One area of genuine confusion for me for years was what did the bible mean when it told us to obey the authorities, particularly in Romans chapter 13. Does it really teach obedience to government is without conditions as many within the church suggest?
I found much of the "organized" church hasn't given a great deal of critical thought to this very important question (which is becoming increasingly important because of the breakdown of morality in American culture and government). Therefore, I wrote this a few years back and expanded it right after teaching through the book of Romans in 2009. If you like what I have written, you may also find "The Establishment and Limits of Civil Government" by James M. Wilson helpful. Enjoy!
The Bible and Obeying Authorities
Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. (ESV)
13 Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. I Pet 2:13-14
The Bible teaches in both passages we are to obey the authorities. Few Christians would dispute this. However, it is often assumed by many that a government’s validity and the requirement to obey it comes solely because of its existence and we are therefore required to obey it unconditionally. Those who take this view cite Romans 13:1b, “…For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” Some assert this passage teaches that government has unconditional authority without restrictions, and Christians must obey government no matter what it does or demands of its citizens. Part of the reason for this is many consider obeying the authorities only from the vantage point of the Christian's responsibility to government. As a result, rarely do they stop to ask whether Government has a responsibility to God or the citizen, Christian or otherwise, and what that might be.
Do these passages really teach that obeying the authorities is absolute and stands alone in a vacuum? That anything told to us or asked of us by government is a mandate from God Himself with whom we must comply simply because government mandates it. Are there any other passages that indicate otherwise? Are there any conditions within the context of Romans 13 that put restrictions on Romans 13:1b and I Peter 2:13?
The fact is those who are quick to advocate for absolute and unconditional obedience to government, citing only Romans 13:1-2 as the only standard, must ignore not only other clear teaching elsewhere in scripture but the immediate context.
Within the rest of chapter 13 certain qualifications or restrictions are shown that are not always obvious and seldom considered by “unconditional obedience” advocates much less discussed. As an example, in Rom 13:7 we are told, “Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.” It may appear he is saying we should do these thing simply because we told to. Many may not consider this implies something may not be owed. If it were, why use the word “owed?” Why not simply say, “pay all taxes. Show anyone in authority, respect etc.” instead of according to whom or what is owed. It should be clear that we are not to pay taxes that are not owed or to give respect or honor to those who don’t deserve it. As the saying goes, authority may be given, but respect (and trust) is earned. Though this specific saying isn't in scripture, I think it is supported by scriptural principles and hope to show that in this paper.
On the tax question, a simple example would be if we should honor a tax bill sent to us from the government of China. The answer? Of course not! This might seem like a silly illustration but I use an extreme example to show there must be a binding legal arrangement between the “taxer” and the “taxee” before an obligation exists. We should not simply assume we have an obligation because someone claims there is one or asserts they have the authority to make a claim or demand. Wouldn't this apply to someone even within our own government? In the US we are suppose to be a government by law, not men i.e. we aren't a dictatorship nor do we have a king. Obviously, the only taxes that apply to us here in America are those our law requires of us, hence the instruction to pay taxes to whom they are due and not just to anyone for any reason.
The overall point is the commands in this passage are not absolute or without conditions and we must stop and consider what we are being told and what those conditions are and not assume a meaning apart from the text or outside the immediate context of the passage or the rest of scripture.
Authorities (power) defined
For example, one condition mentioned - though the meaning may not be obvious at first - is in Rom 13:1 “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers." (KJV) The word “power” (or “authorities” in some translations) is exousia in the original which carries the idea of “privileged” or “delegated” authority. A “higher power” in this passage is not referring to independent powers -- as would be the case with dunamus (the other Greek word for power and where we get the word dynamite from). Dunamus means power is inherent within the power holder. Exousia is a power that comes outside of the power holder and is assigned or delegated, making the holder of it accountable to the assigner. It is a power given that must be exercised within the sphere of its delegation.
Also, because all legitimate power comes from God, “for there is no (delegated) power but of God…” whatever power that exists legitimately is only because it is granted by God i.e. is “of God.” Indeed the next phrase “and those (delegated authorities) that exist have been instituted by God…” clarifies
this.
"Higher" or "excellent" defined
We see another condition when Paul explains why obedience must only be to higher delegated powers. Higher is “excellent” in the original, which is another qualification set upon government. So the powers of government are not only delegated but must be excellent.
What is meant by excellent or ¹higher powers in verse one (translated as "governing" in some translations)? Since the powers here are delegated, we must ask who or where do these authorities look to for instruction on how to conduct themselves excellently? Are they merely to look to themselves and their own notions of right and wrong?
It stands to reason these subordinate or delegated powers/authorities (exousia) must be subject to the source of their delegation, i.e. God Himself, since it is God who has ordained or instituted them. Simply stated, they must exercise authority only in the manner prescribed by the one who gives them their delegation. This is what it means to rule excellently for they rule according to the excellent standard of God’s law, not by their ²own standards.
We get a clue of the purpose of their authority in Rom 13:3 which says, “For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad…”
In Rom 13:4 we are told, "...Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
So what happens when you do good (as defined by God) and receive the government's disapproval or do evil and receive their approval?
This verse along with its context clearly shows civil authorities are operating as God's appointees when punishing wrongdoers as God defines it. And if so, what does this say if the authorities are punishing those who do good as also defined by God? Have these authorities not abandoned their assignment? What is our obligation to them when they do so? The context would suggest there would be no obligation to such authorities. We hope to prove this more clearly from additional points in Rom 13 and other passages as we go on.
A legitimate government is a government that punishes evil and rewards good. If it rewards evil and punishes good, then it is no longer carrying out the role God has assigned them.
This same condition is mentioned in the Peter passage as well:
1Pe 2:13 Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 1Pe 2:14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.
Who ultimately decides what is good or bad conduct, if not God Himself? This is not determined by fallen men placed in authority, regardless of how high their station is. Since God is the ultimate Judge and the basis for morality he is the only one who determines what is “good” or “bad (evil) conduct” and these authorities are instituted by Him, it stands to reason they are required to administer justice as God defines it, not as they define it. (This may not address every specific law implemented, but all laws must be in harmony with God’s overall moral law and not contrary to it). It would go contrary to everything taught in scripture for the authorities to be authorized to punish folks for good conduct and reward them for bad conduct. How could a “minister of God” carry out actions contrary to God’s commands and remain God’s loyal minister? Would a righteous, legitimate, God-fearing authority approve of wickedness or condemn righteousness? Would God appoint such a person as His authority? Would God have wrath toward someone practicing righteousness instead of wickedness or approve of judgment or punishment toward someone practicing righteousness instead of wickedness? The answers should be obvious.
Also, it is important to note Paul defines righteous behavior from verse 8 through the rest of chapter 13. In fact, in verses 13:9-10 he refers specifically to some of the 10 commandments of the OT and the 2nd greatest commandment to love others as yourself. Given this is the immediate context on addressing the role of government it leaves no doubt what God means by “good” or “bad” behavior for anyone - particularly any government official who might read this passage looking to justify their authority.
Paul repeats what Christ had already asserted when he states in both Rom 13:8 and 10 that loving one another is fulfilling the law. Is there any doubt this should also be the standard by which governments are to operate? Would not the overarching and guiding principle of good government be to insure doing onto others as you would have them do unto you i.e. punish evildoers and reward those who do good?
Not only are instructions given on how to treat our fellow man in 13 but at the end of chapter 12.
Rom 12:9 Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good.
Rom 12:10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.
Rom 12:11 Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord.
Rom 12:12 Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.
Rom 12:13 Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.
Rom 12:14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them.
Rom 12:15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.
Rom 12:16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight.
Rom 12:17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.
Rom 12:18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.
Rom 12:19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."
Rom 12:20 To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head."
Rom 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Unfortunately, since many chapter divisions made by men separate what God intends to be connected, we can miss the connection. The end of chapter 12 is clearly connected with chapter 13. This may be more obvious now that we consider it, but this is rarely - if ever - acknowledged among those who advocate unconditional obedience to "every" authorities. However, it is very significant that the first part of Romans 13 addressing obeying the authorities is sandwiched between explicit instructions at the end of chapter 12 and the rest of chapter 13 on what makes up “good conduct.” Romans 13:1-2 is surrounded before and behind on how to treat our fellow man as laid out in God's highest law i.e. exactly what good conduct is. In doing so Paul, under the inspiration of God’s Spirit, was deliberately making sure there was no doubt as to the standard by which governing authorities must rule.
It is clear from the immediate context that good or bad conduct is determined by God alone, not government. God doesn't give government Carte Blanche to do whatever they wish and act contrary to His word, and expect us to obey them without question. He is the ultimate authority and they are His ministers accountable to Him to rule as He calls/delegates them to. Ruling according to His commands is the grounds for their authority. How could it be any other way, and how could the authorities be true “ministers of God” otherwise?
Continuing along this same point, verse 3 begins with "For..." This is the word gar in the original and means, “assigning a reason” and can be translated “because” or “therefore.” i.e. the grounds or reason for the validity of the authorities mentioned in the proceeding verses is because or “for” they are a terror to bad conduct, not good. This suggests if they are not such an authority, commands to obey them do not apply. Remember, “…respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. Our obligation is clearly to obey only the authorities that are a terror to bad conduct and a rewarder of good as defined by God, the only one who determines right and wrong, and is the standard of all law and the ground for all morality.
A different point worth mentioning is who does “every” apply to when it says in verse 1, “let every soul be subject…”. Every means every, right? The point is, wouldn't that include those in authority along with the rest of the citizens? Since the moral standard is not set by government but by God, those in government are subject to that same standard just like the rest of us. This is what the founders meant in governing by "rule of law" not men. The founders understood and agree that right and wrong is determined by God not us. Even (and maybe particularly) for those men and women who carry out the administering of that law.
If “every soul” didn't apply to the authorities themselves then what or who would be the authority they are answerable to; themselves? What law would the authorities themselves be subject to if they are the law? Would they not need to be subject to someone outside themselves? Given man's propensity to wander away from God, and towards being self-serving, the answer should be obvious.
It makes no sense they would answer only to themselves, particularly since they are delegated authorities and ministers of God. Then would they answer to their fellow authorities? For one, all men are fallible. It would also make it too easy for one authority to “look the other way” for the sake of a “brother lawmaker" i.e. another elected government official. In fact, isn't this what already goes on today, and why we see so much corruption in prominent places. In either case, no man, whether or not in a ruling position, is above the law; not man’s law and certainly not God’s.
Considering the above points we could legitimately arrange verses 1- 4 as follows:
Rom 13:3a because (gar) rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad (and)... 4a because (gar) he is God's servant for your good... 1 Let every person be subject to the(se) governing authorities. For (gar) there is no (delegated) authority except from God, and those (such authorities) that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists (such) authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist (these authorities) will incur judgment. ... 3b Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4b ...But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For (gar) he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
Here it is again as found in the regular translation.
Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
Note the first arrangement, the phrases within the individual verses are exactly the same; only how the order is different - with some clarifying definitions in parentheses ( ). God inspired Paul to write it in its original Greek form, but Greek does not always translate easily into English. Also, translators are not beyond being influenced by bias or outside pressure or persuasion (the King James was authorized by a political ruler).
A straight word-for-word rendering of Greek to English does not always convey the intent of the original. This is why the Greek - and its grammatical structure - can be helpful. The order can flow differently in Greek, which is why you will see a different rendering of a passage between different translations (the various translations of Rom 8:28 would be a good example of this). I merely offer the above order to help bring some clarity to what is meant in the original Greek and remain true to the original meaning within its context. I recommend you study this passage and make sure my arrangement does so.
We do not need to know Greek, however, to clearly see that the solution to not having a fear of government, but rather being approved by it, is simply by doing good as defined by God, not men. This alone should be clear and a sufficient indication that the government is to rule according to God’s law. If so, what does this say about our obligation to government that rules contrary to God’s law?
Christ addressing "ruling authorities"
In considering Christ, how did Jesus handle the Jewish authorities of His day? Did he always agree with them and blindly submit to them? Did he ever speak out against misuse or abuse of authority? Did he simply ignore the misapplication of Jewish law when he saw it taking place? No! He challenged these leaders frequently. In fact, His most scathing words were for the religious leaders of the Jews, the Scribes and Pharisees. For example, see Matthew chapters 6:1-5,16 chapters 15, and 23, and Joh 8:43,44. Though they were not the ultimate civil authority in their given circumstance (Rome was), these leaders within Israel carried out limited civil oversight and spiritual authority. They had enough influence to persuade Pilot to have Christ crucified.
Christ called these leaders snakes, fools, self-righteous murderers and hypocrites; the blind leading the blind. And these are only some descriptions He gave them. Scathing words considering these were authorities/leaders of his day within Israel. (Might Christ’s scathing rebukes suggest that because of their unique role and influence, leaders should actually be held to an even higher standard?)
So were Christ’s rebukes of Israel's leaders in conflict with Romans 13? Obviously, they could never be as Christ was righteous in all he said and did. If they were not, why not?
The simple explanation of this seeming contradiction is we are to obey the authorities unless:
1. They ask us to directly violate God's simple law taught elsewhere or
2. They are acting in obvious violation of God’s law and truth themselves.
The point is Romans 13 must be interpreted in the context of ALL of scripture. How Christ handled the authorities is something most who take the position of unconditional obedience rarely if ever even bring up, much less discuss. It doesn't even occur to them that Christ does not blindly obey these authorities but in fact, rebuked and chastised them on many occasions when they were in violation of God’s word.
This in eventually resulted in His death - humanly speaking. In truth willingly laid down His. No one took it from Him.
The bottom line is God's word not only within but also outside of the context of Romans 13 gives examples that qualify and even supersede the view of unconditional obedience taught by some within the church today. That is because God is the ultimate authority of all men and to whom all must ultimately give an account, especially those in authority. Because of their unique role and calling as God’s special servants/ ministers of justice, they have even greater accountability to God. Rom 13:4 “…he is God's servant…” and Rom 13:4 “…the (delegated) authorities are ministers of God…” We must ask ourselves when those in authority are disobeying God or asking us to do the same, are they still serving God or have they abdicated their delegation and God’s calling? When we stop to consider it, it would make no sense for God to have qualifications or guidelines for spiritual ministers, yet have none for civil ministers of justice?
In summary of Romans 13, it should be apparent that obeying the authorities does not stand alone in a vacuum. The simple but oft-overlooked fact is their authority is delegated and not absolute. The basis for their authority does not reside within them, it comes only from God and therefore they are particularly responsible to act according to God’s law as His representatives (administers of justice), just as those God has delegated to have oversight as his spiritual representatives, such as pastors and teachers.
If a spiritual minister can be disqualified from his sphere of ministry should not a civil minister be also? If they do not act according to God's law they are acting outside the sphere of their God-given authority; hence the admonition of Paul to give honor to whom honor is due. By their violation of God's requirement, they disqualify themselves by not doing what is needed to elicit due honor just as a spiritual minister would.
Now we will look at other passages to see if the above understanding is just isolated within Romans and Christ's handling of leaders, or is it also supported elsewhere.
Do we find any concrete examples that we are to obey the authorities if we are commanded by them to violate God’s higher authority? Yes we do. Are we to obey them? No, we are not. As Peter said, I must obey God rather than men. Act 4:18-21; Act 5:27-29. These passages are a clear indication if someone in a position of authority asks us to disobey God they are acting like mere men and no longer as God’s representatives and delegates. Our obedience to such is no longer required. Their role of authority is not absolute but conditional. No man is above God's rule/law, especially those who are called to administer it. Ministers of God should be calling out those in government for abandoning God’s standard of righteousness i.e. they should be exposing corruption within government, not cowering from it. The fact that most churches are incorporated as a 501(c)3 corporation, has put them unwittingly under the government's thumb that prohibits churches from speaking into government matters.
So where does this notion of unconditional obedience come from if it’s not supported in scripture, and why is it so prevalent among many in the church? I suggest it is lingering teaching rooted in a fallacious notion that comes from the Roman Church and was picked up by the Anglican Church and not from scripture. The Anglican Church taught “the divine right of Kings” which in essence held that when the King spoke He was speaking “ex-cathedra” or the very words of God Himself, not unlike the view the Roman Church held of the Pope. Before England merged church and state into one authority figure, this was believed only to be true of the Pope. The Anglican Church took it a step further and vested this notion of “ex-cathedra” in the King as well, since he was both head of the church and state. I would suggest that absolute and unconditional rule and authority by the King (or anyone in authority) is not rooted in scripture but from this notion of the Roman Church which saw men as mediators between God and men. (It's worth noting that the King James translation was written under such conditions. If you read it against some newer translations, you can see some subtle differences).
However, absolute and unconditional authority can only lie within God Himself, not fallible man. All men must be measured by the same infallible standard of God’s word. They are not themselves that standard. This whole notion of mankind needing an earthly mediator/representative between himself and God, either spiritually or civilly, is another idea that is a direct contradiction to scripture. Yes men are used in both cases, but they are not God, only the messengers/ administrators sent by God to do God's bidding, not their own.
Delegated authorities in civil matters are not, nor ever were intended to be mediators but rather administrators; God’s servants to administer justice and punish those who violate His law, not spokesmen on behalf of God.
Context is always key
Using Romans 13 to support unconditional obedience, like all other misapplications of scripture, is a classic example of taking a passage out of its immediate and extended context and making it an absolute and isolated standard. To do so you must violate the rest of scripture.
On a separate but related question, when you have an apparent contradiction within the bible, what do you do? How do you determine which is the correct interpretation? Doesn't it make sense to simply determine what is clearly taught within the context of all of scripture and interpret the passages that are unclear or appear to contradict accordingly?
For example, if the government ordered you to commit murder, should you? No one would dispute the Bible clearly teaches we are not to murder. The Hebrew midwives certainly understood this when the Pharaoh (king) of Egypt instructed them to kill the firstborn males of the Hebrew women. Not only did they disobey this command given by the civil authority, God blessed and honored their “disobedience.”
Exo 1:15 Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, Exo 1:16 "When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live." Exo 1:17 But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live. Exo 1:18 So the king of Egypt called the midwives and said to them, "Why have you done this, and let the male children live?"
The bible even goes on to tell us in Heb 11:23 that, “By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents..." Why did his parents hide him? To avoid the godless decree given by Pharaoh to have all the first born male children killed. The hiding of Moses was in direct disobedience to the instructions of Pharaoh, the leading civil authority of Egypt, whose authority Israel was under, yet God called hiding Moses an act of faith and not an act of disobedience to Him, though it certainly was to Pharaoh.
We have another example in the case of Daniel.
Dan 6:7 All the presidents of the kingdom, the prefects and the satraps, the counselors and the governors are agreed that the king should establish an ordinance and enforce an injunction, that whoever makes petition to any god or man for thirty days, except to you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions. 8 Now, O king, establish the injunction and sign the document, so that it cannot be changed, according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, which cannot be revoked." 9 Therefore King Darius signed the document and injunction. 10 When Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he went to his house where he had windows in his upper chamber open toward Jerusalem. He got down on his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he had done previously. 11 Then these men came by agreement and found Daniel making petition and plea before his God. 12 Then they came near and said before the king, concerning the injunction, "O king! Did you not sign an injunction, that anyone who makes petition to any god or man within thirty days except to you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions?" The king answered and said, "The thing stands fast, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be revoked." 13 Then they answered and said before the king, "Daniel, who is one of the exiles from Judah, pays no attention to you, O king, or the injunction you have signed, but makes his petition three times a day."
Not only did Daniel not comply with the Kings ordinance, he took a very open, almost “in your face” posture in his disobedience. Of course, we know the rest of the story. Daniel was thrown in the lion’s den for his disobedience. Yet God delivered him indicating his “disobedience” honored God.
Dan 6:22 My God sent his angel and shut the lions' mouths, and they have not harmed me, because I was found blameless before him; and also before you, O king, I have done no harm."
