You know, one of the ironic things about the church today is that one of the core basic beliefs of Christianity has almost totally been lost. The belief I'm referring to is sometimes called the doctrine of the two kingdoms. This was a teaching that was universally believed by the primitive Christians. And yet it's a teaching that you hardly ever even hear of anymore. Yet unless you fully grasp this doctrine and all of its ramifications, you'll never be able to understand primitive or early Christianity.
And certainly in my view, you'll never be able to understand authentic apostolic Christianity. So for the next 45, 60 minutes, we're going to be looking at this doctrine, what the early Christians meant by it, what it means for us today. Let me begin by first defining the doctrine of the two kingdoms. To put it in a nutshell, it's the belief that there are two kingdoms in existence today, two realms, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world. There's the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness.
And according to this teaching, the kingdom of God is of necessity, separate and distinct from the world order around it. The kingdom of God isn't something in the future. It's not something we come into after we die or after Christ returns. It is something here and now in the true disciples of Jesus Christ. And this isn't some spiritual or symbolic or figurative kingdom. No, it's something real.
It's something concrete with its own set of laws like any other kingdom, its own values, its own leadership, and its own worldview. And as a result, God's people reside in this world merely as aliens, as foreigners. That's because they're already citizens of another kingdom. So they live by a whole different set of laws. They have different values and a different outlook on world issues than due to the citizens of this world. Now, under this teaching, the kingdoms of this world are part of the kingdom of darkness.
That's because Satan is the God of this present world. Now, that doesn't mean that Jesus Christ and His Father are not involved in the kingdoms of this world. No, because God is still the one who is ultimately in control of the kingdoms of this world. Even though they don't acknowledge it, the earthly rulers derive their power from God. But God's governance of the earthly kingdoms is something completely separate and distinct from his oversight of his kingdom.
Now, the important thing to remember is that these two kingdoms cannot be mixed. Well, you may be thinking, okay, well, this doctrine of the two kingdoms doesn't sound that particularly unique. Many churches teach that today. And I'll agree that today there are many churches who pay lip service to this doctrine, but there's only very few churches who still actually maintain this basic doctrine of Christianity.
And I say that because even though so many churches pay lip service to the two kingdoms, when it gets down to the nitty-gritty, most professing Christians today still think that they can mix these two kingdoms together. When push comes to shove, even persons who profess to be Bible-believing Christians who say that they're no part of this world, they act almost no differently than does the world, except for a few highly visible issues like abortion, homosexuality, illegal drugs.
And because they take a conservative stand on a few issues like that, they delude themselves into thinking that they are really different from this world. But the truth is, most professing Christians today are thoroughly part of this world. Its government, its mindset, its commercial organizations. And it's been that way ever since Constantine. But for the early Christians, it wasn't a matter of lip service. It was a stark reality. They truly were citizens of a different kingdom than the people around them.
And the Romans took note of this, how different, how peculiar these Christians were. Now, most of this discussion isn't going to be me explaining the two kingdoms and what the primitive Christians believed about it. It's going to be the primitive Christians explaining to all of us what they meant, what they believed.
The first quote I want to read is from Origen, and he was writing it in response to a pagan named Celsus or Celsus who had written a work against Christianity, belittling Christians and attacking them for their views. And this is an extremely important work because you get to hear what the pagans are saying about the Christians and then the Christian response to it.
Origen writes, Celsus, that's the pagan antagonist, also urges us to, quote," take office in the government of the country, if that is necessary for the maintenance of the laws and the support of religion." End quote. Okay, so now here the pagan is criticizing the Christians and saying you all should be taking office in the governments of your countries because they weren't doing that. Otherwise, he wouldn't be criticizing them for not doing it.
But our Origen replies, however, we recognize that in each state, that is in each country, there's the existence of another national organization that was founded by the Word of God, by the Word of God, he's signed by the person, Jesus Christ. And we exhort those who are mighty in word and of blameless life to rule over churches. It's not for the purpose of escaping public duties that Christians decline public offices.
Rather, it's so they may reserve themselves for a more divine and necessary service in the Church of God, for the salvation of men. See, he's not denying saying," Oh, no, we take part in the governments. We hold public offices." He says," No, you're right. We don't do that." And the reason is because we see there's another kingdom that exists within each country. And our leaders are rulers in this kingdom. They lead in this kingdom to govern the churches.
