Printer-friendly version

Recently we’ve received calls to political action from several different organizations with religious ties, urging us to become involved in the political battle for “freedom.” As this call is likely to intensify, and we will be pressured more and more to involve ourselves in politics, it may be good for us to study the Scripture, specifically the New Testament, to see what plan God has for His church regarding politics.

Our Leader is Jesus Christ, so it is good for us to look at His life and see how He related to politics. Jesus lived in an environment that was surprisingly similar to what we face today. Israel was ruled by the Romans, a culture that had failed to honor the sanctity of life, marriage, and other important doctrines. And, as in our day, a political group rose up to defend what their modern-day counterparts have called “Judeo-Christian Values,” and many religious people flooded to their side. Scholar Leonard Verduin wrote, “It appears then that Jesus worked in a political climate heavily impregnated with Zealotism…” Apparently some of these religiously political people were leaders in the Pharisees, as shown by John 11:47-48: “Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.”

Living in such an environment, in a Jewish state with a long history of divinely blessed warfare, Jesus sometimes came into contact with men who believed that God would bless a religious soldier or politician. Let’s look at some of His responses to these men.

As mentioned before, the Pharisees seem to have provided some of the leadership of the Zealot movement; in fact, the Zealot movement may have originated among the Pharisees. “The Pharisees at an early day secured the popular favor and thereby acquired considerable political influence. This influence was greatly increased by the extension of the Pharisees over the whole land and the majority which they obtained in the Sanhedrin. Their number reached more than six thousand under the Herods. Many of them must have suffered death for political agitation. In the time of Christ they were divided doctrinally into several schools, among which those of Hillel and Shammai were most noted.” (See Pharisees in Smith’s Bible Dictionary) If our modern “Judeo-Christian” political leaders had been attempting to work their agenda in Jesus’ time, they probably would have viewed the Pharisees as one of the most important groups to win to their political campaign. In fact, the Pharisees may well be the ancient counterpart to our modern movements.

But Jesus never tried to win the Pharisees’ favor. Rather, He strongly condemned them for their hypocrisy: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them.” (Luke 11:44) In fact, as shown in John 11:47-48 (quoted earlier in this article), the Pharisees viewed Jesus as a great threat to their political aspirations.

One incident for us to look at is when a group of Pharisees and scribes brought to Christ a woman who had committed adultery:

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?  This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?  She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. (John 8:3-11)

The question the Pharisees asked Jesus was politically charged; the “Judeo-Christian” Mosaic Law demanded that the woman be killed, but the actual Roman government did not. Instead of arguing about the political implications of this incident, Jesus convicted the scribes and Pharisees of their own sin. When He told the woman that He would not condemn her, He was specifically refusing to become part of the movement to bring back Moses’ government rules. He was ignoring the “Judeo-Christian” law governing this type of situation. Yet notice that He also did not say that the woman should not be stoned, that the government should ignore these sins; He refused to involve Himself in a legal dispute.

In another situation, we find people telling Jesus about how Pilate had done an act that was not only contrary to the Jewish Law, but also contrary to common moral sensibility:

There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. (Luke 13:1-5)

Pilate’s act here was an insult to the very core of the “Judeo-Christian” society. These men were apparently performing their worship when Pilate came upon them, killed them, and stirred their own blood into the sacrifices. Pilate was suppressing religious freedom! But instead of getting caught up in the political fervor this act must have caused, or even simply complaining about Pilate, Jesus turned the conversation to spiritual things and called for His hearers to repent. He made no statement on the political ramifications of this base act.

