in Israel’s history.
Importantly, Israel’s government was not a democracy nor did Israel ever seek to be a democracy. Ironically, there was no separation of church and state. Conflicts were resolved by tribal elders or priests who were to establish righteous outcomes against the law of Sinai. That was how conflicts were settled (Deuteronomy 17:8-13). All citizens were subject to their rulings.
There was no ruling class and no body responsible for establishing laws. The laws had already been established at Sinai. There were tribal leaders but the degree to which they interacted is unclear. Citizens all had equal rights under the law and assurance of land in perpetuity. Though Israel was allowed to pick a king (Deuteronomy 17:14-20), they were chastised when they did so. God’s response was that Israel was rejecting Him as king (1 Samuel 8:7).
Democracy is Not a Godly But Anti-God and Anti-Christ
In light of Israel’s history, one wonders how our religious leaders came to the conclusion that God formed our nation and that somehow our Constitution is hallowed. There’s been no shortage of arguments presented about how godly our forefathers were, but if so, how did they wander so far from God’s intended model of government?
The answer is really quite simple . . . but terribly inconvenient. Truth is, they weren’t setting up a godly government, despite what you’ve been told. They set up a government separate from religion that would be tolerant to opposing views of religion, including non-Christian religions. Their priority was not godliness as that’s arguable based upon one’s religious views.
Their priority was to sidestep that thorny issue by assuring religious liberty. Liberty was the foundation upon which our governmental system was built. Religious liberty was the motivator that brought many Christians to America, seeking refuge from religious persecution often carried out by the state-sponsored religion. Thus, they sought to protect their freedom to worship as they saw fit.
Some Christians my find this unsettling if not objectionable. But if we step back from the ledge and consider for a moment, democracy is a system in which men decide the laws and governance of the community. Man’s decisions are final, regardless if they conflict or contradict God’s laws. And isn’t that exactly what many Christians find so infuriating about our government? Their expectation is a godly outcome from men but history shows that’s extremely unlikely.
What so many Christians and Christian leaders miss is democracy elevates the will of man above the will of God. It inherently enshrines the decisions of men and laws made by men. There is no system more ungodly or anti-christ than democracy. Men are in charge, not God. It’s makes examination of its end pertinent as there should be no expectation God won’t destroy a system that inherently opposes Him.
The Final Form of World Government and its Relation to Democracy
Biblically, most of us know that the final form of political power will be an authoritarian who rules the world. It is a system described as “the Beast from the Sea” or “the Beast” for short (Revelation 13;1). He will demand everyone pay him homage. Those refusing will be denied economic benefits or martyred (13:15-17). Where does democracy fit into this end-time scheme? Revelation doesn’t tell us directly. But Scripture, together with some details from secular history, may provide a clue.
Rome’s History
An historical examination of some of the great kingdoms of the world proves instructive. We begin with Rome, as Rome certainly was the basis for John’s visions in Revelation (17:9-11). Christians had suffered great persecution at the hands of the Romans, particularly Nero. It was during the reign of various Caesars that the early church suffered persecutions and martydoms. Often sacrifices were offered to the reigning Caesar. Refusal to participate brought economic exclusion from trade groups, a form of persecution. This was Rome of John’s day.
It is easy to forget that Rome was originally established as a Democratic Republic utilizing many of the democratic principles prior seen in Greece. Though not all were allowed to vote, Rome had an elected Senate who established laws and policies and oversaw the empire. Julius Caesar’s rise brought an end to democracy in Rome. Though murdered before completely succeeding, his son Augustus completed the transition and Rome became a permanent dictatorship (emperorship). Not long thereafter, caesars were referring to themselves as deity with sacrifices often made to them. It is a troubling outcome for those of us who treasure democracy and hope it will triumph. In Rome, it ultimately failed. With time, the worst outcome was seen, with Rome’s dictators behaving like gods and persecuting the saints.
Greece’s History
Greece also had a strong democratic tradition, considered the father of modern democracy. Together with Rome, Greece serves as a model for modern democracies around the globe. Democracy had its origins in Athens and flourished initially. It was a radically different form of government from prior forms, investing an enormous responsibility in its male citizens to govern. [1] But even here, with time democracy was snuffed out. Unlike Rome, whose democratic collapse came from within, in Greece it came from without, with Athen’s military subjugation by Philip, father of Alexander. It formally ended democracy, replacing it with a dictatorship (kingship).
Under Alexander, the process of global Hellenization began. With Alexander’s victory over Persia, he became convinced he was the son of the god Zeus. [2] Troubling as this belief was, with time it would get worse. With Alexander’s death, his empire was split into four kingdoms though maintaining its Hellenistic character. Palestine became embroiled in a power struggle between the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires. With the advent of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (meaning “god manifest”), God’s people were persecuted and martyred as never before. The late chapters of Daniel refer to this time. Some consider him a prototype of the Antichrist. Again, the outline of a troubling pattern emerges.
Babylon’s History
Babylon was also a powerful global empire under the rulership of king Nebuchadnezzar. Though in her zenith dictatorship (kingdom), there is evidence to support that ancient Sumerian city-states may have introduced a proto-democratic system:
It has been recently suggested that the earliest form of government in Mesopotamia was what is described as a “Primitive Democracy,” i.e., government by the assembly of the free men of the city, actual power was in the hands of a body of elders who dealt with the day to day needs of the community, but in times of crisis chose a single individual to take control for a limited period, just as the Romans in early Republican times chose a dictator to deal with the threat of invasion, but expected him to return to the status of a simple citizen after the crisis was over. [3]
Again, governance that appears to prototype democracy was present in Sumerian city-states preceding Babylon’s rise as a dictatorial empire. With the rise of Nebuchadnezzar, Scripture records how often he behaved as a god with resultant persecution of God’s people (Daniel 3). His arrogant behavior as lord of the earth brought judgment of insanity upon him (Daniel 4). Again, the same troubling pattern is evident.
Assyria’s History
Again, governance in early Mesopotamian history suggests an assembly of counselors or elders represented the people (free men) in decision-making and dispute resolution. At some point, it yielded to kingship. There is insufficient information to positively affirm it though consolidation of Assyria may well have happened under Sargon. Narma-Sin, grandson of Sargon, had exploits exceeding his father, extending the kingdom throughout the known world, referring to himself as “King of the four Quarters”. [4] With the rise of Naram-sin, kingship also took on divine overtones prior unknown in Mesopotamia. [5]
Perhaps the most significant innovation under the Agade kings, however, was in their conception of kingship, and for the first time we see intimations of the stereotype Oriental monarch. Sargon’s titles were comparatively modest and reflected little more than the titular used by the later Early Dynastic kings, but under Naram-Sin a change took place so startling that it proved in the long run unacceptable. At some point during his reign Naram-Sin adopted a style previously the exclusive prerogative of the gods. On his own inscriptions his name appears preceded by the determinative for “divinity”, that is, the cuneiform sign “god” normally written before the name of a god. The language in texts dedicated to him is even less reserved, and in these his “servants” address him not merely as divine but literally as “god of Agade”. On his famous stele he is depicted wearing a horned helmet: such “horns of divinity” were normally the prerogative solely of gods. [6]
Again, one sees in Mesopotamian history a similarly troubling development. Government initially handled by an assembly of persons representing the populace (quite possibly a primitive democracy) over time yielding to a kingship. With no separation of church and state, kingship devolved into a system where the king declared himself god.
Though the pattern becomes fainter as one dials back further into Ancient Oriental history, the outline persists. One cannot assert with certainty that each of these kingdoms brought persecution of God’s saints with elevation of the dictator to status of god, but it would be equally unwise to dismiss the possibility. Those unwilling to pay homage to the king as god, risked persecution.
A Warning to the Church from Israel’s History
What makes this pattern of interest to Christians is John’s eschatological warnings regarding the final eschatological enemy of God’s people. He will be a king who demands that all nations pay him homage and worship him as God, persecuting the saints. This outcome seems present at least in part in four of Israel’s historical enemies, hinting a pattern of our future. Importantly, since democracy seemed to consistently pre-date such dictatorial regimes, it portends democracy’s end. How might this tie to events today in the USA and its democratic allies?
Though Israel never had a democratic government, there was an episode in which Israel appears to have made a “democratic” decision. It is found in 1 Samuel 8:1-22. It is a well known story of the sin of the Israelites in asking for a king. Many Christians know this story and the ethical teaching behind it that Israel rejected God as their king when they demanded an earthly king (1 Samuel 8:7).
For our purposes, it is important to recognize that the demand for a king was by the people through their elders (1 Samuel 8:4). The people in effect, democratically decided to appoint an earthly king rather than remain under the default kingship of God.
When one examines the events of Saul’s life, it is instructive. Early in his reign he was highly successful with the Spirit of God resting upon him (e.g. 1 Samuel 10:6; 11:6). But his kingship quickly took a turn for the worse with God rejecting him (1 Samuel 13:13-14; 15:11, 23). Saul disobeyed God’s command and would be replaced by another king.
The one appointed to replace Saul was David (1 Samuel 16:13), a prototype of Christ. Here is where the story becomes interesting as Saul persecuted David and attempted to kill him (1 Samuel 19:1-16; 23:7-28). Scripture affirms a rivalry between them in which David was consistently righteous and Saul consistently in opposition to God’s anointed. Importantly, their relationship hints that Saul was a picture of the Antichrist, the one opposing Christ and His kingdom.
Relevance to Christians Today
If true, it opens the possibility that the Antichrist will be “democratically” appointed, or at least that his origins will be from the democratic system prevalent in our world today. Critically, it is also possible that Saul’s appointment portends appointment of the Antichrist by the church!
Many Christians may find it laughable. There’s no way they could support the Antichrist! But in truth they already have. To explain, one must understand Deuteronomy 17:14-20, which lays out the requirements for any king Israel wishes to choose. Many evangelical chritians soundly reject that they must follow these requirements, claiming them unreasonable and unnecessary for positions of political leadership. For them, the standard is too high.
But such protestations are simply an excuse. They fail to understand their purpose. The requirements foreshadow Christ as the church’s king. That is why the standard is set so high. Like Israel, the church is allowed to pick its own king, but the expectation is that the church will choose Christ as its king.
If one looks at recent events, church support for candidates that fall well short of these requirements is routine. Worse, its unwavering support of conservatism embodied in Donald Trump has the look and feel of supporting an antichrist. Not necessarily the Antichrist but an antichrist (1 John 2:18). Church support of his authoritarian tendencies has also brought warnings of democracy’s demise. For the church, the history of Saul should be a warning.
The faint, historical pattern hinting democracy’s end is with an authoritarian. The pattern also points to the possibility the authoritarian would behave like God by demanding obeisance (a form of worship) and persecute God’s people. The persecution of God’s people is the piece that appears to be missing. It makes it tempting to dismiss the claims of this post.
But the history of Antiochus IV is instructive. When he became king, he first suggested the Jewish people abandon their God and embrace Hellenistic ideas and culture. Many willingly abandoned the faith, seeing great advantages (among them economic advantages) in accepting Greek culture.
Those who refused to Hellenize were then brutally persecuted. Their temple was desolated with an image of Zeus and a pig was offered upon the altar (pigs were a standard offering for Zeus). Paul seems to employ this incident in his warning of 2 Thessalonians 2:4.
For the Jews of Antiochus’ day, everything started out favorably but then turned persecutorial for those unwilling to pay him obeisance (note the similar pattern with Saul). It may be a forewarning for the church. If we reject Christ by demanding our own “king”, one should expect that God will not deny us our wish. After all, he didn’t deny Israel their desire for a king.
In fact, 1 Samuel tells us God picked the king, and history shows the terrible result. The king the people wanted fully opposed God and God’s anointed, David. If we like Israel, demand our own king, we should expect God will choose one for us that will be like Saul – rejected by God, opposing Christ and attempting to destroy Him (and His people).
The message is clear. Be careful what you ask for. Here we have no earthly city (Hebrews 13;14) and no earthly king. Our city is a heavenly city and our king is the ruler of heaven and earth. Give Him, and Him alone, all obeisance.
[1] https://brewminate.com/oligarchy-tyranny-and-democracy-in-ancient-greece/
[2] https://www.worldhistory.org/article/925/alexander-the-great-as-a-god/
[3] Hooke, S. H., Babylonian and Assyrian Religion, Norman OK, University of Oklahoma Press, 1963, p. 8. See also Saggs, H.W.F., The Greatness that was Babylon, New York, The New American Library, 1962, p.57-58
[4] Petrovich, Douglas, Identifying Nimrod of Genesis 10 with Sargon of Akkad by Exegetical and Archaeological Means, JETS 56/2, 2013, p. 302, available @ http://www.academia.edu/2184113/_2013_Identifying_Nimrod_of_Genesis_10_with_Sargon_of_Akkad_by_Exegetical_and_Archaeological_Means.
[5] Unlike Egypt, divine kingship was not known in Mesopotamia before Naram-Sin. “From the beginning to the end of Egyptian history the Pharaoh was unequivocally divine and was treated as a god.” Hooke, S. H., Babylonian and Assyrian Religion, Norman OK, University of Oklahoma Press, 1963, p. 27
[6] Oates, Joan, Babylon, London, Thames and Hudson Ltd, 1979, p. 41