The Christian and the State

Are Christians really supposed to serve two masters?

Mar 29, 2024

In the introduction to his short book “Anarchy and Christianity”, Jacques Ellul examines the contradiction between the biblical message and the authoritarianism that has so often characterised mainstream Christian church organisations. He concludes:

Hence we are trying to eliminate 2000 years of accumulated Christian errors or mistaken traditions.

Now these errors are of many types and have a wide and profound effect upon the life of the believer and unbeliever alike. For the believer, the errors build in discontinuities to their worldview. For the unbeliever, they sustain the premise that the Christian worldview is foolishness, not wisdom.

To briefly expand on the idea of discontinuities in the Christian worldview, as an engineer, I will use a metaphor from metallurgy. For a metal, a discontinuity is any interruption or deviation from the regular pattern of the crystal lattice that forms its microstructure. It is also called a defect and might be a crack, a pore, a cavity, or an inclusion. As defects accumulate, the strength and ductility of the material is compromised. So it is with the believer who faces discontinuities in their patterns of knowledge. With error mixed in with truth, points of stress arise. The result is the same, the believer becomes weak and brittle and less able to sustain repeated loading. As defects multiply, the situation worsens.

Therefore, for believers and unbelievers alike, the task of correcting 2000 years of accumulated Christian error is a worthy, if colossal one. In this endeavour, we will begin with the relationship between the Christian and the state. Since the state is so often taking the place of God in these dark times, it seems a logical place to start.

The conventional wisdom

In England, the head of the Church is the head of the state. Scotland is another country, we did things differently here once. We maintained that Jesus Christ was the head of the church and no civil ruler could have any authority over it. But even here, the Church of Scotland, in its constitution, declares that

This Church acknowledges the divine appointment and authority of the civil magistrate within his own sphere, and maintains its historic testimony to the duty of the nation acting in its corporate capacity to render homage to God, to acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ to be King over the nations, to obey His laws, to reverence His ordinances, to honour His Church, and to promote in all appropriate ways the Kingdom of God. The Church and the State owe mutual duties to each other, and acting within their respective spheres may signally promote each other's welfare.
The Church and the State have the right to determine each for itself all questions concerning the extent and the continuance of their mutual relations in the discharge of these duties and the obligations arising therefrom.

This is a statement of confusion. How can the church acknowledge the state’s divine appointment and hold that the nation-state must render homage to God and obey his laws when it is blatantly obvious that the state is doing no such thing? How can the church obey God and God alone and yet have duties to the state?

Christ said:

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. (Mat 6:24)

This two-mindedness has given us a church in Scotland that holds to the state and despises the Lord. Were this ever in doubt, during the Covid-19 lockdown all doubt was removed. For, during that panic, Nicola Sturgeon ordered the churches closed and the Church of Scotland obeyed their ruler. For this period at least, Nicola Sturgeon, not Jesus Christ, was the head of the church in Scotland. How did she discharge her duties? Don’t laugh, this is from an official Scotgov summary in response to a freedom of information request concerning the singing of hymns in the churches:

On 23rd March 2020, it was announced by the First Minister that, in response to the Coronavirus pandemic, measures would be put in place to close business and other premises. Legislation was enacted on 26th March 2020 to provide for such closures.
Places of worship were closed from 26th March 2020, and therefore singing would not have been able to take place, from that date.
From 19th June 2020, places of worship were permitted to open for individual prayer and/or contemplation, but not congregational worship. At that time singing was not permitted.
From 15th July 2020, congregational worship was permitted, but not singing. Where it was essential to an act of worship, an individual could sing or chant from behind a plexiglass screen.
From 17th May 2021, singing, chanting and playing musical instruments was permitted in small groups (i.e. non-professional choirs and bands) in Level 0-2 areas. Individual singing was permitted for places of worship in Level 0-2 areas. For areas in Levels 3-4, an individual could sing from behind a plexiglass screen.
From 31st May 2021, congregational singing could take place for areas in Level 0-1.
From 19th July 2021, all areas of Scotland moved to Level 0, and singing in Places of Worship was permitted in small groups, and for congregational singing.

