David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. 
by David Yeagley"/>
Nationhood is ordained of God. This is evident in scripture from Genesis (11:7,8) through Revelation (21:24). It was not the first design, but a resort, due to the apparent incorrigibility of the fallen human race. Nations are subject to probation, as well, evincing their character and values (Gen. 15:13-16).
Given this arrangement, how is a nation to be managed? What are the standards, the rules, the concepts. Surely, the Lord would not judge without having revealed the standard.
Enter: Israel. Though nationhood was long established, and the ranks of heathendom were magnified in ungodly images and cruel human relations–labor management being the fundamental abuse, the Lord ordained a new kind of nation, a long awaited exemplar of what He would have a nation be.
It was a tall order, and he created a special people for this assignment. No existing people were demonstrably capable, apparently. None were elected for this extraordinary purpose.
The most obvious, yet, utterly forgotten concept in the nature of ancient Israel was its economy.
Economy is a strange kind of word, with so many different applications, but the basic connotation pertains to income (profit) and expenditure (debt). A “good” economy is one in which production is high, and profits are high. A “bad” economy is one in which production is low and debts are high.
Nevertheless, in general public discussion, the word “economy” has little specific meaning, and functions as some emotional buzz word. Obviously, the US government has behaved as though debt is not critical. A “bad” economy is quite normal, expected, and operable. This is the message of the US government behavior. Never mind political theory or campaign rhetoric.
In ancient Israel’s “economy,” there is something we really need to consider. The original plan was remarkable. Israel was to have no relations with other nations. No leagues, covenants, agreements, or cooperative efforts. It was total “isolationism,” socially and economically. Israel was not to imitate the any other nation, in any way (Deuteronomy 7:1-8).
The United Nations building, in New York City,
generating the worst possible concept of nationhood.
This means no trade relations. Israel was to be utterly self-sufficient, with no dependence on any nation, for any reason. Israel produced for itself, not for others; nor did Israel produce for others.
If Israel maintained this trust (–and it would take complete trust in the power of the Creator), all would be well, and it would be a testimony of what the Lord designed for all the nations, each and every one, regardless of size or location (Deut. 4:6-7).
It took some time, and a lot of getting used to, but, there came a point when Israel more or less achieved the execution of the Lord’s design. Indeed, the kings and queens of the world looked to Israel for the secret of her mysterious “economy.” Potentates brought massive amounts of wealth to Israel, in some inexplicable intuition that all things proceeded from Jerusalem. Jerusalem became some kind of international bank, or storage place for the treasures of the world–or at least of those nations who recognized the strange superiority of Israel. This was all during the peak of Solomon’s reign (I Kings 10; II Chronicles 9).
This is all extraordinary, for it evolved without imperialism. No nation was forced to despot treasure in Jerusalem. This was not a military regime. I Kings 10: 24, 25, e.g.:
And all the earth sought to Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart. And they brought every man his present, vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and garments, and armour, and spices, horses, and mules, a rate year by year.
It was not about trade. It was not about a planned and coerced global “economy.” It was the natural centralization of wealth, the voluntary recognition of the mysterious transcendence, the magic, if you please, of Israel, of Israel’s God. This was probably the rarest moment in the history of nations.
And it did not last long. All began to decline, even before Solomon died. Why? Transgression of the rules. Hyper-taxation and levies. Solomon became self-centered, and somehow lost the vision of purpose. The Bible says it was because of the women in his life. Too many, and of the wrong kind. This was the main error of his regime. These relationships were political covenants–precisely the kind that were unholy, forbidden, and came with a curse.
Solomon assumed to himself the responsibility of international relations, instead of simply trusting the power of the Lord to control all circumstances in the world, from the weather to the heart, from nature to the human soul.
A lack of trust–that was the fall. That’s always the fall. That’s where man gets off. We just can’t seem to trust God, not for very long, if ever.
But the lesson is clear. True nationhood is about independence, not trade relations with other countries. Nationhood is about self-reliance and proper values, not international agreements or globalist machinations.
6 responses so far ↓
1 David Yeagley // Sep 6, 2009 at 3:50 pm
The founding fathers of America were quite willing to go it alone, at least in theory. They ended up making alliances with Indians, France, and a few other European nations.
Somehow, we always think alliances are necessary. It takes a super-human courage to actually depend on the Lord. Israel wasn’t all that consistant at it. If the Jews couldn’t master the play more than five minutes of history, who else could even expect to approach the goal?
2 One Salient Oversight // Sep 6, 2009 at 4:33 pm
David,
I think you’re incorrect on a number of levels.
1) The passage you refer to regarding Israel’s relationship with other nations is specifically to those nations Israel was warring against and who possessed the land of Canaan. Countries outside the land of Canaan were not part of this. Deuteronomy 7.1-8 refers to seven nations: Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. These were the nations who controlled the land of Canaan that was promised to Israel by God, and it was THOSE nations that God commanded Israel to have no dealings with as Israel went in and conquered them.
