Shot or Else
This article has been a long time coming; perhaps too long. When God’s church fails to provide answers from Scripture to challenges faced by God’s people, confusion enters the ranks.
We live in challenging times. We need the Bible. We must allow Scripture to guide our thinking and control our emotions on every issue whether great or small.
You have already seen in the title that this article is about the efforts of our government to vaccinate the entire country. Before I go into that subject, permit me to tell you what I do not intend to do:
I do not intend to take any partisan political stance on this issue. Politics has no place in the church. We are citizens of a heavenly country. When He stood before Pilate, Jesus plainly declared “My kingdom is not of this world.”
I do not intend to pass judgment on the efficacy of the Covid vaccine. It may well have some benefit for certain segments of the population. For others, it may be dangerous. My point in speaking today is not to prove its danger or its efficacy, but rather to assess whether it should be forced on us.
I do not intend to pass judgment on any individual who has decided to take the Covid vaccine. Nor do I intend to pass judgment upon anyone who is refusing to take it. People have varying risk factors with respect to the disease, and I think it only right to let individuals choose based on those factors.
I do not intend to impugn the motives of those who are pushing the shots. There are numerous ideas floating about as to what their reasons might be. The reality is that God alone knows what is driving them. I do not, and I don’t intend to try to convince you of something of which I am not sure myself.
My intention today is not to stir up controversy, but rather to help us all to soberly reflect upon these matters from a biblical perspective, not a political perspective, and not an emotional perspective.
There are two specific problems that the book of James addresses that are relevant to the present situation. These are - the problem of partiality, and the problem of oppression by fraud.
Observations
The Problem of Partiality
James 2:1 My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality.
James 2:2 For if there should come into your assembly a man who is vaccinated, and there should also come in an unvaccinated man,
James 2:3 and you pay attention to the vaccinated man and say to him, “You sit here in a good place,” and say to the unvaccinated man, “You sit in the balcony, stay six feet apart, and keep your mask pulled up!”
James 2:4 have you not shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?
I hope you found this paraphrase a little humorous, but in reality it is very serious. Partiality is a very serious problem. Now of course, we are not talking about sick people here. If you are sick with any communicable disease, you should stay home until you are not sick any more. But the distinction is beginning to be made among healthy people - vaccinated vs unvaccinated.
Why is this being done? Is it because vaccinated people are in danger from unvaccinated people? Not if the vaccine is as effective as its proponents claim. Then why the fuss? It is clearly being done to shame and marginalize those who are unvaccinated.
So here’s the question - is this an appropriate thing for God’s church to support? Is this in harmony with the inspired declaration - “Here are they that keep the Commandments of God and the faith of Jesus? Note what James says in verses 8 and 9:
“If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well; but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.”
What is Partiality?
Or perhaps a better question is this: WHY do people show partiality?
Clearly, people show partiality because they wish to gain influence with others. Thus it is pure, unadulterated virtue signaling - regardless of the issue that underlies it. It is no different to show partiality regarding vaccination status than it is to show it regarding socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or for any other reason. This divisive, preferential treatment, done for selfish gain, constitutes an unjust judgment of our fellow men. By this act we declare that a certain class of people are beneath us, and exist only to serve our interests. According to the Bible this is sin. James states this explicitly.
I ask again, is this something we can either ignore or encourage and still be called the Commandment keeping people of God? I think the answer is obvious. But James is not finished speaking to us about this. You see, there is also -
The Problem of Oppression
James 5:1 Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you!
James 5:2 Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten.
James 5:3 Your gold and silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have heaped up treasure in the last days.
James 5:4 Indeed the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.
James 5:5 You have lived on the earth in pleasure and luxury; you have fattened your hearts as in a day of slaughter.
James 5:6 You have condemned, you have murdered the just; he does not resist you.
Let me share with you two dynamite quotations I found from one prolific commentator: This was written in 1903 in the context of labor unions, but I think you will agree that the principles apply equally in this situation: In Disregard of the Decalogue,
“These unions are one of the signs of the last days. Men are binding up in bundles ready to be burned. They may be church members, but while they belong to these unions, they cannot possibly keep the Commandments of God; for to belong to these unions means to disregard the entire Decalogue.
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself.” These words sum up the whole duty of man. They mean the consecration of the whole being, body, soul, and spirit, to God's service. How can men obey these words, and at the same time pledge themselves to support that which deprives their neighbors of freedom of action? And how can men obey these words, and form combinations that rob the poorer classes of the advantages which justly belong to them, preventing them from buying or selling, except under certain conditions?” —Letter 26, 1903. . CL 11-CL 11.5.