The early Christians also testify and recognize that there is enmity between these two realms. The oldest sermon that we have in existence outside of the New Testament was spoken around the year 150, and it says this," The speaker said, this world and the next are two enemies.
We cannot therefore be the friends of both." Origen had written in another work about the year 245," It is not possible for anyone to enter into the kingdom of heaven who has not been turned away from the affairs of this world and made like the little children who possess the Holy Spirit." Now, a natural corollary to all of this is if you're a citizen of the heavenly kingdom, you're naturally not going to be too interested in the affairs of the kingdom of this world.
Tertullian wrote to the Romans around the year 195," In us, all zeal in the pursuit of glory and honor is dead. So we have no pressing inducement to take part in your public meetings, nor is there anything more entirely foreign to us than the affairs of state." This is a Christian explaining to the Romans," This is why we're so different from you." Again, he wrote around the year 197, writing to the pagans. He said," We acknowledge one all-embracing Commonwealth, the world. We renounce all your spectacles.
Among us, nothing is ever said seen or heard that has anything in common with the madness of the circus, the immodesty of the theater, the atrocities of the arena, or the useless exercise of the wrestling ground. Why do you take offense at us because we differ from you in regard to your pleasures? Now, could Christians say that today? I mean, the bulk of professing Christians," Oh, we're different from you. We don't take anything.
We don't have any interest in your movies and your dramas and your sports and that sort of thing." No, we couldn't say that. The world would say, well, you're lying. The Romans didn't call them liars. They called them peculiar. They said they were enemies of the human race. Now, those first two quotes from Tertullian were from writings that he wrote to the Romans, apologetic writings, explaining Christianity. This next one is from a writing to his fellow Christians.
He said this, written about the year 210," So long as you deem yourself a Christian, you are a different man from a pagan. Give him back his own view of things. After all, he does not himself learn from your views. Why lean upon a blind guide if you have eyes of your own? Why be clothed by one who is naked if you have put on Christ? Very reminiscent of Paul's words," You're a new creation." Cyprian, an overseer. This is from a letter written about the year 250.
He said," He who has attained to trust, having put off the former man should reflect on only heavenly and spiritual things.
He should give no heed to the world that he has already renounced." When I read another quote from Origen's reply to Celsus, he wrote," Celsus goes on to say," beginning of quotation," They must make their choice," he's talking about Christians, between two alternatives, if they refuse to render due service to the gods and to respect those who are set over this service, let them depart at once with all speed and leave no posterity behind them, so that such a race may become extinct from the face of the earth.
Again, can you see how different early Christians were from the world around them? And yet, do you see the contrast today between professing Christians today and Christians back when Christianity was still new? As I had earlier mentioned, the early Christians recognized you can't mix these two realms. You can't try to be a friend of this world and a friend of God's kingdom. You can't serve two masters.
Tertullian wrote about the year 195," The Caesars too would have believed on Christ if either the Caesars had not been necessary for the world, or if Christians could have been Caesars." You notice he acknowledges? Well, of course we couldn't be a Caesar. You can't be both. You can't be part of this kingdom and part of the kingdom of this world. Another writing was compiled about the year 390, but from material much earlier than that.
It says," If any bishop uses the rulers of this world and by their means comes to be a bishop of a church, let him be deprived and suspended together with all who are in communion with him." So even though this is after Constantine, there's still that understanding that the church is separate from the kingdom of this world. Now, that dividing line quickly became lost.
But right after Constantine, it was still the view if you somehow obtained the Office of Bishop or Overseer through the rulers of this world, then you'd be excommunicated from the church and everybody who's in communion with you. If that had been followed nearly 100 years later, nearly the entire church, everyone professing to be a Christian, that is, would have been excommunicated. Well, now you might be thinking after hearing those quotes that the early Christians were off base.
You might be saying, like many people today, no Christians need to redeem the society they live in. They need to be involved in government, in politics, every type of business and social institution, so that they can make a difference there. What the early Christians did was irresponsible. That's what a lot of people say today. But let me ask you this. Whose example were the primitive Christians following? Well, the answer is they were following no example but that of Jesus Christ Himself.
Did he involve himself in the politics of his day? Think what a difference he could have made if he had entered into government. But what did the Scripture say? Turn with me to John chapter 6:15, where the Scripture tells us," When John, or rather when Jesus perceived that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, he departed again to a mountain by himself alone." So when they wanted to make Jesus king, he departed out of there. He got away from him. Was he being irresponsible?
