Civil Disobedience in Light of
Romans 13:1-7
by
Greg Loren Durand
Martin Luther’s Courageous Stand Against Tyranny at the Diet of
Worms
Romans 13:1-7, “Let every
soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but
of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever
therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and
they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers
are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then
not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt
have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for
good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth
not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger
to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs
be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For
for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers,
attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to
all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom
custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”
The popular interpretation of the above passage is as follows:
Paul declared that all rulers have derived their authority from
God. Therefore, to resist any law of the ruler is to resist the
will and command of God. In such an interpretation, civil
disobedience is rarely, if ever, an option for the Christian, who
is to willingly submit to the dictates of rulers as if submitting
directly to God’s commands.
This interpretation lacks both historical and exegetical support.
In fact, the entire basis of the Reformation was that of
disobedience to the “governing authorities” of Rome—the Pope and
the Emperor, who both demanded submission to the Roman Catholic
church as the religious and political establishment of God’s
Kingdom on earth. When it was demanded of Martin Luther at
the Diet of Worms to recant of his opposition to papal authority,
his only response was as follows:
Unless I am refuted and convicted by testimonies of the
Scriptures or by clear arguments... I am conquered by the Holy
Scriptures quoted by me, and my conscience is bound in the word of
God: I can not and will not recant any thing, since it is unsafe
and dangerous to do any thing against the conscience. Here I
stand. God help me! Amen. (1)
Luther’s courageous stand against tyranny literally set off the
spark which would eventually ignite the Protestant Reformation.
As stated by Church historian, Philip Schaff:
Luther’s testimony before the Diet is an event of
world-historical importance and far-reaching effect. It opened an
intellectual conflict which is still going on in the civilized
world. He stood there as the fearless champion of the supremacy
of the word of God over the traditions of men, and of the liberty
of conscience over the tyranny of authority....
When tradition becomes a wall against freedom, when authority
degenerates into tyranny, the very blessing is turned into a
curse, and history is threatened with stagnation and death. At
such rare junctures, Providence raises those pioneers of progress,
who have the intellectual and moral courage to break through the
restraints at the risk of their lives, and to open new paths for
the onward march of history.... Conscience is the voice of God in
man. It is his most sacred possession. No power can be allowed
to stand between the gift and the giver. Even an erring
conscience must be respected, and cannot be forced. (2)
The Historic Reformed
Interpretation of Romans 13:1-7
This principle of the primacy of the Scripture-bound conscience
over human tradition, whether it be magisterial or ecclesiastical,
resounds throughout the writings of the most prominent Protestant
leaders whom God raised up to defend the faith after Luther. Not
one of these great men interpreted Romans 13:1-7 in the way it is
so often interpreted today, and that should be sufficient reason
to at least reconsider what is so commonly taught from the modern
pulpit on the subject of civil obedience and disobedience.
Without succumbing to the error of traditionalism, we are
nevertheless to look upon the views of godly men of times past
with respect.
John Calvin, known even by many of his theological
opponents as the “prince of exegetes,” advocated the same position
with regards to civil disobedience previously set forth by
Luther. Admittedly, this position is not as evident in his
treatment of the subject of civil government in the Institutes of
the Christian Religion, which was among the first of his
endeavors, as it is in his commentary on Romans 13:1-7. This is
due to the fact that the former was written primarily to serve as
a rebuttal of the Anabaptists’ anarchistic tendency to declare all
forms of civil government incompatible with Christian liberty.
However, he concluded his exhortations to Christians to submit to
the authorities who have been placed by God over them with the
following qualifications:
But in that obedience which we hold to be due to the commands of
rulers, we must always make the exception, nay, must be
particularly careful that it is not incompatible with obedience to
Him to whose will the wishes of all kings should be subject, to
whose decrees their commands must yield, to whose majesty their
sceptres must bow. And, indeed, how preposterous were it, in
pleasing men, to incur the offense of Him for whose sake you obey
men!
The Lord, therefore, is King of kings. When He opens His sacred
mouth, He alone is to be heard, instead of all and above all. We
are subject to the men who rule over us, but subject only in the
Lord. If they command anything against Him let us not pay the
least regard to it, nor be moved by all the dignity which they
possess as magistrates—a dignity to which no injury is done when
it is subordinated to the special and truly supreme power of God.
