Several years before the Gospel accounts were ever written, the apostle Paul penned a letter to the church in Corinth. This letter has been preserved for us today, known as 1 Corinthians. In this letter, Paul recorded the earliest preserved list of resurrection appearances.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
1 Corinthians 15:3-8

The question, of course, is whether or not Paul’s proclamation is based on historical fact. Did Jesus actually rise from the dead and appear to multiple witnesses as Paul had claimed? Or could there be a better explanation for the existence of this list? There are four arguments that arise from this passage that lead to the unavoidable conclusion:

Yes. Jesus did in fact rise from the dead.

The Resurrection Proclamation is Too Early to Be a Myth

The first reason Paul’s testimony in 1 Corinthians 15 is so important is because of the early dating of the book. 1 Corinthians was written sometime between AD 54-56. We know this with a high degree of certainty because of the combination of both internal and external factors.

First, we know that Paul wrote the letter during the last few months of his stay in Ephesus (“But I will stay in Ephesus until Pentecost” – 1 Corinthians 16:8). Because of Acts 18:18-19:10, we know that Paul had come to Ephesus straight from Corinth, and the entirety of his stay was somewhere between two and three years. We know Paul was in Corinth during Gallio’s term as proconsul of Achaia. So if we can date Gallio’s term, we can date Paul’s stay in Corinth. And if we can date Paul’s stay in Corinth, we can date Paul’s stay in Ephesus, and if we can date Paul’s stay in Ephesus, we can date the letter of 1 Corinthians. And guess what? There is an externally datable Roman inscription discovered in Delphi that mentions Gallio by name, and firmly dates his proconsulship to AD 51.

All of that is simply to make this point: It is almost universally agreed upon by conservative scholars, liberal scholars, Christian scholars, and non-Christian scholars, that the letter of 1 Corinthians was penned only about 20 or 25 years after Jesus’s death.

This fact alone rules out the possibility that Jesus’s resurrection was a complete myth or legend. Myths and legends typically take many generations to develop. Yet there was no more than 20 or 25 years between Jesus’s death and the writing of 1 Corinthians 15. This is nowhere close to enough time for the myth theory to have any serious explanatory power.

That is, of course, unless it can be shown that there were exceptionally unusual factors that would cause this “legend” to develop extremely rapidly. Could that possibly be the case? Absolutely not, and here’s why:

The Resurrection Tradition Significantly Predates 1 Corinthians

Perhaps it could be argued that because of extraordinary circumstances, the resurrection narratives were entirely contrived and developed during the two decades between Jesus’s death and the writing of 1 Corinthians. The problem with this theory is that it does not account for Paul’s language used in 1 Corinthians 15.

Notice carefully how Paul introduces the passage: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received” (1 Cor. 15:3). That means the Corinthians had already received this teaching from Paul before Paul wrote this letter. And Paul himself claims that he himself had received this teaching from others. This is likely referring to his early contact with Peter and James, referenced in Galatians 1:18-19.

And of additional significance is the form of writing Paul used to relay this resurrection teaching. What follows is written in short, rhythmic clauses, with a repetitive structure. It has long been recognized by scholars that this style of writing is typical of a standardized, well-known formula that was likely memorized, frequently recited, and already circulating among the earliest disciples as an oral tradition. In other words, because of the style of writing used in this passage, it sounds as if Paul is relaying a well-rehearsed, familiar chorus which was already firmly established prior to Paul’s writing of the letter. Because of this, even a majority of skeptical scholars concede that the resurrection tradition was already established as a foundational teaching of early Christianity, even before Paul came on the scene.

If this is true, it forces us to face a very important question: If the report of the empty tomb and resurrection appearances isn’t rooted in solid historical fact, what else explains how this teaching came to be publicly proclaimed in such a short period of time? If Jesus never rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples, how do we explain the fact that almost immediately after his death, his followers thought Jesus rose from the dead, appeared to them, and began circulating this account? There’s no easy answer to these questions.

If 1 Corinthians 15 is in fact relaying a previously well-established Christian teaching, as Paul claims, and as the writing style used in the passage suggests, we cannot avoid wrestling with those questions.

The Public Verifiability of Paul’s Account

But what if the majority of scholars are wrong? What if the resurrection was not a well-established teaching among the early disciples? What if it was all made up? What if it was actually Paul who was the first to fabricate this story? What if he wrote 1 Corinthians 15 in the style he did just to make it sound like a well-established teaching? In other words, what if Paul was being intentionally deceptive?

First of all, if Paul was making this story up, what was his motive? So that he could leave behind his life as a well respected, highly educated Pharisee, and live a life of disrepute, hunger, homelessness, and persecution? Paul did not share this list of resurrection appearances to boost his own authority as an apostle, but rather to concede that he considered himself the least of the apostles! (1 Cor. 15:9).

Secondly, Paul himself recognized that if his report about the resurrection was false, then he and the other apostles would have been guilty of “misrepresenting God” (1 Cor. 15:15). He was well aware of the serious spiritual implications of making up such a claim if it were not true.

But most significant is the fact that Paul’s resurrection claim is grounded by numerous eyewitness testimonies. Paul reports that Jesus appeared to Peter, then the twelve, then more than five hundred at once, then to James the brother of Jesus, then to other apostles, and finally to Paul himself. If Paul was inventing this story, what was he thinking by throwing in all these names? Paul was inviting people to fact-check him! That was the point he was making when he added the phrase “most of whom are still alive” (1 Cor. 15:6).

Once again, this forces us to face the all-important question: If the tomb of Jesus wasn’t empty, and Jesus hadn’t risen from the dead, what explains the fact that after his death we find so many people sincerely thinking the tomb was empty and believing that he rose from the dead, and were willing to lay their lives on the line to stand by this conviction?

If we limit ourselves to only considering naturalistic explanations, we are left with no easy answer to this question. And when we consider the evidence for the resurrection from the Gospels, the challenge of this question only grows in its difficulty. These Gospel accounts will be the subject of part 4 in this series.

Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead? Part 2: Why the Alternative Theories Fail

On March 5, 2026 By Tyler BoydIn The Resurrection1 Comment

Read Part 1 Here: Why the Resurrection Deserves Serious Examination

Among those who deny the resurrection, various naturalistic theories have been proposed. Most of these theories fall into one of four main categories.

Jesus did not really die. Perhaps he fainted or fell into a coma, which left him to appear dead, but he later revived in the tomb and escaped.
The disciples stole the body and knowingly fabricated the resurrection story.
The disciples hallucinated. Driven by grief, they experienced something that made them sincerely believe that Jesus had risen, though they were mistaken.
The resurrection story is simply a myth or legend that developed over time.

Initially, these theories may sound plausible, or at least plausible enough to avoid investigating if a real resurrection occurred. But when these alternative theories are examined even briefly, their plausibility quickly fades away. It’s also worth noting that these theories often contradict each other. Some require the disciples to be deliberate liars, while others require them to be sincere yet mistaken.

Ultimately, an explanation is only as good as its ability to account for all the facts. So for example, if a theory explains the empty tomb, but does not explain the resurrection appearances, it does not suffice. If a theory explains the resurrection appearances, but doesn’t explain how Roman soldiers, who were professional executioners, could allow a body to be buried before ensuring it was fully dead, or cannot explain how the stone could be rolled away from a closely guarded tomb, it would not suffice. Whatever explanation we accept, we must look for the theory that best explains all the evidence in the case.

Could the Disciples Have Fabricated the Story?

To begin with, we must ask: could a large group of people fabricate a story they all knew was false?

It’s difficult enough for a few individuals to maintain a lie about recent events. But could hundreds,? Across multiple cities? Is it plausible that they could successfully coordinate such a large-scale deception without being found out? Without one single dissenter confessing to the grand scheme? Are we really to believe that there would not have been at least a handful of grounded individuals who would have resisted this fabrication as a foolish plan?

But what if it wasn’t a grandly designed scheme, but rather a legend that slowly grew and developed over time? That doesn’t help us escape the difficult questions either. Are we really to believe that every disciple would adopt the embellished version of the story as genuine, even though it contradicted their own memories? Is it really plausible that no one (including the opponents of the Christian movement) would point out that the resurrection message was a newly invented development? That not a single person would mention that Christians had only recently begun telling this story, or that it conflicted with what they had previously believed?

What’s even more challenging is that the entire early Christian movement continued to proclaim the resurrection story even in the face of persecution and death. Can we really believe that not a single person would cave under this kind of pressure and expose the falsehood?

It doesn’t take long to spot the serious flaws in the suggestion that the Christians knowingly spread a deception. This suggestion introduces more problems than it solves. If the resurrection is to be rejected in favor of a naturalistic explanation, it is far more believable to argue that the vast majority of early Christians genuinely believed the resurrection was true, but were all deceived or confused. For the sake of argument then, could it be that they were sincere, but mistaken? Could it be that they themselves had been deceived?

Could the Disciples Have Been Sincere but Mistaken?

At first glance, this explanation may sound more plausible than the idea of a deliberate deception. Perhaps the disciples truly believed Jesus had risen. Perhaps some had experienced some grief-driven hallucinations, visions, or other physiological experiences rather than actually witnessing a resurrection. And perhaps the sincerity of these “witnesses” was enough to convince others that a resurrection had actually occurred, ultimately leading to a sincere yet mistaken movement of belief based upon this confusion.

Yet this theory also quickly falls upon careful reflection. Hallucinations are private experiences. They do not occur to groups of people at the same time. Yet the resurrection accounts describe Jesus appearing repeatedly to multiple individuals at once, and sometimes even to large groups.

Nor does the hallucination theory explain the empty tomb. Even if some disciples experienced hallucinations, hallucinations do not remove bodies from graves. Even if we accept the hallucination theory to explain some of the resurrection appearances, this theory must be supplemented by additional theories in order for it to explain all of the facts.

Why Didn’t the Opponents Shut it Down?

Even if we were accept one of that either the disciples knowingly fabricated a lie, or were themselves deceived, we are still left with an additional question. If the resurrection was false, why didn’t the early opponents of Christianity expose it?

The resurrection message did not spread in private. Christians did not claim that Jesus had risen in some distant land, among unknown people, or in an isolated setting, where the claim itself could not be investigated. They publicly proclaimed that the tomb was empty. They claimed that he had appeared to hundreds of individuals at one time. And they made these claims in the very city where Jesus was crucified, during a time when these events were still in recent memory.

These claims were made while eyewitnesses were still alive. The resurrection accounts also involved well known public figures, such as Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, and Caiaphas, the Jewish High Priest. They publicly tied their story to a precise burial location of Jesus, the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin.

If the resurrection was false, it would have been easy to disprove. If any of the facts surrounding the story were not accurate, witnesses would have spotted this. If Jesus was not really buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, someone with this knowledge of where he was really buried would have spoken up.

The opponents of Christianity would have easily demolished the early Christian movement by simply producing a body. If they could have done so, they surely would have. Yet no body was ever produced. Nor did the critics disprove even the basic details of the resurrection accounts.

