What Jesus Talked About the Most

On April 27, 2024 By Tyler BoydIn Christian's Relationship to Government, Kingdom Life, The Authority of God

Many people assume the goal of Christianity is to go to heaven. However, throughout the New Testament, not a single sermon concludes with “if you follow these steps, you can go to heaven when you die.” Far more often we find sermons proclaiming Jesus’s status as the anointed King (Christ) and Ruler (Lord). For example, in Peter’s Pentecost sermon, he declared “God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36). Similarly, Peter preached to Cornelius’s household about “Jesus Christ,” who is “Lord of all” (Acts 10:36). Even in Roman custody, Paul tried to convince others about Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Acts 28:23). Jesus’s kingship and lordship are at the very heart of the gospel (Romans 1:1-4).

The New Testament mentions the “kingdom” over 150 times, more than twice the frequency of the word “church.” While it is certainly worthwhile to study what the New Testament teaches about the church and heaven, it is unfortunate that the kingdom does not receive greater emphasis in modern Christianity. This was not the case with Jesus, who talked more about the kingdom than any other subject.

Jesus Preached the Kingdom

The gospel authors consistently emphasize the Kingdom as the main emphasis of Jesus’s teaching. For example, Mark 1:15 summarizes Jesus’s preaching throughout Galilee in one sentence: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” Matthew 4:23 describes him as teaching in synagogues and “proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom.” Similarly, Matthew 9:35 and Luke 8:1 also highlight the kingdom as subject of Jesus’s message while healing diseases and afflictions. These passages all underscore the kingdom as the central focus of Jesus’s teachings.

When Jesus taught his disciples to pray, he taught them to pray about the kingdom (Mt. 6:9-13). Jesus instructed them to preach about the kingdom (Lk. 9:2; 10:9). His miracles, such as healing the sick and casting out demons, demonstrated that the kingdom was breaking into the world (Lk. 11:20). Jesus continually taught about how to enter the kingdom (Mt. 5:3; 6:33; Mk. 10:15; Lk. 13:3; 14:15-24; Jn. 3:3-5). Most of Jesus’s parables were used to explain the nature of his kingdom (Mt. 13:24, 31, 33, 34, 44, 45, 47; 18:23; 20:1, 22:2; 25:1; Mk. 4:26, 30, Lk. 13:18, 20).

Why did Jesus spend so much time talking about the kingdom? Because Jesus understood this to be the reason he was sent.

He said to them, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose.”
Luke 4:43

What Is the Kingdom?

To put it simply, the Kingdom of God is the place where God reigns supreme and His will is done (Mt. 6:9-10). It is the “dome” (or “dominion”) over which God reigns as King.

Everyone in the first century knew what a “kingdom” was, but today we tend to use words like “nations,” “countries,” or “states” to describe political dominions. While modern rulers don’t typically use the title “King,” democratically elected rulers continue to hold similar authority to govern their respective states. Despite differences in how today’s rulers ascend to power, the concept of kingdoms and dominions with authoritative rulers persists in today’s world.

God also has a “kingdom” where choices are made in harmony with His will. Jesus, who is sinless, loving, and obedient, is the perfect example of what it looks like for God to reign over a person’s life completely. To enter his kingdom, one must be born again of water and Spirit, surrendering their life to continual imitation of Christ (John 3:3, Rom. 6:1-14; Phil. 2:5-8).

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught his disciples to pray, “Your kingdom come, Your will be done” (Mt. 6:10). God’s kingdom is where God’s will is done.

When is the Kingdom?

The Kingdom of God was not preached as a distant future event but as something imminent. John the Baptist and Jesus each preached that the Kingdom was “at hand” (Mt. 3:1-2; Mk. 1:15).

Similarly, in Luke 11:20, Jesus said,

But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

Jesus even told his disciples that some of them would witness the coming of the kingdom in their lifetime.

Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.
Matthew 16:28

For this reason, it should be no surprise when Paul and John also speak as if Christians were already in God’s kingdom at the time of their writing (Col. 1:13; Rev. 1:9). While there is a sense in which we still wait for the ultimate appearing of his kingdom, when the kingdom is delivered to the Father, when death is no more and every tear is wiped away (1 Cor 15:24, 2 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 11:15; 21:3-4), the kingdom of God is not merely a future hope for eternal life. It is a real kingdom presently here on earth.

If God’s kingdom is here, where is it?

Where is the Kingdom?

When questioned by the Pharisees about the arrival of God’s kingdom, he answered them:

The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they say, “Look, here it is!” or “There!” for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.
Luke 17:20-21

Unlike earthly kingdoms with defined borders, Jesus’s kingdom exists anywhere things are done God’s way. Most of the world, filled with filled with war, violence, coercion, poverty, child abuse, sex trafficking, theft, injustice, hatred, and more, stands in opposition to God’s kingdom. But there are places where God’s will is done on earth as it is in heaven.

Jesus clarified to Pilate that while his kingdom is not of earthly origin, and is not sustained by earthly means, it is nonetheless a real kingdom, where Jesus reigns as a real King.

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I may not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not of this world.”

Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world – to bear witness to the truth – everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”
John 18:36-37

Jesus’s kingdom is as real as any other kingdom, and it is on earth now. If you want to know where God’s kingdom is, look to the places where people have reborn by both water and Spirit, and are heeding Jesus’s voice.

Who is the Kingdom?

Before identifying who is in the Kingdom of Christ today, it is helpful to differentiate this kingdom from the kingdom of God as it is otherwise described in the Bible. All that God did prior to the establishment of the Kingdom of Christ was done with that purpose in mind.

In the sense of rightful authority, all creation belongs to the Creator. But in the garden of Eden, something pivotal happened. Adam and Eve, rather than obeying the voice of their Creator, obeyed the voice of the Serpent. In so doing, they ceded authority to him who would eventually lead the whole world astray. In this sense, Satan too has a kingdom. But his kingdom only exists because he has usurped authority which did not at any point rightfully belong to him.

Since that time, two kingdoms have existed side by side, God’s and Satan’s, each bidding for mankind’s allegiance. After rescuing Abraham’s family from slavery in Egypt, God ruled over His kingdom of Israel through the law of Moses. Even as God anticipated a king (Deut. 17:14-20), He warned against the attitudes and actions which would defy his ultimate authority. Unfortunately, Israel rejected God’s reign, choosing instead to imitate surrounding earthly kingdoms (1 Sam. 8), leading to Israel’s decay and punishment (Hosea 13:11).

It was during this period of decay when the prophets announced that God would establish a new eternal Kingdom, where God would reign through His anointed King (Is. 9:6-7). Daniel too spoke of a Kingdom that was coming that would cut in pieces and destroy other earthly kingdoms (Dan. 2:36-45; 7:13-14).

Jesus was and is the fulfillment of this hope for a Kingdom. Paul refers to those who “boast in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ” as the new “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:14-16), and Peter refers to Christ’s church as “a holy nation” (1 Pet. 2:9). That’s because Jesus has made them to be, “A kingdom of priests for God” (Rev. 5:10).

What Kingdom Are You a Citizen Of?

Salvation is much more than simply going to heaven. It includes rescue from the political forces and evil structures of this world which have aligned themselves with Satan (Col. 1:13; 2:15; 1 Jn. 3:8). The fact that Jesus established a Kingdom means that people are now forced to choose which Kingdom they pledge their allegiance to. We may be “born” into an earthly nation, but we are “born again” into God’s Kingdom.

It is important to note that the Bible rejects the concept of a “dual citizenship,” emphasizing that Christians live as foreigners, strangers, or exiles in their earthly nations. Our citizenship is not on earth, but in heaven (Phil. 3:20). The faithful are those who acknowledge themselves as strangers and exiles on the earth (Heb. 11:13). Christians are exiles, and as such, they are to abstain from the passions of the flesh which characterize the world (1 Pet. 1:17; 2:11).

The Kingdom of God is here now. This truth lies at the very core of the gospel which Jesus proclaimed, and it should be central to our message as well.

The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.
Mark 1:15

“The Old Testament Kings and God’s Justice” by David Lipscomb

On December 29, 2023 By Tyler BoydIn Christian's Relationship to Government, Kingdom Life, Restoration

The Gospel Advocate; February 20, 1866

In our investigations we have found that God, at all times, kept a wide gulf of separation between his Jewish kingdom and subjects, and the world-institutions by which they were surrounded. No alliances—no affiliations—no courtesies as equals with the man-governments or their subjects, were never engaged in without receiving a signal mark of God’s displeasure. May his subjects not have adopted some government of their own, and have harmonized it in spirit with his laws, and have thus received his approbation? In the beginning, as we have found, God gave the law, perfect and complete, in the most minute particulars. He left no room for human legislation—for the exercise of human discretion.

