SHOULD ADVENTISTS IN PNG

INVOLVE IN POLITICS? A CASE STUDY

By Peter Barnabas Pamula

ABSTRACT

Involvement in politics has created a great deal of mixed perceptions and reactions for
the Seventh-day Adventist Christians in Papua New Guinea. Since elections in PNG
are quite contentious, there have been great misrepresentations and compromises of
faith and integrity during National General Elections. In most cases, it seems
Adventist members are engaged in politics without sound theological understanding
and proper guidance from the Word of God. As such, the church’s witnessing efforts
and evangelistic mission to the world have been impeded, misrepresented, and
compromised in these challenging political and social contexts.

While the Adventist Church’s unequivocal stance on the separation of state and
religion1 is generally misconstrued for expediency and hardline dogma, yet drawing
inspiration from Daniel, a Jewish politician and stateman in the Bible can be
beneficial and encouraging, where his impeccable character, principles and ethos can
be useful for guidance and instruction in similar political and cultural contexts
amongst Adventist communities throughout Papua New Guinea.

Key Words: Adventists, Politicians, Witness, Daniel, Faith, Integrity

Introduction
In the Adventist Record in its October 4, 2017 Issue, Bal Kama, a PhD Candidate from the
Australian National University, Canberra, Australia, observes that politics in Papua New
Guinea is often contentious.2 He states that every year, a high number of Adventist candidates
contest for the 111 seats across the country, representing various political parties. In the
recent 2017 General Elections, he points out three challenges faced by Adventist politicians
and supporters in Papua New Guinea.
First, he states that running elections in PNG is an expensive exercise, in which bribery and
vote-buying form part of the overhead expenses. In this context, he highlights that Adventist
candidates are highly vulnerable to engage in some form of bribery and inducement to
appease electoral officials or voters in the hope of influencing election outcomes.
Second, he observes that during the counting of votes, Adventist candidates and supporters
participate in election fraud. Also, when declaration is made, unsuccessful Adventist
candidates influence and force their supporters to start tribal fights, resulting in the loss of
lives and property.
Third, he sees that losing Adventist candidates perpetually hold animosity against their
opponents and voters, including rival Adventist candidates and voters. Apparently, he
underscores the fact that the dilemma facing Adventist MPs in the new Parliament is their
inability to deliver on the election promises.
In the previous governments, he claims that Adventist politicians who failed to deliver on the
election promises have succumbed to corruption and mismanagement. As such, he conjures
that the allegations of corruption or facilitating unscrupulous deals, or misleading the public
on important issues, not only jeopardized their political reputation, but it has also harmed the
positive Adventist image admired by the voters during the election campaign.
In the light of these revealing observations by Bal Kama, this article attempts to answer key
questions on Adventists participation in politics, and the observance of sound biblical
principles that can promote and encourage Adventist faith and witnessing. A brief
background of PNG’s short political history is highlighted, followed by Daniel’s involvement
in politics and public life from ancient world empires chronicled in the Word of God, whose
exemplary life of public service, faith, and witnessing are worthy for guidance and
admonition. The conclusion of this article will include the principles and ethos drawn from
this renowned Jewish politican and statesman, and the applicability in a PNG context.
Brief Background
PNG has been an independent and sovereign state since 16 September 1975. It has inherited a
political system called “Westminster” from the Australian and British political systems.3
Under the Westminster form of government, the power to rule is vested upon the
representative government through the electoral process of voting.4 Every five years, after a
general election, the elected representatives of 111 constituencies throughout the country
elect the Prime Minister on the floor of Parliament, which oversees the functions and
operations of the executive government.5
After more than 40 years of political independence, one of the greatest ironies of PNG’s
democracy transpired when two competing leaders for the Prime Minister’s post created a
political impasse, which triggered an unresolved constitutional crisis. It has been alleged that
