ROMANS 13 and POLITICS

Posted by expedition44 on October 23, 2024

Expedition 44 founders, Dr. Matt and Dr. Ryan have a book coming out in 2025 entitled Principalities, Powers, and Allegiances which deals in large part with the interpretation of Romans 13. Its rather scholarly so let me give an overview in fairly plain words. If you want to work through 1300 references and do your due diligence on the subject, well then, you will need to wait for the 300-page book!

READ ROMANS 13 HERE

As we approach texts such as Romans 13, theologians categorize them in two ways- submission and conflict. The submission texts of Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 use the language of submission or subjection to authorities and have been used to frame a potentially positive view of the government and kingdom structures in the world. Though we show in our book that not all interpret these texts in that manner. Runge summarizes this submission approach to these texts saying,

Paul’s rationale for obedience has nothing to do with the rulers’ godliness, competence, or any other qualification. Instead, his call for submission to their authority is grounded in God’s authority. The only authorities that exist are the ones whom God has placed there, according to His sovereign plan… Although Paul is silent regarding unjust rulers, Peter is not. Peter describes an example of subjecting oneself to a master even if he is unjust (1 Pet 2:18–19). He takes the position that even in the face of unjust authority, it is still better to submit.^[1]

The conflict text we examine in our forthcoming book is Revelation 13 and is often based on anti-imperial sentiments. The thrust to the interpretation of this text is based on which theological school one lands in when approaching the letter of Revelation. If one places this as purely future events then it has little bearing on how one views government in the present, especially if the church will be “raptured” at the time of the “Beast’s Government”: a “revived Roman empire,” according to some futurist interpretations.^[2] (Namely dispensationalism views such as the popular pre-tribulation view.) Other approaches to this passage see this as something from the past yet can be applied to all believers of all times within the view that the Bible was written for us but not to us. In that perspective, it was written to seven churches in Asia Minor in the first century as the primary audience and it must have meant something for them in the first century context of the Roman empire and the emperor cult. Putting it purely in the future removes those churches from the context because they are purely an allegory of church history eras.^[3]

For this article, we will only be looking at Romans 13, but I would be remise if I didn’t point out it’s context and relationship to other similar texts within the lens of scripture.

CONTEXT OF ROMANS 13

Whenever you dive into exegesis context is king (well actually Jesus is king, but you know what I mean!) As I indicate above, we need to first determine who was the intended audience and how would they have taken the text, epistle, message, or letter. Once you figure that out than “maybe” you can apply it to your own situation. (This hermeneutic is often referred to as textures of interpretation.) Romans was likely written while Paul was staying in the house of Gaius in Corinth. The epistle was probably transcribed by Paul’s amanuensis Tertius and is dated AD late 55 to early 57. We are told in certain textual variants including subscripts explicitly mentioning Romans 16 that it was delivered by Phoebe who was a Deacon. This letter likely would have been distributed in a similar fashion to the rest of the NT letters in a teaching / preaching style by the one making the delivery to a circuit of communities. Phoebe lived in Cenchreae, a port town near the city of Corinth. Corinth was where Paul was staying when he wrote the letter to the Romans.

It is important to remember that Romans was written before Paul went to prison and many scholars believe it to have been that catalyst that sent him that way with language very much asserting authority to King Jesus which was deemed as rival to the emperor of Rome. Romans is written at the End of Claudius’ edict after he evicted Jews or Jewish leaders in 49 AD. In 54 AD Claudius dies and Nero takes the throne asserting his uncle Claudius to be an “idiotes” and welcomed back everyone to Rome. This would seem to be a very political move to boost popularity towards his goal of building the empire, rather than a direct support towards Christians. We would assert this by seeing that within a few short years he begins to persecute Christians throwing lavish garden parties that are lit by the ambience of Christians dipped in tar and set on fire. Josephus would go on to note “in the name of Christus” as coding that led to disturbances between Nero and Christianity. Although some of the Epistle of Romans seems to almost carry a secret code as to not bring imminent wrath from Nero, it still clearly states that Jesus is king (and not Nero) flying directly in the face of the empire. I don’t think anyone would argue that it was enough to have gotten Paul on the Roman radar to be in trouble as he had been sent to prison because he was accused by the governor of Syria of acts of violence in 52 AD. We get no record of Paul doing anything violent, but opposing Rome by your speech was often treated as treason and dealt with in the same sense as violent rebellions. Make no mistake, he was viewed as an insurgent by Roman authorities on multiple occasions.

There is also a power shift in the church transitioning from Jew and Gentile creating the context of the struggle of the book of Romans. The theme of the strong and weak is perhaps viewed as Paul’s main mission in Rome to live out the gospel of unity. Paul has a greater vision and is preparing for His mission to Spain asking them to live in unity as he starts to take the gospel to the end of the earths. His message takes on the persona of, “If we can’t get it right here how are we going to go to reach the people at the ends of the earth?“

ROMANS 1:1-4 starts right out by saying JESUS IS KING (JESUS IS LORD CAESAR IS NOT) stating that Paul is a Bondservant of Christ (the king, the anointed one). This is first century “doulos” language setting apart Paul as a willing “slave” for the gospel. It is important to note that these would certainly have been interpreted as “anti” words in regard to a Roman national political kingdom. The text uses the term “son of God” which is a title for caesar as well as “curios” as the title for Lord demanded as a “self-title” by the emperor.

When you approach this book from a Deuteronomy 32 worldview, Romans 1:21-23 frames humans as image bearers that rejected God and results in God handing them over to their own desires or consequences (which is the biblical definition of God’s wrath.) In a similar understanding, Yahweh appoints Elohim over each nation to be cultivated by a spiritual being and that spiritual being essentially “falls” as they allow themselves to be worshipped in the place of Yahweh. They “take the praise” and become another god before Yahweh and become the “household” image if idolatry. Humanity rejects God and God hands the people and the fallen spiritual being over to the “world” and those principalities. The Romans text uses the Greek word paradidomi which specifically draws on the fact that they were handed over to “sin and death” which are seen as demonic “powers” that the world serves. Romans then makes the assertion that because we serve KING JESUS, we are no longer to be slaves to these demonic forces. The author of Romans then projects Nero as aligned with the demonic forces and those that stand with Jesus as RIVAL to those powers in their own kingdom of Jesus. This is partly where we get the idea of re-vival – we are working against the “rival” world (those not in allegiant faith to Jesus) to take back what was lost and reclaim them solely for JESUS and His kingdom.