Was he neglecting his responsibility, his duties? Of course not. Brother, he knew that it was impossible to serve two masters. As he said, Matthew 6:24," No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other." Now, Jesus was specifically talking about money there, business. But how much more so is that principle true in politics? In fact, who was it who offered Jesus all the kingdoms of this world? Was it his father?
No, it was Satan. But what about the apostles and their disciples? Did they take a different course than their master had? Did they get involved in local government and government in Rome and that sort of thing? Did they get heavily involved in business? No, James wrote adulterers. An adulterer says," Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?
Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God." So they understood clearly," You can't be friends of both." As the apostle John wrote right at the end of the first century, he said," Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life is not of the Father but is of the world.
Well, you may be saying," Sure, I realize that we can't love the world, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be involved in the affairs of the world in order so that we can get in there and change things." But what do the Scriptures say? Paul wrote," Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness, and what communion has light with darkness?
Come out from among them and be separate," says the Lord." Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you." 2 Corinthians 6:14 and 17. Now, Paul wasn't talking about marriage here, which is how this passage is usually applied, although I think the principle is certainly applicable there. Now, he was talking about living separately from the world. Let me ask you this. How can a Christian enter politics without being yoked with unbelievers? You can't.
So what's the alternative if we don't get involved in the governments and the other affairs of this world? Well, the answer is easy. We reside as aliens in this world. Have you ever lived as an alien, as a foreigner in another country? I have, and it's a very different feeling. You might read in the newspaper about the elections, but you understand, well, that doesn't apply to me because I'm not a citizen of this country. I lived in Honduras for a while when I was 19.
And I remember, you know, election slogans and things like that, but didn't have anything to do with me because I was an American citizen. I couldn't vote in their elections. It would have been silly for me to try to get involved in their politics. They wouldn't have wanted that from a foreigner. I was going to be affected by what happened in their government, but my citizenship was somewhere else. That's exactly how the primitive Christians lived in this world.
Lactantius, who wrote right at the end of the early Christian era, meaning the era before the Council of Nicaea and Constantine's involvement in the so-called church. He wrote," God might have bestowed upon His people, some of Christians, both riches and kingdoms, as He had given previously to the Jews whose successors in posterity we are.
However, he would have Christians live under the power and government of others, lest they should become corrupted by the happiness of prosperity, slide into luxury, and eventually despise the commandments of God. For this is what our ancestors did." So I said, you know, God could have had us get involved in government. We could have had a separate kingdom of Christianity, but God knew that that would corrupt us. Therefore, we live under the rulership of these earthly kingdoms.
Lactantius continued, he says," You know that you who are the servants of God, or rather this is not Lactantius, it's Hermas, you know that you who are the servants of God dwell in a strange land. For your city is far away from this one. If then you know your city in which you are to dwell, why do you here provide lands and make expensive preparations and accumulate dwellings in useless buildings? He who makes such preparations for this city cannot return again to his own.
Do you not understand that all these things belong to another and are under the power of another? Take note, therefore, as one living in a foreign land, make no further preparations for yourself than what is merely sufficient. And be ready to leave this city when the master of this city will come to cast you out for disobeying his law. That was written about the year 150, maybe even earlier by a Christian named Hermas, maybe just 50 years or less after the Apostle John died.
Tatian, a Christian who wrote several defenses of Christianity in the middle of the second century. About the year 160, he wrote, and he's writing as a Christian. He's not talking about himself personally. I do not wish to be a king. I am not anxious to be rich. I decline military command. I detest fornication. I'm not impelled by an insatiable love of gain to go to sea. I do not contend for chaplets. That's military honors. I'm free from a mad thirst for fame. I despise death.
And then he tells the pagans, die to the world, repudiating the madness that is in it. Live to God. Tertullian wrote to his fellow Christians throughout the year 212," As for you, you are a foreigner in this world, a citizen of Jerusalem, the city above. Our citizenship," the apostle says," is in heaven. You have your own registers, your own calendar. You have nothing to do with the joys of this world. In fact, you are called to the very opposite.
For the world will rejoice, but you will mourn." Clement of Alexandria, writing about the year 195, said," We have no country on earth.
Therefore, we can disdain earthly possessions." Cyprian wrote about the year 250," We should ever in a day reflect that we have renounced the world and are in the meantime living here as guests and strangers." Can you see how literally they fulfilled Jesus' words when He said at John 17:16, talking about His disciples, He said," They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world." That was the identifying mark of the early Christians, one of the identifying marks. They were not of this world.
