Skip to content
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 4
In John 6, Jesus withdraws when people want to make Him king, and Bercot argues Jesus could have set up Peter or Paul if political change were the plan. What does Jesus’s refusal to seize earthly power suggest about God’s methods for changing societies, and what parts of that feel impractical or even irresponsible to you?
Another way to ask: What does Jesus refusing to become an earthly king say about how God changes society? What about that feels unrealistic or even irresponsible to you?

Direct Answer The transcript teaches that Jesus’s refusal shows God’s plan is not to reform society through seizing political control, but through the Kingdom of God and Christians serving as “ambassadors.” It can feel impractical because it rejects obvious leverage—laws, offices, and force—even though Jesus and the apostles could have wielded it.

Support from Transcript:

  • John 6: people wanted “to come and take him by force to make him king,” and Jesus “departed…by himself alone.”
  • Bercot notes Jesus could have done much “as a ruler here on earth,” yet refused.
  • He argues Jesus could have said, “Peter…can” be king and “I’ll give him my complete backing,” but “he didn’t do that.”
  • He reasons: if ordinary Christians can affect government, “think what a difference an apostle like Peter or Paul could have made,” implying Jesus intentionally avoided that route.
  • He connects it to Jesus before Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world.”
  • He concludes: “the answer to this world’s problems is not any earthly government, but rather it’s the Kingdom of God.”
Discussion Follow-ups Where do you feel pressure to prove Christianity is “responsible” by pursuing power? What fears rise up when you imagine trusting God’s Kingdom methods instead of political control?