It is also important to understand the basic outline of Romans:

ROMANS 1-4 is one literary unit – Christ is King, and Jesus makes a way for everyone to Him
ROMANS 5-8 We are slaves to sin and can be set free and delivered into becoming part of Christ’s kingdom (EXODUS MOTIF)
Romans 6 Baptism – the RED SEA is seen as a victory over the spiritual beings that seek to enslave us to the powers, principalities, and kingdoms of this earth
Romans 7 is the Law (Jew / Gentiles see differently but need unity, they are part of the same Jesus kingdom and need to be in spiritual alignment)
Romans 8 Restoring the promise land and framing a return to Edenic thinking
Romans 9-11 goes into Jewish ancestry matters which may not mean much to us today, but was crucial to the grafting of the new covenant kingdom church (ALL ISRAEL)
Romans 12-16 one literary unity tied into together. As basic as it sounds, hermeneutically we shouldn’t read Romans 13 without 12 first; and certainly, shouldn’t be forming doctrines based on one line pull phrases. According to Hermeneutic laws, we need to read Romans 12 with 13. Romans 12 serves as a pre-context to everything established in chapter 13.

The basis of ROMANS 12 is to be a Living sacrifice; don’t be conformed to the world but be transformed to the way of Christ and unified in His kingdom. At the end of the chapter Paul basically summarizes the sermon on the mount. This is the Jesus Manifesto and charge to live for CHRIST ALONE. This is “love in action” verbiage aimed straight at the church. It answers the question of “How does the church deal with those outsides of the church or in the rival empire?” It is exilic language reminiscent of Jeremiah 29.

THERE IS A LEGITIMATE QUESTION AS TO THE PRIMARY TARGET OF ROM 12-13

There is obviously some empirical language as I described with the opening words of Romans directly and emphatically targeting CAESAR himself, but much of this is also likely aimed at local government. The target doesn’t really matter much IMO, other than the impact of those desiring theologically to apply the text to local and/or national government. There is an argument for 2 voices, but I lean towards local authority. I might even say that in the end where I land is that the text is a call for discipleship under the way of Jesus. There may or may not be two voices but if you arrive where I have, it doesn’t really matter. Romans isn’t seeking to give us a full theology of the state or federal government. Some want to revolt, and others are deciding if they should pay the local dues or not, Paul is more concerned about the overall picture or the way of Jesus.

Rome had smaller government entities entrusted to local magistrates and each city would try to “outdo” the next in their adulterated loyalty displays to the emperor. As we read between the lines, (which again was likely necessary in the dispersing of this letter), we get the idea that Christians weren’t to participate in these sorts of things. They likely were encouraged by those in the church (right or wrong) to stop paying “taxes” or “dues” that supported the local corrupt tax collectors and the near worship of the emperor. This was largely because these dues for civic upkeep often went directly to the neighborhood shrine that honored (worshipped) the emperor and/or local gods. When Christians refused to participate it was seen as unpatriotic to ROME and the emperor. However, it was clear that most Christians weren’t “not paying dues” as a direct act of anarchy or rebellion, but rather the simple fact that their allegiance was simply to a different King. Christians often believed they were called to live in the shadow of the empire but not by the ways of the empire.

N. T. Wright [4] notes that Romans is:

…neither a systematic theology nor a summary of Paul’s lifework, but it is by common consent his masterpiece. It dwarfs most of his other writings, an Alpine peak towering over hills and villages. Not all onlookers have viewed it in the same light or from the same angle, and their snapshots and paintings of it are sometimes remarkably unalike. Not all climbers have taken the same route up its sheer sides, and there is frequent disagreement on the best approach. What nobody doubts is that we are here dealing with a work of massive substance, presenting a formidable intellectual challenge while offering a breathtaking theological and spiritual vision.

Textually, Romans 13:1–7 is a fragment dealing with obedience to earthly powers is considered by some, for example James Kallas,^[5] to be an interpolation.^[6] Even Paul Tillich (who is known for His excellent book on systematic theology that I don’t agree with), along with the great majority of evangelical scholars, accepts the historical authenticity of Romans 13:1–7, but claims it has been misinterpreted by churches with an anti-revolutionary bias:

One of the many politico-theological abuses of biblical statements is the understanding of Paul’s words [Romans 13:1–7] as justifying the anti-revolutionary bias of some churches, particularly the Lutheran. But neither these words nor any other New Testament statement deals with the methods of gaining political power. In Romans, Paul is addressing eschatological enthusiasts, not a revolutionary political movement.^[7]

CHIASTIC PATTERN

It may not come as a surprise to most, but the book of Romans contains several chiastic patterns in order to aid its readers in the learning of the most important message of all time: The good news of Jesus Christ. Chiasmus is an inverted parallelism; it presents a series of words or ideas followed by a second presentation of similar words or ideas, but in reverse order. The Old Testament has hundreds of chiasms (the book of Isaiah alone has more than one hundred), varying in length from four lines to entire chapters. The most obvious sense of this might simply be referring to the outline above to which the beginning chapters and end chapters are both to be seen as bookends of the literary unit. On the surface this chiasm may not seem very profound, but it actually teaches an important truth about family togetherness—and about families centering themselves in the temple. However, it isn’t always clear why the author wrote in chiasmus and how our interpretation should or might be influenced by the literary device. Perhaps the repetition of words in balanced, symmetrical structures encourages and enhances learning and memorization. Also, repetition of key points or themes emphasizes the crux of a prophetic message. Finally, chiasmus encourages reading of important texts by making them aesthetically pleasing to the reader. Could a word have been chosen over another because of rhythmic value? Perhaps. Could an emphasis be understood as a contranym or need for repetition? Perhaps. All of these things should go into your textual criticism as a texture of interpretation for faithful understanding and application. Here is the chiastic structure of our text as the larger sections and smaller sections follow this style. I will leave interpretive deductions to you. It would certainly help to read this in Greek if you are able.