They lived as aliens here. They were citizens of the kingdom of God. Now, since Christians are aliens in the kingdoms of this world, they naturally have a different set of values and laws that they follow. This is how the primitive Christians live.
For example, Athenagoras, another early Christian apologist or writer who defended Christianity before the Romans, he says, talking about his fellow Christians," We have learned not to return blow for blow, nor go to law with those who plunder and rob us." Not only that, but to those who strike us on one side of the face, we have learned to offer the other side also. You no doubt see a reflection there of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount teachings.
Clement of Alexandria wrote," Christians are not allowed to use violence to correct the delinquencies of sin." Tertullian wrote," For what difference is there between provoker and provoked? The only difference is that the former, that's the one who provoked, was the first to do evil, but the latter did evil afterwards. Each one stands condemned in the eyes of the Lord for hurting a man. For God both prohibits and condemns every wickedness. In evil-doing, there is no account taken of the order.
The commitment is absolute. Evil is not to be repaid with evil. And he's not just talking theoretically there that, oh, it would be nice if Christians were to live that way. That was a writing addressed to Romans. In fact, Celsus, the pagan critic of Christians, wrote this. He said," They also have a teaching to this effect that we should not avenge ourselves on one who injured us." So see, the world even knew that. Christians don't return evil for evil.
And the reason for this is that they understood that the means that you do something in Christianity is just as important as the end. Now, the world has generally lived by the maxim that the end justifies the mean. If you're doing this for a good reason, well, then it's okay, whatever method you use. But see, the Christians knew as soon as you start using Satan's means, you've already corrupted the end. Unfortunately, the church lost that teaching after Constantine.
Commodianus, who wrote around the year 240, said this," Do not willingly use force and do not return force when it is used against you." Lactantius writing at the end of that era said," If we derive our origin from one man whom God created, we are clearly of one blood. When we suffer such ungodly things, we do not resist even in word. Rather, we leave vengeance to God." Again, he wrote," The Christian does injury to no one. He does not desire the property of others.
In fact, he does not even defend his own property if it is taken from him by violence. For he knows how to patiently bear an injury inflicted upon him." Do you see what I mean when I said back then, they lived by a different set of values. It wasn't just lip service. Oh, yeah, we're no part of this world and all of that. No, it was very different. And the world realized these people, they don't live like us. They're living under a whole' nother set of values.
And one of the chief of those values was they don't return evil for evil. If you do them wrong, they're not going to come and get vengeance against you. They're not going to do it back to you and say, well, this teaches you a lesson and that sort of thing. And they weren't making this up. This is directly from the Scriptures.
Jesus told us at Matthew 5:38 through 41," You have heard that it was said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I tell you not to resist an evil person, but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Now, when's the last time you heard that teaching of Jesus Christ preached in your church and applied?
I don't mean taught and watered down and done away with, but that your minister said," You see how Jesus told us where to live? This is how we should live day-to-day." It's a rare church. There are churches today who still teach this, but they're very definitely in the minority. Paul wrote Romans 12:19 and 21," Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath. For it is written,' Vengeance is mine, I will repay,' says the Lord.
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." See, when we return evil for evil, we are overcome by evil. We've become on the same level as a person who did evil to us. You know, it's so sad when I look at today at Northern Ireland and the religious hatred and fighting that has been going on there for centuries. And each side, the Catholics and the Protestants believe they're acting in a Christian manner towards the other. Each one is confident that God is with them.
And the sad result is the rest of the world looks at it and not only says," You Christians are as bad as the world," they generally say," You Christians are worse than the rest of the world." And so much of the fighting in the last 30, 40 years in Western Europe and in that area has been over religion. I wonder if people turn away from Christianity and say, I don't want anything to do with that, particularly there in Europe.
But can you see now why we said it's impossible to try to rule one of the nations of this world, and yet at the same time, live by kingdom teachings? I mean, can a president get up there and say," Well, we need to return good for evil. We need to turn the other cheek when someone does something to us." You couldn't get elected trying to practice that. See, you just can't be part of both of these kingdoms. You're going to end up following the teachings of one and despising the teachings of the other.
The early Christians realized this. Tertullian wrote very recently, there arose a dispute as to whether a servant of God should take upon himself the administration of any dignity or power, assuming he can keep himself through an adroitness or some special grace from every type of idolatry. So the question is, okay, can a Christian hold an office in government if he can do that without any involvement in pagan idols?
