Navigating Church-State Relations and the Legislation of Sin

Devotional

Sermon Summary

Bible Study Guide

Sermon Clips


The church today, the people of Christ on this side of the cross, unlike Israel in the Old Testament, are not a geopolitical entity. The church is not a nation state; therefore, the Old Testament legal stipulations with their punishments like capital punishment for idolatry or cursing one's parents are not simply brought over and implemented in the church. [00:06:56]

The church excommunicates unrepentant idolaters; it doesn't execute them. This does not mean that those sins are less grievous or less worthy of capital punishment. It means that the church hands over that judgment to Christ at his coming. There will be a perfect reckoning from the judge of the universe. Christ will settle all accounts. [00:07:26]

Christian faith and all the heart obedience of faith, which flows from it, cannot be coerced by the sword, that is, by the state. The entire history of Christendom by force, from Constantine to the Puritans, was misguided. Any arrangement of church-state relations that sanctions state penalties to promote true heart faith and the heart obedience of faith will eventually corrupt the church. [00:08:07]

Jesus said in John 18:36, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not of this world." Now the inference I draw from that statement and other aspects of the New Testament is that Christ, in this age, does not sanction the use of the sword to punish those who disobey him. [00:08:48]

Christ does not sanction the use of the sword to enforce disobedience to him. This means that the state, to whom God has given the sword according to Romans 13, should not seek to compel obedience to Christ. Now listen carefully because I'm going to make some distinctions here that are fine. I'll leave a lot of questions unanswered, but I think these distinctions really help. [00:09:28]

Obeying a law that Christ would approve is not the same as obeying Christ, and disobeying a law that Christ would approve is not the same as disobeying Christ. A person who doesn't even believe that Christ existed can obey a law that Christ approves. Therefore, punishment for disobeying a law that Christ approves is not the same as punishment for disobeying Christ. [00:10:06]

I don't think the state should ever punish a person for disobeying Christ. I think that is the prerogative of church discipline, and I think the most severe form of church discipline is excommunication, not death. There is a difference between saying that Christ wills that a person be punished by the state for breaking a law Christ approves and saying that Christ wills that a person be punished by the state for disobeying him. [00:10:46]

The former is right; the latter's wrong. Christ does will that a person be punished by the state for breaking a law that he approves, but Christ does not will that a person be punished by the state for disobeying Christ. All of which implies that Christians should consult Christ in his word when thinking through what sins should be prohibited by law. [00:11:29]

Because the use of the sword to enforce Christ-approved laws is not the same as using the sword to enforce obedience to Christ. That is complex; they'll have to hit replay, rewind, and replay. Even better, read the full transcript of the episode, I guess. This is as good of an opportunity as any to remind everyone out there that, as you listen to this episode, this podcast is transcribed in its entirety. [00:12:03]

First, because the Bible does not require teetotalism. It prohibits drunkenness; it warns about the dangers of alcohol. In the end, it bites like a serpent and stings like an adder. Your eyes will see strange things, and your heart utter perverse things. You will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, like one who lies on the top of a mast. [00:04:08]

I think a very strong case can be made for total abstinence in our world as a matter of wisdom for oneself, but not as a requirement for others, except maybe in some limited institutional expectations. This is mainly a matter of conscience. But second reason I would not get in my time machine and go back and vote for prohibition is that it didn't work. [00:04:45]

It had unintended consequences that may have been as destructive as the previous abuse of alcohol itself, and this is because, unlike the limitations on smoking in our day, the long-term societal support was simply not there. It seemed like it was there because, good night, it takes a lot of people to get an amendment to the constitution passed in 1919, but by 1933, the adequate support had disintegrated, and it was reversed. [00:05:08]

Ask a question about this sermon