I found this interesting video from David Pawson. I generally agree with what he is trying to say, and my aim is not to criticize him. But he does make one mistake that needs to be pointed out. AT 19.06 minutes into the video he makes the comment that “There is not a trace of democracy in the Bible!” I understand the point he is trying to make, but that is not strictly accurate. For about 400 years after the Israelites were led out of Egypt and entered the Promised Land, they had no “king” as such. They were ruled by “judges,” which was the closest thing to a “democracy” that you could come to in those days. The system was not “hereditary”. The judges did not rule as “kings”. It may not have been “democracy” as we understand it today, with “parliaments” and “elections;” but it was not a “kingdom” either. There was no one “ruling” over the people, or telling them what to do, as in a kingdom. That period is described in the Bible itself in these words:
Judges 17:
6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
Judges 21:
25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
And although there were no “elections” as such, still the “judges” ruled by the consent of the governed. If the people didn’t want someone to be their judge (or withdrew their support), then he could not have remained their judge. The people chose to follow them because they approved of them, and perceived them to be approved of God. It was the closest thing to a “democracy” in those days, and it certainly was not a “kingdom”. It was not “hereditary”. Indeed in the days of Samuel, who was their last judge, when the Israelites demanded a “king,” it was considered a sinful decision:
1 Samuel 8:
6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.
7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.
9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
1 Samuel 10:
17 And Samuel called the people together unto the Lord to Mizpeh;
18 And said unto the children of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I brought up Israel out of Egypt, and delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of all kingdoms, and of them that oppressed you:
19 And ye have this day rejected your God, who himself saved you out of all your adversities and your tribulations; and ye have said unto him, Nay, but set a king over us. Now therefore present yourselves before the Lord by your tribes, and by your thousands.
So “monarchy” or a “kingdom” is not the only form of government described in the Bible, nor indeed the preferred one. A democratically elected form of government (like the Judges) is regarded as closer to being “ruled by God” than a “monarchy” or a “kingdom” is.
Following that comment he then continues: “… when I went to see the film the Ten Commandments, I remember Cecil B. DeMille who directed it, made a speech at the beginning: ‘this film is about the beginnings of Western democracy.’ I wanted a shout out, ‘No such thing! The Bible doesn’t ever mention democracy.’” That is not quite correct either. Democracy is God given. True democracy is the closest thing to a genuine theocracy that is possible in our present world; and in a real sense the Bible (and especially the Ten Commandments) is the “beginning of Western (especially British-American) democracy”. The bedrock of both democracies is the rule of law, which in this case is the English Common Law, which is founded on the Ten Commandments.
Under English Common Law (which is also the basis of US law), Judges actually make law, and the decisions they make become precedents for future decisions by judges of similar kind. Judges can even act contrary to Government legislation, if they consider it to be unjust in a given situation:
“It has often been suggested that judges are somehow able to ‘overrule’ legislation, for example if, exercising the power given to them by the Human Rights Act 1998, they declare that a particular law is incompatible with the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights. The question is often framed in terms of ‘what right do these unelected judges have to overturn the laws set out by elected representatives in Parliament?’ It is right to suggest that judges are able to rule that the acts of public bodies are unlawful and to decide against the Government in a particular case. Indeed, this is a powerful check on the power of the State against the individual. Many of the examples seen in the media, or commented on by politicians, tend to focus on criminal matters or on Human Rights, but there are many other examples of judicial oversight enabling the State to redress unforeseen outcomes of its own legislation.” Link.
Following that comment he then continues: “… when I went to see the film the Ten Commandments, I remember Cecil B. DeMille who directed it, made a speech at the beginning: ‘this film is about the beginnings of Western democracy.’ I wanted a shout out, ‘No such thing! The Bible doesn’t ever mention democracy.’” That is not quite correct either. Democracy is God given. True democracy is the closest thing to a genuine theocracy that is possible in our present world; and in a real sense the Bible (and especially the Ten Commandments) is the “beginning of Western (especially British-American) democracy”. The bedrock of both democracies is the rule of law, which in this case is the English Common Law, which is founded on the Ten Commandments.
Under English Common Law (which is also the basis of US law), Judges actually make law, and the decisions they make become precedents for future decisions by judges of similar kind. Judges can even act contrary to Government legislation, if they consider it to be unjust in a given situation:
“It has often been suggested that judges are somehow able to ‘overrule’ legislation, for example if, exercising the power given to them by the Human Rights Act 1998, they declare that a particular law is incompatible with the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights. The question is often framed in terms of ‘what right do these unelected judges have to overturn the laws set out by elected representatives in Parliament?’ It is right to suggest that judges are able to rule that the acts of public bodies are unlawful and to decide against the Government in a particular case. Indeed, this is a powerful check on the power of the State against the individual. Many of the examples seen in the media, or commented on by politicians, tend to focus on criminal matters or on Human Rights, but there are many other examples of judicial oversight enabling the State to redress unforeseen outcomes of its own legislation.” Link.
