is resisting tyranny obedience to god

7/28/2019 Is Resisting Tyranny Obedience to God

1/104

Wielding the Sword of the Spirit

"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword ofthe Spirit, which is the word of God ..." Ephesians 6:17.

Is Resisting Tyranny Obedience To God?

What does Romans 13 Really Mean?

Are Christians To Obey God first RatherThen Man?

New Testament Theology On the State

By Norman Horn

Introduction

Church and state issues continue to be the source of many conflicts amongChristians today, resulting in a massive confusion in what exactly a Biblicaltheology of the state and public policy entails. The confusion often promptsawkward answers to important questions regarding the relationship ofChristians to government, such as What kind of government should aChristian support?, What public policy should be obeyed?, or What doessubmission to government mean? Most Christians attempt to justify theirpolitical philosophy Biblically with Romans 13in some way, if theyattempt at all. At first glance, this appears to be an acceptable solution


2/104


3/104

15Then the Pharisees went and plotted to entrap him in what hesaid. 16So they sent their disciples to him, along with the

Herodians, saying, Teacher, we know that you are sincere, andteach the way of God in accordance with truth, and showdeference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality.17Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to theemperor, or not?18But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, Whyare you putting me to the test, you hypocrites?19Show me thecoin used for the tax. And they brought him a denarius. 20Thenhe said to them, Whose head is this, and whose title?21Theyanswered, The emperors. Then he said to them, Give therefore

to the emperor the things that are the emperors, and to God thethings that are Gods.22When they heard this, they wereamazed; and they left him and went away. (Matthew 22:15-22,NRSV)

In Matthew, thePharisees send some of their disciples along withHerodians to Jesus in order to trap him in his words at the temple. TheGospel of Mark says that theysent some of the Pharisees and theHerodians to Jesus,theylikely being the chief priests, teachers of the law,

and elders mentioned in Mark 11:27. Strangely, Luke identifies thequestioners as spies from the priests, teachers, and elders. The identityof these interrogators is not trivial. Indeed, the Pharisees andHerodians had stark differences in philosophy. Herodians were pro-Roman rule, and they used the Romans power to obtain certain benefits.The Pharisees, in contrast, were more ambivalent towards the Romans;Pharisees would generally tolerate them as long as Jewish religiouspractices were left alone. However, the Pharisees and Herodians arebrought together because of their shared opposition to Jesus.

In each gospel, the question is prefaced differently, but the phrasing of thequestion itself is always the same: Is it lawful for us to pay taxes toCaesar, or not? The question is very clever. The Herodians would beforpaying the tax, and if Jesus answers in the negative they havegrounds to arrest him for rebelling against Caesar. On the otherhand, the Pharisees would generally notlike the tax (althoughthey are forced to pay it), and an answer in the affirmative wouldlikely result in a loss of popular support of Jesus. Furthermore, there


4/104

is a subtle legal phrasing in the question by asking is it lawful, or insome translations is it permitted. In other words, the Pharisees are

asking, Is it consistent with Torah(Jewish Law) to pay the tax toCaesar or not? All those present were aware of the law and ofthe words ofLeviticus 25:23,The land [of Israel] shall not besold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. The question is now morecomplicated because Torah may be at stake. Since Caesar is tryingto take the land from God, is it not disobedience to pay the tax?

Jesus saw through the trickery, of course, and responds with a clevergambit of his own. When he asks the Pharisees to produce a coin, they

unwittingly bring forth the very evidence that exposes their hypocrisy.Jesus asks them whose image and inscription is on the coin. They answer,probably reluctantly, Caesars. But they, and the surrounding people,realize their error, for the inscriptionson these coins would always read,Tiberius Caesar, Augustus, son of the deified Augustus, chiefpriest.The Pharisees, those leaders expected to uphold the lawof God, have brought into the templean item that effectivelybreaks the second commandment, to have no graven images,showing that in their hearts they break the first commandment as

well. They, not Jesus, are the hypocrites. They are the ones whobought into the Romans pagan system. In commentator Thomas Longsestimation, Jesus response means, Everybody has to decide betweenCaesar and God. No man can serve two masters (Matt. 6:24). Youseem to have made your decision, forged your convenientcompromise. But what about your obligation to God? Render toGod what belongs to God. Choose this day whom you will serve(251).

If this interpretation is correct, then there is effectively no guideline setforth here for resolving church and state issues. State practices are notlegitimized here by any means. Rather, Jesus says that any neat schemesof division in life that we create must come down, and discouragesnationalism or jingoism as a legitimate church practice. We may live undera state, but we belong wholly to the God who is above all states. We arealways to render to God what is Gods.


5/104

An interesting clue to the nature of the state emerges in the temptations ofJesus (Matt. 4:1-11, Luke 4:1-13), which few commentators develop.

In Matthew, the third temptation of Christ is the kingdoms of the worldand their splendor, which Satan can give Jesus if he pays obeisance toSatan. Strangely, even though Satan is considered the Prince [ruler]of this world(John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11),we do not often seriouslyconsider what Satans offer means. I think that Satan was quite sincere inhis offer; Jesus did not brush it off as impossible. Jesus seems tounderstand that the kingdoms of this world dobelong to Satan, and weshould not think otherwise. Logically, this means that the kingdoms of theworld are at enmity with God. In fact, Scripture witnesses to this directly

and indirectly in multiple places. The Old Testament strongly indicates thatthe pagan religions, often encouraged by Satan through their sorcery andwitchcraft, were intimately tied to a nations political leadership. G.K.Chesterton agrees with this assessment and gives evidences from history inhis book The Everlasting Man. Herod clearly perceives that the baby Christ-child is a threat to his power, and hence orders the killing of hundreds, ifnot thousands of infants in an attempt to stop this incursion (Matt. 2).Furthermore, the theme of Babylon as an evil state under the influence ofSatan permeates the book of Revelation. In Revelation 18:4, for

instance, God exhorts His church to come out of her [Babylon], mypeople, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will notreceive any of her plagues.

Briefly discussing the differences between the kingdom of man and theKingdom of God is illustrative in this discussion. One ofthe recurringthemes in the gospels, especially Matthew, is that Jesus is a kingbringing forth the Kingdom of God. But Jesus explicitly says that,My kingdom is not from this world my kingdom is not from

here (John 18:36). The rules of the kingdom as explained inthe Sermon on the Mount are unlike any sort of state laws thathave ever existed. Furthermore, it is not the job of the Christian tousephysicalforceto bring about his kingdom, but rather to seekfirst his kingdom and his righteousness(Matt. 6:33). Thekingdoms of man are founded upon power and violence, but theKingdom of God is founded upon humility (Matt. 18:4), service(Matt. 20:26),and love (John 13:35). While we cannot help being tied


6/104

to states in this world, we are reminded once again that our citizenshipis in heaven(Philippians 3:20).

In summary, Jesus direct teachings about civil government are virtuallynon-existent, but the gospels make some strong implications about thenature of the state that might surprise us. The state appears to have astrong connection to Satan and his kingdom, and is antithetical tothe Kingdom of God, which shuns the use of power for personalgain.

Pauls Teachings on the State

While one is hard-pressed in the gospels to develop a thorough theologyfor how Christians should interact with the state, the epistles of Pauland Peter address these issues much further. Romans 13:1-7isthe clearest exposition regarding civil government, but othersignificant Scriptures include Titus 3:1-3, 1 Timothy 2:1-3, and 1Peter 2:11-17. However, for brevitys sake only Romans 13 will beexamined in detail. The following analysis has benefitted greatly from theworks of Dr. John Cobin, specifically his books Bible and Government

and Christian Theology of Public Policy,which in this authors opinionprovide the best and most thorough attempt to integrate this passage intoa consistent understanding of public policy theology.

Paul was a Roman citizen by birth, and even used his citizenship to hisadvantage on one occasion inActs 22 and 23. Yet, he was a Hebrew ofHebrews and a Pharisee in regard to the law of God (Phil. 3:5). Hence,one would expect for him, like the Pharisees in the gospels, to besomewhat resentful towards the Romans because of their rule over the

land of Israel. Yet in Romans 13,Paul seems to be quite positive towardsRoman rule. A face value reading of the text might lead one to believethat the state is a very positive force in society and perhaps even a divinelyordained institution in the same way that the family and the church aredivinely ordained.

However, I do not think this sort of interpretation is warranted. Apostolicadmonitions regarding civil government cannot easily be reconciled with acasual, plain reading of the New Testament texts. Otherwise, you would


7/104

conclude that the apostles were either wrong, speaking within an irrelevantcultural context, or just out of their minds. When one considers the actual

historical context of Romans 13, rather than lifting it out of Scripture asmerely abstract ideas, a surprising reading emerges. To illustrate this, howwould the interpretation change if one replaced the words governingauthorities, rulers, and the personal pronouns with the namesof the emperor and kings of that time, namely Nero, Herod, orAgrippa? The text would read as follows:

1 Let every person be subject to Nero and Herod; for there is no authorityexcept from God, and Nero and Herod have been instituted by God. 2

Therefore whoever resists Nero and Herod resists what God hasappointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For Nero andHerod are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to haveno fear ofNero and Herod? Then do what is good, and you will receiveNero and Herods approval; 4 for Nero and Herod are Gods servantsfor your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for theNero and Herod do not bear the sword in vain! Nero and Herod are theservants of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one mustbe subject toNero and Herod, not only because of wrath but also

because of conscience.

6

For the same reason you also pay taxes, for Neroand Herod are Gods servants, busy with this very thing. 7 Pay to Neroand Herod what is due them taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue towhom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whomhonor is due. (Romans 13:1-7, NRSV)

How should Christians today interpret this knowing that Nero was in powerat the time of Pauls writing? How can we resolve the problem of knowingthat Nero killed good people, namely Christians, when the passage clearlysays that civil government rewards and commends those who do good?Clearly, the interpretation problem is not resolved with an immutablemaxim as simple as do what the government says. Both the Old and NewTestaments manifest that this is not right or true on multiple occasions.Some examples include:

Hebrews defying Pharaohs decrees to murder their infants (Exodus1)


8/104


9/104

family duties, or detracts from the believers principal purpose in life(Christian Theology of Public Policy, 120).

2Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God hasappointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3For rulersare not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to haveno fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you willreceive its approval;4for it is Gods servant for your good. But ifyou do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority doesnot bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to executewrath on the wrongdoer.

Verses 2-4indicate that if you irritate the state then you will face wrath,but if you behave in the way the state wants then they will be pleased. Atmany points, what the state defines as good and evil may be very muchopposed to what God defines as good and evil. But what Paul is telling thebelievers in Rome is that if they do something that the Roman governmentdefines as evil then they will likely be punished for it. We cannot abstractthis verse from its cultural context and make it an absolute requirement onall cultures at all times. To do so would be to put Christians under a greatbondage to bad public policy. There is no compelling reason to think thatPaul was deliberately writing about any particular rulers other than those inthe first century Roman Empire.

Paul knew full well the power of Nero and the potential harm he couldcause to Christians in Rome he calls it the sword and he does notwant believers to be persecuted for anything other than the name of Christand what he stands for. Paul reminds the Roman Christians, though, thateven the dreadful power of the state is not outside the power of God. Hismessage to them is the same as Romans 8:28, that all things work

together for good for those who love God, who are calledaccording to his purpose. The state can indeed be a means ofsanctification for the Lords church.

5Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath butalso because of conscience. 6For the same reason you also paytaxes, for the authorities are Gods servants, busy with this verything.7Pay to all what is due them taxes to whom taxes are due,


10/104

revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due,honor to whom honor is due.

Verses 5-7expand upon the reasons for submitting and include practicalways the Roman Christians were to respond to Pauls message. Cobin says,The reason we mustsubmit to government is to avoid wrath or worryingabout being harmed by the state authority. God does not want us to beentangled with the affairs of this world to the point where suchinvolvement detracts from our primary mission(Christian Theology ofPublic Policy, 125). The word conscience in verse 5should beinterpreted in a similar manner as 1 Corinthians 10(regarding food

sacrificed to idols). The believers were concerned that the Roman statewould find a legalreason to persecute them. One cannot use this verse inan absolutist sense to say that Christians can never participate in removingany authority, such as in the American Revolution. Paul also encouragesChristians to overcome evil with good as understood in Romans 12:21(this includes evil authority), and to work to be free if at all possible (1Corinthians 7:20-23).

Paul also says to submit to paying taxes for the same reason: avoidingstate wrath in order to live for God. One despises paying taxes, but inorder to abate the states wrath one pays them. Likewise, pay to allwhat is due them is commanded for the same purpose, especiallyconsidering the political tumult of the time. But does this mean that a mansins if he makes a mistake on his Federal tax return? Paul would very likelyanswer no. Modern taxes are very different from Roman taxes. In fact, theGreek word for taxes in verse 7 is more accurately renderedtribute, which is specifically the capitation tax (or head tax) ina Roman township census. The Romans would send soldiers fromhouse to house, count the residents there, calculate the tax, and thendemand full payment immediately. If a Christian did not comply at once,then he, his family, and possibly even his fellow believers could be inimminent, serious trouble. Paul says to not resist these men when they dothis, just pay the tax. Refusal to pay would identify them as part of the taxrebels and political rogues of the day, and would give the Romans a reasonto persecute Christians in Rome and perhaps throughout the empire. Paulwanted the Roman Christians to avoid becoming public spectacles andgovernment targets.


11/104

As a general principle, modern Christians should do the same whenimmediate threat of state force is upon them, taxes or otherwise. However,

modern taxes are not often like this; tributes and tariffs are not culturallytranscendent forms of payments to states. Hence, one is most certainly notsinning if a mistake is made on a tax return. Cobin would even go so far tosay that some taxes can be completely avoided without guilt (ChristianTheology of Public Policy, 129).

Romans 13 is not an abstract, blanket statement that requires submissionto all state laws, in all places, for all circumstances, at all times. Nor is it aprescription for what particular form of government is sanctioned by God

or for how states should act. The historical context and wording requires usto be careful when making pronouncements about what a Christianssubmission to the state looks like.

Christian obedience to government is for the purpose of expedientpeaceful living and bringing no dishonor to the name of Christ. Weare not obligated to follow every jot of public policy. Moreover, weare not supposed to follow anylaw that goes against the law ofGod. If we are to be persecuted, it should be for the name ofChrist and what he stands for, not for refusing to follow somerandom law when directlythreatened by state action.

In conclusion, developing a theology of the state from the New Testamentis understandably difficult. Examining the gospels, one finds that thestate is not related to the Kingdom of God in any way, and in factthe state stands with Satan in direct opposition to God. TheRender to Caesar encounter with Jesus does not legitimize thestate and does not form the basis of a Christians interaction withgovernment. Finally, a full understanding ofRomans 13, taking into

account its proper context, helps us to make better decisions withinwhatever state authority we find ourselves under.

Endnote

1. Some scholars are not convinced that Romans 13 is actually referring tocivilgovernment. Mark Nanos argues that what Paul is talking about here isthe obligation of Christians, particularly Christian gentileswho associatedwith the Jewish synagogues of Rome, to subordinate themselves to the


12/104

leaders of the synagogues and to the customary rules of behavior thathad been developed in Diaspora synagogues for defining the appropriate

behavior of righteous gentiles seeking association with Jews and theirGod. (Nanos 291)

The State is Not Benevolent

The state has been a vile nuisance for civilized men, and the Bible gives usno reason to believe its evil nature can be changed. The psalmistrecognized that states legislate evil policies when he wrote: Shall thethrone of iniquity, which devises evil by law, have fellowship with

You? (Psalm 94:20). Historically, the state usually reigns by iniquity,stimulating and fomenting evil schemes. And, in the end, God will destroythe evil and twisted state, the beast from the sea (akin to the onementioned in Revelation 13:1). As He says in Isaiah 27:1: In thatday the Lord with His severe sword, great and strong, will punishLeviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan that twisted serpent; andHe will slay the reptile that is in the sea.Indeed, the Bible teachesthat hell (Tophet) was prepared for the king (Isaiah 30:33),anddesignates the lake of fire as the ultimate end of earthly kings who defy

God (Revelation 19:20).

With conviction, the Bible indicates that the state is always createdaccording to Gods permissive will: The kings heart is in the hand ofthe Lord, like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes(Proverbs 21:1). By Gods wisdom, kings reign, and rulers decreejustice (Proverbs 8:15). Indeed, All the inhabitants of the earthare reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the armyof heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth (Daniel 4:34-

37). Thus, even the most vicious and evil rulers are subject to Godsdecree, even though their lust for greed and power fosters conscription,taxation, power brokering, and oppressionjust as Samuel prophesied (1Samuel 8:11-18).1

Biblical accounts of public policy clearly indicate that state actions in theBible were mostly evil, concurring with other historical manifestations overthe last few thousand years. As I show in Bible and Government:Public Policy from a Christian Perspective, over 90% of the


13/104

recorded acts of states (outside of the theocracy) were clearlyevil. That is to say, public policies recorded in Scripture are

usually perverse or opposed to Gods law and righteousness, orare directed against Gods people. Summarizing the biblical data, wecan conclude that non-theocratic state policy actions were evil90.2%of the time. Theocratic ones were evil 60.3% of the time.Overall, state acts were evil 78.4% of the time.2

The Bible does not support the popular notion that the state is generally abenignif not benevolent upholder of social order. The state has notgenerally been the guardian of Gods law or even an arbitrary selection of

it. Moreover, the Bible hardly supports the notion that men havelearned to govern themselves better over timesuch that theevils of the past are less likely to be repeated in the future. On thecontrary, the Bible teaches that the heart of man is the same in allages, resulting in social decay.