during this period of the political impasse, Adventist politicians and supporters of both camps
competed and conspired to establish legitimacy and control, even through a bloodless
military coup.6
Involvement of Adventist Politicians and Supporters
On August 2, 2011, it was alleged that Peter O’Neill usurped7 power from Michael Somare.8
Somare challenged O’Neill’s legitimacy in the Supreme Court. After five months, the
Justices of the Supreme Court ruled that O’Neill’s election was unlawful, and this ruling
automatically reinstated Somare. But O’Neill disputed Somare’s legitimacy, because the
majority of the Members of Parliament supported him. This was the issue: Somare’s regime
was lawfully restored by the Supreme Court’s verdict whereas O’Neill’s regime was
supported by majority of the elected representatives.9
The dispute for the Premier’s position between O’Neill and Somare triggered a constitutional
crisis.10 In an effort to legitimize control, both camps had appointed two different police
commissioners and two different army commanders. But the intensity of the political struggle
divided the loyalty within the rank and file of the constabulary and military forces.11
In a desperate effort to regain control, Somare’s camp attempted a military coup. A retired
Colonel, Yausa Sasa, was appointed the chief of the army. Colonel Sasa took control of the
regional army headquarters in Port Moresby and placed the Brigadier General, Francis Agwi
under house arrest. In his media conference Colonel Sasa requested O’Neill to step down
within a week. But Colonel Sasa’s strategy to execute the plan failed when O’Neill’s deputy,
Belden Namah, a former captain of the army intervened and thwarted the military
involvement. Colonel Sasa lacked support from the rank and file of the military, and
unconditionally surrendered. He was indicted for treason and soldiers involved in the coup
were arrested for mutiny.12
Somare’s efforts to install his regime through a bloodless coup ended up being fruitless.
Colonel Sasa and the rogue soldiers requested for a pardon. They were pardoned
unconditionally by the O’Neill regime. This gesture by the O’Neill regime did not resolve the
stalemate and the nation descended toward the pathway of anarchy and bloodshed. But the
advent of the general elections quelled the desire for political hegemony, and those involved
escaped repercussions for their actions, including Somare’s regime that attempted a military
coup. Peter O’Neill, Belden Namah, and Don Polye led the coalition government into the
2012 general elections.13
In retrospective, a total of 15 Parliamentarians were Adventists in the 9th Parliament, in which
8 were Somare’s cabinet ministers while the rest were supporting O’Neill’s legitimacy,
including staunch Adventists, Namah and Polye.14 In recognition of the overwhelming
Adventist support during the political turmoil, O’Neill visited the Korobosea Adventist
Church in Port Moresby, whereby prominent Adventist pastors and the Union leadership
surrounded O’Neill, laid their hands, prayed and dedicated his leadership and government to
God.15
Given the upheaval political context in PNG, it seems that the PNG Adventist Church’s
leadership involvement in the endorsement and recognition of a competing Premier sent a
strong message to the opposing camp and the nation. While the implications are enormous,
this occasion challenged the Adventist Church’s unequivocal stance on the separation of the
state and religion in a different, new light.
Biblical Example
In the light of these observations and circumstances, what should be the appropriate position
and response to embrace by Adventist leaders and Christians? Should Adventist Christians
totally evade from involvement in politics and public life, or be actively engaged? If
Adventist Christians can be involved in politics, what are the basis and extent of such
engagement? These questions are quite deeper, complex, and intriguing, yet drawing
examples of inspiration from Daniel’s public service life can be beneficial and encouraging.
By doing so, its principles and ethos can be useful for guidance and admonition in similar
circumstances in challenging political and social contexts in PNG.
The Story of Daniel— The first chapter of Daniel opens with a war between two kings. This
war was fought between Jehoiakim of Judah and Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. This battle
took place in 605 B.C.E.16 and Jerusalem fell into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. The
Babylonians under the command of Nebuchadnezzar besieged their city, pillaged their
temple, and removed sacred items from it, and took thousands of hostages to Babylon (2
Kings 24:1-2; 2 Chron. 36:5-7).

