A Theology of Nations: Political Implications of God's Gift of Nationhood (Gen 10-12)

A Theology of Nations: 

Political Implications of God's Gift of Nationhood (Gen 10-12)

James M. Leonard, PhD

Note the purpose statement of this blog:

This blog attempts to beef up Christians' political perspectives. It is not about defending two or three moral issues, although such issues will not be neglected. What this blog is about is the promotion of a political perspective which is fully integrated with a mature Christian worldview while being entirely relevant to the current American political scene.

One of the key failures of our thinking is that we don’t have a well developed theology of nations. I suspect that books on Christians and politics are a dime a dozen, but books attempting to construct a theology of nations are quite rare (suggestions, anyone?). No doubt, Christians frequently arrive at wrong political conclusions simply because they fail to consider any theologically imposed obligations a country’s leaders might have. A well considered theology of nations would significantly impact a Christian’s political perspective.

Nations exist as a broad extension of the most basic sociological unit, the family. Families network with their neighbors, and neighborhoods develop associations with other neighborhoods, growing into ever larger units, tied together by common bonds such as geography, language, and other cultural considerations. Their mutual cooperation is designed to advance the common good of their constituent families.

This sociological perspective is compatible with a biblical model. Nationhood should not be dismissed as something arbitrarily conceived and thus dispensable; nor should nationhood be minimized as if it were opposed to Christian morality or even inherently evil.

A theology of nations begins at Genesis 10 and 11. Chapter 10’s Table of Nations provides a genealogical outline of postdiluvian civilization, united not only by genetics, but by language, geography, and perhaps even by divinely approbated conquest and intentional national development (see the commendation of Nimrod, vv. 8-12). Chapter 11 provides backgrounding information: nationhood was a consequence of God’s judgment at the Tower of Babel. There, the biblical author asserts that the families of the earth comprised a unity of culture and language in which nationhood was superfluous, at best. The attempt to prevent societal fragmentation and to establish a unified civilization independent of God was met by a divine scattering and the imposition of cooperative barriers inherent in variegated languages.

The two chapters are dischronologized. The nations are listed first in chapter 10, prior to the dispersion of chapter 11. Logically, the curse of chapter 11 had to happen prior to the existence of independent nations in chapter 10. What this dischronologization achieves is to juxtapose the curse of Gen 11 with the call of Abraham. The idea is that the dispersion and differentiation of nations will be remedied eventually by God as he works out the promises to Abraham and his descendents; through Abraham’s descendents (or rather, Descendent; cf. Gal 3:16), all the nations (מִשְׁפָּחָה) of the earth will be blessed (12:3).

Such is the beginning of a biblical theology of nations. It is one that recognizes that the division of society was a divinely imposed curse that will be remedied in the eschaton; thus, in Rev 22:2, the leaves of the tree of life are for the healing of the nations. Still, nationhood is nonetheless a gift; just as God blessed humankind with one day in seven to rest from the curse of work, God gives the blessing of nationhood to promote the general welfare of a people.

Much more needs to be said. The most important element of a theology of nationhood, however, is already evident, and leads to important implications. God’s gift of nationhood imposes certain responsibilities upon a nation’s leaders. From this we should infer that leaders must be just and rule their nations accordingly, assuring that each citizen has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with all due recourse to the law. Likewise, we should infer that nations should relate well and cooperate with other nations, as good, reasonable neighbors. The goal, as articulated in 1 Tim 2:2, is that citizens may live peaceful and quiet lives, or, in the words of Micah, “Everyone will sit under their own vine, and under their own fig-tree, and no one will make them afraid.”

The gift of nationhood, then, entails a national defense and a just war policy. Nationhood entails a policy that protects the interests of its citizenry. While individuals are encouraged to divest themselves of self-interest for the sake of others (Phil 2:4), national application of the same ethic at an international level would constitute a dereliction of stewardship, comparable to a father gratuitously giving away all his wealth and possessions, thereby forcing his wife and children into slavery.

To be sure, a nation should make every effort to be a blessing to all the nations of the earth. This desideratum, however, must be implemented with due concern for a nation’s own citizenry. 

Just War Theory and the Invasion of Iraq

This article was written a year ago, and so does not take into account recent dynamics such as the successful surge.


Dr. Keith Pavlischek, a Christian ethicists specializing in Just War Theory, visited Tyndale House recently to lecture on Just War, with special emphasis on the invasion of Iraq. I was very pleased with his argumentation which affirmed that the invasion was just.