Does history confirm the Bibles doctrine regarding the nature of the state?Indeed, it does so emphatically! Throughout history, rulers havetypically been malevolent and often cruel. Some have beenhedonistic, while others have been sadistic. Some have beenideologues or masterful demagogues; others have been rapaciousconquerors. These are the standout traits of power and authoritythroughout history.

Renowned economist Ludwig von Mises notes that interventionistpublic policy by states has caused wars and civil wars, ruthlessoppression of the masses by clusters of self-appointed dictators,economic depressions, mass unemployment, capital consumption,[and] famines.3 For Mises, collectivism is a doctrine of war,

intolerance, and persecution where the people become meresoulless pawns in the hands of a monster.4

The Bible substantiates this observation. If you see the oppression ofthe poor, and the violent perversion of justice and righteousnessin a province, do not marvel at the matter; for high officialwatches over high official, and higher officials are over them(Ecclesiastes 5:8). Jesus Christ confirmed the vicious behavior ofrulers too: You know that those who are considered rulers over


14/104

the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exerciseauthority over them (Mark 10:42; cf. Matthew 20:25).The record

of state abuses indicates that social learning has hardly improved thestatefrom the Roman Empire to the Dark Ages down to the present. Thestate remains the foremost enemy of humanity and, along with falsereligion, the foremost ally of Satan. Thus, the permanent satanic nature ofthe state presented in the Bible implies the futility of trying to transformit into a godly institution (under the dominion mandate of Genesis1:26-27). Christians should not expect that a leopard will change its spotsor that a poisoned spring will produce fresh water.

Footnotes:

1 1 Samuel 8:4-22: Then all the elders of Israel gathered together andcame to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, Look, you are old, and yoursons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all thenations. But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, Give us a kingto judge us. So Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel,Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have notrejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.According to all the works which they have done since the day that Ibrought them up out of Egypt, even to this daywith which they haveforsaken Me and served other godsso they are doing to you also. Nowtherefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them,and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them. SoSamuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who asked him for aking. And he said, This will be the behavior of the king who will reign overyou: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to

be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appointcaptains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some toplow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons ofwar and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to beperfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take the best of your fields, yourvineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He willtake a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers andservants. And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your


15/104

finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He willtake a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry

out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen foryourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day. Nevertheless thepeople refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, No, but we willhave a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that ourking may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles. And Samuelheard all the words of the people, and he repeated them in the hearing ofthe Lord. So the Lord said to Samuel, Heed their voice, and make them aking. And Samuel said to the men of Israel, Every man go to his city.

2

John Cobin (2003), Bible and Government: Public Policy from aChristian Perspective, Greenville, SC: Alertness Books, p. 98.

3See Ludwig von Mises (1996 [1966/1949]), Human Action: ATreatise On Economics, fourth revised edition, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York: The Foundation for Economic Education, p.855.

4Ludwig von Mises, (1985/1957), Theory and History: AnInterpretation of Social and Economic Evolution, Auburn,Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, p. 61.

Public Policy Theology in Historical Context

Honor the king (1 Peter 2:17)is Peters terse apostolic admonition tofirst-century Christians, pilgrims of the dispersion (1 Peter 1:1),whom Nero had exiled to Asia Minor from Rome. The admonition includesthe specific objects and extent of their acquiescence: submit yourselvesto every ordinance of manto the king as supreme, or togovernors (1 Peter 2:13-14a). In the same vein, the Apostle Paulwrote in more general terms to the Christians at Rome and Gortys (thecapital of the province of Crete), using the language rulers andauthorities (Titus 3:1, cf. Romans 13:1-3). Paul surely had in mindthe imperial Caesar Nero, as well as various lesser authorities who ruledRomes provinces, such as Herod, Felix, and Agrippa.


16/104

Historians refer to the phase of the ancient Roman state inapostolic times as the Principate. The Emperor was Caesar and, as

such, held autocratic dominion. Although high-handed ruledominated, a number of decentralized forms and conventions stillexistedleftovers from the oligarchic self-government of theRoman Republic (which effectively ended in 27BC). Thus, wealthyPlutarchs were called upon by the Emperor to handle variousadministrative functions in each province of the Empire (totaling50 million inhabitants). It is important to realize that the Apostleswere writing to Christians who lived under an autocratic, brutalstate, rather than the famous Roman Republic that had ended

some 80 years earlier. Sure, the memory of the old Republic likelyfilled the imagination of many citizens, but it was no longer areality. (In the same way that some Romans might have musedabout their glorious Republic of old, so some modern Americanpatriots fondly muse about the liberty-loving American republicbefore 1861.)

The Bibles political context is important because it profoundly influencesour theology of public policy. Yet the clear contextual differences between

the political organization and public policies of first century Rome and thepresent day seems to be missed by many pastors and Christian leaderstoday. Some of them apparently presume that the Apostles lived under astate similar to ours. However, it is manifestly clear that they did not, andproper biblical interpretation must be tempered accordingly.

Consider the differences in the form of government then and now. We donot have a king. While the principle of submitting to those in authority,even in a Constitutional Republic, can rightly be inferred from the passagespertaining to obedience to the state and honoring the king, it is quitepossible that structural changes in government can lead to correspondingchanges in our response to the state and its policies. Some Bible doctrinesare either dependent on or subject to contextual considerations, meaningthat with some commands only principles survive without the exact form ofobedience.

For example, modern Christians do not literally buy a sword for use as aweapon (as Christ says in Luke 22:36);because of technological


17/104

improvements they can buy a gun. Likewise, Paul commanded Roman,Achaean, and Macedonian Christians to greet each other with a holy kiss

(Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12, 1Thessalonians 5:26). The command was given four timesone moretime than the Apostles commanded Christians to be submissive to stateauthorities. Yet modern Christians do not have the exact practice ofgreeting-by-kissing because the culture has changed. Only the principle ofaffectionate salutation has been retained.

So how should American Christians honor the king? They have nomonarch. Does that fact invalidate apostolic doctrine about submission to

state rulers? No, theprincipleof submission still stands. Culture does notwipe out biblical theology, even if the application of doctrine must beadapted to technological and cultural changeslike swords and holy kissesbecoming guns and handshakes.

Other important questions remain however, including the reason whyChristians should submit and what Christians should submit to. I haveargued in Bible and Government: Public Policy from a ChristianPerspective (Alertness Books, 2003)that Christians submit forexpedient or pragmatic reasons. The Bible in several places calls believersto exercise practical wisdomperhaps even insincere and superficialperformancesbefore rulers (Proverbs 23:1-3; Ecclesiastes 8:2-5;Matthew 17:27). Interpreting Scripture with Scripture, one may concludethat the kind of performance mandated for Nero and his cronies shouldcorrespond to those mandated in these other passages.

In America, a case can and should be made that the proper object ofsubmission by Christians is to the Constitutionand the Declaration ofIndependencesince they comprise our formal government. Presidents,

Supreme Court justices, and congressmen are not kings. Our politicalstructure is not autocratic but rather a republic based on acontract between We the People. Thepoliticalallegiance of anAmerican Christian is not to the President or to Congress, but tothe republican contract established by the people. That meansthat an American Christian can submit to the principles of theConstitution, for instance, and still dishonor, condemn, or evenas a last resortoverthrow the government actors who oppose it.


18/104

This idea would have been unfathomable in the context of the first century,even for those acquainted with the Roman Republic era. Yet it is part and

parcel of the American civil society that Providence has decreed.

Is the State Run by Satan?

Is the state run by Satan? What do we know about the nature ofthe state? According to the Bible, the states power comes fromSatan through the spirits of demons. In Revelation 13:1-4,1abeast rising up out of the sea with a blasphemous name on hisheads emerges to rule civil society. This ruler is empowered by

the dragon, also called the Devil and Satan (Revelation 12:9,cf. 20:2), who gives him his power, his throne, and greatauthority. At the time of the writing of the book of Revelation,Domitian was likely Caesar, noted for the band of gold he wore onhis head containing the blasphemous inscription Dominus etDeus (i.e., Lord and God).2 Satan empowered this ruler beast,as he does all the kings of the earth.Revelation 16:14 (cf. 19:19)says that the spirits of demonsemerging from this beast andSatan go out to the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to

gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.Andthe devil presently uses the state to do his bidding, includingcasting Christians into prison (Revelation 2:10)as was the casewhen Peter and John were condemned for preaching the Gospel(Acts 5:17-29). Plainly, the nature of the state is satanic.Accordingly, when tempting Christ, the devil was probably not lying, andhis claims were not exaggerated, when he said that he controls the state.

Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the

kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, Allthis authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered tome, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if You will worship beforeme, all will be Yours. And Jesus answered and said to him, Get behindMe, Satan! For it is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and Himonly you shall serve. (Luke 4:5-7)3

In Revelation 17:11-14the connection between great states andthe figurative beast is made plain, where the beast is identified as


19/104

the eighth successive king. These beasts stand against thekingdom of God and will be cast into hell (Revelation 19:20-21).

Therefore, the state can be generally viewed as an agent of thekingdom of Satan and empowered by the devil even if it isultimately ordained by God (in the sense ofRomans 13:1).

How then can the Bible say that states are ordained or appointed byGod to be his ministers(Romans 13:1-2, 4, 6)? Briefly, divineappointment to Gods service does not imply that the person or institutionappointed is holy or godly. After all, Satan himself is ordained by God, andhis actions are bounded by Providence (e.g., as the Bible describes in Jobs

trials and the protecting of Peter from being sifted as wheat by the devilin Luke 22:31).4 The state is ordained by God but the Bible indicates thatits most intimate relationship is with the devil (Revelation 18:9), and thestate has generally served Satans evil designs throughout history, even ifGod ultimately directs the state and disposes of it as He wills.

The satanic nexus with the state is also described or implied inDaniel 10:13, Ezekiel 28:12-19, and Revelation 17:1-7. In thesepassages, Satan is called the prince of kingdom of Persia andthe King of Tyre. Plus, the kings of the earth are described ashaving an intimate and illicit relationship with Satan by way of hisscarlet beast and the woman who is carried by it. So once againwe find a direct link between Satan and the earthly rulers thatGod ordains. The devil certainly controlled these kings, assumingthey were historical figures. Perhaps he even possessed them. Hence, wehave more evidence to suggest that the state may credibly beconsidered part of the kingdom of Satan, and only ordained byGod in the sense that the devil himself is ordained by God tofulfill His purposes and to glorify Him.

The Scriptures indicate that the state is often a minister ofjudgment ordained by God (cf. Isaiah 3:4-5, 12-15). To varyingdegrees, in each judgment situation, the state becomes the rodof Gods anger and the staff of His indignation(Isaiah 10:5).It receives a charge from God to punish the people who areobjects of His terrestrial wrath(Isaiah 10:6). The Bible saysthat Lord himself brings calamity on people (Isaiah 45:7). The


20/104

state is often a judgment against the people over which it rules(particularly outside of the theocracy of Judah), although God has also

used the state to judge foreigners during the Old Testament theocratickingdom.5Yet the states that serve God in this way are often at least aswicked as the ones they judge, showing that not all of Gods ordainedservants (cf. Romans 13:4) are upright in character. Casting asidepopular myths to the contrary, the states evil nature and bad character arerealities to be expected.

1 Good Protestant hermeneutics mandates that doctrine should primarily bederived from didactical parts of Scripture such as the law, the parables of

Christ, and the epistles or decrees of the Apostles. Other revelation shouldbe either supportive or secondary in forming doctrine, having its bestpurpose to clarify, enhance, or bolster principles. The book ofRevelation is an inspired portion of the Scriptures, and thereforeprofitable for doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16),with this kind ofsupportive role. It contains many passages that relate to thestate, and thus is helpful in forming a biblical understanding ofpublic policy.

2See Herman Hoeksema (1969), Behold He Cometh: AnExposition of the Book of Revelation, Reformed Free PublishingAssociation: Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp. 451ff.

3 The parallel passage in Matthew 4:8-11 states: Again, the deviltook Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Himall the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to Him,All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worshipme. Then Jesus said to him, Away with you, Satan! For it iswritten, You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you

shall serve. Then the devil left Him, and behold, angels came andministered to Him.

4The Bible is replete with examples of this fact. Ungodly OldTestament era kings were Gods controlled servants, includingPharaoh (Exodus 4:21), the Assyrian king (Ezra 6:22),Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon (Jeremiah 43:10), and Cyrusking of Persia (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1; 2 Chronicles 36:22; Ezra 1:1).The demons had to ask Christs permission to be cast into the


21/104

swine (Matthew 8:31) instead of the dry places (Matthew12:43; Luke 11:24). Satan is said to be bound for a thousand

years by Gods angel (Revelation 20:2). God used Michael thearchangel to withstand the devil in his wiles (Daniel 10:13; Jude1:9).

5Sometimes a state is more evil than the people it afflicts (Isaiah10:10, Habakkuk 1:4-11) but God uses it for judgmentnonetheless.

The Evil Nature of the State

The evil nature of the state is clearly manifested by the carnage oftotalitarian and communist regimes during the twentieth century. ProfessorRudolph Rummel has demonstrated in his book Death By Government that,in the twentieth century alone, states around the world were responsiblefor the killings of an estimated 350 million of their own civilian, non-combatant populations. This figure does not count the more than onebillion slain by state-sanctioned abortion worldwide, or the 40 millionmilitary personnel slain through state-sponsored aggression, during the

same period. The state has been the most lethal institution in humanhistory. And history illustrates the fact that twentieth century states havebeen the most evil of all time in terms of (1) loss of life and property and(2) the persecution of the church.

Clearly, the state has been more lethal than any infectious disease, plague,or religious inquisition in the history of mankind. In a July 1997 interviewwith Ideas on Liberty, Rummel stated: Concentrated political power is themost dangerous thing on earth. During the twentieth century, 14 regimes

murdered over a million people each. So much for the notion of statebenevolence. Powerful states can be like gangs, stealing, raping, torturing,and killing on a whim.

Many Christians have been murdered by states, including JesusChrist and nearly all of the Apostles. Yet the relatively peaceful,anomalous American experience has stymied American Christiansfrom appreciating this fact.The truth of the matter is that stateshave proven to be destructive to property and a great nuisance to


22/104

the church and gospel preaching. Christian leaders would do wellto be better apprised of history (especially as it relates to states

and public policy) and basic economics. When it comes to facingunmitigated state power, ignorance is not bliss.

State evil is likewise evident from the poisoned and baneful redistributivepolicies of modern welfare states, the confiscatory taxation used toaccomplish proactive policy, and much moral blightsuch as the condoningof manic abortion or the excesses of the Clinton administration in America.Moreover, the imperialistic, unjust, and unconstitutional wars in Iraq andAfghanistan conducted by Bush family presidencies prove that there has

been no end to the bloodthirsty quest for power and economic benefit byAmerican rulers.

Even in America, civil liberties and constitutional rights arefrequently eroded by all branches of the state, through courtcases undermining private property and the right to life,legislation curtailing the Bill of Rightsunder the guise offighting terrorism or warring against vices like drug trafficking,and executive orders that encourage police state brutality andbarbarism. Thus, the United States of America is fast devolving tothe equilibrium point of interventionism and security thathumans have coddled for centuries. In doing so, citizen-subjectsfail to realize the deadly outcome of centralized and unrestrictedstate power.

Those Christians who errantly view the modern state as Godscolleague, upholding part of His law, must face a doubledilemma.1 First, the Bible indicates that the state is generally evil,having a satanic origin, and often serves God by bringing

terrestrial judgment upon people. Second, it is very rare (if notimpossible) to find historical examples of states that have evercome close to upholding Gods law in the world. Given that theearthly institutions of God designed to expand His kingdom mustat least resemble His ways and serve His cause, the statewhichis eminently waywardcannot fall into this category.

Consequently, Christian leaders are leading people astray whopromote the modern state, in America or elsewhere, as a


23/104

companion of the church. On the contrary, they should warnChristians about the evil nature of the state, about the statist

schemes of Satan, and tell them to be on their guard against thestateone of the churchs most lethal enemies in history.Lamentably, only a few Christian leaders have been dutiful to proclaim thissort of warning.

Christian leaders must also be about the business of proclaimingGods way of caring for the poor and needy, for promoting peace,and for defending ourselves against the intrusions of the state.Regrettably, rather than being active agents in transforming their culture,

ignorant Christian leaders have been willing to abandon it to the mischiefand folly of statists.