ROMANS 13:1-2

It is interesting that Romans 13 comes right out referring to governing authorities as those who have power over you. The transliteration gloss of our English word “authority” is the Greek “exousia” which I want to point out is Paul’s word for the fallen spiritual beings, the principalities and powers, or what we more modernly refer to as demons. Of course, the phrase takes on other dimensions in other parts of scripture, but here I would argue for a Hebraic use of the terminology. Essentially, he is calling the kingdoms of the world, their governments and magistrates that rule over everyone demonic. (Dionysius Halicarnassus 8, 44; 11, 32 also suggests this). I Corinthians 2 uses this same language under the same pretenses. The Authority is God’s. “let us be subject” is the Greek hupotassó from which tasso takes on a passive tense and comes from a military “filing” or order. In other words, our God is in order over the rulers but isn’t putting a stamp of approval on their actions. It is similar to a librarian ordering books (you might even say having power over their ability to influence) but not by being the author of all of them. In the same way, God hands over nations to be managed by the spiritual beings or sons of God which eventually continues through their falling away but God isn’t morally approving anything that they have done, God lines them up or simply uses them by divine purpose in many ways regardless of their proclivity towards Him. Perhaps we need to identify this as a tool that God allows and possibly uses but not “ordains”; or perhaps we just need to “leave it alone” with the understanding that His ways are higher than ours and are quite dynamic. God used Babylon to punish pagan nations, but obviously the way that Babylon does this isn’t natively of GOD. God isn’t aligned in it (and we shouldn’t be either.) God allows them, but doesn’t set them into place. That isn’t his character. We are reminded of this by Hosea 8:4 -“They [Israel] have set up kings but not by me.” What Romans is asserting is that all authority is from God and this bold statement was certainly viewed as undermining Caesar’s power. Paul was boldly proclaiming that Caesar HAS NO REAL AUTHORITY. God is the one with power not Caesar. We are reminded of this order as it very much takes on Genesis 1:1 language and therefore suggest a theological consistent view over the lens of scripture.

BE SUBJECT AND RESIST is a word play in Greek. Both words, hypotassesthō and antitassomenos are Hapax legomenon’s (which I state for your consideration). They are in the perfect active participle which means they are past and coming into future. We are certainly charged with an overtone to not be a poor witness or ambassadors of Jesus (and to protect the witness of the kingdom community).

Submit here is again hupotasso. To be clear it doesn’t mean to “obey.” It means to voluntarily yield or put in a line (words of order). Ephesians 5 says submit to one another out of reverence to Christ. 1 Peter suggests that submission was for GOD’s sake. Paul could have used the Greek work hupakouó which was the more common word to “OBEY”, but he doesn’t, instead he uses a word for submit. Paul reserves the word “OBEY” for GOD ALONE.

We may need to take into consideration the context of Romans 12 from the beginning. There are Christians mixed with Jews and Zealots trying to fight to take back Jerusalem by robbing temples and all kinds of crazy stuff. Paul in Romans 2 seems to be speaking against this. Don’t cause trouble, be self-sacrificial as Jesus was on the cross. You overcome by winning them over through LOVE. Perhaps the Christians (Jews and gentiles) in Rome were looking back on their brethren starting to get a bit “crazy” or “un-Ruly” in Jerusalem wondering if they should follow suit and Paul seems to starkly say “no.”

I need to also point out the contranym language that could be influenced by the chiastic structure but maybe not. Lots of people in the Bible are disobeying the government in the name of God. Mary and Joseph flee disobeying Herod, in Acts 9 and in II Corinthians 11 Paul seems to be boasting about disobeying the government on multiple occasions (although this can be argued.) But to be clear, we don’t get the fight back language from Paul. If you think scripture suggests or is telling you to fight back or take a stand politically elsewhere in the Bible you are welcome to try to deduct that, but hermeneutically this passage (and all of Romans) textually doesn’t give you that. That wasn’t Paul’s view, even in the midst of revolt and anarchy at the time this was written. It would have been very easy for him to suggest such a thing or action of that nature if that was his intention, but it simply isn’t there. Not many years later, the Christian zealots go to war against Rome which even included the ESSENES, some of whom seemed to be very pacifistic (and likely listened to Paul’s words here) while others were literally preparing for war wanting God to send down hellfire and brimstone and legions of angels against the Romans which obviously God didn’t do. He didn’t do it at the cross, why would people think he would do it now? Seems like 2000 years later people are still thinking that way despite the words of both Jesus and Paul. (And I own a gun range, so I sort of wish that’s the way Jesus operated, but He doesn’t. That sword in the book of Revelation isn’t what you want it to be!)

In Peter, (which our book really gets into) he says they’re appointed to praise good deeds and punish evil deeds. In other words, political rulers might or might not uphold righteousness or justice, but it isn’t within God’s direct hand. When people wrong other people, the government should punish them, but God’s retributive justice isn’t on the line.

ROMANS 13:3-5

Allegiance to Christ might look like opposition to the world. Acts 5 says we must obey Christ; in other words, we are living this denial of the world out because of our submission to Christ, not simply because we want to be rebellious towards the world. This looks like a community next to or within Babylon but as a light showing a better more beautiful way. We are active in our love for our enemies and praising those who persecute them, this is the main thrust of what it means to be a prophetic witness.

Perhaps the term “BEARING THE SWORD” in our age derails people. For instance, Wayne Grudem who is a statist says, “sword in the hands of a good government is God’s designated weapon to defeat evil doers.” On the other hand, Preston Sprinkle says, “Using Romans 13:3 isn’t to be used as God’s way of ruling the world is out of context for a warfare policy or policing nations of the world. This isn’t a chapter on How God rules the world.” I would tend to personally to say that exegetically Sprinkle is significantly more faithful to the text here. I see God allowing the sword to be used by a government but not charging or designating it.

The sword was not about capital punishment in Romans or Revelation and to make such conclusions would be require a good amount of theological gymnastics. We simply don’t have grounds to go that way within the text. I am aware that some have tried to make this point by saying things such as pointing out that criminals were typically executed by beheading with a sword (crucifixion was reserved for the worst criminals of the lowest classes); but it is a stretch to things that the exegesis of the text suggests this (whether you think the Bible suggests this theology in other places or not.) Brian Zahnd has an excellent POST on this and is a quick read.

There is also a consideration that the sword (Greek machaira) could be coded for first century language referring to the local magistrate or tax police. The Greek word means judicial authority. We have to remember this is an HONOR/SHAME society (not guilty innocent society as we are in the West). It is also worth exploring the term used for governing authorities sometimes translated as “minister of God for your good.” The Greek is diakonos and is used by Paul referring to those using their gifts in the church. But the word itself doesn’t seem to take on good or evil, consider more like a chaos monster. It is a device that can go either way. (It isn’t the fork that makes people fat.) If we parse the word into the Hebrew equivalent, we find that OT pagan nations are referred to by the same Hebrew word. In Isaiah 44 it is used to describe the king of Persia. In Jeremiah 27 and 43 it is said of Nebuchadnezzar and in Isaiah 10 it describes the nation of Assyria. These are PAGAN DICTATORS. God uses them as instruments of his hand, but God doesn’t approve of their measures and certainly hasn’t “commissioned,” “anointed,” or “ordained” them. I will also remind you that ministers aren’t always good guys. Sometimes they are evil. So, at the very least we have no grounds to use this verse to defend entanglement of the state. God’s way was theocracy which resulted in a KING JESUS covenant and kingdom. Man’s ways were to establish kings and rulers in the place of what God says is His.

