Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 10 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
The Kingdom that Turned the World Upside Down  /  Chapter 9, But What If  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 10
The chapter challenges the “two hats” idea (private Christian vs. state agent) using “how many men to change a crime into a virtue?” plus Exodus/Leviticus/Deuteronomy to argue Jesus replaced state-level “eye for eye”; if Jesus’ non-resistance applies to national justice and warfare, what modern Christian beliefs about Romans 13, citizenship, and “supporting the troops” have to be rethought—and what concrete changes would that force in your life?
Another way to ask: The chapter says you can’t be one way as a Christian and another way as a government worker, and that Jesus replaced “eye for eye” with non-resistance even for nations. If that’s true, what would Christians need to rethink about Romans 13, citizenship, and “supporting the troops,” and what changes would that require in your daily life?

Direct Answer Bercot argues Christians cannot excuse killing by claiming to act as agents of the state, because Jesus’ non-resistance replaces even state-administered retaliation, not just private revenge. That would require rethinking appeals to Romans 13 as a permission slip for believers to wield the sword, and re-centering loyalty on God’s kingdom citizenship.

Support from Transcript:

  • He mocks the “state makes it right” logic with Adam Balu’s question: “How many does it take to annul the commandments of God…metamorphose wickedness into righteousness?”
  • He presses the inconsistency by listing idolatry, divination, adultery, divorce, abortion—state authorization doesn’t make sin lawful.
  • He says Jesus made no distinction between “private actions and state-sponsored actions.”
  • He argues Jesus replaced “eye for eye,” and shows “eye for eye” in Exodus/Leviticus/Deuteronomy involved “judges,” “priests,” and “the whole congregation”—state/national justice.
  • He rejects “two hats” with the drafted-American-in-Germany illustration: the U.S. would not accept “it wasn’t me…it was the German government.”
  • He similarly argues Jesus won’t accept “it wasn’t me…it was my government.”
  • He concludes Christians want Jesus to “subjugate himself to Caesar,” but Caesar won’t do the reverse.
Discussion Follow-ups The transcript doesn’t give a detailed life-plan, but its direction implies concrete changes like refusing military participation and rejecting violence as “Christian duty.” What changes in your voting, speech about war, and personal safety habits would follow if you treated the kingdom of God as a real government with higher authority?

Jumpstarter 10 of 10
Back Questions Done