Here we see the small-mindedness of the bureaucratic state at work, not the Lord. There is neither insight, nor courage, nor truthfulness, nor an inspiring vision of hope. But there are rules — many, many rules.

Why did a church that was founded on the blood of martyrs during the “Killing Time” not resist? The Church of Scotland, in common with most Reformed and Presbyterian churches worldwide is founded on the Westminster Confession of Faith. On the subject of the state, chapter 23 of this document gives the following guidance:

God, the supreme Lord and king of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under Him over the people, for His own glory and the public good; and to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evildoers…
It is the duty of the people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience’s sake.

Was this the clause that corroded the Church of Scotland’s ability to stand against tyrannical government? This clause is based on the conventional interpretation of the 13th Chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans, but more of that later.

Looking more widely at mainstream Christianity, it is apparent that the Roman church has a similar, but not quite identical view, it is called civil allegiance:

The origin of this doctrine lies in the 19th century. A long pamphlet called “The Vatican Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance” written by Scots politician and four-time Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone was published in 1874. In this Gladstone argued that the doctrine of Papal infallibility had placed British Catholics in a dilemma as their loyalty to the Crown conflicted with loyalty to the Pope. He urged British Catholics to reject papal infallibility and support the Crown comparing the choice to the one their ancestors faced in 1588 at the time of the Spanish Armada. He was passionate in his argument, describing the Catholic Church as:

an Asian monarchy: nothing but one giddy height of despotism, and one dead level of religious subservience.

This must have struck a nerve, for various catholic writers responded in newspapers and elsewhere, and, in 1885, Pope Leo XIII responded with the encyclical “Immortale Dei” to restate and clarify the Church of Rome’s position. This is worth reading, if only for its thoughtful and surprising (to modern eyes) attack on democracy. This encyclical established or confirmed the Roman Church’s position which is summarised in “Catholic Answers” as follows:

By civil allegiance is meant the duty of loyalty and obedience which a person owes to the State of which he is a citizen. The word allegiance is a derivative of liege, free, and historically it signifies the service which a free man owed to his liege lord. In the matter in hand its meaning is wider, it is used to signify the duty which a citizen owes to the State of which he is a subject. That duty, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, rests on nature itself and the sanctions of religion. As nature and religion prescribe to children dutiful conduct towards the parents who brought them into the world, so nature and religion impose on citizens certain obligations towards their country and its rulers. These obligations may be reduced to those of patriotism and obedience. Patriotism requires that the citizen should have a reasonable esteem and love for his country. He should take an interest in his country’s history, he should know how to value her institutions, and he should be prepared to sacrifice himself for her welfare. In his country’s need it is not only a noble thing, but it is a sacred duty to lay down one’s life for the safety of the commonwealth. Love for his country will lead the citizen to show honor and respect to its rulers. They represent the State, and are entrusted by God with power to rule it for the common good. The citizen’s chief duty is to obey the just laws of his country.

Next, in this quick summary of the mainstream church positions, we turn to the Christian Institute, often the terror of the Scottish Government. This small organisation have twice defeated the state at the Supreme Court. The first of these victories threw down the Scottish Government’s creepy Orwellian, child-watching scheme called “Named Person”. In the second they lent their strength to a small family-owned bakery, Ashers Baking Company, who were being persecuted for declining to make a cake with a message contrary to the word of God. Even the Christian Institute’s position is strongly pro-state. They summarise their view as follows:

Governments are vital for civilisation. The rule of law is the basis of order and civilisation. Authorities are instituted by God for the good of everyone to restrain evil. The Bible teaches that governments are ordained by God to punish the wrongdoer and to commend those who do right (Romans 13:3-4; 1 Peter 2:14). The Bible plainly teaches that it is the duty of every Christian to submit to authority. This includes the payment of taxes: “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established… This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.” (Romans 13:1,6). “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and commend those who do right” (1 Peter 2:13-14). It is the duty of those in authority to punish those who do wrong. The punishment envisaged in the Bible clearly includes physical force. The Apostle Paul notes that a ruler “does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4).