“When Paul adds the thought that these people are appointed by God to their position of authority, he simply cannot have in mind the empire or the hierarchy of government. Interpreting his words in that way would require us to set aside everything we know about the Tanakh’s treatment of evil or idolatrous rulers. How can we imagine that Paul ignores the stories of Daniel and the Israelites in captivity, or the verdicts God ascribes to many of the kings of Israel? Is Paul asserting that God’s judgment on these men in power is misplaced? Are we ready to endorse them as God’s choices for leadership when God Himself describes them as wicked?” – Mark Nanos, The Mystery of Romans (Fortress Press, 1996).

The Greek word used for sword is machairan and is the equivalent of the Hebrew word used to describe the knife used in circumcision (Joshua 5:2), the sacrificial knife used in the offering of Isaac (Genesis 22:6) and a small dagger (Judges 3:16). It is not the Greek word used to describe the typical military sword of the Roman soldiers. Furthermore, this term is used symbolically for a sign of judicial authority in Roman law which would make the understanding of local authorities or magistrates more fitting. As I suggested earlier, Paul may be using the word as a metaphor for disciplinary action of the synagogue authorities.

ROMANS 13:5

Subjection is usually glossed as yielding or submitting because of conscious sake. Peter uses this as a synonym of allegiance to God’s kingdoms as loyalty language, it is a life aligned towards God. Peter says we are allegiant to a different king so live at peace! The word conscience in 13:5 is the same word used for allegiance in 1 Peter 3.

ROMANS 13:6-7

We see the word for servants/ministers again and I will remind you to interpret as tools of God, not positive or negative. Taxes here seems to be a general toll tax for goods. It is likely linked to the local magistrate or community and perhaps in alignment with the enshrined idolatry towards the gods or emperor. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God. There is an argument that all of money is the world’s here, but that’s a different article. Sticking to the immediate text we can deduct that we are to give yourself wholly to God, this is a hyper link (remez) to what Jesus said regularly. We fear God alone. Honor all people in the image of God.

The government is simply a tool that God may use; as in the OT when He used pagan nations as a tool. (Think of it as a stop gap until we are completely reconciled to new life in Him.) Furthermore, God does not set up or pick leaders of the world. Hosea and 1 Samuel 8 explicitly say this. He actually sees it as a rejection of Himself. “Render” is a hyperlink to render unto Caesar which is about giving Cesar his stupid coin, but you belong to God. His image is on you. Romans13:8 pretty much defeats a nationalist reading of Rom 13. If a Christian wants to do and enforce most of the things in those seven verses.

Christians subvert in love not rebellion.

Theologian Greg Boyd notes:

It was never God’s goal to have humans rule other people. Governments are God’s concession to human sin. They are now a practical necessity in the world, and God uses them to further his purposes (Rom. 13:1-6). But this doesn’t mean that God approves of them … The Kingdom of God, on the other hand, is based on people trusting God as their sole ruler. Kingdom people are therefore to place no more trust or confidence in governments than Jesus did – which is none. If a government’s laws happen to be consistent with the rule of God, we obey them. If they’re not, we follow the example of Jesus and disobey them (cf. Ac. 5:39). But either way, it’s clear that our behavior isn’t dictated by what government says, but by what God says.

DISCIPLESHIP & SHEPHERDING

The application of this project and or any other endeavor for the church should be seen primarily in the distinctness of the kingdom of God. This is a foundational aspect of discipleship. What should be gleaned from our exploration of the biblical narrative is that God’s people are to be disentangled from the world and live in the way of Jesus- as a prophetic witness to the world in the way of the faithful witness.

When the Deuteronomy 32 Worldview is applied to political discipleship and allegiances it should deemphasize political involvement and national allegiances with the world and promote deeper wholehearted devotion to the true king- Jesus. This does not deter from our commitment to love our neighbors outside the church. The kingdom is seen as a light to the nations, living in the way of the king and by the law of the king. It is called to be distinct but not removed – being “Exiles in Babylon” working by the Spirit to re inherit the disinherited people of the nations. This narrative approach sees the Edenic bookends of the Bible as the ideal. In the beginning we saw humanity as kings and priests in Eden and we see the same picture at the end of the Bible when heaven comes to earth after Babylon and the Powers are destroyed.

Although there are numerous passages on discipleship and shepherding, Matthew 28 and the great commission seems to always be the one used to promote such a thing, and rightly so. Perhaps one of my pet peeves is when people misquote the text to say that we are called to “disciple the nations.” Perhaps it is a matter of mincing words, but the text of the great commission is about discipling people not kingdoms (ethnos not bassilas.) People of all tongues and tribes specifically. This isn’t talking about their systems, empires, or borders; it means people. To interpret ethnos as nation states is a hermeneutical gross misinterpretation and unfaithful to the text.

CONCLUSION

Since the beginning of time the Bible tells us we are caught in a spiritual war within the cosmos and we are the central figures of the battle, the segullah (God’s set apart). Perhaps spiritual warfare looks different today than during the freeing of the Israelites in Egypt, but perhaps not.

God’s intimate and vivacious pursuit to walk or have intimate relationship with us is tied closely to His character and thus never changes. God’s pursuit to have intimate communion with us is stronger and closer than ever before.

We are designed in the image of God and thus we are designed to bring forth life in everything that we do, yet if we are not allowing God to do the work beginning on the inside of our minds and hearts, lasting fruit cannot be produced.

The sin of Adam and Eve separated humanity from the tree of life but God is still offering the relationship that He had with them in Eden and actually desires a better way, not to just occasionally walk with you as He did with Adam and Eve in Eden, but through Jesus now offers even more, He wants to never leave you, to continually reside in your heart as you become His temple being the very physical manifestation of the presence of God to those you interact with. Yes, the world has been taken over by evil, but you represent light and have the power to make the presence that you fill sacred to make what is broken healed. You are the source of God to renew the Earth. You no longer live under a curse, but the power of the LORD is in you. Choose this day to no longer live in sin and dwell richly in the presence of the LORD. (1 Jn 3:6-9, 1 Jn 5:18, Rom 8:11, Gal 2:20, Col 1:27, I Peter 2:8-9, Eph 3:17, 2 Thess 1:10, 2 Cor 5:17.)