In another situation the Pharisees (who, as inferred before, were probably somewhat analogous to today’s “Judeo-Christian” conservatives) sent their disciples with the Herodians (probably analogous to today’s liberals) to ask Jesus a question about the taxes. The Jews didn’t like to pay this tax to what they felt was a “wrong” government (because its laws were not in line with “Judeo-Christian” morality); the Herodians, as supporters of that government, did not object to the tax. So the Pharisees must have thought that they could force Jesus to take a political stand:

Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. (Matthew 22:15-21)

Again Jesus refused to align Himself with the “Judeo-Christian” party. Rather, He showed them that the money was Caesar’s, so He deserved to be able to take it (a principle valid under any government, which probably pointed out hypocrisy in using the money without paying taxes), and then again put the focus on man’s relationship to God—if Caesar deserved the things he made, surely God also deserved what He made. Jesus took no stance on the “rightness” of Herod’s government, implying, probably, that if the Jews were in authority, He would also pay their taxes. He was willing to live under whatever government was in control, without taking sides or trying to fight the rulers, and, disappointed, His enemies left without being able to accuse Him of unfaithfulness either to Caesar or Israel. His apolitical stance kept His enemies from being able to seize on His words.

At another time, some Israelites became convinced that Jesus was indeed “that prophet that should come into the world.” (John 6:14) So they tried to involve Him in the struggle for the restoration of the “Judeo-Christian” state by making Him their king. Perhaps we would have thought that we had found the perfect opportunity to enforce our desired laws, and have accepted the position, but Jesus did no such thing. “When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.” (John 6:15)

At yet another time, some individuals involved in a political question, deeply tied to the Mosaic Law, confronted Peter, who, unlike Jesus, probably did not have, at that time, a firm grasp on the New Covenant and its relation to politics:

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee. (Matthew 17:24-27)

Some scholars say that this tax originated from Moses’ poll tax, and was not a civil tax, which is why Jesus did not feel compelled to pay it; however, His reason does not matter for the study at hand. The important point is this: Jesus did not consider His payment of this tax necessary, and He had a convincing reason, which He told to Peter. Yet He paid the tax simply to avoid offending those people who were involved in its collection. Had He had a conviction about the politics of this tax, it would have been wrong for Him to take the sinful route to avoid offence, and we know that when His principles demanded offence, He did the right thing. But He did not have a political principle, and so He could avoid offending these people away from the gospel.

Another important incident is found in Matthew 26, in the Garden of Gethsemane:

And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people. Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast. And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him. And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.  Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me. But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled. And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled. (Matthew 26:47-57)

In this passage, sinners (see Matthew 26:45) who were definitely in the wrong came to arrest Jesus. The ones who had sent them hoped to kill Jesus, and they even hired false witnesses to testify against Him. Surely if there was ever a time when it was right to fight back, this was it—to defend the Creator of the Universe, to destroy the forces of evil, and to protect the Word of God. So Peter took his sword and began to fight. But Jesus reproved and stopped him. Had He only said that He would do His Father’s will, we could assume that He only meant that Peter should refrain in that situation, but He also gave a reason that is applicable for all warfare: “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” Again Jesus turned from the politically expedient route and allowed men to capture Him and eventually kill Him.

The Jews eventually brought Jesus to Pilate. Apparently they accused Him of sedition: “And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.” (Luke 23:2) Pilate interrogated Jesus:

Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all. (John 18:33-38)

Pilate was apparently asking Jesus if He was truly involved in the political arena. Jesus responded that His followers would not fight to protect His kingdom, because His kingdom was not of this world. This statement strikes a heavy blow to the idea of “Christian” political involvement, because here Jesus specifically contrasted His heavenly kingdom with kingdoms that could be helped by physical warfare, thus eliminating physical fighting as a means for the furtherance of His kingdom. In Ephesians 6:12, Paul specifically states that the Christian’s battle is spiritual not physical: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” And he strikes a similar note in II Corinthians 10:3-6:

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.

As we can see from these events in His life, Jesus avoided politics and the offence that they bring. Rather, He focused on spreading the gospel, on convincing men to repent and become right with God. As Christians, we are responsible to follow in His steps, and preach the gospel of God, without injuring our testimony by a political stance that needlessly offends some of the very people that we are trying to reach.

Surely if politics had been Jesus’ plan for His church, either He or His apostles would have involved themselves in political affairs. But like Christ, the apostles did not involve themselves in politics. Let’s now proceed to look at the apostles’ relationship toward the government.

In Acts 4, the apostles had what was probably their first post-ascension interaction with the political leaders. Peter and John had been teaching the gospel in the temple, and the temple authorities (who apparently also had civil power), upset about this teaching, seized them. Again, freedom of speech and freedom of religion were being challenged. But when given a chance to speak, Peter and John did not protest how the Pharisees handled them. Rather, they proclaimed the gospel to their persecutors:

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:8-12)

The Pharisees, after again ordering these two men to be quiet, sent them off. When they returned to the church, which by this time had gained a sizable number of people (apparently at least 8000 people had professed faith), they did not found a political action organization to “preserve freedom” or lobby Herod to put down the Jews; rather, they prayed that they would not lose their boldness in the face of opposition. This method had a tremendous effect: “And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.” (Acts 4:31) The apostles were more concerned about boldly preaching in the face of opposition than about politically putting their opponents down.

In fact, Paul warns us that persecution cannot be avoided without compromise: “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.” (II Tim. 3:12) Unlike a modern “Christian” organization that recently sent us a fundraising letter, the apostles were not overly concerned “that we will always have the [political] liberty to hear and speak the Truth of the Gospel…” Rather, they were concerned that they would be bold in the face of opposition.

In Acts 5, the apostles again had a run-in with these political leaders: “Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation, And laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison.” (Acts 5:17-18) Again the apostles might have felt that their “rights” were being violated. Again they might have tried to take the matter to court. But the Bible contains no record of this. Rather, after the angel of the Lord had released them, and told them to go and preach, and after they had obeyed and been arrested again, beaten, and ordered again to be quiet, we find this amazing record: “And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.” (Acts 5:41) Rather than being, as the political fundraising letter mentioned above termed it, “fed up and ready to do something about it,” the apostles rejoiced in the suffering that was forced upon them. Instead of taking political action, they were joyful about this unpleasant experience! “And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.” (Acts 5:42)

In Acts 6-7, Stephen was arrested, tried, and finally killed. The legality of this act may have been rather dubious, since the Jews, when Jesus was on trial, claimed that they were not allowed to put anyone to death. But there is no record of the apostles fighting a court case, trying to sue the Jews in the Roman court. Rather, Stephen testified his faith before the Jewish council, and the other Christians scattered to flee the persecution, preaching the Word of God.

In Acts 10, the apostles may have had an opportunity to start a political movement when Cornelius was converted. But even though some in Peter’s group, and perhaps Peter himself also, apparently doubted that Gentiles could be saved, Peter preached Christ. He did not try to convince Cornelius to start a political movement to change the Roman government (which would probably fit in well with our modern “Christian” political movement’s use of the unsaved to further their political agenda).

In Acts 12, Herod, trying to please the Jews, killed James and arrested Peter, with plans to kill him too. But by the end of the chapter, Peter was free and Herod was out of power. How was this accomplished? Did the church send a petition to Caesar, or start riots, rallies, or pickets against Herod? No! Instead, they prayed to God. And this petition worked results.

In Acts 13, we find an occurrence that probably would have brought great joy to our modern “political Christians.” A leading government official was converted! Here Paul and the other apostles had a grand opportunity to institute political goals they might have had. But, again, we find nothing of the sort; instead, the verse after Sergius Paulus’s conversion tells of Paul and his group leaving that area. Had Paul thought politics were useful for the propagation of the Christian faith, would he have passed by such an unusual opportunity?

In Acts 14, through the teaching of Paul and Barnabas, a large number of the inhabitants of Iconium believed, so many, in fact, that the city was divided. The unbelievers, unhappy with this turn of events, actually tried to catch Paul and Barnabas and beat them up. But despite the believers’ numerical strength, the apostles made no attempt to even bring the offenders to justice, much less to implement laws favorable to Christianity. Rather, they fled from the town.

In Acts 16, the disciples were unfairly beaten and thrown into prison. But again they failed to politically agitate for governmental reform or political freedom. Paul did mention that he and Barnabas were Romans, but he was not attempting to overthrow or outvote the government. In fact, he apparently told no one except the jailer and the government officials that were making trouble for Paul and Barnabas. While this made the officials less ready to rashly punish Paul and Barnabas, the magistrates still wanted the apostles to leave the city, and rather than fighting about it, Paul and Barnabas again left. In Chapter 17, we see another similar scene.