The law was, ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes… Whatsoever things I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it.
Deuteronomy 12:8, 32

Yet we find in later ages a changed government, altered institutions among the Jews. How did these changes come about?

It came to pass when Samuel was old, he made his sons judges in Israel. His sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes and perverted judgment. Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together and came to Samuel unto Ramah, and said unto him, behold thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us, like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said give us a king to judge us: and Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, “Hearken unto the voice of the people, in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.”
1 Samuel 8:1

He tells them the consequences of this course. But still ordains they shall have a government of their own to punish them for their folly in becoming dissatisfied with God’s government and desiring a human one. If the Jews would ever have been justified in interpolating human laws and human expedients into the Divine government, it certainly was when those institutions of God were perverted to base and unlawful purposes, and his officers failed to do their duties. We see that the desire of a man-government even then amounted to a rejection of God as their king and ruler.

The introduction of this human polity was the main cause of Israel’s many sins and rebellions in her history, of the long bloody family feuds between Israel and Judah, brought upon her, her sorrows and woes, her sad overthrow and long and cruel dispersions as fugitives and outcasts among the nations of the earth. This king, as their head, was the chief cause of turning them from the law of God. We find Saul, David, Solomon, Hezekiah all approved of God in their private walk, so elated with pride at their wonderful exaltation, that they violated God’s law themselves and led their subjects into sin.

If the best among these kings caused their subjects to sin, and weaned their affections from God, divided their allegiance, diverted their sense of responsibility from the law of God to the law of the king, what must have been the fatal effects of her more corrupt and wicked princes. We find them continually leading them away from God’s law into sin. At their return from captivity in Babylon, under Ezra and Nehemiah, it was said in Ezra 9:2, “The band of the princes and rulers have been chief in this trespass,” that had brought them into captivity. It was Hezekiah’s forgetfulness of God’s law in his anxiety to be courteous and friendly with the King of Babylon, that produced the second captivity. Hosea speaking of this same rejection of God and choosing an earthly king, says:

O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thy help. I will be thy king: where is any other that may save thee in all the cities? and thy judges of whom thou saidst, Give me a king and princes. I gave thee a king in mine anger, and took him away in my wrath.
Hosea 13:9

Your dissatisfaction with my appointments as I gave them was your ruin. To punish you for this, I gave you a king who oppressed you, who involved you in difficulties, brought upon you war, trouble, famine, and slaughter, but when under this punishment, you failed to humble yourself and repent, but waxed worse and worse in your sin and rebellion, in my wrath I took from you your king and left you desolate, without either a Divine or human head, a prey to all your enemies, to be scattered over the face of the earth, a by-word and a hissing among all the nations, as a perpetual warning to all families, kindred, tribes and tongues, of the folly and sin of becoming dissatisfied with Heaven’s appointments.

God, to some extent at least, recognizes this earthly king as a rival of himself, and indicates the impossibility of man’s having both, a Heavenly and an earthly king. He clearly indicates that the Jew could not have another king, and at the same time be regarded as the subjects of Heaven. We find that the Jew was prohibited of God from either making alliances with human governments formed by nations not of God’s people, or of adopting into the government he had made for them, institutions of their own devising. He was God, and He their only King, ruler, law-maker—they could have none other. To have another was to reject God.

What thing soever I command you, observe to do it. Thou shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Deuteronomy 12:32

We thus find that God kept his subjects aloof from all connection with the world, or human governments. He considered his alliances with these institutions as adulteries in his espoused wife. In Ezekiel 23, under the type of the two sisters, Aholah and Aholibah, in their whoredoms, he represents Judah and Israel in their alliances with the world-governments. In their punishment by their lovers he typifies their punishment inflicted by those nations with whom they formed alliances.

But in process of time this nation of God is so corrupted by these earthly, human institutions and alliances, that God will no longer forbear with them. He abolishes this national institution, and in its place establishes his universal and eternal spiritual kingdom. “What relationship does this new and eternal kingdom sustain to the world-institutions by which it is surrounded and with which it comes in contact?” is the question of prime importance in our investigation, and one which, in importance to the well being of the church is not transcended by any known to the Christian world. The Jewish dispensation was the type of the Christian kingdom. The Christian kingdom or church superseded the Jewish and occupied the same position with reference both to God and the world that refused submission to Him, that the Jewish did.

Paul in his letter to his Roman brethren, says the Jews, through unbelief, were broken off, and the Gentiles, through faith, were grafted in. Without determining what is the special position from which the Jews was broken or cast, and into which the Gentile was grafted, it suffices our present purpose to note that just the position with reference to God and the world, from which the unbelieving Jew was broken, the believing Gentile was grafted in. The Jewish institution was the type of the spiritual, teaching through God’s dealings with it, how He would deal with the church, this could not be so unless they occupied the same relationship to God and the world. God’s dealing with the Jew in one relationship, could not teach us how he would deal with the Christian in a dissimilar one. The treatment of the outward nations by the Jews could be no lesson to us as to how we should act towards the unbelieving unless we occupied a like position with reference to them.

These things being so, and God having, through a period of four thousand years, kept a deep and wide gulf of separation between his people, his nation, his kingdom and the human kingdoms of earth with their subjects, having, under every possible form and on every occasion, besought and warned his children against such associations or affiliations; against alliances, individual or national; against relying upon the human institutions for aid or help in any of their difficulties, having shown that the help of the human institutions was weakness, confusion and ruin to them—in a word, God having separated them in every possible manner, and on every possible occasion, he did it all, not for them, but to teach us that Christians must be a separate and distinct people.

With all these teachings, through so long a period, so repeatedly, emphatically and distinctly set forth, it certainly is true, that without some positive net or declaration of God connecting or uniting them, the government of God with its subjects, must forever remain separated from the world-institutions with their subjects, with no alliance or affiliation, no participation of the one in the affairs of the other. Upon him that would connect them, the responsibility of showing when and how God united them, and what that union is, certainly devolves. We shall, in our next, examine the Scriptures to see if they have been so united.

The Worst Error a Church Can Make

On November 20, 2023November 22, 2023 By Tyler BoydIn Christian Non-Violence, Kingdom Life, Love for Enemies

I recently conducted an informal Facebook poll, posing the question, “In your opinion, what is the worst error a church can make?” The responses touched on various issues of great importance, including the failure to uphold biblical authority, neglect of doctrinal truth, and leadership issues, such as having weak or unqualified elders. Others focused on relational problems in the church, such as gossip, judgmental attitudes, or letting people slip through the cracks without being noticed.

Without minimizing the seriousness of any of the errors mentioned, I invite you to consider one error which permeates all others – the failure to love God and others.

Love as the Cornerstone of All Other Commands

The New Testament defines love by pointing to Jesus Christ’s selfless sacrifice.

By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.
1 John 3:16

To love is to imitate Jesus, who died for us, even when we were undeserving sinners (cf. Rom. 5:6-10).

The New Testament tells us that the command to love (i.e., to love in a way that resembles Jesus’s self-sacrificial love) is the greatest of all commands. Everything else hinges on fulfilling this law.

And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.
Matthew 22:34-40

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Romans 13:8-10

If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” you are doing well.
James 2:8

Paul and Peter emphasize the importance of love, urging Christians to put on love above all else.

And above all these, put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.
Colossians 4:14

Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.
1 Peter 4:8

In the well known “love chapter” (1 Corinthians 13), Paul asserts that without love, there is nothing we can do in our service to God that holds any value.

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal… If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
1 Corinthians 13:1-3

It should be noted that the command to love extends to all, even to those who don’t deserve it – even to our enemies (Luke 6:27-35). In fact, loving our enemies is the prerequisite for being considered as “children of the Most High.”

But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.
Luke 6:35

To what extent should we be merciful to those who don’t deserve it? We are to “Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36).

To love others, even when it is undeserved, and implies self-sacrifice, hardship, and harm, is simply what it means to be a “Christian.” That is, to be a “Christian” we must love like Christ.

Implications of Failing to Love

It is important to note that the New Testament does not teach a minimalist approach to Christianity, as if nothing else matters beyond loving God and loving others. On the contrary Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15).

