We can draw the inference that a Christian in politics – just as we would say to a Christian butcher, baker or candlestick maker – is called to honour God in the position he has given them and seek to live faithfully as believers as they go about their work. But this is not the same as the church qua church. Nor, incidentally, do we find many – even with the wherewithal to do so – pushing for government or regime change. It was John Calvin who said, ‘No man should think he is giving less service to the one God when he obeys human laws, pays tax, or bows his head to accept any other burden.’ The tenor of scripture, and consistent noise of the Bible, is submission to human authorities and non-compliance only when submission would cause us personally to disobey God.

Yesterday, we were continuing our sermon series in Matthew. This week we had reached Matthew 22:15-46 and the various attempts to trap Jesus with tricky questions. If you want to know how that passage was handled, you can watch our service back here – the preaching in our church comes at the front end of the service.
One of the points I made in that sermon concerned submission to civil authorities and government. Jesus’ famous ‘render unto Caesar’ comments – if he is saying anything at all – is that there is nothing incongruous or incompatible between living faithfully as believers and submitting to civil authorities. Everybody tends to get their knickers in a twist about ‘bad government’ and ‘government overreach’ but it doesn’t seem to trouble them that Jesus says nothing about that nor caveats what he says. Jesus is effectively commanding submission to the human authorities he has established in government.
It also bears saying two further things before I get to the point. First, Jesus is making these comments in the context of the Jewish people having just cheered him into Jerusalem and affirmed him as the Messiah. Matthew has been very carefully arguing up to this point that Jesus’ kingdom and messiahship will not necessarily meet the expectations of the Jewish mainstream understanding of kingdom and Messiahship. The expectation of the day is that the Messiah (and, therefore, Jesus at this point in their thinking) will re-establish the throne of David, reunite Israel and drive out the Roman occupying forces to restore a Jewish Free State under a Davidic king.
Second, it bears saying that the political context in which Jesus is making these comments is that of the Roman Empire. Leaving aside mainstream Jewish expectations of the Messiah, the Romans were hardly deemed benevolent rulers. The Jews hated them and their occupation of their land. And things didn’t get much better when the Apostles pick up Jesus teaching in both Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:17, both of which were written during Nero’s reign. Whatever else you may say about Nero, benevolent and tolerant are not the two obvious words that come to mind. So, for later Christians, for Paul and Peter to pick up this teaching and command submission to Rome and to ‘honour the Emperor’ is no small thing. This is the wider political context into which Jesus makes his comments.
In my sermon, the point I drew was a simple one: Jesus calls us to submit to earthly authorities. The repeated tenor of the New Testament is to submit to earthly authorities. So long as they are not specifically asking you to personally sin, you are to submit even to government you think of as particularly bad. There are no examples in the New Testament of Christians rising up to fight the power nor of seeking to gain control and then pull the levers of power. The general tenor of scripture is both to submit to authorities (cf. Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:17) and to seek, not authority or special treatment or any such thing, but simply to pray that we would be able to lead peaceful and quiet lives (cf. 1 Tim 2:2). Very much a live and let live attitude, seeking nothing more from civil authorities than the ability to freely obey Jesus on a personal level. #
There is no crowing about government overreach anywhere in scripture nor is there a concerted and organised campaign by any of the churches to overturn social injustice – something which challenges the engagement of both left and right; both culture and social justice warriors. The church addressed injustice by seeking to lead peaceful and quiet lives as a church in all holiness, serving the community around them by doing what Jesus asks them to do as believers (cf. Acts 2:41-47; 4:32-37). Their only engagement with government were not when the authorities were passing laws that meant other people could sin in ways the church deemed detrimental to society nor to organise for rights and privileges (we see neither thing). Rather, it is only when the authorities sought to stop the believers from being able to obey scripture on a personal basis (e.g. Acts 5:27-32). Even then, the consistent message of scripture is simply non-compliance i.e. we will not do that and we will accept and submit to the consequences.
Which brings me to my point. It is very easy to look at Jesus’ words here, and the Apostles further teaching on it in the rest of scripture, and challenge others with it.
Read More
Related Posts:

If Jesus death hasn’t paid for anybody’s sin then his death was ultimately pointless. He is a failed saviour who was unable to save any of his people. When he said ‘it is finished’ on the cross, he may as well have said ‘I am finished’. Fortunately, the Bible tells us clearly enough that Jesus’ death has actually redeemed a people. Revelation 5:9-10 says Jesus’ blood has actually ransomed people from every tribe, tongue and nation. 1 John 2:2 tells us that Jesus’ death has actually paid for the sins of the whole world. ‘Whole world’ cannot mean every single person in the world regardless of repentance or belief in Jesus, not least as John himself has ruled that out. John’s usual use of ‘world’ tends to mean something like ‘all kinds of people’, Jews and every kind of Gentile. 