They do qualify this “State as God’s enforcer” policy. It is striking that they need to do so; if the Lord’s word is as plain as they claim. Nevertheless, they qualify this alleged duty as follows:

There may be circumstances where the Christian cannot obey the state: if the state should command what God forbids or forbid what God commands then the duty of the Christian must be to obey God rather than man (Acts 4:19; 5:29).

And further, they contend that there is a duty to protest immoral laws, citing the Nazis as examples.

If governments, ignoring the moral law, enact immoral legislation giving rise to so-called ‘rights’, Christians, people of other faiths and people of no faith, seeking to uphold the moral law, have a duty to protest.

And finally, for the most pro-state position we turn to Bob Yarbrough (PhD, University of Aberdeen, Scotland). He is a professor of New Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri. In his article “Should Christians Always Submit to the Government?” he opines that:

Even something as mundane as paying taxes is an expression of obedience to God and love for him.

And, he cites scripture to support his claim:

Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work. (Titus 3:1
Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme . (1 Pet. 2:13)

So, the mainstream is in (some sort of) agreement. The Christian is duty bound to pay taxes and obey the government, and, if you are Roman Catholic, die in war for the state as a duty towards God.

From this point of view, the church and state, although separate, are seen to be in a symbiotic, mutually supportive relationship. The Church provides loyalty in the population and the state enforces the status quo over any unruly citizens who might harbour heretical ideas of freedom. Some braver parts of conventional Christianity (I’m looking at you Christian Institute) recognise the need to protest against unjust or immoral laws, but even there the mindset is one of compliance first followed by an appeal to Leviathan to reform itself. The basic authority of the state is never fundamentally questioned, rather there is an attempt to limit the goals the state has when it deploys its unchallenged dominion. This could be characterised as an attempt to direct or ride the beast.

I shall now attempt to demonstrate that this position of subservience to the human institution of the state is neither logical nor biblical and that the correct Christian position is entirely different. We will start where the mainstream starts, Paul’s letter to the Romans.

Paul’s Letter to the Romans

Paul’s letter to the Romans is a treasure trove of profound insights. It was written around 57 AD, approximately a quarter of a century after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Before we consider the 13th chapter it is important to first grasp the overall framework of Paul’s message. This starts by reviewing man’s rejection of God and the resulting condition of mankind.

This condition Paul summarises as follows:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools
(Rom 1:21,22)

Hence the underpinning idea in this letter is that mankind once had direct contact with God, but rejected him and his government, embracing folly and darkness instead. Paul does not hold back when describing this fallen condition of man:

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
(Rom 1:29-32)

Paul then continues to explore the redemption provided by Jesus Christ, contrasting him with the first man, Adam, who rejected God:

For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
(Rom 5:19-21)

And, in the 6th Chapter, Paul summarises his entire position on sin, the law and the blood of Jesus Christ. He concludes that we must entirely reject sin and instead follow Christ.

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin
(Rom 6:6)

And, it is clear, this must be translated into action, into a decision as to whom we should obey:

Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
(Rom 6:16)

And, at the very end of the sixth chapter, Paul emphasises the choice between fallen mankind and God as follows:

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
(Rom 6:23)

In the eighth chapter, Paul explores the contrast between the weakness of flesh-and-blood men and women and the change that the spirit of God can make to lives and hearts showing that:

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Rom 8:5-9

This shows the complete separation between carnal mankind, ruled by the Law of sin, following carnal desires, and the ecclesia, the called-out ones, who follow the Law of God in the spirit because in them the spirit of God dwells, changing them and making what would be impossible for carnal man possible. Those without that spirit are not God’s followers and cannot please God. Hence, the church is seen to be separate from the masses of mankind, the called-out ones, the remnant, the first fruits of the Kingdom of God. And what determines membership is only what is in the heart of the individual man or woman.

