In A Democracy, Don’t Christians Have A Responsibility to Participate in Politics?

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian's Relationship to Government, Uncategorized

In a previous post I recounted nine things Jesus said or did that should influence the way Christians approach politics. Jesus never tried to gain power in the political system of his day. But, it has been argued that in almost every instance that the Bible references the Christian’s relationship with government, the governments were emperors or kings. Governments in that day didn’t allow for the public to participate in the same way they do today. Caesar and Pilate weren’t elected by popular vote.

We, however, live in a democracy where our government allows and encourages the public to be involved in the political process. Suddenly the governments are not “thems”, but rather the governments are “us” (or so it is argued). Does the Christians relationship to government and politics change in a democracy? Do modern Christians now have a responsibility to try to change society using political methods?

First of all it is not true that in democratic or any other kind of government that the people are themselves the rulers. They choose the rulers, among a select few individuals who have been given the opportunity to run for office. Once elected, these individuals tend to rule for their own selfish good and glory the same way other rulers in other forms of government rule.

Our Citizenship is in a Foreign County

Christians must remember that we are citizens of a foreign country. “For our citizenship is in heaven“, wrote Paul (Phil. 3.20). We are “foreigners” and “exiles” in our own country (1 Pet. 2.11). Does this basic relationship towards earthly governments change depending on the type of government we happen to be under?

Consider Paul’s words to Timothy:

“No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier.” – 2 Timothy 2.4

Our commitment to be a soldier of the cross doesn’t change based on the form of government we are under. As a soldier, we must not be distracted from our mission.

Jesus emphasized the contrast between the pagan path of greatness and the Christian path to greatness:

“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant.” – Matthew 20.25-26

The disciples of Jesus should abstain from the pagan desire to rule over others. This key distinction doesn’t change when the form of government changes.

Even if Christians themselves were the rulers, this raises another difficult challenge: How can a Christian fulfill the responsibilities of government and the responsibilities as a Christian at the same time?

Governments are to avenge evildoers (Rom. 13.4), yet Christians are forbidden from avenging themselves (Rom. 12.19). Governments carry out God’s wrath on evildoers (Rom. 13.4), yet Christians are to leave it to God’s wrath (Rom. 12.18). Governments do not bear the sword in vain (Rom. 13.4), yet Christians are to feed their enemies (Rom. 12.20-21). Romans 12-13 only makes sense if it is understood that Christians are a separate entity, with separate responsibilities from the governmental authorities. If, in a democracy, Christians become one in the same with the government, Romans 12-13 must be seen to be commanding contradictory responsibilities at the same time.

Christians are to be in subjection to earthly rulers (Rom. 13.1). Every instance of “subjection” in the New Testament indicates the presence of at least two separate, and potentially opposing entities. If Christians are one and the same with government, are they then to submit to themselves? If “we” are now the government, how are we supposed to submit to ourselves? To the extent that government can desire something of us that we would not choose ourselves, they are a separate entity.

Earthly Governments Will Be Destroyed

If in a democracy, “we” are now one in the same with the government in Romans 13, are we also one in the same in 1 Corinthians 15 with the rulers and authorities and powers who will be destroyed along with the rest of Jesus’s enemies when He returns?

Then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and all power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.

Surely we would not argue that simply because we live in a democracy that “we” are the rulers and authorities that will be destroyed in 1 Corinthians 15. How can we claim to be one in the same with the rulers in Romans 13, but not in 1 Corinthians 15?

When Paul speaks of Christians wrestling against authorities and rulers and powers (Eph. 6.12), did He envision Christians wrestling against themselves, since they are now the rulers in a democracy?

Absolutely not. The day will come when “Babylon” will be judged and destroyed. We should therefore heed the warning of Revelation 18.4:

“Come out of her, my people, so that you will not participate in her sins and receive of her plagues; for her sins are piled up as high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities.”

If we are one in the same with government just because we live under a democracy, we should be very concerned! We should be seeking any way possible to get out! If we don’t “come out of her” we will share in the judgment she will receive.

Conclusion

Thankfully, “we” are not the government. We represent a different kingdom. The kingdom in which we enjoy citizenship will be delivered to the Father when all the other kingdoms are destroyed. We are to change the world, but we are not to use the same methods the world uses. Our power to change the world is rooted in prayer and sacrificial love. Whatever distracts us from this task should be avoided.

Living in a democracy certainly makes it easy to be politically involved if we choose to do so. But that doesn’t mean we have a responsibility to do so. If anything, it means we must be even more careful to maintain the important distinction between the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of the world.

Shouldn’t Christians Use Political Means to Help the Poor?

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian's Relationship to Government, Kingdom Life

Then He will also say to those on His left, “Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.” Then they themselves also will answer, “Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?” Then He will answer them, “Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. – Matthew 25.41-46

In an earlier article I wrote about 9 things that Jesus said that should influence the way Christians should approach politics. Should Matthew 25.41-46 be added to that list? Did Jesus intend for Christians to become involved in political means to help the poor?

It is imperative that Christians help the poor. Helping the poor must never become just as small side project that Christians do when it is convenient. If Scripture ever clearly identified an issue as a “salvation issue”, this is it. Our decision to help or neglect the poor is directly tied to our eternal destiny.

Not only that, but Christians should go to whatever extent they possibly can to help the poor. Notice Jesus’s words in verse 45: “To the extent that you did not do it to the one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Think about those words, “To the extent…“. That is a very broad challenge.

The church doesn’t have the power and resources to help all the poor everywhere. Shouldn’t Christians at least vote to help the poor? Shouldn’t they at least do their part to pressure government to enact compassionate economic policies? If we really want to defend the poor and disadvantaged, shouldn’t we seek to use government to defend them from the injustices they face?

No. Emphatically, no, they should not. I can totally understand why some Christians would choose to take this course of action, and I recognize that they do so with righteous motives. Yet I hope that you will consider some thoughts in response to this idea.

Which Version of Government is Best?

I write this to passionately encourage Christians not to think they are doing God’s work when they try to rally others around the particular version of government that they think is best. Like anyone else, I can imagine how governmental decisions impact the poor and disadvantaged. I don’t find it that hard to recognize how minimum wage laws increase the pay for some at the expense of others who are left unemployed. It is easy to see that all the government interference in health care markets has reduced competition, lowered quality, and driven health care costs to a point where it is affordable for many to pay for the care they deserve. It hurts me to think about how many jobs are destroyed through the high taxation and heavy regulations that businesses face, and how this has a big impact on the lower classes. And I’m not alone. There are lots of really bright people out there who understand that regulating free markets is, in the long haul, the worst possible thing you could do to the poor.

What if I were to take Matthew 25.41-46 as instruction to get Christians active in politics for the sake of the poor? Now that I’ve decided to get Christians involved in righteous political causes, I stand in my pulpit next Sunday and encourage the church do everything in their power to help the poor, which includes getting out there and stopping those liberals from regulating free-markets.

At the same time, you are encouraging Christians to get out there and help the poor by supporting minimum wage laws, wise regulations on big businesses, increasing funding to compassionate welfare programs that support the poor, and funding those programs by taxing the top 1% of earners. You wouldn’t be very happy with me, and I wouldn’t be very happy with you. We both agree that we should help the poor, but instead of using our pulpits to actually encourage Christians to help the poor, we are driving a wedge of division into the church with our message.

As a result, the left and the right argue over which particular kind of government is best for the poor. We spend our time, energy, passion, and sometimes even our money arguing over what our rulers should do about the poor (something the Bible never commands us to do), instead of working together in unity to actually help the poor (which is precisely what we are commanded to do). This leads to one more important point.

The Church Must Do More To Help The Poor

If Christians were to take all of their time, energy, passion and money that they currently invest into political arguments, and were to put that same level of passion into actually helping the poor, the church could make a huge positive impact on the poor, not only in their community, but throughout the country and throughout the world. And what’s even better, when the church works together to help the poor, the glory is given to God rather than to some particular style of government (2 Cor. 9.12).