Later, John reinforces this point:

By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.
1 John 5:2-3

“Love God, Love Others” shouldn’t be a mere slogan, while other points of doctrine are minimized in their importance. Instead, if we genuinely love God with all of our heart, soul, and strength, everything else becomes more significant. In fact, it should matter even more to us because of our love for God others. This isn’t Christian minimalism; it’s Christian maximalism.

At the same time, it’s crucial to acknowledge that even if we follow commandments, uphold doctrinal truth, lead the church wisely, live holy lives, treat others kindly, and even lay down our lives, yet without starting with love for God and others, we miss the point. Loving the Lord with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind is the principle from which obedience to all other commandments flow.

Think carefully about this: If love is to be placed above all else, and if all our service to God is worthless without love, and if every other command hangs on the commandment to love, what conclusion can we draw, but that the failure to love is the worst possible error that a church could make.

Yes, there will be doctrinal disagreements and errors, and unqualified elders causing problems. But how we respond to these problems, and the individuals involved, is of utmost importance.

If we’re thinking biblically, how can we avoid the conclusion that mistreating, misrepresenting, slandering, or attempting to embarrass someone in the name of truth stands as just as bad, if not worse, than whatever error it is we claim to be opposing.

Self-Examination

While we have an obligation to distinguish between what is and what is not faithful, it is crucial to guard against self-righteousness. Instead of feeling righteous by contrasting ourselves with some of the more unkind, unloving Christian examples, we must start by asking ourselves: Are we guilty of the worst error imaginable? Do we do everything in love? Do we place love for God and others above all else?

Think about it.

Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
Ephesians 5:1-2

Roe v. Wade and the Temptation To Do Good

On July 23, 2022July 24, 2022 By Tyler BoydIn Christian's Relationship to Government, Kingdom Life1 Comment

On June 24, 2022 the Supreme Court made the wonderful decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. When the news broke it was immediately recognized as a time for celebration for Christians, and for good reason. But along with the positivity, there’s been another side of the Christian response which has been troubling. That is, many Christians have pointed to this as evidence of the good that Christians can accomplish by pursuing political influence and power. It is argued that Roe v. Wade would have never been overturned without Christians using the political strategies and choices that were necessary to bring about this change.

Although I unapologetically celebrate the Supreme Court’s decision, I do not believe that Christians should look to earthly power as the primary, or even as one of the ways to bring about good in the world. Not only do I whole heartedly oppose abortion, I also believe that the kingdom of God must be kept distinct from the kingdom of the world; not only in what we say is wrong, but also in how we fight against what we recognize as wrong. As a believer in moral absolutes, I believe abortion is wrong and is destructive to society. I also think it is important for Christians to heed the warning of Psalm 146:3, to “put not your trust in princes.” As a Christian, I celebrate the Supreme Court for their decision which could potentially save millions of lives, and I call on Christians to faithfully follow the way of Jesus, who rejected earthly political influence in order to establish a kingdom which is not of this world.

Yes, I know I’m being redundant. But that’s because some Christians still just don’t get it. Let me make myself perfectly clear: I oppose abortion. Abortion is murder. Abortion is selfish. Abortion is immoral. Christians should actively fight against evil, and abortion is evil. But none of this should be viewed as justification for Christians to fight against evil in ways that blur the distinction between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world. This is precisely what most (if not all) activities and decisions made in the pursuit of earthly power cause Christians to do.

A Kingdom Not Of This World

My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.
John 18:36

When Jesus claimed “My kingdom is not of this world”, He pointed to the observable fact that his disciples were not fighting to substantiate that claim. Of course, you could say that in a sense Jesus’s entire ministry was a fight against evil. But even still, Jesus’s disciples were not fighting in the same way that other revolutionaries would fight.

When Jesus used the phrase “of this world” He was not speaking of the geographic location of His kingdom, but rather He was referring to the world’s way of doing things. For example, Jesus said He came to testify against “the world” because its deeds are evil (Jn. 7:7). Elsewhere, John would say, “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 John 2:15). The contrast between “of this world” and “not of this world” is referring to the world’s ways of doing things and a godly way of doing things.

If Jesus’s disciples had a reputation of fighting in the same way the world fights, Jesus’s claim would have been completely meaningless. Can you imagine Pilate’s response if this had been the case? “What do you mean your kingdom is not of this world? Then why is Peter standing out there handing out picket signs at the political rally? Why did Matthew just send a donation to a Roman senator? And why is Simon recruiting more zealots?” But as it was, Jesus’s disciples were not fighting, and so Jesus’s teaching stood with the weight of observable truth.

Yes, Jesus’s early followers, like us, also had an earthly citizenship. But despite the fact that they lived under subjection to the kingdoms of this world, their distinction from the world remained apparent. They were “in” the world but not “of” the world.

Scripture drives home this distinction when it teaches us to view ourselves as soldiers stationed in a foreign country, and thus refuse to let ourselves get entangled in “civilian pursuits” (2 Tim. 2:4). It teaches us to view ourselves as “strangers” and “exiles”, just like Abraham did (Heb. 11:8-10, 13-16; 1 Peter 2:11).

Note this carefully – preserving our “exile” status is at the very core of who we are. That’s why Scripture repeatedly stresses the fact that we are called to be a “holy” people (2 Cor. 6:17), indicating that we are to be “set apart” (Ps. 4:3). Like Israelites coming out of Egypt to be “set apart” for God, Christians are instructed to “come out” of Babylon (Rev. 18:4). We are to be holy in the same way that God is holy. Our holy and distinct relationship with the world should be every bit as holy and distinct as Jesus’s relationship with the world.

Our Mission

It’s important to understand that I’m not arguing that Christians should adapt an escapist position, where we simply isolate ourselves from societal problems such as abortion. When God called Israel to be a “holy nation”, the purpose was not to isolate them from other nations. Israel was to be a holy nation so that they would serve as a light to the other nations (Isa. 49:6; 55:4-5, etc). God’s plan was always to bless all nations through Abraham’s family (Gen. 12:1-3).

So too, Christians are called to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Mt. 5:13-16). But in order for us to be salt in the world, we must maintain our distinction from the world.

If salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet.

One way we maintain our holy distinction from the world is by refusing to pursue ruling authority over others. That’s the way the world tried to accomplish great things, but Jesus explicitly instructs us not to seek that kind of power.

You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But is shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Mark 10:42-45

God so loved the world that He sent his only begotten Son (John 3:16), and we are to imitate His love for the world by imitating his self-sacrificial behavior (Eph. 5:1-2). If we really love the world, and want to make a positive difference in the world, we would do well to love the world in the same way God did. The reason we are not to be “of” the world is so that we can be “for” the world.

We are not simply called to do “good”. We are called to be faithful. We are called to “imitate Christ”. We are called to be holy.

Jesus and the Temptation to Do Good

Paul says that we must be careful not to be outwitted by Satan’s designs (2 Cor. 2:11). With this in mind, we would be wise to reflect on how Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness, so that we do not fall into a similar trap.

The Devil tempted Jesus by offering him all the kingdoms of the world (Luke 4:5-8). The Devil essentially offered Jesus what he came to get (Mt. 28:18-20), but by way of an immediate shortcut that would bypass his sacrificial death on the cross.

Think about it. Without having to suffer and die, Jesus could have immediately taken all the kingdoms of the world into his possession. Can you imagine how much “good” Jesus could have done if he had accepted Satan’s offer? He could have quicky overturned every evil law in Roman society. Jesus could have immediately outlawed abortion throughout the world. The Devil’s temptation would not have been a temptation if there was not a lot of “good” wrapped up in it.

Yet Jesus refused. Why? Because Jesus did not come just to give us an improved and more “godly” version of the kingdoms of this world. Instead, Jesus came to bring a kingdom that is not of this world. In fulfillment of Psalm 2, Jesus came to replace “the kingdom of the world” with “the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ.” (Rev. 11:15-18). He didn’t just come to fix the kingdoms of this world. He came to put them out of business, thus turning all nations to him.

As tempting as the immediately good consequences may have been, Jesus refused to lose the radical distinction of his Kingdom in exchange for the Satan-ruled kingdom of this world. No matter how much good he could have done. He refused to rule like the Gentiles did. If we are dedicated to following Jesus’s example, we must resist the temptation to trade our holy mission regardless of how much “good” we might think we can accomplish by using other means.

Continue the Fight

Abortion is a great evil. Its existence testifies to the fact that Satan is, in a very real sense the “ruler of the world” (Jn. 14:30; 16:11), “the god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:1-4), and the “prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2:1-2). Abortion thrives only under Satan’s “domain of darkness” (Col. 1:3). That’s why it is so important that in our fight against abortion, we are careful not to be “conformed to this world” (Rom. 12:2).