He said people had asked that because there is the example of both Joseph and Daniel who kept clean from idolatry, and yet they administered both dignity and power in Egypt and Babylonian. So Tertullian says," Let us suppose that it is possible for anyone to succeed in operating under the mere name of the office in whatever office it is. Let's also suppose the following. He neither sacrifices nor lends his authority to sacrifices. He does not farm out sacrificial victims.
He does not assign to others the care of the temples. He does not look after their tributes. He does not give spectacles at his own or the public expense nor preside over them. He's talking about the games, the chariot races and gladiator games, that sort of thing. He makes no proclamation or edict for any festivals, because so many of the festivals were involving pagan gods. He does not even take oaths. Jesus said, do not swear.
Furthermore, he does not sit in judgment on anyone's life or character, for you might allow his judging about money, Tertullian said. Let's suppose he says that this person neither condemns anyone or indicts anyone. He chains no one. He neither imprisons anyone or tortures anyone. Now he says, is it believable that all of this is possible? Of course not. You can't serve in the government without being involved in these things, things that Christians have renounced.
Tertullian wrote later," Should the Christian apply the chain, the prison, the torture, and the punishment? He who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs? If you are going to avenge when someone does something wrong to you, is it reasonable then you're going to avenge wrongs done to others?" See, it's like trying to obtain gray by starting off with black paint and mixing some white paint with it. I tried that at one time so I can speak from authority. I needed to arrive at a nice shade of gray.
So I started off with a can of black paint. And then I got some scoops of white paint and poured that in the black. And you know what happened? It had almost no impact at all. I mean, when it was there on the top, you could see this blob of white on top of the black. But then when I stirred it, boy, pretty soon it disappeared. Maybe the black changed a little bit, but it was still black. It was not gray. I finally learned if you want gray, you've got to start off with white.
Then you mix a little bit of black in it until you've got the shade of gray you want. That's what it's like when we try to bring the light of God's kingdom into the kingdoms of this world. We might think, yeah, I can go in there and be light. I can be an influence for good. And yes, you can accomplish some good. I don't doubt that. But you're going to be drawn into the world at the same time. Your influence on them is going to be many times lighter than their influence on you.
It's going to be like, like I say, adding white paint to black. And you know Satan really doesn't mind if some goodness comes into a worldly society. If in return, the church will accept some worldliness and corruption in itself. So he said, sure, I'll do that. You guys can come into my kingdoms. And yeah, you can do away with some of these wickednesses and things. I'll do that just so you let me come inside your kingdom, into the church, and let me bring some of my values into the church.
And Satan has been very willing to make that bargain all throughout history. Let's look for a moment at some of the lessons of history, what we can learn from it. Let's start with Constantine. Before the time of Constantine, I've read to you what the church was like. Christians were totally separate from this world. The world looked at them as very, very different. Now, Constantine favored Christianity. And there's a lot of debate whether he ever had a real conversion to Christianity or not.
And I'll leave that in God's hands. But whether he did or didn't, I can say this, that he never let go of the world. If he believed in Christ, he also believed in the kingdoms of this world. And he felt he could bless the church by using his means, his power to be a friend of the church and to bless it, to promote it. For example, he rebuilt all of the Christian places of worship that had been destroyed in the great persecution right before he came to power.
This was at public expense that he rebuilt the buildings, but not just as simple prayer houses that had existed before, but he made them elaborate and ornate. He wanted them to rival in glory any of the pagan temples. And this was all done out of the public treasury. He felt the leaders in the church could do their job even more effectively if they didn't have to worry at all about their support. So he put them on the public salary.
The Treasury again paid their salaries and he felt like he was doing a favor to the church. I think his motives were probably pure. But again, I have no way of knowing. But whether his motives were pure or not, the church should have realized, no, we can't do this. We can't mix your kingdom with ours. It's going to corrupt our kingdom. And that's exactly what happened. Now, as I said, when Christians get involved in worldly governments, they do often have a good influence in some respects.
For example, Constantine promoted Christians in his government. He wanted Christians at all the levels of government. And they compromised. They agreed to do that, where 50 years before, they would have refused to have any dealings with the government of Rome. And as a result of their influence on Constantine, there were some things gained, some good things. For example, the gladiatorial games where prisoners had to fight each other to the death, they were done away with. The theaters were shut down.
