We live in a time in which the Bible has become an ancient book for many among the population. It has lost its relevance to many and only a constantly diminishing group of people still look to it for inspiration. That is why it was good that Dr. Jurn de Vries drew attention to the meaning of the Biblical commandments in politics in Denkwijzer, the monthly magazine of the scholarly institute of the political party, ChristenUnie [Christian Union]. He did so in reference to the term (public) “righteousness” in the core program of the party. This is an important term that is also used in other publications of the ChristenUnie. It is a term that is also used in the Bible. A well-known text is Proverbs 14:34: “Righteousness exalts a nation”. De Vries makes the following comments about it:

The Korte Verklaring [Brief Commentary] notes, that this speaks of acting in conformity with the law of the Lord. But it is doubtful that this is the intention. For this purpose the Bible normally uses another term, that is translated as “just” (“By me…rulers make laws that are just” (Prov. 8:15). The word “righteousness” implies that justice is done to those who have suffered injustice. That brings the intention of this verse very close to demonstrating mercy. In Matthew 6:1-4 it has even acquired the meaning of giving alms. The words “a nation” (Prov. 14:34) indicates that this proverb did not only apply to Israel, but is a word of wisdom with wider implications. Righteousness should characterize every nation. Therefore, according to Augustine, a community of people in which there is no righteousness cannot be called a nation. When a nation discards righteousness, it becomes a band of robbers.

When the core program speaks about the Biblical norm of righteousness, it undoubtedly means that the Bible teaches us to distinguish between good and evil. This applies to everyone, but also very specifically to governments. For it is their special task to judge between good and evil in this dispensation between the ascension and the return of Christ. God has given the governing authorities as restraining powers to counter the continuing effects of sin. They must punish the wrongdoer in order to protect human society (Rom. 13:4). The government needs wisdom and insight in carrying out this task and it finds them in the revealed Word of God.

But what is the reach of this task? Where does the public responsibility of government end and the personal responsibility of the citizen begin? If we fail to draw the boundary and leave the task of government unrestricted, we end up with a spiritual dictatorship. Let us consider the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20. Should the government proclaim and maintain them as public commandments also in our time?

The State and the Ten Commandments⤒🔗

These Ten Commandments certainly contain important wisdom for government policy. Ecclesiastes 12:13 says: “Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” So this applies also to persons who have been invested with governing authority. But it is important to remember that the law of Exodus 20 was not proclaimed as a universal rule for all nations. This text has a place in the covenant between God and his people and is directed at people who have been freed from slavery—then out of Egypt, now from the devil. This law demands covenant obedience.

It means that this law cannot function directly as a rule between government and nation in a society in which people of various backgrounds live together. The call to fear God does indeed extend to every person, but it does not reach them via the Criminal Code and its sanctions. Rather, the call demands faith and conversion. Every person, including everyone who occupies a position of authority, is called to live in accordance with God’s commandments. But this does not mean that one may compel others to heed this call by the use of sanctions that governments have at their disposal by virtue of their office.

Accordingly, it is not really correct to identify the government as “guardian of the two tables of the law”, as Calvin did in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, which statement was adopted by the French Confession of 1559 (art. 39). For that would lead to the conclusion that the government would have to forbid and punish the serving of other gods and the making of images of God’s creatures to worship them. We do not resolve the problem either by restricting the government’s public task to the so-called second table of the law, for the last commandment does not address conduct, but our inner attitude and no worldly authority can judge that.

When we deem the government to be directly responsible for the observance by its subjects of the law of God, the roles of church and state are improperly intertwined. Each has a distinct office. The government safeguards public order and society; the ecclesiastical office bearers are guardians of souls (Heb. 13:17). It is wrong to intermingle these offices. Thus, the church should not assume secular powers (as Rome did in the Middle Ages) and the government should not assume ecclesiastical powers (as happened in the Netherlands during the time of the Republic). Therefore the Belgic Confession rightly distinguishes between the spiritual order in the church (arts. 30-32) and civil government (art. 36). Both have their discrete functions in awaiting Christ’s return.