1 I refer specifically to the adherents of the revitalized or reshaped divineright of kings perspective. Theonomists would never attribute suchconfidence to the modern state; even if they hope that one day it willbecome such an attendant of righteousness. Likewise, those pacifists whohold that the state is a competing kingdom against Gods kingdom wouldalso cast a vote of no confidence in the modern statefor good reason.Regrettably, there are relatively few Christian leaders today who reject thedivine right perspective. A discussion of these different perspectives maybe found in my article Christian Views on Rebellion.

What would the Twelve Apostles say aboutmodern government?

How would the statements by the Apostles Paul and Peter (in Romans13:1-7, Titus 3:1, and 1 Peter 2:13-17)have differed if they had beenmodern day Americans rather than living under the Roman state? Thestudy of history, economics, political science, world religions, literary forms,and philosophy are important for proper biblical interpretation. Without agood grasp of these fields of endeavor, the interpreter is prone to make


24/104

errors in judgment, including errors in applying the doctrinal rulesregarding submission to authority under a modern democracy (or

republic) rather than an autocracy.

For instance, the synoptic gospel accounts say that the death ofChrist occurred at the sixth hour(Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33;Luke 23:44), while John 19:14says that He was still with Pilate atthat time. How can one reconcile the difference in time? Is thediscrepancy proof that the Bible contains errors? By applyingknowledge from fields such and history along with deductivereasoning, one will find thatJohns Gospel was written much later

than the other three accountsafter the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD.That cataclysmic event crushed, among other things, the Jewishmanner of keeping time. For a Jew, a day began at 6AM instead ofmidnight (the latter being both the Roman convention and ourstoday). Thus, in Jewish time the sixth hour corresponded to noonin Roman time. John would have used Roman time in his gospeland so there is no contradiction in the Bible. Accordingly, biblicalinterpretation can be facilitated and enhanced by carefulutilization of the tools from other disciplines.

That is not to say that all doctrines of the Bible require tools fromdisciplines like the sciences or the humanities to be well understood. Inparticular, the doctrine of salvation and the nature and attributes of Godmay be clearly manifest to even the most uninformed reader. But sometheology and specific doctrine requires hard work to flesh outappropriatelyincluding the use of analytical tools and knowledge gleanedfrom other disciplines. Thus, a good grasp of economics, public policytheory, and history are a great boon in developing a biblical theology ofpublic policy.

The political context of the Apostles differed greatly from the situation ofthe modern West. Not only do most Western nations not have anautocratic state, the rules of interventionism have changed. Rome had nowelfare state. This fact is important for Christians because welfarism isbased on the notion of positive rights. This political philosophy justifiesplundering one group of citizens in order to benefit another, and istherefore an abomination to the Christian faith.


25/104

Would the Apostles have encouraged modern Christians in the West toparticipate in welfare state programs or employment schemes? If we take

the Scriptural admonitions against theft seriously, the answer must beNo. The Bible clearly prohibits theft: You shall not steal, nordeal falsely, nor lie to one another (Leviticus 19:11),You shallnot steal (Exodus 20:15; Matthew 19:18, Romans 13:9), Let himwho stole steal no longer (Ephesians 4:28a);and it forbidsidleness: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat (1Thessalonians 3:10).

The fact that the state legalizes plunder through extortive taxation policy

does not justify the theft, nor does the states rewarding of idleness excusecomplacent joblessness. Recipients may not receive welfare and beinnocent any more than a woman or her abortion doctor can be guiltlessof murder when performing a legal abortion. How can a Christian rightlycontend that the Apostles would have contradicted their teaching againsttheft by allowing looting through the political process? The bottom line isthat a Christian cannot be righteous while voluntarilyrequesting welfarestate benefits like Social Security, Aid to Families with Dependent Children,food stamps, educational grants, or subsidized housing.

Furthermore, the existence of democratic processes under a constitutionalrepublic does notalter the malevolent nature of proactive public policies orthe bad behavior of government agents. Representative government doesnotpreclude Christians from championing causes against bad legislation,evil decrees, or nefarious rulers. Neither does it prevent them fromdisobeying foul edicts. There is nothing in Scripture that would lead one tobelieve that state-sponsored extortion or state-sanctioned murder (e.g.,abortion and euthanasia) are cleansed (or are no longer wrong) becausethey have been approved through a representative process. And it isinconsistent for Christian leaders to arbitrarily decry abortion policy but notextortion policies.

The Apostles simply did not envision (and could not have imagined)Christian submission to the state entailing us Christians voluntarilyparticipating in thefts, murders, unjustified aggression, fraud, or malice.Had the Apostles been able to foresee what would transpire under moderndemocracies in the name of the general welfare or the public interest,


26/104

they would have both condemned the policies as evil and certainlydiscouraged Christian participation in them. Further, the Apostles would

have doubtless called believers to be those who stand up against such evilpolicies, whenever prudent, as a matter of maintaining integrity in theirChristian lifestyles and their commitment to the Truth. Nowadays pastorsand church leaders, rather than Apostles, are left with the charge of callingChristians to maintain integrity. The big question is: Are they willing to doso?

The Divine Ordination of State Criminals and

LegalizedMay a state legalize crime or actions that God says are wicked? Does Godgive the state permission to break His laws by virtue of the fact that it isthe appointed civil authorityelected or otherwise?

As I have documented in Bible and Government: Public Policy from aChristian Perspective (Alertness Books, 2003), the insidious natureof the state with its public policies is manifest in over 90% of theoccurrences of the motif in the Bible (outside of the Old Testament

theocracy). The Apostles lived under Nero, who was certainly one of themost evil rulers in history, along with local draconian rulers like Herod.They had no delusions about the nature of the state which oftenpersecuted them.

Moreover, since the closing of the canon, the menacing nature of publicpolicy and states has continued to be manifest. As the Bible instructs us:If you see the oppression of the poor, and the violent perversionof justice and righteousness in a province, do not marvel at the

matter; for high official watches over high official, and higherofficials are over them (Ecclesiastes 5:8).

Building upon the argument in my recent columns dealing with Christiansand Self-defense against CriminalsIncluding the State, I concur with thepremises ofDr. Francis Schaeffer in A Christian Manifestoand thoseof the Christian Founding Fathers: Christians may oppose the state when itdecrees evil public policies, either passively or actively, even to the point ofarmed resistance under the right circumstances. Both Tory doctrine and


27/104

the neo-orthodox pietism of Dietrich Bonhoeffer are wrong. The biblicalpremise of Operation Rescue may rightly be applied to us today: If you

faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small. Deliver thosewho are drawn toward death, and hold back those stumbling tothe slaughter. If you say, Surely we did not know this, Does notHe who weighs the hearts consider it? He who keeps your soul,does He not know it? And will He not render to each manaccording to his deeds? (Proverbs 24:10-12).

Who defines criminal behavior? The state may have its definition, but Godsdefinition differs. Nero tormented the Christians (whom he considered to

be criminals), Hitler eradicated Jews, Stalin obliterated Kulaks, Turksannihilated Armenians, and Lincoln ravaged and castigated rebelsoutherners, for their crimes. In the mind of God, all of these ordainedrulers were criminals while their victims, by and large, were not.

And what should we think of those American leaders who brought downliberty and replaced it with tyranny by means of oppression? AbrahamLincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were among the greatest Americancriminals. Lincoln was responsible for slaughtering hundreds of thousandsof Americans. Roosevelt legalized wholesale plunder and redistributivetheft. Would their assassins be considered criminals in the eyes of the stateas well as the eyes of God? Would killing them be any less just than killinga robber in your home? Why should rulers enjoy amnesty (as heads ofstate) unlike other criminals?

Yes, evil rulers are ordained by God. But that fact does not mean that theyare good for society. They are exalted criminals with immunity, whatAlbert J. Nock called most dreadful swine; a cohort that LysanderSpooner referred to as open robbers and murderers. No surprise that

rulers love the reshaped divine right of kings doctrine promoted byEvangelical Tories then and now. Only within the mechanism of thestate can a man legally be a thug without reprisal or publicshame. Yet God ordains such thugs: to the intent that the livingmay know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, andgiveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basestof men (Daniel 4:17).


28/104

In a very real sense, ruling a state is a low, sneaking business. God oftenappoints the basest of men, particularly unprivileged in character, to rule.

Historically and biblically speaking, it is evident that divine ordinationhas only rarely led to godliness among rulers since the BabylonianEmpire. Indeed, the opposite seems to be true: God ordains wickedmenknowing that they will do evilto rule this world. Yet God uses suchrulers to accomplish His temporal purposes: The kings heart is in thehand of the Lord, like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes(Proverbs 21:1)even mega-murderers.

