A Little Short-Sighted

My dad was not the sort of man given to what we used to call “hairy fits”, but if he were still with us, he might just have had his first over the current mania around the phrase “Christ is King”.

Christian Nationalists love to sign off with it, even the ones who aren’t actually Christian, so much so that some commentators are now claiming it’s anti-semitic trolling, the proverbial “dog-whistle” the Left is always carping about while engaging in endlessly themselves. Not so in most cases. As often happens, familiarity leads people to use phrases whose origins and implications they have never even thought about, let alone contrived to offend with. The vast majority of the time, using “Christ is King” as one’s epithet du jour is just an indication of biblical illiteracy, not evil intentions towards Jews.

The Kingship of Christ

The kingship of Christ isn’t a new thing, but the popularity of this specific formulation is very much of the present religious and political moment. Roman Catholicism has always embraced the kingship of Christ as “the reign of God mysteriously present in this world” through the church, and its writers mean this in an overtly socio-political sense. Protestants too acknowledge a spiritual present-day kingdom, and if there is a kingdom then surely there is a king. My dad would not argue with most of that, though he never worried a great deal about society or politics. But he would definitely query the massive popularity of an extra-biblical formulation of the truth over and above the language of scripture and the preferred emphasis of apostolic teaching. That’s where the hairy fit might have to be suppressed. Dad was always big on looking closely at what Christ’s earliest followers actually said and why, rather than coining neat new phrases to express the same truths far less accurately.

In scripture, the word “king” is primarily an Old Testament concept. The books in which it appears most are historical: Kings (naturally), 2 Chronicles and 2 Samuel (David, of course). Right behind come the prophets. Jeremiah uses the word 172 times, the vast majority with reference to earthly kings, though there are a few references to God as king and a spectacular prediction in chapter 23 of a “righteous Branch” raised up for David who will reign as king in a future day. Daniel contains 113 references to kings like Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus, and a single, passing reference to a future, indestructible kingdom set up by the God of heaven. Between them, the Major and Minor Prophets contain enough references to this future king and kingdom to confirm God had not forgotten his promises to David, and to cause devout Jews to associate this kingship with the coming Messiah. Israel looked for its king, and God would provide him in due course. This was the Messianic hope, and Christ is simply the Greek form of Messiah.

That brings me to my first reason for declining to enthusiastically embrace the “Christ is King” formulation. It’s tautological in a way that “Jesus is Lord” is not. After all, the kingdom is built into the Old Testament concept of the Christ. To say that “Christ is King” is to add nothing new, revelatory or revolutionary to the mix. An orthodox Jew may even agree with you while rejecting Jesus as the Christ and calling him wicked names.

But to say, “Jesus is Lord”? Oh my. That posed a major problem in the first century, and it still poses a major problem today. Some so-called Christians even choke on it. Accepting it is the difference between light and darkness, between spiritual death and spiritual life.

King of the Jews, King of Kings

References to the kingship of Christ in the New Testament are relatively sparse. You may not expect that from the popularity of the “Christ is King” trope with Christians. John admittedly uses “king” in reference to Christ sixteen times in thirteen verses, though no other gospel does it more than six times. But here’s the thing you may not have realized: the vast majority of these references in the gospels are sarcastic or accusatory. They come mostly from his enemies and executioners. All label him “King of the Jews” or “of Israel”, and it’s derogatory, not affirming. Meanwhile, the only sort of kingdom to which Jesus himself laid claim in his first advent was “not of this world”. Had Jesus been king of the world in the first century, he would not have died, and you and I would still be in our sins. That’s not an outcome I’d cheer for.

After we get out of the gospels, there is a single reference to Jesus as king in Acts, as part of a (false) Jewish accusation against Paul.

In 1 Timothy, Paul calls him “King of kings and Lord of lords”. The context there is interesting. When Paul calls the Lord Jesus Christ “the blessed and only Sovereign”, he is obviously talking about something much bigger than being the rightful king of Israel and David’s Greater Son. King of kings means king of everything and everyone. However, Paul says he is a king in waiting. God will display him “at the proper time”, which is manifestly not yet. Revelation uses the same title twice, and also refers to him as “King of the nations” or possibly “ages”. Again, context makes it obvious this is a position already earned and reserved for him in view of his “amazing deeds” and “righteous acts”, but his exaltation on earth remains future, not present. “All nations will come and worship you.”