Even if we were to find a way to explain why the resurrection was proclaimed by Jesus’s disciples, we would also have to explain why the early opponents of Christianity failed to expose it. If the claims were falsifiable, they would have been exposed.

The Deepest Problem with the Alternative Theories

Yet even these are not the deepest problem facing the alternative explanations for the resurrection. The biggest reason why these theories fail is this: There is very strong evidence for the resurrection, and none of these theories actually make sense of that evidence.

In the next articles in this series, we will be turning to this evidence, building a positive case for the resurrection. This case will draw from three main areas:

Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, which is the earliest known source of the resurrection procuration
The four Gospel accounts
Observations about the shape and theology of early Christianity

When this evidence is examined without foregone conclusions about what is and isn’t possible, it makes a remarkably strong case for the resurrection. These are not the only pieces of evidence for the resurrection, but they are, in my opinion, the strongest.

Once these are examined, building a positive case for the resurrection, the central issue with the alternative theories should become clear – because none of the alternative theories offer a more compelling explanation of the facts.

Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead? Part 1: Why the Resurrection Deserves Serious Examination

On February 21, 2026 By Tyler BoydIn The Resurrection2 Comments

Few claims in history as are bold and seemingly unbelievable as the Christian proclamation that Jesus of Nazareth rose bodily from the dead. From the earliest days of Christianity, this claim has met resistance, skepticism, and dismissal. Yet much of that resistance has less to do with the historical evidence itself and more to do with assumptions about what can and cannot happen in the world.

In other words, the resurrection is frequently ruled out in advance. Not because the evidence is weak or incoherent, but because resurrection is considered impossible. Once that conclusion is reached, the question of Jesus’s resurrection is effectively dismissed before examination begins.

History or Philosophy – Which Comes First?

But history is not the place to begin with philosophical questions about what can or cannot happen. To study history is to ask what actually occurred. History weighs sources, eyewitness testimonies, examines motives, and traces consequences. It first examines evidence, and then draws conclusions about what happened, not the other way around.

If we begin with the assumption that reality is purely materialistic, only consisting of matter, energy, and blind natural processes, then the resurrection must either be proved as possible from a scientific perspective in order to even be considered as a possibility. Since true resurrection is universally understood to be scientifically impossible, the materialist will always require some alternative theory for Jesus’ supposed resurrection, no matter how strained or speculative that explanation may be.

But what happens when we first allow the evidence to speak for itself, and then force our philosophical assumptions to wrestle with the conclusions? Perhaps, if the evidence for the resurrection is strong enough, it must be reconsidered whether reality really is as purely materialistic as many have assumed. In this sense, the resurrection is a claim that serves to challenge even the deepest held assumptions about the world.

And yet for many, the resurrection is rarely examined as closely as it deserves. Instead of engaging the historical case directly, they often settle for any number of alternative theories, many of which are only briefly encountered and quickly accepted without critical examination.

Perhaps Jesus did not really die. Maybe the disciples hallucinated. Maybe the body was stolen, the tomb misidentified, or the story was reshaped over time by Jesus’s grieving disciples who simply could not accept the loss of their friend and supposed Messiah. Perhaps the resurrection is a legend or a myth that slowly evolved among the earliest Christians.

All kinds of variations on these theories exist. And on the surface, many of them sound somewhat plausible, or at least more plausible than the idea that a dead man literally rose again. As a result, many find even the mere existence of these theories as enough reason to avoid further investigation.

The question, however, is not whether these theories sound believable, but whether they actually account for the historical data once that data is examined closely.

The Enormous Implications of the Resurrection

But consider for a moment what the implications would be if Jesus really did rise from the dead. They are enormous.

First, the resurrection would mean that something, or Someone, from outside the materialistic world has acted upon this world. To be clear, Christians do not believe in the resurrection because they think resurrections are scientifically repeatable events within a purely natural system. Rather they have accepted that there must be more to reality, largely because of the resurrection.

Yet the implications do not stop with proving the supernatural. The resurrection also forces us to wrestle with the question of why. Why Jesus of Nazareth? Why this man, in this place, at that moment in history? What does the resurrection imply about His life, His teachings, and the claims He made about Himself?

It is the resurrection, more than anything else, that stamps Jesus as unique. If He rose from the dead, this gives tremendous credence to His words and claims about the world. It can even be said that His words carry divine authority. His words matter. His promises are trustworthy.

And if Jesus rose from the dead, suddenly the story of His ascension into heaven carries new weight. In other words, we must wrestle with His exaltation to a place of highest authority – authority that stands higher than any earthly governing power the world has ever known. If Jesus rose, then He is Lord. And if He is Lord, then His call to repentance and loyalty is not optional, and every human should seriously consider giving him their allegiance.

More than anything else, the resurrection stands at the very center of Christianity. If the resurrection is false, Christianity collapses. The apostles were either deceived or deceptive, the cross was a tragic failure, and the Christian faith is a empty of any value. But if the resurrection is true, then everything changes.

A Question That Cannot Be Dismissed

When the strength of the historical evidence is considered alongside the magnitude of the implications, one conclusion becomes unavoidable: the resurrection claim deserves serious and careful examination.

When that examination is actually undertaken, and the evidence is weighed rather than dismissed, something very interesting happens. All the popular theories begin to quickly unravel, because they quite simply do not offer reasonable explanations for the evidence. They do not make reasonable historical sense. But the claim of the resurrection of Jesus Christ remains standing as one arguably the most challenging and impactful event in all of human history, confirmed my numerous pieces of compelling evidence.

The reason I’m writing this series is simply lay out what, in my opinion, are the strongest pieces of evidence for the resurrection. All I ask is that you consider it carefully. If after looking at the evidence for yourself, you decided the resurrection is not a compelling explanation for what occurred, you’re welcome to draw that conclusion. But the question of whether or not the resurrection is history cannot be ignored. And for that reason, I hope you will take the time to read this series, and think carefully.

How Should Christians Use the Imprecatory Psalms?

On January 31, 2026 By Tyler BoydIn Christian Non-Violence

What Are the Imprecatory Psalms?

Anyone who spends time in the Psalms will eventually encounter prayers that feel incredibly harsh. In fact, some of them feel so intense they may, at least at first glance, seem almost unchristian. For instance, consider Psalm 35:

Contend, O LORD, with those who contend with me;
Fight against those who fight against me!…
Draw the spear and javelin
against my pursuers!
Psalm 35:1-2

Or Psalm 58:

O God, break the teeth in their mouths;
tear out the fangs of the young lions, O LORD!
Psalm 58:6

These are examples of what scholars call the imprecatory psalms. To simply say that they call on God to destroy the wicked may be an understatement. Some of them can be extremely harsh, such as Psalm 109, which even calls for his enemies’ children to “wander about and beg, seeking food far from the ruins they inhabit!” And Psalm 137 contains one of the most brutal images in the whole Bible:

Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock!
Psalm 137:9

Interpretations of these psalms vary widely. Some attempt to quietly sideline these prayers as embarrassing relics of a more violent pre-Christian era. Others lean on these psalms to justify their own harshness, hostility, or even hatred toward those whom they deem deserving.

But faithful Christians should not simply look for whatever interpretation fits their personal or political agenda. Instead, we must allow Scripture to shape our understanding, even when it challenges our assumptions.

Common Interpretive Errors to Avoid

To begin, a few popular interpretations of these psalms need to be ruled out. While some of these positions seem to have some explanatory power, they ultimately introduce more problems than they solve.

1. Denying the Unity of Scripture

Scripture must be read as a unified whole. Because God is the ultimate author of all inspired Scripture, we must not accept any interpretation that plainly contradicts other Scriptures. If an apparent contradiction is found, it is not allowable to say “the author of this passage was mistaken” or “God really did not mean what this passage says.” Instead, we must seek for the understanding that harmonizes all of Scripture. In fact, this basic error is one that lies beneath nearly every other interpretive error.

2. Using the Psalms to Justify Personal Vengeance

One example of how interpreters deny the unity of Scripture is by treating the imprecatory psalms as God-given permission to hate or take vengeance on enemies. Every now and then you will hear someone point to the imprecatory psalms as giving license to pronounce judgment or even hate some of their enemies.

Yet the New Testament speaks with clarity and consistency about how Christians should think about and treat their enemies. They are commanded to love them (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27, 35; 1 John 3:16), bless them (Luke 6:28, Romans 12:14), forgive them (Luke 6:37, 11:4, 23:34), do good to them (Luke 6:27, 34-35), refuse retaliation (Matthew 5:38-39), and overcome their evil with good (Romans 12:17-21). Any interpretation of the imprecatory psalms that directly clashes with these teachings must be rejected. The psalms may express an appeal to God for justice, but they never authorize personal vengeance or hatred.

3. Treating the Old Testament as Morally Inferior

Another error is to treat the Old Testament as a morally inferior stage of revelation. While it is true that God’s character is most perfectly revealed in Christ (cf. John 14:9; Colossians. 1:15; Hebrews 1:1-3), the psalms remain fully inspired Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16). Jesus never rejected any part of the Old Testament Scriptures. He fulfilled them (Matthew 5:17) and corrected their misuse (Matthew 5:38-41), but he never dismissed them.

In fact, Jesus Himself quoted from imprecatory psalms (e.g., Psalm 69:9). Peter even makes it a point to emphasize that as Jesus hung on the cross, he “continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly” (1 Peter 2:23). Hebrews describes him offering up prayers “with loud cries and tears” for salvation (Hebrews 5:7). In Christ, we not only see love for enemies, but we also see a heartfelt appeal to God for judgment. In other words, Jesus himself embodied the ethic we see expressed in the imprecatory psalms.

4. Treating Imprecation and Enemy-Love as Competing Options

A more subtle, yet dangerous, example of how Scripture is sometimes pitted against Scripture is when imprecation and enemy-love are treated as two conflicting approaches, and we must exercise wise discernment to determine which ethic is most appropriate for the moment. On the surface, this interpretation may appear to uphold the validity of both enemy-love and imprecation. But it quietly assumes a contradiction between Scriptures that does not exist.

Arguably the most challenging thing the New Testament says about how Christians should treat their enemies is what it doesn’t say. That is, when it comes to loving enemies, there is not a single exception clause. There is no verse I can quote that says “Love your enemies, except for the really nasty ones that threaten your family” or “do good to your enemies, except for those who are genuinely wicked to the core” or “bless your enemies, except for those who are at enmity with God himself.” It’s always just “love them” period. “Overcome their evil with good,” period.

It’s not as if the imprecatory psalms didn’t exist when Jesus and his apostles made these commandments. These commands to love our enemies were given with full knowledge of these psalms. Yet their existence never served to soften, qualify, or limit Christ’s call to love our enemies. Nowhere does the New Testament teach us to distinguish between those enemies we are to love, and those we are to hate.