There is no doubt in my mind that the church needs to do more to help the poor. One of the big reasons we don’t is because we are too busy arguing over what Caesar should do about poverty. This will only change when Christians stop thinking that it is their job to tell the authorities how to rule and start to do what Jesus commanded us to do. We must trust that God who makes all kinds of bad things work together for good (Rom. 8.28), will use even the worst rulers for good (such as Nero, who was the ruler when Romans 13.1-5 was written). Therefore we can simply submit to our rulers, trusting that God will somehow use them for the good He has promised. Only when we learn to trust that they are God’s ministers, and not ours, will we stop clamoring for greater political influence, and actually start working to serve the poor.

Ultimately, the hope for the poor, as well as anyone else, doesn’t hang on which party gets put in power. It hangs on the power that God has given to the church. The church’s power isn’t a power that we release every four years when we unify together and make our voice heard in the voting booth. It is a power that we release when we unite together to show God’s love by how we live, by how we share, and by how we sacrifice to serve the poor.

9 Things Jesus Said That Should Impact The Way A Christian Approaches Politics

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian's Relationship to Government6 Comments

Disciples of Jesus have a different set of values, ideals and methods from the world, and it is of utmost importance that we maintain this distinction. Jesus himself never sought to become involved in politics, and whenever he was given the opportunity, he refused to take sides in their political arguments. Jesus recognized that the devil ruled as the god of this world, influencing all the nations of this world, and He placed absolutely no trust in their deceptive power.

Therefore Christians should remain separate from earthly governments and politics. Christians are to pledge their allegiance to God alone, and not to any earthly nation, political party or political ideology. Because Jesus is our only Lord and Master, we are not to serve any other lord or master.

1.Christians should have a different set of values

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in and steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. – Matthew 6.19-21

Earthly governments are continually in pursuit of earthly treasures (or in their own language “economic strength”. Jesus warns that earthly treasures pass away. This is why those who seek after earthly treasures are filled with anxiety, anger, envy, and jealousy (what Paul calls “works of the flesh”).

Jesus taught that our hearts should be focused on the heavenly treasures of the Kingdom of God, not on earthly things. Therefore for a disciple, it would be unwise to plan significant time and effort pursuing much of what earthly governments hold as having significant value. Our treasure, our hearts, and our confidence is in heaven.

2.Christians should look to a different source to provide for their needs.

No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.

For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?…

Do not worry then, saying, “What will we eat?” or “What will be drink?” or “What will we wear for clothing?” For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. – Matthew 6.24-34

Whenever we are faced with a need or a concern, we are not to look to stronger political leadership. We are to seek His kingdom, trusting that when we do, God will provide us with what we need. To the extent that we seek God, we do not have to worry.

This stands in stark contrast to the governments of this world, who do nothing but worry, for they do not seek God. When Christians serve God as their master, they are freed from pursuing the things that governments of this world pursue.

3.Christians should refuse to judge.

Do not judge, so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, “Let me take the out of your eye,” and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. – Matthew 7.1-5

Christians are not to judge. This is antithetical to the role and purpose of government (Rom. 13.1-5). The only way a government can enforce any law is to enforce judgment upon those who disobey that law. To seek to reform the world through government power necessitates judgment.

Jesus taught that Christians should seek a different method of addressing sin. Rather than acting as judges, Christians are to regard the sins of others as “specks” as compared to the “log” in their own eye. Paul would go on to actually forbid Christians from judging those who are outside the church (1 Cor. 5.12-13). Among those who are outside the church, we are to be known for our humility, gentleness, patience, tolerance, and love (Eph. 4.2; Jas. 4.10-12; 1 Pet. 3.8). We are to follow the example of Jesus by esteeming others are better than ourselves.

4.Christians should seek a different path to greatness.

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” – Matthew 20.25-28

The quest for power and ruling authority that characterizes the world is not to characterize Christians. The greatest in the kingdom of Christ do not rule; they serve. The world is all about exercising power over others, leading to continual political fights as various parties contend for that power. Christians should have absolutely no desire to take part in these fights.

5.Christians should render to God everything that is rightfully His.

“ Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar or not?” But Jesus perceived their malice and said, “Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites? Show me the coin used for the pol-tax.” And they brought Him a denarius. And He said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” Then He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.” And hearing this, they were amazed, and leaving Him, they went away. – Matthew 22.15-22

This text is frequently misunderstood. For that reason I’ve written two other articles examining the context of the question and of Jesus’ answer. In short, rather than approving of giving service to Caesar, Jesus referred to the “likeness” and “inscription” on the coin, evoking strong references to the law, in which God was proclaimed as the only sovereign ruler of everything. When Jesus said “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”, He was sharply challenging his questioners to decide for themselves the question of who rightly deserved their allegiance. If Caesar’s claims to be the rightful ruler of the world were true, then God’s claims to sovereignty were false. If God’s claims to sovereignty were true, the Caesar’s claims were illegitimate. If we really render to God the things that are God’s, there should be nothing left over for Caesar.

6.Christians should recognize that the nations are under demonic influence.

And the devil said to Him, “I will give You all this domain and its glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore if You worship before me, it shall be Yours.” Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘You shall worship the LORD your God and serve Him only.” – Luke 4.6-8

First of all, it is interesting to notice that Jesus never refuted the devil’s claim that all the kingdoms of the world had been handed over to him to give to whomever he wishes. In fact, Jesus frequently referred to Satan as the ruler of the world (John 12.31; 14.30; 16.11). Likewise Paul would later refer to the devil as the “god of this world” (2 Cor. 4.4) and the “prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2.2). John also understood that “the whole world lies the power of the evil one” (1 John 5.19).

How much trust should Christians place in demonically controlled earthly governments? As much as Jesus did, which is absolutely none.

Interestingly, the reason Jesus declined Satan’s offer was because Jesus understood that we are to serve God and God alone. He understood that serving God seeking political glory are mutually exclusive.

7.Christians should remember that Jesus avoided political/legal disputes.

Someone in the crowd said to Him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me.” But He said to him, “Man, who appointed Me a judge or arbitrator over you? Then He said to them, “Beware and be on guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions.” – Luke 12.13-15

Once again, Jesus is faced with a legal/political question. He responds by asking “Who made me a judge?” Jesus claims that He did not come to judge earthly legal/political disputes. To the contrary, Jesus came to set us free from the sinful foundations of those disputes, such as greed.

Jesus didn’t have anything to say about legal/political/governmental disputes. Neither should we.

8.Christians should maintain sharp distinction from the world.

If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. – John 15.18-19

Jesus’s disciples follow a different Lord and Master, and therefore they look at the world in a very different way. Christians are frequently described as being different from the world, or “foreigners”, “exiles”, or “strangers” in the world. (Phil. 1.27; Heb. 11.13; 1 Pet. 1.17; 1 Pet 2.11). As a result, we should not be surprised when the world hates us.

If, however, we are indistinguishable from the world in our values, our ideals, or our methods, we have missed what we are called to be. As we seek to follow Jesus, we should have the same relationship to the surrounding culture and political powers as Jesus had.

9.Christians should refuse to fight like the world fights.

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then my servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” – John 18.36-37

The reason Jesus didn’t fight for political power is because His kingdom is not of this world. The evidence Jesus gave to prove that His kingdom is not of this world was that His disciples weren’t fighting either.

The world fights, not only with violence, but also with evil speaking towards political opponents.

Disciples of Jesus shouldn’t have any part in these physical or verbal fights (Eph. 4.29-31). To the contrary, everything we do is to be done in love. (1 Cor. 16.14). This is strikingly different from the kingdoms of this world which rely on physical violence and verbal sword swinging to maintain their power and influence.

Conclusion

Jesus taught his disciples to live a different kind of life from the world around them. Jesus never took part in earthly politics. He recognized that the kingdoms of this world were under the influence of Satan. He only sought to build one kingdom: the kingdom of God.

