Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 5 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 5
Bercot calls Jesus’ refusal of being made king (John 6:15) a deliberate rejection of political solutions and says governing “any kingdom of this world” requires breaking Jesus’ laws; what specific commands from Matthew 5 (turning the other cheek, not resisting evil, loving enemies) feel most “unworkable” to you in public life, and why?
Another way to ask: If ruling a country forces you to break Jesus’ teachings, which commands in Matthew 5 feel most impossible in public life (like turning the other cheek or loving enemies)? Why do they seem unworkable?

Direct Answer The transcript presses that all three commands—not resisting evil, turning the other cheek, and loving enemies—are “unworkable” for statecraft because government depends on coercion, punishment, and force. Bercot’s core claim is that public rule would require disloyalty to Christ, because a ruler “out of necessity” must break Jesus’ laws.

Support from Transcript:

  • He cites John 6:15: when Jesus perceived they would make Him king, “He departed… alone,” showing refusal of political solutions.
  • He argues: to govern “any kingdom of this world,” a person “is necessarily going to be disloyal to Christ… going to have to break the laws of our King Jesus.”
  • He quotes Matthew 5: “not to resist an evil person,” “turn the other,” “let him have your cloak,” “go with him two,” and “love your enemies… pray for those who… persecute you.”
  • He asks rhetorically: “Do you know of any government that works that way?”
  • He connects nonviolence to kingdom nature: Jesus says if His kingdom were of this world, “my servants would fight,” implying they do not.
Discussion Follow-ups When you imagine crime, war, or national threats, which command feels hardest to obey—and what does that reveal about where you place your trust for safety?