Tag: kingdom of God

The Case for Patriotism as a Mutually Exclusive Allegiance

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

This article grows out of my previous articles, “The Case Against Christians Saying the Pledge of Allegiance” and “Why Christians Keep Talking Past Each Other About Politics.” In the latter, I argued that Scripture recognizes two different categories of allegiance.

The first category is the kind of allegiances that can be properly ordered beneath our ultimate allegiance to Christ. A Christian can be loyal to his wife, faithful to his employer, honor his parents, and love his neighbors without compromising his devotion to Christ. As long as these allegiances are properly ordered, they can even be expressions of our loyalty to Christ.

The second category is the kind of allegiance that are inherently rivalrous. Idolatry is not avoided by simply putting God as the highest-ranking among various gods whom we serve. Adultery is not made acceptable by simply loving another woman a little less than your wife. James describes friendship with the world in this second category when he labels it as adultery (James 4:4). Some allegiances cannot be properly ordered, but must be avoided entirely.

The question, then, is where patriotic allegiance belongs. Is allegiance to an earthly kingdom something that can be properly ordered beneath our allegiance to Christ, or is it inherently rivalrous, and thus to be avoided altogether?

In my previous article, I examined the case for the former. Here I want to make the case for the latter. I believe allegiance to an earthly kingdom is fundamentally incompatible with allegiance to Christ. Here’s why:

1 .Because of the Origin, Nature, and Destiny of Earthly Kingdoms

When Paul wrote Romans 13, the Roman Empire was not the first earthly kingdom God’s people had ever encountered, nor would it be the last. Before Rome there had been Greece, Persia, Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, and the various nations of Canaan. Each of these kingdoms had exercised power over God’s people at various points in history. And each eventually fell. Rome was powerful, but Rome was simply one kingdom in an unbroken chain of successive earthly powers.

The origin of each of these earthly kingdoms reaches all the way back to Genesis 10-11 and the events surrounding Babel. It was there that mankind was divided and scattered into the nations of the earth. These first nations were formed in the context of, and as the result of, rebellion against God.

But alongside the story of these earthly kingdoms, Scripture also tells the story of God’s kingdom. From the shadow of Babel, God called Abraham. From his family he established the nation of Israel as His own possession. Israel was not just one nation among many. They were God’s holy nation, and as such, they were set apart from the ways of the nations that surrounded them.

Throughout the Old Testament, the pagan nations of Egypt, Canaan, Assyria, Babylon, and others are continually found to be in conflict with Israel. But the prophets offered hope of a coming kingdom which would triumph over all the other kingdoms of the world. It would be through this coming kingdom that God’s blessings would ultimately be extended even to the Gentiles.

Daniel 2 provides one of the clearest pictures of this expectation. The kingdoms that held, and would soon hold dominion over the world are represented by a great statue. This statue is then crushed in pieces and destroyed by a stone “cut out by no human hand” (Daniel 2:34). Daniel then explains this dream by stating, “The God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed” (Daniel 2:44). Notice that the coming Kingdom would not merely stand alongside the statue, or even form the new head for the statue. The coming kingdom would ultimately break in pieces and destroy the other kingdoms.

The contrast becomes even clearer in Daniel 7. The kingdoms of the world are portrayed as beasts, but in contrast to these beasts comes “one like a son of man” who receives an everlasting kingdom that would rule over “all peoples, nations, and languages” (Daniel 7:13-14). The dominion of the beasts is ultimately taken away and destroyed, while the kingdom of the son of man would hold dominion forever (Daniel 7:26-27).

The conflict between these kingdoms and God’s people continues to be apparent throughout the whole New Testament. From Jesus’ birth to the cross, to the persecutions in Acts, to the “beasts” and “Babylon” of the book of Revelation, these earthly kingdoms consistently present themselves as enemies of Christ and kingdom. But just as we see in Daniel, the New Testament likewise speaks of their future destruction at Christ’s return (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:24; Revelation 11:15).

The bottom line is this: from Genesis through Revelation, earthly kingdoms are continually portrayed as entities that are inherently rivalrous with Christ’s reign. They were born in rebellion against, exist in conflict with, and are destined for destruction at the hands of God’s Kingdom. This understanding is foundational for understanding what the Bible says about how God’s people relate to earthly kingdoms.

2. Because Israel Was Forbidden From Yoking Itself to Earthly Kingdoms

How, then, were the citizens of God’s holy nation, Israel, commanded to relate to the pagan nations that surrounded them? They were forbidden to form alliances with those nations and their gods.

God told Israel in Exodus 23:32, “You shall make no covenant with them and their gods.” The same warning appears repeatedly throughout the Old Testament (Exodus 34:12-16; Deuteronomy 7:1-6; Joshua 23:12-13). Their covenant relationship with the LORD prohibited them from allying themselves with rival kingdoms and their gods.