Gods temporal purposes seem to primarily accomplish two objectives: (1)

the sanctification of His beloved church and/or (2) the terrestrial judgmentof the hated workers of iniquity that anger Him (Psalms 2:1-5; 5:5, 7;7:11). In this sense the state serves a nonrandom purpose. God certainlyknows the futile thoughts and plans of the wicked (Psalm 94:11)and canturn them to work for His appointed designs according to His determinatecounsel(Acts 2:23). He catches the wise in their own craftiness, andthe counsel of the cunning comes quickly upon them(Job 5:13).Nevertheless, a state may notlegalize crime or actions that God says arewicked. Such legalization would be immoral and would reflect the evil

nature of the state. God does not give the state permission to break Hislaws by virtue of its divine appointment as the civil authorityelected orotherwiseeven though it routinely does so.

Many are appalled when they read statistics about how many members ofCongress have been convicted of crimes like assault, fraud, shoplifting, orwho have gone bankrupt (or have very bad credit), or otherwise have beenof low character. But such is far more the rule for states and rulers thanthe exception. And no one who knows anything about history, economics,or the Bible should be surprised by the criminal behavior of rulers.

Is Rebellion against Rulers Rebellion againstGod?

I just heard the statement again from the pulpit: Rebellion againstauthority is rebellion against God. Nowadays, some of the greatestapologists for the state are preachers, who frequently invoke the ApostlePaulhimself a martyr due to state tyrannyin support of this notion.


29/104

What a dramatic change from the black robe regiment of the Foundingera, where preachers widely advocated and condoned civil disobedience!

In the preachers sermon the principal text was 1 Timothy 2:1-2,wherethe Apostle says: Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications,prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men,for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quietand peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.Taking intoaccount the overarching objective of personal salvation mentioned in theimmediate context (verse 4),two reasons for praying for rulers aremanifest: (1) that they might be saved from their sins and hell

and (2) that they might leave us Christians alone in order that wemay serve the Lord quietly and peacefully, along with beingspared persecution.

However, most preachers add a third dimension to their prayers for rulers.They ask the Lord to help rulers do their jobs efficiently and effectively.They want rulers to rule wellwhatever that means. (Do you think that theApostle Paul was thinking that Nero was ruling so well that there was noneed to mention that third dimension explicitly?) Believing that the stateand its rulers are somehow a part of Gods provision on earth for peace,order, and prosperity, these preachers commit an egregious error bythrusting this third, contrived dimension onto the text. And their error isgrave, producing far-reaching ramifications. Their error promotes thecontinued delusion of Gods people with regard to the state, andwidespread ignorance regarding the manifestly evil public policies that arerecorded in the Bible and secular history.

Moreover, many preachers think that public policy theology is basicallyirrelevant and something to be taken lightly. Evidently, they believe that

thinking about the details regarding a Christians relationship to the state,or how an American Christian might properly employ the SecondAmendment, or whether or not a Christian ought to disobey edictsregarding compulsory attendance or prohibitions against spanking as awaste of time. With a little thought, one could list many other examplestoo.

Who cares whether the Founders were in sin when resisting England? Whocares if Christians use welfare state benefits or get state licenses to be


30/104

married? Just do what everyone else does. What difference does it makethat we pledge allegiance to the flag, hoist a national flag in the sanctuary,

or receive protections from the state by incorporating the local church? Noneed to rock the boat. They sweep all these concerns under the rug bythrowing out maxims like: rebellion against authority is rebellion againstGodeven though the Bible nowhere makes this statement. Indeed theScriptures evince just the opposite by means of many examples, renderingthe statement a premise based on eisegesis and faulty logic.

For illustration, we might take a similar false deduction: Mary is the motherof Jesus. Jesus is God. Therefore, the Virgin Mary is the mother of God.

And no less errant is the following false deduction: According to Romans13:1-4, God ordains all authority. The state is an authority and Godsservant. Therefore, rebellion against authority is rebellion against God.Heres another variation off the same stem proposition: God ordains allauthority. The state is specifically mentioned as being ordained by God.Therefore, the state is a divine institution, and must be revered much likewe must revere our parents.

The three statements are similarly false and presuppose unbiblicalelements or twist the Scriptures. Why? First, the fact that God ordainssomething does not mean that to resist what God has ordained isto resist God or His will. The Hebrew midwives, Ehud, and theMagi did not rebel against God because they rebelled againstPharaoh, Eglon, and Herod.

Second, the wordservantin Romans 13:4, 6(diakonoV) doesnot imply godliness in the office. All things serve God, even evilthings. Cyrus, the anointed shepherd (even messiah), is an

example of Gods servant (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1). So was Balaam.The fact that God ordains some institution or some person forsome purpose does not make the institution or person divine ina reverential sense. The Bible nowhere declares that the state is such adivine institution and therefore deserves a different form of reverence thanother evil institutions would receivelike the Mormon Church or the devilhimself.


31/104

Third, there is no reason to believe that resisting authority is thesame thing as resisting what God has ordained(Romans 13:4).

That is, the resulting judgment of an authority like the statedoes not come on account of our rebelling against God but ratherfor resisting the evil policies of a (generally) wayward state rulerwhich God has ordained. The two kinds of judgment are different.The text does not say that God will judge you here or in eternity ifyou do not obey the civil ruler that He ordained. On the contrary,God expectsHis people to rebel against ungodly decrees as partof our pursuit of holiness. Rulers may judge us on earth, and pourout wrath upon us, but we are not to fear them so long as we are

on Gods side. The Bible indicates that in the end the vast majorityof rulers will find their place in hell.

Fourth, not all resistance to state authority is rebellion againstGod. There are times when one must rebel, e.g. Daniel and thethree young men, Peter and John. Consequently, the states word isnot Gods Word by any meansexcept coincidentally at times. So how is itthat most contemporary preachers are content to say that rebellion againstthe state is rebellion against God, except when the state does a few things

on the short list of big no-nos? Such logic opens Pandoras Box. Just whodecides what is on the short list? The short list becomes arbitrary andcapricious. One preacher prays that God would give tax collectors successin their actions against evaders, policemen success in trapping speeders,and Presidents wisdom for conducting war, while another prays that Godwould spare the world from such encroachments. Instead of sticking to thebiblical reasons for praying for rulers, the list becomes long, convoluted,and controversial. And the preachers preferences and pet-peeves withrespect to public policy, sadly, become sacrosanct.

A few more words must be spoken against the mainstream preachersfrequent apologies for the state, its rulers, and its public policies. Whatwould the preacher who tells us that rebellion against authority is rebellionagainst God say about policies that force us to send our kids to a publicschool or to a foreign war, prevent preachers from making politicallyincorrect statements from the pulpit, disallow us to spank our kids, orprohibit us from hunting deer on our property (especially in cases whenones family is hungry)? Ultimately, a preacher gets nowhere fast by


32/104

making a statement that exceptions to obeying rulers exist withoutspecifying what the exceptions must be. Believers need to know how

to live in this present evil age(Galatians 1:4)and preachers similarto the one I heard do not help them by making superficial generalities(especially when there is not a good biblical reason to do so).

Yet the preacher basks in ignorance and pounces on anyone who asks himquestions that make him feel uncomfortable. These preachers believe thatsuch interrogatives must come from radicals, after all, and their presencein our churches might frighten some people away. Think of all the goodTories that might become uneasy if we allow church members to

contemplate the exigencies of civil disobedience!

Such preachers will not mention the exceptions to obeying rulers becausethey do not know the extent of these exceptions. It is the non-thinking,easy way out to merely mention the short list of resistance items (e.g., notbowing to idols, not desisting from Gospel preaching, and not killinginfants) and pass over the more analytically arduous questions. And thelast thing that a spiritually-focused yet pietistic preacher desires is to bepressed into specifying items qualifying for civil disobedience!

I could probably come up with a list of fifty policies that I would rebelagainst. Another person might only choose to rebel against twenty ofthem. Maybe you and your cousin Joe would accept my fifty and add fiftymore. The pietistic preacher might manage to list fifteen things, while hisassociate pastor might concede thirty and all the deacons go with thirty-five items. So in the end what has the preacher really said about rebellionagainst authority? Would he admonish the men in his flock who go beyondhis short list of twenty items as being rebels against God? Would hesubject them to church discipline for thinking that way, writing or speaking

in support of his views, or challenging the practice of his fellow churchmembers? Without knowing for sure, I would not be surprised to see suchan admonition transpire in modern churches. And one thing is certain if apreacher does so: his analytical inconsistency and poor exegesis have ledhim to cop-out when it comes to preaching thewhole counsel of God(Acts 20:26-27), leading him to act in a manner that does not promotethe edification of the saints.


