“Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the LORD has said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again.’ And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.” Deuteronomy 17.16, 17

The prohibitions mentioned here are really quite relevant to our day. The first prohibition is against unnecessary aggrandizement of power, in particular, in the form of military build-ups, influence, or adventurism.

Many horses were the backbone of ancient armies, especially those with designs on the property of neighboring nations. Once settled in the land of promise, Israel would not require much cavalry since it was not a nation seeking to conquer its neighbors by military force. While a certain mounted contingent would be necessary, it was not essential for the public interest for the king to acquire and have at his disposal many horsemen. It was enough that the people be ready to defend their homeland against foreigners, should the occasion arise. For this a large cavalry – the build-up of weapons intended for aggression – was not essential.

The second prohibition was not simply against the pleasures of the flesh, though it certainly included that. A king of Israel should respect the divine design for marriage – between a man and woman, under God – and be content to live within the framework and privileges of that arrangement. Thus the king would model for all the people the basic building-block of social stability, the divinely-ordained family.

Further, however, kings in the ancient world took many wives as a way of securing their own power, either by marrying into foreign courts or by fathering sons to defend them against traitors.

Such a practice, however, was simply a way of trying to shore-up political power by following in the practices of the world rather the ways of the Lord. The wellbeing of the nation required a king whose heart was devoted to the Lord and His Law, not to wives, progeny, or himself.

In our day it’s not to many wives that politicians turn for political survival, but to cronies, donors, and people of influence. The more of these a politician has to please, the less able he will be to serve the public weal.

The final prohibition against pecuniary self-interest speaks to a temptation politicians from every age have had to address. Public office attracts money, not infrequently in ways that are connected to favors or power or both. This frequently leads to corruption and a loss of focus on the public weal. No public servant should be motivated by financial gain or become entangled in schemes to promote personal wealth while he or she serves the public for good.

So, again, the first law of the logic of public policy is that those who are called to public service must keep the interests of those served first and foremost, and must guard against all tendencies – whether of power, pleasure, or personal profit – designed to further self-interest.

Public policy, in other words, is not about what governments can do, but what they should do, that is, if they are to fulfill their callings as God’s servants for good.

When it comes to applying the Law of God to public policy, Christians must make this first principle foundational in the logic with which they approach the work of influencing and shaping public policy.

T. M. Moore

Visit our website, www.ailbe.org, and sign up to receive our thrice-weekly devotional, Crosfigell, featuring writers from the period of the Celtic Revival and T. M.’s reflections on Scripture and the Celtic Christian tradition. Does the Law of God still apply today? Order a copy of T. M.’s book, The Ground for Christian Ethics, and study the question for yourself.