Romans 13 and Jefferson's "Resistance of Tyranny"

[darinhouston]

I understand Jefferson has a famous quote suggesting that Resistance or Rebellion to Tyranny is Obedience to God. I've heard Christian resistance movements say the same thing.

I've been listening to Steve's treatment of Ephesians 6 (specifically "armor of God" passages) -- how do people try and square this with Romans 13 ?

[backwoodsman]

Romans 13:3 - "For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Do you desire to have no fear of the authority? Do that which is good, and you will have praise from the same, (4) for he is a servant of God to you for good."

When that can no longer be said of a government, that government is no longer operating within the authority God has given it, so is no longer a "higher authority" to which we're commanded to be in subjection. Of course it's still wise to choose to submit in matters that don't violate conscience; not doing so can make it much more difficult to lead a quiet, peaceable, godly life. But I think we need to be careful about judging too harshly other believers who choose a different course for reasons of conscience.

[Candlepower]

I understand Jefferson has a famous quote suggesting that Resistance or Rebellion to Tyranny is Obedience to God. I've heard Christian resistance movements say the same thing.

Perhaps this is what you're looking for, Darin. It is engraved along the inner perimeter of the dome above the Jefferson Memorial in DC. Jefferson stated:

I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

Man's kingdoms are typically (more or less) tyrannical. When Peter said he must obey God rather than man, he clearly identified the hostility that inherently exists (more or less) between the kingdoms of man and the Kingdom of God. That hostility will cease when “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ...." (Revelation 11:15).

So, I have no criticism of Jefferson's sentiment, here.

[darinhouston]

From an ongoing Facebook chat (re: veterans storming memorials and removing barricades etc.) ...

Darin
What of Romans 13?

David
http://romans13.embassyofheaven.com/unlocked.php Embassy of Heaven - Romans 13 Unlocked

Darin
If I find the time I may address that but I think it's a terribly contrived exegesis.

David
Well, Darin, if you think that God tells us that we should submit to all governments, then that pretty much rules out your support for the American Revolution, doesn't it?

Darin
In a way, perhaps yes.

Darin
Of course, support is different than involvement. God uses the world (and powers and principalities in particular) for his purposes. He often judges nations by use of invading armies and such. That can be a good thing and accomplish his purposes without it being equally true that his people should be the agents of resistance and revolution. Jefferson thought so. Paul - perhaps not.

Darin
I'm glad Rosa Parks sat in the bus. It may even have been God's purpose that she do so. However, I think a Christian's duty is otherwise.

David
Well, we just disagree. I don't believe Paul was referring to evil governments as a higher power.

Darin
I don't think "higher powers" as we use that term today is a very good translation. If you don't like Romans, how about 1 Peter 2? Many others.

Darin
There's much more but this snippet sure shows the context Paul has in mind. "18 Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are perverse."

David
Not at all. At that point, Paul is not talking about government. Slaves is another word for employer. He is talking about our witness; not about allowing ourselves to be abused by those who are supposed to protect us.

Darin
Huh?! I think you mean "employee." Yes, it has a much broader semantic range than today's notion of Atlantic Slavery, and sure there's a point to which it would INCLUDE the modern day notion of employee, but to read such a restrictive meaning into a 1st century understanding of the term belies a pretty strong bias. I don't care if it's slave or servant or employee or whatever -- it carries the connotation of being "subject" to another in authority -- even one that is "wicked." Within that context (and many other places in Scripture) along with the 1st Century reality of "employment" (to use your definition) it assumes one has no (or little) choice in being subject to the authority (can't simply tender one's resignation and move to another employer). The point is (in this and many other scriptures) -- if you are under an authority (for better or worse) a Christian must not resist that authority. Of course, this is balanced against examples such as with Daniel and Shadrach et al. to resist any authority that would require us to do something strictly against God's precepts but even then to do so within the system as able and to endure consequences, trusting God to protect us or help us endure if they are dire. Doing that is fraught with challenges to keep our personal perceptions and values in one hand and God's clear and unequivocal moral teachings in the other (like being told not to pray). We are sojourners -- strangers in a strange land - ambassadors of the Kingdom of God -- I think we must honor the rules of our host nation or leave. I don't like it either. But, if we want to follow the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, I can't see it any other way.

David
Darin, you are focusing on one tree in the forest. If we agree that God does not contradict Himself, then His Word will not contradict Him either.

"Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."

You are trying to make the case that God tells us to submit to anyone in authority over us, no matter how perverse. If what you are saying is true, then the American Revolution was a great big sin. Sorry - you're just not going to convince me that is the case.