This is how it started. The kingdom of Babylon was a rising powerhouse in the region
because of the fall of Nineveh, the capital of the Assyrian kingdom in 612 B.C.E.17 The
Assyrians were scourge to many nations and ruled for many centuries with an iron fist, but
their many battles with other nations gradually weakened their strength (Nah. 3:18-19). In the
light of this gradual decline, the Babylonians under the leadership of Nabopolassar,
Nebuchadnezzar’s father, fought against the remnants of the Assyrian kingdom under Ashur
Uballit II in the region of Haran, aided by Egyptian forces, but they were defeated.18

Later in 609 B.C.E., Egypt organised its troops and pushed through the south to control
Palestine and Syria.19 Their successful military expeditions and influence was already a cause
of concern for Nabopolassar. Under the command of prince Nebuchadnezzar, the
Babylonians consolidated their forces and pushed from the north to control this same region.
They captured city after city, until they met strong resistance from the Egyptians. A battle
ensued between the forces of Nebuchadnezzar and Pharaoh Necho of Egypt at Carchemish,
but Nebuchadnezzar defeated Necho’s forces (Jer. 46:2).

Prior to the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and his troops in 605 B.C.E., Josiah,
who was the king of Judah at that time saw fit to halt the advances of Pharaoh Necho II of
Egypt at the valley of Megiddo in 609 B.C.E. in the battle of Haran.20 In this battle, he was
fatally wounded and died later at his palace in Jerusalem (2 Chron. 35:20; 2 Kings 23:29).

His fourth son, Jehoahaz, claimed the throne, but the Pharaoh of Egypt was not happy with
him, because he refused to implement the Egyptian policies (2 Chron. 36:2-4). Because of
this political and economic tension, he was replaced by Jehoiakim, the second son of Josiah,
after he had only reigned for three months (2 Kings 23:32-34). But Jehoiakim was a weak
and bad king, and the reformation his father initiated in the nation lapsed, and the nation of
Judah fell into sin again (2 Kings 23:35-37).

Judah was a vassal state.21 In other words, Jehoiakim and his son Jehoiachin were puppet
kings and Jerusalem was controlled by the Pharaoh of Egypt through economic policies,
especially the collection of tributes (2 Kings 23:35-37). The Egyptian influence was
spreading in political and economic circles. But the Babylonians could not let the Egyptian
hegemony spread, and forcefully invaded Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim’s reign (2
Kings 24:1).

Jehoiakim put up a resistance to the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar, but his actions did not deter
the ambitions of Nebuchadnezzar to conquer the city (2 Kings 24:1-3). Nebuchadnezzar and
his troops pillaged the city of Jerusalem, looted the temple, and slaughtered hundreds and
thousands by the sword (2 Kings 24:13). Some of its citizens were taken as hostages to
Babylon, including Daniel, Hananniah, Mishael, and Azariah (2 Kings 24:10-14). Under
divine providence, Daniel and his three friends were selected to undergo training at the court
of Nebuchadnezzar.22

Given the geo-political conditions during this period, the narrative seems to present a graphic
picture of the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. It appears that the capture of this city
was strategic for two reasons. First, the control of Syria and Palestine would contain Egypt
from spreading its influence in the region. Second, Jerusalem provided the vantage point
where Nebuchadnezzar could flex his military muscle and extend his influence through this
same region and beyond. So, from a military standpoint, the control of this strategic region
was important for economic and political reasons.
Attracted by these prospects, Nebuchadnezzar set to work out and implement his strategy.
Jehoiakim and his rag-tag army could not pit themselves against Nebuchadnezzar’s military
prowess. After a minor resistance, Jehoiakim and his army surrendered unconditionally.23

Jerusalem was captured and plundered. The temple was ransacked and sacred items inside the
temple were removed. Sadly, the pillaging of the temple was emotionally devastating,
because it was their only pride. Also, this important institution defined their existence as
God’s people, but its destruction sent a clear message that the strange gods of
Nebuchadnezzar were powerful than the God of Jehoiakim.