I was unable to ask certain questions during the Q and A time, so here's is my interaction.

Saddam's Threat to America
Regarding whether or not Saddam was an imminent threat to America, I thought that Dr. Pavlischek had laid out a clear rationale as to how indeed Saddam was indeed a clear, imminent threat:

• He was a known supporter of terrorism;
  
• He made sure that everyone was convinced that he had WMD's;
  
• He had not complied with the terms of the Gulf War cease-fire
  
• He was still in state of belligerent hostility toward the U.S.
  

In light of 9/11, how could the U.S. not fear the very real perception that he would not take advantage of any opportunity to facilitate a WMD disaster against U.S.?

Saddam was like a neighborhood thug who is well-known beyond a shadow of a doubt for having robbed at gunpoint several convenient stores in recent years. If such a thug comes into your store and acts as if he's ready to rob the store, with his hand stuffed in his jacket pocket and his fingers formed into the shape of a pistol, ethics of the situation would demand that you get him out of your store, by force if necessary. If it were my wife or daughter minding the store, I myself would shoot him dead should he act threateningly and respond with refusals, threats, and belligerence. If it turned out that he didn't have a gun, one might be tempted to plant one in his hand. If this sounds unethical, consider that the U.S. could easily have planted some kind of nerve gas in one of Saddam's stockades, but didn't.

Why Now the Question of the Ethics of the Invasion?
But, more importantly, I was surprised as to why we're discussing the ethics of the invasion of Iraq. It happened about 6 years ago, and we can't do anything about it now. Moreover, there was no indication that this discussion is taking place in order to make us wiser for future military action. So, we ought to ask why people are all so jacked up about asking about the ethics of the invasion?

One obvious explanation is that there is a concerted interest in heaping condemnation on America for being such a baddy. But really, America has been exemplary in this matter. Back when the U.K. was set on world imperialism, if some poor villager's arrow landed anywhere close to His Majesty's army in Burma or some other occupied territory, would the arrow have constituted a threat to the kingdom? Hardly, but the fury of the kingdom would go unabated against this action. What other world power would have been so tolerant for so long, and worked so hard through world diplomacy, or even allowed Saddam to stay in power like the U.S. did?

A long convoy of trucks, military equipment and scientists would leave their U.N. compound
early in the morning, and make its long trip to an Iraqi inspection site, only to have some puny Iraqi military official say, "No. I regret to inform you that you may not inspect this facility today." And so, the convoy would then turn around, with tail tucked, and return back to its inert U.N. compound. Any other major military power would have shown up with tanks and rolled over anyone who tried to stop the inspection. The U.S. should have done so. World criticism of the U.S. handling of Iraq is illegitimate given our incredible restraint.

Saddam gave standing orders to harass our aircraft with machine gun fire throughout the 1990s, yet the U.S. allowed him to stay in power all those years. Incredible. This in itself was justification to remove him. Yet people have the nerve to say that he shouldn't have been punished for such provocative acts. Those aircraft are manned by real people—the sons and daughters or perhaps the moms and dads of America. Only hypercritical, agendized weanies would argue that this was no reason to remove Saddam.

The Future of the Middle East
Two of the just war elements are that there must be a reasonable chance for success, and that the war must be waged in order to establish the peace. This should have been the point of focus for Dr. Pavlischek.

Prior to the invasion, there simply was absolutely no foreseeable hope for peace in the Middle East. If American efforts to secure stability, peace and democracy in Iraq succeed, however, then the dynamics of the situation will have been altered profoundly. Peace, stability and democracy in Iraq will create increasingly greater pressure on Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia to pursue democracy. In this regard, there has already been some early fruits of the invasion, although much more is needed. The subversion of Middle Eastern countries to freedom and democracy would be the greatest boon to world peace we could possibly achieve in this century.

So, the burning question then, which I would have liked to pose to Dr. Pavlischek, is why are the western democracies so hopeful that American aims will be defeated in Iraq? It is an amazing thing to realize that the vast majority of Europeans would celebrate if America were to tuck tail and run out of Iraq tomorrow. Seeing that Europe is so much more vulnerable to the threat of Islamo-fascism, it is an amazing thing to see that not only are European governments refusing to help establish peace, stability, and democracy in Iraq, but they do things to undermine the American effort.

Europe's failure to aid in the establishment of peace, security and democracy in post-war Iraq borders on insanity.