(3)
Calvin’s purpose for writing his commentary on Romans 13:1-7 was
entirely different than that which prompted his discussion of
civil government in the Institutes. Therefore, when we turn to
the commentary, we find a somewhat different tenor of thought.
While still maintaining that it is the duty of Christians to
submit to the “governing authorities,” we more clearly see that it
is the legitimate rule of the magistrate to which we are to submit
ourselves:
The reason why we ought to be subject to magistrates is, because
they are constituted by God’s ordination.... [T]yrannies and
unjust exercise of power, as they are full of disorder, are not an
ordained government; yet the right of government is ordained by
God for the well being of mankind.... [T]hey are the means which
he designedly appoints for the preservation of legitimate
order....
...[Paul] speaks here of the true, and, as it were, of the native
duty of the magistrate, from which however they who hold power
often degenerate. (4)
To ensure that Calvin’s point was not missed, Henry Beveridge,
the editor of the Scottish publication of the Commentaries wrote
the following:
...[I]t is remarkable, that often in Scripture things are stated
broadly and without any qualifying terms, and yet they have
limits, as it is clear from other portions. This peculiarity is
worthy of notice. Power is from God, the abuse of power is
from what is evil in men. The Apostle throughout refers only
to power justly exercised. He does not enter into
the subject of tyranny and oppression. And this is probably the
reason why he does not set limits to the obedience required:
he contemplated no other than the proper and legitimate use of
power. (5)
We may also quote many other Reformers since the sixteenth century
who voiced very similar, if not identical, sentiments regarding
the subject of obedience to the civil magistrate. Charles
Hodge, for example, wrote:...[C]ivil government is a
divine institution, and, therefore, resistance to magistrates in
the exercise of their lawful authority is disobedience to God....
The actual reigning emperor was to be obeyed by the Roman
Christians, whatever they might think as to his title to the
sceptre. But if he transcended his authority, and required them
to worship idols, they were to obey God rather than man.
This is the limitation to all human authority. Whenever
obedience to man is inconsistent with obedience to God, then
disobedience becomes a duty....
Paul is speaking of the legitimate design of government, not of
the abuse of power by wicked men.... Magistrates or rulers are
not appointed for their own honour or advantage, but for the
benefit of society, and, therefore, while those in subjection are
on this account to obey them, they themselves are taught, what
those in power are so apt to forget, that they are the servants of
the people as well as the servants of God, and that the welfare of
society is the only legitimate object which they are rulers are at
liberty to pursue. (6)
Even the Westminster Confession of Faith is agreed on this point:
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from
the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything,
contrary to His Word.... So that, to believe such doctrines, or
to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true
liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and
an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of
conscience, and reason also....
...[B]ecause the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty
which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy,
but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon
pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or
the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical,
resist the ordinance of God.... (7)
It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honour their
persons, to pay them tribute or other dues, to obey their lawful
commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience
sake. (8)
In summary, the Reformers adopted a position with regards to the
civil magistrate that required obedience to authority legitimately
exercised. Thus, even when the particular magistrate had
degenerated into a tyrant (as was the case with the wicked Nero),
Christians are not at liberty to reject his office en toto, but
are to willingly submit themselves to those aspects of his rule
which are in conflict with God’s Law. This position was in
contradistinction to both the Erastian position, which required
unqualified submission, and the Anabaptist position, which
advocated rebellion against all forms of “worldly” authority. The
Reformers’ “middle ground” approach to the subject of civil
obedience and disobedience has been virtually forgotten in today’s
churches, dominated as they are with either papal influence or
French revolutionary thought, but it is nevertheless the biblical
position.
Does the Civil Magistrate Ever
Cease to be a “Minister of God”?
A careful exegesis of Romans 13:1-7 will substantiate the historic
arguments discussed above. Before we begin, however, it should be
noted that most modern translations, the New King James Version
included, have erroneously rendered the Greek phrase “exousias
huperechousias” (literally, “authorities above”) as “governing
authorities,” rather than “higher powers,” as it
appears in the older King James Version. The significance of this
discrepancy will be obvious when we discuss how this passage
applies to Christians in modern America.
When Paul wrote of the “authorities” which are “appointed by God,”
to whom did he refer? First of all, such an authority, or civil
magistrate, is one who is “not a terror to good works, but to
evil” (verse 3a). As such, he is a rewarder of those who do good
(verse 3b). Paul then described the primary function of the civil
magistrate in verse 4:
Romans 13:4,
“For he is God’s minister to you for
good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the
sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute
wrath on him who practices evil.”