It is interesting that Daniel did not say he was blameless before Darius as he did regarding God but, that he had not harmed Darius suggesting he clearly understand he acted in disobedience to Darius.
We see a similar act of resistance to the governing authorities in Daniel when Daniel’s three friends refuse to bow down to the image King Nebuchadnezzar set up.
Dan 3:15 Now if you are ready when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, to fall down and worship the image that I have made, well and good. But if you do not worship, you shall immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace. And who is the god who will deliver you out of my hands?" 16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, "O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need (we are not required by God) to answer you in this matter. 17 If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. 18 But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up."
Again we know the outcome. God not only delivered them from this ordeal but was actually present with them in the fire.
Another example is in Esther. Mordecai, the father of Esther, refused to bow and pay homage to Haman, the King’s right-hand man. Haman, finding out that Mordecai was a Jew and filled with fury, went to the king to request all Jews to be destroyed.
Est 3:8 Then Haman said to King Ahasuerus, "There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom. Their laws are different from those of every other people, and they do not keep the king's laws, so that it is not to the king's profit to tolerate them. 9 If it please the king, let it be decreed that they be destroyed, and I will pay 10,000 talents of silver into the hands of those who have charge of the king's business, that they may put it into the king's treasuries." 10 So the king took his signet ring from his hand and gave it to Haman the Agagite, the son of Hammedatha, the enemy of the Jews. 11 And the king said to Haman, "The money is given to you, the people also, to do with them as it seems good to you."
Mordecai, being the father of Esther and also the wife of King Ahasuerus, approached Esther and commanded her to illegally approach the king to address this.
Est 4:8 Mordecai also gave him a copy of the written decree issued in Susa for their destruction, that he might show it to Esther and explain it to her and command her to go to the king to beg his favor and plead with him on behalf of her people.
Est 4:10 Then Esther spoke to Hathach and commanded him to go to Mordecai and say, 4:11 "All the king's servants and the people of the king's provinces know that if any man or woman goes to the king inside the inner court without being called, there is but one law--to be put to death, except the one to whom the king holds out the golden scepter so that he may live. But as for me, I have not been called to come in to the king these thirty days."12 And they told Mordecai what Esther had said. 13 Then Mordecai told them to reply to Esther, "Do not think to yourself that in the king's palace you will escape any more than all the other Jews. 14 For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father's house will perish. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?" 15 Then Esther told them to reply to Mordecai, 16 "Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold a fast on my behalf, and do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my young women will also fast as you do. Then I will go to the king, though it is against the law, and if I perish, I perish."
Esther was willing to suffer the consequences of her “illegal” action. But again, God delivered her and her fellow Jews and had Haman executed. To help understand this we must distinguish between what is lawful and what is “legal.” Laws passed by men may be “legal” but that does not automatically make them lawful i.e. according to God’s true moral law.
What is particularly interesting about all of these passages is they all take place in a political or civil setting.
Now let’s look at a more current historical example. It is apparent God has blessed the founding of America. So how do we handle the American Revolution? In declaring their independence the founders disobeyed the King of England, who was the civil authority over the colonies at that time. Benjamin Franklin clearly understood the implications of their “rebellion” when he said "We must all hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately." So was the manner of America's founding. Was this a violation of Romans 13? You might consider reading the "Declaration of Independence" again as a lesson in understanding how to address tyranny of unrighteous ruling.
Addressing tyrannical government was not just a problem for the founders of this great country but is also increasingly becoming a problem for us and his church in today’s political/legal climate. More then ever we must search and study the scriptures and think long and hard about these things as we find ourselves more and more unable to avoid these very same challenges faced by the Egyptian midwives, Moses's parents, Daniel, his friends, Esther and Peter.
As a practical example now facing the church, due to the “hate crimes” bill passed by Congress in 2008, a pastor can be “legally” locked up for preaching against homosexuality. Most missed this entirely (in part I would suggest, due to a misunderstanding of what it means to "obey the authorities"). Nothing is being done on a large scale yet, but the law is on the books and unless God revisits our nation, the enforcement of this law and the persecution of pastors is now a real possibility over time.