33/104

God ordains the state for various purposes. The three mainreasons found in the Bible are (1) to show his glory and holiness

(which obviously overrides all other factors), (2) to bringterrestrial judgment against a disobedient people, and (3) tosanctify His people. (Interestingly, the pertinent phrase forgood, insofar as it relates to personal growth, occurs both inwell-known Romans 8:28and Romans 13:4but nowhere else inthe New Testament.) In addition, many preachers think that the statealso exists to punish people that God thinks are bad and to reward thosewhom God thinks are good. However, this misapprehension of texts suchas Romans 13:1-4 and 1 Peter 2:13-14 should be laid waste by the fact

that neither Nero nor virtually any other ruler has done so.

We commonly hear from American pulpits today that most rulers are justdoing their best as, alas, mere imperfect and failing men. But thissentiment is not true. On the contrary, rulers are generally evildoers inGods sight who reward what they think is good and punish what they thinkis evil, regardless of what God thinks. That fact is borne out in the Biblestheology, biblical history, other history, and supporting theories in scientificdisciplines like economics. This fact should not be lightly shrugged off by

preachers, although they often unwittingly do so.

God is telling the Roman believers (and us too) that (a) God hasallowed the ruler to exist, (b) that the ruler has the power topunish or reward whom he hates or likes, and (c) that if we wantto remain unscathed we had better submit to him when he gets inour face. That fact does not preclude self-defense, which the Bibleallows, including defending ourselves against a malignant stateparticularly when its rulers seek to enslave us and we can availourselves of an opportunity to become free (1 Corinthians7:2124). Yes, in some cases, even ultimate rebellion to rulers(staging a revolution) can be just. An active role in social affairsand engaging our culture along with its public policies are part ofthe Christians role in having dominion over the world anddoing business until Jesus returns (Genesis 1:26-28; Luke19:13).


34/104

We must remember that God ordains Satan too. But resistingSatan is not rebellion against God, even when Satan is working

through the state. Satan has used the state for his purposes oftenin recorded history, not only through men like Nebuchadnezzarand Pharaoh, but also through Nero and Domitian. For instance,the Bible speaks of Satan casting Christians into prison by meansof rulers carrying out malignant public policies (Revelation 2:10).Satan also claimed (and Jesus did not dispute his assertion) to beable to give Jesus all the kingdoms of this world (Matthew 4:8;Luke 4:5)all of which are said will vainly array themselvesagainst Christ at the end of time. Indeed, we are specifically

commanded, in fact, to resist Satan in spite of his authority(James 4:7; cf. Ephesians 4:27; 6:11; Jude 1:9). The state and, ingeneral, its rulers, are hardly a divine institution to be reveredand eventually redeemed by Godlike the family and the church.They are ordained for temporal use in judgment and sanctificationand then they will be sloughed off like a bodys dead skin cells.

So is rebellion against authority rebellion against God? Only when anauthoritys decrees coincide with Gods; otherwise, rebellion against

authority is only rebellion against the ruler that God has appointed. Thereality of divine appointment does not elevate the state to an oracle of Godthat must be revered lest God frown upon us. Of course, any time aChristian has a rebellious attitude, acts foolishly, or behaves in a mannerthat does not glorify the Lordwithin the context of states and rulers orotherwise he rebels against God. But it is not right to say that, ingeneral, most (or any) resistance or rebellion to the authority of the stateis automatically rebellion against God.

I would like to encourage preachers (like the one I recently heard) to thinkabout this theme a little more before jumping onto the modern, revitalized,and reshaped divine right of kings bandwagon. The holiness of the churchand its effectiveness in the world are too important to simply throw off onaccount of a faulty public policy theology. And there are plenty of publicpolicies that Christians should shun. The famous preacher C.H. Spurgeonliked to quote Solomons quip about the little foxes spoiling the vines (Songof Solomon 2:15). Let us help our pastors hunt foxes.


35/104

Can starting a revolution be a good thing?

A preacher recently proclaimed: Rebellion against authority is rebellionagainst God. Another pastor once told me: If its illegal, its sinful. (Hemust be thankful for much grace to cover his sins of disobedience to thestatein light of all the legislation he inadvertently violates.) And a recentcaller to my radio show said something like: Once a proposal becomes thelaw a Christian must obey it, implying that disobedience is sin. These Toryprinciples are widely-held by American Christians. But is such sentimentcorrect? Is resistance to tyrants, which they call rebellion,necessarily sinful? Rebellion against God is certainly always

wrong. It is condemned in Scripture as being analogous towitchcraft(1 Samuel 15:23).Having a rebellious attitude or todespise authority is likewise unacceptable Christianpractice (2Peter 2:10; Jude 1:8). The Bible teaches that Christians are to besubject to the governing authorities which are appointed byGod(Romans 13:1)and to submit to every ordinance of man forthe Lords sakeboth in the case of kings and lower magistratesor governors (1 Peter 2:13). Nevertheless, the civil rulersubmission doctrine is surely qualified. No Christian theologian

has ever held that the New Testament requires absolutesubmission to every civil government decree. Even the Apostlesdisobeyed civil authority when they believed obedience to itwould cause disobedience to God. They resisted tyranny byobeying God and were thus wrongly considered rebels.

No Bible-believing Christian should consider the commands inRomans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-17,and Titus 3:1to be absolute.Indeed, taking into account the whole counsel of God, it is clear

that Gods people have not and should not submit themselves toevery ordinance of man(1 Peter 2:13)in an absolute sense. TheEgyptian midwives defied Pharaohs decree to murder infants(Exodus 1:15-21). Ehud acted against public policy by deceivingthe kings ministers and then slew the king (Judges 3:1526).Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego refused to complywith public policies that mandated religious rituals contrary toproper worship (Daniel 3:8-18; 6:6-10). The wise men from theEast disobeyed Herods direct order to disclose Jesus


36/104

whereabouts (Matthew 2:7-12). Peter and John forthrightlydisobeyed the ordinance of man that mandated that they desist

from preaching (Acts 5:28-29).Judging from these biblical premises,therefore, the foremost doctrinal issue for a Christian theology of publicpolicy is apparently not whether Christians may ever disobey state decrees,but rather when civil disobedience by Christians becomes mandatoryor,further, when obedience becomes optional or discretionary for a Christianwho must be free to act within the parameters of his conscience. Indeed,the core question boils down to when (or at what point) civil disobedienceis justified, and what test must be applied to determine when suchrebellion is righteous. Remember, civil disobedience and rebellion to the

state are synonymous terms, the former being the patriots perspective andthe latter the tyrants. At many points over the course of history, rebellionhas been widely held to be a good thing and has thus been proclaimed bychurch leaders. Their message has been simple and straightforward: todisobey tyrants is to obey God. So it was at the founding of the UnitedStates of America.

In the 1770s, American Christians viewed British public policies as groundsfor armed resistance. The colonists not only believed that they had a right

to resist British tyranny, they also held that submission (or not rebelling)would have been sinful. Thus, preachers incited revolution. The argumentsadvanced by preachers of the day in support of this sentiment weremanifold:

(1) Parliament had set itself up in an idolatrous manner byclaiming sovereignty in all cases whatsoever over the colonies(and it was blasphemy to think that mere human beings couldever have such authority); indeed, Reformed colonists wanted topreserve their identity as a covenant people, and Parliamentsclaims represented both tyranny and idolatry, because honoringthe claims of the king would be tantamount to forsaking God whosays to have no other gods before Him;

(2) the vibrant church in the wilderness of America representedthe New Israel, while the King and his cronies represented asatanic onslaught aimed at harming Gods chosen people, thus


37/104

giving Christians a rationale for self-defense against the civilauthority;

(3) Christians have a right to be free from tyranny (citingGalatians 5:1) along with the means to redress grievancesregarding unfulfilled expectations in (or violations of) colonialcharters and basic human rights; and, more implicitly,

(4) the abuses of life and property which emanated from KingGeorge III and Parliament, including their undertaking legalplunder of the colonies, justified self-defense. The civil authority

could be resisted in the same way that a homeowner resists arobber or a businessman withstands a thug.

This series of articles highlights the actions of the American FoundersChristian ones in particularin endeavoring to showcase the varioushistorical Christian theologies of public policy. While many of us believethat the Founders were right in rebelling, many other Christians disagree.Thus, I think it is worthwhile to discuss the interaction (and intersection) offaith and civil disobedience, especially in light of the rising onslaught ofmodern public policies against Christians.

Should the Founders have submitted togovernment more?

The Bible indicates that being a revolutionary can bring temporaltrouble. My son, fear the Lord and the king; do not associate withthose given to change [via revolution]; for their calamity will risesuddenly, and who knows the ruin those two can bring?