According to this verse, the only legitimate function of the civil
magistrate is to protect society by executing God’s wrath on
evildoers. This is clearly a reference to the punishment of
criminals, who are an internal threat to the society, and the
repelling of attack and invasion by foreign aggressors, which are
external threats to the society. Beyond these duties, the civil
magistrate has no authority granted to him by God. The
Christian’s duty in response to the faithful exercise of this
office, is to submit to the rule of the magistrate and to pay the
taxes that are collected to finance this legitimate function of
government. Beyond this, the Christian is under no biblical
obligation to render further obedience.
When all is said and done, it is important to take into
consideration that this passage was intended to be prescriptive,
not descriptive. In other words, it speaks of what the “higher
powers” are supposed to be, not what they are intrinsically at all
times. As “God’s minister,” the civil magistrate is obligated to
obey God’s Law and to properly apply it to the society which he
governs. Conversely, any time the civil magistrate becomes “a
terror to good works,” and rewards evil rather than punishing it,
he then has begun to “bear the sword in vain.” To this extent, he
is no longer “God’s minister to you for good” and it is the duty
of Christians to resist his unlawful rule as they would the rule
of Satan himself. To say that God may deliver His people over to
an oppressive civil magistrate as chastisement for sin is one
thing; to say that we are to deliver ourselves and our consciences
to that which is contrary to God’s Word is quite another. To say
that the laws of the civil magistrate, whether they be good or
evil, are unequivocally the “ordinances of God,” is not merely
naive, but a blasphemous affront to the holiness of God. The
righteous and eternal Judge of the world simply cannot be charged
with requiring us to obey contradictory commands.
Loyalty to God Must Always Take
Precedence Over Obedience to Men
We end our exegesis of this passage with verses 6 and 7:
Romans 13:6-7,
“For this cause pay ye tribute also: for
they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very
thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom
tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour
to whom honour.”
As shown from verse 6, God commands His people to pay taxes to
finance the function of government in its capacity as the
“avenger” of God’s wrath against evil-doers. This is the extent
of the magistrate’s prerogative to collect tax monies from those
under his rule. However, when the civil magistrate levies a tax
or custom to finance that which is contrary to his ordained
purpose (i.e. abortion, the propagation of sodomy, aggression
against God’s Church, etc.), the Christian is forbidden by
Scripture to pay it. “Caesar” is only entitled to what is his,
not what is God’s (Matthew 22:21).
Likewise, when a civil magistrate becomes a tyrant and commands us
to do that which the Bible forbids, either explicitly or by
necessary implication, then we are not to either fear him or honor
him. We see this principle in the response of the Israelite
youths in Daniel, chapter 3, when they were commanded by King
Nebuchadnezzar to
“fall down and worship the gold image”
(verse 5) which he had set up. Even though the threatened cost of
disobedience, in this case, was their very lives, they stood firm
in their convictions and their loyalty to God alone:
Daniel 3:16-18,
“Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego,
answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not
careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom
we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and
he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it
known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor
worship the golden image which thou hast set up.”
Loyalty to God’s commands must always, and without exception, take
precedence over any law written by man. This is a principle that
most modern Christians in this country do not understand when they
frown upon civil disobedience. In the pious guise of
submission to “God-ordained authority,” such people are actually
engaged in rebellion against God and would do well to immediately
abandon such an unholy stance.
Tragic Effects of Biblical
Misinterpretation on Germany’s Churches
Having thus established Paul’s true intention in writing Romans
13:1-7, the question now before us is this: How are we to apply
this passage to the current situation in America, where we find an
oppressive and tyrannical civil government that has far exceeded
the boundaries placed upon it by Scripture and even by its own
charter, the U.S. Constitution? Are we as Christians permitted by
God to exercise our “right to private judgment” in
determining which laws we will obey and which laws we will
disobey? More specifically, may we withhold taxes, customs, fear,
and honor from the Federal government when it oversteps its
limitations and ignominiously seats itself upon God’s
throne?