And the theaters of that time, like those of today, focused so much on crime and immorality as their subjects. Abortion, which was freely practiced in pagan Rome, was outlawed. Magic and sorcery were outlawed. So you say, wow, this is good. See, when Christians get involved in government, yes, there were some good things, but what was lost? Well, this is what was lost. Number one was war.
Before the time of Constantine, as I read to you, the Christians uniformly, you can't find even one exception in their writings, that it is wrong to return evil for evil. It is wrong to take up the sword to try to defend what is right and good. The early Christians would not even, not only would they not go into war against each other, they wouldn't even war against a pagan non-believer. I mean, this was an identifying mark of being a Christian back in those days. Christians wouldn't sue one another.
They wouldn't take a fellow believer to court. In fact, generally, they would not take anyone to court. But see, all of this changed. At first Christians said," Okay, we'll go to war, but only against pagans to defend God's kingdom," which now they began associating God's kingdom with the kingdom of Rome. And so now we have to defend it.
See, already these two kingdoms that had been so separate come together and right away, they realize we have to use the world's means if we're going to defend a kingdom that is obviously part of this world. And yet within 50 years, they not only had gone from agreeing to participate in war against pagans, in 50 years, they were fighting each other, killing one another. And that has continued down to this day of professing Christians slaughtering one another in war. Naturally, they went to court suing one another.
Oddly enough, the church lost its belief in freedom of religion. The early Christians had argued for freedom of religion, not only because they were being persecuted, but they realized God doesn't want to force anybody into his kingdom. He wants only volunteers. You can't make somebody believe against their own will. And so the early Christians never persecuted anyone, even if they had the opportunity to do so. For example, heretics in the church were not persecuted by the rest of the church.
But Constantine, well, he did not make Christianity the state religion. He just favored Christianity. But again, within 50 years, it had become the state religion. And now pagans were outlawed, and they were persecuted, their temples torn down. All of the things that had been done to the Christians were now being done to the pagans in the name of Christ. And the result is Christians had sunk to the same level as pagans. They now began to persecute other professing Christians who were not considered orthodox.
For example, the Donatists who refused to accept the participation of Constantine and other Roman emperors into the church. They said, what does the kingdom of God or the kingdom of this world have to do with the church? These are two different kingdoms. They were persecuted by the Romans, including the Christians. In fact, Augustine, who was originally against persecuting others, he finally wrote a whole defense of why it is all right to persecute others and force them into the church against their will.
Another Christian Priscillian, an early leader, he was tortured and beheaded by Christians who had the government's power behind them. And this was before the year 400. So it took such a short time. Within 75 years of Constantine's supposed conversion, you have Christians now acting very, very little differently than what the world had acted before. And the ironic thing is once they took up the sword to defend the Roman Empire, the Roman Empire collapsed.
It only lasted about 100 years after Constantine's conversion. Here, it existed all those centuries when it was so debauched and run by pagans. When Christians got involved, it lasted about another century, and then the Rome and the kingdom in the West fell to the pagans. So we can learn from history that, no, your little bit of white paint in the black. Yeah, it might make a little difference, but the consequences to God's kingdom are going to be much greater or to the church.
We could go through history, pick many examples. Another lesson that should be significant to us Americans is the English Civil War in the mid 1600s. This is when the Puritans decided they would take up arms and overthrow the government. Now, they weren't fighting against pagans, against unbelievers. They were fighting fellow professing Christians, but Anglicans, or I should say, because the Puritans were Anglicans as well. They were fighting the royalty and the high church leaders, bishops in the church.
And they were successful in their revolution. They overthrew the government, they beheaded the king, they beheaded the archbishop. And there were some gains by that. They gave religious freedom for independence. Before then, the church had not allowed freedom of religion to these little different sects and groups. They were persecuted, thrown in jail. They weren't generally hanging them or burning them at the stake, but they were still persecuting.
And now there was, for the first time, groups like Quakers and that, Baptists could meet openly. They had a moral effect on society. They passed laws that closed down the theaters, for example, laws forbidding playing cards and activities on Sunday. So you can say, yeah, see, we can get involved in government and make a difference. But what was lost? Well, first of all, what was lost was the innocence and purity of Christianity if it had existed, which I don't think it did at that point.
But basically, you had professing Christians, people who saw themselves as being totally committed to Jesus Christ, using all the means of this world, killing fellow professing Christians, beheading a king. They also were very brutal in their suppression of the Catholics, Roman Catholics in Ireland. Cromwell and his army of Puritans, I mean, they showed almost no mercy when Catholics would flee into their churches to escape the armies. And one example, I think there's many of them.