For those who wish to explore the separate but related issue of "render unto Caesar what is Caesars" click here.
When those in government overstep the law, whether the law of the very government they are appointed to uphold or more importantly the law of God, are we to comply? Peter did not think so when asked to disobey God's law in favor of civil law. He was instructed not to preach in the name of Jesus and his reply was "I must obey God rather than man".
In closing, it should be pointed out that if we are civilly disobedient out of obedience to God, we are not necessarily protected from persecution. Peter was flogged for his civil disobedience, Act 5:40. But we should also remember at another time (Act 12:1-19) when Peter was imprisoned for his stand an angel sent from God delivered Peter from prison i.e. God honored Peters stand to honor Christ and His message of good news. And we have already mentioned Daniel, Esther, and others. On the other hand, God may very well protect us and even bless us for obeying him rather than men, as he did the Hebrew midwives in Egypt.
Exo 1:17 But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them… 20 So God dealt well with the midwives… 21 And because the midwives feared God, (as opposed to fearing Pharaoh) he gave them families.
Because of a widespread misunderstanding of the government’s responsibility to God first and then its proper role to us, many Christians have become passive in their attitude and conduct towards the government. We have bought into the lie of “separation of church and state” thinking this means the church is not to speak into the affairs of the state when in fact as the church who is the bearer to God’s standard and word we must point out the basis for righteous government. Separation of church and state meant the state was forbidden to speak into the affairs of the church, not the other way around. The church is ruled only by Christ the King, not the state no matter what form it takes. To the extent the state is obedient to the laws of God, we must obey it. But what is often not considered is equally true; the extent to which government is in violation of God’s law we must resist it and not only hold it accountable to God’s law but speak out when it violates it. If the church had continued on this course (which it abandoned by submitting to a 501(c)3 non-profit corporate status for tax benefits - might this be similar to giving up our birthright for a bowl of lentil soup?) we may not be in the current condition we now find ourselves in as a nation. This does not mean we can dictate directly to the government how it should conduct itself but it does mean we should faithfully preach God's word to the people of God when government act's in violation of it. Unfortunately, this no longer happens in great part because of a misapplication of Roms 13 and abandoning Gods' rightful authority over the church and abdicating that authority to the state via incorporation under the 503(c) ruling.
For a further discussion of the issues around 503(c)3 incorporation click here.
In truth, isn’t it the responsibility of all Christians to speak out about unrighteousness wherever it exists, whether within or without government? Not in an obnoxious way, but with wisdom and grace. To do so is not in violation of God’s command to submit to righteous government i.e. to obey the authorities. In fact, isn't this just the opposite by upholding God’s commands and advancing God’s kingdom on earth?
Because of a misunderstanding of what is taught in Romans 13 we often submit to unjust laws or illegitimate government believing we are commanded to when in fact we should not only resist unrighteous government but seek to hold it accountable. Again as Jefferson rightfully pointed out, “resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.” In great part, the reason government goes unchecked today is that so called Christians leaders have misapplied “obeying the authorities” and misunderstood their proper relationship to it and their responsibility to not obey governments when they do not operate as God intends; according to His commands.
¹"higher" or "governing"- huperechō. Thayer Definition: 2b) to excel, to be superior, better than, to surpass.
Used a total of five times in the New Testament and translated "governing" in many translations and "authority" in 1 Peter 2:13 but also translated "surpassing" in Philippians 3:8 and "surpasses" in Philippians 4:7
²This is where you have to distinguish between legal and lawful. There are many laws on the book that are considered legal that are not lawful - i.e. such as abortion or a same-sex marriage. While a same-sex marriage might be "legal" via a marriage license it is not according to God's design i.e. not lawful. This is only one reason to give us pause to reconsider the value and necessity of a marriage license since God defines marriage not the state. A very significant lawful covenant is being minimized by using it to justify unlawful conduct i.e. same sex marriage.. Therefore things that are unlawful are justified because they are "legal."
May God grant us the grace and strength to fear and obey Him instead of man as the world around us becomes more lawless.
See the following related articles:
Render unto Caesar