So what do we do now? Christians should continue the fight against abortion as they have done in the past, yet without the pursuit of earthly power. Keep finding ways to serve the poor and the needy in your community. Keep inviting them into your homes. Keep supporting single mothers. Keep volunteering at pregnancy crisis centers. Keep adopting. Keep getting involved in foster care. Keep donating to children’s homes. Keep praying. The church has long led the charge in these type of actions, and that must continue. Yes, all of these things require a degree of personal sacrifice, but imitating the sacrificial savior is precisely what sets us apart from the world. Because of the gospel, sacrifice is how we believe we will win.

If we want to see Satan’s dominion weakened, we must remain faithful to God’s kingdom. Two thousand years ago, Jesus pointed to his disciples’ refusal to fight as proof that his kingdom was not of this world. When Jesus looks at our fight against abortion, does he see that our actions still bear witness to that truth?

On Recognizing Authority

On October 4, 2021 By Tyler BoydIn Kingdom Life

A teacher walks into a noisy classroom, and suddenly all the students rush back to their seats and become silent. A policeman knocks on the door to interrupt a college party, and suddenly the music is turned off and the drinks are shuffled out of sight. A military officer walks into the barracks, and suddenly all the soldiers scramble to stand in attention.

In all three of these scenes, it is clear who holds the authority. The children immediately recognized that the teacher had the ability to enforce rules. The college students immediately recognized the police officer’s uniform and badge, and knew he had the force of law to back him up. The soldiers knew better than to treat the military officer like a peer. When they saw authority, they recognized it, and they responded.

When Jesus finished teaching the sermon on the mount, Matthew tells us that the crowds were “astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes” (Mt. 7:28-29). Immediately following the sermon, Matthew gives us several real-life examples of Jesus’s authority. Jesus had the authority to heal diseases (8:1-17), command a storm into submission (8:23-27), cast out demons (8:28-34), forgive sins (9:1-7), and overturn tradition (9:8-17).

Jesus’ authority was real, and yet it was different from that of a police officer or military officer. Jesus didn’t demand to be recognized as an authority because of his uniform, his badge, or his official position. He had none of those things. But Jesus had something none of the official positions of authority did not have. Jesus had real power over disease and even over the forces of nature.

This contrast between these two different types of authority makes Jesus’ interaction with the centurion in Matthew 8:5-13 all the more interesting.

When he had entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly.” And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,” and he comes, and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith… And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go, let it be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment.

In this scene, who had the authority? Yes, there was a high ranking military officer present, but this time, the centurion was powerless. Despite having an official position of authority, the centurion was helpless to ease the suffering of his paralyzed servant. But the centurion recognized in Jesus a different and real kind of authority. The centurion addressed Jesus as “Lord”, and confesses that was not even worthy to invite Jesus into his house.

The centurion recognized that Jesus had the same kind of authority over diseases as the centurion had over soldiers who were under him. Just as the centurion merely had to issue a command, so he recognized that all Jesus had to do was speak the words, and his servant could be healed. Jesus responded by praising the centurion for his faith.

In this context, we can see what is meant by the word “faith.” The word “faith” is used in all kinds of different ways today. Sometimes it is used to describe someone who has a general religious attitude towards life. Sometimes the word “faith” is used as an opposite of evidence, or perhaps the opposite of works. None of these uses of the word “faith” fit what we see in this text about the centurion.

“Faith” in this text is something much more specific. Faith was the recognition of the reality of Jesus’ authority.

What would it mean if we recognized that Jesus’ authority was real today? How would that impact the way we respond to the latest headlines? How would it impact the way we respond to threats of disease? If we recognize just how real Jesus’ authority is, and just how powerless earthly authorities are, how would that change the way approach life? What would it mean if we didn’t simply say “Jesus is Lord”, but if we really let the reality of His lordship determine our thinking?

“Faith” in Christianity mean recognizing that Jesus’ authority is real – far more real than the authority of those who wear uniforms, carry badges, or hold official positions. If Jesus holds all authority, why would we ever pledge our allegiance to any other authority? Why would we ever look to earthly authorities to solve problems that only Jesus has the power to solve?

Who has the authority to save people from death?
Who has the authority to heal diseases?
Who has the authority to protect people from forces of nature?
Who has the authority to provide us with our daily bread?
Who has the authority to define right and wrong?
Who has the authority to demand our loyalty?

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.
Matthew 28:18-20

Christianity and Social Movements

On December 30, 2020December 30, 2020 By Tyler BoydIn Christian's Relationship to Government, Kingdom Life

In their sincere passion to fight against evil, many Christians try to promote and uphold whichever social and political movements they feel best represent their Christian values. Far too often, this results in Christians fighting against one another about which social movements best reflect Christian values, rather than actually uniting with one another to fight against Satan.

There are debates over racism, politicians, political parties, facemasks, vaccines, immigration, economics, the narrative presented by the mainstream media, education strategies, and on and on. Whenever these innumerable social debates occur, Christians can usually be found on opposing sides, with each side arguing that their side best reflects Christian values. Christians latch on to whichever side seems the most right, and they do their best to actively support the right side, with the goal of defeating the wrong side.

The Christian Response to Ungodliness in Culture

As people who live in a democracy, Christians are for the most part free to voice their opinions however they see fit. But, when Christians choose to actively support and participate in various political and social movements, it is crucially important that they realize that there is nothing distinctly Christian about their activism. Their opinions may be completely correct. They may even be founded on godly ethical principles taken straight from Scripture. The wrongs they seek to address may in fact be very real and harmful evils. But being correct and noble does not mean that a particular social movement is “Christian.”

Being a “Christian” means being “Christ-like”. Don’t misunderstand what I’m about to say. Jesus Christ most certainly fought against the ungodly aspects of his culture. Christ encouraged his disciples to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Mt. 5:12-16). The movement led by Christ was so successful in doing just that, they were accused of “turning the world upside down” (Acts 17:6). But Jesus never showed the slightest interest in joining in any of the various social movements of his day. Nor did his earliest disciples.

Jesus’s complete lack of interest in picking sides between the various social movements becomes even more significant when we remember that he lived in political volatile times that were filled with competing social movements. Not surprisingly, as Jesus gained popularity and influence, Jesus was continually challenged to voice his opinion on the various movements of his day to see which side he would choose. But Jesus continually refused.

The Taxation Debate

For example, on at least one occasion Jesus was asked about the divisive issue of whether or not the Jews should pay taxes to the oppressive Romans. Notice Jesus’s response:

Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Therefore, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.
Matthew 20:19-21

Some have mistakenly thought that Jesus was saying “Yes, be a good citizen. Pay your taxes, vote, do whatever your country asks of you.” But if we pay attention to Jesus’s response in its original context, it means nothing of the sort.

The coin bore the image of the emperor, which the Jews saw as a direct violation of God’s law (Ex. 20:4; Lev. 26:1). The coin bore an inscription claiming that Caesar was the High Priest and Lord. Scripture teaches that the God alone is the only true Lord, and everything rightly belongs to Him (Ps. 24:1; 50:10; Hag. 2:8) and man is created in His image (Gen. 1:26-27).

By holding up the coin and asking about the image and inscription, Jesus skillfully pointed out that the claims of God and the claims of Caesar are mutually exclusive. If one’s loyalty is to Caesar, Caesar is owed everything, beginning with the coin that bears his image. If one’s loyalty is to God, God is owed everything, beginning with man himself who is created in His image.

In this way, Jesus transformed the question pertaining to the political and social movements of his day into a question that pertained to the kingdom of God.

The Uniqueness of Christianity

This episode and others (e.g. Lk 12:13-16) make it clear that Jesus did not come to answer our political questions or offer a new and improved way of running the kingdoms of this world (Mt. 4:8-11). Rather, Jesus came to establish a radically different kind of kingdom, one that is “not of this world” (John 18:36). The only instructions Christians are given in connection with governing authorities are to respect and submit to them, pay taxes to them, and pray for them (Mk. 12:13-17; Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17). And even these instructions are given not out of concern for how the government should be run, but rather to facilitate the spreading of the gospel (1 Tim. 2:1-6).

The point of all this isn’t to argue that Christians can’t have opinions about the various social movements that divide our society. The point isn’t to say that Christians can’t vote, can’t peacefully protest, and can’t voice their opinions. But Christians must remember that when they engage the problems of the world using these methods, they are not being unique from the world.

