The spiritual house of God, full of living stones (us) who serve the cornerstone (Christ), live their lives as a holy nation among the nations. We are like resident aliens—long-term residents of a city or world that is not our own. For we are seeking a better city “that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God” (Heb 11:10). Put more directly, “For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come” (Heb 13:14).

Christians sometimes debate politics. Some reason that if a nation has a majority of Christians, then we might speak of a Christian Nation with particular Christian laws and habits. Others hope for a new political order ushered in by Christ on earth that revives the laws of the old covenant for today.
Given the landscape of these debates, I wonder why few discussions highlight Peter’s political theology as expressed in 1 Peter? There, he provides not only political categories to identify us as Christians but also specific ways in which we act out this identity politically, economically, and socially as well as what it looks like when political powers use force against Christians.
While Peter does not aim to answer every question (and we should not press this one letter to do so), the apostle gives us categories for political identity and action. As Peter argues, we should see ourselves as resident aliens who do not belong to this world because we are born again as a holy nation and royal priesthood whose political orientation focuses on proclaiming God’s excellencies and holiness of action.
Resident Aliens
Peter opens the letter by calling Christians “elect exiles” in a diaspora (1 Pet 1:1). The reason why Christians are exiles in this world is because they are a new people: “Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people” (1 Pet 2:10). Peter here draws on Hosea just as Paul does in Romans to indicate that Jews and Gentiles together are one new people of God (Hos 1:6, 9, 10; 2:23; Rom 9:25, 26; 10:19).
In the language of the anonymous letter to Diognetus, written in the early 100s, Christians are a “third race” (Letter §1). In Paul’s wording, Christ has created “in himself one new [human being] in place of the two,” that is, Jews and Gentiles (Eph 2:15).
As newly born again (1 Pet 1:3, 23; 2:2), Christians become a new human being, distinct from Jew and Gentile—the other two biblical categories for people groups. We are in the analogy of Peter “living stones” that make up “a spiritual house” (1 Pet 2:5). As living stones in this spiritual temple, we become a “royal priesthood” and a “holy nation” whose vocation is to offer “spiritual sacrifices” (1 Pet 2:9, 5).
Because we no longer belong to this world and our inheritance lies in heaven (1 Pet 1:4), we have become a people for God’s own possession (1 Pet 2:9). We are sojourners and exiles, explains Peter (1 Pet 2:11). In other words, we are akin to the modern category of resident aliens, which is what the Greek word for sojourner means.[1]
As Craig Keener explains, “As members of a new people (1 Pet. 2:9–10), Christ-followers are aliens on earth (1:1, 17; 2:11), but they should behave honorably in human societies, just as societies expected of other resident aliens (2:12–14) (1 Peter, 147).”
The biblical analogies of Israel in exile as they resided in Babylon, willing the good of the city of there, apply today (Jer 29:7). Hence, Peter even says he is writing from the city of Babylon in the letter’s closing (1 Pet 5:13).
And even further back, Abraham teaches us what it means to be called out of the land in which we were first born to seek the city of God. Keener again explains, “Abraham is a “foreigner” and “resident alien” among long-term residents of Canaan (Gen. 23:4), and the psalmist, echoing Abraham’s experience, is a “foreigner” and “resident alien” before God, like his ancestors (Ps. 38:13 [ET 39:12])” (1 Peter, 148).
“I am a sojourner and foreigner among you,” says Abraham (Gen 23:4). And so he was because he was not seeking a city built with human hands but one whose maker and founder was God.
The spiritual house of God, full of living stones (us) who serve the cornerstone (Christ), live their lives as a holy nation among the nations. We are like resident aliens—long-term residents of a city or world that is not our own. For we are seeking a better city “that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God” (Heb 11:10).
Read More
Related Posts:

The church may be in decline, but it is still HIS church. Submit to Jesus who is the head of the church, busy yourself with His Kingdom work and watch your own spiritual life grow, watch the growth of those around you and see the Holy Spirit at work as the Lord transformes people and does wonderful things by His grace.

It doesn’t take long for you to realise that people aren’t happy with the state of the church. Generally speaking, in the Western world you can have a quick google, or speak to a few Christians and very soon you’ll hear complaints about the decline of the church. People say that society has changed which has resulted in fewer people attending church. Some argue that church simply isn’t engaging enough for the younger generations. Others say that the global church needs to change a become more inclusive and take on all sorts of ideologies and beliefs in order to be seen as relevant. Regardless of what people think the solution might be, the reality is that many people are looking at the Western church and seeing a decline.
But the question that comes to my mind is this, it’s all good and well to recognise that decline, but what are you doing about it, are you concerned enough to do something or do you contribute to that decline? This question is not just for church leaders but for every single person who goes to church and who would call themselves a Christian. Are you concerned enough to do something or do you contribute to that decline?
It’s easy to stand on the sidelines and to point the finger. It’s easy to stand amongst the crowd at a football match and shout instructions to the players with thousands of others. But you’re not playing, you don’t know the strategy, you don’t have the ball and you probably wouldn’t be able to score even if the goalie had one hand tied behind his back. In football, we get that. But it’s similar with the church. It is easy to stand on the sidelines, to raise your voice and say where the church is going wrong and how the status quo won’t suffice. But the difference with the church is that you’re called to get involved, to take the ball and to run with it.
Read More
Related Posts:

In summary, the recent enthusiasm that many Protestants have shown for Thomas is a mistake. The church has not been well-served by its eminent men lavishing praise upon an idolater and commending him to her members. There are many among us, especially young men, who are zealous to learn all that they might about the things of God, but who are impressionable and have not the prudence to discern between good and bad in the study of God. To commend an idolater to them is at best irresponsible; and if any of them stumble into the vanity of scholasticism or the pitfalls of Romanism on account of it….

Aquinas taught the propriety of worshipping images of Christ (“the same reverence should be shown to Christ’s image as to Christ Himself”)[1] and the cross (“in each way it is worshiped with the same adoration as Christ, viz. the adoration of ‘latria.’ And for this reason also we speak to the cross and pray to it, as to the Crucified Himself”).[2] Scripture teaches that worshipping images is idolatry and wholly forbidden: “You shall not make idols for yourselves or erect an image or pillar, and you shall not set up a figured stone in your land to bow down to it, for I am the Lord your God” (Lev. 26:1; comp. 19:4; Ex. 20:4, 23; 34:17; Ps. 97:7; Isa. 42:17; 44:9-20; Jer. 10:1-16). It teaches further that even lawful things can be used for idolatry (2 Kgs. 18:4), and that no tolerance is to be given to those that propagate such practices but that they are to be summarily rejected as false teachers:
If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people (Deut. 13:6-9).
That commandment was given to Israel as a civil law, but the principle contained in it – namely, that idolatry is so evil that it must be stamped out at its first appearance – applies to the church as well, though we are to apply it differently by rejecting idolaters and refusing their company rather than using physical force against them (2 Cor. 6:16-17). Elsewhere both Paul (“my beloved, flee from idolatry,” 1 Cor. 10:14) and John (“Little children, keep yourselves from idols,” 1 Jn. 5:21) teach believers to have nothing to do with idolatry and those that promote it in the church, and in the letters to the churches at Pergamum and Thyatira the ascended Lord rebukes them for tolerating idolaters in their midst and threatens divine judgment upon them for this failing (Rev. 2:14-16; 20-23).
Scripture therefore mandates we reject Aquinas entirely, not merely in part, for one should not attempt to learn the true knowledge of God from an idolater and false teacher. Why would we peruse such a person when God has raised up such an abundance of faithful lights? What is there in Aquinas that cannot be gotten elsewhere? Why pass over a purer theologian’s work for that of an idolater? And why not regard Scripture itself as sufficient? For in this matter there is an implicit denial of that precious doctrine even if it is explicitly professed by Aquinas’ admirers. If Scripture is truly sufficient for all that we need to know unto the salvation of our souls – and if our souls, guided by the Spirit, are competent to understand Scripture aright – then it is not apparent what benefit we might gain from Aquinas. No one who desires the waters of life should depart from their source in order to partake of them as diluted and poisoned by a secondary agent.
In summary, the recent enthusiasm that many Protestants have shown for Thomas is a mistake. The church has not been well-served by its eminent men lavishing praise upon an idolater and commending him to her members. There are many among us, especially young men, who are zealous to learn all that they might about the things of God, but who are impressionable and have not the prudence to discern between good and bad in the study of God. To commend an idolater to them is at best irresponsible; and if any of them stumble into the vanity of scholasticism or the pitfalls of Romanism on account of it, it may prove that it will be a source of woe unto those that have caused their novice brothers to stumble therein (Lk. 17:1-2). Nor is this possibility an idle speculation: it is common knowledge that reading Aquinas played a large part in Francis Beckwith, the president of the Evangelical Theological Society, converting to Rome in 2007. (And such is his fondness for Aquinas that he has continued to attempt to propagate his teachings among us, notably with his 2019 book Never Doubt Thomas).
Dear reader, do not allow yourself to be caught up in the madness of the Aquinas craze. Let the Spirit instruct you in his Word with all humility, prayerfulness, and trembling (Eph. 6:18; Phil. 2:12-13; Jude 20), and do not allow a discontent spirit to arise within your breast that will set your ears to itching (2 Tim. 4:3) and your mind to wandering after sophistry and vain speculation (2 Tim. 2:14-19; Tit. 3:9-11). If you wish to know God in truth (Jn. 17:3) you do not need this:
The Philosopher in the Book of Predicaments (Categor. vi) reckons disposition and habit as the first species of quality. Now Simplicius, in his Commentary on the Predicaments, explains the difference of these species as follows. He says “that some qualities are natural, and are in their subject in virtue of its nature, and are always there: but some are adventitious, being caused from without, and these can be lost. Now the latter,” i.e. those which are adventitious, “are habits and dispositions, differing in the point of being easily or difficultly lost. As to natural qualities, some regard a thing in the point of its being in a state of potentiality; and thus we have the second species of quality: while others regard a thing which is in act; and this either deeply rooted therein or only on its surface. If deeply rooted, we have the third species of quality: if on the surface, we have the fourth species of quality, as shape, and form which is the shape of an animated being.”[3]
In fact, such eye-splitting, mind-numbing prose may well prove a stumbling block even apart from its speculative content. Let it not be said of you that you are “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:7) or that you have departed into vain speculation. Rather, “see to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8) and that you “let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things [inc. idolatry, v.5] the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience” (Eph. 5:6). “Hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught” (Tit. 1:9), and “if anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness” (1 Tim. 6:3) – that is, if (among other things) anyone is inclined to imagine that idolatry is anything other than a catastrophic sin with eternal consequences (1 Cor. 6:9; Rev. 22:15) – be sure to reject such a bad example (1 Tim. 6:4; comp. 2 Tim. 3:5) and to be content with the Scriptures which God has given us to know his will in all things. You will probably be reviled as an anti-intellectual, sectarian biblicist, but this is nothing (for reviling is a part of the Christian life, Matt. 5:11-12; comp. 2 Tim. 3:12), as it is better to keep from bad influences and please God than to have the good favor of society, the church, or the academy at the price of regarding favorably an idolater.
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Simpsonville, S.C.
[1] Summa Theologica III, Q. 25, A.3
[2] Ibid., Q. 25, A.4
[3] Summa Theologica IaIIae, Q. 49, Art. 2. This is the beginning of Aquinas’s answer to the question “whether habit is a distinct species of quality?” and in the next sentence after this he contradicts what has been quoted here.

Related Posts: