Which Kingdom?
Too often, political efforts by churches and “Christian” organizations are barely distinguishable from the politicians and parties of this world’s kingdoms, especially in “Western-style” democracies. Apparently, believers must emulate the ways of this fallen age to achieve any real change in society. But this common approach differs markedly from the teachings and example of Jesus of Nazareth.
 |
| [Photo by Harley Upton on Unsplash] |
When he first appeared in Galilee, he was proclaiming the “Kingdom of God” – “Repent, for the kingdom is at hand!” In him, the reign of God was invading the present age.
But His domain is of an
entirely different nature than the political systems of this world. Moreover, on
more than one occasion, he refused the kind of political power that has
characterized human history and institutions, including the politically active
Church.
In the “wilderness,” the
Devil tempted Jesus by offering him “all the kingdoms of the world.” To
attain absolute power, he needed only “render homage” to the Tempter as
his overlord.
Surprisingly, Christ did NOT
dispute Satan’s “right” to dispense political power, though he certainly did refuse
it. Instead, he obeyed God by submitting to the path of the Suffering
Servant of Yahweh, a choice that led inevitably to his unjust death on a Roman
cross - (Matthew 4:8-11, Luke 4:5-7).
SATAN’S WAY
In contrast to their Lord, over
the intervening centuries, many churches and believers have embraced the
political means of this present age to advance the kingdom of God, even though this
necessitates accommodating biblical principles and values to those of this sinful
world.
But submission to the Devil’s
overlordship is the price of political power. This world’s kingdoms “have
been delivered to me and I give them to whomever I will.” Satan’s claim certainly
goes far toward explaining the reprehensible behavior of governments throughout
human history.
Although God destined him to
rule all the nations of the earth, Jesus refused the satanic offer that so many
others eagerly embrace. Scripture confirmed his appointment by God to reign
over the Cosmos, yet he refused the kind of political power so valued by this age;
or at least, he rejected acquiring it through force - (Psalm 2:6-8).
But how could Yahweh’s anointed king reign over the rebellious nations of the earth without the military and economic might of the all-powerful State?
Imagine the great good Jesus
could accomplish if he held Caesar’s throne and commanded his legions! With him
at the imperial helm, would not righteousness prevail across the empire? Surely,
if ever there was justification for the resort to State power, this was it. Who
better to wield the might and armies of Rome than the Prince of Peace?
However, rather than employ political
means, Jesus embraced the way of the cross. In the “kingdom of God,”
victory is achieved through self-denial and sacrifice. “Greatness” is measured
in acts of mercy to others, especially to one’s “enemies.”
Threatening and coercing others
to submit to one’s will has no place in a realm epitomized by Golgotha. Jesus
of Nazareth “gave his life a ransom for many,” and that provides his disciples
with the pattern for how power is to be acquired and wielded in his kingdom.
God delights in “mercy, not sacrifice.”
But the temptation in the “wilderness”
was not the end of Satan’s political intrigues. Following his rebuff, “the
Devil departed from him until an opportune time.”
For example, after he fed a
multitude near the Sea of Galilee, members of the crowd planned “to seize
him that they might make him king.” But he left at the point the mob determined
to crown him king, thus turning many minds against him because he refused to
resort to political power.
HIS WAY
Jesus would not be the
militaristic messiah intent on destroying Rome for whom so many of his
contemporaries lusted. And the closer he came to his death by crucifixion, the
more the fickle crowds rejected him - (Luke 4:13, John 6:15).
Prior to his execution, Pontius
Pilate inquired whether he was “the king of the Jews.” Jesus did not
deny his kingship, but he responded thus to Rome’s representative - “You say
that I am a king, and for this, I was born.” The Son of God qualified his
kingship by stating:
- “My kingdom is not from (ek) this world. If my kingdom was from this world, then my own officers would fight that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But now, my kingdom is not from here” - (John 18:33-36).
This does not mean his kingdom is
strictly “spiritual” or otherworldly. But the source of his sovereignty is
other than the political power, corruption, and violence so characteristic of the
existing world order.
THE CHOICE
Pilate found no fault in him
and was about to release Jesus. But at the instigation of the priestly
authorities, the crowd demanded that Rome’s representative release Barabbas
instead, a léstés (Greek) or “brigand.” Apparently, the
Temple authorities preferred a violent political revolutionary to the Suffering
Servant of Yahweh.
Contrary to the expectations of many, Jesus “took on the form of a slave” and became “obedient unto death, even death on a cross.” And because of this choice, God exalted him and bestowed on him “the name, which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth” - (Philippians 2:6-11).
Institutional Christianity has
a sordid history of mixing church and State. The temptation to use political
power to impose “right” beliefs and conduct is too great. Force appears
easier than persuasion. Is it not preferable to do a little “evil”
to achieve some greater “good”? But advancing the cause of Christ through political
means always necessitates resorting to the coercive power of the State.
The choice before his disciples
is between the cruciform path trod by Jesus or the expedient and smooth superhighway
offered by Satan. Christ declared that when he is “lifted up” on the
cross, THEN he will “draw all men to me,” not when he is seated on
Caesar’s throne. And he calls his followers to “deny themselves, take up the
cross,” and follow the same path regardless of where it leads.
Should we, the disciples of the
same Jesus who “gave his life a ransom for many,” embrace what he
rejected? Or should we emulate his example of self-sacrificial service for
others? We cannot do both.
