Howard Owens

I’ve come across MAGA Christians who love to compare Donald Trump to Samson, the manly warrior, in their view. Christian nationalists have an interesting fixation on Samson as some sort of role model. The man who did not faithfully fulfill his calling to begin delivering Israel from the Philistines was haunted by his own insecurities, driven more by personal grievances than by divine blessing, blurring the line between justice and revenge. A tragic figure whose greatest strength became his greatest liability, enabling his worst impulses.

Many commentators have suggested Samson is perhaps more of a terrorist, rather than displaying the wisdom of a judge acting in God’s spirit.

In the end, Samson kills himself and many Philistines in a temple in Gaza. This may be a partial fulfillment of his calling, but it does not bring lasting deliverance; generations later, David still has to confront and finally break Philistine power. If there is any benefit to God in his act of vengeance, it is that God’s name is vindicated in the destruction of Dagon’s Temple.

The biblical narrative doesn’t conceal any of Samson’s faults, consistent with scripture’s fealty to a witness to people’s full humanity. There is no gloss because the ultimate story is about God’s glory in the midst of man’s folly. Far from a hero, especially a warrior to exemplify, Samson is fatally flawed, doomed by his own hubris and lack of faithfulness. He’s hardly a role model and certainly not anybody we would want our national leaders to emulate.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. (DoD photo by U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Madelyn Keech, https://www.flickr.com/photos/secdef/54674702251; Public Domain).

The war passages in the Hebrew Bible are among the most difficult in scripture.

Copan argues that the Old Testament’s warfare texts must be read in their ancient Near Eastern context, where hyperbolic battle language, divine judgment on deeply corrupt cultures, and God’s long–suffering patience all complicate any quick charge that God is violating our modern sense of moral order.1

The most important context starts in the Garden of Eden, where humanity first turns on God, choosing instead to decide good and bad apart from fellowship with its creator.2 The sets up the rest of story, as God works through history to redeem his creation.

Many centuries later, after much travail, Israel is called to be a kingdom of priests who might demonstrate God’s glory to all the nations, that he alone should be obeyed and followed, but Israel repeatedly fails, showing us time and again that when we stop following God, our own schemes often fail. (Exodus 19:5–6, Deuteronomy 4:5–8, Deuteronomy 6:4–5, 13–15, Deuteronomy 26:18–19, Judges 2:10–15, Deuteronomy 28:15, 25, Jeremiah 2:17–19)

The war passages act in the Torah as an archetype for God’s final judgment.3 When God calls his people to war — always as the smaller force — often God commands kings and generals to reduce the number of men going into battle4 — it is against an idolatrous and corrupt people. There is great evil in the land, such as temple prostitution and child sacrifice. (Deuteronomy 9:4–5, Deuteronomy 18:9–14, Judges 7:2–7, Deuteronomy 20:1–9, Deuteronomy 23:17, Leviticus 18:21; 20:1–5, Deuteronomy 18:9–10)

Israel was to trust in God, not in its own strategy or the nation’s own strength.

As Psalm 20:7 reads, “Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God.”

Rebellious kings
When kings pursue their own war plans, the Biblical witness shows it didn’t go well for Israel.

In 1 Samuel 13, when Samuel is late, Saul loses patience. performed a burnt offering himself rather than waiting for the prophet—an act he justified by military pressure and fear that the Philistines would attack. Samuel condemned this as disobedience, declaring that Saul’s kingdom would not endure because he “did not keep the LORD’s command.” This sets the pattern: human initiative in place of divine direction results in the forfeiture of blessing.

In 1 Kings 22, Ahab decided to retake Ramoth Gilead from Aram based on his own reasoning, and though he consulted prophets, he deliberately avoided the one prophet he knew would speak against him. The outcome? Ahab was killed in battle.

In 2 Chronicles 35, when Josiah did not listen to God’s command delivered through Necho of Egypt, Josiah died in battle, shot through the heart by archers.

Each genuine “Yahweh war” was always initiated by the LORD and never Israel; when Israel initiated war without divine approval, the consequences provoked God’s dismay, if not anger and judgment.5

In other words, short of divine revelation, any nation that initiates war is not trusting God but trusting in its own wisdom, the same desire for control that drove Adam and Eve from Eden.

Peace on Earth
So when does God sanction a nation starting a war?

I suggest, based on the witness of Jesus Christ in the Gospels, never.

John Howard Yoder argues in The Politics of Jesus6 that the New Testament portrays Jesus’ life, teachings, and especially his cross as normatively shaping Christian ethics and politics. The way of the cross, then, governs how we read the rest of Scripture. Richard Hays, drawing on Yoder, similarly describes the cross as the theological fulcrum of New Testament ethics, the point at which the biblical story’s moral vision comes into sharpest focus.7

At the cross, Jesus voluntarily gave up his life so that we might have life. That is the way of non-violence, non-resisting, not answering evil with evil. Jesus taught enemy love, not retribution. (John 10:10–11, 17–18, Matthew 5:38–39, Romans 12:17, 21)

When arrested, Jesus declared that “my kingdom is not of this world,” explaining that if it were, “my servants would fight to prevent my arrest.” (John 18:36). This stance is fundamentally at odds with the use of military force. His refusal to mobilize armed resistance—even when facing execution—wasn’t weakness but the expression of the upside-down nature of God’s Kingdom.