Israel was warned repeatedly against trusting foreign nations for security and deliverance. When Israel looked to Egypt for military protection, Isaiah condemned them:

Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help
and rely on horses,
who trust in chariots because they are many
and in horsemen because they are very strong,
but do not look to the Holy One of Israel or consult the LORD!

Isaiah 31:1

The problem was not simply that Israel was trusting Egypt too much and God too little. By the very act of seeking security from Egypt, they were failing to trust the LORD.

The prophets even described Israel’s alliances with pagan nations as adultery, portraying Israel as an unfaithful wife chasing after other men (cf. Ezekiel 16 & 23). This helps explain James 4:4: “You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?” When James warns the church of adultery, he is drawing upon this Old Testament picture of God’s people pursuing alliances with pagan powers.

Israel belonged to God, yet they lived among other kingdoms that did not. The kingdoms of the world were of a different nature, and Israel was forbidden to yoke itself to them.

3. Because Jesus Established a Kingdom

This brings us to the ministry of Jesus. The central message of Jesus’ forerunner, John the Baptist, was summarized as: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 3:2). Likewise, Jesus proclaimed, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15).

Jesus did not come to teach people how to create new and improved versions of the kingdoms that already existed. He was given numerous opportunities to seize earthly political power, but he refused this option each and every time (Luke 4:5-8; John 6:14-15). And He commanded his disciples to do the same (Luke 22:25-26). Instead of working with and through the powers these kingdoms offered, He came announcing the arrival of an entirely new kingdom, the kingdom of God.

And this kingdom had a King. One of Jesus’ favorite ways of referring to Himself was “the Son of Man,” drawing directly from Daniel 7, where the Son of Man receives an everlasting kingdom over “all peoples, nations, and languages.” That’s why He announced at His ascension, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matthew 28:18).

This is also why “Jesus is Lord” became the central confession of the early church. This was more than simply a statement about Jesus’ divinity. It was a declaration of His reign. Christians were proclaiming that Jesus, not Caesar, was Lord.

This helps explain the accusation made against the Christians in Thessalonica:

They are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king, Jesus.

Acts 17:7

The charge was accurate. Christians were proclaiming another King. And if we have given our allegiance to Jesus as King, we cannot simultaneously give our allegiance to rival kings.

4. Because of the Spiritual Dimension Behind Earthly Kingdoms

Scripture also presents earthly political powers as part of a larger spiritual conflict. Deuteronomy, Daniel, and many of the Psalms associate earthly kingdoms with spiritual powers that stand behind them (cf. Deuteronomy 32:8; Daniel 10; Psalm 82). Paul says that Christians should wrestle against these “rulers,” “authorities,” and “cosmic powers” (Ephesians 6:12). The book of Revelation even says that these earthly kingdoms receive their authority from the “dragon” (Revelation 13:2). These passages reinforce the biblical picture of earthly kingdoms existing within a world in rebellion against God. Recognizing the reality of these rebellious principalities and powers explains why it is appropriate to compare allegiance to these kingdoms to the sin of idolatry.

5. Because of the Early Christian Martyrs

The early Christians understood the importance of refusing allegiance to these earthly kingdoms. As I documented previously, Christians in the early centuries refused to swear allegiance to Caesar, even when doing so cost them their lives. Polycarp’s response perhaps says it best: “How then can I blaspheme my King who saved me?” Polycarp understood that swearing allegiance to Caesar was incompatible with his loyalty to Christ. He could not give Caesar even a lesser allegiance, for he served Christ as King. Because he already belonged to that King, he could not give allegiance to another.

What About Romans 13?

Of course, many will continue to point to Romans 13, 1 Peter 2, 1 Timothy 2, as well as Jesus’ command to “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” And they are right to do so. These are important passages that teach Christians to submit to governing authorities. We are commanded to pay taxes, honor rulers, pray for them, and obey the law, provided that obedience to those authorities does not conflict with our obedience to Christ.

But none of these passages teach allegiance to earthly rulers. Submission is not the same thing as allegiance. Submission is something we do because of our allegiance, but in each of these passages, the allegiance in view is allegiance to God. We submit to earthly rulers, not because we have pledged loyalty to them, but because we have pledged loyalty to God.

Just as Romans 13 teaches, we trust that God is properly ordering earthly kingdoms and using them as His ministers to accomplish His purposes. Paul says that God uses governing authorities to execute wrath on wrongdoers, building on how God used kingdoms such as Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon to accomplish His purposes in the Old Testament.

But God’s ability to use these kingdoms for good is not contingent on those kingdoms willingly and knowingly giving him their submissive obedience (cf. Isaiah 10:5-15; Habakkuk 1:9-11). None of these passages teach that God expects his people to become part of these kingdoms. We can submit to government without belonging to it. We can, and must, submit to these kingdoms, but we cannot pledge our allegiance to them.

We have pledged our allegiance to another king. Jesus is Lord. We should honor earthly rulers, obey their laws, and pray for those in authority. But we must never confuse submission with allegiance to rulers and kingdoms that are inherently rivalrous with Christ and His kingdom. Because we have pledged our allegiance to Christ, and because we recognize these earthly powers as rivals to Christ and His kingdom, we cannot give our allegiance to these rival kingdoms.