Anybody can add their two-cents on social media about the problems in the world. Anybody can donate to a political campaign. Anybody can rally support for a particular cause they believe in. This approach is not a uniquely Christ-ian approach, because Christ himself did not take that kind of approach. Our unique call as disciples of Christ has nothing to do with gaining enough influence to run the kingdoms of the world, and has everything to do with our unique way of living under the authority of God’s reign.

Ultimately hope for the world does not reside in the success of failure of our particular political or social movements. It resides in the willingness of Jesus’s disciples to follow His example by keeping His kingdom set apart from the world (the Bible’s word for this is “holy”). We are to be unique from the world by not getting sucked into the innumerable social and political conflicts that characterize the world.

Our citizenship is in a kingdom that is not of this world. The heavenly kingdom is a unique one, where we believe the world is changed, not by gaining enough power and influence to defeat our enemies, but by trusting in God’s righteous judgment even when our enemies defeat us. In Jesus’s kingdom, we find greatness, not in ruling over others, but rather in serving them (Mt. 20:25-28).

Next time social division raises its ugly head and we are tempted to pick a side and join the fight, let’s pick the holy side. Let’s pick the unique side. Let’s pick the sides the wins the same way Jesus won; by self-sacrificial love. Let’s pick the Kingdom of God.

How The Early Church Approached Entertainment

On September 27, 2019 By Tyler BoydIn Church History, Kingdom Life

I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. – John 17.14-17

Christianity requires separation from the world. From the very beginning, Christians were urged to keep themselves “unstained by the world” (Jas. 1.27), to avoid “friendship with the world” (Jas. 4.4), not to be “conformed to this world” (Rom. 12.2). John urged Christians not to “love the world or the things in the world” (1 John 2.15-16).

Therefore when it comes to our entertainment choices, almost all Christians agree that to at least some extent, Christians should be different from the world.

Christians often disagree about where to “draw the line”. “How much bad language and content can be in a movie before it becomes inappropriate for a Christian?” “How ‘worldly’ does a party need to be before it before a Christians can no longer go?” These type of questions can sometimes be tricky. That is why it is worthwhile to consider thoughts from the early Christians.

By “early Christians” I am referring to Christians prior to the year 313 AD, the year the Emperor Constantine ended the persecution of Christianity. Going from a persecuted religion to a government-endorsed religion greatly lessened the degree to which Christians remained separate from the world.

Just like Christians from all generations, these early Christians were flawed. Sometimes they made mistakes. They were certainly capable of “drawing the line” in the wrong places. They wrote uninspired words, and we are free to disagree with them. But they were very sincere. Some of these early Christians personally knew the apostles, and they all personally knew the first generation of Christians. When it comes to questions of entertainment, we would be wise to at least consider the points they raise.

The Early Christians Were Not Opposed to Entertainment

The early Christians were not opposed to having fun and enjoying life. But they did have different values from the world around them, and thus they found different kinds of things to be entertaining.

For example, consider the words of Tertullian (160-220 AD), one of the most prolific and well respected early Christian writers:

We renounce all your spectacles, as strongly as we renounce the matters originating them, which we know were conceived of superstition, when we give up the very things which are the basis of their representations. Among us nothing is ever said, or seen, or heard, which has anything in common with the madness of the circus, the immodesty of the theater, the atrocities of the arena, the useless exercises of the wrestling-ground. Why do you take offense at us because we differ from you in regard to your pleasures? If we will not partake of your enjoyments, the loss is ours, if there be loss in the case, not yours. We reject what pleases you. You, on the other hand, have no taste for what is our delight. – Apology, chapter 38

For clarification, when Tertullian speaks of “circuses”, he isn’t referring to clowns and acrobats, but to chariot races. He objected to chariot races because of how dangerous they were and because of the madness of the crowds that attended such events.

According to Tertullian, Christians were not opposed to finding certain things delightful and entertaining. What made Christians different was their consideration of the content of the entertainment. Christians did not find violence, idolatry, or immorality delightful, therefore they refused entertainment based upon these vices. Christians are delighted by different kind of things – things which the world may or may not recognize as entertaining.

The Importance of Considering Content

Athenagoras (133-190 AD) pointed to the fact that it would be hypocritical to support the death penalty or abortion while refusing to even enjoy violent entertainment such as gladiator events.

Who does not reckon among the things of greatest interest the contests of the gladiators and wild beasts, especially those which are given by you? But we, deeming that to see a man put to death is much the same as killing him, have abjured such spectacles. How, then, when we do not even look on, lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can we put people to death? – A Plea for New Christians, Chapter 35

For modern Christians, it can often seem very easy to separate the things we watch from the things we actually support. Yet for at least some of the early Christians, they refused to make such a separation. For Athenagoras, to see be entertained by watching a man be put to death was the moral equivalent of actually killing him.

Similarly, Theophilus (died in 183 AD) believed that the things we watch and hear can cause defilement.

We are forbidden even to witness the shows of gladiators, so that we do not become partakers and abettors of murders. Nor may we see the other spectacles, lest our eyes and ears be defiled, participating in the utterances they sing there.

For if one should speak of cannibalism, in these spectacles the children of Theyestes and Terus are eaten. As for adultery – both in the case of men and gods… this is made the subject of their dramas.

But far be it from Christians to conceive any such deeds. For with them temperance dwells, self-restraint is practiced, monogamy is observed, chastity is guarded, iniquity exterminated, sin extirpated, righteousness exercised, law administered, worship performed, God acknowledged. Truth governs, grace guards, peace screens them. The holy word guides, wisdom teaches, life directs, God reigns. – To Autolycus, III:15

Theophilus believed the things we watch and hear can defile us. Since Christians are of a different character, they refused to be entertained by violent, immoral, idolatrous, or adulterous entertainment.

Avoiding Hypocrisy

Around the year 200 AD, Tertullian wrote a treatise titled “De Spectaculis”, also known as “The Shows”, in which he argued that entertainment can be an offense to God. One of Tertullian’s chief concerns was the hypocrisy of those who typically avoid worldly passions, while continuing to expose themselves to those very same worldly passions through their entertainment choices.

The father who carefully protects and guards his virgin daughter’s ears from every polluting word, takes her to the theater himself, exposing her to all its vile words and attitudes. – “The Shows”, Chapter 21

Evangelistic Concerns

Closely related to Tertullian’s concerns about hypocrisy are his concerns about how a Christian’s entertainment choices impacts the influence on others.

We should have no connection with the things which we abjure, whether in deed or word, whether by looking on them or looking forward to them; but do we not abjure and rescind that baptismal pledge, when we cease to bear its testimony? Does it then remain for us to apply to the heathen themselves. Let them tell us, then, whether it is right in Christians to frequent the show. Why, the rejection of these amusements is the chief sign to them that a man has adopted the Christian faith. If any one, then, puts away the faith’s distinctive badge, he is plainly guilty of denying it. What hope can you possibly retain in regard to a man who does that? When you go over to the enemy’s camp, you throw down your arms, desert the standards and the oath of allegiance to your chief: you cast in your lot for life or death with your new friends. – “The Shows”, Chapter 24

The early Christians didn’t purposefully seek to be odd or different, but when they refused entertainment with immoral content, people took notice. They saw their different choices, and they wondered “Hmm… I wonder if so-and-so is a Christian now.”

The opposite was also true. When Christians stopped rejecting certain types of entertainment they lost their badge of distinctiveness. According to Tertullian, this was the equivalent of forsaking their baptism and joining up with the enemy.

Entertainment’s Influence

Cyprian (200-258 AD) also believed that entertainment was extremely influential. Through entertainment, we are introduced to thoughts – thoughts of sinful things which have been done, or could possibly be done, and we learn from what we see.

In the theaters also you will behold what may well cause you grief and shame. It is the tragic buskin which relates in verse the crimes of ancient days. The old horrors of parricide and incest are unfolded in action calculated to express the image of the truth, so that, as the ages pass by, any crime that was formerly committed may not be forgotten. Each generation is reminded by what it hears, that whatever has once been done may be done again. Crimes never die out by the lapse of ages; wickedness is never abolished by process of time; impiety is never buried in oblivion. Things which have now ceased to be actual deeds of vice become examples. In the mimes, moreover, by teaching of infamies, the spectator is attracted either to reconsider what he may have done in secret, or to hear what he may do. Adultery is learned while it is seen; and while the mischief having public authority panders to vices, the matron, who perchance had gone to the spectacle a modest woman, returns from it immodest. – Cyprian’s Epistle 1.8

Entertainment Matters

It should be noted that during this time there was never any such thing as plays or dramas that didn’t contain things such as pagan mythology and idolatry, sexual immorality, or murder. There were no such things as chariot races or sporting events that did not glorify idolatry and violence. The primary concern of the early Christians was avoiding the immoral content of entertainment rather than avoiding entertainment for its own sake.