By reading through this narrative, three obvious questions flash out. 1. Where was the God of
Israel and Jehoiakim in this time of trouble? 2. Would the Israelites still believe in the
existence and power of their God? 3. Had their God refused and abandoned them? These
questions are deep and complex. The Israelites who survived the tragedy and destruction of
Jerusalem grappled with these questions. Even in this generation, we also grapple with these
questions in situations of tragedy and adversity.

The Sovereignty of God: In this chapter, the author shows his readers that God is sovereign
over all the earth. The reader might think that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem with his
might (v. 1). Quiet contrarily, the author plainly points out that Nebuchadnezzar was only
God’s instrument to punish Jerusalem (v. 2). The key word about the sovereignty of God is
found in the Hebrew verb “gave” in the narrative. This verb appears three times in this
chapter, where God is the subject of this verb, or He is the author of the action taking place.

Firstly, the dramatic phrase in verse 2, “And the Lord gave into his hand” (NIV), tells us that
God orchestrated the punishment of Jehoiakim by Nebuchadnezzar. So, the destruction of
Babylon and the captivity of the Israelites in Babylon was a divine punishment. God allowed
the destruction of Jerusalem, or God did the action of giving Jehoiakim into the hands of
Nebuchadnezzar.

Secondly, the dramatic sentence in verse 9, “And God gave Daniel favour” (NIV), tells us
that Daniel was the object of God’s favour before Nebuchadnezzar’s chief-of-staff. Despite
Israel’s rebellion and the ensuing destruction, God favoured Daniel over others. It is clear
from this context that Daniel was highly favoured by God for two obvious reasons.

First, Daniel had a deep and intimate relationship with God, because he was a man of prayer
(Dan. 2:17-18; 6:10). Second, Daniel was a man of principle, character, and integrity, which
are the attributes of a leader, and God wanted to use his gifts for the blessing of His people
(Dan. 1:8; 9:3; 10:2).

Thirdly, the phrase, “And these four young men, God gave them” (NIV), in verse 17 strongly
shows us that God “gave” exceptional talents, skills, and wisdom to Daniel, Hananniah,
Mishael, and Azariah. For emphasis, the author places the indirect object, “And these four
young men” before the verb and the subject, “God gave” which implies that these four
Hebrew teenagers were under the watch of God.24

Additionally, this phrase, “And these four young men, God gave them” (NIV), supports the
popular view that superior knowledge and wisdom comes from God, not from being educated
in the best schools of the world. While the pagan education and conveniences in Babylon
raised their standard and status among the Babylonians and captives alike, these temporary
successes and benefits did not give them the advantage of being better than others. All the
talents, skills, and wisdom they possessed came from their strict adherence to the Torah25 and
fidelity to God.

This chapter emphasizes the sovereignty of God over nations (Jerusalem and Babylon v. 2),
including individuals (Daniel, Hananniah, Mishael, and Azariah vv. 9, 17). The theme of the
sovereignty of God encompasses the fact that despite the horrible circumstances we go
through, God is in total control of history and has great plans for His people. He gives
success to His children in all spheres of life. Everything that transpires on this earth is under
His watch, including His salvific plans for the human race.

Future Threatened: Daniel, Hananniah, Mishael, and Azariah are called eunuchs (vv. 3-4).
The meaning of this terminology “eunuchs” is not clear in the text. However, it could
possibly carry the idea that Nebuchadnezzar had castrated them to suppress competition in
the palace and to humiliate them.26 They had no choice in this matter, but to submit to the
power of their captor. If this was true, then there was no future possibility for these Hebrew
boys to have children of their own in a family situation.