Should we not seek to follow this example of Jesus?

Did Jesus Teach Us To Arm Ourselves?

On By Tyler BoydIn Love for Enemies1 Comment

Jesus did not teach that Christians should use violence to protect themselves from their enemies. He taught that Christians should live with attitudes that are antithetical to violence (Mt. 5.3-12). He taught His disciples not to resist evil people (Mt. 5.38-42). He taught us to love our enemies, pray for them, and bless them (Mt. 5.43-46; Lk. 6.27-37). He taught us to follow His example of taking up a cross, even though He could have crushed His enemies with force (Mt. 16.24-26). Jesus’ teachings about how Christians should treat their enemies are clear, and stand in stark contrast to the “common sense” approach typically shown by people in the world. Notice that Jesus’s approach towards enemies includes doing good to them, lest anyone should mistakenly conclude that they can love their enemy in their heart, while doing them harm.

But what about Luke 22.36? Did Jesus give His approval of preparing to use force against evil? Here is the verse in context:

And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.” – Luke 22.35-38

Did Jesus instruct us to arm ourselves? How did Jesus anticipate His disciples to understand this request in light of His other non-violent and enemy loving commandments?

How should this text be applied by Christians today? Should we all be getting our concealed carry permits? Should we all start arming ourselves when we go to worship? What steps should Christians take to protect themselves against imminent threats of danger? What should loving our enemies look like in light of this verse?

Loving Our Enemies Does Not (Always) Contradict Self-Defense

There is nothing wrong with self-defense, unless of course our method of defending ourselves requires us to deny Christ or His teachings. Faithfulness is always more important than safety. Loving our enemies is more important than safety. Doing good to our enemies is more important than safety. But as long as we maintain faithful obedience to God, there is nothing wrong with taking steps to keep ourselves and our loved ones safe in the face of imminent danger.

There are several New Testament examples of self-defense. When King Herod sought to kill Jesus as a child, Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt to keep Him safe. When Saul of Tarsus was ravaging the church, the early Christians fled Jerusalem for safety. When Paul’s life was sought by the governor of Damascus, he took steps to defend himself by escaping through a basket in the wall of the city. These early Christians didn’t flee out of fear, but they didn’t actively seek to be martyred either. They valued self-protection, and we should too.

Luke 22.36 Does Not Teach Self-Defense

Even though self-defense is not wrong, Luke 22.36 does not teach that Christians should use weapons to defend themselves against the wicked.

First of all, the math just doesn’t work. Two swords for the self-defense of twelve men? And yet Jesus says that two swords are enough? Hardly!

Secondly, just a few verses later, Jesus rebukes his disciples when they tried to use their swords for that very purpose.

While he was still speaking, there came a crowd, and the man called Judas, one of the twelve was leading them. He drew near to Jesus to kill him, but Jesus said to him, “Judas, would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?” And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched his ear and healed him. Then Jesus said to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders who had come out against him, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs? When I was with you day after day in the temple, you did not lay hands on me. But this is your hour, and the power of darkness.” – Luke 22.47-53

The disciples, when threatened by enemies, did what most people would do: they pulled out their weapons for self-defense. But when they drew their swords, Jesus rebuked them. “Enough of this!”

(As a side note, the KJV has a more literal translation “Suffer ye thus far!”. The Greek, “eao heos toutou” carries the idea of “letting something be” or “permitting” something, but only for a limited amount of time. That is, carrying the sword for self-defense was something that had been tolerated, but time was up! “Enough of this!”, although less literal, carries this same idea in more natural modern English.)

However we are to understand Jesus’ command to buy a sword, the one conclusion the text does not allow is that Jesus was approving of using the sword for self-defense.

Why Did Jesus Command His Disciples to Buy a Sword?

So what was the reason for buying the sword? Thankfully we are not left to guess for ourselves. The text answers this question for us.

And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.’” – Luke 22.36-37

The text gives us one reason why Jesus would command his disciples to buy a sword: to fulfill prophecy. That’s it. That’s the reason the text gives us. Nothing more. Nothing about self-defense. Nothing about preparing to use the sword against enemies in worst case scenarios. Nothing that would contradict His earlier commands to “do not resist the evil one” and love our enemies.

Two swords were enough to fulfill Isaiah 53.12.

Because he poured out his soul to death
And was numbered among the transgressors;
Yet he bore the sins of man,
And makes intercession for the transgressors.

When Jesus and his disciples carried swords, this was enough to provoke a response that was usually reserved for violent transgressors. Notice the way the text points how Jesus’ enemies changed their approach towards him.

Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs? When I was with you day after day in the temple, you did not lay hands on me. But this is your hour and the power of darkness. – Luke 22.52-53

When Jesus was in the temple without a sword, they did not come out against him. Now, they came out against him as a robber. Earlier He was not numbered among transgressors, and now He was. Why? What was the difference? The swords.

Matthew’s account adds some additional clarity to the role the swords played in causing Jesus to be numbered among the transgressors.

And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew is sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, ‘Put your sword in your place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that it be so?” At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” – Matthew 26.52-56

Buying the sword was all about fulfilling scripture. As soon as Jesus and His disciples carried swords, their lives were threatened with swords. Jesus used this moment to teach a proverb about how violence usually provokes more violence: “All who take the sword will perish by the sword.” Jesus disarmed his disciples. Jesus disarmed all of us.

Jesus then used the opportunity to do good to His enemy.

And he touched his touched his ear and healed him. – Luke 22.51

Two swords were enough to fulfill Scripture.
Two swords were enough to be numbered among the transgressors.
Two swords were enough for Jesus to rebuke Peter for using violence for self-defense.
Two swords ere enough to give Jesus an opportunity to demonstrate the love we are to show our enemies.
Two swords were enough for Jesus to teach us that we should not use violence against our enemies.

The Impact of Jesus’ Teaching

Peter was as passionate about using force against evil as anybody can be. And yet, it seems that Jesus’ rebuke in the garden had a tremendous impact on Peter. Later in life, Peter would look back on that night and draw this conclusion:

For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. – 1 Peter 2.21-23

Jesus set an example of what it means to really entrust yourself to the One who judges justly. Jesus set an example of how to respond to enemies when faced with imminent danger. Jesus showed us how to love our enemies and resist not the one who is evil. And Jesus expects us to follow in His steps.

Not of This World? Prove it!

On By Tyler BoydIn Uncategorized1 Comment

Jesus cited the fact that His disciples were not fighting for His self-defense as the proof that His kingdom was not of this world. When Jesus was facing trial before Pilate as a suspected Jewish revolutionary, Pilate gave Jesus a chance to explain His actions. In response, Jesus didn’t simply proclaim “My Kingdom is not of this world”; He pointed to the non-violence of His servants as proof to substantiate His claim.

Two thousand years later Jesus’s kingdom is still not of this world. But can we prove it like Jesus did? Can we still point to His disciple’s refusal to fight to bear witness to this fact?

Therefore Pilate entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus and said to Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me? Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You to me; what have You done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My Kingdom is not of this realm.” Therefore Pilate said to Him, “So You are a King?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world to testify  to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” – John 18.33-37

What Did Jesus Mean By “Not of This World”?

A commitment to nonviolence is at the heart of Jesus’s definition of His Kingdom. Of course the differences between the Kingdom of God and earthly kingdoms go far beyond whether or not the servants of those kingdoms fight or not. There are many ways in which the Kingdom Jesus preached is “not of this world.”

  • Their source of authority is different. Earthly kingdoms are led by men, while Jesus’s kingdom has its authority in heaven.
  • Their ability to influence the behavior of their citizens are different. Earthly kingdoms seek to reform behavior by use of outward force, while Jesus’s kingdom seeks to inwardly transform hearts.
  • Their boundaries are different. Earthly kingdoms are divided by geographic or racial boundaries, while Jesus’s kingdom is universal in nature.
  • Their source of power is different. Earthly kingdoms look to the power of the cross (or other weapons used to impose the threat of death), while Jesus’s kingdom looks to the power of the cross (i.e. the willingness to submit to death).