Man standing at a fork in the road with signs pointing to Jesus the way of mercy and Roma the power of empire

Why Christians Keep Talking Past Each Other About Patriotism

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

When I published my recent article, “The Case Against Christians Saying the Pledge of Allegiance,” I expected some pushback. Whenever this subject comes up, the same pattern emerges. One person says, “Jesus is Lord. Our allegiance should be to Him. Our citizenship is in heaven. Do not trust in princes.” Then come the replies:

“You can love your country and love Jesus too.”

“Our ultimate allegiance belongs to God, but that allegiance must be expressed through earthly relationships. Patriotism is an extension of love for neighbors, and as such it is an expression of our loyalty to God.”

“There’s nothing wrong with loving your country, as long as God comes first.”

Both sides affirm that Jesus should be the object of our highest devotion, yet neither convinces the other when it comes to the implications on what this devotion should mean for a Christian’s relationship to their earthly nation.

So how do we move past this stalemate? I don’t think the problem is that either side is being unreasonably stubborn. I think the deeper issue is that we’re operating within two completely different categories of allegiance. Until we recognize and name those two categories, we’ll continue talking past each other.

Scripture Recognizes Properly Ordered Allegiances

The Bible is not opposed to any and every earthly loyalty that may exist outside of our allegiance to God. In fact, there are many relationships where such loyalty is not only permitted, but is commanded.

These other loyalties can be viewed as proper and good, just as long as they are properly ordered beneath our ultimate devotion to God. These loyalties should never challenge our allegiance to Christ. Instead, they become expressions of it. If, however, any of these loyalties do become exalted in our lives to the point that they conflict with our allegiance to Christ, they should be set aside. The loyalties are good, so long as our ultimate allegiance is to Christ.

Marriage provides perhaps the clearest example. Husbands are expected to love their wives the way Christ loves the church (Ephesians 5:25), and wives owe that same covenant faithfulness to their husbands. Yet Jesus also teaches that our devotion to Him must surpass even our devotion to our own families. He speaks hyperbolically of “hating” father, mother, wife, children, and even one’s own life by comparison to the love we have for Him (Luke 14:26), before concluding that anyone who is unwilling to renounce all he has cannot be His disciple (14:33).

But does this mean that loyalty to one’s spouse is wrong? Of course not! A husband’s devotion to his wife is itself an act of obedience to God. Only when loyalty to one’s spouse would require disobedience to Christ does conflict arise. Marital faithfulness is good precisely because it remains a properly ordered expression of our ultimate allegiance to God.

The same can be said of numerous other earthly relationships. Children honor their parents because God commands it (Exodus 20:12). Bondservants were expected to be loyal to their masters (Ephesians 6:5-8). Christians should be loyal friends. They should be loyal to their local congregation. In each of these examples, earthly loyalties are not abolished by allegiance to Christ. In fact, it can be said that many earthly loyalties should actually grow stronger because of it.

Many Christians place patriotism in this same category. They believe that loyalty to one’s country functions much like loyalty to family, church, or employer. I’ve even seen the comparison drawn between patriotism and one’s loyalty to their favorite sports team. The point is, Christians can have legitimate secondary allegiances, just as long as they never replace or weaken one’s devotion to Christ.

Whether or not patriotism properly fits in this first category is a discussion for another article. For now, I simply want to stress that Scripture clearly teaches that some loyalties can coexist peacefully beneath our supreme allegiance to God.

But not every relationship, and not every loyalty fits in this first category.

Scripture Also Describes Mutually Exclusive Allegiances

Consider the first of the ten commandments:

You shall have no other gods before me.

Exodus 20:3

I’ve often heard idolatry defined as “putting something ahead of God.” That definition is actually too weak. God wasn’t saying, “If you worship Baal, just make sure I remain your favorite.” The next verses make it clear what God had in mind:

You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God.

Exodus 20:4-5

The LORD wasn’t asking Israel to rank Him above other gods. He demanded that they abandon the others altogether.

This same emphasis is repeated throughout the Old Testament. Joshua didn’t urge Israel to love the LORD a little more than the gods of the Amorites. He told them, “Choose this day whom you will serve” (Joshua 24:15). Likewise, Elijah challenged Israel on Mount Carmel, “If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him” (1 Kings 18:21). Neither prophet suggested that Israel could simply rank the LORD above other gods. They both demanded exclusive allegiance.  

These same kinds of mutually exclusive relationships come into focus in the New Testament as well. Jesus described God and Mammon as two mutually exclusive masters.

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

Matthew 6:24-25

Paul does the same when he contrasts righteousness with lawlessness, light with darkness, Christ with Belial, and God’s temple with idols:

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God.

2 Corinthians 6:14-16

None of these relationships are “properly ordered.” They are fundamentally incompatible.