For those who might argue that is a utopian posture for a nation, you’re not wrong. But it is individuals who make those “good and bad” decisions about military maneuvers, and individuals who cloak their own wisdom in biblical language should be evaluated, if Yoder and Hays are right, and I believe they are, skeptically.

Jesus was radically counter-culture for a First Century Jew. He didn’t quote war passages from scripture. He preached non-violence and cited scripture focused on love and obedience to God. While most Jews of the era were looking for a messiah who would be a great military leader, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey’s foal. (Matthew 5:38–44, Matthew 22:37–40, John 14:15, Zechariah 9:9, Matthew 21:1–5, John 12:14–15, John 10:11–18, Romans 12:17–21.)

The Constantinian Shift
Prior to Constantine, Christians were overwhelmingly pacifists and committed to non‑violence and enemy love, even as they were being fed to lions and burned as torches in the Colosseum. A combination of Constantine’s politicizing Christianity and Augustine’s Just War Theory meant that Biblically grounded culture of the early Church began to erode.

Over time, that accommodation to state power helped set the stage for the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the bloody battles of the Reformation.

Which brings us to Pete Hegseth.

The man who prefers “war” to “defense” for the department he runs (my pacifist friends say, at least that’s truth in advertising), and inks himself with crusader symbols (the Jerusalem cross and “Deus vult” (“God wills it”)8. In his book, American Crusade, Hegseth frames American Christianity involved in not just a cultural war but as apocalyptic Crusader-like “Holy War.”9

Even when Hegseth speaks of Christ dying for our sins and cites John 3:16, he consistently pairs that message with crusader symbolism and war‑like rhetoric, presenting a Jesus who blesses American military power rather demands peace on earth.10 11

He’s also shown he’s quite willing to outsource war’s moral decisions, the already fallible human calculation over “good and bad” to machines.12

Psalm 144
It’s striking that in this backdrop, Hegseth used Psalm 144 as a blessing for both the mission to capture Nicolás Maduro and the ongoing operation in Iran.13 David’s song isn’t about Israel’s king plotting combat under his power. Rather, David credits God with training his hands for war and fingers for battle, describing God as his fortress, stronghold, and deliverer. This isn’t David boasting about his own martial skill. It’s an explicit attribution of military capability to divine instruction. David isn’t glorifying war or blessing violence, he is acknowledging God’s sovereignty.

The Psalm was particularly meaningful to exiles returning from Babylon, living in a militarily unstable state, as they called to God for his aid. David asks God to “part your heavens and come down” and to “send forth lightning and scatter the enemy.” There isn’t a hint of self-initiative in the Psalm.

It’s interesting that Hegseth would pick one of David’s Psalms, the song of a warrior-king who wanted to build a temple, but God said no, exactly because he was a warrior. The Lord spoke to David, “You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight.” (1 Chron 22:8) God says plainly enough, war isn’t his ideal solution to wash away man’s sins.

Rather than blessing Hegseth’s military adventures, the Psalm reads like an indictment of his own initiatives.

Losing one’s life
Prior to the campaign against Iran, at the National Prayer Breakfast, Hegseth read from Mark 8 (“whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it.”) and then said, “The warrior who is willing to lay down his life for his unit, his country, and his Creator, that warrior finds eternal life.” (Mark 8:34–38)14

Hegseth is confusing the Kingdom of God with his own kingdom. Jesus is not blessing the Roman Legions or even Jewish zealots. He is explaining to his disciples the potential cost of following him. That could mean persecution, even, potentially, to the point of death. Hegseth’s framing baptizes military service with Christian language by suggesting that dying for country achieves the same spiritual reality as dying for Christ in the name of the Good News. Further, life in this passage doesn’t mean solely returning to dust. It means surrendering your entire self to Jesus and living in total submission to him.

Hegseth’s remark is straight-up Crusader talk. In 1095, before the First Crusade, Pope Urban II at Clermont said, “All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested.”15 Neither the Pope nor Hegseth has the power to open the gates of heaven to a warrior, or anybody else.

Armageddon
One of the most controversial topics in Christendom is end-times prophecy. There are Christians who spend entire careers trying to read the signs, mapping Biblical symbols onto modern machinery or nation-states (locusts become helicopters, Gog becomes Russia (or is it the United States? I forget). There are others among us who know Jesus is coming again, but realize that scripture was never intended to be read as a finely tuned GPS.

It seems that under Hegseth, the military has a number of commanders in its ranks who have read more Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye than they have a theologically sound Bible commentary on Daniel and Revelation.