The Cult of Nebuchadnezzar: Nebuchadnezzar changed their Hebrew names into

Babylonian cultic names (v. 7).27 Daniel was renamed Belteshazzar, the chief god of the
Babylonian pantheon, Bel-Marduk (See Isa. 46:1; Jer. 50: 2; 51:54). Hananniah was changed
to Shadrach, a Sumerian moon god, which was adopted and revered by Babylonians (See
Gen. 1:15; Ps. 8:3; Exod. 20:3-6). Mishael was given the name Meshach, also a Babylonian
moon god. Babylonians were part of the Semitic people whose ancestor was Shem, one of
Noah’s sons (See Gen. 10:2). Azariah was converted to Abednego, a Babylonian god of
wisdom (See 1 Chron. 8:34; 9:40). These were Babylonian cultic names. The cult of
Nebuchadnezzar was imposed onto the innocent young men from Jerusalem.

The change of their names from Hebrew into the Babylonian cultic names meant for them a
change of identity. These Hebrew names represented the essence of their faith. Daniel means
“God is my judge.” Hananniah stands for “Yahweh has been gracious.” Mishael represents
“Who is like God?” and Azariah, “Yahweh is my helper.” The change of the Hebrew names
into Babylonian cultic names was directly imposing the superiority of the Babylonian gods
over the Hebrew boys.

Pagan Re-Education: Nebuchadnezzar enrolled Daniel, Hananniah, Mishael, and Azariah in

a three-year re-education program at the state university (v. 5). This university education was
designed to indoctrinate these young men with a new Babylonian philosophy, in the subjects
of science, religion, and way of life.

This re-education policy was also designed to remove ideas of rebellion in these newly
conquered youths and implant them with ideas of allegiance to their captors. As a matter of
fact, they were trained in this pagan environment so that after completion of their studies they
were to serve as advisors to the palace, as well as civil servants in conquered territories.28

Babylonian Diet: Another policy Nebuchadnezzar devised in the university program was to
change their diet (v. 5). Instead of availing them the choice of food, he ordered the best
Babylonian delicacies for the scholars. However, the Hebrew sentence in verse 8, “But
Daniel set upon his heart that he would not defile himself with the king’s (food) provision”
(NIV), gives us a picture of their dilemma.
The negating statement in this verbal sentence, “he would not defile himself” (NIV), seems to
indicate that the dilemma Daniel, Hananniah, Mishael, and Azariah faced was more than just
food offered for the scholars. Apparently, this text suggests that the delicacies provided at the
cafeteria were ritually defiling for the Hebrews. Living in the pagan culture of Babylon,
Daniel, Hananniah, Mishael, and Azariah were not permitted to eat everything that was
offered to them, if they wanted to remain faithful to their God. (v. 8).29

First, by closely examining this negating text, “he would not defile himself” (NIV), there is
strong evidence by these words that the food was offered to the Babylonian gods, since their
Hebrew names were already changed into Babylonian cultic names (v. 5). Besides, the use of
the negative particle “not” with the reflexive verb “defile himself” strongly echoes the
prevalent Hebrew teaching about permanent prohibition for the worship of false gods (See
Exod. 20:3; Deut. 13:1-3). In fact, this text shows that Daniel, Hananniah, Mishael, and
Azariah were properly nurtured in the Hebrew religion at an early age, perhaps by their
parents or teachers. So, to participate in the ritual diet was perceived as compromising their
faith and identity, thus bringing their integrity into disrepute and would thereby dishonour
their God by doing so (Deut. 8:3).

Second, the negating phrase, “he would not defile himself” (NIV), also seems to indicate that
the food was unclean, since Babylonians ate unclean food.30 The Hebrew dietary laws
prohibited consumption of unclean animals, and the observation of such discipline was an
integral part of the Jewish tradition (See Lev. 11:1-47; 17:14-15; Acts 15:29). If these
Hebrew teenagers were instructed at an early age of the benefits of a healthy diet, which
could aid their longevity and faculties, the reasoning of these Hebrew teenagers as stated in
the negating phrase that—such rich and unclean delicacies in the cafeteria of Nebuchadnezzar
was detrimental to their health, because it could impair their intellectual judgment and would
cause them to contract any possible number of lifestyle diseases.