Some of the strongest language used to describe mutually exclusive relationships comes from the book of James:

You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Or do you suppose it is of no purpose that Scripture says, “He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us?

James 4:4-5

James doesn’t write, “Make sure your love for the world doesn’t surpass your love for God.” Instead, he compares friendship with the world to adultery.

Think for a moment about that comparison. Suppose for a moment a husband came home one night and told his wife, “I have a new girlfriend, but don’t worry. You’re still my highest priority. My relationship with this other woman is properly ordered under my ultimate commitment to you. If the two ever come into conflict, I’ll choose you.”

No faithful wife would accept that explanation. Clearly, some relationships are intended to be absolutely mutually exclusive. The problem isn’t that the marriage came second. The problem is that a rival relationship exists at all.

And that’s precisely the image that James chooses to describe how Christians should relate to the world. Yes, some relationships can be properly ordered under our ultimate allegiance to Christ. But others cannot. Some relationships must be abandoned altogether.

How Do We Know Which Category a Relationship Belongs In?

How then do we determine which relationships belong in each category?

We must start with Scripture. Does God authorize or command the relationship as an expression of obedience to Him? Or does Scripture portray the relationship as a rival that competes for the devotion that belongs to God alone?

Once again, we find the marriage illustration to be helpful. A husband and a wife may share countless other loyalties. They can be loyal to their children, employers, friends, hobbies, etc. Some of those other loyalties may even serve to strengthen the marriage!

But another romantic relationship is different. It cannot be placed lower on the priority list. Why? Because the other lover presents a rival claim. The other lover will never be content to remain in second place. The rival relationship will continue to demand more and more affection, until the marriage is destroyed.

Not every relationship belongs in the same category. We must exercise wisdom. If a relationship in any way whatsoever presents itself as a rival to what rightfully belongs to God, it cannot be “properly ordered.” It must be set aside completely.

This Is Where Discussions of Christianity and Patriotism Get Stuck

This is, I believe, why discussions about Christianity and patriotism often reach an impasse. Those who defend patriotic expressions place them in the first category. To them, love of country resembles love of family or love of neighbors. They see it as a legitimate secondary loyalty, provided Christ remains first.

Meanwhile, those who object to pledging allegiance to earthly kingdoms place patriotism in the second category. They see earthly kingdoms as rivals to the Kingdom established by Christ. They see Caesar’s claim to the title of “Lord” as mutually exclusive with Jesus’s claim to the same title. If that understanding is correct, then patriotism absolutely cannot be viewed as a properly ordered secondary allegiance.

Notice where the real disagreement lies. It is not whether Jesus is Lord. It is not whether Christians should seek first the Kingdom of God. It is not whether Christ deserves our highest allegiance. Virtually all Christians agree on these points.

The real question is “Which category do earthly kingdoms belong in?” Should they resemble our relationship to family, employers, or love for neighbor? Or should they be viewed as rival allegiances that compete with our devotion owed to our King?

That is the question I want to explore next.

The Case Against Christians Saying the Pledge of Allegiance

On By Tyler BoydIn Uncategorized

Several years ago, I stopped saying the Pledge of Allegiance. I haven’t always objected to saying the Pledge. For years, I never questioned it. The Pledge was never preached against or discussed in Bible classes. Most Christians I knew joined in without hesitation. I was right there with them.

I never viewed the Pledge as a declaration of ultimate allegiance to government institutions. I knew governments often did ungodly things. Instead, I thought of myself as pledging allegiance to the good things the flag was supposed to represent: “liberty and justice for all” and “one nation under God.” As long as America stood for godly values, I could support her, while maintaining my ultimate allegiance to God alone.

Refusing to say the Pledge even felt disrespectful. Scripture commands Christians to honor governing authorities. As Paul writes:

Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Romans 13:7

Even now, though I no longer recite the Pledge, I still believe we must remain respectful. I am not suggesting that Christians should become anti-American activists or stage disruptive protests at sporting events. You can respectfully stand, remove your hat, and yet remain silent without placing your hand over your heart.

If you currently say the Pledge, I think I understand your perspective. But I do want to encourage you to think about what you’re saying. The more I did, the more convinced I became that the Pledge of Allegiance is fundamentally out of step with the gospel.

A Pledge is a Big Deal

Consider those first two words: “I pledge.”

A pledge is a promise, an oath, and a commitment of loyalty. That should immediately capture a Christian’s attention, especially in light of Jesus’ words during the Sermon on the Mount:

Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn. But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all… Let what you say simply be ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.

Matthew 5:33-37

While Christians have long debated whether Jesus was forbidding every formal oath or simply emphasizing the importance of absolute truthfulness, it is clear that promises and vows are serious spiritual matters. We should never make oaths casually, simply because tradition expects it or because everyone else is reciting them. If we’re going to pledge something, we ought to first pause and examine whether the oath is one we can truly keep.

What Does Biblical Faith Actually Mean?

Consider the biblical concept of faith. The Greek word translated as “faith” is pistis.

