Jan
24
Obey God Rather Than Men
Preface: This article is not a reaction to any specific current event, though it is relevant to the general state of affairs in the U.S. and elsewhere. I have also seen instances recently of people quoting or pointing to Romans 13 in Facebook posts and articles.
I would like to present three arguments that the idea of unlimited obedience to the civil government is not taught in Romans 13 or in the Bible as a whole. That may surprise you, since Romans 13:1-5 is probably the most popular passage used by many well-meaning Christians who teach that the Bible does command this. Bear with me, though, and you may be surprised…
First, nowhere in the Bible does is directly say that we are to give unlimited obedience to the civil government — nowhere. Not even in Romans 13. Let’s look at it:
“1 Everyone must submit to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are instituted by God. 2 So then, the one who resists the authority is opposing God’s command, and those who oppose it will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have its approval. 4 For government is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, because it does not carry the sword for no reason. For government is God’s servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong. 5 Therefore, you must submit, not only because of wrath, but also because of your conscience.” (HCSB)
The text clearly says we are to be subject to the governing authorities and that governments are established by God. But, unlimited obedience? No. That bit is assumed and imposed upon the text, possibly due to tradition. In fact, there is not one scripture anywhere in all the Bible that demands or instructs unlimited obedience to the civil government. At best, it is a good rule of thumb, but it assumes that said government is indeed instituting good laws and working in the best interests of the people. (More on this later.)
Second, I would argue that good hermeneutics does not lead to the “unlimited obedience” conclusion. By “good hermeneutics” I refer in particular to the rule that a verse or passage not be read in isolation. As Greg Koukl likes to say (and I have repeated), “Never read a Bible verse.” Rather, always read enough of preceding and subsequent verses to get an idea of the people, circumstances, and topic in question. For a larger subject like this one, we need to examine other passages in Scripture that may shed more light on it. Remember, “Scripture interprets Scripture.”
So, on the topic of civil disobedience, let’s do that:
1) Exodus 1: Pharaoh commanded the Hebrew midwives to kill the newborn Hebrew males. The midwives knew this was wrong and, because they “feared God”, they didn’t do it. God blessed them for this.
2) Hebrews 11: When Moses was born, his parents secretly raised him for three months. They “didn’t fear the king’s edict” (see #1) and had faith in God.
3) Daniel 6: At the urging of Daniel’s enemies, King Darius issued an irrevocable decree that no one could pray to anyone but Darius himself. When Daniel found out, he went ahead and prayed to Yahweh, anyway. He didn’t hide it, either. Just did what God expected of Him and trusted in God.
4) II Cor. 11: Paul tells of the time he was in Damascus, and the governor gave orders to have him arrested. Rather than submit, he “was let down in a basket through a window in the wall and escaped his hands.”
5) Acts 4-5: The apostles were arrested and told by the authorities in Jerusalem to stop preaching about and in the name of Jesus. They did it anyway. The apostles were arrested again, escaped miraculously, and were brought back in (more civilly, this time) before the Council. As per 5:29, “But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men.'” The apostles were flogged and, before being released, once again told not to speak in the name of Jesus. But, according to 5:42, “every day, in the temple and from house to house, they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.”
If the assertion is true that God’s people are always to obey the laws and orders of the State, these passages (and others) stand in complete contradiction. On the contrary, if a law is enacted by the State that contravenes the law or Word of God — either by commanding something God forbids or forbidding something God commands –, God’s people are to obey God rather than the State.
Third, Romans 13 itself contains limitation clauses which restrict the authority and function of the civil government, thereby making it clear that our obedience to the State is not to be unlimited. Advocates of unlimited obedience typically focus on verses 1, 2, and 5, then infer from the text that we are always to obey in everything. Problem with that is, by glossing over verses 3 and 4, they miss important, conditional language. (Scroll up above and read them again. I’ll wait…)
Those with governmental authority — from city clerks and policemen to legislators, judges/justices, and chief executives — are to reward those who do good and punish those who do evil. But, what if they begin to punish those who do good and reward those who do evil? What if they make laws that reward doers of evil and laws that punish doers of good? Should they still be obeyed? Scriptures are clear, the answer is “No”.
The Sovereign God (i.e., Yahweh, the God of the Bible) puts whoever He will into positions of authority. Governmental authority is delegated authority and as such should reflect the values and will of the one or One doing the delegating. They are to therefore govern according to God’s rule. In the home, if a father makes an unjust or immoral rule, those under his jurisdiction are not bound to obey. In the church, if an “officer” of the church governs unjustly, s/he should also be disobeyed on that matter. Most would agree on these two points, despite there being no limitations clauses in Col. 3:20 or Heb. 13:17. So, why should we think that the State should be allowed to do virtually anything and expect blind obedience?
I’ll say it again… Romans 13 is clear that the civil magistrate is to mirror the justice and law of God on the earth. They are to reward those who do good and punish those who do evil. They are to execute wrath on those who practice evil. Therefore, when the magistrate makes or advocates law that is contrary to the law of God, the Christian has the duty to resist and oppose such law and to obey God rather than men. What isn’t always as clear, however, is when, what, and how such resistance/opposition should be accomplished.
When we are living biblically consistent lives, Christians are the best citizens. We subject ourselves to the governing authorities and obey them in all points of civil law except in those points where they clearly conflict with the law and Word of God. Even when we disobey an unjust or immoral law, we benefit the ruler and the people of the nation as a whole. We benefit the authorities by forcing them to confront their rebellion against God, and we benefit the people by acting as a check against tyranny — hopefully, one that others will support and follow.
It has been the history of the Church for Christians to suffer at the hands of the State due to our disobedience of their unjust or immoral laws or decrees. But, sometimes it has to be done. Such is our Christian duty. May we stand true to Christ and to the law and Word of God.
[This post has been adapted primarily from an article by Pastor Matthew Trewhella (also appendix A in his book) titled, “An Examination of Romans 13”. You may find the full article here.]