One of the nations outside the land of Canaan were the Sidonians, whose capital was Tyre and who, during the reign of Solomon, was ruled by King Hiram. 1 Kings 5 points out that Hiram had “always loved” King David and thus paid his respects to Solomon. When Solomon built the temple at Jerusalem, he used timber (cypress and cedar) sourced from Lebanon. This was achieved through a “trade deal” between Solomon and Hiram. Was this the right thing for Solomon to do? 1 Kings 5.12 says that “The LORD gave Solomon wisdom, as he promised him. And there was peace between Hiram and Solomon, and the two of them made a treaty.”
So God blessed the peace treaty and trade arrangements between Israel and the Sidonians. That pretty much invalidates the argument that Israel was completely independent and self-sufficient.
2) Israel is not America. Too much in American Christianity are the rules God gave to Israel seen as equivalents to modern day America. When God gave his command to Israel to build a temple and have sacrifices, no command can be seen for the US to do the same thing.
Israel was God’s covenant people. When God set up the new covenant under Christ, God’s covenant people became the church – the followers of Christ. Any equivalencies in Old Testament interpretation should therefore be made between Israel and the church, not Israel and the USA (or any country for that matter).
Jesus said “My Kingdom is not of this world” in John 18.36. The Kingdom of God is therefore a spiritual entity in which its members are located both within the physical world and in heaven, and one which is not limited to, or equivalent to, the kingdoms of men.
3 David Yeagley // Sep 6, 2009 at 9:36 pm
I did expect a response like yours. It is easy to make, given the positions I have taken in interpretation.
David took from surrounding nations–gold, silver, timber, though he was not to build the Temple. He took, by force, and accumulated the supplies.
It doesn’t matter what bonds he made with other nations. This was forbidden. Israel, and God’s leaders, often did things they weren’t supposed to do. Abraham was no exception.
But, you’re trying to turn around the entire tenor of thought created by the ban on “other nations.” Haven you not read Isaiah, and major prophets about the evils of Tyre and Sidon? The king of Tyre comes to represent Satan himself.
I think you’re missing the point here, quite easily done, of course, by denying the validity of Israel, ancient or modern. I detect a serious aversion to Jews in your responses. Or, certainly, a serious aversion to a literal belief and understanding of scripture. Am I wrong?
We’re talking about the concept of nationhood. Not the religion of Christianity.
4 David Yeagley // Sep 6, 2009 at 9:39 pm
The advent of the Christian religion does not nullify the existence of nations. “Equality” in Christ pertains to access to divine mercy, not materialism, race, or ethnicity. Spirituality does not cancel, make disappear, or otherwise discount the ordination and honor of the nations.
Or, how do you read the texts I presented, in the OT and NT? “All nations.” In both cases. All nations. Not the Cana’an tribes alone.
What exactly are you trying to do with your thoughts here? What are you trying to invalidate?
5 David Yeagley // Sep 7, 2009 at 11:12 am
Israel was not to be an “enemy” to all nations of the world, no. And gifts from those who recognized Israel were permitted. A gift is not a league or a covenant.
6 Walksthrough // Sep 7, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Some observations on both yours and OSO’s remarks.
Regarding David’s, [a nation, an individual] has to know God, has to believe God, in order to trust Him. We can know God through reading or hearing His Word aka the Holy Bible, which is now being disparaged in the open more than ever. The Word reveals Jesus Christ, who is the coming King over all nations.
The power of God over His creation is not magic.
The Left trusts in government, which is man’s wisdom. The Right, today, in countering the new emphasis on government power, is saying the individual not the government has wisdom and our founding documents reflect that. But the founders knew that their documents were biblically based and gave references thereto in their respective writings.
When Jesus Christ returns to reign, the wealth of the nations will flow into Israel and the nations will feed off of Israel. Jerusalem will be the navel of the earth.
Lack of trust is fatal to our national and spiritual economies–induced by the lure of being “like God.” We as individuals and therefore as governments do not have wisdom, this is the province of God. I believe this is the fatal flaw of the Right today, and will not bring us back from the brink.
(I hope that you can see the positive things I put here, even though I ended on a down note. We have a wonderful and sure hope both now and future, those of us who have put our trust in Jesus Christ.)
Regarding OSO’s, I disagree with your statement, “When God set up the new covenant under Christ, God’s covenant people became the church – the followers of Christ.” This is replacement theology. However, this gets into a whole other subject, so I will not elaborate here. Otherwise I agree that America should not appropriate that which is obviously that of Israel’s–which is why I am puzzled by your replacement persuasion. But, another time and place.
You must log in to post a comment.