There have been more than 200 complaints filed with The Military Religious Freedom Foundation from U.S. service members across all branches since the Iran strikes began, alleging that commanders are invoking biblical “end times” language to justify the war.16

One complaint (filed on behalf of 15 troops) describes a commander telling them the conflict is “all part of God’s divine plan,” citing Revelation and Armageddon and saying President Trump was “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth.”17

In First Century Judea, both the Pharisees and Zealots were trying to force God’s hand. They thought that through human action, they could subvert divine will to their own desires. The Pharisees believed that if they could just get the people to follow the law more precisely, it would hasten the coming of the Messiah. That God’s people would finally be ready to receive the military savior they long to see.

Meanwhile, the Zealots thought violence was the answer. If they could foment rebellion against Rome, then surely, the messiah would come to save Israel.18

Both groups misread the prophecy (a realization that should humble all Christians who try to figure out when and how Jesus will return).

Jesus, however, “did not play by the rules of any political parties of His day, though he was frequently pressured by people to fit into a category.” As one commentary put it, “He frustrated them with divine delight.”19

God’s will cannot be defeated by human presumption.

That applies to you, to me, even to Pete Hegseth.

1 Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), chapter on Canaanite warfare, pp. 159–188, esp. p. 170. 

2 WTC Theology. “Why God Withheld the Tree (And What That Teaches Us About Desire) | Tim Mackie.” YouTube, 9 Mar. 2026, www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oKhKBJAENc.

3 Robert D. Bergen, “Exodus,” in CSB Apologetics Study Bible, ed. Ted Cabal (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2017), 96.

4 T. Longman III, “Warfare,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 836. 

5 Paul Copan, That’s Just Your Interpretation: Responding to Skeptics Who Challenge Your Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2001), 167. 

6 Yoder, John Howard. The Politics of Jesus. 2nd ed., Eerdmans, 1994, p. 9. 

7 Hays, Richard B. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation. HarperCollins, 1996, p. 248. 

8 Salam, Armin Rosen and Suhail. “Pete Hegseth’s Tattoos and the Crusading Obsession of the Far Right.” New Lines Magazine, 28 Nov. 2024, newlinesmag.com/essays/pete-hegseths-tattoos-and-the-crusading-obsession-of-the-far-right/. 

9 Hegseth, Pete. American Crusade: Fighting for Religious Liberty, Freedom of Speech, and the Quest for a New American Crusade. Center Street, 2020.

10 One America News Network. “Secretary of War Pete Hegseth Speaks at the 74th Annual National Prayer Breakfast.” Facebook, 4 Feb. 2026, www.facebook.com/OneAmericaNewsNetwork/videos/1436195738155266/. 

11 Rosen, Armin, and Suhail Salam. “Pete Hegseth’s Tattoos and the Crusading Obsession of the Far Right.” New Lines Magazine, 28 Nov. 2024, newlinesmag.com/essays/pete-hegseths-tattoos-and-the-crusading-obsession-of-the-far-right/.

12 Gerl, Thomas. “Without Good and Evil: Military AI and the Architecture of Refusal.” gerl.dev, 28 Feb. 2026, gerl.dev/blog/without-good-and-evil.

13 Kirchick, James. “Pete Hegseth Outright Quotes Scripture in Iran War Briefing.” The New Republic, 9 Mar. 2026, newrepublic.com/post/207564/pete-hegseth-quotes-scripture-iran-war-briefing. 

14 Kaylor, Brian. “At National Prayer Breakfast, Hegseth Says US Soldiers Gain Eternal Life.” Public Witness, 4 Feb. 2026, publicwitness.wordandway.org/p/at-national-prayer-breakfast-hegseth. 

15 “Urban II: Speech at Clermont, 1095.” Internet Medieval Sourcebook, Fordham University, sourcebooks.web.fordham.edu/source/urban2-5vers.asp. 

16 Anadolu Agency. “US Troops Being Told Iran War Intended to Bring About Armageddon, Watchdog Says.” Anadolu Ajansı, 3 Mar. 2026, www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/us-troops-being-told-iran-war-intended-to-bring-about-armageddon-watchdog-says/3849151. 

17 “Watchdog Alleges US Troops Told Iran War Is ‘Part of God’s Divine Plan’.” The Business Standard, 3 Mar. 2026, www.tbsnews.net/world/watchdog-alleges-us-troops-told-iran-war-part-gods-divine-plan-1377341. 

18 James Hastings et al., in Dictionary of the Bible (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1909), 610. 

19 Dan White Jr. and Debra Hirsch, Love Over Fear: Facing Monsters, Befriending Enemies, and Healing Our Polarized World (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2019).

One thing that can easily be overlooked in our reading of scripture is the deep corruption of the later Second Temple period. It is a corruption that Jesus confronts several times, and it is that corruption that ultimately leads to his crucifixion. 