In Acts 18, Paul was preaching in Corinth. “Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.” (Acts 18:9-10) Here again, a large number of people followed God, apparently enough people to impress even the Jews. However, there is again no record of “Christian” politics; in fact, the Christians may have demonstrated their harmlessness, for the Jews eventually seized Paul and dragged him before the governor. However, the Gentile government, in this case, released Paul.

In Acts 19, an unruly mob seized two Christians and dragged them into the theatre. This action was, lawfully, risky enough that even the town clerk had premonitions of trouble. But the next chapter simply records that Paul left. Again, there is no evidence of any Christian political action.

In Acts 20, Paul told the Ephesian elders that he was going to Jerusalem. “And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.” (Acts 20:22-24) Paul knew that he was going to experience persecution for the cause of Christ. Yet rather than complaining about it, and exhorting the elders to be politically active and ensure political freedom for the coming generations, Paul expressed his desire to spread the gospel, and how the persecution could not stop him. For him, the persecution was something to be overcome, not necessarily avoided.

In Acts 21-22, the Jews seized Paul and were going to kill him, had not a Roman military officer rushed over and rescued him. When the officer gave Paul permission to speak to the people, Paul did not speak about freedom of speech or freedom of religion. He did not tell the Jews how politically wrong they were in trying to kill him. Rather, he told how he had become a Christian, and about God’s call on His life.

There are two things in this passage that may deserve special note. First, notice that Paul neither condemned nor condoned the Jewish government. Christianity does not condemn government and strive for anarchy; rather, it accepts and strives to obey the government, but does not strive to control it. Second, notice at what point the Jews cried out against Paul. To them, Israel, as a nation with “Judeo-Christian” morals, was God’s people. Paul was opposing that idea by his evangelism of the Gentiles. When he said this, they refused to listen any longer.

In Acts 23, Paul had a trial before the Jewish council. At one point in this trial, he realized that the council was composed of members from two opposing religious political groups, one of which he had been a member of before his conversion. He shouted about his ties to the Pharisees, and his belief in the resurrection. After this, the meeting became disorderly and the Roman officer again came and took Paul away. Since this statement could have been understood in a political sense (although it seems to have been more about the religious sense of the resurrection), it is probably significant that Paul seems to have later regretted saying it: “Or else let these same here say, if they have found any evil doing in me, while I stood before the council, Except it be for this one voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day.” (Acts 24:20-21)

We also find another significant passage regarding politics in Chapter 23:

And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. (Acts 23:1-5)

Here in this passage, the priest, even though he was judging Paul on the Law, broke the Law (which, in that setting, was probably much worse than an American politician breaking the Constitution). Paul reproved him for this, but upon finding out that he had reproved a government official, admitted that he had not known who it was that made the faulty command. He would not have knowingly attacked a government ruler. If our modern “Christian” political movements followed this Biblical rule, what would be the result? They would be deprived of what is probably their most effective weapon for promotion of a political candidate—putting down the other party’s candidate. This passage alone shows us that our modern political movements, at least in their present form, are not a Scriptural institution. Another apostle struck a similar note when he gave as one of the characteristics of the unjust that “they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.” (II Peter 2:10) And Jude stated that the sinners he described “speak evil of dignities.” (Jude 8) Can we claim Christianity for a movement that breaks and opposes a fundamental rule of Christianity, a movement that heavily uses something that the apostles counted as a defining characteristic of the wicked?

In Acts 24, Paul was brought before Felix. The Jews, as Paul pointed out in his defense, were not telling the truth; they were telling a false story to attempt to gain the governor’s favor, and Felix apparently realized that there were not many good reasons to keep Paul bound. However, he did not release him. This would have been an opportunity for the Christians, probably quite numerous by this point, to have turned their numerical strength into political strength and frightened Felix into letting Paul go. But they did not do this. There is, again, no record of any Christians trying to exert any political influence. When Felix called Paul before him and gave him a chance to speak, Paul did not call on Felix to perform political good works; rather, he preached “righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come,” and gave Felix a chance to repent and turn to God.

In Acts 25, Paul was tried before Festus. The Jews presented accusations against Paul, but apparently, as he began to answer for himself, Felix interrupted him, trying to please the Jews by turning Paul over to them, at which point Paul appealed to Caesar.

In Acts 26, Festus brought Paul before Agrippa to try to determine what accusations he should report to Caesar. Here Paul was given a chance to speak, and he used this opportunity, not to protest about the violation of his basic rights, but to present his testimony to the king. Agrippa was so impressed that he said, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.”

In Acts 28, Paul healed the father of a ruler in Melita, and apparently this ruler and his subjects were rather impressed by Paul and his work. But again we have no record of any political intervention on Paul’s part. At the end of the chapter, Paul was able to speak to a group of Jews, and he presented the truth about Jesus to them. But again, at the end of Luke’s history, Paul again came out against the idea that the Jewish national law and political agenda were enough to merit Christian support:

And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it. (Acts 28:25-28)

When we read the histories of the New Testament—the four Gospels and Acts—we do not find the history of a Christian political movement; such a thing is simply nonexistent. To find this in one verse or chapter would probably tell us little or nothing, but when the entire historical portion of the New Testament leaves no trace of any Christian politics, surely this is significant. Christ and His apostles must not have pushed for “Christian” politics; their interests, their ambitions, their goals must have been on a different level. Dare we who claim to follow their teachings do differently?

The apostles not only left us histories; they also left quite a few letters to various individuals. As with the histories, however, we find no trace of “Christian” politics in the epistles.

The epistle to the Romans was probably written at a time when the extant governments had probably strayed quite far from “Judeo-Christian” morality. In this book, Paul gave Christians direction on how to behave toward the government:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. (Romans 13:1-8)

While Paul definitely addresses how Christians should relate to their government, he fails to say anything at all that even hints that they should do anything to change the government. Rather, he says, without any qualification, that the government is “ordained of God…the minister of God to thee for good.” He also says that fear—which keeps people in political movements motivated—is unnecessary for those who do good. A passage in Titus also urges Christians to be obedient to the government: “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.” (Titus 3:1-2)

In I Timothy, Paul again addresses how the Christian should relate to government:

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:1-4)

Here Paul hints at the possibility that government leaders could cause trouble for the church. If there was anywhere in the New Testament where an exhortation to political involvement would fit in well, this would probably be it. But Paul does not even mention trying to overthrow leaders or influence legislative decisions; rather, he exhorts Christians to pray for their rulers. He does mention God’s desire for rulers, but it is the same desire that God has for all men—that they would be saved.

I Corinthians 2 addresses a different issue connected with this subject—how God demonstrates His power:

And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Corinthians 2)

One reason that politics seems so attractive is that people, believers and unbelievers alike, tend to view politics as a powerful force. “Christian” political movements can even recruit unbelievers to help bring back “Judeo-Christian” morality. To unbelievers, it seems wise to use politics as a tool. But, as Paul shows in the passage above, God’s wisdom is not the same as man’s wisdom. Paul refused to use man’s wisdom to accomplish his spiritual goals, because he wanted people to believe in the gospel because of the power of God. He tells us that the wisdom of God cannot be understood by the natural man, and the things that are truly of the Spirit of God seem foolish to the natural man. He strikes a similar note in II Corinthians chapter 4: “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.” (II Corinthians 4:6-7) God wants His power, not ours, to be manifested. “If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities.” (II Corinthians 11:30) It’s interesting to notice that while virtually everyone would agree that the Bible teaches (Ephesians 2:8-9) that God has not chosen good works for salvation, because that would allow man to boast, few will admit that God has not chosen politics for the improvement of morality—because that would allow man to boast, as seen in this passage.

And so Paul told the Corinthian believers that he had “determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” He was not interested in finding followers for a political campaign; instead, he was interested in finding followers for Jesus Christ. His focus was winning and keeping men for Jesus Christ. Is that our focus, or are we too involved in politics to give our greatest strength to God’s true kingdom in the hearts of men? “And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:20-21)

In II Corinthians 6, Paul again presents an obstacle for those who would try to define “Christian” work in such a way as to allow participation by unbelievers: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (2 Corinthians 6:14-16) According to Paul, true Christianity does not have fellowship with the ungodly. If our “ministry” requires that we fellowship with the ungodly, is it a true Christian work? “But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them.” (Ephesians 5:3-7)

When we look through the entire New Testament, there is no encouragement for Christians to enter politics. Rather, Christ and His apostles focused on spreading the Word of God. We, too, need to redirect our focus from politics to evangelizing the unsaved people around us, to turn from trying to improve the world’s morality to trying to bring salvation to the world, to cease our political strivings and strive for the gospel of God.

Some may object that this view creates a different God for the Old and New Testaments. Strangely, many people who might argue for politics this way don’t actually follow the Old Testament’s rules for government. For example, look at Exodus 23:8, which seems to ban basically all political fundraising in America today: “And thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous.” Or take Deuteronomy 17:16, which contrasts sharply with the military buildup many “Christians” push for: “But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.”

We realize that, in the physical realm, one person may express himself in different, seemingly contradictory rules. A government, for example, may ban the use of certain explosives. Later, a citizen may join the military and be ordered to use the same explosives. Are we dealing with a new government here? No, but the government’s desire for this person has changed.

So it is with the New Covenant. God forbad and allowed certain things in the Old Testament, but He did not make the Old Covenant as a complete revelation of His will. Later, He revealed more of His will in the New Testament, and some of the Old Covenant’s regulations were changed:

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:6-13)

Paul expounds again on this in Galatians:

Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. (Galatians 4:1-7)

And again in Ephesians:

For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. (Ephesians 2:14-17)

These verses show us that the New Testament is different from the Old Testament. No longer are we under the Mosaic law; rather, we are under the grace of God, requiring a different set of commandments! Jesus demonstrated this clearly in the Sermon on the Mount, saying that He had come to fulfill the Law and giving some examples of commandments He changed:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.  It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5:17-48)

In these things, Jesus gave commands that were not the same as those that Moses had given in the Law. Especially important for this study are verses 38-39: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” All three of the sections that say “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” are speaking about the judicial system, about the government of Israel. And Jesus dared to change these laws to create a new law that could certainly not be followed by a government that is, by God’s appointment, “a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” (Romans 13:4) This rule alone seems to preclude Christian political involvement by specifically contradicting Moses’ governmental precepts.

In another place, Jesus addressed the issue of divorce:

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (Matthew 19:3-12)

Clearly, Jesus’ rule regarding divorce was different from that of Moses, because Moses’ rule had been specifically given for the hard-hearted Israelites, not to provide a true view of God’s will. Similarly, God’s Old Testament rules regarding the cities of refuge would only work with the nation of Israel—not every nation is divided by the Jordan River or has possessions in the land of Canaan! Yet God’s Old Testament Law said, “Ye shall give three cities on this side Jordan, and three cities shall ye give in the land of Canaan, which shall be cities of refuge.” (Numbers 35:14)

There can be no such thing as Christian politics because there are no Christian rules for government in the New Testament. Jesus removed Moses’ Law, yet He created no replacement, focusing the Christian faith on individuals rather than nations. The apostle Peter wrote, “Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.” (1 Peter 2:11-12) We, as Christians, are pilgrims and strangers in the world’s society, and God does not want us to be assimilated into that society. “Christian” politics is based on the idea that culture can be conformed to Christianity, thus making Christians at home in the world, an idea that Peter’s Scriptural statement contradicts. Paul backs up Peter’s thought: “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” (Romans 12:2) And John speaks on a similar note: “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” (I John 2:15)

Whose example will we follow, that of the “Judeo-Christian” politicians of our day, who try to change men’s morals, or that of Christ and His apostles, who brought men to God, who could change their hearts?