And these were the whole village, all of the people, the husbands, wives, their children, and everything. He just told his soldiers to pile up all of the sheaves of hay and weed and all the wood they could tear down from barns and pile it up against it and burned all the people, roasted them alive in there. Now the Puritans, when they were in power, they persecuted the high church people.
And the people who still wanted to use the Book of Common Prayer and have a traditional Anglican service, they had to do it underground. Roman Catholics were still outlawed in England. So you see that the church had lowered itself to the level of the world. And there was a terrible backlash from this as well, because after about 20 years of that, the people were sick and tired of having religion forced down their throats and imposed on them by the secular, it wasn't the secular, but by the government.
And so the people almost unanimously welcomed back Charles II, the king's son who they had beheaded, whom Cromwell had beheaded, to have him back as a king and to restore the Anglican Church and all of that. And one of the big fallouts from this was the rise of deism, that so many observers were sick of both sides. They had seen the unchristian things that both sides had done and all the killing in the name of Christ. And they were sick of religion in general.
And they left it and turned to the so-called enlightenment. Another example would be the religious right in the last several decades who have wanted to have an impact on the American government by being involved. You've even seen TV evangelists running for public office trying to become president. And their involvement has gained some things. Some abortion procedures are still illegal. In some communities, they've had a role in shutting down places of pornography or lewd dancing, things like that.
But what's been lost? What has been lost is that the church is so identified with the world trying to change the world that the world has had a lot greater influence on them than they've had on the world. For example, divorce. 50 years ago, almost all professing Christians were opposed to divorce. You would not have found very many divorced people in churches almost anywhere of whatever persuasion. Now, statistics would indicate that the divorce rate is actually higher among evangelicals than it is the world.
And I don't think anyone would dispute that it's just as high as that of the world. And why should Christians' views of divorce change? It's because the world's views has changed and Christians have been so enmeshed in the world that when the world changed its views, Christians changed their views as well. Another example would be the biblical teachings on the headship of fathers and men inside the church. That those are now terribly, politically incorrect, just fine.
I mean, as Tertullian says, let the world have their own views. Who cares what they think? We live by a different set of values. But no, those teachings have affected nearly all Bible-believing churches today. Again, there are exceptions, but very few. And it's so absurd when I've seen professing Christians run for public office, they get involved in the same mudslinging and the same politics and things like that that the world does. It brings you down to its level.
So now in saying all of this about the two kingdoms, am I saying that the early Christians saw the nations of this world as something evil, as something outside of God's plan? Did they refuse to obey the laws of the empire because it was a different kingdom? No, because they realized that all government authority ultimately comes from God. This is what the Scriptures teach.
As Paul said, let every soul be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. This is exactly what the early Christians followed. As I've said many times, if you want to know what the primitive church believed, just read the New Testament and take every teaching in there very literally, and you'll find that's exactly what the early Christians did.
As Polycarp, who was himself martyred by the Romans, he wrote around the year of 135, or this was actually written by his disciples who recorded his martyrdom. They said," We are taught to give all due honor to the powers and authorities that are ordained of God." This is after they killed this elderly, highly respected bishop.
The members of his church still could write to the Romans," We are taught to give you all due honor because we recognize your power comes from God." Theophilus, another Christian apologist, writing about the year 180, he wrote," In a sense, the king's government is committed to him by God. Accordingly, honor the king, be subject to him and pray for him with loyal mind.
If you do this, you will do the will of God." Tertullian wrote to the Romans," Why dwell any longer on the reverence and sacred respect of Christians to the emperor? We cannot help but to look upon him as someone called by our Lord to his office. Therefore, on valid grounds, I can say that Caesar is more ours than yours, for our God has appointed him." What an interesting contrast. On the one side, they would refuse to be part of the world, to accept the values of this world, to live by the values of this world.
On the other hand, there was no one in the empire who was more obedient, who were more conscientious about paying their taxes and living by the law as the Christians were, with the exception of when those laws contradicted God's teachings. So the early Christians, they gave honor to the earthly rulers and they prayed for them regularly. That's what we should be doing.
Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 2: 2," I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence." So our job is to be praying for those rulers. What praying that our nation will be mighty and valiant and conquer other nations? No, praying that we can lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and reverence.