It is a tragic commentary on the level of apostasy in modern
“Christianity” to find many in today’s churches, even some who
claim allegiance to the Reformed faith, answering the above
question in the negative. A misinterpretation of Romans 13:1-7
has even led some to believe that should an international tax be
levied upon American citizens by the United Nations, that we as
Christians would be obligated to pay that as well. It is
unthinkable that any professing Christian would adhere themselves
to such a preposterous notion, and yet such a sentiment was
expressed to this writer by a minister of a prominent Reformed
church in Denver, Colorado. The following comment by
William L. Shirer in his monumental study of National
Socialism (Naziism) are instructive:
The Protestants in Germany, as in the United States, were a
divided faith. Only a few... belonged to the various Free
Churches such as the Baptists and the Methodists. The rest
belonged to twenty-eight Lutheran and Reformed Churches.... With
the rise of National Socialism there came further divisions among
the Protestants. The more fanatical Nazis among them organized in
1932 “The German Christians’ Faith Movement”....
The “German Christians” ardently supported the Nazi doctrine of
race and the leadership principle and wanted them applied to a
Reich Church which would bring all Protestants into one
all-embracing body....
Opposed to the “German Christians” was another minority group
which called itself the “Confessional Church”.... It opposed the
Nazification of the Protestant churches, rejected the Nazi racial
theories and denounced the anti-Christian doctrines of Rosenberg
and other Nazi leaders. In between lay the majority of
Protestants, who seemed too timid to join either of the two
warring groups, who sat on the fence and eventually, for the most
part, landed in the arms of Hitler, accepting his authority to
intervene in church affairs and obeying his commands without open
protest. (9)
One of the weapons which Adolf Hitler used to beat the Lutheran
and Reformed churches of Germany into a docile submission was
Romans 13:1-7:
The Protestants haven’t the faintest conception of a church. You
can do anything you like with them—they will submit. These
pastors are used to cares and worries... they learnt them from
their squires.... They are insignificant little people,
submissive as dogs, and they sweat with embarrassment when you
talk to them. They have neither a religion that they can take
seriously nor a great position to defend like Rome. (10)
Aside from the courageous efforts of a few “rebels,” such as
Deitrich Bonhoeffer, it was this submission to Hitler, based
upon an ignorance of the true meaning of Paul’s words, that
allowed the Nazis to carry out their diabolical “Final
Solution to the Jewish Problem.” Many Christians were
even criticized by their church leaders for disobeying their
“governing authorities” by hiding Jewish refugees in their homes.
(11) Can we expect this country to fare any better than Nazi
Germany did in the 1930s, when the Protestant churches en masse
are buying into the very same philosophies held by the churches in
that once great nation? It is to be sure that the blood of
millions of people will one day cry out in the ears of God for
judgment against His apostatizing Church in our own nation. May
God grant repentance to His people before such a tragedy again
happens.
Our Government Was a Result of
“Revolt” Against the British Crown
Ironically enough, the very government of this country was
established by “rebelling” against the “governing authority” of
the eighteenth century—the British crown. This fact is virtually
ignored by the modern opponents of civil disobedience. As
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights.... That to secure these rights, governments
are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government
becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government....
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established
should not be changed for light and transient causes.... But when
a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw
off such government, and to provide new guards for their future
security.
It is clear from the above quotation that America’s fight for her
independence from the despotic rule of King George III was in
direct conflict with the popular interpretation of Romans 13:1-7
as a command to submit to all government carte blanche, regardless
of whether it be righteous or evil. Therefore, those who point to
this passage to support their opposition to civil disobedience
with regards to the statutory laws of the Federal government are
defeated by their own premise. After all, since our own country
was founded upon the principle of civil disobedience in the face
of tyranny, they cannot, without resorting to the most obvious of
double-standards, remove this as a viable option for others.
Citizens of the States Are Not
Under the Jurisdiction of Federal Law
Finally, this application of Romans 13:1-7 to the subject of civil
disobedience with regards to the Federal government demonstrates
an inexcusable ignorance of the constitutional structure of our
country. From a careful study of the political foundations of
America, it is clear that our country is a Republic made up of
smaller republics—the several states of the Union. Each of these
states was intended to exercise sovereignty within its own
jurisdiction, and was never placed under the jurisdiction of the
Federal government in Washington, D.C., which existed merely as a
servant of the Union. According to the rulings of Glass v.