But of upmost importance, we must not miss the one key difference that Jesus actually points to in His answer.

  • Their response to evil is different. “If my kingdom were of this world, then My servants would have been fighting”

When Jesus used the phrase “of this world” He was not speaking of the geographic location of His kingdom, but rather He was referring to the world’s way of doing things. For example, Jesus said He came to testify against “the world” because its deeds are evil (Jn. 7.7). Elsewhere John would say, “Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 Jn. 2.15).

The contrast between “of this world” and “not of this world” is referring to a worldly way of doing things and a Godly way of doing things. The commitment of Jesus’s followers to nonviolence is at the heart of this difference.

Jesus Proved It. Can We?

Jesus didn’t just claim that His Kingdom was not of this world. He pointed to the observable fact that His servants were not fighting as proof.

If my kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.

Just a short time earlier He has rebuked Peter when Peter attempted to come to his defense (Jn. 18.10-11).Had Peter, or any of the other disciples been fighting at the time, Jesus’ claim would have been completely meaningless. Can you image Pilate’s response if such had been the case? “What do you mean your Kingdom is not of this world!? Then how do you explain the actions of your disciples!?” But as it was, Jesus’ disciples were not fighting, and Jesus’s teaching stood with the weight of observable truth.

Did Jesus Really Teach Non-Violence?

Did Jesus really teach that his disciples should totally and universally reject fighting? Or did Jesus teach that His disciples should refuse to fight in limited situations, while acknowledging the right of the sword to earthly kingdoms?

The argument goes something like this:

“When Jesus said, “If my kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting”, he acknowledged the right of worldly kingdoms to use violence. By implication, if He and His servants were defending an earthly kingdom, then they would be fighting. Fighting in defense of earthly kingdoms should therefore be seen as at least permissible, and possibly even necessary. As Christians, we are subjects of the kingdoms of this world (Rom. 13.1). Therefore while it is never right to fight for the sake of His non-worldly kingdom, Christians may fight to defend the kingdoms of this world.”

Some Considerations

I know of many faithful Christians who sincerely strive to rightly divide the Scriptures who have arrived at an understanding similar to this. In fact, I myself once held to this limited nonviolence view, and I did so with a most sincere faith. The considerations I wish to offer must not be read as “judgmental” towards anyone who holds that view or had acted upon that view. I wouldn’t want to have my faith unfairly judged by any of my brothers or sisters, and I assure you, that is not the intent of these considerations. Due to my belief that my Christian brothers and sisters who hold this view do so out of a love for truthfully understanding Scripture, I invite you to wrestle with some of these objections.

If you can answer these objections with satisfaction, you will continue to hold your view with even more confidence. If such is the case, I hope you will share with me your counter-objections so that I too can continue to strive for a better understanding.

If perhaps you cannot think of a good answer for these objections, for the sake of truth, I hope you will continue to ponder and meditate on these verses with a humility that will accept whatever truth is to be found therein.

  1. Jesus did not express approval for fighting for earthly kingdoms

The argument is based upon an unproved assumption: that it is right for all servants of worldly kingdoms to fight for those kingdoms. The argument acknowledges that it would be wrong to fight for the kingdom of God. In this argument, the rightness or the wrongness of fighting depends on the nature of the kingdom being defended.

However, if the text is studied carefully it is seen that Jesus was making a clear distinction between the nature of His kingdom and the kingdoms of the world, between the servants of His kingdom and the servants of the Kingdoms of the world. He simply stated, without approval or disapproval, the recognizable fact that servants of earthly kingdoms fight for those kingdoms, while His servants were not fighting for His kingdom. If it is right to fight in the defense of worldly kingdoms, that position must be proved elsewhere in Scripture. It cannot be assumed from John 18.36.

  1. The servants of Christ of whom He spoke were also subjects of an earthly kingdom

The argument holds the position that Christians are right to fight for earthly kingdoms because of their dual citizenship and dual allegiance to both the kingdom of God and to their earthly government. Therefore since they are in both kingdoms, they have responsibilities towards both kingdoms. Just as Christians stand in defense of the Kingdom of God, so they should also stand in defense of their earthly kingdom.

Yet we must remember that the non-fighting servants of Jesus also had earthly citizenship in the nation of Israel, yet they still refused to fight. They were “in the world” (Jn. 17.11), but they were not “of the world” (Jn. 17.16). The distinction between Jesus’s servants and the servants of earthly kingdoms remained despite the fact that they were subjects and servants of an earthly kingdom. If we were to draw any implications from Jesus’s words, we must say “The servants of the kingdoms of the world (with the exclusion of Jesus’s servants, who though “in the world” are not “of the world”) fight for those kingdoms.”

  1. The thing that makes Jesus’s kingdom “not of this world” is the character of the servants

We cannot say that it is wrong to fight for the kingdom of God because of its spiritual nature, but it is right to fight for earthly kingdoms because of their physical nature. When Jesus drew a distinction between His kingdom and worldly kingdoms, the distinction did not rely on the nature of the kingdoms themselves, but rather on the nature of the servants of those kingdoms.

The spiritual nature of God’s kingdom does not prevent anyone from fighting for it. Theoretically, if someone decided to use violence in defense of the principles of God’s kingdom, they could. They could easily pick up a gun and fight against someone in the name of defending  spiritual principles of justice, righteousness, feeding the hungry or limiting the spread of evil in the world. In fact, people fight for Godly ideals such as these all the time. That doesn’t make it right, but it is certainly possible to fight for the principles and ideals of the kingdom of God. The nature of the Kingdom of God and its spiritual principles does not prevent anyone from fighting for it, except to the extent that its nature has changed the nature of its servants.

Christians love their enemies (Mt. 5.43-36), leave judgment to God (Rom. 12.17-21), pursue “peace with all men” (Heb. 12.14), and follow in the nonviolent steps of Christ (1 Pet. 2.21-24). This character does not change when they are called to defend a kingdom of an earthly nature. That is because their commitment to Christ never changes. If anything, they see the threat of earthly enemies as an opportunity to make the distinction between earthly kingdoms and God’s kingdom even more profound.

Jesus’s kingdom is not of this world. Can we prove it?

Render to God!

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian's Relationship to Government8 Comments

Christians should pay their taxes, but the famous teaching of Jesus, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s” (Mt. 22.15-22; Mk. 12.13-17; Lk. 20.20-26), is one of the most misunderstood verses in the New Testament. Jesus was not suggesting that Christians should give their loyalty to both God and Caesar. To the contrary, Jesus was challenging His hearers to give all of their allegiance to God alone.

The first part of this two part article, “Render to Caesar?”, broke down the textual and historical context, which gives us better understanding of the taxation question as it was presented to Jesus. This second part breaks down Jesus’ response.

The Coin and Counter Question

But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, “Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites? Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax.” And they brought Him a denarius. And He said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to Him “Caesar’s.” – Matthew 22.18-21a

Jesus certainly could have chosen to answer their question without this counter-question. The coin and the counter-question served the important function, and the significance must not be ignored. Jesus used the coin and counter-question to allude to key Scriptures which taught that our allegiance belongs to God alone.

Instead of immediately answering their question, Jesus requested to see the coin that was used for the tax. The coin in question, the denarius, had an image of Caesar on it. Two words, “likeness” and “inscription”, in the counter-question point to two key commandments in the Old Testament.

God Prohibits Any Likeness (or Image)

You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God. – Exodus 20.3-5

The first two of the Ten Commandments prohibit worship of anyone or anything but God, and it also forbids making any image of a false god. God demands the exclusive allegiance of His people. Jesus’ usage of the word “likeness” in the counter-question would have reminded His listeners of this prohibition against creating images of any false gods.

Carrying around the “likeness” of Caesar was bad enough. But when we consider the “inscription” on the coin, it is even more revealing.

The Law Demands Worship of God Alone

Inscribed around the image of Caesar was the words “TI CAESAR DIVI AUG F AUGUSTUS”, which is an abbreviation for “Tiberius Caesar, Worshipful Son of the God, Augustus”. The other side of the coin had the image of the Roman goddess of peace, Pax, with the inscriptuion “Pontif Maxim”, which stands for “Pontifus Maximus”, which in turn means “High Priest.”

In one of the most ironic passages in the New Testament, the gospels depict the Son of God, the High Priest, the Prince of Peace, the King, holding in his hand a tiny silver coin of a king who claimed to be the son of god, and the high priest of Roman peace.

All Jews understood that the Law commanded Israel to worship God and God alone. Every morning Jews were known to pray the words of Deuteronomy 6.4-9,

Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.

By referring to the likeness and the inscription on the coin, Jesus appealed to key commandments from Scripture, and thus demonstrated the hypocrisy of his questioners, while reminding the hearers that Scripture taught that the LORD alone is God, and Caesar is not.

Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s

Two hundred years earlier, one of the slogans of the Macabbean revolt against the Syrians had been “Pay back the Gentiles what they deserve – and obey the commands of the law.” (1 Macc. 2.68). In other words, Israel wanted to pay back the Syrians with the violence they deserved, while maintaining faithfulness to the law.

That’s what they meant. But what did Jesus mean when He said “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s”? On one hand, He could have meant, “Yes, pay the tax”, yet without the sting of “Yes, submit to your Roman masters.”

Secondly, He could have purposely mirrored the Maccabean slogan, as if to say “Give the Romans what they deserve!” (i.e. nothing), while crafting His words carefully to avoid the direct charge of inciting tax revolt. The fact that Jesus had just referred to Caesar’s blasphemous image, and the blasphemous inscription on the coin certainly support this understanding. But again, the words were spoken in such a way so as to avoid direct charge. His words are, after all, literally saying “Yes, pay the tax.”

Had He undermined Caesar’s right to collect taxes? Or had He told them to pay the tax?

I suggest that He had done neither, while at the same time He had done both. Nobody could deny that Jesus’ saying sounded an awfully lot like the revolutionary Maccabean slogan, yet nobody could say that Jesus had forbidden the payment of the tax. He was certainly not giving legitimacy to Roman authority, but neither was He advocating tax revolt. It seems most likely to me that Jesus had given a purposely ambiguous answer so that His listeners would be left to wrestle with the question, “What do I really owe Caesar?”

Render to God What is God’s

The second part of Jesus’ answer is anything but ambiguous. According to Scripture, everything belongs to God. Jesus had already reminded his listeners of the first two commandments. Scripture teaches that the LORD alone is the only true God and everything rightfully belongs to Him.

The earth is the LORD’s, and all that it contains,
The world, and those who dwell in it. – Psalm 24.1

For every beast of the forest is Mine,
The cattle on a thousand hills. – Psalm 50.10

God claimed that even the silver and the gold rightfully belonged to Him.

The silver is Mine and the gold is Mine,’ declares the LORD of hosts. – Haggai 2.8

The emperor, on the other hand, also claimed that all people and things in the empire rightfully belonged to Rome. The denarius notified everyone that those who transacted with it owed the emperor their exclusive allegiance and worship.

With one straight forward counter question, followed by the command to “render to God the things that are God’s”, Jesus skillfully pointed out that the claims of God and the claims of Caesar are mutually exclusive. If one’s faith is in God, then God is owed everything, and Caesar’s claims are illegitimate. If one’s faith is in Caesar, God’s claims are illegitimate, and Caesar is owed, at the very least, the coin which bears his image.

What Jesus certainly didn’t mean was that the lives of His disciples could divide their lives and their allegiance into two separate parts (the “religious” part and the “political” part). Every aspect of the world, and every aspect of our lives should be given to God.

The Response To Jesus’ Answer

Jesus’ reply to their question invited His listeners to choose allegiances. Not only did Jesus cleverly escape their trap; He authoritatively rebuked his opponents by basing His answer in scripture. No wonder Matthew records:

And hearing this, they were amazed, and leaving Him, they went away. – Matthew 22.22

Following the same rhetorical structure as the trap question about His authority, 1) Jesus was asked a trap question. 2) Jesus replied with a brilliantly crafted answer. 3) Jesus left the questioners with a question of their own to ponder. 4) As a result, Jesus effectively made His claim to Messiahship while at the same time avoiding their trap.

Had Jesus’ answer simply meant “Yes, pay the tax”, no one would have left “amazed.” They would have rejoiced, for their trap would have worked! But in the context we examined above, no Jew would have taken Jesus’ response as an endorsement of taxation. To the contrary, a few days later, Jesus was accused of forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar.

And they began to accuse Him, saying “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that He Himself is Christ, a King. – Matthew 23.2

Did Jesus actually encourage tax rebellion? No. But it should be clear that Jesus’ answer was not understood as a clear-cut approval of the taxation either. Had Jesus’s teaching been understood as an endorsement of Caesar’s tax, then this accusation would have never surfaced, for it would have been quickly refuted by those who heard Jesus’ teaching.

But if Jesus’s statement is understood as a challenge to serve God alone as King, then this accusation makes perfect sense.

What is the Christian Response To Taxation?

Since even our money ultimately belongs to God, and He alone is the rightful King, do Christians actually owe their government anything? Did Jesus teach that Christians should only spend their money as God would want them to spend it, rather than giving their money to Caesar? In other words, did Jesus actually encourage tax rebellion?

There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament that would support this conclusion. The New Testament commanded Christians of that day, and commands Christians in our day, to submit to government and to pay whatever taxes they require of us. (Rom. 13.5-7; 1 Pet. 2.13-15).

This isn’t to say that Caesar “has a right” to collect taxes, or even that we “owe” anything to government as if it belonged to them. Christians are not commanded to pay their taxes because we think government deserves it, or because we think they have a rightful claim to it. Rather we are to pay our taxes because the Creator, and only King to whom we are to pledge our allegiance, commands us to pay them.

The New Testament describes Christians as strangers and exiles in a foreign land (Heb. 11.3; 1 Pet. 2.11). To get into a political fight with our earthly rulers over the money they take from us distracts us from what we are called to do, which is to spread the Kingdom of God. Our only concern is that we are giving to God anything and everything that He is owed. This includes a willingness to submit and pay taxes to to even the most unjust of governments.

Neither Jesus nor the apostles advocated tax rebellion. Yet, at the same time, Jesus never taught that Caesar’s claim to authority was legitimate. The idea that Christians should support both God and government, by living with dual allegiances and dual citizenships, is not supportable historically, contextually, or exegetically.  If we would render to God all the things that belong to God, there should be nothing left for Caesar.

Render to Caesar?

On By Tyler BoydIn Christian's Relationship to Government5 Comments

In Jesus’s famous teaching, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s” (Mt. 22.15-22; Mk. 12.13-17; Lk. 20.20-26), Jesus challenged his hearers to give God everything He is rightfully due, giving all of their allegiance to God and not to Caesar. Unfortunately, this passage has become one of the most misunderstood and misapplied teachings of Jesus.

The passage is frequently used to prove that Jesus endorsed Caesar’s authority to collect taxes as legitimate. According to this popular view, Jesus taught His disciples to pay taxes because the Christian responsibilities to God and to Caesar fall into two separate categories, each with a legitimate but separate claim to authority. Therefore, Christians should strive to give their support to both God and Caesar, while wisely distinguishing what is due to each. If it is determined that that something is owed to the government (whether it be to be good citizens, or to vote, or to serve in office, or even fight for their nation), Christians should support their government in giving what is owed.