In modern culture, faith is often reduced to mere intellectual agreement. The confession, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” is frequently treated as simply giving mental assent to the truth of that statement. Sometimes, faith is even treated as the blind opposite of evidence.

That is not how the Bible uses the term. James reminds us that “even the demons believe – and shudder!” (James 2:19). Throughout Scripture, true faith is inseparable from faithfulness, loyalty, or even, allegiance.

We see this clearly in Hebrews 11:

  • By faith, Noah built an ark.
  • By faith, Abraham left his homeland.
  • By faith, Moses rejected Pharaoh’s court.
  • By faith, Israel marched around Jericho.

Faith is never presented as mere belief. It is demonstrated through loyalty, and loyalty includes acts of loyalty. Paul frames the entire book of Romans around “the obedience of faith” (Romans 1:5; 16:26). This phrase has proved quite tricky for those who think of faith as the opposite of works, but it makes perfect sense when we understand pistis as loyalty or allegiance.

This definition matches how the word was used at that time. For instance, in the historical book of 1 Maccabees, King Demetrius praises the Jewish people for maintaining their pistis:

Since you have kept your agreement with us and have continued your friendship with us, and have not sided with our enemies, we have heard of it and rejoiced. And now continue still to keep faith with us, and we will repay you with good for what you do for us.

1 Maccabees 10:25-27

King Demetrius was not thanking the Jews for believing he existed. He was thanking them for remaining politically loyal. In the ancient world, pistis meant allegiance.

The Gospel Calls for Allegiance to a King

Paul opens Romans by summarizing the gospel as a message “concerning [God’s] Son, who was descended from David” (Romans 1:3). This detail matters. David was Israel’s king and Jesus is presented as the One who has inherited his promised throne.

Therefore, Paul’s mission was to bring about “the obedience of faith among all the nations” (Romans 1:5). If faith means allegiance, then the gospel is a summons to people of all nations to give their loyalty to King Jesus.

The central Christian confession is that “Jesus is Lord” (Romans 10:9). In the Roman world, “Lord” (Kyrios) was not merely a theological title. It was primarily a political term. To publicly confess Jesus as Lord was to implicitly declare that Caesar was not. That is why the early Christians were routinely accused of political treason:

They dragged Jason and some of the brothers before the city authorities, shouting, “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also… and they are acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king, Jesus.”

Acts 17:6-7

The early Christians were not revolutionaries, but they boldly announced that Jesus held all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). When this message was proclaimed throughout all nations, it was understood as a transfer of allegiance away from the competing authorities of those nations, to a life of loyalty to the commands of Jesus.

In fact, one of the reasons why baptism was so important is because it served as a pledge of allegiance. Peter describes baptism as:

…not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal [or pledge, NIV] to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 3:21

The word translated as “appeal” or “pledge” (eperotema) was used to refer to one’s formal answer, agreement, or vow to the terms of a legal contract. Baptism is a binding pledge of total loyalty made to God. If you are a Christian, you have already pledged your allegiance to a King.

Can Christians Have Dual Allegiance?

This brings us to the core issue: Can a Christian pledge allegiance to Christ and simultaneously pledge allegiance to the flag of an earthly kingdom?

Scripture has much to say about how Christians should relate to the governments. We are to submit to them (Romans 13:1-7), obey their laws (Titus 3:1), and pray for them (1 Timothy 2:1-2). Jeremiah even encouraged the Jewish exiles to “seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile” (Jeremiah 29:7). Christians are to be good and peaceful citizens.

However, Jesus also taught that no one can serve two masters (Matthew 6:24). He demanded loyalty greater than even our loyalty to our family (Luke 14:26). When the apostles were ordered to stop preaching Christ, they replied, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). When forced to choose, their loyalty was undivided.

Revelation’s Warning About Political Powers

The book of Revelation drives this point home with vivid imagery. John depicts the monstrous powers of political entities as “beasts” who were demanding absolute devotion. This image is drawn directly from Daniel 7.

John warned that those who “followed the beast” were, in reality, worshiping the dragon who empowered it with authority (Revelation 13:3-4). The beast promised safety, economic prosperity, and national peace. Yet, John does not advise Christians to pledge their allegiance to the good things these kingdoms stand for. Instead, he offers a sharp warning:

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

Revelation 18:4

According to the book of Revelation, you cannot give your loyalty both to the Lamb and the Beast. One loyalty wholly excludes the other.

The Witness of the Early Martyrs

The final piece that reinforced this conviction for me came from reading about the early Christian martyrs. For the first three centuries, one of the primary reasons Christians were persecuted is because they refused to swear oaths of loyalty to Caesar.

When Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John, was arrested, Roman officials offered him freedom if he would simply “swear by the fortune of Caesar.” Polycarp refused. Instead he answered:

“Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Savior?”

The Martyrdom of Polycarp 9

For Polycarp, pledging loyalty to Caesar was equivalent to blaspheming Christ. You can read the entire account here.