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God
(Rom 8:14)

So the whole of the letter to the Romans is founded on the triple declarations:

Mankind has rejected the law and government of God
The result is a sinful, fallen condition of wickedness and depravity
The Christian must reject that sinful state and instead follow Christ, that is be obedient to God. This is only made possible by the spirit of God dwelling in the heart of everyone who is Christ’s. The outward signs of this spiritual transformation include obedience to the laws of God, that is to say, righteousness, and a refusal to be ruled by sin.

The letter continues with chapters nine, ten and eleven dealing with the nation of Israel - we will come back to that in a later article - before coming to the final two chapters - twelve and thirteen - which comprise instructions to the church.

Romans — chapters 12 and 13

The first point to grasp here is that the whole of these two chapters concerns instruction to members of the church concerning how they should behave and in what manner they should conduct themselves.

It is summarised, with familiar directness, as follows:

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
(Rom 12:1-2)

So the core idea in directing the conduct of the church is consistent with the underpinning ideas laid out earlier in the letter and it is:

…be not conformed to this world…

Paul then expands on this idea by giving numerous specific examples. These include encouragement of hospitality and patience during persecution. He summarises his advice by explaining that both victory and the means of victory matter:

Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
(Rom 12:21)

In the first seven verses of the thirteenth chapter, Paul addresses the issue of Church government, before returning to general advice on conduct. This advice on church government has been extensively misapplied to (carnal) human government, with illogical and double-minded results as we have seen.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same.
(Rom 13: 1-3)

Now this makes perfect sense if we are talking about church rulers who have been transformed by a renewing of their minds and in whose hearts dwell the spirit of God. In contrast, however, if this is taken as referring to civil rulers, who are servants of sin, filled with unrighteousness and, as they are lacking the spirit of God, are none of his, it makes no sense at all to state that they are ordained of God.

The mixing of the two realms confuses. The conventional position seems to hold that the civil rulers are depraved and are far from God whilst, simultaneously, they are His servants and agents who should be obeyed without question. The conventional position is incoherent and illogical.

But we are not dependent on human logic alone. The next verse makes it clear who we are discussing:

For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
(Rom 13:4)

For he is a minister of God. That is quite clear. The Greek word translated minister is diakonos which means one who executes the commands of another, especially of a master. In other words, it means a servant, attendant, or minister. Sometimes it was used specifically to denote the servant of a king. This does not describe a civil ruler who seeks power and authority in his own name. It does describe a minister of God who serves his flock by following the commands of Christ the King of Kings.

Some claim the phrase “for he beareth not the sword in vain” shows that the rulers Paul had in mind were civil rulers who had the power to administer capital punishment. But of course, in the context of the church (and the whole passage is in that context), the sword means something else entirely. It is the only offensive weapon in the armour of God. It is:

…the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God (Eph 6:17)

This too makes perfect sense. The rulers of the Church, spirit-filled men who had experienced a renewing of their minds, would indeed wield the word of God to correct any member of the church who was engaged in evil conduct.

The final part of this section likewise explicitly concerns ministers of God:

Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
(Rom 13: 5-7)

Again this is consistent with scriptural principles of:

the labourer is worthy of his reward. (1 Tim 5:18)

This is an instruction to the church members to support financially those engaged full-time in their service. It is not an instruction to pay unlimited amounts to a rapacious, greedy state so that they can buy loyalty, fund abortion, eugenics and other abominations and engage in wars to steal resources.

The book of Romans concludes by reminding the church members of their duty to obey the law of God in how they conduct themselves with their neighbours:

Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (Rom 13:9)

And the final line summaries the entire letter which is about the separation of the Christians from the evil that rules in this present age:

But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof. (Rom 13:14)

No part of this implies, let alone directs, those who have “cast off the works of darkness and put on the armour of light” to adopt the illogical, contradictory and incoherent position of subservience to those who follow darkness and the sins of the flesh.

We shall now examine the other biblical texts commonly held to require obedience to secular rulers. This won’t take long, for only two verses are typically used to substantiate this position, 1 Pet 2: 13-20 and Titus 3:1.

Other texts claimed to require obedience to the state

The message from Peter is, like Paul’s letter to the Romans, directed to the church. Peter describes his audience thus:

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: (1 Pet 2:9)

So, once again the background is the separation of the people of God from the fallen world. They are the called-out ones.