If we read the discussion about Caesar and taxes in isolation from the surrounding context, it is easy to see why this view is so popular. After all, Jesus did say “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”  However, there are difficulties with this popular understanding.

This teaching was never intended as an endorsement of Caesar’s authority to collect taxes. Rather, in His response to a question about taxes, Jesus was purposely ambiguous in His answer. This purposeful ambiguity was designed to leave His audience asking themselves “What really belongs to God, and what really belongs to Caesar?” Rather than teaching His disciples to give their support to both God and Caesar, Jesus’s response was designed to reveal the hypocrisy of the questioners who had tried to divide their allegiance to God.

To make the case that this is a more faithful understanding of the text, this two part article will first examine the historical and textual context of the question that was asked to Jesus. Part two will examine the importance of the coin and Jesus’ counter-question, examine what it means to “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s”, and what it means to “Render to God what is God’s”, and  will examine the response to Jesus’ statement. Finally, to prevent any misapplication of the text, the article will briefly consider the proper Christian response to taxes.

The Textual Context

The taxation discussion must not be read as an isolated discussion on the separation of church and state (a concept that would have been most foreign to first century Judaism). All three synoptic gospels place the conversation in the final week of Jesus’ ministry, a week that would climax with Jesus being crucified with “The King of the Jews” written above His head.  The trap question comes on the heels of Messianic symbolism (The entry into Jerusalem and cleansing of the temple); references to Messianic prophecies (2 Sam. 7, Zech. 4, 6, 14); Messianic parables, and a quotation from a Messianic psalm. Jesus was, again and again, implicitly claiming that He was the Messianic King. The question of taxation is a question about the implications of Jesus’ claims to Kingship. If Jesus is going to be King, what does this mean about Caesar’s similar claim?

Among all the Messianic symbolism and teachings, Jesus was asked a trap question (Mt. 21.23-27; Mk. 11.27-33; Lk. 20.1-18).

By what authority are You doing these things, and who gave You this authority? -Matthew 21.23b

By what authority was Jesus referencing to Himself as the Messiah? If Jesus claimed that His authority came from God, He would have surely been arrested by Herod, the “other” king of the Jews. If Jesus denied that His authority came from God, He would have undermined His whole work.

Yet Jesus answered with a brilliant counter question about John the Baptist. Was His authority from God or men? Now the tables were turned. If the chief priests and scribes answered that John’s authority was from men, they would have alienated themselves from the crowds. Yet if they answered that John’s authority was from God, this would only give validity to the claim that Jesus, the successor of John the Baptist, likewise had His authority from God. Any doubts about the meaning of Jesus’ counter-question can be removed by reading the parable that follows.

Before continuing to examine the textual context, notice carefully the rhetorical structure of this trap question. 1) Jesus was asked a trap question. 2) Jesus replied with a brilliantly crafted answer. 3) Jesus left the questioners with a question of their own to ponder. 4) As a result, Jesus effectively made His claim to Messiahship while at the same time avoiding their trap. We will see this exact same structure in the trap question about taxation.

Jesus then tells a Messianic parable about a rejected son, followed by a quotation from a Messianic Psalm about a rejected cornerstone (Ps. 118.22-23). In Matthew’s account, Jesus then told a parable of a great supper (Mt. 22.1-14), in which the king had made a supper for his son, but those who refused the invitation would be thrown into outer darkness. This too was a way for Jesus to refer to Himself as the rejected son of the King.

Given Jesus’ many subtle claims to kingship, an obvious question to ask would be “If Jesus is King, what does that mean about others who make the same claim? How does Jesus’ claim to kingship relate to Caesar’s claim to kingship?” To best understand the taxation discussion, we must remove modern philosophies of the separation of church and state from our minds and place ourselves back within the Biblical text by considering the question from the perspective of Jesus’ questioners. By reading the taxation question in this light we can better understand Jesus’s response.

The Historical Context

The conversation about taxation occurred at a time when Jerusalem was boiling over with political and religious fervor for revolt and revolution. In 6 A.D. the Roman occupiers of Palestine imposed a census tax on the Jewish people. The tax was not well received, not only because of the cost, but because of what the tax represented. By 17 A.D. Judas the Galilean lead a tax revolt by teaching that “taxation was no better than slavery”, and he and his followers had “an inviolable attachment to liberty”, recognizing that God alone was the rightful king and ruler of Israel.

In this context of tax-revolt, the question of paying taxes must be seen as more than just a philosophical question of the separation between church and state. This was both a deeply political question, as well as a deeply religious question. Either, God and His divine laws were supreme, or the Roman emperor and his pagan laws were supreme.

All three synoptic gospels record that this conversation occurred during the Passover week, a week in which Israel remembered the Exodus, in which God had given them their freedom. Yet ever since the Babylonian invasion hundreds of years earlier, Israel had been ruled by others. In 163 B.C., Judas Maccabeus cleansed the temple and lead a successful revolt against their pagan oppressors. As a result, Israel enjoyed a short period of semi-independence, but ever since 63 B.C., Israel had been ruled by their Roman overlords. As the Jews looked back to the Passover to celebrate their freedom, they also agonized over the fact that they weren’t free, and they longed for the day when God’s kingdom would be exalted over the pagans once again.

For most Jews at this time, conversations about the establishment of the Kingdom of God, a new temple, the Messiah, taxation and revolt against the Roman Empire all went together. Here was another temple-cleanser, another Galilean preaching about the establishment of a new kingdom, claiming to be the new king. What would this so-called Messiah have to say about taxation?

The Question

“Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said. And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any. Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not? – Matthew 22.15-17

It is important to note that this question was presented as a “trap” question. That is, the Pharisees had designed the question to box Him in. If Jesus says that it is lawful to pay the tax, He would have been seen as a collaborator with the Roman occupiers. In the minds of the Jews at the time, the Messiah was to defeat the pagans. No Roman collaborator could possibly be the Messiah. Therefore, if Jesus had answered “Yes, pay the tax”, all of symbolism and teaching of the previous week would have been seriously undermined.

If Jesus said that the tax was illegitimate, the Herodians would have surely branded him as a political criminal, and He would have almost immediately incurred the wrath of Rome. With either answer, Jesus would have been stopped.

When Jesus answered “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s”, this could not have been understood as saying “yes, pay the tax.” That was one of the two answers the Pharisees were hoping for. Again, if Jesus’ hearers understood “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s” as “Yes, pay the tax”, Jesus would have been immediately discredited as the Messiah.

So “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s” could not have possibly meant “Yes, pay the tax.” Or, perhaps, could it have meant exactly that, yet while somehow avoiding the sting of “Yes, submit to your Roman overlords”? Or did Jesus mean something different entirely? Please consider Jesus’ response carefully while reading Part 2 here.

Jesus’ Shocking Teachings: Divorce (Part 2)

On By Lance MosherIn Kingdom Life1 Comment

In our series on Jesus’ shocking teachings in the Sermon on the Mount, we come to His teachings on marriage, divorce, and remarriage.

It was said, “Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her A certificate of divorce”; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Matthew 5:31-32

It’s clear enough to see what Jesus said, which was discussed in Part 1. Let us now explore some questions about what was unsaid.

1. Do Jesus’ teachings apply to everyone, or just Christians?

Many have tried to make it easier on people by saying that Jesus’ teachings on marriage, divorce, and remarriage only apply to those who are Christians. Therefore, if someone breaks this commandment outside of covenant with Christ, he or she is not accountable for it.

First, there is nothing in Scripture that indicates that those outside of covenant with Christ are not accountable for their sins. In fact, if Jesus’ teachings don’t apply to them, then who are the lost? I was under the impression that those who do not know God and those who do not obey the gospel of Jesus will receive judgment (2 Thess. 1:6-10).

Notice how Jesus presents His teachings on divorce in Mark’s gospel.

And He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.” Mark 10:11-12.

“Whoever” applies to whomever, just like it would in other Scriptures (cf. John 3:16).

Second, we also cannot say that this teaching applies to Jews only. In Matthew 19, Jesus was not trying to present Jewish understandings of the Scriptures. If He were, then He would have enforced the punishment of adultery, which was death, instead of permission to divorce.

So, Jesus’ teachings on this subject are universal.

2. What if my husband or wife lusts in his or her heart for someone else?

Earlier in this chapter, Jesus says, “everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:28). A woman whose husband that has used pornography may ask, “Since my husband has committed adultery in his heart, may I divorce him?”

The simple answer is, no, not on those grounds. The sin committed during lust is an inward, non-physical act. It is very serious in the sight of God and anyone else affected by it, but it is not the same as πορνεία, which is, “voluntary sexual intercourse between persons not married to each other.” Only the person lusting is active, and the other person is passive, and in some cases of lust, ignorant and innocent; therefore, fornication has not occurred.

3. Am I trapped, then?

What about those whose marriage is in serious trouble, but neither party has committed adultery? First, let us be reminded that God hates divorce, and so should we (Mal. 2:16). God understands, however, that there are things that trouble marriages other than adultery.

For instance, in 1 Corinthians 7, if a believer is married to a nonbeliever, and if the nonbeliever is unwilling to dwell with the believer, the marriage can be separated. In this case, neither is permitted to divorce the other, and neither is permitted to marry another person, but they are permitted to live separately.

Let it be said that in the case of an abusive marriage, both parties need to seek help, and the victim should seek safety away from the abuser immediately.

4. What if someone becomes a Christian after entering into an unbiblical second marriage?

In this case, does Jesus’ blood make an unsanctioned, unbiblical marriage an acceptable marriage?

And He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.” Mark 10:11-12.

Again, this applies to “whoever,” and not just the Christian. Notice the literal translation: “she is committing adultery” The KJV says committeth. Whenever you encounter a verb with that suffix (eth) in the KJV, it indicates a continual action.

John 3:16 talks about whosoever believeth on Him. Faith is not a one-time action, but a continual one. Therefore, when people stay in an unbiblical marriage, they continually commit adultery.

So, what is someone who is continually sinning to do in order to enter covenant with Christ? What would a fornicator, drunkard, or thief be told to do? Repent, which comes from godly sorrow and involves the ceasing from sin, and turning to Christ (2 Cor. 7:9-10; Acts 26:20)! In the case of one who is committing adultery in an unbiblical marriage, he or she should repent and turn to God.

5. What should I do?

Someone is looking at the perfect law of liberty as a mirror, the way James describes. He now realizes the mess his decisions have put him into. What should he do? When the disciples had this question, they concluded, “it is better not to marry” (Matt. 19:10). Jesus said that in some situations, that’s true.

For those who would sin by beginning or remaining in a relationship, Jesus would teach them to become celibate, that is, refrain from sexual activity (Matt. 19:12). In other words, there have been those who have made drastic decisions and deprived themselves of temporary happiness in order to stay pure for Christ.

Previously in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus teaches that if something in your life causes you to sin, it would be better for you to lose it, in this case an unbiblical relationship, than for you to lose your soul (Matt. 5:29-30).

6. But doesn’t God want me to be happy?

In an emotional response to such difficult teachings of Christ, many have thought either Jesus just wants to see me unhappy, or Jesus will make an exception for my unbiblical marriage, because I am “happy” in it, and God wants me to be happy.

God does not provide eternal joy in return for sinful lifestyles. Instead, He provides gladness to the disciple who is storing up treasure in heaven.

Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. Matthew 5:10-12.

This logic of, “God wants me to be happy, and therefore, He will make an exception for my relationship,” is flawed from the beginning. Should we make an exception for those who are “happy” living together before marriage? What about the thief who has built a comfortable and “happy” life off of the wealth of others? What about the person who gains happiness by abusing others? No, and so it applies to the one who is living in adultery.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

7. What if it’s too late?

You may be looking at Jesus’ commandments and saying, “It must be too late for me.” An example may be a man who divorced his wife several years ago for reasons other than adultery. First Corinthians 7 would teach that this man has two options:

  1. Remain unmarried.
  2. Be reconciled with his wife.

But she has now moved on, moved away, and started a family with someone else; therefore, reconciliation is impossible. Is it too late to feel complete again?

Christ is the provider of true hope and completion. Are you breathing? Do you have blood running through your veins? Do you have a sound mind? If so, that’s an opportunity for you to respond to the gospel! It’s not too late.

No matter the situation we have gotten ourselves into in the past, Jesus can provide a new life through the new birth. Does that mean the consequences will disappear? In many cases, no. A murdered who repents will not be able to bring his victims back to life. The blood of Jesus does not immediately undo damage to relationships.

However, you can still be given a new life today by the gospel of Jesus Christ. Won’t you respond?

Conclusion

I know there are more questions to explore with this topic, but I am sure they can be answered by faithfully looking at Jesus’ teachings and applying them consistently. I also know that anyone who speaks on this subject so straightforward may be charged of being insensitive.

If I have been insensitive, first, please don’t hold that against Jesus. He came to this earth because of His sensitivity toward sin and His love for you. Second, please accept my apology. My goal was to teach the truth with heartfelt conviction, not with heartless attacks.

Jesus’ Shocking Teachings: Divorce (Part 1)

On By Lance MosherIn Kingdom Life1 Comment

We all live under different forms of authority: parents, government, teachers, supervisors, God, and even ourselves. The Scriptures teach there is spiritual value in self-control. What you do in life is under the authority of your mind–your decisions–and your decisions are shaped by your knowledge, your feelings, your current situations, and your experiences.

What is the hierarchy of authority in your life? Isn’t that the key question? The answer to this question will dictate how you respond to other authorities. When two authorities conflict with each other in your life, which one will you follow? Obviously, the one that is higher on the list.

In His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus challenges His disciples to get their priorities (their authorities) straight. Is God number one? Will you subject yourself to your own thoughts and feelings or to the One who has your eternal best interests in mind?

It was said, “Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her A certificate of divorce”; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Matthew 5:31-32

The other five sayings Jesus addresses begin something like, “You have heard…” (vv. 21, 27, 33, 38, 43). However, when we get to this subject, Jesus simply says, “It was said…” Why does He not mention that they had heard about this? Was it that case that people were not teaching on the importance of marriage and the seriousness of divorce? Was it the case that, in the first century, there was no need to teach on God’s plan for marriage from the beginning? Whatever the case may have been, Jesus knew that this subject had to be addressed.

If you think Jesus teaches somewhat strictly on this subject, you’re not alone. On a future occasion when Jesus speaks on this subject, Jesus’ disciples are shocked.

Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her A certificate of divorce and send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it. Matthew 19:3-12.

The disciples are so affected by Jesus’ teaching that they conclude it would be better to not marry. Jesus does not agree with their sweeping statement, but He does give credit to them that, for some people, it is better not to marry.

When Jesus brings up the ideal circumstance and His new covenant teaching on divorce and remarriage, don’t fall into the temptation to wish for Jesus to be like Moses. Some might want to bring back the permissions of the Law of Moses to be able to divorce a spouse for other reasons other than sexual immorality. However, are they willing to be consistent? Would they also want Moses’ punishment for one found committing sexual immorality, which was stoning to death? Let us accept both Christ’s law and His grace.

“For I hate divorce,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with wrong,” says the Lord of hosts. “So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.” Malachi 2:16.

If God hates divorce, we should too.

The word translated in Matthew 5:32 as unchastity in the NASB is πορνεία (porneia). Of course, this is where we get our English word, pornography. It means “sexual immorality, fornication, illicit sexual acts.” In the context of the marriage, if one of the partners commits unchastity/fornication, it is called adultery, because fornication includes adultery. As we saw in the previous study, the English definition of fornication is “voluntary sexual intercourse between persons not married to each other.”

