Should Christians Submit To The Government?

Question: Do “good” Christians believe in obeying any “law” a secular government passes?

Some Christian sects have been taught for centuries that the Bible teaches us to obey the government no matter what because of Romans 13.  But, is this how early Christian’s applied the Bible?

Does this mean Daniel was wicked and the King justified in throwing Daniel in the Lion’s den? Should Jesus the Christ have been given to Herod for him to murder? Were the American Founding Fathers wicked for not subjecting themselves to the King?  Should Jesus the Christ have been given to Herod for him to murder? Was it wrong for the mother of Jesus and her husband Joseph to hide the young Jesus from Herod and do their part to ensure the preservation of the fulfillment of the atonement?

What implications does the answers to these questions have in our actions within the liberty movement?

Please watch and share this important documentary, Should Christians Submit To The Government? to help more lovers of liberty come to the truth of this important principle and that we can all reason together the importance of the idea, “Rebellion to tyrants, is obedience to God”.

For more resources, check out our Nullification page below and consider a one time donation or joining the Tree of Liberty Society to help our efforts expand and thrive wherever you are.

https://treeoflibertysociety.com/resources/nullify-to-protect-rights/

TRANSCRIPT

generated using A.I.; please forgive any mistakes.

The key distinction is how you define the law. If they exceed the boundaries of the consensual authority, then those things that they say are no longer law. They are simply the statements of a robber.

Question. Do good Christians believe in obeying all of the laws? Some Christian sects have been taught for centuries that the Bible teaches us to obey the government no matter what because of Romans 13. But is this how early Christians applied the Bible? Does this mean Daniel was wicked and the king justified in throwing Daniel in the lion's den? Should Jesus the Christ have been given to Herod for him to murder? Were the American founding fathers wicked for not subjecting themselves to the king? Was it wrong for the mother of Jesus and her husband Joseph to hide the young Jesus from Herod and do their part to ensure the preservation of the fulfillment of the atonement? Now join us on a journey of discovery to learn the context and history of these verses. Also, learn how the authors and their contemporary followers applied these teachings and what that might mean for us today. First, let's examine the text of Romans 13.

The King James Version reads, "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 this is the 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, honor to whom honor." Now let's look at another translation. The New Testament Version reads, "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those that do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right, and you will be commended. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants who give their full time to governing. 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." Supporting the idea that rulers have all authority, King James VI of Scotland said, "In the scriptures, kings are called gods and so they have power after a certain relation compared to the divine power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families, for a king is true parents portray, or father of the country, the politic father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of this microcosm of the body of man." This same teaching is found among different sects today. The theme of Romans chapter 13 is citizenship. Civil disobedience, Paul writes, brings severe consequences, but the third is internal or personal. Our conscience will be bothered. Our conscience will become intolerable if we continue to resist the government. We're called to live with a guilt-free conscience. And because we're called to live with a guilt-free conscience, we want to do our best to obey God. We are familiar with the passage of scripture that talks about how children are supposed to submit to their parents and how wives are supposed to submit to their husband, how everyone is to submit to Christ. And we as Christian citizens submit to the governmental authority. We submit ourselves and refusal to submit constitutes resisting the authority of God. It really wasn't essential whether the Caesar was a homosexual, a pedophile, a mother murderer, or a good man. The law is the same. There is no place for rebellion and resistance because to do so is to resist God.

Former US Attorney General and US Senator Jeff Sessions, a Republican from Alabama, taught this interpretation as well in a press conference June 14, 2018, when he stated, "Due to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13 to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes." Now, are these interpretations correct? How can we know for sure? Algernon Sidney, an English politician and member of the middle part of the long parliament in the late 1600s, posed this question. The Apostle father explaining himself and showing who may be accounted a magistrate and what the duty of such a one is informs us when we should fear and on what account rulers say he are not a terror to good works but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? He are not a terror to good works but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? To that which is good and that shall have praise of the same. For he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath on him that doth evil. He therefore is only the minister of God who is not a terror to good works but to evil who executes wrath upon those that do evil and as a praise to those that do well.

And he that doth well ought not to be afraid of the power for he shall receive praise. Now if our author were alive, though he was a man of a hard forehead, I would ask him whether in his conscience he believed that Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, and the rabble of succeeding monsters were a praise to those who did well and a terror to those who did ill and not the contrary, a praise to the worst and a terror to the best men of the world. Now believers in the Bible and therefore in Romans chapter 13 know that God is the law giver. If God is the law giver, then we must ask ourselves if any person other than Christ Jesus keeps the laws of God perfectly. Clearly the answer is no. Then we must ask ourselves then as believers in Romans 13, what happens when government breaks the law? Looking to scriptural examples of what ancient prophets of God did when the government and government officials broke the law or told believers to break the laws of God will help us unravel the confusion we find ourselves in. First, let's look at the three Hebrews Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego who lived during the time of Israel's time under Babylonian rule. In Daniel chapter 3, we read that Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, commanded everyone under his rule to "fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king has set up."