Similarly, during the trial of the Scillitan Martyrs in AD 180, a Christian named Speratus was pressured to swear allegiance to the emperor. He answered:

I do not acknowledge the authority of this world, but rather I serve that God whom no one has seen or can see with these eyes. I have never been guilty of theft, but whenever I buy, I pay the tax, because I acknowledge my Lord, the King of Kings, and ruler of all peoples.

The Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs

Speratus recognized Caesar’s legal authority, but he was executed because he refused to vow his allegiance to him. An additional Scillitan martyr named Donata likewise refused to pledge to Caesar with the following words:

Honor to Caesar in his capacity as Caesar, but fear to God.

You can read the entire first hand account of these martrys here.

Is reciting the Pledge of Allegiance a perfect parallel to what these Christians were being asked to do? Probably not. Romans often demanded sacrifices to pagan gods along with those pledges. Nobody is asking Americans to worship false gods along with the Pledge.

Even so, when you read about these early Christian martyrs, their objections focused not on Rome’s worship of other gods, but in the vow of allegiance to any king other than King Jesus. The ancient Christians viewed themselves as citizens of a heavenly kingdom. They honored earthly rulers, but because of their devotion to Jesus, they absolutely refused to swear vows of allegiance to them, even at the expense of their lives.

A Different Kingdom

Christians should respect their leaders, pray for them, and obey them whenever doing so does not require disobedience to God. But pledging allegiance is something different. It is a declaration of loyalty. As Christians, we have already made that declaration. Jesus is our King. The church’s mission is not to point people to America as the source of liberty and justice, but to point them to Jesus Christ as the true Savior of the world.

For that reason, I can no longer say the Pledge of Allegiance. If you are a Christian, I invite you to consider doing the same.

The Holy Land, Part 5: The Holy Land is Greater Than You May Think

On By Tyler BoydIn Holy land

In case you missed them, here’s the links to parts 1-4:
The Holy Land, Part 1: What Does it Really Mean to be Holy?
The Holy Land, Part 2: Who or What is Israel?
The Holy Land, Part 3: The Spiritual Significance of the Land
The Holy Land, Part 4: Did Israel Get Replaced?

One of the challenges in discussing the land promise is that the New Testament doesn’t address it as directly or explicitly as the Old Testament does. There’s no single, comprehensive statement that spells out exactly what became – or what will become – of God’s promise to give Abraham’s descendants a land. Because of this, some assume that the land promise no longer matters for Christians today – that it was once important for Old Testament Israel, but that it was quietly set aside once Israel was expanded to include all the faithful from every nation through Christ.

But that assumption may say more about our expectations than it does about the text of the New Testament itself.

The New Testament doesn’t ignore the concept of holy land. It does, however, reframe it.

It is important to remember that what made the land “holy” was not its geography or borders – it was the presence of God. In the Old Testament, Canaan was indeed set apart as God’s land because it was the place of His dominion and presence. It was holy, not because it belonged to Israel, but because it belonged to God.

So if we want to understand what happens to it in the New Testament, we should begin by asking: Where is God’s presence now? Where does He dwell? Where is His dominion exercised?  

While the New Testament doesn’t rehash the land promise in the same terms as the Old, it is far from silent about God’s kingdom, His dwelling place, or the scope of His reign. And when we follow those threads, a powerful truth emerges – one that shows us why the idea of “holy land” still matters today, but not in the same way many modern-day evangelicals assume. It matters, but in a transformed and expanded way.

Jesus Redefines Sacred Space

In John 4:19-20, a Samaritan woman asked Jesus a direct question about the geographical location where God should be worshiped.

 Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship.

She was referring to Mount Gerizim, the center of Samaritan worship, while acknowledging the Jewish claim that worship should take place in God’s holy land, in Jerusalem. But Jesus’s response reframes the entire conversation:

Woman, believe me, that hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.

John 4:21-24

Jesus was not dodging the question – He was reframing the concept of God’s sacred place of worship. No longer would worship be restricted to one sacred geographic location. Neither Mount Gerizim nor Jerusalem would remain central. Instead, worship would become geographically universal, unbound by borders, anchored not in one place, but in every place He is rightly worshiped – in spirit and in truth.

What Jesus promised in John 4 wasn’t a change in God’s plan – it was the fulfillment of it. From the beginning, God’s promise to Abraham was never meant to be confined to a single strip of land. Instead, it pointed toward a blessing that would extend to all nations through Abraham’s offspring (Genesis 22:18).

Even early in Genesis, God spoke in expansive, global terms. He told Abraham that his descendants would be as numerous as the “dust of the earth” (Genesis 13:16) – an image not of a local settlement but of worldwide reach, a people far greater than the physical boundaries of Canaan could contain.

That’s why Paul, reflecting on this promise, could say its ultimate fulfillment was not limited to Canaan, but encompassed the entire world.

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.