Matthew 17:24-27 is on point in this regard. Peter is confronted about paying the temple tax, and Jesus has Peter do a little fishing so that they might obtain coins to pay the tax.

It isn’t as if Jesus and Peter couldn’t pay the tax — the mission had a treasury and patrons (hence Judas carrying the money bag) — but Jesus is teaching a lesson about both submitting to earthly authority, even if corrupt, and not surrendering your allegiance and dependence on God.

In this era, the position of high priest was purchased from Rome, and it remained within family dynasties. The Temple Tax was of questionable scriptural provenance. The rate was set by the high priest. It had to be paid in Tyrian coins, so the high priest also set the exchange rate. 

The animal sacrifice system had also been corrupted. Annas, in Jesus’s time, sold animals from his own herd for sacrifice, and priests would also reject the animals brought in by families and defective, forcing them to purchase animals at inflated prices from Annas.

The Sadducees considered the temple tax voluntary, but as we can see in this passage, Jews were pressured into paying the tax. This created a two-tier system in which priests and the well-connected could avoid the tax, while everyone else had to pay.

Jesus asks Peter who has to pay — the kings of the earth and their kin, or just “strangers.” Peter answers strangers, meaning the rest of us. 

We see that Jesus recognizes the corruption, just as they did when he flipped tables in the Court of the Gentiles, but rather than encouraging resistance to the Empire, he advises not to cause offense, knowing that God provides and is ultimately the only sovereign.  So he instructs Peter to go fishing so that the Temple Tax might be paid by God, subverting the entire corrupt system. It is resistance through God’s authority, not in our own power.

This is giving to Caesar what belongs to Caesar while relying not on man but God alone. 

Jesus flips tables, he asserts the sovereignty of God, but he turns his back on revolution, confrontation, violence, even to the point of going to the cross.

It’s a powerful lesson in resisting empire through obedience to God, in not conforming to this world, but standing apart from it.

This essay started out as a response to a pastor I sometimes communicate with about faith and politics, during an exchange in which the pastor cited Romans 13 as a reason Christians shouldn’t participate in anti-ICE protests. I added citations to my most recent email to the pastor because I believe it’s an important issue worth publicly discussing further.

Here is what I think I hear you saying — Romans 131 is a command for Christians to never oppose any government authority, is that correct?

I’m going to start off with an assumption that I’m reading you correctly and try to point out some of the scriptural and historical inconsistencies of that position.

If I’m wrong or you concede that the logical progression I map out goes too far, I will also address it from the other side: the Christian case for opposing government injustice.

Egypt. Assyria. Babylon. Rome. God hates empires.

Empires favor the rich and powerful over the poor and marginalized. They distort God’s design of mutual beneficence, where the poor are fed and the sick are healed. Empire is steeped in sin, idolatry, and the worship of its own outstretched arm of power.

God hates empire. Ezekiel 29:9-10 (Egypt), Isaiah 10:5-6, 12-13 (Assyria), Jeremiah 51:24-25 (Babylon), Revelation 18:2-3 (Rome, where “Babylon” becomes a symbol for Rome and all empires, even to this present age).

Jesus taught and modeled a counter-imperial message. When he said we are to render unto Caesar, he allowed Caesar a few coins as scant support for the empire, because everything else belongs to God (Matthew 22:21). When he said to pick up our cross, his first audience would not have thought, “He’s going to get crucified.” They would have recognized it as a symbol of imperial power, carried by insurrectionists. Yet Jesus told his followers to take up that cross daily (Luke 9:23) as a rejection of the world and its ways.

He declared before Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). Jesus proclaimed an upside-down kingdom: “The rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them, not so with you.” Instead, in Christ’s kingdom, “Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant” (Matthew 20:25-26).

God’s kingdom operates on radically different principles, where the last shall be first (Matthew 20:16), leaders must be servants of all (Mark 10:43-45), the poor in spirit are elevated in the kingdom (Matthew 5:3), we love enemies and pray for persecutors (Matthew 5:44), and power is perfected in weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9).

The wisdom of God’s kingdom remains hidden from those puffed up with the wisdom of the age. The blind and deaf of empires trust in their worldly wisdom. They are confident in their declarations that those who exercise strength are on the right side of history, that taking what you want demonstrates power, and that power justifies itself.

But Jesus reveals something different in Matthew 11:25-26:

“I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.”

Christians reject empire. We are in the world, not of it (John 17:14-16). We’re called to the humility of little children, to reject worldly pride and power, to become servants carrying our crosses as we spread the good news:

“The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor” (Matthew 11:5).

This is the kingdom. Not empire’s power over others, but God’s power healing and restoring the broken. Not taking what we want, but giving what others need. Not the mighty crushing the weak, but the King becoming servant of all.

Isaiah 12-13
“When the Lord has finished all his work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem, he will say, ’I will punish the king of Assyria for the willful pride of his heart and the haughty look in his eyes. For he says:

“‘By the strength of my hand I have done this,
and by my wisdom, because I have understanding.
I removed the boundaries of nations,
I plundered their treasures;
like a mighty one I subdued their kings.’”

Ezekiel 29:9-10
“Egypt will become a desolate wasteland. Then they will know that I am the Lord.

“ ’Because you said, “The Nile is mine; I made it,” therefore I am against you and against your streams, and I will make the land of Egypt a ruin and a desolate waste from Migdol to Aswan, as far as the border of Cush.”

Jeremiah 51:24-25
“Before your eyes I will repay Babylon and all who live in Babylonia for all the wrong they have done in Zion,” declares the LORD.
“I am against you, you destroying mountain,
you who destroy the whole earth,”
declares the LORD.
“I will stretch out my hand against you,
roll you off the cliffs,
and make you a burned-out mountain.”

Revelation 18:2-3
“With a mighty voice he shouted:
“ ‘Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great!’
She has become a dwelling for demons
and a haunt for every impure spirit
a haunt for every unclean bird
a haunt for every unclean and detestable animal.
For all the nations have drunk
the maddening wine of her adulteries.
The kings of the earth committed adultery with her
and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries.”

Acts 17:6-7
When they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brothers before the city officials, shouting, “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here too, and Jason has welcomed them. They are all acting contrary to Caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another king—Jesus.”

Proverbs 6:16-19
“There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him,” then lists arrogant eyes, lying tongues, hands that shed innocent blood, and those who stir up conflict.

A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman, being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint._ — 1 Timothy 2:11-15

In Roman and Jewish culture in the First Century, silence was a virtue. It demonstrated self-control. This was especially true of people of lower social ranking in the company of those of higher status.

In Roman philosophical tradition, self-mastery and silence reflected discipline and Jewish wisdom literature praised restraint in speech, especially for those not in authority (Proverbs 10:19; Sirach 13:21-23).

All else being equal, men were of higher status than women, but there were times when women outranked men. Women could own property, become wealthy, gain status, and become patrons and gain influence. Such a woman would be of a higher status than a man with no wealth or influence.

For example, the female running the household would be of a higher status than the male servant. The aunt with greater wealth and prestige as a civic patron would be of a higher status than the brick-layer nephew. In this case, the nephew should remain silent when crossing paths with his aunt unless she speaks to him first.

Perhaps when you were young, you were told, “Children should be seen and not heard.” That was the world of antiquity for all people of unequal status.

In Ephesus, where Timothy supervised the body of believers in the region, some women converts were likely former devotees of the cult of Artemis. In Ephesus, women were exalted, especially in a religious setting. In the cult, the goddess spurned male gods and sought a human male consort.

Important context: Some strands of Artemis tradition effectively placed the goddess as ‘first’ and supreme, in tension with the Genesis creation order.

The church in Ephesus likely had some women under weekly instruction who were bold and opinionated beyond their training, espousing false doctrine.

The Greek word (authenteō) used for “assume authority” can also be translated as “dominate” or “usurp authority.” This suggests Paul was not establishing a blanket prohibition on women teaching, but addressing a specific problematic dynamic of domineering behavior.

We know from 2 Timothy that Ephesus was a hotbed of doctrinal strife, from proto-Gnosticism to false claims that the general resurrection had already taken place (2 Timothy 2:17–18).

Just as Jews who accepted Christ as Lord and Savior faced some challenges in putting off their cultural interpretations of scripture, former pagans faced their own challenges in sorting out the difference between Christ and the temple life they were escaping.

The problem Paul needed to address in Ephesus was that women were speaking up and over men. There was also an issue of false doctrine. The passage suggests that some women held onto many of the false beliefs learned from the cult. Chief among the false beliefs, it seems, is that women held a loftier position in a spiritual context than men, hence the reference to Genesis. This belief encouraged them not only to speak up but also to do so with boldness, which in their minds was spiritually justified. This not only subverted cultural norms, which Paul recognized as universal, but was not supported by scripture nor in the value system Paul taught: In Christ, there is no male or female, slave or free, Jew or Gentile. (Galatians 3:28)

In keeping with cultural norms, Paul would expect that all initiates (in this context, likely always lower status) sit quietly, listen, and learn, but in Ephesus, women, steeped in cultic training, were speaking up and contradicting scripture and its exposition, thus it became a problem for Paul to address directly.

The early church certainly didn’t read 1 Timothy the way today’s complementarians read it. In the age of the Apostolic and Patristic Fathers, women led house churches, and in the third and fourth centuries, inscriptions indicate that women were ordained as presbyters. The Council of Laodicea, circa 360 AD, banned the ordination of women, confirming that, up to that time, women were ordained.

We also need to set Paul’s statements here (and in 1 Corinthians 14) against the roles women occupy in his letters, both teaching and leading throughout Asia Minor. There is Phoebe, a deacon whom he recommends to the Roman church, and Prisca, listed as a fellow worker. Junia is described as a fellow prisoner, “well known to the apostles” (some scholars believe she was an apostle). Paul also highlights the service of Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis, who are “workers in the Lord,” and Euodia and Syntyche, whom he considers “fellow coworkers.” Among the leaders of house churches, Paul also mentions, were women such as Lydia, Nympha, Chloe, and Priscilla and Aquila, who led a church together

Phoebe, in particular, illustrates how a woman’s high social status (as a patron) could grant her greater standing than many men in Roman culture. As a patron to many (a strong indication she was abundantly wealthy), she was the one most likely to command the public sphere or lead the conversation. Men of lower status (her clients) would be expected to remain silent or deferentially wait until she invited them to speak. Paul, as an Apostle, possessed a unique spiritual authority that trumped earthly status within the Christian community. In the general public, and given his well-stated malleability to circumstances, he would have shown Phoebe deference.

Critically, Paul’s lists of spiritual gifts have no gender restrictions. The implications of Galatians 3:28 suggest that leadership is not limited by gender, race, or status. While his letters can seem ambiguous, he frequently praises women’s leadership, even describing their work using the same language he uses for his own ministry. Notably, limitations on women’s leadership appear in only one of his twelve letters, raising the question: if this were truly crucial, why wouldn’t he address it consistently?

The implication is clear: in his heart, Paul was an egalitarian. But egalitarianism does not negate the social norm of respect nor the Christ-like posture of serving rather than exalting oneself (Philippians 2:5-8). A natural order of society, and in worship, based on mutual respect, is an act of service.

His pastoral concern is also apparent throughout the sweep of his epistles: A central objective in Paul’s instructions to churches and bishops was ensuring that a new Christian community not needlessly offend the surrounding Jewish or Roman society on “secondary matters” (matters of custom or etiquette that do not compromise the core gospel message).

Peter says much the same in his first epistle in chapter 2 when he encourages believers to live as exiles in Babylon, “Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.” He goes on to explain that, by obeying the emperor and governors, you silence ignorant people. He says, “Show proper respect to everyone.”

Given the cultural context and the situation in Ephesus, it should be clear that far from a universal declaration that women are not to hold leadership positions in churches, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is dealing strictly with a local hot-button issue that disrupts order in the church in Ephesus.

What Paul was saying was that regarding women in the Ephesus church: “Let a woman learn in a quiet and submissive manner. I do not, however, permit her to teach with the intent to dominate the man. She must be gentle in her demeanor.”

In this way, Paul does not contradict what he says about women elsewhere in his epistles. He preserves the dignity of women while providing rules to maintain cohesion and order within a church facing a specific problem (1 Corinthians 14:33, 40). The lesson for us today has nothing to do with women teaching and preaching, but how do we keep our churches focused on the cross and not on who didn’t bring a dish to the potluck.

For Further Reference:

– Finding Phoebe, by Susan E. Helen (primary source)

– Linda L. Belleville, “Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothy 2:11–15,” in Discovering Biblical Equality: Biblical, Theological, Cultural & Practical Perspectives.

– Linda L. Belleville, “Women in Ministry: An Egalitarian Perspective,” in Two Views on Women in Ministry.

– John and Chou MacArthur Abner, ed., Think Biblically: Recovering a Christian Worldview.

– Drake Williams, “Paul the Apostle, Critical Issues,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary

– Graham Joseph Hill et al., Holding Up Half the Sky: A Biblical Case for Women Leading and Teaching in the Church

– Mark J. Keown, Discovering the New Testament: An Introduction to Its Background, Theology, and Themes: The Pauline Letters

Probably most of us are familiar with the story of Jonah, typically from Sunday school, where the story is reduced to a supernatural Aesop fable: God tells Jonah to do something. Jonah refuses and decides to flee to Tarshish (modern day Spain — or the furthest end of the earth, as far away from God’s land as Jonah could imagine). God is angry. The ship is tossed in a storm. The sailors throw Jonah overboard. A big fish swallows him, where he stays for three days. Then the big fish vomits him onto a shore, and Jonah goes and does what God commanded him to do: spread the word in Nineveh.

The Sunday School tale — naturally — glosses over the rich theology of the story.

Jonah, a staunch religious believer, regards and relates poorly to people who are racially and religiously different from him. Nineveh was the largest and oldest city in Assyria, set on the eastern bank of the Tigris River (modern northern Iraq). It was a major center for military and political power during the time of Jonah. Assyria was a sworn enemy of Israel. They practiced torture, mutilation, and mass execution of captives. They worked idols, which included child sacrifice and ritual prostitution. They exploited the poor and perverted justice.

Can we all agree that’s pretty evil?

Yet, the word of the Lord came to Jonah: “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry out against it, for their wickedness has come up before Me.” If Jonah obeyed, and the city repented, God would relent from destroying the city.

The last thing Jonah wanted was to see Nineveh spared from destruction.

It is natural for Jonah to want to see evildoers punished. Jonah was also a nationalist. He loved his country, so it is also completely understandable for him to worry about the Assyrian capital’s threat to Israel. Love of country often leads us into the sin of hating others who are different from us and are perceived as a threat. When Jonah refused a direct order to bring God’s message to the Ninevites, he was deciding to put Israel’s national and political interests ahead of God’s will.

Jonah had essentially turned his nation into an idol, putting it ahead of God’s justice and mercy.

When Jonah does finally go to Nineveh, his message is half-hearted at best.

Jonah’s sermon was only five words in Hebrew, lacking any call to repentance, mention of God’s mercy, or details of how to avoid destruction. “Forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown.”

Yet, it was God’s word, and the people heard and repented.

Jonah exits the city but finds no shade. He tells God he wants to die. God provides a shade tree. Then sends a worm that kills it, and Jonah again complains and tells God he wants to die.

Jonah 4: 9-11:

But God said to Jonah, “Is it right for you to be angry about the plant?”

“I am,” he said. “And I’m so angry I wish I were dead.”

But the Lord said, “You have been concerned about this plant, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight.

And should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left—and also many animals?”

The lesson — all creatures great and small, all the plants of the field, in the high places and the low, are God’s creation. God loves the whole world. And we are expected to do the same, especially its people (see the story of the Good Samaritan).

I see people saying they don’t care about “illegal immigrants.” They’re invading our country. They’re all evil lawbreakers. So any mistreatment of them, any denial of justice, is justified.

This is what nationalism looks like, the same kind of nationalism Jonah used to justify not following God’s command.

What’s God’s command for us? To love our neighbors as ourselves. Who are our neighbors? Everybody, including and most especially the people who are different from us, whom culture scorns and abuses, who are the least among us, who are sinners.

In Micah, we are told, “The Lord your God asks only three things of you, to practice justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God.”

For those who say this is a Christian nation, it’s a fair question: How well are we practicing what God commands us to do?

Ephesians 5:21–6:9 is labeled in my NIV Bible, “Instructions for Christian Households.”

It deals with marital relationships, child rearing, and slavery—pretty touchy topics in our postmodern era.

They contain verses that are often misunderstood, if not taken out of context, by believers and non-believers.

Most problematic, “Wives submit to your husbands” (a phrase that has made the news this week), and “slaves obey your earthly masters.”

Is Paul promoting misogyny and approving of slavery?

No.

To understand this section of scripture, you must start with the introductory sentence: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

At the outset, Paul says submission is mutual. He is setting up not patriarchy but egalitarianism.

Reverence is an important word in this passage. In Greek, the word is “phobos.” Paul uses it twice in this passage. Like many words in the English language, and common in Greek, it has many meanings. It can mean fear, also respect, awe, caution, humility, and of course, reverence.

Husbands & Wives: Yes, wives are told to submit to husbands, in the way the Church submits to Christ, but that isn’t a one-way street. Husbands are told to love their wives, just as Christ loved the Church. He should “wash her in the water through word,” meaning he must be a godly man well-grounded in scripture. Like Christ, he should be blameless (that, for the record, rules out adultery or frolicking with underage girls). They should love their wives completely, taking care of them in all things. “Each one of you must also love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.”

This is mutual service and sacrifice. To love one as Christ loved us is to submit to others in service, put the needs of others before our own needs. A man who does this is worthy of his wife’s respect.

Far from misogyny, it breaks with the harshly misogynistic culture of the first century. In the first century, no one told men to love their wives “as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” That was a call to self-sacrificing, protective, nurturing love — a standard utterly foreign to the Roman paterfamilias system. Without this radical egalitarianism being taught by Paul, the trajectory of women’s rights in the West might have been totally different.

Children and Parents: Here’s the egalitarian hidden subtext: Paul wrote this letter expecting it to be read to the entire congregation, meaning he assumed both husbands and wives, along with their children, were present. He addresses children directly. This again breaks with the patriarchal norms of the time. He tells children to honor both of their parents so they may flourish as adults. And warns fathers, who at the time could rule with an iron fist and face no consequences, to “not exasperate your children.”

The Greek for exasperate is parorgizō, combining para (to the point of) and orgizō (make angry/wrathful). It means to continually irritate or embitter someone so that their anger is stirred up to the point of resentment, frustration, or hostility. In the Septuagint (the Old Testament in Greek), the verb often describes provoking God by sinful actions—so it’s a forceful word, not just casual irritation, but aggravating someone to an angry response.

Fathers should not be harsh, make unreasonable demands, show favoritism, or engage in cruelty.

If only more fathers understood this command.

Slaves & Masters: So why wasn’t Paul an abolitionist? Shouldn’t we condemn him for his approval of slavery?

This passage shouldn’t be read as approval; rather, Paul is dealing with reality. He had no power. The church in 60 A.D. had no power. There were likely fewer than 10,000 Christians in the world. There were no elections, and protesting the empire could lead to death. Paul was apparently concerned enough about looking like a revolutionary that he rarely used the term “Kingdom of God” to describe the gospel (as Jesus often did). Paul didn’t call for a slavery revolt. Instead, he planted the seed of freedom by teaching that the master and the slave served the same Lord in heaven. That seed, once it worked through Christian ethics, made chattel slavery theologically indefensible in later centuries.

Slavery was a fact of life in antiquity. In fact, without Christianity spreading the truth that we are all made in the image of God, it might still be commonplace.

“Slaves obey your earthly masters with respect and fear (there is that word, ‘phobos,’ again, carrying both respect and fear tied to the Greek haplotēs for sincerity of heart).”

Paul tells slaves this not to keep them enslaved; rather, he would like to see them set a good example of what it is to follow Jesus. Perhaps it might go well for them. Perhaps they might win their masters over to Christ. And in this egalitarian congregation, he also addresses masters, telling them, “treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their master and yours is in heaven and there is no favoritism in him.”

So Paul opens this section of scripture with an egalitarian statement and closes with an egalitarian statement—an absolutely revolutionary philosophy for the Greco-Roman world. We must all serve each other without favoritism.

It frustrates me when non-Christians misrepresent these passages to attack Christianity, and it grieves me when believers use these verses to misrepresent Christianity.

The Letter of James is a theologically rich, dense, poetic treatise on Christian ethics.

I’ve pulled some key verses. Here’s my question: If you sat and seriously, honestly contemplated these verses, reflected on how they have or haven’t influeded you, how would it change how you frame culture and politics?

James 1:19–21

“My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.”

James 1:26

“Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless.”

James 1:27

“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”

James 2:1–4

“My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, ‘Here’s a good seat for you,’ but say to the poor man, ‘You stand there’ or ‘Sit on the floor by my feet,’ have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?”

James 2:6–7

“But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong?”

James 2:8–9

“If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.”

James 2:12

“Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom.

James 2:14–17

“What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.”

James 3:9–12

“With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness.
Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers and sisters, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.”

James 3:16

“For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.”

James 4:1–4

“What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? You desire but do not have, so you kill. You covet but you cannot get what you want, so you quarrel and fight. You do not have because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures. You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God?”

James 4:11

“Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister or judges them speaks against the law and judges it.”

James 5:2–8

“Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you. Be patient, then, brothers and sisters, until the Lord’s coming. See how the farmer waits for the land to yield its valuable crop, patiently waiting for the autumn and spring rains. You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord’s coming is near.”

James 5:9

“Don’t grumble against one another, brothers and sisters, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door!”

James 5:11b

“The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.”

Pastors speaking during church services, the IRS announced, will now be able to endorse political candidates from the pulpit.

But should they?

First, Jesus was radically apolitical. For example, in John 18:36, Jesus told Pilate:

“My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight…”

Jesus was all about the Kingdom of God. While there was nationalistic fervor in First Century Judea, Jesus avoided the traps meant to ensnare him in the politics of the day even while his own disciples expected him to imminently establish a new kingdom on earth that would overthrow Roman rule.

Can we view politics as anything but worldly, with its lust for power, self-aggrandizement, manipulation, self-serving, greed, envy, corruption, and complete self-interest? These are not Christian virtues; a clear signal Christians should steer clear of associating a ministry with any political party or politician. (Matthew 20:25-26, James 3:16, Philippians 2:3, 1 Timothy 6:10, 1 John 2:15-16, Matthew 6:24, Philippians 3:20)

Consider, to, Mark 11:15-17:

“On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. And as he taught them, he said, ‘Is it not written: “My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations”? But you have made it “a den of robbers.”’”

The money changers were in the Court of the Gentiles, hence the sentence, “My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.”

The market in the court distributed and interfered with the ability of Gentiles to worship God.

A pastor’s politics might be on the right or the left, but the minute we mix partisan politics with the Gospel, we are setting up a barrier to faith. The implied message is, “To accept Jesus, you must also accept our political beliefs.”

God doesn’t care about your political beliefs. He cares whether you are doing his business — justice and mercy, caring for the poor, rescuing the oppressed, ministering to the afflicted, being disciples to the truth of good news that the Kingdom of God is here now.

There’s a movement in the U.S. that started in 2016 called “exvangelicals.” This is the strongest data-driven evidence that mixing partisan politics with faith drives people away from their faith.

At least 3.4% to 5% of people who were evangelicals no longer identify as evangelical. That’s at least 11 million people, perhaps 18 million. Approximately one-third of them have seemingly abandoned faith altogether.

Why? Politics in the church is the primary driver of people leaving evangelicalism. There is no way to estimate how many people who may have considered faith found the political barrier in the U.S. too insurmountable.

Perhaps pastors should be cautious about linking faith to flawed human-created agendas. It misaligns the pulpit message with God’s priorities and runs the risk of keeping people from faith in Christ.