Darin
It's a pretty recurring theme (you might even say it's the forest) -- the Jews were looking for someone to lead a political/national revolt/revolution in Christ -- but his message was almost exactly the opposite in almost every way. I think our nationalism can blind us if we're not careful.

The AR itself is complex and a difficult question -- the colonists (many of whom were devout) justified it a number of ways. Some (like Wesley) did not agree -- I've been reading some of their sermons and justifications -- I don't agree with almost any of them with perhaps one exception. One argument was that it was not direct defiance, but self defense. They had listed their grievances and been met with assault -- in the Boston Massacre, for example, the British attacked helpless civilians. At Lexington, orders were to only fire if fired upon.

David
So you believe that God only supports revolutions against governments once the people have been attacked, or not at all?October 13 at 10:59pm via mobile · Like

..Darin While he may support (or even encourage/ensure) the rebellion, that doesn't mean he wants his people doing so. He often (almost always) uses the heathen to judge the unrighteous.October 13 at 11:20pm via mobile · Like

..David
Well, I think this is a much more involved discussion than what we can navigate here on facebook. That said, I do think it is not as complicated as you are making it. I also think that you are erroneous in much of your reasoning. God gave land to His chosen people that He then told them to go and take. This was a fulfillment of a promise to His people, as well as a judgment on those whose lands were taken.

I believe God blessed the AR because they were on His side. He blessed this country because, at our founding, we were most decidedly a Christian nation (see 1892, Holy Trinity Church v. US, USSC). And I believe that, now that we have almost officially renounced Him, a revolution that sought to restore the America that was founded would be one He would support.

Where I will agree with you, in a way, is that I do not think that even those who might revolt would necessarily conduct a Christ-centered revolution. It would really be more as an act of rebellion with a conflict of causes. It would take miracles, such as the many that occurred during the AR, to truly get us back to the Christian ideals that formed this nation to begin with.

.Darin
I think it's only complicated at the margins but we should avoid margins where possible in living out Scripture. It probably is too complex for FB at the margins, however.October 14 at 12:11am via mobile · Like.

.Benjamin
This government is trying to rip GOD out of this land left and right.... I will NOT SUPPORT a government who is trying to remove GOD from it!

In my heart, and of my own free will, I believe that Obama is against God and the actions he has been takingleft and right are so against God and hurting our fellow mankind, and to me that is reason enough to not accept this government's actions, as they are not of God.

Call me whatever you like, in my heart, I believe that the government is going down the wrong path big time, and until they look back to GOD, this country will only go downhill.

..David
Darin, you say "complicated at the margins..."

Then let's stay well within the margins. God's Word is clear that even pagans know to take care of their families and love those who love them. God acknowledges that duty - He does not renounce it. He simply reminds us that we are called - relationally - to act in love towards even our enemies. In no way does that mean we are to submit to godless, repressive governments who trample our rights. Throughout history, even in the Bible, we see example after example of kings who went too far, and whose people acted against him. There is nary a word of rebuke for this. In fact, God pretty much warns those in authority that this is what will happen when that authority is abused.

The simple fact is that true love acts to protect and defend against repression. That is very much within the margins.

..David
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...
Bible Gateway passage: 1 Samuel 15:14-35 - New International Version
http://www.biblegateway.com
But Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this l...owing of cattle that I hear?” Saul answered, “The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the LORD your God, but we totally destroyed the rest.” “Enough!” ...

..Darin
I didn't realize Samuel was a Christian. Seriously, though, that is completely outside the margins of this point. In that case God was using his people to punish ANOTHER people (they weren't under the authority of the Amelikites) for their wicked deeds against Him. In fact, they weren't even liberating those people (again, another different issue) and Samuel was even rebuked for failing to so so completely. This is a good example where God rebuked Samuel for following his own judgment in the matter against the plain and explicitly instructions. Unless we have direct revelation through a prophet to do so, this is a bad example even of a more generalized war ethic. Turning back to the issue at hand, In regards one's own oppression, consider possibly the most oppressed people in Scripture - did the Israelites rise up against Pharoah? Did they act in civil disobedience and strike against their harsh treatment? Did Moses lead a revolt? Did they even leave their oppression? No. God Himself executed His judgment on Pharoah and his people to hear their grievances and LET them go. The Amelekites were God's enemies. Even proverbs (25/21-22) tells us how to deal with one's own enemies. God Himself will avenge His own people.

