Discussion Jumpstarter

Study leader reference - not a definitive answer

Question 7

Dean’s reading of Romans 13 emphasizes two kingdoms: the state bears the sword and the church has the “ministry of reconciliation”—how would the earliest Christians living under Nero have heard this, and what modern Christian assumptions does that overturn about “taking back” society through political power?

Another way to ask: How might Christians under Nero have understood Romans 13 about the state and the church, and what does that challenge about using politics to “take back” society?

Discussion Jumpstarter

Direct Answer
Dean suggests early Christians would have heard Romans 13 as a call to submit and do good under even a wicked ruler, while staying loyal to a different kingdom that doesn’t fight with the sword. This overturns the modern assumption that Christians must capture political power to install a “Christian” society.

Support from Transcript:

He insists “the Bible very clearly states that there are two kingdoms,” with the state kept in check “from the fear of the sword.”
“They’ve been given the sword. We have been given the ministry of reconciliation.”
He quotes Romans 13 at length, highlighting: the ruler “beareth not the sword in vain… a revenger to execute wrath.”
He places Romans 13 after Romans 12 (enemy-love): “avenge not yourself… if your enemy is hungry, feed him… overcome evil with good.”
He stresses Nero as the context: Paul spoke about “Nero… one of the most wicked… lit fires… burning Christians,” yet Christians were still to be “subject.”
He contrasts political revolt with Jesus’ kingdom: “If my kingdom were of this world… my servants would fight.”

Discussion Follow-ups How does it change your political instincts to remember Nero was the ruler in view? What would it look like to “do good” and “pray” while refusing to treat politics as the church’s mission?

Jumpstarter 7 of 10