The imprecatory psalms do not teach a separate ethic from what was taught by Christ. Nor do they permit Christians to set aside the enemy-love commands in those times when we think it would be wiser to follow the Psalms. Rather, they must be understood in a way that fully coheres with the unqualified commands of Christ and His apostles.

How Imprecatory Prayers Help Us Love Our Enemies

The imprecatory psalms and the gospel work together to teach one united ethic. We love our enemies by entrusting judgment to God. Imprecatory prayers are not opposed to love. They are an essential part of how love becomes possible in a world filled with real evil.

Romans 12:14-21 illustrates this clearly. Not only are we commanded to bless those who persecute us, to refuse vengeance, and to overcome evil with good, but we are told why this is so important. “For it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord” (Romans 12:19). We love our enemies precisely because vengeance belongs to God alone.

Love for enemies is not grounded in a denial of justice, but in confidence that God will execute it rightly. For this reason, praying for God’s justice allows us to cooperate with His work rather than trying to compete with it.

The imprecatory psalms give us the language to face evil honestly without being consumed by bitterness and desires for personal retaliation. They acknowledge the seriousness of evil, and the desperate need for judgment, but they entrust that judgment to God. By praying the imprecatory psalms, we are freed from the impossible and destructive task of carrying the burden of justice for ourselves.

The Psalms assume that grief, frustration, and the longing for justice are real. These feelings and desires are not sinful. Sometimes the faithful response is to cry out “How long, O LORD?” (Psalm 13:1). When we are hurt, it is important to “pour out your heart before him” because “God is a refuge for us” (Psalm 62:8).

Faith includes casting our burdens on the Lord, trusting that he will sustain us (Psalm 55:22). Prayers like “Arise, O LORD! Confront him, subdue him!” (Psalm 17:13) are a practical way to do this very thing. Rather than seeking personal vengeance, these prayers surrender justice entirely into God’s hands. Such prayers should not be rebuked, ignored, or apologized for. They are part of the faithful response to evil and oppression.

We can, without hesitation, follow Jesus’s example, who Himself prayed in this way. He quoted from Psalm 22, Psalm 69, and Psalm 110, all of which include lament, judgment, and trust in God’s ultimate victory over evil. The early Christians saw these psalms as central to understanding His ongoing reign and final judgment over his enemies (Acts 2:24-25; Hebrews 1:13; 10:12-13).

Jesus loved his enemies because he “continued entrusting Himself to Him who judges justly.” (1 Peter 2:23). The imprecatory psalms remind us that God’s justice is both real and good. We can count on him.

Conclusion

Evil is serious. The need for justice is real. The desire for justice is not sinful. But vengeance belongs to God alone. Christians are commanded to love their enemies, and prayer – not violence or retaliation – is how we do that.

The Bible does not present us with a choice between a soft, enemy-loving ethic, and a harsh, judgment-loving ethic. It consistently gives us the Christian ethic – one that embraces both love and justice through the cross, where Jesus bore the judgment his enemies deserved, and taught us to trust in the Father who judges justly.

How Does Satan Rule America?

On December 26, 2025December 25, 2025 By Tyler BoydIn Uncategorized

In the book of Job, the adversarial spiritual being known as “Satan” tells the Lord that he has been “walking to and fro on the earth” (Job 1:7). Later, Scripture speaks even more plainly as Peter warns that “your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8). Together, these passages teach two important truths. First, Satan is indeed active in the world. But second, he is not omnipresent. Unlike God, who fills heaven and earth, Satan is a created being – limited in power, space, and knowledge.

He cannot be everywhere at once, nor can he focus personally on every individual at all times. So if Satan is neither all-powerful nor omnipresent, how is his influence so widespread?

Scripture gives us the answer: he works through deception and manipulation, operating indirectly through both heavenly powers and earthly rulers.

Satan’s Delegated Powers

The Bible reveals that Satan rules through a network of subservient spiritual beings who carry out his will. Jesus refers to “the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), and Revelation 12:9 says that “his angels were cast out with him.” These angels are real spiritual entities, operating under his command.

Satan also works through the rulers of the kingdoms of men. In Luke 4:5-7, he offered Jesus “all the kingdoms of the world,” declaring:

To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. If you, then, worship me, it will all be yours.

That statement reveals that the nations of the world are, to a large degree, under Satan’s sway. When men reject God’s rule, they inevitably come under Satan’s. This is precisely why God warned Israel about seeking a human king.

And the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Obey the voice of this people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them.”
1 Samuel 8:7

Every earthly government that operates apart from God’s law is part of this same pattern of rebellion. This is why Paul wrote:

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
Ephesians 6:12

Observe that Paul does not say our battle is simply against Satan himself, but against rulers and authorities – lesser powers, both spiritual and earthly, who derive their authority from him.

From Babel onward, every attempt by man to unite and govern themselves apart from God has been viewed in Scripture as rebellion. Each successive empire that flowed from Babel – Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Rome – follows that same pattern. Revelation 13:4 makes it clear that the “beast,” representing this kind of human government, receives “his power, throne, and authority” directly from “the dragon,” that is, from Satan.

And they worshiped the dragon, for he had given his authority to the beast, and they worshipped the beast, saying, ‘Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it?”

For this reason, we must learn to view earthly government itself as evidence of Satan’s ongoing rule in the world.

How This Pattern Appears in America

The United States of America is not exempt from this biblical pattern. The same spiritual forces that ruled over Babylon, Persia, and Rome still operate behind the scenes in modern nations.

Scripture teaches that the nations are not merely political realities, but spiritual ones as well. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 describes how, when God divided the nations, He “set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God,” indicating that each nation came under the oversight of its own spiritual being. Daniel 10 pulls back the curtain even further, showing us how the actions of earthly rulers reflect unseen interactions among heavenly “princes.” While Christians may differ on some of the interpretive details of these passages, what remains clear is that the nations operate under the influence of spiritual beings which stand in tension with God’s reign.

While these texts establish the reality of corrupt spiritual influences over the nations, we can also see this reality reflected in the symbols these cultures adopt for themselves. With this in mind, it’s worth noting how much of America’s national imagery draws straight from paganism. For instance, it is well known that the “D.C.” in “Washington D.C.” stands for the District of Columbia. But who is “Columbia”? Most people have never given it a second thought. Columbia was a mythical being created as a feminine personification of the spirit of America – often portrayed as a robed woman bearing a torch. The Statue of Liberty, in fact, was modeled after this image of Columbia.

Interestingly, the function of Columbia as the “spirit of America” closely resembles that of national deities in the ancient world. The Greeks personified their ideals in Athena, and the Romans embodied the power and destiny in the goddess Roma. In a similar way, Columbia was created to symbolize America’s ideals of enlightenment, liberty, and independence.

To be clear, this does not mean that Columbia is necessarily a literal goddess. We cannot identify her with any specific “principality or power” named in Scripture. Much like it would be impossible to prove that Athena and Roma accurately represent the actual spiritual rulers mentioned in Scripture, neither do we know any specific details about the actual spiritual entity that represents America. The image of Columbia can be easily explained as having arisen out of the Enlightenment-era admiration for Greek and Roman art and architecture. Scripture gives no detailed knowledge of the specific spiritual beings associated with modern nations, and it would be speculation to claim otherwise.

The existence of pagan symbols does not itself prove America’s corrupt spiritual allegiance; Scripture already does that. But the symbols arise from a culture’s imagination and reflect how a nation understands itself. In that sense, America’s pagan imagery mirrors what Scripture describes more broadly: every nation possesses a kind of spiritual “personality,” that is shaped by unseen powers that influence its values, priorities, and direction.

So while we cannot know the specific identities or characteristics of the spiritual beings who stand behind the nations, we can know what the Bible plainly teaches – that the nations of the world are ruled by spiritual powers that exist in rebellion to God.

The Rule of Satan

Here is what we know for certain from Scripture:

Satan is the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4).
He exercises his rule indirectly through spiritual and earthly principalities and powers (Ephesians 6:12).
These powers exercise regional dominion, ruling over specific nations (Daniel 10:13, 20).

Just as the Sidonians had Ashtoreth, Moab had Chemosh, and Ammon had Molech (1 Kings 11:5-7), so too each modern nation operates under some spiritual power that mirrors what we see happening on earth.

When we see national symbols that mirror pagan forms, we should therefore take notice. The District of Columbia, the Washington Monument shaped like an Egyptian obelisk (a symbol of the sun god Ra), the Capitol city adorned with statues of Mars, the Lincoln Memorial modeled after a Greek temple – these are not insignificant. Even if their creators saw them as mere works of art, they are still pagan in origin and should remind every Christian of the deeper reality Scripture describes: America, like every other earthly nation, is under the rule of Satan and his principalities and powers.

For this reason, it should not surprise us that America is marked by constant warfare, widespread violence and division, deceptive and destructive economic policies, and the slaughter of millions of innocent children through abortion. These are the natural fruits of a kingdom ruled by Satan – the one who “comes only to steal and kill and destroy” (John 10:10). He steals through inflation and taxation, kills through war and violence, and destroys through corruption of truth and life itself.

The Christian Response

First, Christians must recognize that “the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one” (1 John 5:19). Satan works through both the earthly and spiritual rulers of the nations, deceiving them and spreading his lies. Revelation 13:14 and 20:3, 8 describe him as “the deceiver of the nations.”

Therefore, earthly governments – no matter how moral or democratic they may appear – remain part of the same system that rejects Christ’s kingship.

If these things are true – and Scripture insists they are – then uncomfortable questions inevitably follow. Christians must not confuse patriotism with faithfulness to Christ, or loyalty to a nation with allegiance to the kingdom of God.

How can any Christian pledge allegiance to a kingdom ruled by powers in rebellion against Christ? Why would a follower of Jesus devote his life to the service of a government that refuses His kingship? And how would a disciple of the Prince of Peace take up arms in defense of a nation whose authority arises from rejection of God’s rule?

For the time being, Satan continues to deceive the nations. Yet his rule is neither absolute nor enduring. Because of the gospel, his defeat is certain. “Then comes the end,” Paul writes, “when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power” (1 Corinthians 15:24).

Christ alone possesses “all authority in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18). Therefore, the hope of every Christian must never be tethered to the doomed authorities of this world, but anchored in “the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ” (Revelation 11:15).

Every nation bears the marks of spiritual rebellion, but only one kingdom stands eternal – the kingdom of Christ. America, like all the nations in history, will rise and fall. Its monuments will eventually crumble. But the throne of Christ will never be shaken.

Our task as Christians is not to try to reform the Satanic kingdoms of this world into slightly more Christian versions of themselves, but to bear witness to a greater kingdom – to “proclaim the excellencies of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9). Our allegiance belongs to Christ alone.

Do False Gods Still Rule the Nations?

On November 20, 2025 By Tyler BoydIn Christian's Relationship to Government, Spiritual Warfare

For many Christians today, the phrase “false gods” immediately brings to mind imaginary deities – empty carvings of wood and stone. These are seen as the inventions of primitive cultures and products of human superstition and ignorance.