..David
Darin, regardless of whom God was using, He would not cause someone to do something that went against His own standards of behavior. You are saying God would not use Christians to carry out a punishment against another people?October 14 at 9:22am · Like

..Darin
If I said that (and I don't think I did) then I went too far. That doesn't in any way negate the main point -- and (as a side note) though God doesn't necessarily cause people to do things against His own standards, He certainly uses their own predilections to do so for His own purposes and turns their ill motives to His advantage. (another completely separate and complex issue).October 14 at 9:32am · Like

..David
We largely agree then. Let's use a specific example. William Wallace fought for the freedom of Scotland to get out from under British tyranny, and he was a Christian. Was his fight for independence Biblically just?October 14 at 9:35am · Like

..Darin
I don't know the history that well, but it sounds much like the same situation as the AR. A more appropriate (and less marginal and complex) specific example might be whether Chrisians should participate in and/or encourage or rejoice when people break the law in rebellion towards an ordinance established by a legitimate legal authority (regardless of whether we think the ordinance is legitimate or wise).October 14 at 10:32am ·

..Darin
Such as storming a public space to remove barricades placed there by their governing authority.October 14 at 10:33am · Like

..David
Well, that is the question, isn't it? Is it a legitimate authority to spend money during a government shutdown to keep citizens from a public land where they have a right to be?October 14 at 10:34am · Like · 1

..David
I am inclined to agree with the wise founder who once said that "a little rebellion every once in awhile is a good and necessary thing" - paraphrased, of course. Is the president a legitimate authority? Absolutely. Does he have limits on his authority set by our Constitution? Absolutely. Standing against tyranny is absolutely the right thing to do, from any perspective.October 14 at 10:36am · Like · 1

..Darin That's the mantra, for sure. I just think the Chritian is called to a different reaction. I don't think these acts of civil disobedience are the sort of things one might consider "Tyranny," so that extreme question is unnecessary here -- this sort of thing is almost certainly within the clear teaching of Scripure and the Christian's response is pretty unequivocal in this sort of scenario.October 14 at 10:39am · Like

..Darin Jumping to the extreme clouds the simple and straightforward.October 14 at 10:40am · Like

..David
Darin, I think the Christian reaction depends on who God puts in any given situation. He designs us with a different bend to us. A Christian is called to do just as what is prescribed in Micah 6:8 - Do justly, love mercy, walk humbly with God. You can approach different Christians with the same problem and get different reactions, and they can all be right, with none being "wrong." One may deliver God's justice; another God's grace, and another God's mercy. It is foolish to expect the same cookie-cutter response from all Christians. There are Christian warriors, and there are Christian nurturers. For everyone, there does reach a point where the time for talking concludes in either harm to themselves or harm to the oppressor. The Bible is clear in this regard - whatever you do, do as unto the Lord.

..David
That is, by the way, what I believe to be a large part of the miracle of the cross - where justice, grace, mercy and love all met together to save man, if he will only choose to accept that gift.October 14 at 10:48am · Like

..Darin And follow His commands -- not least of which is pretty clear -- to submit to authority. Because all acts of defiance lead to a diminishing of His authority in the world. And He saved man by surrendering to authority and letting them kill Him.October 14 at 10:50am · Like

..David
Darin, that is a really big stretch. To confuse the mission of Christ with what we as Christians are supposed to expect from our government... wow. Christ submitted to the governing authority to fulfill the will of the Father, that we may be reconciledto the Father through Him.
Are you now claiming that every Christian is supposed to surrender to evil authority?

..Darin
The mission of Christ was manifold -- yes, it did include how we are supposed to respond to government (among many other things) -- this is attested by His apostles (including Paul) who were appointed to speak on His behalf about what His mission was all about and what it means for those who wish to follow Him.

You paint with too broad a brush (purposefully no doubt), but generally speaking -- yes -- we are supposed to surrender to (I might prefer to say as Paul did to submit to or be subject to) even authorities that are evil (I might prefer to say as Paul did perverse, wicked, or unfair). Sure, there are limits (such as when a government prevents the exercise of God-prescribed duties or requires God-proscribed acts), but I think that's a pretty small (and pretty obvious) universe.

You said: "That authority is not of God! Read the book of Acts. Your notions are thoroughly refuted."

You'll have to be more specific.

..David
The governments that God establishes come in all shapes and sizes: monarchies and democracies, cruel tyrannies and free republics. But regardless of the form of government or how it came to power, God calls us to obey our government (provided that it does not require us to sin—Acts 5:29) precisely because he has appointed it as his “minister” for our good.

