Scripture presents Paul the apostle as “the pattern believer” for all Christians (1 Cor. 11:1; Phil. 3:17). Had Paul been a US citizen today, which candidate would he have voted for in this year’s presidential elections?

Paul as Citizen of a Non-Christian Government

Paul was a natural-born citizen of the nation of Rome (Acts 22:28). The Roman government was not a Christian government by any stretch of the imagination.

In his latter years, Paul spent much time as a prisoner of the Roman government (Acts 21-28; etc). He had several encounters with top Roman leaders in his lifetime (Acts 23-26).

From the Scriptural record of one of Paul’s encounters with a key civil official, we learn vital information about what Paul believed concerning what kind of person such a political leader needed to be.

Paul’s Ministry to a Roman Governor

While he was imprisoned, Paul had a noteworthy evangelistic encounter with the Roman governor Felix:

Act 24:24 And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.

 ²⁵ And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.

Stanley D. Toussaint’s comments in the Bible Knowledge Commentary help bring out what Paul displayed was important to address on this occasion:

Felix must have taken a brief trip with his wife, Drusilla. When they returned, Felix sent for Paul who spoke about faith in Christ Jesus. Felix was brought under conviction when Paul discoursed on righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come. Well he should, for his marriage to Drusilla was his third and he had to break up another marriage to secure her. His regime was marked by injustices that contrasted with the righteousness of God. And he was a man grossly lacking in self-control (BKC: NT, 422; words in italics are in bold in the original).

Paul challenged this secular civil leader in a non-Christian government about his sinful lack of self-control. The Greek word that Luke used for “temperance” (egkrateia) in his inspired summary record of this encounter highlights that Paul confronted him about his sexual immorality.

In this encounter, Paul showed that he held that the lack of moral character of a civil official in a non-Christian government was a vital matter that he had to address in his dealings with that official.

Which Candidate Would Paul Have Voted For in 2016?

Based on what we learn from Acts 24:24-25, we can be certain that the apostle Paul would have scrutinized thoroughly all the candidates in this year’s presidential elections concerning their lack of moral character. Of the candidates that he would have had to choose from, there would have been one who would have most closely and conspicuously resembled Felix in this key respect.

Had Paul had the opportunity to vote in this year’s presidential elections, he would never have voted for a man who was like Felix because Paul would have heeded what God demands of all civil leaders: “The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God” (2 Sam. 23:3). Because God commands us to be followers of the apostle Paul (1 Cor. 11:1), we must hold that the moral character of a prospective President of the US is an essential consideration upon which we must base all our decisions about the candidate (or candidates) for whom we vote.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

I recently engaged in an online discussion with some believers who assert that it is a fairly common view among believers today to hold that Boaz and Ruth fornicated on the night before they were married. In all my readings of the Book of Ruth, I do not remember ever thinking that the language of the passage shows that they engaged in sexual immorality on that occasion.

Several considerations lead me to reject this apparently widespread contemporary view categorically.

A Virtuous Woman Would Not Go Along with an Immoral Scheme

Ruth was a virtuous woman whose excellent character was known to all the people and attested to by them (Ruth 3:11). She went to the threshing floor where Boaz was sleeping that night because Naomi her mother-in-law instructed her to do so (Ruth 3:1-5).

Ruth uncovered Boaz’s feet and lay down at his feet because Naomi told her to do so (Ruth 3:4). To hold that Ruth and Boaz fornicated that night because Ruth put herself in that situation would mean that she would have gone along with an immoral scheme that her mother-in-law had devised.

Because Ruth was a virtuous woman, she would not have knowingly gone along with such an immoral scheme. The importance of this observation is heightened by a second key consideration about this encounter between Ruth and Boaz.

Their Supposedly Fornicating Does Not At All Fit the Flow of Thought

Their supposedly fornicating on the night before they were married does not fit the flow of thought at all. There was a kinsman who was closer to Ruth than Boaz was (Ruth 3:12). Neither Boaz nor Ruth knew, therefore, at that time whether they would ever be married because they did not know what that person would choose to do about his right of redemption (Ruth 3:13; 4:4).

To hold that Ruth and Boaz slept together on the night before they were married means that they would have to have given in to their fleshly lusts in spite of their not having any surety whether there would be any future for them to be together. Their having done so would thus have been a far different matter than the situation of engaged couples who succumb to their fleshly desires before their upcoming planned weddings.

Moreover, Naomi also would have been responsible for putting Ruth in that compromising situation because she was the one who directed Ruth to do what she did. She then would have shared responsibility for the defiling of Ruth without having any certainty that Boaz would even be able to marry Ruth the next day.

Our Responsibility to Give Other Believers Every Reasonable Benefit of the Doubt

We must give Ruth and Boaz every reasonable benefit of the doubt. As discussed above, Scripture does not provide any compelling evidence that shows that they engaged in premarital intimacy.

In fact, the inspired record strongly precludes their having been immoral together on that night. It would be unrighteous, therefore, for believers to assert that Boaz and Ruth were immoral on that occasion.

Conclusion

Boaz and Ruth are alive today in the presence of God. We who are believers in Jesus Christ will spend all eternity with them.

Because we do not have irrefutable evidence to show that they fornicated on the night before they were married, we should not dishonor them by suggesting that they fornicated when they met that night. If we do so, and they testify to us someday in heaven to the purity of their dealings on that occasion, we will owe them an apology in that day.

Moreover, the biblical account of the threshold encounter of Boaz and Ruth does not provide any support for holding that premarital sex is somehow legitimate or not such a big deal because supposedly Ruth and Boaz slept together on the night before they were married. Using this account to try to excuse such immoral behavior is to misuse Scripture.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.