Tenchi
Member
Are political leaders above direct and public reproach? Is this what the Bible teaches and demonstrates? Not at all. From the following passage, primarily, some mistaken Christians draw the conclusion that one must never harshly criticize political leaders, calling their sin what it is, but this is not what is in evidence in the record of the Bible, nor is it actually what the passage indicates.
Romans 13:1-7
1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
In the time of Peter and Paul, the Pharisees held not only religious offices and power but also a measure of political and civil authority, too. To see this, one has only to consider the behaviour of Caiaphas the High Priest who took Jesus into custody, interrogated him before the Sanhedrin, then haled Jesus to Pilate and had him - against Pilate's better judgment - sentenced to crucifixion.
About these religious/political leaders Jesus had very severe things to say, pointing directly at their sin and mocking them for it, calling them (among other things) white-washed tombs full of dead men's bones, the brood of vipers, and sons of hell. Just read Matthew 23.
Peter, too, defied the religious and political authority of the Sanhedrin in Acts 4:18-19 and Acts 5:17-40 and the authority of Herod in Acts 12:1-17, escaping imprisonment (for the second time) by Herod. Peter was very blunt about his defiance of the religious and political leaders of his time, saying to them at one point:
Acts 5:29-30
29 ..."We must obey God rather than men.
30 "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross.
What did Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, declare directly to the high priest and Sanhedrin gathered to interrogate him?
Acts 7:51-53
51 "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did.
52 "Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? They killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become;
53 you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it."
The apostle Paul also confronted the local Jewish authorities who had beaten and imprisoned he and Silas and then tried to release them quietly and send them away. Instead of honor and deference, Paul declared defiantly,
Acts 16:37
37..."They have beaten us in public without trial, men who are Romans, and have thrown us into prison; and now are they sending us away secretly? No indeed! But let them come themselves and bring us out."
Paul also called Ananias, the High Priest, a "whitewashed wall" when, during interrogation by a Roman commander, Ananias wrongly commanded that Paul be hit in the face (Acts 23:1-11). Paul acknowledged that he'd have curbed his tongue had he known the religious office Ananias occupied. This acknowledgement didn't prevent Paul, however, from craftily setting the Pharisees and Sadducees against one another, causing such an uproar between them that the Roman authorities had to take him into protective custody. It's hard to see how Paul "honored" the religious/political leaders in doing this even though he'd apologized for saying about Ananias what he actually thought of him.
In light of these things, I don't see good biblical ground for the forbidding of any and all criticism of either religious or political leaders. It was this very sort of silent "deference" (aka "honor") that most of the Church in Germany showed to Hitler that helped the Jewish Holocaust to occur. I, for one, will have no part in such "honor" and I don't believe that a moral, God-honoring Christian can claim to be so and refuse to call evil men - whatever their station - what they are.
2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
Since the preaching of the Gospel directly opposed the established religious and political authority of the Jewish leaders of the time of the Early Church, what did Paul mean here? It seems obvious to me that he is not forbidding overt opposition to, and criticism of, such authority (in which he himself participated and for which he was abused and imprisoned). He is, I believe, speaking very generally here about Christians fomenting violent political rebellion and in so doing confirming the growing rumors of Paul's day about Christianity being a dangerous religious sect aimed primarily at overthrowing the social and political order.
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
It is, of course, patently obvious that this is a very general statement, a statement, for the most part, in principle only rather than in fact. Many have been the incredibly wicked rulers of nations throughout human history who have been themselves a terrible cause for fear among the righteous, perpetrating great evil upon all those over whom they gained power. Think: Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, etc.
4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
Here, Paul described the "minister of God for good," who differs widely from the many despotic mass-murderers populating human history and their agents of oppression and death. It is, I think, a very foolish Christian who takes what Paul wrote here to mean all rulers that God has set over nations are "ministers of good" and so are worthy of respect and deference. See above.
5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake.
The word "therefore" signals a conclusion from foregoing premises. In this case, the "therefore" is connected to rulers who are "not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil," who are "ministers of God to you for good," not any and every ruler, evil or not, who obtains power over, or within, a nation.
6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
Yes, even evil kings and rulers serve God's ends, as they did in the OT. And so, in view of this fact, where obeying the laws of the land serve a clearly moral and/or practical good, as in the case of paying taxes, even though the ruler of that land is evil, the Christian ought to "render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due...," etc.. None of this, though, forbids offering criticism of, and opposition to, evil rulers.