Biblical Righteousness and Politics←⤒🔗

The meaning of Biblical righteousness for politics lies in the first instance in what the government itself does in carrying out its own policy. An important aspect of this is that justice is done to those who suffered injustice. Thus, we should think of the care we provide for the weak and vulnerable in our country and in the third world, as a matter of Biblical righteousness. The Bible speaks with good reason about the cause of the oppressed (Ps. 146:7) and depicts the king as someone who defends the afflicted and maintains the rights of the poor, but crushes the oppressor (Ps. 72:4; 82:3; Jer. 22:3). Another aspect of this is that the government must be honourable and incorruptible in its own actions. Corruption and the taking of bribes do not become a governing authority (Ex. 23:8; Deut. 16:19; Eccl. 7:7). Rather, governing authorities must display the image of God in these matters (Deut. 10:17ff).

The government also has the task of enacting laws that seek to restrain the lawlessness of people and to ensure that all things are done among them in good order (Belgic Confession, art. 36). This concerns the safeguarding and protection of human society. If there were no governments and laws, people would do as they saw fit (Judg. 21:25). By its laws the government declares the distinction between right and wrong insofar as that is relevant to the mutual relationships between people.

Only Public Behaviour←⤒🔗

The civil laws cannot combat all evil, but only actions that become evident to the state. However, the law of God also touches the heart. The Criminal Code is directed against such things as theft and robbery. But there are also forms of theft that are beyond the reach of the Code (Heidelberg Catechism, Answ. 110). Even a government that does not fear God has a sense of right and wrong (Canons of Dort III/IV, 4). Unbelievers who do not recognize God as lawgiver, often adhere to the law of nature. By their deeds they demonstrate that what the law demands is written on their hearts (Rom. 2:13, 14).

Such observance of the law is not sufficient to come to a salvific (saving) knowledge of God and people cannot realize their eternal salvation by observing the law. But the observance can serve to promote a minimal order in society and more especially when people take account of the revealed will of God in their lives. In all time periods unbelieving governments have shown that they had some understanding of which societal actions ought to be forbidden and punished, even though they themselves were often guilty of them.

De Vries admits that it is impossible to demarcate precisely where the task of government, to determine what is good and evil, ends and the individual responsibility of human beings begins. But the well-known liberal slogan: that our freedom ends when the freedom of another person is attacked, is deficient because it speaks only about individuals. It is useful that the writer supports his argument not only by reference to the Bible, but also to the Three Forms of Unity. The Reformed confession continues to provide a solid underpinning for Christian political thought today. We must not jettison the gains of half a century of Reformed political thought now that Christian political action is taking a different form. In the conclusion of his article De Vries continues his argument by reference to the Canons of Dort and to Christian leaders of the past, such as Augustine and Calvin. It is striking how both of these leaders warned about a criminal justice system which served almost exclusively as retribution for evil that has been committed. This is a warning that is relevant to the call, especially by parties of the right in the Netherlands, to impose heavier punishments on wrongdoers and invest less money in the rehabilitation of prisoners.

Criminal Law and Church Discipline←⤒🔗

There is a principial difference between criminal law and church discipline. The government punishes the deed, even when the sinner repents; the church punishes a hardening in sin with the object of seeking the sinner’s repentance. The Church Order of Dort puts it this way (art. 71): “Since church discipline is of a spiritual nature, and does not absolve anyone from civil punishment, so also, in addition to civil punishment, Church discipline is necessary in order to reconcile the sinner to the church and his neighbour and to remove all offence out of the church of Christ.” The church can certainly exercise discipline over that which the government does not punish and conversely also when the sinner repents, not to exercise discipline even though the government punishes the sinner. The church also does not judge what lives in a person’s heart, but only the expressions of it…

Augustine wrote that good governments should be slow to punish, but quick to forgive; administer punishment for the protection of the state and not to quench its anger; grant forgiveness not in order to leave the evil unpunished, but with the hope of improvement; and look for a lenient counterbalance for the strict judgments which it are often compelled to make. Calvin also speaks in this way. He opposes the severe and cruel harshness of the criminal law of his time. “The best counsellor of kings . . . the kind-hearted quality that someone once rightly called the most important gift of sovereigns,” should also find a seat in the courts of justice.

In this way Biblical righteousness teaches both what the government ought to do and what it ought to abstain from. Christian politics has the task to clearly distinguish these two.