The penalty for disobeying this law was death via being thrown into a fiery furnace. According to modern interpretations of Romans 13, it would have been the duty of God's people to worship the idol created by the king and that if they failed to do so, they would supposedly be in violation of God's commandment to obey the government. However, there were three Hebrews by the name of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego who perhaps acted differently than all the other Hebrews since they were specifically accused of violating that law. The rebellion of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego so infuriated the king that he commanded the fire to be seven times hotter than was typical which would ensure their death beyond any reasonable doubt. Now, if Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were really in rebellion against God's law, supposedly to be obedient to the edicts of earthly governments, their death would be justified in the eyes of God. However, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego boldly proclaimed that God would protect them from their rebellion against the government of Nebuchadnezzar. If modern interpretations of Romans 13 are accurate, those three should be seen as rebels with no legitimate authority to claim God's protection. However, we see in the biblical account that an angel was sent to protect them and while the king's men in charge of executing judgment upon Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were killed, the three Hebrews were left unharmed, protected in their rebellion against the government by the hand of God. For example, just a few chapters later in Daniel is the case of the prophet Daniel himself. Daniel rebelling against the commands of the government. The Babylonian government passed a law forbidding the praying to any other god other than the king of Babylon. The penalty for disobeying this law was being thrown in a den of lions, which like the fiery furnace, was essentially the death penalty. This would have been easy for any believer to work around. Daniel could pray in secret or even in his heart and no one in government would be the wiser. He could outwardly obey the law of the land while still obeying and praying to his God. However, this is not what he did. Instead of praying in secret or in his heart, Daniel opened his windows and prayed out loud for everyone to hear in open defiance of the law.

Again, according to modern interpretations of Romans 13, it would have been the duty of God's people to pray to the king and to cease praying to God. And again, surely Daniel would have received his just reward of death, being eaten by the lions. God would not protect such a man as Daniel openly defined the laws of the land, at least according to the modern interpretation of Romans 13. But this is not how the scriptures account this story. The king himself, realizing the unjustness of the law, told Daniel, "Thy God whom thou servest continually, he will deliver thee." And again, God sent an angel to protect the man who disobeyed the laws of the land, that violated natural law, God's law. Let's fast forward to the time of the New Testament apostles. Perhaps since Romans was written after Christ's ministry, a new standard was set. Perhaps the Old Testament rebellion was superseded by a higher law that we find in Romans 13. If that was the case, surely the apostles that wrote and lived during the time that Romans 13 was written, followed its modern interpretation of doing whatever the government says. Romans is traditionally believed to have been recorded by the apostle Paul during the winter of 57 and 58 AD.

Six years later, in 64 AD, the Roman emperor Nero declared Christianity illegal. Since it was Paul that supposedly wrote that resisting the government was resisting God, surely Paul immediately renounced Christ and his teachings. Actually, history shows that Paul did the exact opposite. Paul never renounced his faith and was a martyr, killed by the government for breaking the law of the land. The very apostle, who some allege wrote that all must obey government no matter what, set an example and disobeyed government so much that he was executed. The apostle Peter was also killed by the government for breaking the law, as were the apostles Andrew, Thomas, Philip, and Bartholomew. Others were martyrs as well, but not put to death directly by the government. Not only did the apostles resist immoral laws to the death, faithful Christians risk persecution and death for almost 300 years when the ban on Christianity was finally lifted.

To say that Paul and Christians for 300 years disobeyed the will of God by disobeying the government is both an extreme as well as an untenable position to hold. It was not until hundreds of years after the death of the apostles that wrote Romans 13 that began to be interpreted the way we see it laid out by government leaders in the Middle Ages and televangelists in our day. Even with the centuries of teachings by corrupt religionists and government officials seeking power unopposed, the American founding fathers rejected the idea that God thought that they should obey the government and its evil decrees. In fact, the United States of America would not even exist if the founders believed in obeying the edicts of corrupt government officials. Thomas Jefferson believed the term "disobedience to tyrants is obedience to God," so much so that he made it his personal seal. Virginia became a Bible-believing society with such men as George Washington and James Madison had it as its official seal in 1776. Benjamin Franklin suggested it as the official motto of the United States. The Declaration of Independence teaches this in the sentence, "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, defending the rights of the people, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government." Thomas Aquinas, a great medieval thinker, wrote, "An unjust law is not really a law at all. To be binding, human law must harmonize with moral and natural law." We must honestly ask ourselves if we are to believe that if we are to obey government, to obey God, that we must then condemn the missions to smuggle Bibles into places like communist China, North Korea, and some Middle Eastern countries. Virtually every Christian would reject this notion as it is self-evidently ridiculous. A Christian's duty is to God, not government, and when the two separate, it is a Christian's duty to obey God, not government.