The subsequent description of life under the state is one of enduring the folly and error of the state with quiet dignity. The model and example for this is Christ:

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.

This is not an encouragement towards obedience to earthly rulers but rather a call for separation from the fallen humanity. “With them but not of them” and “in the world but not of the world” are common short-hand expressions of the concept. Peter here accepts that earthly rulers are often foolish men and that many Christians will suffer wrongfully due to their errors. Here Peter is not making a case that the Rulers are the agents and servants of God, but rather that their error and scorn do not matter to the Christian. The emphasis is on the separate nature of the people of God, the irrelevance of the judgement of men and the contrasting importance of the will of the Almighty.

Christ is the example. His conduct was prophesied in the book of Isaiah some three-quarters of a century earlier.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
(Isa 53: 7-9)

Hence the quiet acceptance of the unjust nature of the present world is avowedly not the result of the rulers of this world being the agents of God and thus deserving of the obedience of the Christian. On the contrary, it is a call to emulate Christ, who bore injustice from weak and sinful rulers of a “wicked and adulterous generation” with dignity and patience.

Both the refusal of Christ to have any deceit in his mouth and Peter’s proclamation that Christians are free but must use that freedom in the service of God place Christians separate, not under the state that thrives by coercion, deceit, manipulation and theft. Christians are not called, at this time to fight against the state. But neither is there any hint of compromising truth, or liberty in response to its demands.

Finally, we have a single line in a letter from Paul to Titus, who was organising the Churches of God on Crete. This line reads

Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, (Titus 3:1)

Here the word “magistrates” is the one that points towards civil authority. This word is not in the original Greek. Rather, the word translated as “obey magistrates”, peitharcheō, means only obey or listen to. “Magistrates” was added.

Furthermore, “powers” (exousia) could also mean jurisdiction or authority and “principalities” (archē) means beginning or the person who begins a thing, that is to say, the leader or founder.

The reference to “every good work” further implies that the authority or founder that is referred to is one directing good works. Hence this verse also appears to be concerning respect for authority within the church. There is nothing in this instruction indicating obedience to the state.

We have now reviewed all the main texts commonly cited to justify Christian obedience to the state as an instrument of God’s will. Next, we will examine what the bible really says about human government.

What the Bible really says about the state

Let us begin with the first State — with Nimrod and the tower of Babel.

And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth….
And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. (Gen 10: 8,10)

Notably, the very foundation of this society was an act of rebellion against God. The name Nimrod, after all, means rebel. God had said:

And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth (Gen 9:1)

But instead, mankind said

And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. (Gen 11:4)

It did not go well:

So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. (Gen 11:8)

The Bible goes on to record interaction between the people of God and various surrounding Kingdoms and Empires. In this history, occasionally, men of God were involved in the management of Kingdoms: two examples are Joseph in Egypt and Daniel in Babylon. In both cases, these men held the post of senior official advising the monarch and administering the Kingdom. In neither case were they prepared to execute evil orders or contravene the law of God. In both cases, they gained their high office because of the unique insight and understanding they were given by the spirit of God acting in and through them. This does suggest that, at least exceptionally, there can be a role in the state for the man of God, but shows the provision of such a post is at the instigation of God, not of man. Both Joseph and Daniel followed God alone. They were valued by an individual ruler who saw the qualities their close relationship with God bestowed upon them.

Daniel’s position was the result of a vision, given to him by God, to show him the nature, detail and interpretation of a dream that King Nebuchadnezzar had. He addressed the King as follows:

Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible.
This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass,
His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.
Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.
Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.
This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king.
Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.
And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.
And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.
And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.
And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.
And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.
And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.
(Dan 2:31-45)

This pictures the Chaldean Empire of Nebuchadnezzar as a head of gold and the subsequent empires of Media-Persia, Greece and Rome in declining nobleness, and increasing hardness:

Gold, mohs hardness 2.5
Silver, mohs hardness 2.8
Brass, mohs hardness 3.0
Iron, mohs hardness 4.0

Thus, with passing time, the state is seen to decline in quality, durability and value whilst becoming ever harder. In the end, the successor to all of these empires will be smashed by God and replaced by His kingdom. Christ, the rock, will establish the replacement Kingdom. The Kingdoms of man will become like chaff and will blow away on the breeze.