And now this one - “The Scriptures describe the condition of the world just before Christ's second coming. James the apostle pictures the greed and oppression that will prevail. … . This is a picture of what exists today. By every species of oppression and extortion, men are piling up colossal fortunes, while the cries of starving humanity are coming up before God..” COL 170.2.
Note the language used by this commentator - oppression and extortion. It would be well to consider these words for a moment, in light of recent events. Unjust withholding, or “keeping back” is oppression - it is taking advantage of people who are not as powerful as you are. But note that James states that the wages are being kept back “by fraud.” They are being taken away in a manner that is designed to appear legitimate, but it is all a disguise. It is an extortion scheme. What is extortion? Well, to begin with, it is a criminal offense. It is the practice of obtaining some benefit by means of coercion. Extortion, which is not limited to the taking of property, involves the verbal or written instillation of fear that something will happen to the victim if they do not comply with the extortionist's will. It is often referred to as the “protection racket” because the racketeers often phrase their demands as payment for "protection" from (real or hypothetical) threats from unspecified other parties; though often, and almost always, such "protection" is simply abstinence of harm from the same party, and such is implied in the "protection" offer.
So what does this passage have to do with the current vaccine mandate? Well, let me answer that by asking you to think about several questions that surround it.
Are we all equally at risk from the coronavirus? The answer to that is - no. The elderly are definitely at higher risk of hospitalization and death, but younger people face a significantly lower risk. We would expect this, given what we know about pathology and the aging process.
Do people who have recovered from the disease face further significant risk from it, and are they a significant risk to others? Again, the answer appears to be no. This is in harmony with everything we already know about how the human immune system works.
Is the vaccine the only viable treatment for this disease? The answer to that appears to be no. However, any discussion of therapeutics or natural treatments has been censored or suppressed. Physicians who advocate low cost treatments, such as Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, etc have been marginalized, and in many cases threatened with losing their medical license.
Do we know enough about the origin of this particular disease to rule out the idea that it has been brought about by human engineering? Again, the answer to this is no. There appears to be a growing body of evidence that suggests that this virus may well have been developed in the laboratory with a purpose. Now, I don’t have definitive proof of this, but neither can it be ruled out.
So, giving these questions, with their answers, we follow up with this question - why is this vaccine being pushed on absolutely everyone? Does this not strike you as suspicious?
Why are people who have chosen not to take it (for whatever reason) being demonized and shamed in the media? Why are workers in numerous industries being threatened with the deprivation of their livelihoods if they refuse it? Is this really a legitimate public health initiative? Or is it a massive shakedown scheme?
Again, let me reiterate - I am not making the case that no one should ever take the shot. With a lot of medical treatments, there are risks that have to be weighed. Chemotherapy is risky, but in some situations, taking those risks might be your best option. Likewise, the Covid vaccine may be a reasonable option for those who are at high risk from the disease.
But here’s the important question - should anyone be coerced into taking it, especially those who are at low risk? There are enough unanswered questions about this whole situation to put this coercion into the category that James describes here. To instill fear in people by overestimating their risk of dying of Covid and then threatening to take away their livelihood unless they submit to a controversial vaccine falls—in my view—under the category of oppression by fraud.
And it’s not like we haven’t been told lies about this thing! Mutually contradictory stories have been told by leading health experts about the origin of the virus, about the efficacy of masks to stop it from spreading, and about the efficacy of low cost therapeutics and natural treatments to treat it.
But according to the Apostle, all this has very grave implications. Note in verse 6 that any unjust removal of a person’s livelihood is equivalent to an unjust judicial verdict, and the deprivation of his life, or to put it more succinctly, to murder! It doesn’t get any more serious than this, friends. That these two things are directly related is also made clear in Revelation 13:15-17 in which the image to the beast uses two methods to coerce people into worshipping it - one is the deprivation of livelihood, the other is the deprivation of life itself. The latter simply hastens the effect of the former, but both violate the Sixth Commandment. Again, I would ask - should Seventh-day Adventists be a party to this? I say, God forbid! This is a matter that people should be free to decide for themselves, either way, without fear of oppression.
The Fallacy of Exemptions
Now having stated all this, I want to address the issue that some may raise in defense of the vaccine mandates. Some might argue that there is no problem with the mandates since religious and medical exemptions can be exercised in order to opt out of it. I want to point out two problematic issues with this line of thinking.
The first problem is that it is always dangerous to place what should justly be considered rights in the hands of any man or group of men to dispense or withhold at their pleasure. God does not look kindly upon governments that attempt to control and compel their citizens in this way. We see that clearly revealed in the story of the Exodus.