_________________________________________

Written in first person by Dr. Will Ryan with the research and auspice of Dr. Matt Mouzakis

1. Steven E. Runge, High Definition Commentary: Romans (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014), 227; 230

2. Gregg, Steve, Revelation: Four Views Commentary, (Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 2013), 335

3. See Harold Hunter, Revelation, (Evansville, IN, Trinity Press, 2002), 13 as an example.

4. Leander E. Keck and others, eds., The New Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002) 395

5. Romans 13:1–7 an Interpolation? — The Sword and the Ploughshare”. April 24, 2014. Archived from the original on April 24, 2014.

6. “Review of the book Paul and Empire – Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society (Edited by Richard A. Horsley)”. Archived from the original on April 20, 2013. Retrieved November 1, 2012.

7. Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, volume 3 (University of Chicago Press: 1963), p. 389.

2024 KINGDOM SERIES PT 1 VOTING

Posted by expedition44 on October 8, 2024

You have been told your entire life that good Christians should “do their job” and vote. That is the mainstream evangelical Christian view. However, everyone knows “that guy” who seems to be a great Jesus follower and has either totally politically checked out to go live like a monk or perhaps has just convinced himself that the way of the cross isn’t to become “overly” politically aligned as a Christian. To most in the first category the second two positions may also seem “un-Christian.” Nilay Saiya in his global politics of Jesus [1] describes these three positions as the Patriot position or Christianism believing it is your biblical responsibility to vote (7 mountain mandate type of thinking), the second position he describes as the pietists position or detachment such as the first century Essene community; and the last being that of the prophetic witness position describing more of an exilic position of speaking truth passively as a witness. Perhaps there is a time, a calling, or season for all three in your life dependent on each specific situation and your personal position, but as with most issues pertaining to our modern lives, the word of God is not silent here. Let’s see what it says.

Global Christianity – What we all agree on

As with all x44 articles the intended audience here is those that are “all in” for Jesus. For the most part here is what the all in community agrees on. Jesus inaugurated a new kingdom and set apart nation. There is nothing that Jesus talked about. After his resurrection and victory over death on the cross, Jesus assumed the throne in the heavens and sent His spirit to dwell in us. This kingdom is here and now as well as described as coming (eschatologically.) To be clear, the Bible treats this kingdom as a rival kingdom to the other kingdoms of the world using phrases like, “you can’t serve two masters.” The definition given of those that are not in alignment with this ideology is that of “an enemy” to His kingdom even describing some that claim to be His followers as lukewarm unequivocally stating that “He never knew you,” which seemingly describes those that do not follow his commands to leave their formal world behind and live in complete devotion to Him. As strange or counter cultural as it may be, the hope of this kingdom is that the “enemies” might be reconciled by these “good neighbors faithful to Jesus” and eventually won over and shepherded into obedience into the Jesus kingdom. We are told eschatologically that Jesus will eventually wipe away all the other kingdoms of the world. In this nation Christ alone is King.

To those in the original intended first century audience this word certainly would have been received as traitorous and blasphemy towards the Roman empire and the emperor, which is (in part), why Jesus was crucified and explains the sign over his head. Nevertheless, entering into the Kingdom and coming into belief in and agreement with the terms of the king is how salvation is achieved. The Bible describes this decision of our heart and mind as being born into new life, we are then dead to our old ways. We gain citizenship to this new kingdom (Phil 3:20) and should no longer desire or pursue our former life. We are dead to it in every way. We willingly and full accept the call then to function as ambassadors of the new kingdom towards those still dying in the old rival kingdoms of the world as we now happily exist as foreigners or exiles dwelling in our former broken world which scripture describes to be ruled by Satan. The Jesus kingdom is characterized and embodied by those who serve others not themselves, those with the desire to love their enemies and turn the other cheek in grace and mercy shepherding and winning them over them to a better more beautiful way of life. As ambassadors to the pagan nations, we are the physical manifestation of Jesus to our world. In this way, Christians are called to pledge their allegiance to God and his Kingdom, not to any worldly nation, government, political party, flag, or ideology. One of the main tasks of a Christian is to live set-apart which means separated. Separated from what? The world. To live wholly devoted and undefiled for Jesus.

Of course, 2000 years later some circumstances might complicate, cloud, or entangle your thinking. Paul was a part of three kingdoms, he maintained Jewish citizenship, Roman citizenship and was certainly fully devoted primarily to the Kesus kingdom. Most Jesus followers didn’t have a “vote” in Rome; yet today our Rival nation asks us what we think by casting a vote. It is actually pretty amazing that the evil empire allows Christians a vote. In many ways every decision you make is a “vote” of some sort.

Patriotism doesn’t necessarily mean you love the evil satanic ongoings of our government and Washington DC, although it certainly can and often does; but the better idea is that you love the people of the nation and the soil by which it is represented. Godly presence means that the land you inhabit became sacred space unto the Lord. Eventually all the land and world will be won back for the Lord and consecrated back to Him. Do we start now? Isn’t that what we are supposed to be doing?

The enemy is willing to give you a “place” at his table, should you take it? Would Jesus have eaten at that table? Obviously, peoples answer to these questions, even based on scripture and interpretation will vary. Jesus “entertained” the table but not the rival kingdom.

Christian Patriotism

As much as this is the mainstream view and what most Americans believe the Bible teaches, the exegetical “proof” (IMHO) is slim if there at all. However, those that believe that the Bible aligns with casting a vote for your government make a rather convincing philosophical argument. Some of the founding fathers truly believed and sought after creating a platform of government in America by which Godly principles and Godly men could lead our country. Charles Finney, John Adams, John Jay, and Samuel Adams are amongst my favorites that I truly believe were “all in” seekers of the Jesus kingdom, but my verdict is out on the other 55 people in that “boarded up” room. If you haven’t listened to our Expedition 44 interview with Michael Gaddy, I would encourage you to give it a listen. In one regard you might not care what the founding fathers said or thought or might believe that only 4-5 of the founding fathers were postured towards the kingdom. What they say isn’t God’s voice to you and therefore you might think is largely irrelevant to you. But that view might seem to take on a selfishly driven perspective of historical learning.

There are a few ideas in the Bible that might promote such a dual citizenship. Matthew 22:37-40 tells us to Love God and our neighbor. If we truly want the best for our neighbor, wouldn’t we exercise our influence against the evil atrocities of the world and government? But if your already not a great neighbor and you use this passage to justify voting as helping your neighbor then you have some “order issues” or might be guilty of doing something you are accusing others of (ie being a hypocrite and we all know that isn’t helping the body of Christ with their “image”.)

Others might cite Romans 13:8 or I Tim 2:1-4 or even Gal 6 as having influence in our world. The New Testament is filled with examples of Godly people who do not obey the government. As there is a conversation of the narrative and the authors personal opinion coming out in their writings. The bible makes it very clear to follow Jesus first and foremost. Paul himself, the author of the letter to the Romans, disobeyed the government on numerous occasions. Paul uses the word ‘hypotassō,’ which gets translated as “subject.” Paul could have used the word ‘hypakouō’ which means ‘obey,’ but he doesn’t. This difference in words is important.

One of the problems with this view is political corruption. Does your vote even matter? Personally, probably not, but collectively -Yes (is hard to argue). Much of the Biblical theme dwells on the communal body of Christ making a kingdom difference in the world we live in.

Piety / Detachment

When you start asking questions like, whose table are you eating from, or whose flag are you flying, or who are you “in bed with,” you might understand the current political problems of potentially aligning with any system of the world. You also might find an issue with casting a vote for someone you don’t think is a good person, or should we be voting for anyone that isn’t directly part of the Jesus kingdom? (But then the issue comes that if you think this way then no Christian would ever be in a place to vote.) Are you voting for the lesser of two evils – well then, you’re still voting for evil? How does that work as a Christian? There are many Biblical reasons why some have decided to simply not be “aligned” with any system of the world and remain “checked out” of that world and only interested in the happenings of the Jesus Kingdom. The Essenes were an entire first century culture that chose to go this way. Some conservative Baptists also have made choices like this. Most of the prophets were aligned this way and John the Baptist seems to also be described in a similar historical context. Rather than get wrapped up in the ways of the world and their ongoings maybe it would just be better to exit that arena and completely focus all of your time treasure and talent on the kingdom of Jesus? Sounds sort of Biblical, doesn’t it?

Prophetic Witness

This seems to be where Jesus hung out. Tends be personified by a pacifistic voice. It finds its basis by taking exilic language and applying the “babylon” thinking to the context of our current situation.

Jer 29 4 Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all who were carried away captive, whom I have caused to be carried away from Jerusalem to Babylon: 5 Build houses and dwell in them; plant gardens and eat their fruit. 6 Take wives and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, so that they may bear sons and daughters—that you may be increased there, and not diminished. 7 And seek the peace of the city where I have caused you to be carried away captive, and pray to the Lord for it; for in its peace you will have peace.

Beginning with Moses, God appoints several figures to act as Prophets. Walter Bruggemann, asserts that the task of the prophetic is to nurture, nourish, and evoke a consciousness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture around us. Prophets speak truth to power—yes, but they are also there to remind the people of God who they are and to speak as one of the Spirit. [2] As Christians we have been commissioned to make disciples, not political leaders. We have sacrificed our witness at the altar of power. We are Kingdom people— Kingdom of God. We are not empire people.

THE WRAP UP

I echo the call of Bryan Zhand: The entire creation is groaning for the Sons and Daughters of God to reveal themselves (Romans 8:19). [3] Some would argue that we can’t escape the “politics” of the world around us, and maybe we shouldn’t be trying to. Our politics (if any) must understand the Kingdom of God first and the politics of Jesus is our platform. As I began stating, the body of Christ has many dynamics. Those that are part of the same body read and interpret the same text differently. They see the ongoings of the world and the way Jesus interests through different lenses. Time and situations are constantly shifting. What you couldn’t or wouldn’t consider or justify last year you might this. We should all be in a state of rethinking and reconsidering truly what Jesus would do in each and every situation. Edification is sometimes supporting your brothers and sisters in Christ when you might not fully get them. Seasons change, people change, but God’s character is unchanging, and his ways are always faithful to us despite our broken ways.

Renouncing the World for sole allegiance to Jesus and His Kingdom

Posted by expedition44 on July 27, 2024

“So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has, cannot be my disciple.” – Luke 14:33

If you know me at all, you know that I am an “ALL IN” guy for the Kingdom who believes we shouldn’t be holding anything back for Jesus. Luke 14 calls us to be rival to anything that opposes Jesus, but with the context that even our enemies might be won over to Him.

“RENOUNCE ALL” – Jesus had some “HARD SAYINGS” but this one might take the cake! Today in our American Christianity or churchianity paradigm we seem to just simply ignore this one! This flies in the face of health and wealth prosperity preaching seeming to identify that perhaps Christians should sell everything (Christ’s words to the rich young ruler and the Acts 2 mindset) and live as paupers for the kingdom. And to be clear, I do think it takes on that tone.

But let’s take a closer look, in Greek the phrase is ouk apotassetai, which literally would be to “not place in order from”. What’s very interesting to me is in the New Testament every single time the verb apostasso is used it is in the middle voice. I would venture to say this is the only treatment of a verb this way in the entire text. It is very rare and unusual, so it makes me take special interest and ask why? When we say to “not renounce” something then, it takes a sense of “to place in order away from myself”. Understanding the literal translation of the Greek phrase means that when we read paying attention to the grammar of the Greek language you come out understanding that the mindset is to restructure or reorder, we give up chaos for order to come to proper balance in the kingdom. A life of shalom. So, if I had to translate the middle voice thought into this (as some translations like NT Wright’s have attempted) it might better read, “No one can be my disciple who does not take up the proper priorities in terms of possessions for Godly order over the world’s chaos.” Of course that doesn’t read well! Furthermore, the middle voice almost always implies that Christ is taking the action for us, that it is something out of your control once you come to the posture called for, usually devotion but in this case is actually a step more than that -it leans towards the harder definition of Jesus into discipleship. (What seems to follow the progression of fan > follower > disciple.)

If you don’t take on the posture of Jesus with your worldly things you can’t possibly enter into Jesus’ definition of discipleship. They must be renounced or completely re-ordered. So, the takeaway is what you can’t do is keep the prioritization of the world and still attest to be on the track to discipleship.

Everything is His and if you attest to be “all in”, than nothing should be your own. That’s why tithing in the New Covenant is a hard conversation. Tithing along with the Torah in the Old Testament was to be a stop gap until all things could be reconciled by Jesus. Now that “WE” have Jesus everything is His. If your on track your not thinking Tithe or Torah your thinking everything! (YOUR LIFE) Nothing is your stuff or your time. And the path to sanctification is more of Him and His kingdom ways and less of your world ways. A complete transformation that finishes eschatologically (but in que on this world) with you being made completely into the image of Jesus.

You don’t need to “create time or space” for Jesus if all of your time and space is for Jesus. You no longer have claim to anything of the world, YOU HAVE RENOUNCED THAT NOTION!

If you catch yourself beginning to collect things for your earthly storehouse that has no place for kingdom endeavors your posture for the kingdom is out of balance. You are mis-stepping the path of discipleship. The text says anyone off course can’t be my disciple. Do you want to be a disciple? Are you willing to come to a complete posture before the Lord to enter this covenant? Are you willing to “give up” everything to be a disciple?

One reason generations are disengaging from the church is because of the mixed messages the church has sent for years. Many people have become disillusioned with the division in the American church and one of the reasons is because we’ve exchanged a biblical gospel that exalts Jesus above everything in the world for an American (progressive) gospel that prostitutes Jesus for the sake of comfort, control, power, politics and prosperity in this world. I’m compelled to pray, God, we want to renounce it all. I pray that we don’t settle as disciples of Christ. I pray that we might be in absolute devotion to Jesus’ deeper covenant relationship both in this life and eschatologically in the coming kingdom.

In the last 10 years there have been several books written that speak to this:

Will Ryan – This is the Way (Series)
Boyd – The Myth of a Christian Nation
Zahnd – Postcards from Babylon
Bates – Salvation By Allegiance Alone
Sprinkle – Exiles: The Church in the Shadow of Empire (Church in the Shadow of Empire)
Wright & Bird – Jesus and the Powers: Christian Political Witness in an Age of Totalitarian Terror and Dysfunctional Democracies
Platt – Don’t Hold Back: Leaving Behind the American Gospel to Follow Jesus Fully
But before all of these there was a classic called – Persecution in the Early Church, A Chapter on the History of Renunciation, by Herbert B. Workman, in 1906

The opening pages of the New Covenant declared this same philosophy by Holy Cannon. John the Baptist was the precursory proclaimer of this truth as ‘the voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare the Way of the Lord’. The explosive scene that his ministry encapsulated could be summarized by the title we all know him by: The Baptiser.

Matthew 3:1-3

In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.” This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah:

“A voice of one calling in the wilderness,

‘Prepare the way for the Lord,

make straight paths for Him.’”

This message was approved by Heaven through the institution of baptism as an expression of forsaking all other allegiant positions as a returning to the One True and Living God. His message was demonstrated by a public display of that newfound loyalty through the waters of baptism signifying a washing away of the old for the embracing of the new. This message spread like wildfire among the religious Jews and even impacted the gentile population in their midst.

Vss 5:6 “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region around the Jordan. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.”

In keeping with the divine purposes of his message, he adamantly declared that those wishing to embrace this new allegiant life (the path to discipleship) MUST renounce all other places of faith and fully submit to the Kingdom life.

Vss 7-8 “But when John saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his place of baptism, he said to them, ‘You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit, then, in keeping with repentance.’”

A requirement for John was the ‘produced fruit’ consistent with a changed heart. John was not looking for new FaceBook subscribers, or popularity in his ministry… the purpose was to transform lives. This was accomplished through radical, immediate, and noticeable lifestyle reflections consistent with true, sincere, and authentic repentance. What John was doing, and ultimately what Jesus declared in His Gospel, would find direct and deadly conflict with the hierarchy of Judaism and the control of the Roman system. So deadly in fact, both John and Jesus were martyred for their unified message.

In a life application aspect what John was requiring was real, daily change. The tax collectors were told to stop their extortion. The soldiers were commanded to treat others with respect and to cease being bullies for personal gain. The religious were charged with throwing away their masks of self-righteousness and hypocrisy and embracing a non-legalistic view of worship.

For us today, this message should still resonate as loudly and powerfully. What should we cast aside for the throne of Jesus in our soul to be unchallenged? Where in our hearts, attitudes, finances, relationships, and time are we being prodded by this message of complete allegiance do we find the world challenging the supremacy of Christ?

______________________________________________________________

During the first few centuries a great conflict arose between Rome and those obedient to Yahweh. By Roman theory, the national state was the one sole society that must engross (take up, control) every interest of its residents: religion, social, political and humanitarian. In other words, the state should be the supreme authority in one’s life. Romans wanted Christians to take their part as loyal citizens of the empire, discharging the dues, performing the obligations of a citizen, displaying complete loyalty. The Christian replied, “We worship no other.”

Under Rome, all new “societies” were required to obtain a charter or permission from the emperor or from the senate. If the group was not granted permission under the state, they were considered “rival” to the state. The extreme penalty was treason, punishable by death. Christians were not persecuted because of their creed, but because of the absoluteness of the Christian faith.

To say that Jesus is Lord was a statement against the empire. “No King but Jesus” became the rallying cry of the true believer and also the last words of many persecuted and martyred Christians.

The Jewish–Roman wars were a series of large-scale revolts by the Jews (and / or Christians) of Judaea and the Eastern Mediterranean against the Roman Empire between 66 and 135 CE. [1] These wars were in large part over the “kingship” of the peoples. Could Rome demand sole authority? Although the Diaspora of the Jews started many years before this, the Jewish–Roman wars had a devastating impact on the Jewish people, transforming them from a major population in the Eastern Mediterranean into a dispersed and persecuted minority. [2] Most scholars would consider this charge of Jews and Christians to not give allegiance to Rome over God and / or Jesus as the major distinguishing feature of what defined an all-in follower of God or Jesus. The First Jewish-Roman War culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem and other towns and villages in Judaea, resulting in significant loss of life and a considerable segment of the population being uprooted or displaced. Those who remained were stripped of any form of political autonomy. Subsequently, the brutal suppression of the Bar Kokhba revolt resulted in even more severe consequences. Judea witnessed a significant depopulation, as many Jews were killed, expelled, or sold into slavery. [4]

Jews were banned from residing in the vicinity of Jerusalem, after the central worship site of Second Temple Judaism, the Second Temple in Jerusalem, was destroyed by Titus’s troops in 70 CE. [5] The destruction of the Temple led to a transformation in Jewish religious practices, emphasizing prayer, Torah study, and communal gatherings in synagogues outside of Jerusalem. This pivotal shift laid the foundation for the emergence of Rabbinic Judaism, which has been the dominant form of Judaism since late antiquity, after the codification of the Babylonian Talmud. [6] But this also gave way to the rise or continuation of Christianity. As Rabbinical Judaism spiraled down, Christianity rose up taking on many of the same “anti-empirical” thoughts towards the ruling over them and their religion by Rome. Perhaps more than before Christians were now vowing allegiance to Jesus over any other form of worldly government. Persecution has always had a purifying effect on the true people of God.