Next, we move on to the book of Samuel and the establishment of the throne of David over the people of God.

The background is that Israel had become the people of God and a series of judges provided such governance and leadership as they needed. The people had other ideas, however, and demanded a King:

And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.
Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;
That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.
(1 Sam 8:7-20)

As I highlighted in the speech “Fear Not” during the Covid-19 lockdown; when the Israelites said:

Nay; but we will have a king over us; that we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.

They rejected rule by God and by God's law, not because this made them free, but because they could not shoulder the responsibility that it places on every man and woman: to make judgements, decisions and commitments; to stand—alone, if necessary—for the truth, and for justice. They rejected God because being ruled by a man, and being told what to do, was easier. They did not want the law of God, a law that they would need to place in their hearts and a law they would need to fight to defend. Instead, they wanted a ruler to think for them and to fight their battles for them. Slaves they had been, and slaves they still were in their hearts.

Moving to New Testament times, we see that the Kingdoms of this world were used by Satan to tempt Christ:

Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. (Mat 4: 8-10)

Note that Christ did not question Satan’s ownership of the Kingdoms, nor his ability to deliver them. He rejected the offer but did not refute Satan’s dominion over the Kingdoms of the earth. If the Kingdoms of the earth are really instituted by God and are operating in His service, surely Christ would have mentioned this when Satan claimed ownership of them.

Later, when facing trial, Christ answered Pilate’s question as the whether he was a King as follows:

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. (John 18:36)

Again this shows the separation of the Kingdom of God from the present materialistic, hedonistic and Satan-ruled world. It also shows that the situation is time-dependent. That later, things will be different. This was apparent in Daniel’s description of the dream and is also clear in the book of Revelation:

And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. (Rev 11:15)

So how does scripture view the state? It sees it as:

Originating in rebellion and rejection of God
Exploitative and oppressive
Declining in quality and nobility over time
Increasingly hard
Destined for destruction by Christ
Certain to be replaced by the government and the Kingdom of God

Implications of a correct understanding

The conventional or mainstream Christian view that the state is the instrument of God’s will and thus should not be opposed by Christians is false and leads to confusion and ludicrous conclusions.

A correct understanding recognises that the Christian serves only one master: The Lord God Almighty. It also sees the Kingdoms of this world as increasingly flawed and destined for destruction when Christ returns in Glory.

The Christian, by following God in a world which generally rejects God, must be free from any conflicting obligations. Martin Lloyd-Jones put it succinctly when he said:

The Christian sits loosely to this world and its affairs. Why? Because he belongs to another Kingdom.

Romans 13 simply describes how we should treat and esteem those who are great in the service of Christ. Paul also wrote in a similar vein to the believers in Thessalonica:

And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you;
And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves. (1 Thess 5: 12-13)

There is no requirement for the Christian to offer any such esteem to any civil ruler. Whilst we treat all with gentleness and compassion, we must not confuse light with darkness.

The choice we face is the choice we have always faced. Just before Christ was crucified, Pilate, who had claimed he could find no fault in him, seemed to alight upon the issue of who rules. He presented Jesus before the Jewish mob and said, in a phrase dripping with sarcasm and irony:

Behold your King!

How the chief priests (the heads of the religious establishment) responded shows that they, at least, understood the choice before them. When Pilate said:

Shall I crucify your King?

The chief priests answered:

We have no king but Caesar.

Increasingly, the error buried in the heart of the mainstream Christian church concerning how it views the state has resulted in it acting out this statement — “We have no king but Caesar”. The Christian must not follow after such error, but instead must follow only their King, Jesus Christ, to do his will, and be inspired by his example.

Over the people of God, the kingdoms of the earth have no dominion, for a man cannot serve two masters.

Digging Deeper

Discussion about this post