As the previous two articles in this series have demonstrated, these false gods are not mere human inventions, but real spiritual beings. Scripture continually presents them as powerful entities who exert genuine influence over regions, nations, and rulers.

While the Bible affirms again and again that there is only one true God, the LORD, the Creator and Sovereign over all, it does not deny the existence of other spiritual beings – some of whom have been falsely worshipped as gods. These beings are real, but they are created beings, and far beneath the LORD in power and glory. You can read those two articles here:

The Regional “gods” in the Old Testament

The story of King Solomon provides a clear example of where the Bible refers to these “gods.” Scripture tells us that Solomon loved many foreign women – Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women. His decision to marry many of these foreign women was a direct violation of the LORD’s command:

You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods.
1 Kings 11:2

And sure enough, Solomon’s heart was turned:

When Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites… Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Molech the abomination of the Ammonites, on the mountain east of Jerusalem. And so he did for all his foreign wives, who made offerings and sacrificed to their gods.
1 Kings 11:5; 7-8

Observe a few important things here:

Each of these gods is specifically named – Ashtoreth, Milcom, Chemosh, Molech.
The text never mocks these gods as imaginary or fictional
Each of the gods mentioned is associated with specific nations and regions

The picture presented by this biblical text – a picture of different spiritual beings attributed to different people groups – is not simply a reference to an ancient pagan worldview. It reflects a reality described in the Bible itself.

In the book of Deuteronomy, Moses describes how the LORD divided the nations of the world.

When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he divided mankind,
he fixed the borders of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of God.
But the LORD’s portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted heritage.
Deuteronomy 32:8-9

This passage tells us that the Most High assigned the nations under the authority of various sons of God. Throughout the Old Testament, the phrase “sons of God” consistently refers to spiritual beings or angels (Job 1:6; Psalm 29:1). Thus, the text teaches that God allotted authority over specific nations to specific spiritual beings, while reserving Israel as His own possession.

But just like the nations themselves rebelled against the LORD, so also did these “sons of God.” That’s why Psalm 82 describes the LORD standing in judgment over these corrupt divine rulers.

God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods (elohim) he holds judgment:
“How long will you judge unjustly
and show partiality to the wicked…
You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you;
nevertheless, like men you shall die
and fall like any prince.”
Arise, O God, judge the earth;
for you shall inherit all nations.”
Psalm 82:1-2; 6-8

Spiritual Rulers in the Book of Daniel

The book of Daniel offers one of the clearest pictures of these heavenly rulers. When Daniel prays for understanding, an angelic messenger is delayed in delivering God’s answer:

The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me.
Daniel 10:13

Here the “prince of Persia” is clearly not a human ruler. It is a powerful spiritual being whose actions influence and are mirrored by the Persian empire. The angel Michael is described as “one of the chief princes,” – a heavenly counterpart fighting on behalf of Israel.

If we were to read the book of Daniel in the Septuagint – a Greek translation of the Old Testament used at the time of Christ and the apostles – we would see that both Michael and the Prince of Persia are described by the Greek word “archon,” meaning “ruler” or “authority.” This is significant, because this is the very word Paul later uses to describe the spiritual rulers and authorities that govern the present age of darkness.

“It is not a wisdom of this age or of the archon of this age, who are doomed to pass away” – 1 Corinthians 2:6
“The archon of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience” – Ephesians 2:2
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the archon, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness.” – Ephesians 6:12

Paul was carrying forward the same worldview described in Deuteronomy 32 and Daniel 10. These regional spiritual “arche” are real, and their influence is reflected in the rise and fall of earthly nations.

The “God of This World”

Jesus Himself used similar language when describing the devil. Three times in John’s account of the gospel, He calls Satan “the ruler (archon) of this world.”

“Now the archon of this world will be cast out” – John 12:31
“The archon of the world is coming” – John 14:30
“The archon of this world is judged” – John 16:11

During His temptation in the wilderness, Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and claimed:

To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will.
Luke 4:6

It is noteworthy that Jesus never disputes Satan’s claim, but rather Luke presents this offer as a legitimate temptation. The implication is that Satan truly holds authority in this present world – authority that has been claimed by him through the rebellion of mankind.

The “god” of all Nations

This same idea appears all throughout the New Testament. Paul calls Satan “the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience.” (Ephesians 2:2).

He is also identified as “the god of this age” who blinds the minds of unbelievers:

In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ.
2 Corinthians 4:4

John likewise declares:

The whole world lies in the power of the evil one.
1 John 5:19

It would take some impressive hermeneutical gymnastics to avoid the clear conclusion: according to Scripture, Satan is the chief spiritual ruler of this present world system. Beneath him operate a host of rebellious spirits, sometimes referred to as his angels (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 12:7-9), and other times referred to as principalities and powers (Ephesians 1:20-21; 3:10; 6:12; Colossians 2:15). These are real, personal, heavenly beings who exercise real regional and cultural influence. Although these beings are destined for destruction (1 Corinthians 15:24), Scripture teaches that they do rule in this present age of darkness (1 Corinthians 2:6; Ephesians 2:2; 6:12).

If that is true, then it is not only ancient nations like Egypt, Moab, Canaan, Babylon, and Rome that were under such dominion. It means that every earthly nation today lies within his sphere of influence.

It means that:

Satan is the god of Russia.
Satan is the god of Japan.
Satan is the god of Nigeria.
Satan is the god of North Korea.
Satan is the god of the United States.

This worldview is not flattering to any earthly nation, but it is biblical. It reminds us that no worldly power, no matter how noble it may appear, is neutral. Every kingdom of man ultimately belongs to this present fallen order.

The Christian Response

If the nations of this world lie under the dominion of false gods, then Christians must be careful not to confuse patriotism with faithfulness to Christ.

We are citizens of another Kingdom – one not ruled by the god of this age, but by the Sovereign Lord of all creation. Therefore, as Revelation 18:4 declares,

Come out of her, my people,
lest you take part in her sins,
lest you share in her plagues.

Behind every throne stands a spiritual power, but above them all stands the LORD Most High, and His anointed King, Jesus – who is the Lord of lords and King of kings. His Kingdom cannot be shaken. The gods of the nations are real, but they are fallen and doomed for destruction. The LORD alone is God, and His Kingdom alone will stand forever.

Are the Other “gods” of the Bible Real?

On October 23, 2025 By Tyler BoydIn Spiritual Warfare

Many Christians grow up hearing that the other “gods” in the Bible are nothing more than carved idols or imaginary inventions. After all, the Bible insists in no uncertain terms that there is only one true God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5; 1 Corinthians 8:4).

And yet, the inspired text often speaks of these other “gods” in ways that sound far more real than imaginary. For example, in the book of Psalms, the LORD is praised as being superior above all other “gods.” Psalm 95:3 declares: “The LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods,” and Psalm 97:9 states, “You are exalted far above all gods.” Psalm 29:1 even claims that the one God deserves worship from the other “elohim.” Even in the New Testament, in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, when Paul addresses the question of eating food offered to idols, he admitted that “indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’” (1 Corinthians 8:5) before clarifying that for Christians there is only one God (1 Corinthians 8:6).

So what do we make of this? Is God just accommodating ancient superstitions? Is He really praised for being greater than things that do not exist? How would such a claim bring honor to the LORD? If these “gods” were purely imaginary, then such praise would be trivial – like saying the Almighty is stronger than a fictional comic-book hero. To say that God is greater than an imaginary being would be an empty comparison, like claiming that the sun shines brighter than a shadow. The glory of God is not seen in contrast to what is unreal, but in His supremacy over all that truly exists.

Or could it be that Scripture is revealing something true about the spiritual world? Are these “other gods” genuine spiritual beings? Or are they simply the products of ancient imaginations? To answer this, we first need to examine the Bible’s own vocabulary for identifying these other gods.

The Hebrew Word Elohim

The English word “God” is a decent translation of the Hebrew word elohim, but it is not a perfect one. In English, the word “God” usually carries one of two meanings.

(capitalized) The one true supreme being, the Creator of the universe
(uncapitalized) A pretend deity, the gods from ancient mythology

But the Hebrew word elohim has a broader range of meaning.

1. Elohim as the Creator

Similar to the English word God, the Hebrew word is sometimes used to refer to the one true Creator of the universe. The very first verse of Scripture says “In the beginning, elohim created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Over and over again, Israel’s God is identified as elohim (Exodus 3:6; Deuteronomy 4:35; Psalm 100:3). When used in this way, the text always sets Him apart as unique, sovereign, and incomparable (Deuteronomy 10:17; Psalm 86:10).

2. Elohim as the gods of the nations

Also similar to the English word God, the Hebrew word is sometimes used to refer to the false gods of the nations. The Ten Commandments forbids Israel from having any “other elohim” before the LORD (Exodus 20:3). Deuteronomy observed that the surrounding nations “served their elohim” (Deuteronomy 29:26). It can be observed that the word elohim functions as both singular and plural, so determining whether it refers to “God” or false “gods” requires examination of the context.

3. Elohim as other spiritual beings

This is where it gets interesting. Elohim can also refer to other spiritual beings we normally wouldn’t call “gods” in English.

Psalm 8:5 says that mankind was created “a little lower than the elohim.” Translations of this verse vary. ESV translates elohim here as “heavenly beings.” KJV and NIV translate it as “angels.” The Greek Septuagint, used by Jesus and the apostles, chose “angels,” a rendering confirmed by inspiration in Hebrews 2:6-8. Regardless of how we translate it, it is clear that mankind was created a little lower than real spiritual beings.

Psalm 82 describes God as presiding in a divine council:

God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.
Psalm 82:1

Again, God is described as holding judgment in a council of real spiritual beings.

In 1 Samuel 28:13, when Saul consults the witch of En-dor, she reports: “I see a god coming up out of the earth.” Again, she did indeed see a real spiritual being coming up out of the earth – the deceased human Samuel.

In short, elohim is not a title restricted to the Supreme Creator. It is a more general word for inhabitants of the spiritual realm, many of which are indeed very real. There is certainly a sense in which the LORD is the one true Elohim, but the Bible also recognizes the existence of other real spiritual beings, which Scripture refers to as elohim.

So when we ask, “Are the other gods in the Bible real?” the answer depends on what we mean by “gods.” If by “gods” we mean spiritual beings in a general sense, then yes – the Bible teaches that other “gods” are real.

There is Only One LORD

But while the Bible acknowledges the reality of other spiritual beings, it never endorses what people today refer to as polytheism. The God of Israel is utterly unique, set apart from all others.

Who is like you, O LORD, among the gods? Who is like you, majestic in holiness, awesome in glorious deeds, doing wonders?
Exodus 15:11

For what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do such works and mighty acts as yours?
Deuteronomy 3:24

There is none like you among the gods, O Lord.
Psalm 86:8

For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods.
Psalm 95:3

For you, O LORD, are most high over all the earth; you are exalted above all gods.
Psalm 97:9

No, these passages are not comparing God to imaginary beings like Captain America or Spider-man. These passages proclaim that the LORD is supreme above all real spiritual beings.

The LORD is unique in His power (Jeremiah 32:17, 27; Psalm 115:3) and is the Creator of all others (Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 148:1-5). As Nehemiah 9:6 plainly states, “You are the LORD, you alone.”

Just because the Bible says that there are other elohim, it quite plainly denies polytheism. It continually exalts the one incomparable God above all other spiritual beings.

Why Call Them “False Gods”?

If other elohim exist, why does Scripture so often label them as “false gods” (2 Chronicles 13:9; Isaiah 44:9-20)?

Because their claims to deity are false.

They are not equal to the LORD
They did not create heaven and earth
Their power is incomparable to the LORD’s
They cannot save, redeem, or give life

Compared to the LORD, they are “nothing” (Isaiah 41:24). Not because they don’t exist, but because their claims are empty.

Think of it this way: If I were to point out a con artist, and ask you “Is that con artist real?” how would you respond? Of course the con artist is real, in the sense the con artist is an actual person. But is the character the con artist pretends to be real? And are the stories the con artist tells real? Of course not! In the same way, these “other gods” in the Bible are real spiritual beings, but their claims to supremacy and their calls for worship and allegiance are lies.

Deuteronomy 32:17 clarifies that when Israel sacrificed to other “gods,” they were really sacrificing to demons.

They sacrificed to demons that were no gods,
to gods they had never known,
to new gods that had come recently,
whom your fathers had never dreaded.

Paul makes the same point in 1 Corinthians 10:19-20: pagan sacrifices are not meaningless gestures to imaginary idols – they are participation with demons.

What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to gods. I do not want you to be participants with demons.

Likewise, Galatians 4:8 says that Gentiles were enslaved to “those that by nature are not gods.” They were real beings – beings who were capable of enslaving – but not true gods.

So, Are the Other Gods Real?

Yes and no.

Yes, if by “real” we mean actual spiritual beings who exist behind the veil of the unseen spiritual realm.

No, if by “real” we mean equal rivals to the Creator.

The Bible affirms the reality of a spiritual world filled with many spiritual beings, beings which at times are referred to as elohim. But the Bible never compromises the uniqueness of the LORD God.

We do not live in a world with one God who actually exists and countless imaginary ones. We live in a world where the one true God reigns supreme over a host of other real, but lesser, spiritual beings.

And in such a world, the call remains the same:

Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.
Deuteronomy 6:4

Do Not Neglect the Heart

On October 3, 2025 By Tyler BoydIn Christian Living

Paul’s prayer for the Thessalonians was:

…that he may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.
1 Thessalonians 3:13

Notice carefully: Paul did not simply pray that they might be established blameless, but that their hearts might be established blameless. The distinction matters.

The heart is where holiness begins – or where sin festers. As Jesus taught:

Out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.
Matthew 15:19

Outward morality without an inward holy heart is hollow. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for this very problem:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence… You are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within and full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness.” – Matthew 23:25-28

It is possible to appear righteous while the heart is rotten. True holiness must go deeper.

How Are Hearts Established in Holiness?

Paul gives the answer just one verse earlier:

May the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all, as we do for you, so that he may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father.
1 Thessalonians 3:12-13

The hope of a blameless heart at Christ’s coming (v. 13) is directly tied to growth in love (v. 12). Love is not optional – it is the very means by which the heart is made holy.

For Paul, love was the defining mark of Christianity. Love toward one another and toward all is how our hearts are strengthened in holiness. Growth in love is growth in holiness. Without love, we cannot expect to stand before God with a blameless heart at Christ’s return.

Christian love is thus inseparable from hope. When love increases, hope and certainty for the future increases. Without love, the certainty of our hope dries up.

What Kind of Love?

Here we must be clear: when Paul speaks of “love” he does not mean mere affection. In our day the word “love” is used flippantly to justify almost anything. “If two people love each other, how could it be wrong?” That reasoning is then used to defend fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. Yet in Paul’s prayer, love is inseparably tied to holiness.

True love does not lead into sin; it leads out of it. To drag someone deeper into sexual immorality is not to love them but to despise them. Real love seeks another’s eternal good, not their temporary pleasure. Affection that destroys the soul is not love at all, but a worthless counterfeit.

And this principle extends beyond sexual sin. If our desire to be friendly excuses sinful social activities, that is not true friendship. If our desire to be kind silences our call to righteousness, our “kindness” becomes cruelty. Love that is severed from holiness is not the kind of love Paul prayed for.

Paul’s Example of Holy Love

When Paul exhorts the Thessalonians to “increase and abound in love for one another and for all,” he adds, “as we do for you.” The kind of love Paul expected was the love he had modeled:

Renouncing his right to make authoritative demands (1 Thess. 2:6)
Laboring night and day for their sake (2:9)
Sharing not only the gospel but his very life (2:8)
Caring for them tenderly like a nursing mother cares for her children (2:7)

This is not the hollow “love” the world celebrates. It is a cross-shaped, self-denying love – love that gives itself wholly for another’s eternal good. That is the kind of love that establishes a heart in holiness.

Examining the Heart

So take some time and inspect your heart. It is good to examine your external duties – your doctrine, morality, speech, church attendance, and conduct at home. But don’t neglect the heart.

Does your external life genuinely flow from a blameless heart, or is it an act?
Are there hidden heart problems that need addressing?
Can it truly be said that you love God, love the church, and love all those you interact with?
If you’re really seeking the eternal good of others, do your actions reflect it?

If you recognize the need for your hearts to be further established in holiness, how is it strengthened? By increasing in love – the kind of love Christ displayed on the cross. A love that bears burdens, sacrifices self, and seeks not temporary happiness but eternal joy for others.

At Christ’s coming, it will not be the appearance of righteousness that matters, but whether our hearts have been established blameless in holiness.

Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life.
Proverbs 4:23

Render to Caesar? A Misunderstood Teaching of Jesus

On August 28, 2025October 13, 2025 By Tyler BoydIn Christian's Relationship to Government

When Jesus said, “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), He was not endorsing Caesar’s authority or teaching that Christians owe loyalty both to God and government. Instead, He exposed the hypocrisy of His opponents and reminded His hearers that their full allegiance belongs to God alone.

The Trap Question

The Pharisees and Herodians conspired to trap Jesus with a question about taxes:

Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words… “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully… Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?
Matthew 22:15-17

The trap was set: if Jesus said paying the tax was lawful, He would appear to support Rome and discredit his Messianic claims. If He opposed the tax, Rome could arrest Him for sedition. Either answer was dangerous.

But Jesus, aware of their malice, asked for a coin. Holding it up, He inquired,

“Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar’s.” Then He said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.”
Matthew 22:20-21

With a single sentence, He escaped the trap and turned the question back on them.

The Coin and Counter-Message

The denarius bore the image of Tiberius Caesar along with a blasphemous inscription: “Tiberius Caesar, son of the divine Augustus, High Priest.” The irony of this scene is thick: The true Son of God, the High Priest, held in His hand a coin claiming those very titles for a mortal emperor.

By highlighting the coin’s “likeness” and “inscription”, Jesus recalled their attention to the the first two commandments: “You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex. 20:3) and “You shall not make for yourself a carved image” (Ex. 20:4). His response was not about the legitimacy of taxation but about allegiance. Jesus’s answer served as a clear reminder that worship and allegiance belongs to God alone. Jesus’s brilliant response both demonstrated the hypocrisy of his questioners as they pulled the idolatrous image out of their pocket, and proclaimed to all who heard that the LORD alone is God, and by implication, Caesar is not.

What Really Belongs to Caesar?

In this context, how should we understand Jesus’s words, “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s”? There are three options.

An endorsement of taxes – Yes, pay Caesar, for taxes belong to him.
A call to revolt – Echoing of the Maccabean slogan which was popular among the advocates of tax rebellion, “Pay back the Gentiles what they deserve and obey the law” (1 Macc. 2:68), meaning the pagan overlords deserve nothing but violent revolt.
A deliberate ambiguity – Neither legitimizing Caesar’s authority, nor forbidding the payment of taxes, but rather forcing his hearers to wrestle with the deeper question: What truly belongs to Caesar, and what belongs to God?

Only the third option fits the context. If Jesus had either openly endorsed taxes or advocated for tax rebellion, He would have fallen into the trap that was set for him. Therefore the only option that fits in this context is the third option. Jesus was challenging his hearers to give their undivided allegiance to God.

What Belongs to God?

The second part of Jesus’ answer is anything but ambiguous. Scripture is clear: everything belongs to God.

The earth is the LORD’s and the fullness thereof
The world and those who dwell therein
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

If the LORD alone is God, as the two commandants referred to by Jesus clearly teach, then Caesar’s claims as inscribed on the Denarius are ultimately illegitimate. Jesus’s point was not about dividing life into two realms – political and religious – but about giving undivided allegiance to God alone.

The Crowd’s Reaction

When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away.
Matthew 22:22

Matthew makes it clear that the crowd was not impressed with a simple endorsement of taxes. They recognized that Jesus had avoided the trap and upheld His claim to divine authority. Indeed, two days later, He was accused of “forbidding to pay taxes to Casesar” (Luke. 23:2), showing that His words were not understood as a pro-tax endorsement.

Yet neither was He arrested for inciting tax rebellion, proving his answer was understood as something far deeper. The apostles later encouraged believers to submit to governing authorities and pay taxes (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-15). Christians do so not because rulers have a rightful claim of ownership over other people’s possessions, but because the True King – Jesus Christ – reigns over all, and God commands His people to live peaceably and honorably under earthly governments.

As Peter reminds us, we are “sojourners and exiles” (1 Peter 2:11). Our mission is not to overthrow rulers but to advance God’s Kingdom by following Christ’s example of humility and submission – even under unjust authorities.

Conclusion

Jesus’s teaching does not sanction divided allegiance – some to God, and some to Caesar. Rather, it forces us to recognize that everything belongs to God. To render to God all that is His leaves nothing for Caesar. That is of course, unless we choose to place our faith in the idolatrous image and inscription engraved on the coin.

A Review of Jack Wilkie’s “Christ’s Co-Rulers: Understanding Christian Engagement”

On July 23, 2025 By Tyler BoydIn Christian's Relationship to Government

In recent years, Christian author, podcaster and Focus Press online content director Jack Wilkie (hereafter JW) has written extensively on the intersection of faith and political engagement. In the fall of 2024, he compiled many of these writings into his book Christ’s Co-Rulers: Understanding Christian Political Engagement. This review aims to summarize the book’s contents and critically evaluate its biblical foundations.

I have followed JW’s work for years and deeply respect him as a skilled writer and thinker. His 2020 book Church Reset: God’s Design for So Much More is a masterpiece, powerfully calling the church to reject modern consumerism and restore God’s design for a Christ-centered family of dedicated disciples. I enthusiastically recommend it at every opportunity. However, his more recent writings on Christian political engagement – well represented in this new book – take a different approach. Rather than restoring the New Testament vison of the kingdom of God as a powerful and influential body in its own right, Christ’s Co-Rulers exchanges that biblical model for a more modern framework rooted in trust in the legitimacy and potential of earthly kingdoms and their rulers. In this move away from a restorationist framework, I found Christ’s Co-Rulers significantly more problematic. That said, it is not without valuable insights and thoughtful reflections.