Romans 4:13

For Paul, the land of Canaan served as a symbol, a preview of a much greater inheritance. The true fulfillment of God’s promise was not in one land, but in the whole world, reserved as an inheritance for the faithful.

God’s Presence in His People

Through Christ, the blessing and inheritance once promised to Abraham has now been extended to all who are in Him. And with that expansion comes a radical redefinition of where God dwells. No longer is His presence confined to a physical temple in a single geographic location. The New Testament reveals something far greater: God’s temple is now His people.

Paul writes:

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?

1 Corinthians 6:19

Elsewhere he declares:

For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,
I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.

2 Corinthians 6:16 (quoting from Leviticus 26:12)

And in the vision of the new creation, John hears these words:

Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.

Revelation 21:3

Just as God once made His home in the land of Canaan, Paul now explains that “the Spirit of God dwells in you” (Romans 8:9). This means that God’s holy presence is no longer limited by borders or buildings – it is present wherever His people are. Wherever Christians are gathered together, submitting to God’s will, there is God’s dominion. That is holy ground.

The New Creation

What makes a land “holy” has never been geography alone – it is the presence of God that makes any place sacred. In the Old Testament, that presence dwelled in the land of Canaan, but through Christ, God’s presence is now among His people – people drawn from every nation. That shift radically reshapes how we think about the idea of a “holy land.”

If God’s presence is no longer confined to one location but dwells with all who are in Christ, then the holiness once associated with a specific strip of land has now been extended as far as His people reach. In other words, God’s holy land has gone global! This being the case, it would be out of step with the teachings of the New Testament to single out Palestine as uniquely “holy” under the reign of Christ. To do so would suggest that God’s dwelling place is still geographically limited – that He does not dwell wherever His people live and worship in spirit and truth.

The problem with calling modern-day Israel “The Holy Land” isn’t that it assigns too much importance to their land – but that it imagines far too little about God’s Kingdom. God’s reign is no longer confined. It is greater – infinitely greater – and that expansion is the very fulfillment of what the prophets anticipated:

For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.

Habakkuk 2:14 (cf. Numbers 14:21; Psalm 72:19; Isaiah 6:3)

Jesus confirmed this global scope during the Sermon on the Mount. Quoting from Psalm 37:11, He announced the inheritance that awaited the meek:

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

Matthew 5:5

He was not speaking of the present, broken world – a world enslaved by sin, violence, and decay. Rather He was pointing to something far greater. The author of Hebrews captures this cosmic transformation:

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem… Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.
This phrase, “Yet once more” indicates the removal of things that are shaken – that is the things that have been made – in order that the things which cannot be shaken may remain.
Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken.

Hebrews 12:22, 26-28

Peter echoes the same theme. He reminds us that the current heavens and earth are being preserved for judgment in fire (2 Peter 3:7). This judgment, however, is what ushers in what has always been promised:

But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

2 Peter 3:13

The land promise has not been discarded – it has been fulfilled, deepened, and universalized. What began as a parcel of land for Abraham’s descendants now culminates in a new world for the people of Christ. As Paul puts it, this is nothing less than a new creation (Galatians 6:15), the true and final “holy land” where righteousness dwells and where God makes His home with His people.

Understanding the fulfillment of the land promise reminds us that the church is not defined by borders or geography, but by the presence of God among His people. Wherever God dwells with His people, that is holy ground. As we go into all the world – making disciples of all nations, baptizing them, and teaching obedience to Christ – we are conquering enemy territory and extending God’s holy land. This truth fuels our mission, deepens our unity across every nation, and lifts our eyes beyond the passing kingdoms of this world to the one kingdom that will not be shaken.

The Parable of the Camel’s Nose

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

In the middle of a desert, where the winds blew sharp, and the nights were bitterly cold, a man found refuge inside his small, but sturdy tent. It was only a tent, but his modest shelter was a blessing from the frigid elements outside. As he lay upon his mat, bundled under thick blankets, he drifted off into a peaceful sleep.

Not far from the tent, his camel stood tethered to a post. The animal was accustomed to the desert’s harsh nights, but even camels can feel the stinging discomfort of the cold wind. The camel shifted uncomfortably. Seeking relief, the camel moved closer to the man’s tent.

With the most subtle move, the camel pressed its nose ever so slightly into the edge of the tent flap, where a faint bit of warmth seeped out for the camel to enjoy. The man stirred at the sound of the rustle, but saw only the camel’s nose sticking slightly into the tent. He thought to himself, “It’s just the nose. It’s doing no harm.” He rolled over and quickly slipped back into sleep.

But the camel didn’t stop there. Enjoying the warmth and encouraged by the man’s inaction, it pushed its head further inside. The tent flap fell open slightly, and the camel’s large eyes peered into the tent, surveying what was inside. The man, startled by the intrusion, woke again. “What is this?” the man said to himself, now seeing the camel’s head fully inside.

He considered shooing the camel away, but being so snug and comfortable under his blankets, the man reasoned, “It’s only the head, and it’s cold tonight. The cold drift of air won’t bother me since I’m under these warm blankets.” With that, he turned over and closed his eyes.