By the third century, emperors were realizing that the Church was not a mere body of anarchists to be rooted out wherever necessary. The Church was fast becoming a rival organization of growing strength and power. The aggressiveness of Christ’s followers was viewed by Rome as a very real threat to their worldwide domination.

By the middle of the third century, the more energetic rulers organized efforts to crush out the Church by the use of all the resources of the state. The police measures taken at Antonines (Roman Emperors who ruled between 138 and 180: Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius) gave place to a civil war without quarter (mercy offered). But, unlike all other civil wars, only one side was armed. Strange to say, this was the side that was ultimately defeated. On the one hand were the immense resources of the Empire, centralized in one supreme will. On the other side was the PASSIVE RESISTANCE OF CHRIST’S FOLLOWERS, making the state’s massive recourses useless. The Christians were a peculiar people, with peculiar views of their own. They wore no distinctive garb (clothing: outward appearance) in the world, yet they were definitely not of the world. “We are supposed to live aloof from crowds,” said Tertullian, an early Church leader. [7] Their opponents phrased the matter differently. They are “a people who separate themselves and break away from the rest of mankind.”

The pacifistic early church Christians seem to have gotten Jesus words a bit “more right” compared to the war mongers of 70 AD. It was hard to find an occupation in which the Christian could engage without compromising with idolatry. Some said that if they did not compromise, they would be cut off from every means of livelihood. Tertullian replied that, “faith must despise starvation as much as it despises death.” [8] But the more the Christians prospered, the more their neighbors “hated them” or perhaps “grew envious of them.” The Christians professed, “nothing was more alien to them than politics.” [9]

In practice, Christianity and the Empire proved fundamentally antagonistic. They were rivals in conception and method. Each claimed to be a kingdom of universal sway; each created a Church of universal obligation, each demanded absolute loyalty to its supreme lord. Between Caesar and Christ there could be no compromise. [10]
BART D. EHRMAN

Persecution was the direct outcome of the Christian doctrine of RENUNCIATION. To renounce meant to disown, reject and disclaim. The early Christians were renouncing their allegiance to the Roman Empire and denying any connection to it. In other words, the Christian ceased to be his own master, ceased to have his old environment, ceased to hold his old connections with the state. In everything, he became the bond-servant to Jesus Christ. In everything he owed his supreme allegiance and fealty (loyalty) to the new empire with Jesus Christ as Head. “We engage in these conflicts as men whose very lives are not our own… We have no master but God,” said Tertullian. [11]

Scriptures for further study and consideration:

Luke 3:3-17

3 He went into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (noun),

4 as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet:

“A voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for Him.

5 Every valley shall be filled in, and every mountain and hill made low.

The crooked ways shall be made straight, and the rough ways smooth.

6 And all humanity will see God’s salvation.’”

7 Then John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?

8 Produce (Aorist Imperative Active) fruit, then, in keeping with (accusative adjective of ‘fruits’ meaning ‘worthy, suitable, deserving, matching value) repentance (metanoias). And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.

9 The axe lies ready at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”

10 The crowds asked him, “What then should we do?”

11 John replied, “Whoever has two tunics should share with him who has none, and whoever has food should do the same.”

12 Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?”

13 “Collect no more than you are authorized,” he answered.

14 Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?” “Do not take money by force or false accusation,” he said. “Be content with your wages.”

15 The people were waiting expectantly and were all wondering in their hearts if John could be the Christ.

16 John answered all of them: “I baptize you with water, but One more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

17 His winnowing fork is in His hand to clear His threshing floor and to gather the wheat into His barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

Acts 8:26-38

26 Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Get up and go south to the desert road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.”

27 So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official in charge of the entire treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. He had gone to Jerusalem to worship,

28 and on his return was sitting in his chariot reading Isaiah the prophet.

29 The Spirit said to Philip, “Go over to that chariot and stay by it.”

30 So Philip ran up and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.

31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

32 The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:

“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is silent, so He did not open His mouth.

33 In His humiliation He was deprived of justice. Who can recount His descendants? For His life was removed from the earth.”

34 “Tell me,” said the eunuch, “who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?”

35 Then Philip began with this very Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

36 As they traveled along the road and came to some water, the eunuch said, “Look, here is water! What is there to prevent me from being baptized?”

38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and Philip baptized him.

1 Peter 3:18-22

18 For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit,

19 in whom He also went and preached to the spirits in prison

20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

In the ark a few people, only eight souls, were saved through water.

21 And this water symbolizes the baptism that now saves you also— not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God— through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to Him.

Romans 6:1-7

1 What then shall we say? Shall we continue in sin so that grace may increase?

2 Certainly not! How can we who died to sin live in it any longer?

3 Or aren’t you aware that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

4 We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been united with Him like this in His death, we will certainly also be united with Him in His resurrection.

6 We know that our old self was crucified with Him so that the body of sin might be rendered powerless, that we should no longer be slaves to sin.

7 For anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

_____________________________________________________________________

Written by Dr. Will Ryan and Dr. Steve Cassell

Works Cited:

Bloom, J.J. 2010 The Jewish Revolts Against Rome, A.D. 66–135: A Military Analysis. McFarland.
Hitti, Philip K. (2002). Hitti, P. K. Gorgias Press. ISBN 9781931956604. Archived from the original on 15 April 2021. Retrieved 28 July 2022.
Schwartz, Seth (2014). The ancient Jews from Alexander to Muhammad. Cambridge. pp. 85–86. ISBN 978-1-107-04127-1. OCLC 863044259.
Taylor, J. E. (15 November 2012). The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea. Oxford University Press.
Armstrong (2011). Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths. p. 163.
Karesh, Sara E. (2006). Encyclopedia of Judaism.
Harrison, Peter (June 2017). “‘I Believe Because it is Absurd’: The Enlightenment Invention of Tertullian’s Credo”. Church History.
Gonzáles, Justo L. (2010). “The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation”. The Story of Christianity. Vol. 1. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
This translation was created in conjunction with the Patristics Project at Faulkner University.
Bart D. Ehrman is the author of The Triumph of Christianity and the author or editor of more than 30 books, including the New York Times bestsellers Misquoting Jesus and How Jesus Became God. Ehrman is a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and a leading authority on the New Testament and the history of early Christianity.
Tertullian: Douglas Powell, Tertullianists and Cataphrygians, Vigiliae Christianae 29 (1975)