Of all the Five Points of Calvinism, none cause quite as much upset as Limited Atonement. It’s not the most helpfully named thing, which is aimed at saying the scope of the atonement is limited to the elect rather than all people in general, but it sounds like its saying its effects are limited which is why some prefer Particular Redemption or Definite Atonement. The doctrine is ultimately driving at the idea that Jesus died for particular people, as opposed to all people in general (particular redemption), and that the people Jesus intends to save are actually saved by his death on the cross (definite atonement) rather than just potentially saved by his death and then only actually saved upon their belief.
The issue concerning Limited Atonement is brought into sharp focus when we ask two simple questions: (1) did Jesus’ death actually pay for anybody’s sin; and, (2) did Jesus death actually save anyone? There are only three possible answers to these questions:

Jesus’ death paid for everybody’s sin and therefore saves everyone
Jesus’ death paid for nobody’s sin and therefore saves no one
Jesus’ death paid for particular people’s sin and therefore saves those particular people

Those who affirm option one fall for the heterodox doctrine of universalism. If Jesus has paid for everybody’s sin, God has nothing to hold against anybody; there is no further price to be paid and there is no condemnation for anybody. History’s greatest wrong’uns are all heading straight for Heaven on such a view. But the fact is, Jesus did not speak about the ‘outer darkness’ on the basis that nobody is going there. Matthew 8:11-12 fairly clearly rules out any possibility that everyone is saved and there are many other bible passages that make the matter clear. Jesus death did not pay for everybody’s sin and evidently all are not saved.
Option 2 is not a great deal better. If Jesus death hasn’t paid for anybody’s sin then his death was ultimately pointless. He is a failed saviour who was unable to save any of his people. When he said ‘it is finished’ on the cross, he may as well have said ‘I am finished’. Fortunately, the Bible tells us clearly enough that Jesus’ death has actually redeemed a people. Revelation 5:9-10 says Jesus’ blood has actually ransomed people from every tribe, tongue and nation. 1 John 2:2 tells us that Jesus’ death has actually paid for the sins of the whole world. Unless we want to fall back onto option one and argue everybody is saved, ‘whole world’ cannot mean every single person in the world regardless of repentance or belief in Jesus, not least as John himself has ruled that out.
Read More
Related Posts:

If Jesus came to his people while we were his enemies, we have little grounds to argue that we can’t be around God’s people because they have hurt us. They hurt Jesus far more and yet he came to be with his people, they dealt with him more severely and yet he served them and loved them to the end. 

One of the emphases of Christmas is the reminder that Jesus coming into the world meant that God had come to dwell with man. Isaiah 7:14 , predicting the birth of Jesus, says “the Lord himself will give you a sign: See, the virgin will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel.” Matthew, quoting this verse and not wanting us to be without understanding, adds “which is translated ‘God is with us.’” John, in the opening of his gospel, tells us “The Word [Jesus Christ] became flesh and dwelt among us.”
Matthew’s emphasis in his gospel is often on the fulfilment of scripture. Writing to a predominantly Jewish audience, he wants us to see that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah and, in doing so, points to the scriptures that predicted his coming and shows how Jesus fulfils them. John also wants us to see that Jesus is the Messiah, but is particularly concerned with the deity of Christ (cf. John 20:31 ). He, therefore, has a particular focus on how Jesus is God incarnate. But both Matthew and John point to the fact that Jesus coming means God is truly with us both in fulfilment of scripture and pointing to Jesus’ divinity. Reading these passages again at Christmas time, we are reminded that God came to earth, in the person of Jesus Christ, to fix the broken relationship between God and man and address the chasm between us caused by our sin.
My purpose here isn’t to dwell on that amazing fact. Rather, I wanted to think about one consequence of this. Namely, if Jesus came to be with God’s people, we can hardly refuse to be with God’s people ourselves.
One of the good things that Western Christianity has emphasised is the need for personal conversion. Rather than simply assuming because of our family, culture or country that we are Christian by default, the Western church has been very clear that unless a man is born again he will not inherit the kingdom of God. Scripture, and happily the church in West, has (at least in recent centuries) been very clear on this. Personal conversion matters.
That clear-sightedness concerning personal conversion has largely come from our cultural individualism. We are (happily) primed to see the need for personal conversion because our culture is tuned towards individualism. Whatever the faults of our individualistic Western culture may be, it has at least made it helpfully quite obvious to us that God saves individuals. Particular Redemption means that Jesus died for specific people, knows who are his and therefore the elect will come to faith and conversion is evidently personal.
One of the less happy by-products of our cultural individualism is that, whilst we do tend to see the necessity for personal conversion, we then struggle to see the necessity of corporate Christianity. All things of the Christian life are tailored around me, my desires, my needs and whatever I think serves my walk with Jesus. Church becomes less about communal worship and the service of others and more about me and my personal relationship with God.
Read More
Related Posts:

Can you imagine turning round to almighty God, who has given us a good gift, and telling him he’s given us something that will either make us sin or is just plain bad for us? (one for the teetotallers among us to chew on.) But, of course, it applies to all of us. We can so easily call bad what God calls good and refuse to enjoy what God has given us to enjoy as though we are either more holy than him or just might offend him if we enjoy the thing he gave us.

As we’re heading into Christmas, no doubt many of us are thinking about presents. Not just the presents we might like to get but the various presents we will buy for others. There is something especially lovely about thinking about others, what they might like, and seeing them really enjoy the thing that you bought them.
There wouldn’t be much that would disappoint me more than spending an absolute fortune on some amazing gift for my children only for them never to play with it. Obviously, if I miss the mark and get them something they don’t want that’s more frustration with myself that I either didn’t know them well enough or just got it wrong (shout out to all the folks who bought someone a football top because you know they support ‘a red team’ and inadvertently buy a Man Utd shirt for a Liverpool fan!) But I am even more disappointed if I get them something I know they’ll love – and they do love it and thank me for it – but still they never play with or use it. That doesn’t please me at all!
The reason I get my kids presents – and not only my kids, but my nieces and nephews, my parents and my friends – is because I want them to enjoy it. I don’t really have many skills of any use whatsoever, but one thing I’m alright at is getting presents. I don’t always get it right, but more often than not, I can generally land a decent gift. Even where I don’t hit the bullseye, I think most people can at least see why I thought the gift was a good idea for them. The execution may not be bang on, but the thought behind it (I hope) is clear enough. I like it when people really enjoy the gifts I get them and I can cope if they tell me I didn’t hit the mark but they get why I thought it might. I don’t mind really if people are honest and tell me they just didn’t really like what I got them altogether (they’re grateful for the thought but please don’t get a carpet sample catalogue again!) But I am most disappointed of all by the present that is received with great joy, one I know they really do want, but they just refuse to play with it or use it.
Just imagine, this Christmas, you buy your kids an absolutely fantastic gift. You know they want it and you absolutely know they’ll enjoy it. They unwrap it on Christmas Day and they are so pleased. They love it. It’s just what they wanted. But because it’s so special to them, they never use it. They just keep saying, ‘thank you for the gift’ over and over to you. When you encourage them to use it, they tell you it’s far too special. They just kind of stare at it, repeatedly telling you how grateful they are for it, but never actually enjoying it.
Read More
Related Posts:

This is the real stumbling block in Christianity. It is here that Jews, Muslims, Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and many of those who feel the difficulties concerning the virgin birth, the miracles, the atonement, and the resurrection have come to grief. It is from misbelief, or at least inadequate belief, about the Incarnation that difficulties at other points in the gospel story usually spring. But once the Incarnation is grasped as a reality, these other difficulties dissolve.

The supreme mystery with which the gospel confronts us… lies not in the Good Friday message of atonement, nor in the Easter message of resurrection, but in the Christmas message of Incarnation. The really staggering Christian claim is that Jesus of Nazareth was God made man — that the second person of the Godhead became the “second man” (1 Cor 15:47), determining human destiny, the second representative head of the race, and that he took humanity without loss of deity, so that Jesus of Nazareth was as truly and fully divine as he was human.
Here are two mysteries for the price of one — the plurality of persons within the unity of God, and the union of Godhead and manhood in the person of Jesus. It is here, in the thing that happened at the first Christmas, that the profoundest and most unfathomable depths of the Christian revelation lie. “The Word became flesh” (Jn 1:14); God became man; the divine Son became a Jew; the Almighty appeared on earth as a helpless human baby, unable to do more than lie and stare and wriggle and make noises, needing to be fed and changed and taught to talk like any other child.
Read More
Related Posts: