We have recently experienced another tumultuous election season. “Don’t remind me,” you’re thinking. Now I recognize that talking politics is risky business. And yet I also recognize that the Scriptures are sufficient for life and godliness. This principle means that God’s Word has a word for all Christians at all times. It does not necessarily mean that the Scriptures address every contingency specifically. But it does mean that God’s Word provides principles for us to follow, whatever our circumstances, including politics.
In this article, we will consider how 1 Timothy 2:1–8 informs our political ethic. Paul pens a single, coherent argument in this passage. Many of us have heard application of these verses, but we have tended to blunt the full force of their meaning either by not tracing out fully their logical conclusions or else by removing them from their context.
For example, we have heard that we should pray for those in political authority (vv. 1–2), but we have not understood the principle undergirding Paul’s command. We have heard that God desires non-Christians’ salvation and that He has given only one mediator between God and men (vv. 4–6), but we have not considered how that relates to Paul’s broader political ethic. Again, we have heard Paul’s command to pray without dissension (v. 8) but have isolated it from its broader context. How, then, do the doctrines of general atonement, the exclusivity of Christ, and prayer factor into Paul’s political ethic?
(1) Pray and give thanks for those in political authority.
“First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority” (2:1–2a).[1] We hear these verses most often during election seasons. However, they apply in all seasons. They command that we offer prayers and thanksgiving for political leaders. For Paul this instruction held true whether the leader was a local magistrate or the emperor. For us it holds true across local, state, and national lines, as well as whether leaders’ party affiliation is Democrat, Republican, or otherwise.
How do we give thanks for bad political leaders with bad policies? Following the principles that Paul outlines in Romans 13:1–7, we give thanks for political leaders only to the extent that they act and govern according to goodness and righteousness but not to the extent that they do not. God has delegated the state with a limited, not an absolute, authority (vv. 1–2, 5–7). Specifically, He has limited the state’s authority to the promotion of good and the discouragement of bad (vv. 3–4). Anything exceeding those bounds exceeds God’s ordained authority.
Practically speaking, because we live in a fallen world, no one will govern with complete righteousness. Also, because of God’s common grace (point considered below), no one will govern with complete wickedness. Therefore, Paul’s instruction means that we will honor political leaders to the extent they do right, even if we do not particularly like them, and even if, at other times, they do wrong.
It also means that we will not honor political leaders to the extent they do wrong, even if we happen to like them, and even if, at other times, they do right. We hope for a political leader who is upright. Regrettably, they are often deceptive or foolish or both. In whatever case, Paul commands that we pray for them and give thanks for them when possible. Additionally, we can always give thanks to God for His sovereignty, for He will often work despite leaders’ wickedness.
Why, then, do we extol the good qualities and policies of those political leaders we happen to like, while functionally ignoring their problematic ones? Why do we highlight the regrettable qualities and policies of those we happen not to like but otherwise remain silent when they promote good ones? Unfortunately, our tendencies sometimes accord more with partisan politics than with Biblical ethics. Instead, we should be “equal opportunity” offenders, giving thanks for the good but also criticizing the bad—whoever the leader, whatever their party.
(2) Influence political realities unto the end that Christians may lead tranquil and quiet lives in all godliness and dignity.
In addition to prayer and thanksgiving, other applications result from the principle undergirding 1 Timothy 2: Christians should work to influence political realities unto the end that Christians “may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity” (2:2b).[2] Paul does not tell Timothy—tell us—to pray for political rulers “just because.” He tells us to do so for a particular reason.[3] Paul did not live in a constitutional federal republic with a representative democracy; he lived in the Roman Empire. Even so, he commanded a strategy for effective change: prayer.
Because Christians believe in the genuine power of prayer, they believe that it can move the hearts of leaders unto the effect that they would support policies in consistency with 1 Timothy 2:2. “Here see what we must desire for kings,” writes Matthew Henry, “that God will so turn their hearts, and direct them and make use of them, that we under them may lead a quiet and peaceable life.”[4] Prayer is but one example of many from the broader principle that Paul has established: namely, that Christians might influence political realities unto the effect that Christians might live tranquil and quiet lives in all godliness and dignity.
For instance, unlike those living in the Roman Empire, American Christians have the privilege to shape who will occupy the seats of political authority by exercising their legal rights to vote. In this most recent election cycle, some races likely went your way, while others did not. But, assuming the Lord tarries further still, we face more elections in the not-too-distant future, and we can take this political ethic with us. Specifically, we might ask: Which candidates and parties support policies that increase the likelihood of 1 Timothy 2:2; alternatively, which ones support policies that decrease that likelihood?[5]
(3) This political ethic aids in the salvation of non-Christians.
Paul does not establish this principle ultimately for the sake of Christians’ self-interest but rather for unbelievers’ sake. “This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior” (2:3). Paul’s use of this functions as a demonstrative pronoun that includes what Paul has established in verses 1–2. And because this ethic is good and acceptable, we should strive after it.
Additionally, Paul’s identification of God as “Savior” was neither incidental nor inconsequential. Instead, it indicates the reason why this political ethic is “good and acceptable.” In verses 4–7 Paul outlines that God desires that all people would receive salvation and know truth; that God has given Jesus Christ as the one mediator between God and men by which they may realize that end; that Jesus has given Himself as a ransom for all; and that God appointed Paul to preach this good word.
These verses indicate that God desires that all people receive salvation (v. 4) and that Christ gave Himself a ransom for all (v. 6). Previously in the letter, Paul indicated, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1:15). Indeed, the salvation of sinners is a foremost concern for the true Christian. God desires that all people would come to knowledge of Him. This truth offers an important reminder in our highly polarized times: Whatever a person’s background, political viewpoints, etc., God desires their salvation.
But significantly Paul supports this hope with the ethic he has established in the passage: through prayer, thanksgiving, and the prospect of political influence. Thus Paul establishes a logical connection between the salvation of non-Christians on one hand and the capacity of Christians to live quiet and tranquil lives in all godliness and dignity on the other. That is the inner logic of Paul’s argument.
Many have heard Tertullian’s famous statement: “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church,” which suggests that the church flourishes in times of trial.[6] While church history bears out some examples of this statement, it is—by no means—universally true. Yes, Christianity can flourish amid difficult circumstances. A sovereign God will accomplish His purposes even through truly tough times. However, that fact does not mean that Christians should work toward a political reality that would increase the normalization of wickedness. Many injustices abound in such dark days: the oppression (and persecution) of people for their religious beliefs, the violation of human dignity, the promotion of transgression, and many others.
So we recognize that our God is Almighty, working in and through the bad times, but we should not contribute to the realization of those bad times. Instead, we work toward the hope of 1 Timothy 2:2, which includes the religious freedom of Christians to live out their faith in the context of home and society. In his commentary on this passage, John Calvin wrote, “We must always hold by this principle, that magistrates were appointed by God for the protection of religion.”[7]
However, the application of Paul’s ethic presents difficulties. For instance, non-Christians believe that what Christians call godliness (v. 2) is counterproductive to what they call progress. In many cases, they push passionately against these prospects, believing that they result in intolerance and injustice. However, their insistence of their position does not make it so. The true meaning of justice, for example, is not rooted in the shifting tides of man’s opinions but in the objective reality of the triune God. Consequently, we cultivate a disposition that is full of grace and truth after the likeness of the God-man, Jesus Christ (John 1:14, 17).[8]
(4) God’s common grace flourishes in societies that reflect 1 Timothy 2:2.
Finally, another reason that Christians should promote a political vision that recognizes their freedom to lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity is because greater degrees of common grace flourish in such societies. The doctrine of God’s common grace, which overlaps with the doctrine of God’s providence, refers to the grace that is common to believers and unbelievers alike, such as the gift, provisions, and blessings of life (Mt. 5:45; Jn. 1:4; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3). We also see evidence of God’s common grace in His restraint of sin; He does not give sin its full reign. Reiterating the teaching of Romans 13, God has instituted governments for the purpose of restraining sin (vv. 1, 6).[9]
Societies thus flourish to greater degrees when governments function in the way that God intends, which includes Christians’ capacity to live out the full implications of 1 Timothy 2:2, whether in the context of their private lives, homes, churches, schools, workplaces, or societies more generally. In the language of the First Amendment, such societies promote the free exercise of religion without succumbing to the dangers of religious establishment. And, in the aggregate, they yield greater degrees of true justice.[10] Just as medicine is good for disease or salt is good for food, so true Christianity is good for society, whether that society recognizes it or not.[11]
Conclusion
In verse 8, Paul brings us full circle, bookending the passage with the subject of prayer: “Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without anger and dispute.” Regrettably, the church has not fully obeyed Paul’s instructions. We have not faithfully prayed for our political leaders, much less given thanks for them. We have shirked our responsibilities to influence political realities for the sake of the ends that Paul has identified. And, to the extent that we have engaged the political process, we have done so—at times—with self-righteousness, discord, and even antagonism. These realities can tempt us to forsake the body politic. However, Paul encourages engagement. Undoubtedly, the application of responsible Biblical ethics is difficult, but God’s Word cuts through the difficulties of our days.
[1]All verses taken from the New American Standard Bible.