Only a few minutes passed, however, and the camel, emboldened, pressed further in. It’s long neck and front legs slipped inside, causing the tent to pull sharply as the small doorway stretched to accommodate the large creature. As the cold air rushed in the fully open flap, the man woke, now cramped, finding no room to stretch. “Enough!” he cried, sitting up.

But it was too late. The camel didn’t stop. Inch by inch, it pulled its entire body into the tent. The man struggled to fight back, pushing on the camel and yelling for it to get out, but he and the tent were now completely overtaken by the animal. The camel’s hefty bulk pushed on the tent poles, stretched the fabric, and then finally, the tent collapsed into a thin layer of canvas draped over the huge animal’s back. The man sat, shivering, wide-eyed, realizing too late what happened. Now finding himself outside in the bitter wind, he realized he should have never allowed the camel to stick its nose in the tent.

Beware of Incrementalism

What begins as a small, seemingly reasonable concession sometimes leads to dangerous compromises. The camel’s nose illustrates how small compromises, when left unchecked, can lead to significant, dangerous, and sometimes unintended outcomes.

 This is especially important to remember when it comes to matters of Christian doctrine. Compromising on the clear teachings of Scripture, even in response to seemingly reasonable hypotheticals, can lead to a slow, but significant erosion of truth. Consider the following argument:

“What if someone on their way to the church building to be baptized dies in a tragic accident? Surely a just and loving God wouldn’t condemn such a person to eternity in hell.”

The reasoning seems compassionate and reasonable. But once we allow for exceptions to God’s explicit command of baptism (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21, etc.), it is easy for the reasoning to progress further.

“If God can save someone in extreme circumstances without baptism, perhaps baptism isn’t necessary in other situations either. Maybe it’s not essential at all, as long as someone has faith and good intentions.”

Soon baptism, an act consistently taught and practiced throughout the New Testament, is reduced to a mere symbol. The necessity of following Scripture’s numerous teachings regarding it’s importance are discarded.

To avoid such a collapse, we must remain resolutely committed to Scripture, even when faced with difficult hypotheticals. While we can certainly acknowledge God’s mercy and grace, and wrestle with the implications of God’s character in exceptional cases, our responsibility is to uphold His revealed commands.

The Camel’s Nose in Political Engagement

The principle also applies to Christians and political engagement. The argument often begins innocently:

“It’s not sinful or idolatrous for a Christian to vote against a policy that harms their neighbors. It’s not idolatrous to desire rulers who fear God. We can care about church and politics. We can align with a political party and still trust in Jesus.”

Perhaps this reasoning holds in theory. But what follows? Political involvement has a way of drawing the heart deeper and deeper into the world’s systems, fostering a reliance upon human solutions rather than divine provision.

“If voting is permissible,” the reasoning often goes, “why not campaigning? If campaigning, why not encouraging churches to work together to wield greater political influence?”

Soon, the focus and efforts of the church shift entirely from proclaiming the unshakable gospel to promoting the shifting platforms of political parties. Loyalty to Christ mingles with loyalty to earthly rulers. The priorities of God’s kingdom are overshadowed by earthly agendas. The real world power of the gospel to transform the world is minimized in exchange for what feels like the more practical and efficient methods of earthly kingdoms.

The Bible warns against trusting in human rulers (Psalm 33:16-17). Jesus commanded his disciples to refuse to seek power the way the unbelieving world does (Matthew 20:25-28). Jesus rejected the devil’s offer of worldly kingdoms (Luke 4:6-8). When he was on trial before Pilate, he declared that His kingdom is “not of this world,: evidence by the fact that his disciples refuse to fight for power in the ways that are characteristic of earthly kingdoms (John 18:36-37). Paul encouraged Christians to avoid being entangled in civilian affairs, likening them to soldiers stationed in a foreign land (2 Timothy 2:3-4).

Perhaps we can look at the camel’s nose pushing slightly into the tent, and to accept that a small, measured degrees of political involvement are not idolatrous. But as followers of Christ, we must remain vigilant. Our ultimate allegiance must remain with Jesus, whom we confess to be the world’s true Lord.

Know The Boundaries

This is not a call for legalism so that Christians can begin making laws about political engagement (or any other matter of doctrine) in areas where Scripture remains silent. Nor is this an excuse for avoiding sincere, but difficult questions. Westling with the implications of Scripture and its application is good and important. However, we must recognize the danger of allowing worldly reasoning to undermine God’s clear teachings.

Far too often, conversations about Christian doctrine shift from honestly wresting with the implications of Scripture to a question of how far we can let the camel’s nose into the tent. Perhaps we should pause and reconsider whether it is wise to allow it in at all. As disciples of Christ, we have made a commitment to hold fast to the teachings and examples of our Lord. Let us hold fast to Him, trusting His wisdom, and resist the temptation to compromise, even in seemingly small ways.