When the apostle Peter exhorts the church to “be subject for the Lord’s sake” to every level of civil government, he specifically notes how God calls government to serve us. It exists “to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” (1 Pet. 2:14). The apostle Paul identifies these same goods in Romans 13. The first and most obvious purpose for which God has mercifully established government in a fallen world is “to restrain the rapacious tendencies of sinful human beings” (Left, Right and Christ , p. 59). Without it, to borrow the eloquence of Thomas Hobbes, life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”But the second half of Peter’s statement is often neglected, especially by Christian libertarians. Political society is not an alliance for the maximization of self-interest by autonomous human beings. It is a moral relationship. Because God is a Trinitarian community of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, eternally communing with one another in love, we who are made in his image are made for community with one another. For this reason, the political life we share is natural and moral, not simply a useful human convention. As the Godhead is a community of love (so John tells us that “God is love,” 1 John 4:16), so too God calls our political communities to reflect his moral character in bonds of love...

if it were government’s responsibility, even in part, to do the good deeds of society, people would gradually surrender more and more private responsibility to it.… Where it ends is not the sort of noble liberty that God intends for his image-bearing vice-regents [I Tim. 2:2]. At best, you get the control of well-meaning masters over grateful slaves, or some kind of happy human zoo. At worst, and more likely, you get the totalitarian rule of a self-serving administrative class over a docile people who have entirely forgotten how to provide for themselves...

David
God gave us government to secure us in the liberty to serve him and one another (1 Tim. 2:2). Jesus summarizes the whole of God’s law, and thus all of life, with the word “love.” The work of Christ frees us to love, but the work of expansive, do-everything government attempts to make love unnecessary. It makes us incrementally less inclined to love and even drains us of the means to love. For this reason also, godly government is limited government.Everything is good when we use it according to the Creator’s purposes—no more and no less. Government, especially the civic life of a free people, is good. It preserves us in liberty and defends our morality, and through it we order our corporate life. It is the Christian’s calling and privilege to inform this governing work with the good Creator’s mind.

Source: http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=734
New Horizons http://www.opc.org
Judging by the low voter turnout in American elections—even in a presidential el...ection year—some people just aren’t that into politics. But for a Christian, politics is not a choice; it’s an obligation, even if it is not always a passion. Obviously, in the absence of Godly and moral values, there can sometimes be abuses of authority and perversions in government. Such was the case when Peter and John were forbidden to preach the Gospel by the Jewish Sanhedrin. They replied, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge” (Acts 4:19). The only circumstance that disobedience to authority is justifiable by scripture, is if it conflicts with the laws of God. Authority should be cooperated with except in those situations where laws depart from the basic moral and righteous principles of God’s Word.

Source: http://www.victorious.org/authorty.htm
Authority: What Christians Should Know
http://www.victorious.org
An article by Rev. Dale A. Robbins, that explains the concept of authority from a Biblical perspective..October 14 at 10:24pm via mobile · Like

..David
The specific example you requested...

...the book of Acts records the civil disobedience of Peter and John towards the authorities that were in power at the time. After Peter healed a man born lame, Peter and John were arrested for preaching about Jesus and put in jail. The religious authorities were determined to stop them from teaching about Jesus; however, Peter said, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19–20). Later, the rulers confronted the apostles again and reminded them of their command to not teach about Jesus, but Peter responded, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

..David
Now, you may argue that the veterans at the WWII Memorial were not healing the sick, or even preaching the Gospel. Fair enough, but at the same time, that is semantics. Our righteousness is as filthy rags to Him. Going to a memorial to honor the sacrifice of those who fought for God and country is not an activity a government should seek to molest. In response? They did not damage property. They removed the Barry-cades, and laid them on the ground next to the White House. It was an appropriate response of civil - and even Christian - disobedience.

..Darin
I agree with everything except your last post (and fail to see how you might think they in any way negate my position). It's not just semantics. That's precisely the point. Whether a government SHOULD seek to molest such an activity isn't the test. I strongly disagree that it was an appropriate response. That's my original point.October 14 at 10:59pm via mobile · Like

..Darin
Tell me how temporarily barricading a government provided memorial in ANY way can be seen as CONFLICTING with the laws of God. Is anyone required by God to visit the memorials?October 14 at 11:05pm via mobile · Like

..Darin
This was a simple act of rebellion. No more, no less. It was perhaps a reasonable response, but not a Christian one.October 14 at 11:06pm via mobile · Like

..David
Well, that is your opinion, Darin. The guiding principles are laid out for you in Scripture. I understand that you think that God must first command the people to be there before they have rights as Christians upon which they can act.

I am afraid youhave a huge mountain to climb there, and just stomping your foot and saying it is so is not going to make it that way.

Your interpretation of Scripture ultimately impales itself. That is how I know it is erroneous. I have provided several examples of verse and event from the Bible. All you have is one very narrow interpretation of one passage of Scripture, which proves contradictatory when held up to the other Scriptural evidence.