[2]Leroy Forlines explains in his Biblical Ethics that a Christian ethic is based on the “principle-method” rather than the “law-method.” God does not simply instruct us like children with a list of rules; instead, He leads us like mature sons with principles that we apply to the many contingencies of life (Gal. 3:23–4:5). Now that does not mean that God does not give us rules to follow; of course He does. But the point is that God gives us principles to follow.
The Scriptures are sufficient but not because they specifically address the right response to every contingency that could arise in human experience. They do not. The Scriptures are sufficient because the sovereign, all-wise God has revealed principles through them that speak to any circumstances that any Christian in any place and time can apply, if only he will observe not only the face value applications of a given passage but also its underlying principles.
Therefore, the responsible exegete of the Scriptures will not stop at the face value meaning of a given passage—although he will often start there—but will also consider the principle undergirding it. For example, underlying the command, “Do no murder,” is the principle: Value life. Underlying the command, “Do not commit adultery,” is the principle: Value holiness and purity.
[3]We see that a Christian ethic gives attention both to duty (“pray for”) and to consequence (“so that”), with neither subsuming the other. Consequently, a Christian ethic is neither purely deontological nor purely consequential. Instead, it reflects a Hebrew-Christian duty and telos that is rooted in the divine character and will of the holy God. Specifically, Paul instructed Timothy to seek to influence political leaders by a particular means (prayer) unto a certain effect (“so that”).
[4]Matthew Henry, “1 Timothy 2,” in Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, 6 vols. (1708–10); https://www.christianity.com/bible/commentary.php?com=mh&b=54&c=2; accessed December 9, 2020.
[5]Additionally, we could tease out any number of issues of our day: life, marriage, religious liberty, sexuality, sex trafficking, creation care, ethnic injustice, poverty, orphanhood, homelessness, and others. To take just one: Religious liberty protects the “free exercise” of our religion. By contrast, policies that preempt and even punish Christians for obeying God’s Word in every aspect of their lives, say in the context of their careers, do not contribute toward Christians’ leading tranquil and quiet lives in all godliness and dignity.
[6]Although this rendering of Tertullian’s remark has captured the imagination of contemporary people, a closer translation reads, “The Christian blood you spill is like the seed you sow, it springs from the earth again, and fructifies the more.” Tertullian, The Apology of Tertullian, trans. W. Reeve, The Ancient and Modern Library of Theological Literature, vol. 31. (London: Griffith, Farran, Okeden & Welsh, 1889), 143; accessible at http://www.tertullian.org/articles/reeve_apology.htm.
[7]Italics added. John Calvin’s commentary is accessible here: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/1_timothy/2.htm.
[8]Other difficulties include: Often, non-Christians are not interested in Christians’ ability to live according to 1 Timothy 2:2. Additionally, Christians’ insistence that it is for the hope of unbelievers’ salvation does not sway them otherwise; even if they believe that Christians mean well (and they often do not), they do not believe that their souls need saving or that Paul’s ethic is good for society.
[9]Returning to Calvin’s commentary on 1 Timothy 2: “The universal doctrine is this, that we should desire the continuance and peaceful condition of those governments which have been appointed by God.” He goes on to identify the ability of Christians to live tranquil and quiet lives as “the fruits which are yielded to us by a well regulated government.” He then illustrates the phenomenon of common grace, saying, “If they [magistrates] did not restrain the hardihood of wicked men, every place would be full of robberies and murders.”
[10]Numerous voices have made the basic point in this paragraph, including the theologian Francis Schaeffer in How Shall We Then Live? (Wheaton: Crossway, 2005)to the sociologist Rodney Stark in The Victory of Reason (New York: Random House, 2006) to the journalist Rod Dreher in Live Not By Lies (New York: Sentinel, 2020).
[11]Some have wondered whether Christians should give non-Christians over to their own devices (Ps. 81:12; Mt. 7:6; 10:14; Rom. 1:24). Space preempts a sufficient treatment of the meaning and application of these verses. Suffice to say that such verses should not prevent Christians from following the principle undergirding Paul’s command to influence political realities unto the end that Christians may lead tranquil and quiet lives in all godliness and dignity.
More generally, such verses should not keep Christians from functioning as salt and light before the lost world. After all, Jesus refers to His disciples as the light of the world; as such, we are neither hidden nor placed under a basket (Mt. 5:14–16). Instead we walk as children of light, living our lives in accord with goodness, righteousness, and truth, and exposing the darkness for what it is (Eph. 5:7–14). Significantly, a lamp cannot give light to those in the house if it is not upon a lampstand; light cannot expose the darkness if it does not confront it.
December 17, 2020
Excellent analysis, Mr. Bracey.