It should also be noted that the early church didn’t have any mandated rules when it came to entertainment. They didn’t put anybody out of the church if they “drew the line” in a different place and decided to attend a play or a sporting event. But they did continually emphasize the importance of avoiding immoral influences.

Were these early Christians right? Did they did they draw the lines in the right places? Maybe or maybe not. They were not inspired, and we are certainly free to disagree with them. But they also made some really good (and challenging) points that we should all consider. It is so easy to make moral compromises for the sake of entertainment. Yet there is no reason why Christians should not continue to strive to be different from the world, even when it comes to our entertainment.

Does God Expect Governments to Love Their Enemies?

On February 22, 2019January 8, 2020 By Tyler BoydIn Christian Non-Violence, Christian's Relationship to Government, Kingdom Life, Love for Enemies

Must governments love their enemies? Are militaries required “turn the other cheek”? Does “do not resist an evil person” apply to police forces? In light of all that the Bible teaches about how to treat enemies, should nations have militaries at all?

Was The New Testament Written to Reform Governments?

The New Testament was not written as a moral code to reform all the disorders and evils of the political powers. The New Testament was not written to fill the world with so-called “Christian nations.”

Matthew 4.17 identifies the theme of Jesus’ teaching as “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Jesus’ hearers knew what the word “kingdom” meant. They were familiar with the Egypitians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, and now the Romans. But the Kingdom preached by Jesus was to be distinguished from any of these earthly kingdoms. The kingdom preached by Jesus was the “kingdom of heaven.” That is, it was a kingdom from heaven. In other places it is described as the “kingdom of God.” In John 18.36, Jesus made the nature of his kingdom clear. “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this world.” Yes, Jesus came to establish His kingdom in the world, but his kingdom is not of this world.

There is an important distinction made between the kingdoms of this earth and the kingdoms of this world. Earthly kingdoms are under the authority of earthly rulers. The heavenly kingdom is under the authority of the heavenly Father. Earthly kingdoms fight. Those in Jesus’ kingdom do not fight.

The teachings found in the Sermon on the Mount (and throughout the whole New Testament) are the teachings of the kingdom of heaven, not the teachings of any earthly kingdom. Their purpose is not to reform the world by making earthly kingdoms moral, but rather to set apart the disciples of Jesus as “salt” and “light” to be distinguished from the rest of the world.

Paul understood that “loving your enemies” is an essential requirement for those who follow Jesus (Rom. 12.14-13.2). But Paul also understood that we cannot please God unless we have the Spirit of God (Rom. 8.5-16). We cannot love our enemies unless we first present our bodies as living sacrifices and are transformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom. 12.1-2).

Paul recognized that those who are outside of Christ are in darkness (Eph. 2.1-3). Therefore Paul appealed to Christians not to judge those who are outside the church, but rather to leave their judgment to God (1 Cor. 5.11-12).

The New Testament Is Silent on How Earthly Rulers Should Govern

God’s divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1.2-3), but the New Testament is silent when it comes to how earthly rulers are to govern others. Christians are commanded to submit to earthly rulers (Rom. 13.1-4, 2 Pet. 2.13-18), pray for earthly rulers (1 Tim. 2.1-2), and pay taxes to them (Mt. 22.15-22; Rom 13.7), but nowhere are we given instructions to seek to reform or rule over the nations of this world.

In fact, Jesus taught nearly the opposite.

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many. – Matthew 28.25-28

When Jesus was approached with political questions, he used these as opportunities to advance the Kingdom of God (Mt. 22.15-22; Lk. 12.13-15). The point of His teaching was never to rule over others with more godly principles than other men. The point of his teaching was to establish a separate kingdom, founded on entirely different principles.

Paul encouraged Christians not to yoke themselves with unbelievers (2 Cor. 6.14-18), not to fight with earthly weapons (2 Cor. 10.3-4), and not to fight against flesh and blood (Eph. 6.12). He encouraged Christians to remember that earthly rulers and authorities have been disarmed (Col. 2.15). Therefore, Christians should not feel compelled to rule over earthly authorities, but rather they should submit to them (Rom 13.1-4).

The mission of the early church was not to solve the problems of the world by making Rome great, but rather to proclaim the Kingdom of God as the place where those problems will be solved. When disciples of Jesus display the peaceful principles of God’s kingdom, they will draw men out of the kingdoms of darkness into the kingdom of light.

Should Governments Turn the Other Cheek?

Sure, it would be great if every nation on earth followed the golden rule. It would be great if every military on earth acted with love towards their enemies. If every nation on earth were to turn the other cheek, there would probably be a lot less evil and war.

Yet for Christians, this is asking the wrong question. Governments don’t spread the kingdom of God. No military, no violence, and no sword can ever spread the gospel of the Prince of Peace. Neither do governments stop the spread of the kingdom of God. The New Testament is not concerned with reforming the Roman Empire into a Christian nation.

The New Testament never commands Rome, America, or any other nation to have a military. Neither does the New Testament command nations to get rid of their militaries.

The Bible does continually teach that nations will be held accountable for the wicked things they do. But when Paul wrote to the church in Rome, where wicked Nero reigned on the throne, Paul did not charge the church with disarming Nero and his forces. Rather Paul encouraged the church to remember that God can use even those who bear the sword for wicked Nero to accomplish good. Therefore, rather than seeking to disarm Nero, Christians should submit to him, recognizing that God uses earthly governments for the necessary work of executing wrath on evildoers (Rom. 13.1-4).

Rather than resisting the desires of evil earthly rulers, the duty of the Christian is to refuse to take vengeance against their enemies (Rom. 12.14-21). When Christians love their enemies and convert them from their evil, they reform society by removing the necessary reason for the existence of earthly governments and their militaries.

Does This Imply a Double Standard?

Some will object that this implies a double standard. That is, some will argue that if something is a sin for one person, it must be a sin for all people. And if something is right for one person, it must be right for all people. Interestingly, this same objection is raised by two different groups, each raising the objection with very different intentions.

On one hand, sometimes pacifists will argue since it would be wrong for Christians to violently resist evil, it would be wrong for anyone to resist evil. Therefore, Christians should actively call their governments to account whenever their government fails to love their enemies.

On the other hand, others will argue that since governments “do not bear the sword in vain”, and since God must be consistent, Christians must not be sinning when they bear the sword against their enemies. This objection argues that since God allows the world to use violence for a necessary purpose of executing wrath on evildoers, God must also be pleased when Christians when they use violence for the same purpose.

In response to this objection it should be noted that God has always held His people to a higher standard. For example, in the Old Testament, God always held priests to higher standards of holiness than other Israelites. When God commanded the Israelites to go to war, the priests were not to be numbered among those who would fight (Num. 1.47-54). This doesn’t make God inconsistent. Rather, because we know that God does not change (Mal. 3.6), we should come to the New Testament, expecting that God would hold the church, His holy priesthood (1 Pet. 2.5) to a higher standard.

The entire Sermon on the Mount is founded upon the idea that Christians are to be salt and light. Paul’s commands about loving enemies in Romans 12 are founded upon the idea that Christians are not to be conformed to this world (Rom. 12.1-2). Yes, God may use those in the world to bear the sword, but it is not be problematic to think that God holds Christians to a higher standard. It should be expected!

Hope for the world doesn’t rely on reforming the governments and militaries of this world with Christian ethics. The command, “love your enemies”, is directly connected to the work and teaching of Jesus, who turned the other cheek when he was crucified by the Roman government.

If we were to succeed in infusing every earthly kingdom with godly principles, but we failed to spread the gospel of the kingdom of God, we will have failed. We cannot expect the world to conform to Jesus’s teachings without first being transformed by the work of Jesus. The answer to wars and violence does not lie in political reform of earthly kingdoms. The answer is found in following the Prince of Peace and inviting the world into His kingdom.

How the Early Church Approached Politics

On January 1, 2019 By Tyler BoydIn Christian's Relationship to Government, Church History, Kingdom Life

In the early church there was widespread agreement that it was inappropriate for Christians to seek political power. These early Christians believed that their separation from the state was an important part of following the example of Jesus. By “early church” I mean the church prior to the year 313, the year Emperor Constantine ended the persecution of Christianity. When Christianity transitioned from a persecuted religion to a government-endorsed religion, this led to a rapid change of perspective and practice on many issues.