The Invisible King

These last few references to Christ as a king are not only exceptional in the New Testament, but taken together, they strongly suggest the King has yet to begin his reign in any visible, measurable sense. They are also strongly suggestive of the times and circumstances in which Christ’s visible reign on earth is scheduled to commence. There is an implicit “Not yet” in the Lord’s reply to his disciples’ question, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” But it is far from a “Not at all.”

So Christ is indeed King, and one day soon the whole world will know it. But not once in the entire New Testament is the title of king used of the Lord Jesus with reference to the church. Not one single time. The phrases “Christ is King” or even “King Jesus” do not occur in scripture. If Christ is King, then at this present moment he is an invisible king, even within the pages of his own word.

Don’t be offended by that. There is something to be said for paying attention to how many times a word gets used in any particular part of the Bible. It tells us what was important to the Holy Spirit when addressing that audience.

Jesus Christ is Lord

On the other hand, the title “Lord” is used of Jesus in the New Testament far too often to track easily, on hundreds upon hundreds of occasions. The phrase “Lord Jesus Christ” occurs 84 times from Acts through Revelation. James, Peter, Jude and John all use it, and Paul uses it multiple times in every single letter he ever wrote. The only New Testament book in which the title “Lord Jesus Christ” does not appear is, unsurprisingly, Hebrews, which was written to Jewish Christians who were apparently still very Jewish in their outlook. “Lord” was by far and away the apostles’ preferred title for Christ — except when addressing Jews as Jews. Other similar formulations dot the New Testament books: “Jesus Christ is Lord”, “Jesus Christ our Lord”, “Christ Jesus our Lord”, “Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”, and so on.

Moreover, the assertion that Jesus Christ is Lord has tremendous importance to the Christian. He may be a king too, but that’s not how the first century church were interested in presenting him to the world. Peter preached at Pentecost that God has made Jesus “both Lord and Christ”. His kingship was for Peter a relative afterthought, a consideration for another era, not the present one. Paul distils the essence of salvation in this era to two things: confessing Jesus as Lord and believing in the resurrection. First century baptisms were in the name of “Lord Jesus”, not “King Jesus”, and evil spirits were driven out in that name. Seven sons of Sceva tried the same thing without the “Lord” (or the relationship, probably), and found it ended quite badly for them.

There should be no argument about this: as far as the apostles are concerned, Christ is Lord to the believer and King to the devout Jew, awaiting his future, glorious revelation to the world as King of kings and Lord of lords.

Head Over Heels

“Jesus is Lord” is a personal confession of allegiance and service, both necessary and highly relevant in our present era. “Christ is King” is a social manifesto, and it’s a manifesto that will only be truly applicable in a day to come, imposed on the world by God; embraced by some and accepted by others between clenched teeth.

So why are so many politically-motivated modern Gentiles head over heels about declaring that “Christ is King”, a phrase whose time has yet to come and which the scripture does not even use? After ignorance of scripture, the most plausible answer is Reformed Theology. It’s the same old sad song: appropriate something that belongs to Israel and apply it to the church. Sadly, “Christ is King” doesn’t fit Christians the way it fits Jews, much as Saul’s armor didn’t work for David. It belonged on Saul.

Supersessionists make Christ king of the church because they can’t tell the difference between Jews and the church of God. To Replacement Theologians, a Christian is the best kind of Jew, and Israel the “church in the wilderness”. Unable to make the most basic biblical distinctions between God’s earthly people and his heavenly people, the vast majority of Reformed Christians find the notion of a national, political and religious restoration for Israel in which Christ rules from Jerusalem for 1,000 years not only foreign territory, but a language they just don’t speak. I am reminded of the words of the Moabites and Edomites about Jews in another context entirely: “Behold, the house of Judah is like all the other nations.” No, it really isn’t, not even today during Israel’s spiritual nadir, and not even if we dislike what is happening in Gaza at the present time. Those who write off Israel’s national future on such a basis should remember what happened to the Moabites. It wasn’t pretty.

Unwilling to learn the language of scripture, these followers of Christ speak in extra-biblical language instead. Christ becomes the king of the church, because if he isn’t, there’s nobody else for him to be king of.

Let’s just say that may be a little short-sighted.