(Proverbs 24:21-22). When the Jewish religious leaders werefurious with the Apostles for preaching the Gospel, Gamalielreminded his Council about the failed revolutionary attempts ofTheudas and Judas of Galilee (and their men)most of whomwere executed by the civil authorities (Acts 5:33-39). Not allrevolutionary attempts fail of course, but the probability ofsuccess is low and the likelihood of imprisonment or death fortreason is high. As Gamaliel said, if a revolutionary movement isof God it will stand; otherwise it will fail. And the general counsel


38/104

of the Bible is that if one wants to preserve his life he had betterthink twice about being a revolutionary.

The Founding Fathers knew what they were getting into in opposing theworlds most powerful empire. Their commitment was summed up in theclosing language of the Declaration of Independence: And for the supportof this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divineprovidence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, andour sacred honor. The Founders who read Proverbs 24:21 evidentlyviewed it as mere practical advice about avoiding temporal consequencesrather than as a general directive to be obeyed in all cases. And their

resulting successful revolt was extraordinary, being aided by manysymbiotic cultural dynamics of the time. Still, Proverbs 24:21-22andActs 5:33-39 provide a constant reminder to Christians to bewareof participating in revolution. Indeed, what was practical for theFounders might not be prudent for us today. Moreover, the Bibleindicates that the motive for submitting to civil authority is toglorify God, to avoid worldly distractions that detract from thechurchs main mission, and that Christians may lead a quiet andpeaceable life(1 Timothy 2:2). At least in the short term, revolution

would seem to be counter-productive to evangelism and building thechurch.

In order to meet such biblical objectives, Christians may have to bepractical or expedient when confronted by the civil authority. TheBible counsels that when eating with a ruler, put a knife to yourthroat if you are a man given to appetite(Proverbs 23:2). Jesustold Peter to fetch a coin from the mouth of a fishnot because hehad been worried about His unpaid tax liability but because He didnot want to offend the civil authorities (Matthew 17:27). Jesusknew that the tax had not been paid and yet had apparentlyexpressed no concern about breaking the rules. Perhaps thisevent formed part of the rationale that led the Pharisees to accuseJesus of forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar(Luke 23:2). At anyrate, avoiding confrontation in general is important for aChristian. This ideal is the driving force behind the Apostle Peterswide admonition: Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. FearGod. Honor the king(1 Peter 2:17). The American Founders sought


39/104

to avoid confrontation with King George III, and only after what ThomasJefferson called a long train of abuses and usurpations did they choose to

rebel against him. Would the Apostles have rebelled against Rome atsome point too? Surely, Nero was every bit as evil and defiant as KingGeorge III, and yet the Apostles did not rebel against Nero. Perhaps theywould have done soat least if they had the arms and soldiers to pull it off(cf. Luke 14:31). The War for American Independence was fought over afundamental issue of authority: specifically, the place where the consentof the governed rested and who was entitled to rule. In 1775, there waswidespread doubt about the legitimacy of centralized power exercised fromLondon.

Apparently the Christians in the 1770s believed that civil disobedience andarmed revolution were justified and prudent so long as a good or godlyreason could be found for such revolt and as long as the insurgents werebacked with sufficient firepower to have a decent shot at success. TheScripture is silent (or at least not conclusive) on whether Christians canrevolt against the state when they have the means to do so. We do notknow what Paul and Peter would have done or taught if pro-Christianforces were able to muster sufficient resources to defy Nero. Yet the

Scriptures seem to indicate that Christians have a right of self-defense(Luke 22:36), which could be taken as the right of defense against bothcriminals and state plunderers like King George IIIor George W. Bush forthat matter. Or should we simply believe that apostolic teaching regardingsubmission to (and honoring of) civil rulers prohibits Christians from everdefending themselves against them? Must Christians never attack civilrulersno matter how tyrannical the state becomes or how much itplunders its citizenry? I dont think so.

The Tory preachers view, Rebellion against authority is rebellion againstGod, is wrong while the Founders actions were right. King GeorgeIII was an overbearing thief and a depriver of civil liberties. Sincethe colonists had the power to resist, they were rightly exhortedto do soespecially considering the implications of 1 Corinthians7:21-24. For some of us, no further justification is needed toattack a wayward, tyrannical, and predatory state beyond the factthat is plundering us or depriving us of our liberties. Like a robber


40/104

or other criminal, the state can be opposed when it is prudent andpossible to do so.

Other willing Christian insurgents, however, need further validation. Forinstance, many preachers and theologians in the 1770s proclaimed thatRomans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17were only binding insofar asgovernment honors its moral and religious obligations. Otherwise, theduty of submission was nullified. Indeed, rulers had no authority from Godto do mischief; it was blasphemous to call tyrants and oppressors theministers of God. And each individual was left to decide when a rulercrossed the line. In the final analysis, using either of these methods to

justify civil disobedience leads to the conclusion that state tyranny can beproperly resisted by Christians. Indeed, Christians are remiss [NEGLIGENT]who do not oppose tyrants.

Is it time to resist tyranny?

Not only are the great majority of rulers recorded in the Scriptures wicked,they also share certain common immoral character traits. And such badbehavior even arose in otherwise good theocratic rulers. While it is said

that anger rests in the bosom of fools (Ecclesiastes 7:9), it alsoseems to rest in the bosom of kings and other civil authorities. Pharaoh gotangry(Genesis 40:2; 41:10)and King Saul became both angry anddispleased(1 Samuel 18:8),as did King David (2 Samuel 13:21)andthe princes of the Philistines (1 Samuel 29:4). Good King Asa waslikewise affected, being enraged with a seer and oppressing some of Godspeople (2 Chronicles 16:10),and King Uzziah was angry with the priestsover the divine technicalities of a ritual (2 Chronicles 26:19).Nebuchadnezzar responded in rage and fury to the faithful Jews (Daniel

3:13). King Ahasueruss anger burned in him after Queen Vashti refusedto obey him (Esther 1:12).Sanballat was angered by the Jews rebuildingJerusalems walls and took great indignation(Nehemiah 4:1, 7). Theprinces were angry with the Prophet Jeremiah, beat him, and cast himinto prison (Jeremiah 37:15). Herod was exceedingly angry with theMagi (Matthew 2:16). Herod had also been very angry with the peopleof Tyre and Sidon(Acts 12:20a). Herod hated Jesus too and desired tokill Him (Luke 13:31). Perhaps political power tends to promote the sin


41/104


42/104

all other denominations. They dominated Virginia and overwhelmed areasof the South and elsewhere (notably Pennsylvania and Rhode Island) with

Evangelicalism. And preachers en massebacked the revolt against KingGeorge III. Were the faithful sinning? Was the Christian church dreadfullybackslidden? Tory preachers affirm this sentiment and pronounce that Godwas merely working throughand in spite ofthe sinful actions of therebellious colonists in order to bring about His purposes. Thatseuphemistic parlance meaning Yes, the American colonists sinned but westill like the results anyway. But perhaps their actions were not sinful.

Jesus taught his disciples to not only be concerned about the evil

doctrine emanating from false religion but also to beware the evilpublic policies of the civil authority. Then He charged them,saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and theleaven of Herod (Mark 8:15). Herods leaven was promulgatedthrough wayward public policy. Christians have many enemies inthe world, both religious and secular (or civil). If Christianscannot flee (Luke 21:21),then perhaps some of them will haveopportunity to defend their families from criminals and tyrants. Ifthey can neither flee nor fight, then they will surely become

martyrs to the Glory of God (Revelation 2:13).

Ultimately, we win. The Bible says that kings of the earthand therulers take a stand against the Lord and against His Christ(Psalm 2:2; Acts 4:26),but their actions (as any other action ofSatan) are under the control of Gods foreordained andpredetermined purpose (Acts 4:27-28). The Bible teaches that satanicforces hold sway over civil rulers and turn them against Gods Kingdom:For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out tothe kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them tothe battle of that great day of God Almighty (Revelation 16:14,cf. 13:1).Nevertheless, civil authorities will not prevail againstGod or His people. It shall come to pass in that day that the Lordwill punish on high the host of exalted ones, and on the earth thekings of the earth (Isaiah 24:21).

The day is coming, dear Christian, and dear lover of liberty, that you toomight join the ranks of the Founding Fathers in resisting tyranny. Are you


43/104

really prepared to take a stand against the kings of the earth? If not,nows the time for a paradigm shift in your public policy theology.

Do Christians have the right to defendthemselves? (Even from the state?)

Do Christians have a right of self-defense? If so, under what circumstancesmay they defend themselves? May they only defend themselves againstcriminals or against civil authorities too? Are there any instances in whichChristians must not defend themselves? These are tough questions thatrequire more than just knee-jerk

is resisting tyranny obedience to god

Documents