Why Care What the Early Church Did?

The early Christians were fallible human beings. They wrote uninspired words. They were just as capable of error as men in any other generation. Although the early church’s practices and teachings did correspond to the New Testament in many ways, they made errors as well. We shouldn’t just agree with everything the early church said or did. The Bible is our authority, and where the early church departed from Scripture, we are always to go with Scripture.

These early Christian writers were not inspired, and they are not authoritative. But they were dedicated disciples of Jesus, and they were knowledgeable students of Scripture with very strong convictions (convictions they were often willing to die for). They also lived in a time and culture not far removed from the New Testament itself.

Their opinions aren’t authoritative, but we should still pay attention to what they had to say, and carefully consider their words. This is especially true in those areas where we find all of the early Christians speaking on a subject unified in agreement with one another.

Polycarp (69-155, Smyrna)

Perhaps the earliest post-New Testament indication of the church’s relationship to government from The Martyrdom of Polycarp (read chapters 9 and 10 here). Polycarp was personally taught by the Apostle John, and was an elder at the church in Smyrna. As he faced martyrdom, he was given a simple request,

Swear by the fortune of Caesar… Swear, and I will set thee at liberty!

Polycarp responded to this request in the following words:

Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: How then can I blaspheme by King and Savior?

According to John’s disciple, Polycarp, to swear an oath of allegiance to the fortune of Caesar was to blaspheme against King Jesus. Yet even while facing death, Polycarp went on to respond further:

To thee have I thought it right to offer and account [of my faith]; for we are taught to give all due honor (which entails no injury to ourselves) to the powers and authorities which are ordained of God.

Even though Polycarp refused to swear his allegiance to Caesar, he was committed to continually showing honor to governing powers and authorities.

Justin Martyr (100-165, Rome)

Justin Martyr wrote a defense of Christianity to the emperor , explaining that while Christians do not encourage open rebellion against the emperor, there are limitations to what services they can offer. (Read “First Apology” chapter 17 here)

And everywhere, we more readily than all men, endeavor to pay to those appointed by you the taxes both ordinary and extraordinary, as we have been taught by Him… Whence to God alone we render worship, but in other things we gladly serve you…

But if you pay no regard to our prayers and frank explanations, we shall suffer no loss, since we believe (or rather, indeed, are persuaded) that every man will suffer punishment in eternal fire according to the merit of his deed.

From Justin Martyr’s apology, we observe:

When Christians are unhappy with the unsound judgments of their rulers, they are not to rebel against them. Rather they are to continue to gladly serve them.
If Christians want to positively influence their rulers towards sound judgment, they may offer prayers and “frank explanations”
If these prayers and explanations are not sufficient to bring about positive change, they are to have confidence that God will hold their rulers accountable with the punishment of eternal fire.

Tertullian (160-220, Carthage)

Tertullian was one of the most prolific and well respected early Christian writers. In His treatise “On Idolatry” (Read chapter 18 here) Tertullian wrote:

He [Jesus] exercised no right of power even over His own followers, to whom He discharged menial ministry; if, in short, though conscious of His own kingdom, He shrank back from being made a king. He in the fullest manner gave His own an example for turning coldly from all the pride and garb, as well of dignity as of power. For if they were to be used, who would rather have used them than the Son of God? What kind and what number of fasces would escort Him? What kind of purple would bloom from His shoulders? What kind of gold would beam from His head, had He not judged the glory of the world to be alien both to Himself and to His disciples.

According to Tertullian:

If Jesus had wanted to hold earthly political office, He would have achieved the greatest honors any king has ever known.
Yet Jesus rejected the opportunity to become an earthly king.
In so doing, Jesus set an example that all Christians should follow.

Tertullian went on in the same chapter to describe political power as an enemy of God.

Therefore what He was unwilling to accept, He has rejected; what He rejected, He has condemned; what He condemned, He has counted as part of the devil’s pomp. For He would not have condemned things, except such as were not His; but things which are not God’s, can be no other’s but the devil’s. If you have forsworn the devil’s pomp, know that whatever you touch is idolatry. Let even this fact help to remind you that all the powers and dignities of this world are not only alien to, but enemies of God.

In another place, as Tertullian was writing a defense of Christianity, Tertullian observed that the testimony of Jesus was so convincing that even the Caesar’s themselves would have believed. The Caesars, however, were prevented from accepting Christianity because they understood that Christians cannot be Caesars. (Read Apology, chapter 21 here)

The Caesars too would have believed on Christ, if either the Caesars had not been necessary for the world, or if Christians could have been Caesars.

Origen (184-253, Alexandria)

The most complete discussion of Christianity and politics in the early church can be found in the discussion between Celsus and Origen”. Celsus was a pagan philosopher who wrote a serious attack against Christianity in his book “True Doctrine”. Although his book has not been preserved in its entirety, a good portion of it is preserved through Origen’s response, “Against Celsus”. Origen was one of the greatest scholars and most prolific writers in the early church.

Celsus’ Attack

One of Celsus’ primary attacks against Christianity was the way they separated themselves from the state. He viewed Christianity as a “new state of things” that was caused by “rebellion against the state” (3.5). Celsus believed that each nation’s form of government had been preserved for the public advantage. Therefore, “it would be an act of impiety to get rid of the institutions established from the beginning in various places” (5.25).

At the heart of Celsus’ concern was his understanding that when one becomes a Christian, they withdrew themselves from participating in political powers.

If everyone should do the same as you, nothing would prevent the emperor from being left alone and deserted, and the affairs of the earth would come into the hands of the most lawless and the wildest barbarians; and then there would no longer remain among men any of the glory of your religion or of the true wisdom. (8.68)

Celsus was certainly prejudiced against the Christians, but he was well informed of their way of life. And it is apparent that Celsus did not know of any Christians who had become involved politics, and viewed the rejection of political powers as a matter of principle among them.

Origien’s Response to Celsus

It is interesting to note that Origen did not respond to Celsus’ attack by saying “You are wrong. Look, here are lots of Christians who have sought to reform, strengthen, and support the Roman Empire.” Rather Origen accepted the accuracy of Celsus’ claim, and sought to justify Christians in their separation from the state. Origen pointed out that as a matter of principle, the talent of the church should be devoted to the service of building up the church, rather than to be involved in politics.

“Celsus also urges us to take office in the government of the county, if that is required for the maintenance of the laws and the support of religion. But we recognize that in each state the existence of another national organization, founded by the Word of God, and we exhort those who are mighty in word and of blameless life to rule over Churches… And it is not for the purpose of escaping public duties that Christians decline public offices, but that they may reserve themselves for a diviner and more necessary service in the Church of God – for the salvation of men. (8.75)

Origen encouraged Celsus to think through his accusation to its logical conclusion. What would really happen if everyone became a Christian, and thus withdrew themselves from the political powers?

For if, as Celsus says, “everyone should do the same” as I, it is evident that even the barbarians, having come to the word of God, will be most law abiding and civilized, and every religion will be destroyed except that of the Christians, which will prevail. (8.68)

According to Origen it was a “religious act” of Christians to turn people away from the customs of the Romans and to turn them to the better laws enacted by Jesus (5.32). Origin’s understanding of the Christian’s relationship with the state in the early church could be summed up in these words:

We are to despise integrating ourselves with kings or any other men. (8.65)

What Can We Take Away From These Early Christians?

From the preserved writings of early Christian authors, it appears that the early church believed that there were two kingdoms: the kingdom of Rome and the kingdom of God. Since Christians are committed to imitating the example of Jesus, it would be inappropriate for Christians to seek political power.

And the church grew. Without any Christians in positions of political power, the church increased. Without any “religious freedom” or “Christian principles” in government, the church triumphed.

These early Christians aren’t authoritative. Only the Bible is. Perhaps these Christians were wrong, but their convictions should cause us to think about, and perhaps question, why we believe it is so important for Christians to get involved in politics.

An early Christian named Speratus wrote:

The empire of this world I know not; but rather I serve God… Because I know my Lord, the King of kings and Emperor of all nations.

Speratus refused to give his allegiance to Rome. Speratus went on to defeat the Roman Empire. He was martyred in 180 for his faith. (Read “The Passion of Sciliitian Martyrs” here)

Can A Christian Seek Political Office?