Alternate Choice: Contrary to the demands of Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel, Hananniah, Mishael,

and Azariah asked his chief-of-staff to provide an alternate recipe, which was permissible for
them to eat according to their health laws (vv. 8-13). Notice the appeal made by the four
Hebrew teenagers in verse 12: “Please test your servants” (NIV).

The imperative “please test” appears to be formal in this text, but it was an act of passive
defiance against all odds. It amplifies their resolve to stay firm on God’s side. It can be
argued that the imperative “please test” in this text carries the idea that the matter was
serious, and under such circumstances, the author intentionally constructs this issue to show
the readers that these Hebrew teenagers had gambled with their lives for what they believed
was right and true in making this strong request to the king.

A question could be asked: How could the captive youths be so brash as to bargain for
something different? But these boys took the risk to do so, and they were not afraid to express
their opinion. They were four boys who were prepared to die, if it happened to be that
Nebuchadnezzar would deny their request. We can draw from this text that Daniel had an
ability to persuade his master to see his view (vv. 11-13). Daniel, Hananniah, Mishael, and
Azariah knew from the beginning that God was on their side (vv. 9, 19). In fact, their
preservation from death during the siege in Jerusalem convinced them that God was on their
side. When the opportunity to defend their faith was available, they took the risk to ask for an
alternate diet (vv. 14-16).
Reward for Obedience: How was it possible that these Hebrew youths were granted their
request and they were found ten times better than the other students (vv. 17-20)? The author
intentionally attributed the success of these Hebrew youths to their God: “God gave them”
(v. 17 NIV).

God is the subject who granted these Hebrew youths blessings, success, and honour in their
endeavours. Considering the popular view that the Babylonian gods gave knowledge,
wisdom, and success, the author reveals the shortcomings of the prevailing Babylonian
philosophy and theology through Daniel’s challenge. Also, the author promotes the idea that
the God of Daniel, Hananniah, Mishael, and Azariah gives “knowledge and intelligence in all
literature and wisdom” (NIV), implying that even in our pursuit for knowledge and wisdom
in secular institutions and pagan environments, God will grant us success, if we maintain our
identity.

In essence, the change of their names, the change of their status, the change of their diet, and
the test of going on ten days alternate diet were NOT the core issues. The author underscores
the fact that the core issue at stake was their identity as God’s children in a strange land and
environment. This issue of identity is what the author brings out in this chapter, and it recurs
and takes prominence throughout the whole book.

Principles for Consideration in the Story of Daniel—The story of Daniel and his three
Hebrew friends sets forth an example of an unswerving faith, total commitment, and
uncompromising integrity for Adventist politicians and Christians to emulate in politically
and culturally challenging environments. When our faith is being threatened and our identity
is being exposed and tested for political convenience, we ought to obey God rather than
traditions and policies of man.

Nebuchadnezzar’s political ambitions dislodged Daniel and his three Hebrew friends from
their homeland. Their captivity placed them under vulnerable conditions for compromise and
exploitation. Yet these Hebrew boys showed a great deal of self-discipline and self-restraint
from any harmful engagements that would diminish their identity and godly witness. Also, by
their actions, Daniel and his three Hebrew friends made a moral and ethical choice to honour
God rather than their political masters’ directives.

It is apparently clear from the narrative that the showcasing of moral and ethical conduct in
any compromising situations can aid our Christian identity and witness. For example, when
we come into conflict with strange policies, unscrupulous deals, or political engagements that
might likely to distort our Christian identity and witness, we ought to embrace moral and
ethical choices that honour God. In the pursuit of earthly conduct and business, a great deal of
wisdom and self-restraint is necessary, so that our witnessing can be effective, in that even
our political enemies and others can to find God through our conduct.

Thus, being a Christian and a politician or civil servant is not unbiblical. Daniel was a great
politician and a diligent statesman. Early in his life, he demonstrated impeccable attributes of
godly leadership, which was a precursor for his rise from the ashes of despair and tragedy
into echelons of political power and decision-making. He demonstrated a great deal of
responsibility, transparency, and accountability to the kings and political masters he served,
and others around him. He reached an amazing feat anyone from his category cannot
adequately match. He left this impeccable legacy worthy for our emulation.
Conclusions and Recommendations

Firstly, the political role of Daniel in the biblical literature functions to legitimize the social
structures and institutions that promote the welfare of individuals and collective entities in
many geographical areas, including PNG. Hence, the political engagement of Daniel in this
ancient kingdom underpins the importance of political engagement by Adventist Christians in
PNG.

Secondly, the unswerving faith, total commitment, and uncompromising faith demonstrated
by Daniel and his three Hebrew friends in an unflinching environment sets an example for
Adventist Christians’ identity and witnessing. In a nation where political contests are often
contentious, and moral principles are often compromised, the examples of relentless faith,
self-restraint, and uncompromising integrity can be considered for guidance and inspiration
by Adventist Christians in PNG.

Thirdly, the ritualistic diet given to Daniel and his three Hebrew friends in Babylon was
offered to the gods of Babylon. Also, these Babylonian delicacies were unhealthy for their
bodies, because most of the Babylonian delicacies included alcohol and swine’s meat. Daniel
and his three Hebrew friends refused to participate in a ritually defiling diet and unhealthy
food, which serves as an example to us that in our environments where unclean food and
beverages are served, the examples of Daniel and his three Hebrew friends show us that
obedience to health laws honours our God and promotes our witnessing.

Fourthly, the political and cultural environments of Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah
were undoubtedly morally vexatious and challenging, yet they demonstrated a great deal of
humility, honesty, responsibility, accountability, selflessness, compassion, and patience.
These godly attributes can be used as evangelistic tools for Christian witnessing in
controversial and compromising political situations in PNG.

Finally, while the Adventist Church’s unequivocal stance on the separation of state and
religion is of paramount importance, the example of Daniel’s political leadership in Babylon
demonstrates that the Adventist Church’s position during national crisis can be called for
resolving conflicts, forging unity and direction, and establishing peace and harmony in the
nation.

Peter Barnabas Pamula is a prolific author and graduate student at the Andrews University
Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary in Berrien Springs, Michigan, United States of
America.

Endnotes

1
Seventh-day Adventists Official Statements, Church—
State Relations, March 01, 2002. Online: Accessed, 27 February 2018.
https://www.adventist.org/en/information/official-statements/documents/article/go/-/church-
state-relations/
2
Bal Kama, “PNG Adventists in Politics: Opportunities and Challenges,” Adventist Record,
October 4, 2017.
3
Patrick, Kiaku. “The Westminster in Papua New Guinea: How It Is Understood” The
Cannibal Speaks, (August 2013). Accessed September 12, 2014. Online: https://patrickkaiku.
wordpress.com/2013/08/23/the-westminster-system-in-papua-new-guinea-how-is-
itunderstood/
4
Ibid.
5
Peter Barnabas Pamula, Total Allegiance: Building An Unshakeable Faith in God, (Silang,
Cavite: Oikos Publishing, 2015), 73.
6
ATS News Team, Political Crisis in Papua New Guinea Involves Large Adventist
Population, Adventist Today, February 9, 2012.
7
I have reservedly used this loaded term “usurp” to describe the way power was taken from
the incumbent Premier, Michael Somare. This term does not mean to be derogatory or to
place Peter O’Neill in a bad light, because the circumstances of this event were legally
contested. Following this argument, the ruling of the Supreme Court was not unanimous and
the fact that O’Neill claimed legitimacy to the office of the Premier was because most of the
law-makers supported him. With this in view, this article does not antagonise O’Neill or
Somare in the eyes of my readers but reinforces the idea that our governments are temporal
and the manifestation of the usurpation of political power reveals the truth behind the
spiritual battle that undergirds these events, which is the great controversy between God and
Satan.
8
One Country, The Constitution is Supreme, PNGBLOGS, (December 31, 2011). Accessed
February 25, 2018. Online: http://www.pngblogs.com/2011_12_01_archive.html
9
Mike, Head. Constitutional Crisis Erupts in Papua New Guinea, World Socialist,
(November 11, 2011). Accessed February 25, 2018. Online: https://www.wsws.org/en/
articles/2011/11/pngo-n19.html
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.

ATS News Team, Political Crisis in Papua New Guinea Involves Large Adventist
14

Population, Adventist Today, February 9, 2012.

15
Ibid.
16
Zdravko, Stefannvic. Daniel: Wisdom to the Wise; Commentary on the Book of Daniel,
(Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 2007), 16.
17
Jones, H. Cunliffe. Jeremiah, (Bloomsbury, LN: SCM Press, 1966), 13
18
Yoshitaka, Kobayashi. Daniel, (AIIAS Theological Seminary, 2007), 5.
19
Stefanovic, Daniel: Wisdom to the Wise; 16-17.
20
The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary; ed. Thomas Edward
McComiskeyed, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), 883-834.
21
Larry, Richards and Lawrence, O. Richards. The Teacher’s Commentary, (Wheaton, IL:
Victor Books, 1987), 402.
22
Isaiah’s prophecy to King Hezekiah in Isaiah 39:6 predicted that the royal treasures of
Babylon would be carried away to Babylon, including the children of the royal families.
23
Gerhard, Pfandl. The Time of the End in the Book of Daniel, (Berrien Springs, MI:
Adventist Theological Society, 1992), 13-14.
24
Bill, Arnold T. and John, Choi H. A Guide to Biblical Syntax, (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2003), 14-18. Arnold and Choi consider that a typical Hebrew sentence
follows this order: Verb-Subject-Object. However, the placing of an indirect object by the
author before a verb is done for emphasis. So, the placing of the indirect object “and these
four young men” in front of the verb “he gave” makes these Hebrew teenagers prominent in
this narrative.
25
Torah is the Hebrew for “law, teaching, or instruction.” In English it is often referred to as
the Pentateuch, meaning the five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, and
Deuteronomy. Torah is part of the Tanakh, the holy book of the Jews. The Tanakh is the
acronym of the first Hebrew letter of each of the Masoretic Text’s three traditional
subdivisions, Torah (5 books of Moses), Nevi’im (prophets), and Ketuvim (writings)— hence
TaNaKh.
26
The definition of the term “eunuch” in this text is quite ambiguous. Perhaps, the reference
of Aspenaz as the chief-of-staff of the “eunuchs” at the court of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel
1:3 could possibly refer to the scholars who were trained by the king. The Hebrew rendition
for “eunuch” refers to “someone who cannot produce an offspring” (see Isaiah 56:3). As
such, Nebuchadnezzar may have ritually castrated Daniel, Hananniah, Mishael, Azariah, and
others who were trained at his court.
27
Kobayashi, Daniel, 12-13.
28
William, H. Shea. “Daniel 3” Extra-Biblical Texts and the Convocation on the Plain of
Dura.” Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol. 20 (1980). 1:29-52. Accessed February
25, 2018. Online: http://www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=639. It is quite
likely that the absence of Daniel in chapter 3 on the plain of Dura to worship the golden
image of Nebuchadnezzar probably means that Daniel was sent as an emissary, or as a civil
servant by Nebuchadnezzar to one of the cities in the empire.
29
Ellen, G. White. Counsels on Diet and Food, (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald
Publishing House, 1976), 28-30. According to White, Nebuchadnezzar’s delicacies offered to
the scholars were swine’s flesh and other meats which the laws of Moses forbade the
Hebrews to eat. Keil and Delitzsch also emphasize that pagans in their feasts offered food and
drink to their gods, thus consecrating their meals in such religious rites, and whosoever
participated in the sacrifices also participated in the worship of the idols. See also C. F. Keil
and F. Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, 2nd reprinting, 2006), 80.
30
Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 4, ed. Francis D. Nichol, (Grand Rapids,
MI: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1976), 760.