Subject to the Government - Part 3

We are finishing up an examination of Romans 13:1-4. We looked at whether or not it made sense that all authority comes from God. I showed how it is true that throughout Scripture God ordained governments and it is on His authority and His authority alone that they operate. Thus, it is to His authority that we submit when we submit to governments. Then we examined what we're supposed to do about bad governments. I offered biblical examples of people in situations of bad governments who were right for not submitting. I suggested we should be subject to the governing authorities as long as the governing authorities are not requiring a direct contradiction to God's authority. In that, we still pay respect to whom respect is due and honor to whom honor is due.

Finally we need to try to make sense of the claim that "rulers are not a terror to good conduct."

I think we can agree that good governments are not an enemy to good behavior. I think we could even agree that bad governments limit bad behavior. While perpetrating bad behavior themselves, bad governments try to prevent crime as a matter of course. Under the most severe communist regimes crimes like murder, robbery, and rape were almost nonexistent because no society can last long if these types of crime are rampant. To the extent that the government established by God's authority submits to God's authority, it is absolutely true that governments are not the enemy of good behavior. Thus, stated as an ideal, the statement is true.

Since, at the beginning, I suggested that we don't take verse 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." -- in a absolute, blind sense, I would suggest the same is true in this last question. Is it absolutely, always true that "rulers are not a terror to good conduct" (Rom 13:3)? No. Is it generally true? Yes. Is it true of rulers who operate within the authority of God? Absolutely. Thus, I would argue that in a practical sense the statement is true and doesn't cause a real problem if the reader approaches it from a practical viewpoint.

The question remains, then, what about those rulers that do constitute a threat to good? Rumbling around as our prime example might be the American Revolution. Did that violate Romans 13:1-4? Many genuine, Bible-believing Christians hold that the Revolution was a violation of this text. Interestingly, however, many genuine, Bible-believing Christians hold that it is not. Some on the former side argue that the colonists simply ignored or misinterpreted Scripture. However, Rev. Jacob Duché, a supporter of the British, argued from the Bible in favor of the American position using Romans 13:1-4. When the British government became a terror to good, he argued, they inverted the entire purpose of government. The early Founding Fathers generally agreed with Romans 13:1-4 but viewed it in the sense that God established government as an entity as opposed to each and every government individually. Thus, it would be wrong to discard government and live in anarchy, but it was right to defend yourself against a government that defied God's authority. They believed they were not in rebellion against government, just against tyranny. Theirs wasn't an offensive war; it was defensive. The Americans didn't fire the first shots. Great Britain had attacked the colonies in 1770, 1774, and 1775. The Lexington Minutemen were commanded, "Don't fire unless fired upon." Francis Hopkinson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, argued that America was not in rebellion. Rebellion, he said, was "when a great number of people, headed by one or more factious leaders, aim at deposing their lawful prince without any just cause of complaint in order to place another on his throne." That was not what they were doing.

As for me, I don't land there. Throughout biblical history I don't see any people of God who sought to overthrow their government, regardless of how bad it was. On the other hand, I see multiple places where Scripture explicitly states that bad rulers were used by God to produce good results. Jesus was under pagan leadership and didn't seek its overthrow. Paul under Nero never asked believers to end his reign. The disciples under the Sanhedrin never worked to eliminate them. I don't find any examples in Scripture of Revolution. On the other hand, I can see the possibility that others have valid, biblical reasons to defend it. Thus, while I remain over on the "nay" side, I don't find myself in any serious conflict with the "yea" side. I just can't go there myself.

One question I have to those who argue for revolution under specific circumstances. What circumstances? What is lacking currently of those circumstances that would, in your minds, necessitate that revolution? (Okay, that was two questions, but you have to admit they were interlinked, right?)