So, what does Jesus say? He says that when you say, “I do,” you are committing to that person for life. He also says that the only reason you are permitted to divorce the person you have committed to for life is if he or she breaks the marriage covenant through illicit sexual activity with another person. That’s it. If you divorce anyway, and you remarry, you are committing adultery, because you had no biblical right to put your spouse away in the first place.

It does not matter what human law permits, Jesus’ word on this subject will continue to be binding on all. In order to enforce this point, Jesus appeals to God’s plan from the beginning (Matt. 19:4). God’s plan supersedes culture. Jesus came to restore God’s plan from the beginning. We should share this goal with Christ.

Consider this: If divorce were permitted for any reason at all, as many societies say it should be, then where is the sanctity and value of marriage? Why is it that most of us would value a glass chalice over a paper cup? One is made with disposal in mind. If you enter marriage thinking that you can always throw it away later, you devalue it.

Also, where would the seriousness of adultery be?

When any society sinks to such a level that complete freedom of divorce for any excuse permits as many husbands or wives in quick succession as desire may crave, any command not to commit adultery becomes a farce. Harold Fowler (Matthew Vol. 1. 1968.)

It was said, “Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her A certificate of divorce”; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Matthew 5:31-32

There have been hundreds of questions thrown at these verses. In Part 2, I will endeavor to answer seven of them. But let us remember that no question we ask can detract away from what Jesus said, which was said quite clearly.

 

Staring Into The Gates of Hades

On By Tyler BoydIn Kingdom Life

Sometimes death is all over the news. We see the Las Vegas massacre. We’re painfully aware of the growing reality that not even our church pews can be considered safe anymore. We see reports of acts of violence almost every night on the local news. We’re continually reminded of the looming threat of nuclear war. But it’s more than just the acts of violence that grab the headlines. It’s the everyday car wrecks. It’s the loved ones with cancer. It’s ever-present “prayer lists” at church, continually filled with announcements funerals, illnesses, hardships and sufferings. With each day that passes we are reminded of our mortality and evil. We are continually forced to stare into the gates of hades.

The only way to stare into the gates of hades without fear is to be a part of the one Kingdom that is victorious over death. Of all the churches that may be established by man, only the Church established by Christ will be victorious over death. Of all the kingdoms on earth, only one has declared war on the grave itself and will emerge victorious.

When Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, Jesus responded:

Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. – Matthew 16.17-19

Jesus came to preach the kingdom (Mt. 4.17). The theme of the kingdom was present in all of His teachings, His parables, and His actions. Here in His response to Peter, Jesus refers to His Kingdom as a church that would be built upon a rock.

Jesus goes on to tell Peter that the “Gates of Hades” will not overcome His church or Kingdom. The phrase “Gates of Hades” is sometimes misleadingly translated “Gates of Hell.” The word “Hades,” rather than referring to a place of eternal punishment, refers to the realm of the dead.  When Jesus refers to the gates, He speaks of the ever-open, completely engulfing open door policy of the grave. By combining the two ideas, Jesus refers to the great strength, power, and dominion that death has over the world.

Jesus recognized that death is an extremely powerful force in this world. The power of death is a direct result of sin (Gen. 2.17; Rom. 6.23). When God created the world He said that it was good, yet death continually reminds us that our world falls far short of what God created it to be. Satan has filled this world with disease, tragedy, violence and corruption, all of which lead to death. The fear of death is what keeps wicked kingdoms in power; and the fear of death is what brings empires tumbling down to their knees. The poison of sin, death, and ruin has filled the entire material, moral, and spiritual world.

When other kingdoms see the all-powerful gates of hades, they seek to make death an ally. They look to use deadly weaponry and warfare to keep safe.  And yet, Jesus believed His kingdom would do what no other kingdom has ever done: defeat death itself, that is to withstand the gates of hades.

In this response Jesus echoed the prophecy of Daniel.

In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever. – Daniel 2.44

Just as Daniel had prophesied of a Kingdom that would never be defeated, Jesus too taught that His church would endure.

Other Institutions and Organizations

When Jesus stated that the gates of Hades would not prevail against His kingdom or church, He implied that the gates of Hades would be able to prevail against other kingdoms or other churches. If any and every kingdom or church were able to withstand the gates of Hades, it would not have made any sense for Jesus to specifically state that they would not prevail against His church. There is only one church that will be victorious over the gates of Hades. There is only one Kingdom that will be victorious over all the influence of death, destruction and ruin. Only the church built by Christ; the kingdom established in heaven, will endure.

Just a short time earlier, as Jesus was conversing with the Pharisees and the scribes, He stated:

Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted. – Matthew 15.13

This was Jesus’s response when the Pharisees and the scribes questioned Jesus about ceremonial hand washing, through which they were invalidating the word of God to uphold the tradition of their Fathers (Mt. 15.1-9). In this response, Jesus stated that every law, every institution, and every organization which was not established by His Father will not endure. Ultimately, all others will be uprooted.

There Will Be A Judgment

Those who seek to domesticate Jesus as simply a “great moral teacher,” simply teaching His disciples a new, improved and more loving way to follow God, must be set aside. Yes, Jesus’ kingdom was a more loving way, but the good news of the establishment of God’s kingdom necessarily means that there will be a much needed judgement, wherein His disciples are seperated from the evil in the world and justified.

The victory of God’s kingdom necessarily meant that those who were not part of His kingdom would not be victorious. A distinction would be made between those who would follow Jesus’ way and those who would not; between those who would be victorious and those who would be defeated.

For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. – Matthew 5.20

Jesus defined the boundaries of God’s kingdom.  Without the judgement, we would all be destined to ruin. The only way to avoid that ruin is to live the way Jesus taught.

But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions. – Matthew 6.15

Jesus taught a different way of living – a way of living that would bring peace. To reject His way of peace leads to destruction.

For all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. – Matthew 26.52

A distinction would be made between those who would pass through the narrow gate and those who rejected Jesus’ teachings.

Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the  gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. – Matthew 7.13-14

Or to change up the metaphor slightly, only those trees which bore good fruit would escape the fire.

Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.– Matthew 7.20

Even those who thought they were following God, if they did not follow the lifestyle Jesus taught, would soon find out they were on the wrong side.

Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. – Matthew 7.21

The same theme was continually emphasized throughout Jesus’ parables.

When the harvest was ready, a sickle would be put to the crop (Mk. 4.29). The tares would be separated from the wheat, and then burned (Mt. 13.24-30; 36-43). The net would pull out all kinds of fish, but the bad fish would be separated out and thrown away (Mt. 13. 47-52). Those who rejected Jesus’ way would be like laborers who killed the king’s messengers who were sent to invite them to a wedding feast, only to ultimately be destroyed by the king himself (Mt. 22.7). At the banquet, those who took the best seats would be humiliated, and those who rejected the invitation would be replaced with others (Mt. 22.1-14; 25.1-13). When the king came to his people, those who refused to do the king’s business would be judged (Mt. 25.14-30).

It is impossible to separate the gospel of the kingdom of God from the idea that a distinction will be made between those who are part of His kingdom and those who are not. There will be a judgment separating those who are part of His kingdom and church from those who have aligned themselves with other kingdoms or religious organizations.

We stare into the gates of hades everyday. Yet because we know there will be a judgement, Christ’s church can stand boldly. All other religious organizations will ultimately be engrossed by the gates of Hades, and the ruin and destruction that death brings. All other kingdoms will ultimately be broken in pieces, shattered, and consumed by the kingdom of God, which will stand forever. But God’s Kingdom, Christ’s church, will be judged and justified, defeating the gates of hades.

Why would we want to establish any other “church” other than the one built by Christ? Why would we want to align ourselves with any other “kingdom,” knowing that all others are doomed to fail?

Becoming part of His church, and living as part of His kingdom is far more than simply calling on His name. We must follow the pattern of living which He set forth. The “keys” (or terms of entry) into His kingdom were established in heaven. His terms will endure when others will not. Living according to His teachings is the way to be victorious over the gates of Hades.