Romans 13:1-7
1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
In the time of Peter and Paul, the Pharisees held not only religious offices and power but also a measure of political and civil authority, too. To see this, one has only to consider the behaviour of Caiaphas the High Priest who took Jesus into custody, interrogated him before the Sanhedrin, then haled Jesus to Pilate and had him - against Pilate's better judgment - sentenced to crucifixion.
About these religious/political leaders Jesus had very severe things to say, pointing directly at their sin and mocking them for it, calling them (among other things) white-washed tombs full of dead men's bones, the brood of vipers, and sons of hell. Just read Matthew 23.
Peter, too, defied the religious and political authority of the Sanhedrin in Acts 4:18-19 and Acts 5:17-40 and the authority of Herod in Acts 12:1-17, escaping imprisonment (for the second time) by Herod. Peter was very blunt about his defiance of the religious and political leaders of his time, saying to them at one point:
Acts 5:29-30
29 ..."We must obey God rather than men.
30 "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross.
What did Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, declare directly to the high priest and Sanhedrin gathered to interrogate him?
Acts 7:51-53
51 "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did.
52 "Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? They killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become;
53 you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it."
The apostle Paul also confronted the local Jewish authorities who had beaten and imprisoned he and Silas and then tried to release them quietly and send them away. Instead of honor and deference, Paul declared defiantly,
Acts 16:37
37..."They have beaten us in public without trial, men who are Romans, and have thrown us into prison; and now are they sending us away secretly? No indeed! But let them come themselves and bring us out."
Paul also called Ananias, the High Priest, a "whitewashed wall" when, during interrogation by a Roman commander, Ananias wrongly commanded that Paul be hit in the face (Acts 23:1-11). Paul acknowledged that he'd have curbed his tongue had he known the religious office Ananias occupied. This acknowledgement didn't prevent Paul, however, from craftily setting the Pharisees and Sadducees against one another, causing such an uproar between them that the Roman authorities had to take him into protective custody. It's hard to see how Paul "honored" the religious/political leaders in doing this even though he'd apologized for saying about Ananias what he actually thought of him.
In light of these things, I don't see good biblical ground for the forbidding of any and all criticism of either religious or political leaders. It was this very sort of silent "deference" (aka "honor") that most of the Church in Germany showed to Hitler that helped the Jewish Holocaust to occur. I, for one, will have no part in such "honor" and I don't believe that a moral, God-honoring Christian can claim to be so and refuse to call evil men - whatever their station - what they are.
2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
Since the preaching of the Gospel directly opposed the established religious and political authority of the Jewish leaders of the time of the Early Church, what did Paul mean here? It seems obvious to me that he is not forbidding overt opposition to, and criticism of, such authority (in which he himself participated and for which he was abused and imprisoned). He is, I believe, speaking very generally here about Christians fomenting violent political rebellion and in so doing confirming the growing rumors of Paul's day about Christianity being a dangerous religious sect aimed primarily at overthrowing the social and political order.
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
It is, of course, patently obvious that this is a very general statement, a statement, for the most part, in principle only rather than in fact. Many have been the incredibly wicked rulers of nations throughout human history who have been themselves a terrible cause for fear among the righteous, perpetrating great evil upon all those over whom they gained power. Think: Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, etc.
4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
Here, Paul described the "minister of God for good," who differs widely from the many despotic mass-murderers populating human history and their agents of oppression and death. It is, I think, a very foolish Christian who takes what Paul wrote here to mean all rulers that God has set over nations are "ministers of good" and so are worthy of respect and deference. See above.
5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake.
The word "therefore" signals a conclusion from foregoing premises. In this case, the "therefore" is connected to rulers who are "not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil," who are "ministers of God to you for good," not any and every ruler, evil or not, who obtains power over, or within, a nation.
6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
Yes, even evil kings and rulers serve God's ends, as they did in the OT. And so, in view of this fact, where obeying the laws of the land serve a clearly moral and/or practical good, as in the case of paying taxes, even though the ruler of that land is evil, the Christian ought to "render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due...," etc.. None of this, though, forbids offering criticism of, and opposition to, evil rulers.
Last edited:
