YouTube video sermon

Romans 13:1-7

Can we begin this morning by agreeing that one of the hardest things for us is to do – as people, let alone as Christians – is to obey authority?  Are we in agreement on that?  I mean, in a way, that’s what Genesis 3 is all about, right?  God gave Adam and Eve some instructions and what happened?  They rebelled.  They rejected God’s authority and did what they wanted to do.  And the rest of us have suffered the consequences of sin and their own sense of rebellion from that day until the present.

We don’t like the word “submit,” do we?  We bristle anytime we hear someone say, “You must do this… or You can’t do that…”  We think to ourselves, “Don’t tell me what to do.”  Maybe you’re one of those people who is even brazen enough to say that out loud, “Don’t you tell me what to do.  I’ll tell you what to do.  You’re not the boss of me.”

One of the things that we learn early in our youth is that we don’t want to be “bossed around.”  Think about it for a minute.  It starts when we’re toddlers, doesn’t it?  Our parents tell us to do something and what’s our response?  “No!”  Or if our parents tell us not to do something, then what do we do?  We look at them and we look at the line in the sand, and we look at them and we step over the line even as we’re looking at them.  Right?

And it continues into our teenage years and young adulthood.  We might see compliance but it’s only because kids know parents pay for the house and the food and the car and most of the clothes, and they’re not truly ready to be on their own.  But, as they turn to go clean up their room, you hear them mumble under their breath, “I can’t wait until I’m old enough to leave.”  We don’t like authority.

And just in case you think you’ve outgrown it as senior adults, I’ve heard many of you say, “I have a problem with authority…”  And when I ask why, the response has always been, “Nobody does what I tell them.”  So, whether we’re young or old or anywhere in between, we don’t like to obey authority.  That’s just our nature, and that brings us to the critical problem with our understanding of Romans 13.

Last week, we began considering Paul’s instruction to the Christians in Rome as it relates to how they should respond to the government.  And we saw two positive teachings emerge from the text.

First, all authorities – even those we would classify as “bad” – are ordained by God.  That’s what verse 1 clearly says, “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.”  God is ultimately in charge.  This was and is His plan to govern the world.  God’s in control.  Whether it’s Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, Queen Elizabeth, or Donald Trump – they’re only ruling and reigning and exercising authority because God is ordaining it.  God is allowing them to do so.

Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying.  I’m not saying that God approves of everything these leaders say or do.  Nor am I saying that God is up in heaven pulling strings on paper dolls or inserting His hand, as it were, into a puppet’s mouth and causing them to do and say only what He would have them to.  No, what we mean by God’s sovereignty is that He uses the free actions of human beings to accomplish His will.  Any person living and breathing and moving about today – whether a ruler or just a “regular Joe” – is doing so only because God is sustaining them and upholding them.  God is in charge, even over kings and presidents and rulers.

Second, we saw that submission is done out of reverence for God.  When we submit to the government, or the police officer, or the teacher we’re doing so out of reverence for God not out of reverence for the ruler.  Although the person in authority might be a respectable person, and we might submit to them willingly, we’re ultimately doing it in recognition that all authority comes from God.  And those authorities are for our good.  Civil government is a “common grace” from God to mankind.  It’s for our good that we have authority structures.  We considered places where the governing authorities have given way to gangs and anarchy, and agreed that life could be worse.

So, all authorities are ordained by God and He gives them to us for our good.  But historically and biblically we know that civil authorities don’t always reward the good and punish the bad.  In fact, they often reward bad behavior and punish good behavior.  We also know from the Bible that God has approved of His people not submitting to some civil authority.  And that leads to the following three questions that we’re going to deal with today:

1. What evidence does the Bible give that God sometimes approves of His people not submitting to the authority(ies) He put in place?
2. When is such civil disobedience right, and what should it look like?
3. How does such civil disobedience fit with Romans 13:1-7, and why are the statements about the goodness of government stated here with such unqualified absoluteness?

These questions aren’t merely theoretical.  I’m not asking these questions just because I’m a pastor and I like to sit around and debate deep theological issues.  These questions are very practical.  If you’re a Christian living in China or North Korea or Vietnam or several Islamic states, you’re confronted with the question of civil disobedience daily.

But you say, “Pastor, I’m not living in any of those places.  I live in the United States – a country built upon freedom with certain unalienable rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

To which I would reply, “Indeed you are, but have you forgotten how this country got started?”

The ideals of America that we think are automatic were born in the crucible of questions surrounding civil disobedience.  Today’s news headlines are full of scenarios where these questions aren’t merely theoretical – they’re practical.  So, let’s begin this morning by looking at a few biblical examples of civil disobedience.

Biblical Examples of Civil Disobedience

The first is Acts 5:27-29.  This is probably the most well-known.  It’s certainly the one quoted most frequently whenever civil disobedience comes up.  The apostles have been going around Jerusalem performing miracles and proclaiming the Gospel, and so the High Priest and Sadducees had them put in prison.  We’ll pick up with verse 19, “[D]uring the night an angel of the Lord opened the prison doors and brought them out, and said, ‘Go and stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this Life.’  And when they heard this, they entered the temple at daybreak and began to teach.” (19-21a)

Then let’s jump down to verse 27, “And when they had brought them, they set them before the council.  And the High Priest questioned them, saying, ‘We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.’  But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men.’” (27-29)

In other words, even though God said to submit to people in authority, He doesn’t mean: Obey them when they forbid what I command or command what I forbid.  The command to submit to man does not make man God.  It gives man authority under God, and qualified by God.

But what about some examples where that qualification lead to disobedience.  Daniel 6:6-10: Then these high officials and satraps came by agreement to the king and said to him, “O King Darius, live forever!  All the high officials 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.  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.”  Therefore, King Darius signed the document and injunction.

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.

Notice how blatant Daniel’s disobedience is.  It’s in your face.  The language of verse 10 is obvious – he went to the upper chamber, his windows were open toward Jerusalem, he got down on his knees (not once, not twice, but three times a day), just as he had done previously.  This was an open act of disobedience to the civil authority.  As a result, he was thrown to the lions – a punishment (note) he did not resist.  Keep in mind that there is no explicit commandment that one must pray on one’s knees at an open window three times a day.  This was Daniel’s conviction about God’s will, not an explicit command in the Bible.

Now flip back a few chapters to Daniel 3:16-18: the case of Daniel’s friends, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.  It was slightly different.  The decree was made that all should bow down before the king’s image.  In other words, Daniel was forbidden to pray, but his friends were commanded to worship idols.  Instead, they said: O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter.  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.  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.

This was civil disobedience on the basis of religious conscience.  As a result, they were thrown into the furnace.  And (note) they did not resist.

Or how about Exodus 1:15-20?  This is early in the slavery narrative of the Israelites (before Moses was born): Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwifes . . . “When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the birth stool, if it is a son, you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, she shall live.”  But the midwifes feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live. . .  So, God dealt well with the midwifes; and the people multiplied and grew very strong.

The midwifes disobeyed the king’s order to kill the babies.  By the way, one response to these last two texts is that they portray disobedience to a command that requires sin.  But what about civil disobedience to laws that are not requiring you to do anything?  They are just forbidding you from doing something that you feel morally bound to do?

Besides the case of Daniel (earlier), the Bible gives several other examples (e.g., Kings 18:4,13; Joshua 2:3-4).  For example, Queen Esther is honored for disobeying the law against unsolicited approach to the king.  King Ahasuerus had decreed that Jews were to be annihilated young and old, women and children (Esther 3:13).  Mordecai, Esther’s uncle asked Esther to intervene for the Jews to save their lives.

Esther responded by reminding Mordecai that any unsolicited approach to the King was against the law.  She could be killed (4:11-12), unless the king had mercy on her and raised his scepter. Mordecai told Esther that perhaps God had allowed her to come to the kingdom for such a time as this (4:14).  So, Esther calls for a three-day fast.  Finally, she resolves, “I will go to the king, though it is against the law; and if I perish, I perish” (4:16).  The effect of her intervention was that the Jews were spared.

But even if there were no explicit instances of civil disobedience in the Bible we would have to ask some tough questions: Is it morally right to jay walk to stop a rape?  Is it morally right to break the speed limit to rush a dying wife to the hospital?  Is it right to break into a neighbor’s house to put out a fire – or save a child?  And that brings us to question number two.

When Is Civil Disobedience Right and What Does It Look Like

Under what conditions might civil disobedience be morally called for? One could say with the apostle Peter: Obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29).  In other words, if the law commands what God forbids or forbids what God commands then you must break the law.  But the problem with that simple guideline is that much of the civil disobedience in history has involved doing things that are not clearly commanded by God.  Sitting down on the sidewalk in front an abortion clinic in 1989 was not explicitly commanded by God in the Bible.  Eating in a white-only restaurant in St. Augustine, Florida in 1964, and marching and praying in Montgomery, Alabama in 1965 were not commanded explicitly in the Bible.

In other words, some Christians have come to the point in history where they believed laws were so unjust and so evil, and political means of change had been frustrated so long, that peaceful, non-violent, civil disobedience seemed right.  What factors should we take into consideration to decide if we should do that kind of civil disobedience?  It seems to me that it would be a combination of at least these four things.

1. The grievousness of the action sanctioned by law. How atrocious is it?  Is it a traffic pattern that you think is dumb?  Or is the law sanctioning killing?  How harsh is it?
2. The extent of the law’s effect. Is it a person affected here or there?  Or is it millions?  Does the law have an incidental inconsistency?  Or is it putting a whole group of people into bondage because of their ethnic origin?  How big is it?
3. The potential of civil disobedience for clear and effective witness to the truth. This is the question of strategy, and there will certainly be room here for differing judgments about whether a particular act of civil disobedience will be a clear and effective statement of what is just.  Strategy to clearly communicate.
4. Critical mass; we can’t take it any longer. Historically, there appears to be a flash point of moral indignation.  An evil exists for years, or perhaps generations, and then something strange happens.  One person, and then tens of thousands of people, can no longer just get up and go to work and say, “I wish it weren’t this way.”  I believe that’s what we’re seeing today.

So, if and when that time comes, how should civil disobedience be carried out?  What should it look like?  This is part two to the question, and rather than give you a checklist I’m just going to offer a comment or two.

First, the words of Jesus rule out all vindictiveness.  Any and all action based on the mere expediency of personal comfort and safety is not the right way to proceed.  That’s the point of Matthew 5:38-42, where Jesus calls for us to turn the other cheek and give the cloak off of our backs and walk two miles instead of one.  In other words, civil disobedience doesn’t act merely out of concern for your own private benefit, your clothes, your convenience, your possessions, your safety.

Instead, by trusting Christ, become the kind of person who is utterly free from these things to live for others.  We want to be a living sacrifice for the oppressed and the oppressors; the persecuted and the persecutors; the dying children and the killing abortionists.  The tone and demeanor of this kind of civil disobedience will be the opposite of strident, belligerent, rock-throwing, screaming, swearing, violent demonstrations.

We’re people of the cross.  Our Lord submitted to crucifixion willingly to save His enemies.  We owe our eternal life to Him.  We are forgiven sinners.  This takes the swagger out of our protest.  It takes the arrogance out of our resistance.  And if, after every other means has failed, we must disobey for the sake of love and justice, we will first remove the log from our own eye, which will cause enough pain and tears to soften our indignation into a humble, quiet, but unshakeable, “NO!”  The greatest battle we face is not overcoming unjust laws, but becoming this kind of people.

Why Does Paul Speak with Such Absoluteness of Civil Obedience?

If the Bible allows for civil disobedience sometimes then why does Paul speak the way he does in Romans 13?  Why is there such a seemingly unqualified absoluteness of the rights of civil authority?

Again, I have three answers to suggest.  I offer them for your consideration, not as something I am completely sure of.  Paul doesn’t say why he speaks this way.

1. Paul is probably writing to be read by government officials as well as by the church in Rome.

In other words, he knows that this letter will find its way into Caesar’s household and into the hands of the civil authorities.  He wants them to understand two truths.  One is that Christians are not out to overthrow the empire politically by claiming Jesus is Lord, and not Caesar.  Christians submit to laws and pay taxes and show respect and do good in the community.  Leave us alone.  We’re not revolutionaries against your throne.  We’re harmless lovers of lost and hurting people and will do much good in your empire.

2. Paul writes the way he does to demonstrate to the civil authorities that their positions and powers are based on God’s sovereignty and God’s moral law.

Imagine being Claudius or Nero or President Trump or Queen Elizabeth and reading Romans 13:1, “For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”  It’s a powerful statement that you ARE NOT God.  You’re not absolute.  You’re secondary not primary.  You’re not in control, God is in control.  So, the absoluteness of the statement could be intended to leave Caesar no wiggle room.  God is absolutely above Caesar (no wiggle room), but that means for Christians: Yes, God has put governments in place and submission should be our first impulse, but no, they are not absolute.

Then consider Caesar reading verse 3.  Not only does Paul want civil authorities to know they are based on God’s sovereignty, but also on His moral law: “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.”  Here’s a clear declaration that civil authority must itself submit to the moral law of God.  There’s right, and there’s wrong, and government isn’t the one who determines it.  Government conforms to it.

So, Paul has two devastating things to say to Caesar.  One, you are not God.  Two, your laws are not the highest laws.  Paul writes the way he does because he knows that what he wants to say will have a greater impact on the governing authorities if he writes this way.

3. Paul is more concerned with our humility and trust in Christ, than he is about our civil liberties.

Listen, this is going to punch some of you in the gut.  This is going to take the wind out of some of your sails.  Paul risked being misunderstood in his instruction on submitting to the governing authorities because he saw pride as a greater danger to Christians than government injustice.

In Paul’s mind, faith and humility and self-denial are vastly more important for the Christian than that we be treated well by the government.  And the reason is this: being persecuted unjustly is not the reason anyone goes to hell.  Rather, being unbelieving and arrogant and self-indulgent is.  Jesus never promised His people a fair fight.  He promised them the opposite: if they treated the master of the house like the devil, how much worse will they treat you.  The main issue is not being treated justly in this world by civil authorities.  The main issue is trusting Christ, being humble and denying ourselves for the glory of Christ and the good of others.