In all fairness, you do not even properly define rebellion, as opposed to an act of civil disobedience. The people purposely took down the illegal / unlawful barry-cades. They then left the individual pieces neatly stacked in front of the White House. They then went about their way, enjoying the rights they would have otherwise been denied.

There were no riots. No deaths. No injuries. No damaged property. That is some rebellion. Sure to go down in the history books as an atrocious act of Christian barbarism...

..David
What exactly is the dog you have in this fight, anyway? What is your mission in this thread?October 15 at 12:34am via mobile · Like

..David
I mean, don't get me wrong - I am always up for sharpening wits and reason, but you seem to be really clinging to this for some greater purpose. Am I wrong?October 15 at 12:36am via mobile · Like

..David
To answer your most concise question, the barry-cades conflict with God because, as the material I posted earlier clearly illustrates, our nation and its laws were founded upon the Biblical notion that God institutes governments among man to protect his liberties, not to deny them. The vets had traveled for many miles on special privilege to visit the memorials which were purposely obstructed by an administration seeking to inflict a level of pain to make a political point. The administration actually spent money to close a facility that never would have been closed otherwise, and in reality, belongs to us to begin with.

Now, tell me on what authority you state that the response of the men and women who were acting on their faith, believing rightly that they were defying an administration that has engaged in several acts of tyranny, was not one fully borne of their Christian conviction and in obedience to God?

Would you have said the same thing of the Boston Tea Party? Because the two incidents are very similar...October 15 at 12:48am via mobile · Like

..Darin
Not ignoring you -- in the middle of a "deal" and it's board week here, so work once again has overtaken my interstitial life interests. I do intend to respond.22 minutes ago · Like..

[dwilkins]

Since the enemies of the Christians at the time of the writing of Romans were Jews, the Romans had been chosen as the instrument of God's wrath to impose his wrath against the Jews as happened in the 66-70AD war, and the wrath was expected by Paul and the other NT writers to occur in their generation, I think it is probably a bad idea to universalize this piece of advice to refer to submission to all governments in all circumstances.

Doug

[thrombomodulin]

Darin, is it reasonable to propose that romans 13 is not granting authority for any man to operate or establish an earthly government, but rather it merely specifies how christians ought to respond when some men seek to rule over and expropriate them? I see chapter 13 as a continuation of the idea of 12:14ff. If one denies this proposition, then it seems to my mind to lead to irreconcilable contradictions regarding law, jurisdiction and identification of whom the ruler(s) are.

[darinhouston]

Darin, is it reasonable to propose that romans 13 is not granting authority for any man to operate or establish an earthly government, but rather it merely specifies how christians ought to respond when some men seek to rule over and expropriate them? I see chapter 13 as a continuation of the idea of 12:14ff. If one denies this proposition, then it seems to my mind to lead to irreconcilable contradictions regarding law, jurisdiction and identification of whom the ruler(s) are.

I think I absolutely agree. (BTW, I'm pasting a continuation of my facebook dialogue with my friend in the message above)

[SteveF]

I see chapter 13 as a continuation of the idea of 12:14ff.

I actually see chapter 13 more as a continuation of the thought in chapter 12:19

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." [/b
]
Then in chapter 13

b]Rom 13:4 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.

[schoel]

Another possible interpretation of Romans 13:

What if Paul is purposely being vague and subversive, similar to Jesus answer about paying Roman taxes?

Jesus' response,

Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's

...was meant to convey ambiguity to the surface level listener. The statement allows a listener to hear what they want and apply their own ideas to the statement. However, if a listener was familiar with the other statements of Jesus other teachings, they would recognize the subtle, subversive reality that Caesar actually owns nothing and God everything.

Consider when Paul says

Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor

...he is begging a similar question as Jesus; namely "What rightful claim does someone have on what they demand from me?"

[SteveF]

Darin, I was wondering how your friend feels about America making use of French money and troops during the Revolution. The French were not “freedom lovers” at the time. They were, at the time, run by a tyrannical monarchy in the truest sense of the term.

In order for the French to back America, Americans had to agree to make it a battle for independence. The French monarchy didn’t insist on this because they loved freedom but because they wanted to hurt their arch rival Britain.

This seems like an unprincipled coalition to me.

I’ve heard that only about 1/3 of Americans at the dawn of the Revolution supported it. About 1/3 thought it was wrong, including Benjamin Franklin’s own son whom he never spoke with again after the war. Many dissenters literally had to flee for their lives. The remaining third were undecided.