Summary

The preface of Christ’s Co-Rulers clearly sets forth the book’s objective: “to address the objections and correct the popular misunderstandings of the kingdom, lay out the game plan, and exhort the church to take up her task in the realm of politics.” Throughout the various essays in the book, JW explores his understanding of how Christians can and should engage in politics and culture, seeing this involvement as an expression of Christ’s reign over all aspects of life. The book challenges the notion that any and all forms of political participation necessarily serve as a distraction from spiritual duties, instead arguing that Christians have a responsibility to influence society with the values that align with God’s kingdom.

The introduction sets the stage by rejecting the dichotomy that Christians must choose between faith and politics. JW writes, “We can win souls and elections. God can care about the church and nations. We can align with a political party and trust in Jesus.” JW emphasizes that political engagement is not idolatry but an acceptable way to spread the blessings of Christ’s rule, urging Christians to see their participation as a “good and proper exercise of a God-given gift.”

The book is then divided into three chapters, with the first chapter dedicated to answering common objections raised against political involvement. For example, the chapter begins by examining John 18:36, where Jesus states, “My kingdom is not of this world,” a passage from which many Christians have concluded that they must not engage the world using the same methods as earthly kingdoms. JW argues that while Christ’s kingdom is spiritual in origin, it manifests itself in the world, and influences the world as it grows. This influence extends, argues JW, to all areas of life, including governance. He supports this by citing biblical examples of godly individuals – such as Jonah, Elijah, or Micaiah – who engaged rulers and influenced nations.

Addressing the concern of “putting trust in princes” (Psalm 146:3), JW clarifies that Christians can participate in politics without idolizing leaders or becoming overly anxious about political outcomes. JW’s vision of political involvement, grounded in trust in God, is further established by looking to scriptural examples, such as Nehemiah sharing his concerns about Jerusalem with the king, or Paul appealing to Caesar as examples of how Christians can and should engage political rulers. JW argues that the refrain “Jesus is on his throne” is wrongly used to justify political apathy rather than being understood as a call to faithfulness. He explores other passages as well, such as Jesus’s rejection of Satan’s temptations for power, the Sermon on the Mount, and passages addressing spiritual warfare, ultimately arguing that Christians are not to avoid power, but to pursue it with humility and righteousness. In summary, Chapter 1 of Christ’s Co-Rulers seeks to systematically dismantle objections to Christian political and cultural engagement, urging Christians to actively reflect God’s authority in all aspects of life, while remaining grounded in spiritual trust and biblical principles.

Chapter 2, “A Political Kingdom” builds on the foundation laid in the first chapter, further exploring the relationship between Christianity and cultural, societal, and political engagement. The chapter begins by addressing how Christians should interpret the book of Revelation, pointing to passages such as Revelation 7:13-14 to emphasize Christ’s victory at his ascension and challenges Christians to see His kingdom as already reigning with societal implications. The discussion shifts to the church’s role in society, arguing that Christians should neither disengage from culture, nor embrace extreme and obviously problematic forms of Christian nationalism. JW instead argues for what he believes is a more balanced view, where Christians seek to advance God’s kingdom through societal and governmental influence, without conflating those efforts with nationalistic idolatry.

Chapter 3 of Christ’s Co-Rulers explores practical ways that Christians can actively make a difference in the world through righteous political engagement. JW emphasizes the importance of recognizing the times and wisely discerning the cultural shifts around us. He calls for Christians to move beyond simplistic slogans, and to boldly proclaim the truth, even when the truth results in division. JW stresses a critical commitment to both prayer and action, challenging Christians to take responsibility for the moral decline apparent in society. JW emphasizes the need to stand firm on moral truths, particularly on political matters such as abortion and gay marriage, warning against the dangers of abstention in elections. Ultimately, JW views patriotism as an expression of love for one’s neighbor. The book concludes with a thought-provoking essay which offers practical steps for Christians to positively influence their communities, churches, and families.

Overall, JW’s approach advocated in Christ’s Co-Rulers builds on a specific view of how God’s Kingdom should relate to and utilize the powers of earthly kingdoms that has become mainstream in modern evangelical Christianity. JW consistently emphasizes Christ’s ultimate Lordship over the world. While he recognizes that not all society recognizes and submits to his reign, he views Christ’s kingdom as gaining ground when little by little the structures of society begin to reflect godly values. While JW recognizes that political involvement can extend to problematic or even idolatrous extremes, he is always careful to emphasize that he is arguing for a more balanced approach.

At various points in the book, JW does attempt to engage with opposing viewpoints who take issue with Christians voting, occupying political office, or refusing to involve themselves in the public square, but the book rarely develops the logic behind such rival positions. In several instances, the book seems to reduce his opponent’s positions to flimsy bumper sticker statements, rather than confronting their arguments in the more developed forms which his opponents would actually present them. The implication seems to be that if Christians simply understood the significance of Christ’s reign the way JW does, they would reject the ridiculous arguments of his opponents and embrace the Church’s clear responsibility to mobilize for greater political influence. The most common objection against refusing earthly political activity is that he views such refusal as empty pietism, or even neo-Gnosticism. JW believes that if more believers would recognize all the good that has come because of Christian engagement in politics throughout the centuries, perhaps Christians would more readily embrace their responsibility to confront the moral issues in society through political influence.

Assessment

This book covers a lot of ground and floats a lot of ideas and arguments, some convincing and others not so much. My assessment will highlight five points of affirmation, and five quite significant reservations. If it seems like I am more critical than sympathetic, it’s probably because I am. I fear the arguments put forth in this book fall short on biblical grounds, which is especially disappointing, because this is what makes many of JW’s other writings shine.

Affirmations

Despite some significant differences, it is evident that we are strongly aligned on several key issues.

1. His Caution Against Political Idolatry

To begin, I couldn’t agree more with JW’s warning that earthly politics should not be the only or even the primary way for Christians to influence the world. Although JW’s book was compiled to make the case that involvement in politics is acceptable, he cautions against it becoming idolatrous or consuming one’s attention. In the introduction, JW cautions,

One can become inordinately focused on or involved in politics at the expense of more pressing issues… I do not believe politics is the only way we can impact the world, or even the foremost way.

Regardless of disagreements Christians may have on the question of how Christians should get involved in earthly politics, this is an important truth that must be remembered by all. Unfortunately, there are many out there who do become so enamored with party politics that it does become idolatrous, consuming all their attention. I am grateful that JW recognized this danger and cautioned Christians against it.

2. His Affirmation of the Nonviolent, Present, and Impactful Nature of Christ’s Kingdom

JW is also right to affirm Christ’s kingdom is meant to be established through peaceful means, such as evangelism and discipleship, rather than through violence or coercion. While I differ with JW on the question of how Christ’s rule is exercised and implemented in the world, with JW emphasizing Christians ruling through government, as opposed to highlighting the role of humility and suffering (more on this below in my reservations), JW is right to emphasize that Christ’s rule and influence should have a real-world impact.

In Chapter 1.1, “My Kingdom is Not of This World” JW writes,

We can’t take “not of this world” to mean “not in this world.” It literally means “not from here,” as we can see at the end of the verse. Jesus was saying that his kingdom does not originate from among wicked men, but is divine… His conquest was not going to be accomplished by letting his disciples fight for territory and control. He explicitly stopped Peter from doing that.

He goes on further to write,

So the Kingdom of Christ does not grow at the point of the sword as Islam and so many others have attempted. Its invasions are peaceful invasions, accomplished by missionaries rather than soldiers, with the message that ‘No matter how many of us you kill, we will continue sending wave after wave of Gospel proclaimers in love for your souls and obedience to Christ.

Not only that, but JW rightly emphasizes that Jesus’s reign is active, present, and universal, rather than something we merely hope for in the future (cf. Matthew 12:28-29; Revelation 11:15).

With that in mind, I appreciate JW’s emphasis on the many ways the gospel’s influence has brought about real-world blessings, such as levels of safety and prosperity “the likes of which the world has never seen” (Chapter 1.7 “Stuck in the First Century”).

While I believe JW is mistaken in the way he imagines the power of Christ’s Kingdom manifesting itself through worldly political structures, I appreciate JW’s continual emphasis that Christ’s kingdom is real and present now. While I do believe his book lacks important nuance in how Christ reigns over the world, this does not undermine the fundamental strength of his powerful affirmation of Christ’s current rule.

3. His Insistence that Christianity is More Than Private Devotion

Related to the above point, JW also rightly rejects empty pietism. JW defines “pietism” as the belief that “the Christian’s only duty is their own private walk with God” (Ch. 1.5 “The Oft Abused Sermon on the Mount”), or the reduction of Christianity to a “purely spiritual pursuit” (Ch. 2.2 “Should the Church Strive for Influence?”). His chapter on “Prayer Then Action” (Ch. 3.2) rightly highlights that both are essential aspects of faithful Christian living. His use of Queen Esther as an example (cf. Esther 4:10-17) serves as a powerful reminder of how reliance on God through prayer must lead to courageous and tangible steps of obedience.

Moreover, many of the recommendations made in the final essay in the book (Ch. 3.15, “20 Practical Ways You Can Make the World a Better Place”) strongly align with biblical wisdom, especially with their emphasis on personal discipline, spiritual growth, strong family life, and the emphasis he places on encouraging others through hospitality, encouragement, strong relationships, and service. I greatly appreciate JW’s stance against empty pietism. In fact, it is my confidence in the “real world” nature of Christianity that stands behind my primary critiques of the book (see below).

4. His Willingness to Speak Biblical Truth on Controversial Moral Issues

JW also rightly affirms godly positions on several moral issues which have been at the center of several political debates in recent years. His chapters on abortion (Ch. 3.9), gay marriage (Ch. 3.10), gambling, drugs, alcohol, and pornography (Ch. 3.11) are all excellent, laying out strong biblical arguments. In regards to these issues, I appreciate JW’s call to speak the truth boldly, even when it is controversial or divisive. This approach is consistent with Jesus’s teachings (Matthew 10:34) and Paul’s exhortation to preach the word in season and out of season (2 Timothy 4:1-4). When it comes to these moral issues, JW rightly contends that Christians have a moral obligation to address biblical truths on controversial topics (Ch. 3.6, “Divided by Politics”). While we must be careful to do this in a way that aligns with the pattern set forth by Christ, JW’s fundamental conviction that Christians must stand for truth is to be applauded.

5. His Ability to Ask Thoughtful Questions

Finally, I greatly appreciated the way JW raised some important questions. In my opinion, one of JW’s greatest strengths as an author is his ability to clearly and precisely articulate thought-provoking questions, encouraging careful examination of important biblical texts. This strength of his is evident throughout the book.

In the introduction, JW introduces the fundamental question of the book, “Is caring about politics a diversion from kingdom work? Does a Christian have to choose [between being a faithful Christian and caring about politics]?”

Then in Chapter 1.2 (“Are We Putting Our Trust in Princes?”) JW presses for a careful definition of what exactly it means to “put our trust in princes.” Does this mean that God is indifferent to elections and their consequences? Does this mean that we should not expect anything positive to come from the political realm? What should we do with texts from Proverbs that speak of kings ruling wisely (cf. Prov. 8:15-16; 20:28; 29:14)? What should we do with Romans 13, which speaks of God using the governing authorities as His ministers for good, or Paul’s appeal to Caesar in Acts 25:11? Was Paul “trusting in princes”?

In Chapter 1.5, (“The Oft Abused Sermon on the Mount”) JW raises the question “Where does God hold magistrates to the Sermon on the Mount?” After all, JW rightly observes, Romans 13:3-4 explicitly teaches that God appoints authorities as his ministers to execute justice against the wicked. He also raises the question about how the Sermon on the Mount should be read in light of the rest of the Bible, including the seemingly God-approved acts of violence in the Old Testament, and Jesus’s flipping of the tables in the temple.

While JW affirms that “Our war is not against flesh and blood” (Eph. 6:12; 2 Cor. 10:3-4), he raises the important question, “Do [these verses] mean that voting is a carnal weapon and that resisting Godless leadership is trying to war against flesh and blood?” (Ch. 1.6).

These are important questions that need to be asked, and I appreciate that JW’s book pushes them to the forefront of our thoughts. There is nothing wrong with asking critical questions such as “Does this text really mean what we assume it means?” or “Does God really intend for this text to be applied in this particular way in this particular circumstance?” If we really want to understand and apply the teachings of Scripture rightly, these are questions we must be asking.

With that said, I did find JW’s ways of resolving his own questions unsatisfactory in many regards. In fact, I found myself thinking of many more questions of my own as I wrestled my way through his book. But for now, I want to emphasize that I greatly appreciate the questions themselves.

Reservations

As I worked through my electronic copy of Christ’s Co-Rulers I filled almost every page with a plethora of personal notes: “Great point!” “Important truth.” “I disagree.” “Interesting thought, but needs important nuance.” “Strawman argument.” Etc. Rather than attempting to critique every aspect of the book line by line, which would require a long series of articles, I’ll touch on just a few of the most significant areas where I found JW’s book to be problematic from a biblical perspective.

1. Misreading Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2

My first reservation is quite significant. I believe that JW misunderstands and misapplies Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2, and this core difference helps explain why JW and I arrive at such different conclusions on several points.

Beginning in the introduction, JW writes “Wanting a government that punishes the wicked (Romans 13:2-4) and rewards the good (1 Peter 2:14) does not mean you don’t care about [Christ’s] kingdom.” Then in chapter 1.2 (“Are We ‘Putting Our Trust in Princes’”) JW suggests that when governments wield the sword, they are doing “what Romans 13 tells them to do.” Similarly, in chapter 2.2, JW writes that “When governments execute laws in accordance with God’s will because they are ministers of God commissioned to do exactly that (Romans 13:1-5; 1 Peter 2:13-14), it’s actually a good thing.” Other similar quotes could be cited, but over and over again, it is evident that JW understands Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 as “commanding” or “commissioning” government authorities to rule in a particular way, that is, to use the sword to punish evil, and to reward the good.

JW is not the first to read and apply these texts in this way. But it is not correct, and it does not demonstrate a careful reading of the texts in their contexts. First, it must be observed that neither Romans 13 or 1 Peter 2 was written to governing authorities. They were written to Christians about how God uses governing authorities. This distinction is critical. Paul and Peter were not giving instructions to rulers about how they ought to govern; they were instructing Christians on how to relate to all those whom God has arranged into positions of authority.

Moreover, these passages do not present an idealized vision of government in which rulers are supposed to uphold justice in a godly manner, if only they would submit to God’s will. Rather, they describe how God sovereignly uses even wicked and rebellious rulers to accomplish His good purposes – a theme found throughout Scripture.

Paul wrote Romans under the rule of Nero, one of the most infamously cruel emperors in history. Yet Paul states in Romans 13:1 that “there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” Paul was certainly not suggesting that Nero was out there consciously submitting to God’s moral will. Rather he was emphasizing that even the worst rulers, such as the Roman emperor, his bureaucracy, and his military leaders, are still under His authority. This aligns with and builds on what Paul wrote earlier in the letter, in Romans 8, where Paul teaches that all things – including all kinds of wicked things that come from wicked rulers, such as tribulation, persecution, and sword – work together for the good of those who love him. This also helps explain why Paul would include these teachings as an extension of how Christians should relate to their enemies – for the Roman authorities were chief among the enemies of Christianity in Rome.

Paul goes on to say in Romans 13:3-4 that rulers “are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad” and that the ruler is “God’s servant for your good.” If taken as a prescriptive command – meaning that rulers “ought” to always punish evil and reward the good – this would contradict both history and Scripture, which repeatedly show rulers doing the opposite (e.g. Pharaoh in Exodus, Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel, and even Nero himself). Instead, Paul is making a descriptive statement, that even when rulers are corrupt, they still function under God’s providence to maintain order and accomplish his ultimate purposes.

Paul was not innovating a completely new theology of how God views and uses earthly authorities. This understanding was already established even before Paul wrote Romans. For example, in Isaiah 10:5, God calls the wicked Assyrian king “The rod of my anger” – not because Assyria was righteous, but because God was using even a sinful ruler to accomplish His will, carrying out his punishments against the wicked. Similarly, in Habakkuk 1:6, God raises up the Chaldeans, a violent and unjust people, to carry out His judgment.

Similar observations can and should be made about 1 Peter 2 :13-14 where Peter exhorts Christians to “be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution.” Again, as in Romans 13, this is a command directed at Christians, not rulers. The reason for this submission is not because earthly rulers govern justly, but “for the Lord’s sake,” that is, because God is ultimately in control. This theme continues in 1 Peter 2:21-23, where Peter points to Christ as the ultimate model of submission, even in the face of unjust suffering.

The fundamental flaw in JW’s interpretation is that he reads Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 as prescriptive mandates for how governments ought to rule, rather than as descriptive truths about how God sovereignly rules through those governing authorities – whether good or evil. The idea that Christians should advocate for governments to wield the sword “as ministers of God” misunderstands the text’s purpose, and implies that these authorities would fail in their role as ministers of God if they do not respect Christ’s authority and willingly submit to his rule. If such were the case, we would expect the text to also include instructions for how Christians should wisely discern which rulers deserve to be submitted to, and which ones should be opposed. Rather than teaching Christians to make such wise discernments, the text is clear: “There is no authority except from God” (Rom. 13:1); “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution” (1 Pet. 2:13).

Nowhere do these passages command believers to shape government policies; rather they encourage Christians to trust in God’s sovereignty, even under the most wicked and oppressive rulers. We express our trust in God’s sovereignty, not by standing in opposition to wicked rulers, but by following the example of Christ, who submitted even to their most unjust cruelty (cf. 1 Peter 2:18-25).

Because JW views Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 as prescriptive for how governments should rule, he fears the consequences Christians will endure if governments do not live up to this standard. JW writes, “Yes, elections have consequences – consequences that grow heavier all the time as postmodernism fails and we race to see whose ‘truth’ is going to win out.” Do elections have consequences? Sure. But the beauty of Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 is that because of God’s sovereignty, we can trust that God will see to it that the consequences ultimately work out for the good of his faithful children. This distinction is crucial because it shifts the focus away from earthly political activism aimed at making governments fulfill a biblical role and instead places it where the apostles intended – on Christian faithfulness and submission, even in the midst of unjust rule.

2. The Softening of Strong Biblical Warnings

Similarly, several other passages referenced throughout the book fail to receive the careful attention and contextual examination they warrant. A prime example appears in chapter 1.2, “Are We Putting Our Trust in Princes,” where JW turns to his misunderstanding of texts like Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 in an attempt to compartmentalize the warning of Psalm 146:3. Rather than wrestling with the psalm’s clear warning against placing trust in human rulers, JW subtly reframes it as a mere caution against having too much political anxiety. The result is a domesticated interpretation that reduces the psalm’s forceful admonition into little more than advice about maintaining a healthy balance between political engagement and personal spiritual disciplines like Bible study, prayer, and church involvement.

Psalm 146:3 warns against putting trust in princes – human political leaders – in those areas where our trust rightly belongs to God alone. For instance, in 1 Samuel 8, when the Israelites were dissatisfied with God’s rule, they demanded a king to fight their battles for them. To ask for a king to fight their battles expressed a lack of trust in God’s kingship and their belief that a human ruler could provide greater security and success in battle. God’s response through Samuel warned them that a human king would lead to oppression and disappointment, but they “trusted in princes” anyway.

Later in Israel’s history, King Ahaz of Judah faced the threat of invasion by Syria and Israel. Rather than trusting in the Lord, Ahaz turned to Assyria for protection, offering silver and gold from the temple as a tribute (2 Kings 16:7-9; Isaiah 7). Isaiah warned Ahaz to trust in the LORD’s deliverance, but Ahaz chose political alliances over faith. This pattern of misplaced trust continued when Judah faced a threat from Assyria. Rather than relying on God, they looked to Egypt’s military for help. Isaiah rebuked them for this misplaced trust (2 Kings 17:4-6; 2 Chronicles 36:13). Similarly, Ezekiel warned that Egypt was a broken reed and would fail those who leaned on it (Ezekiel 29:6-7).

Within this Old Testament context, it becomes clear that “putting your trust in princes” involves far more than simply becoming overly anxious about the political powers or failing to maintain healthy balance between political engagement and spiritual devotion – though it certainly would include these concerns. At its core, this phrase refers to the deep error of relying on earthly rulers for security, deliverance, or victory in battles that ultimately belong to the Lord. It includes forming alliances with worldly powers in the hope of achieving greater success against God’s enemies. Yet this is precisely the trajectory JW’s book encourages when it urges Christians to engage in various culture wars by partnering with political structures and earthly authorities – a move that, according to Scripture, repeatedly leads to compromise and disappointment.

Other examples abound. For instance, JW appeals to Proverbs to illustrate “wise rulership,” treating those maxims as a handbook for modern politicians rather than recognizing that the Proverbs ultimately point to the Messiah himself – the perfect King whose wisdom and justice stand in stark contrast to every human ruler’s folly. Likewise, JW invokes the story of David and Goliath to argue that Christians need not always follow the Sermon on the Mount’s teaching on enemies – overlooking, however, that David’s victory is less a model for militant resistance than a testament to God’s deliverance through humble and confident faith. In each case, JW reframes biblical accounts meant to exalt God’s unique sovereignty as templates for worldly power struggle, rather than as demonstrations of the cross-shaped authority entrusted to Christ and his followers.

3. True Authority is Found in Sacrifice, Not Dominion

A third reservation is that JW’s tends to sideline the cross as the centerpiece of Christ’s authority. By suggesting in Chapter 1.4 (“Jesus Denied Power”) that Jesus’s post-resurrection exaltation vindicates the pursuit of worldly power, JW downplays what Scripture repeatedly affirms: the cross itself is “the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18-25). Throughout the New Testament, Jesus’s voluntary self-emptying and crucifixion are held up as the highest demonstration of true authority (Philippians 2:5-11). “The way of the cross” is not merely a prelude to glory but the very wisdom and might of God. Christ himself taught that genuine greatness is found not in lording it over others “as the Gentiles do” (Mark 10:42-45) – but in humble service and sacrificial love.

This misstep becomes especially apparent in JW’s reading of Revelation (Chapter 2.1, “Reading Revelation Right”). JW argues that because believers “reign with” the exalted Christ – going “from under the altar” (Revelation 6:9-11) to “enthroned with him” (Revelation 20:4) – Christians ought to exercise authority over the nations. Yet he overlooks the book’s stark contrast between imperial power and the Lamb’s paradoxical rule. Although Jesus bears the Lion’s title, He exercises his authority as the slain lamb (Revelation 5:6), revealing that his dominion is won by self-sacrifice, not by the sword.

Revelation’s imagery of the four horsemen (Conquest, War, Famine, and Death) and the beasts of chapters 11 and 13 vividly portray the world’s coercive, violent authority (cf. Revelation 11:7-8; 13:7). By contrast, those who share in the Lamb’s blood – and “do not love their lives even to death” – overcome evil through suffering, not force (Revelation 12:10-11). Their victory lies in following the Lamb “wherever he goes,” even following him to his death (Revelation 14:4; 12:11), rather than by forging earthly alliances.

Far from endorsing a co-rulership with Babylonian-style regimes, Revelation invites us into a kingdom that is sharply contrasted with earthly kingdoms, where true power is perfected in weakness, and where the slain Lamb reigns supreme over every throne of this world.

4. The Unresolved Tension of Coercive Power in the Peaceful Kingdom

A fourth reservation concerns JW’s failure to fully grapple with the implications of Christ’s peaceful kingdom. In chapter 1.1, JW begins on a promising note, rightly emphasizing that “[Jesus’s] conquest was not going to be accomplished by letting his disciples fight” and that “the kingdom of Christ does not grow at the point of the sword.” However, he quickly pivots away from this foundational truth and shifts the focus from advancing the gospel through peaceful means to advancing it through earthly political strategy. This creates a tension he never resolves: if Christ’s kingdom is not advanced by violence, how can Christians justify using the inherently coercive mechanism of state power to further it?

The heart of the issue is that every government policy is ultimately enforced by the power of the sword – by law, punishment, and, in extreme cases, the threat of death. JW never explains how this reality squares with the nonviolent principles upon which Christ built his kingdom. The Sermon on the Mount explicitly teaches practices like turning the other cheek, loving one’s enemies, and refusing to resist evil with violence (Matthew 5:38-48). These are not abstract ideas but commands meant to be lived out by Christ’s disciples. While JW raises thoughtful questions about these teachings in Chapter 1.5 (“The Oft Abused Sermon on the Mount”) – such as whether the Sermon applies to governing authorities or how it relates to Old Testament violence – he sidesteps the more pressing issue: how can followers of Jesus faithfully live out these commands while using political force against their enemies?

Certainly, there is nothing wrong with wrestling with questions about the meaning and proper application of the Sermon on the Mount, but raising them must never be used as a way to evade obedience to their intended meaning, or to dismiss those teachings as optional, only to be applied in certain situations where it seems wise in our own eyes to do so. Even if the Sermon on the Mount isn’t a blueprint for public policy, it remains the teaching of Christ himself about how his disciples should live in his kingdom. JW’s unwillingness to wrestle with how Christians can reconcile participation in systems that rely on coercion and violence while remaining faithful to the commands of Christ himself is a major omission. Faithful interpretation of the Sermon of the Mount does not mean only asking whether it applies to governments – it means asking how Christ’s radical call to peace and enemy-love must shape every sphere of a Christian’s life, including how they relate to political powers. To treat the Sermon as merely an ideal, or as optional in certain contexts is to risk undermining the intended radical nature of what it means to follow Christ.

5. The Portrayal of Gospel Centered Engagement as Neo-Gnosticism

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Christ’s Co-Rulers is its repeated misrepresentation of non-partisan or non-power-seeking engagement as passive, ineffective, or even heretical. JW consistently frames the refusal to pursue secular political power as a form of “pietism,” “neo-Gnosticism,” or simply “doing nothing.” This framing appears most clearly in Chapter 1.2 (“Are We Putting Our Trust in Princes”) where he likens non-political Christians to someone trapped on a rooftop during a flood, refusing to get into a boat because “God will save me.” The implication is clear: those who decline participation in earthly politics are neglecting real-world responsibility in favor of naïve, escapist faith.

But where does this idea come from? Certainly not from Jesus. Christ had numerous opportunities to leverage earthly political power – whether in the wilderness with Satan, in the crowds who wished to make him king, or in his trial before Pilate – and he rejected every one of them. Would JW suggest that Jesus, in refusing those paths, was “doing nothing”? Nor does this view arise from the example of the early church. The apostles did not agitate for governmental reform or align themselves with state power, yet they turned the world upside down through the proclamation of the gospel, suffering, and self-sacrificial love. The book of Acts is not a story of passivity – it’s a story of a radical, Christ-shaped political engagement: an alternative form of politics rooted in the kingdom of God, not the kingdoms of men.

It is important to clarify here what I mean by “politics.” If politics refers only to the partisan system that continually contends to control the coercive power of the state, then yes, Christians can and should abstain. But if we define politics more broadly, as the patterns, values, and powers that influence and shape human society, then faithful discipleship to Jesus is deeply political. The church is not merely a religious body – it is a polis, a city set on a hill, an alternative and rival kingdom, called to teach and display an alterative way of life. The language of the New Testament is filled with political vocabulary – kingdom, gospel, law, justice, Lord, Messiah – not as metaphors, but as redefinitions of those terms. The gospel doesn’t call Christians to abandon politics but to practice a different kind of politics, one rooted in the reign of Christ, not Caesar. Abstaining from partisan strategies or the pursuit of political power is not an act of retreat, but an act of trust – a public display of confidence in the power of God’s way of organizing human life through Christ-like sacrificial love, obedience, and righteousness.

In truth, JW’s assumption that avoiding earthly political involvement equals inaction reflects not a biblical worldview, but a pagan one. In ancient paganism, both spiritual and earthly powers were tools to manipulate the world for desired outcomes. From that perspective, refusing to use the levers of political power when that power is within reach would seem like doing nothing. Like so much of modern Christianity, the influence of this pagan worldview can be traced back to the fourth-century emperor Constantine. After Constantine’s alleged conversion, Christians suddenly found themselves with access to significant state power. Within a few decades, the Church had become the official religion of the Roman Empire and following Rome’s collapse, a dominant state power for centuries to come. Catholic theologians, such as Eusebius and Augustine, interpreted this newfound power as a gift to the church by God. By means of political power, it was believed that the Church “militant and triumphant” would conquer the nations for Christ. Christ’s Co-Rulers represents a modern revival of this Constantinian legacy, which conflates worldly influence with faithfulness, and political victories with gospel success. In this way, the book embraces a paradigm that has shaped much of post-Constantinian Christianity, rather than restoring the radical, countercultural politics of the New Testament church.

Throughout the teachings and examples found in the New Testament, the kingdom of God does not advance through coercion, violence, or political maneuvering, but through the power of the gospel. To reject entanglement with earthly politics is not to withdraw from the world – it is to practice politics on God’s terms, trusting in His methods. Rather than ruling with Caesar, Jesus chose the cross.

The flipside of this concern is that JW’s rhetoric undermines the real-world power of the gospel. To be fair, JW explicitly denies this in the introduction, where he writes, “I do not believe political involvement is the only way we can impact the world, or even the foremost way.” He also ends the book with a list of practical ways to change the world – most of which do not involve earthly politics at all. These are commendable acknowledgments. But they are undercut by the broader thrust of his argument, in which he repeatedly characterizes gospel-centered engagement as inadequate. By labeling gospel-focused Christians as guilty of “empty pietism” or “neo-Gnosticism,” JW suggests – I believe unintentionally – that proclaiming Christ and living out Christ’s commands is somehow insufficient for combating evil in the world.

So which is it? Is preaching the gospel, baptizing the nations, and teaching them to obey the commands of Jesus the most powerful way to change the world – or is it “doing nothing”? If the gospel is truly “the power of God for salvation” (Romans 1:16), and if Christ’s way of overcoming evil is through doing good, and if love and truth are indeed effective in making a difference in the real world, then there is no basis for the charge of pietism. The problem is not that JW denies the gospel’s power with his words – it’s that he undermines it with his assumptions. And those assumptions – about earthly political action being the default mode of cultural engagement – go largely unexamined throughout the book.

In the end, JW must choose. If he truly believes the gospel is powerful, he cannot continue to belittle those who trust in it rather than the sword. But if he dismisses their convictions as impractical and irresponsible, he will inevitably shift the weight of Christian hope away from Christ and onto Caesar. And in so doing, he unwittingly redefines the very nature of the kingdom he claims to defend.

Final Thoughts

I began this essay by expressing my disappointment that Christ’s-Co Rulers departs from the restoration of New Testament Christianity. I said this because it is clear that the imitation of the way of Christ and the early church is not at the heart of this book. While the Lordship of Christ is certainly a prominent theme in the book, the implementation of his reign is framed in the tools of earthly kingdoms rather than in the way of the cross. The arguments rely heavily on dubious uses of proof texts, often divorced from their context, rather than on careful exegesis.

What is most striking is the near absence of the way of Christ as revealed in the Gospel – the path of suffering, submission, and self-giving love. The teaching of Christ and the apostles are mentioned but rarely allowed to shape the book’s vision in any substantive way. In the end, Christ’s Co Rulers does not call the church to imitate Christ in his path to the cross, but to mirror the power structures of the world. In that sense, a more fitting title might be Babylon’s Co-Rulers, for it aligns more closely with the logic of earthly kingdoms than with the kingdom of God.

That is not the restoration the church needs. It is a rebranding of the Constantinian compromise. If we are to be faithful to the kingdom Jesus proclaimed, we must reject the sword and embrace the cross – not just as a doctrine, but as the way we live, love, and yes, even engage in politics.

And yet, the vision of restoration is not entirely lost either. Christ’s Co-Rulers still invites us to carefully examine Scripture and to consider the real-world implications of Christ’s reign. Though the book is deeply flawed in its approach, perhaps it will nonetheless stir a renewed hunger in the church – one that leads us back to the beautiful, powerful, and world-reversing reign of Christ, embodied in the lives of faithful Christians.