The very practical problem in depending upon exemptions is illustrated clearly by the incompleteness and inconsistencies to be seen in the exemptions. There are some states, some jobs, some businesses that have stated that they will not accept any exemptions from the vaccine mandate. Others have been willing to grant such exemptions. What will be the result? Is this going to create an economic crisis as numerous, key infrastructure roles are deserted? In August, we saw a record number of people quit their jobs. I doubt that the data is any better for September and October, especially in light of the federal vaccine mandate. If this goes far enough, we will likely see a shadow economy develop in America - one that can’t be tracked with credit cards or cash - one that does not require any vaccine to participate.
But there is also another problem associated with the reliance on various exemptions from these mandates. It is a philosophical problem, and here it is: If a law or a mandate is just and right, then why should there be any exemptions granted from it? If a mandate is good, it should be good for everybody.
Adventist pioneer Alonzo T. Jones argued this way when he testified before the Senate Committee on Education and Labor in 1888 in opposition to the national Sunday law that had been proposed by New Hampshire senator William H. Blair. To the Seventh-day Baptists and to the Seventh-day Adventists, an exemption from the penalties of the law was promised. Jones refused to countenance such exemptions. Here’s an excerpt from his testimony:
Mr. Jones— There is another point, and that is, that we will be sufferers under such a law when it is passed. They propose to put in an exemption clause. Some of them favor an exemption clause, but it would not in the least degree check our opposition to the law if forty exemption clauses were put in, unless, indeed, they should insert a clause exempting everybody who does not want to keep it. In that case, we might not object so much.
Senator Blair—You care not whether it is put in or not ?
Mr. Jones—There is no right whatever in the legislation ; and we will never. accept an exemption clause as an equivalent to our opposition to the law. It is not to obtain relief for ourselves that we oppose the law. It is the principle of the whole subject of the legislation to which we object ; and an exemption clause would not modify our objection in the least.
Senator Blair — You differ from Dr. Lewis ?
Mr. Jones — Yes, sir, we will never accept an exemption clause, as tending in the least to modify our opposition to the law. We as firmly and as fully deny the right of the State to legislate upon the subject with an exemption clause as without.
Taken from The National Sunday Law, p.118.
There is a definite parallel here with the present situation, is there not? We are being asked to accept this admittedly controversial medical treatment regardless of our need, our wishes, our faith, our risk factors, or any other consideration. Some states and businesses are holding out the hope of exemptions, but can we depend upon this? Should we?
Appeal
The essence of this conversation comes down to two questions - first, is your body the temple of the Holy Spirit or isn’t it? Scripture teaches us that it is.
Many professed Christians see soul and body as being dichotomous, that what happens with the one is unrelated to the other. However, Bible believing Christians recognize that this is a distinction based on the false doctrine of man’s natural immortality. Indeed, Scripture teaches us that the care of the body is part of our religious duty, especially in light of the Second Coming of Christ (1 Thessalonians 5:23).
So this really brings us to the second question - to whom has God committed the responsibility of caring for our body temple? Has He committed that responsibility to the state, or to you as an individual? If to the individual, then the state does not have the right to use the coercive power of the law in this matter - the state is infringing upon God’s right to delegate authority as He sees fit. In fact, here’s where the connection to the Sabbath comes in, and it comes in this way: Where does God get His authority over our lives, physically, mentally, and spiritually? Of course, I know you know the answer; it is because He is the Creator.
So here’s my follow up - What is the sign that we recognize God as the Creator? Yes, you guessed it - it is the Seventh-day Sabbath. Could it be that the surrendering of our responsibility, under God, to determine what goes into our bodies to our employer, or the state, is a preliminary attack on God as the Creator, in preparation for the full assault against this truth through a denial of the Sabbath?
This is the question upon which I am asking us all to reflect. Should Seventh-day Adventists take the vaccine? That is between you and God, friend. Should Seventh-day Adventists support the mandate? I believe Scripture forbids us. This is not about our rights, friends. Rather, it is about God’s rights as our Creator. His rights must not be trampled under foot. May God help us instead to honor them.
****
Skip Dodson embraced the Advent message as a 25 year old aerospace engineering graduate student. Over the past three decades he has served as a Bible worker, a district pastor, an administrator, and as a college dean and religion chair. He is currently serving as a self-supporting missionary based in Colorado. Skip has been united in ministry for 25+ years with his wife Renee. The couple have two young adult children, both of whom are partners with them in mission.