On August 18, 2018August 19, 2018 By Tyler BoydIn Christian's Relationship to Government, Kingdom Life1 Comment

This question is important. It must be carefully considered in light of several scriptural principles before we can determine if we, in good conscience, can faithfully serve Christ while seeking political office. If, after examining everything the Bible has to say about a Christian’s relationship to the world and to its governments, a Christian can still in good conscience, seek political office without compromising their commitment to Christ, then yes, a Christian may seek political office.

To ask such a question does carry certain risks. There is little doubt in my mind that rulers with godly values are better than rulers with wicked values. Political power requires popular support. To even raise questions Christian involvement in politics increases the risk of having wicked rulers in power. This would almost certainly have negative consequences.

Yet even at the risk of hurting the church’s political influence, we must be willing to consider the question. I am convinced the risk we face from wicked earthly rulers is far less dangerous than the risk we face if political involvement causes us to lose both our body and soul in hell (Mt. 10.28). If our devotion to politics is so strong that we can’t even entertain questions raised by our faith, we don’t have a devotion to politics, we have a religious devotion to politics. Jesus is Lord, and we must be willing to examine every aspect of our lives in light of that fact: the church, our families, our careers, and even our approach towards politics.

Two Reasons Why The Question Is Important

I believe that one of the reasons that questions of Christian political involvement are often overlooked is because two important Biblical themes are likewise overlooked or ignored. When we consider that the political realm is under demonic control, and the kingdoms of this world are in conflict with the kingdom of God, it should cause us to view politics in a much darker light. This, in turn, brings questions of Christian political involvement to a higher level of importance than they are typically given.

The political realm is under demonic control

Biblically speaking, Satan is the “ruler of this world” (Jn. 12.31; 16.11). Paul describes Satan as the “god of this world” (2 Cor. 4.1-4) and the “prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2.1-2). Paul understood that the non-Christian world was part of Satan’s “domain of darkness” (Col. 1.13). Satan’s influence is especially powerful in the political realm. The kingdoms of this world have been handed over to him, and he has the ability to offer those kingdoms to individuals to tempt them away from worshiping God (Lk. 4.5-8).

Yes, Satan is an unlawful ruler, with limited and temporary power. Yes, the Bible teaches that God can ordain even wicked rulers as His ministers and therefore they do not bear the sword in vain. But Satan’s power and influence is real. Due to misunderstandings of passages such as Luke 20.25 and Romans 13.1-4, many Christians remain ignorant of Satan’s rule and influence over worldly governments. Those who are ignorant of his power are the most susceptible to his influence.

See also: “The “God” of the World”

The kingdoms of this world are in conflict with the kingdom of God

The kingdoms of this world were established by God as a result of the fall of man, and God’s kingdom was established for the purpose of confronting and ultimately destroying these kingdoms (Dan. 2.44; 1 Cor. 15.24-26). Throughout the Old Testament, God continually shows himself superior of the pagan rulers and authorities. The prophets continually showed God as more powerful than these political powers and promised to deliver His people from them. Jesus showed himself to be the fulfillment of the law and the prophets by announcing a “kingdom” to a world where Caesar thought of himself as the only “Lord” and “Savior.” In reflecting on the resurrection and reign of Jesus, Paul understood that the kingdoms of this world are among the enemies of the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15.24-26).

The Importance of Wrestling With What Scripture Teaches

While it is true that there is no explicit command which forbids Christians from seeking political office, we must not ignore all that Scripture does say that could impact the question. There is likewise no explicit command which forbids Christians from owning a Casino, but we all understand that such a career would be wrong because it would obviously violate so many Biblical principles. We must not look to the absence of an explicit command as permission to ignore or disagree with what the Bible does teach on the subject.

If seeking political office causes one to compromise our commitment to Christ and to His kingdom, then no, that Christian may not seek political office.

It may be wrong to seek or obtain political office if:

It tempts someone to love their enemies less (Mt. 5.38-48)
It tempts one to have their heart focused on earthly things instead of heavenly things (Mt. 6.19-21)
The office requires one to act as a judge over those outside the church (Mt. 7.1-5; 1 Cor. 5.12)
It causes a Christian to “lord over” others like the gentiles did (Mt. 20.25-28)
It causes one to fail to render to God what is rightfully His (Mt. 22.15-22)
The office requires one to do harm to enemies if necessary rather than doing good to them (Lk. 6.27)
It causes a Christian to lose their distinction from the world (Jn. 15.18-19)
It leads one to fight like the world fights(Jn. 18.36-37)
It requires one to take vengeance on evildoers, something that Christians are forbidden from doing (Rom 12.19)
The office requires one to resist other earthly rulers (Rom 12.29-13.4)
It tempts one to think forget that God can even use their wicked political opponents for good if He so chooses (Rom. 13.4)
It causes division between Christians (1 Cor. 1.10)
It causes one to be yoked together with unbelievers in a way that gives them influence over them (2 Cor. 6.14-18)
The office’s duties include the use of earthly weapons instead of spiritual ones (2 Cor. 10.3-4)
It tempts one to treat as enemies those who have flesh and blood (Eph. 6.12)
It causes one to feel like earthly authorities have more power and influence than they actually do (Col. 2.15)
It distracts one from their Christian fight (2 Tim. 2.3-4)
It causes one to lose their distinction as a stranger and exile (1 Pet. 2.11-12)
One is motivated to do so out of the intimidation of wicked rulers (1 Pet. 3.13-17)
It keeps one from separating from Babylonian-like powers (Rev. 18.4)

Satan’s influence over the political realm is real. Earthly kingdoms are among God’s enemies who are destined to be destroyed (1 Cor. 15.24-25). No Christian should ever offer any service to their government that would cause them to compromise their commitment to Christ (Acts 5.29).

Being “Christian” means “Christ-like”. Even though Jesus did oppose ungodliness in His culture, Jesus never showed the slightest interest in politics, and resisted the temptation of earthly political power when it was offered to Him (Lk. 4.5-8).

Can it be wrong for a Christian to seek political office? It absolutely can be.

The Importance of Respecting Biblical Silence

In spite of all these principles which must be considered, I find it significant that no Biblical author ever sets forth a rule that forbids Christians from seeking political office. While it is true that Jesus never sought to use political means, neither did Jesus establish a law against it. We also have the example of men such as Joseph and Daniel, each of which held positions of authority in pagan kingdoms. In the New Testament we read about a Christian named Erastus, who was a city treasurer (Rom. 16.23), as well as saints who were in Caesar’s household (Phil. 4.22). And while scripture is silent about whether Cornelius the centurion or the Philippian jailor continued in their posts after becoming a Christians (Acts 10.1-7; 16.25-40), the Bible doesn’t rule out that possibility.

There are several Christians (myself included), who after meditating on all that the New Testament has to say about a Christian’s relationship to the world and to its governments, will conclude that it is inappropriate for Christians to seek positions of political power. But no matter how much wisdom there may be in such a conclusion, we must remember that there is only one lawgiver, and we are not Him.

Is it possible to consistently love your enemies, if your political position requires that you order the dropping of bombs against them if necessary? Is it possible to enforce even the best intended of laws without becoming a judge of those outside the church? Is it possible to spend years of your life dedicated to politics and to avoid Satan’s influence upon you? I personally don’t see how it can be done. But (and this is very important), no matter how firm one may be in that conviction, we cannot, and we must not, make a rule where God Himself has not spoken.

If another Christian wrestles with all of those same New Testament scriptures, and concludes that they, like Erastus, can faithfully follow Christ and hold political office at the same time, there is nothing in the New Testament that plainly says that seeking a political office is itself a sin.

If we attempt to elevate our personal convictions to the level of scripture, it is not our personal convictions that we have elevated, but rather scripture that we have brought low. If Satan tempts us to turn personal convictions into a rule for others, we have in practice jumped up into the judgment seat of God and proclaimed ourselves to be equal with God.

Can a Christian Seek Political Office?

If, after wrestling with all that the Holy Spirit has to say, a Christian concludes that they can, in good conscience, faithfully follow Christ and execute the demands of the office, then yes, a Christian may seek political office. If we cannot consistently and faithfully follow Christ while seeking political office, it would be wrong to do so.

As Christians, we must remember that hope for our world doesn’t hang on which people get in power. It hangs on Christians using the power God has given us. And this isn’t a power that we release by getting more godly people into positions of political power. It’s a power we release by how we unite together, as God’s kingdom, and show the world God’s love in how we live, in how we share, and how we sacrificially serve the needs of others. And when we, as the church, address the needs of the world, the glory goes to God and not some version of government.