Consulting others and finding Truth

Rehoboam and James - wise and foolish politics

I Kings 12 relates the story of King Rehoboam deciding how to respond to a request from all Israel, sent through Jeroboam, asking the new king to lighten their load (hard labor, taxes).  Acts 15 relates the story of the council in Jerusalem in which the Apostles were asked to require gentile converts to Christianity to be circumcised. There are differences in the context, but the most important lesson is in the differences in execution.

Rehoboam was the undisputed heir of Solomon’s throne. He had no parliament to deal with, but he had advisors, as had his father. When the request came to him, he took time to consult his father’s advisers, and then to consult the young men who had grown up with him. There is no mention of prophets being asked at all. And then he decided which answer he would give. That was it. I Kings 12:16-20 records the consequences of his foolish decision. After that, a prophet finally appears on the scene (verses 22-24).

When Paul arrived in Jerusalem and told of the amazing work of the Holy Spirit among the gentiles, legalists insisted that Judaism was the path to Christ. Circumcision was given as a sign that the Jews were set apart from the nations, going back to Abraham. (Genesis 17:9-14) The apostles and elders gathered to look into the question. There was a vigorous debate (Acts 15:7) Peter then recounted the story of his visit to the household of Cornelius (Acts 10), and then Paul and Barnabas told of God’s working among the gentiles in their journeys. And then James gave his decision. Superficially, it might look like the process was the same. Rehoboam decided to follow his friends’ advice, James decided to accept Paul’s recommendation.

But there is a layer deeper. There is no suggestion that Rehoboam sought dialog between his two sets of advisors. James evidently had them all in the same room, enough so that they argued vigorously, discussing no doubt the basis for their recommendations. This contrast would appear to recommend the best path to make wise decisions would be the thesis – antithesis – synthesis paradigm; integrate everyone’s perspective into a unified outcome.

And so, in modern life, can we distill principles that are universally applicable? The easiest lesson is that of Proverbs 15:22, that many counselors enable plans to succeed. The implication is that no single person had a monopoly on truth or wisdom, and it is in the process of debating an issue that wisdom and successful plans emerge. Perhaps if Rehoboam had gathered all the advisors together so that they could debate the merits of their recommendations a reasonable compromise might have emerged. We will never know.

However, yet another layer of contrast can be seen. Rehoboam’s decision (1 Kings 12:14) had no hint of listening to either the people or his father’s advisors, or even any of the prophets. He was king and his word was law. James’ decision, recorded in Acts 15:22-29, did not say there are no requirements on how gentile believers should live. The letter, composed by committee, said there are fundamental norms for behavior, and that only the burden of the ceremonial law was lifted. They mentioned the Holy Spirit’s guidance. It was not a compromise, but a distillation of a new truth about the relationship between God and His people that emerged from interaction between apparently irreconcilable parties.

But I correct myself, and herein is the key. One Man has all Truth, He was the way, the truth, and the life. (John 14:6) If you search for the word wisdom in Proverbs you can find almost 50 verses. Many of them refer to wisdom as coming from the Lord. (E.g., 1:7, 2:6, 9:10, 15:33) This is the most fundamental difference between Rehoboam and the early apostles. Rehoboam wanted a practical answer and took bad advice. James and Peter and Paul wanted to hear what the Lord wanted them to do (not just what was efficient or expedient), and looked to the counsel of others to discern His will. James quoted Amos 9:11-12 to link their present situation to God’s promise of saving the gentiles. Ultimately the group collectively wrote the letter and sent a delegation to Antioch to convey that this was a community consensus on God’s will.

We cannot impose faith into matters of worldly politics, because so few in the world know the Lord. (Although God desires all men everywhere to be saved.) Hence, there is no cure here for rancorous political disputes. But although there are believers in both parties to every political dispute, it seems inconceivable that they could meet together to seek to hear the Lord’s voice and jointly discern His will. Not that He wouldn’t reveal it, but that most politicians would not risk alienating their base by meeting with the enemy. And herein lies the lingering infection in our political system. Believing politicians value how their voters perceive them over their desire to know God closely and do His will. Would that they would recognize the implicit truth that if God has called and gifted an individual for leadership, it is for His purposes, not theirs. How great is our God!