And it's not wrong to pray for peace for our country and for long life for our rulers.
Tertullian wrote, and he's writing again to the pagans," You then who think that we do not care for the welfare of Caesar, look into God's revelations, examine our sacred books, learn from them that a large benevolence is enjoined or taught us, even so far as to supplicate God for our enemies and to request blessings on our persecutors." Most clearly, the Scriptures say," Pray for kings, rulers, and powers that all may be peace with you." So yes, they prayed for their persecutors very literally.
Furthermore, the early Christians refused to take up arms to try to overthrow the government, as the Puritans had tried to do. They left that in God's hands. Tertullian could tell the Romans in his apology to them," No conspiracy has ever broken out from our body. No Caesar's blood has ever fixed the stain upon us in the Senate or even in the palace. No assumption of the purple has ever in any of the provinces been effected by us. Not only do we not take up arms," he says," We're not even involved in politics.
No one has got into power through us or by our support." As he wrote in another work," A Christian is enemy to no one, least of all to the emperor of Rome, whom he knows to be appointed by his God. So he cannot help but to love and honor him. And the Christian must necessarily desire his well-being, along with that of the empire over which he reigns." However, as I've said, the honor and obedience that Christians gave to earthly governments was relative.
They obeyed the government as long as its laws didn't violate God's laws. They gave honor to rulers, but they refused to worship them or to attribute divinity to them. As Tertullian wrote," No doubt the apostle admonishes the Romans to be subject to all powers, for there is no power but of God." Then he goes on to show also how he wishes you to be subject to the powers, exhorting you to pay tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom is due.
In other words, give the things that are Caesar's back to Caesar and the things that are God's to God. But man is the property of God alone. Similarly, Peter no doubt had said that the king indeed must be honored, but he means that the king is honored only when he keeps to his own sphere. That is when he is far from claiming divine honors. So yes, we'll give honor to the king, but no, we will not ascribe divinity to you, and we will die before we will do that.
Because if we acknowledge you as a God, we are rejecting Christ in the act of doing that. Origen wrote," What if the law of nature, that is the law of God, commands what is opposed to the written law, that is the law of the government. Does not reason tell us to bid a long farewell to the written code and to give ourselves up to the legislature as a capital L gone?
This is so, even if in doing so, it may be necessary to encounter dangers, countless labors, and even death in dishonor." So their decision was already made before persecution even broke out. If Caesar tries to tell us to do something that is contrary to God, we're not going to do it. And we're not going to take up arms to overthrow Caesar if he does that. We are going to meekly submit the way Jesus did, even if it means we're tortured and put to death.
Lactantius wrote, and again, this is towards the end of that era, and yet you still see the same teaching. When men command us to act in opposition to the law of God and in opposition to justice, we should not be deterred by any threats or punishments that come upon us. For we prefer the commandments of God to the commandments of men, the same decision that Peter and John had made.
In the final analysis, the early Christians believed that our minds, our hearts, our souls, and our lives all belonged to God, and they were not going to lay those down for Caesar. Tertullian said," Indeed, render to Caesar money, but render to God yourself. Otherwise, what will be God's if all things are Caesar's?" And see, that's the problem with Caesar's. That's the problem with the governments of this world. They want everything to belong to them. They want your life. They want your soul.
And the early Christians said," No, our life, our soul, our moral, our sense of morality, all those belong to God, and we will not lay those down for the government." Okay, let me sum up now what we've been talking about this last hour. We've seen that the early Christians and the Scriptures teach what I've referred to as the doctrine of the two kingdoms, that there are two kingdoms out there, two realms, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world. And they are very distinct.
They have to be separate and distinct from each other because they live by different values. And that the kingdom of God actually exists right here and now in the true disciples of Jesus Christ, that it's a real kingdom. It's got laws. It's got leaders just like the governments do. And it's got a whole set of values, a whole worldview, just like secular kingdoms have. And that if we are going to be a citizen of God's kingdom, then we have to make a choice.
It's either going to be His kingdom or the kingdoms of this world. We cannot mix the two together, even though many Christians have tried to do that. Yet, we've also seen that God is ultimately in control of the entire world, all of the kingdoms that are here, that He gave humans the right and the power to have earthly rulers. They derive their power from God. And we know as Christians that at some point in the future, Christ is going to return in power, and He will bring an end to all of these earthly kingdoms.
And in the end, there's only going to be one kingdom. That's the kingdom of God.