The Sloop Betsy in 1794 and Harcourt v. Gaillard
in 1827:
Our government was founded upon compact. Sovereignty was,
and is, in the people [of the states]. (12)
Each [state] declared itself sovereign and independent,
according to the limits of its territory. (13)
The Apostle Paul wrote the Roman epistle to a people who were
under the subjection of a dictatorship. The Roman emperor was the
“higher power” spoken of, and as far as he ruled justly and did
not command that which was contrary to God’s Law, Christians were
bound to submit to him. We in America, however, are not under a
dictatorship, but a Constitutional Republic which was explicitly
founded upon biblical principles and modeled, in many ways, after
the Israelite theocracy of the Old Testament.
Therefore, Romans 13:1-7 cannot be made to apply in exactly the
same way as it did to Paul’s initial audience without grossly
twisting its intent. In American law, the people
which form the several states are the “higher powers,”
not the Federal government. Of course, in a
religious sense, they are to submit themselves to the ultimate
“higher power,” which is the risen and exalted Christ (Matthew
28:18; Revelation 11:15). Therefore, as constituents of the
political sovereignty they are to be self-governed by God’s Law,
and are thus bound by Scripture to disobey any laws or statutes
that interfere with this submission to the Creator. In the words
of the founding fathers, “There is no king but Jesus.” Any
other attitude but this with regards to the subject of civil
government is nothing short of idolatry and subject to
God’s judgment:
Exodus 20:3,5-6, “Thou shalt
have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to
them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God,
visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the
third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing
mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my
commandments.”
Endnotes
1. Martin
Luther, quoted by Philip Schaff, History of the Christian
Church (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), Volume VII, pp.
304-305.
2. Philip
Schaff, ibid., pp. 311-312.
3. John
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Wm.
B.Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 1989), Book IV, Chapter XX:32.
4. John
Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans (Baker
Book House, reprinted 1993), pp. 478-479.
5. Henry
Beveridge, in John Calvin, ibid., p. 478 (footnote).
6. Charles
Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Wm. B.
Eerdman’s Publishing Co., reprinted 1993), pp. 404-405, 407-408.
7.
Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XX:2, 4.
8. Ibid.,
Chapter XXIII:4.
9. William
L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (Simon and
Schuster, 1960), pp. 235-236.
10. Adolf
Hitler, quoted in Herman Rauschning, The Voice of Destruction
(London, 1940); cited in Joseph Carr, The Twisted Cross
(Huntington House Inc., 1985), p. 202.
11. Reference:
Phillip Hallie, Lest Innocent Blood be Shed
(Harper-Colophon Books, 1979).
12. Glass v.
The Sloop Betsy (1794), 3 Dall. 6.
13. Harcourt
v. Gaillard (1827), 25 U.S. 12 Wheat.
Copyright
Notice (please read)
The above Document is Common Law copyrighted by the Foundation for
Biblical Studies in the Year of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,
Nineteen Hundred and Ninety-Five. In making this Document
available for public viewing, the Author does not intend, in any
way, to surrender his exclusive Ownership thereof and therefore
retains all of his Rights and Privileges under the Common Law as
relating to its distribution. Rerum suarum quilibet est
moderator et arbiter.
Permission to reproduce this Document either electronically or by
print-out is hereby granted by the Author on the condition that
this last section is left attached and intact. Reproduction of
this Document by any other means or pirating of the information
contained herein without the express and written Permission of the
Author shall be construed as an unlawful violation of the Author’s
Rights and an unjust deprivation of his Property, and, upon
discovery, the perpetrator(s) of such violation and deprivation
shall be subject to the Dominium and Lex Domicilii
of the Author. Jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius
detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem.
For more information on other related subjects or for a free copy
of our resource catalog, please contact:
Foundation for Biblical Studies
c/o P.O. Box 769, Wiggins, Mississippi C.S.A. (39577/tdc)
E-mail:
F4BS@peconic.net
World Wide Web:
http://www.peconic.net/members/f4bs
The Foundation for Biblical Studies is a Christian owned and
operated Organization. The Transactions and/or Holdings of the
Foundation for Biblical Studies, or of the Owners and Operators
thereof, are therefore “foreign” to the UNITED STATES per 26 USC
7701(a)(9), (31), and CFR 1.911-2(h). The Foundation for Biblical
Studies is not registered as a corporation under 26 USC 501(c)(3).
The Owners and Operators thereof retain their Rights and
Privileges under the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution and under the Common Law of these united states of
America.
PLEASE CALL MESSAGE CENTER
FOR A FREE, CONFIDENTIAL INTERVIEW
Voice Message 208-246-4635
Email :
sales@him-2.org
