John Tucker, pastor of the First Church of Newbury, preached an election sermon in May of 1771 using as a text I Peter 2:13-16, one of the very texts used today to justify submission to Christ-less, humanistic authority. It says, "Submit yourself to every ordinance of man."
Note the comments concerning that sermon made in the history book, The Chaplains and Clergy of the Revolution, by J.T. Headley: "While acknowledging that government is the work of man, he declares it derives all its powers from God, and hence its enactments must be in accordance with his will, and boldly asserts that, ‘the people as well as their rulers are the proper judges of the civil constitution they are under and of their own rights and principles.' When he comes to apply the text in requiring submission to rulers, he enters into a full consideration of what kind of submission is due. He says the duties of ruled and ruler are reciprocal, and, ‘Universal submission is not due to government in a free state. There are certain boundaries beyond which submission cannot be justly required, and should not be yielded. They have,' he says, 'an undoubted privilege to complain of unconstitutional measures in government, and of unlawful encroachments upon their rights, and may, while they do it with becoming decency, do it with that noble freedom and firmness which a sense of wrong joined with the love of liberty will inspire.'
Warming with his subject he goes farther, and declares that they not only have a right to complain, but that resistance may become a duty. He does not, he says, presume to draw the line in the present controversy where resistance should begin, but declares, 'Sirs, it is not necessary if our constitutional rights and privileges should be demanded, we should readily yield to the unrighteous claim. Should we thus meanly resign them up, and take in exchange the chains of slavery for ourselves and children, could we forgive ourselves? Would our unhappy posterity forgive us?' "
In 1773 Charles Tucker delivered the annual election sermon, using as a text, Romans 13, which he met the objection that ministers should not meddle in politics. He boldly asserted that it was their duty to interfere where the liberties of the land are assailed stating, "when the civil rights of a country receive a shock, it may justly render the ministers of God deeply thoughtful for the safety of sacred privileges-for religious liberty is so blended with civil that if one falls it is not to be expected that the other will continue."
Samuel West of Dartmouth delivered the election sermon in 1776 and used for his text Titus Chapter 3: "Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates." In that message he taught the need for civil government and the Christian obligation to be obedient to it and the equal obligation to resist tyranny which cares neither for the happiness nor right of the subject; for, said he, "tyranny and magistry are so opposed to each other that where one begins the other ends." He also declared that God never gave any man the right to trample on the liberty of his people and, "no number of men can confer a right they do not possess, viz, to take away liberty. " Then still using the same text in Titus that most pastors use for passive submission he made the following points, "any people, when cruelly oppressed, had a right to throw of the yoke, and be free."
"Reason and equity require that no one be obliged to pay the tax that he has never consented to. But, if they have the right to take our property from us without our consent, we must be wholly at their mercy for food and raiment, and we know, by sad experience, that their tender mercies are cruel.
"It is an indispensable duty, my brethren, which we owe to God and our country, to rouse up and bestir ourselves; and being animated with a noble zeal for the sacred cause of liberty, to defend our lives and fortunes to the shedding of the last drop of blood. The love of our country, the tender affection that we have for our wives and children, and the regard that we ought to have for unborn posterity-yea, everything that is dear and sacred - do now loudly call on us to use our best endeavors to save our country. We must turn our plowshares into swords, and our pruning-hooks into spears, and learn the art of self-defense against our enemies. To be careless and remiss, or to neglect the cause of our country through the base motives of avarice or self-interest, will expose us, not only to the resentments of our fellow-creatures, but to the displeasure of God Almighty.”
Is it any wonder that the people of that day, while calling upon the God of the Bible, wrote the following great truth on July 4, 1776, 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 among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. " Notice they understood their rights came from God. History shows they fought for those rights.
It was their religious conviction they need not obey any authority which would deprive them of those God given rights.
Some may condemn their actions and judge them to be in error Biblically. Often in our courts, when one is being judged, the defense will present case law to support their position. When we go to the Bible, we find the actions of the men and their Bible interpretation supported with Bible case law.
BIBLE CASE LAW EXAMPLES REVEAL THE
CORRECT INTERPRETATION ON AUTHORITY
Blind, passive obedience to those in position of authority is not the rule when various Bible stories are considered. Take, for example, the Hebrew midwives in Exodus l:15-20: Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah, and the other was named Puah, and he said, 'When you are helping the Hebrew women to give birth and see them upon the birthstool, if it is a son, then you shall put him to death; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.' But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded them, but let the boys live. So the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said to them, 'Why have you done this thing, and let the boys live?' And the midwives said to Pharaoh, 'Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous, and they give birth before the midwife can get to them.' So God was good to the midwives, and the people multiplied, and became very mighty. And it came about because the midwives feared God, that He established households for them.
Note in this story that not only were the midwives disobedient to the highest authority in the land (i.e., they DID NOT OBEY CAESAR OR PHARAOH), but they lied and outfoxed the authorities. The midwives knew that it was their God-given right not to have to bear witness against themselves. Who can deny that God's blessings were upon them?
The story of Rahab in Joshua 2:1-3 is another similar story. Then Joshua the son of Nun sent two men as spies secretly from Shittim, saying, 'Go, view the land, especially Jericho.' So they went and came into the house of a harlot whose name was Rahab, and lodged there. And it was told the king of Jericho, saying, 'Behold, men from the sons of Israel have come here tonight to search out the land.' And the king of Jericho sent word to Rahab, saying, 'Bring out the men who have come to you, who have entered your house, for they have come to search out all the land.' But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them, and she said, 'Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from. '
Rahab was not in submission to her governing authorities. She too lied and she too was rewarded, and it is she that is used as an example in the New Testament Faith Hall of Fame found in Hebrews Chapter 11.
Another example is the story of Daniel in Daniel Chapter 6. Because of space we shall only give a few verses: Then these commissioners and satraps came by agreement to the king and spoke to him as follows: 'King Darius, live forever! All the commissioners of the kingdom, the prefects and the satraps, the high officials and the governors have consulted together that the king should establish a statute and enforce an injunction that anyone who makes a petition to any god or man besides you,0 king, for thirty days, shall be cast into the lions' den. Now, 0 king, establish the injunction, and sign the document so that it may not be changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which may not be revoked.'
Therefore King Darius signed the document, that is, the injunction. Now when Daniel knew that the document was signed, he entered his house (now in his roof chamber he had windows open toward Jerusalem); and he continued kneeling on his knees three times a day, praying and giving thanks be/ore his God, as he had been doing previously.
In this story you will note that the king's new law was similar to a city council’s ordinance of no praying and no church in improperly zoned areas. Daniel did not obey the law; he was not in submission to the authorities and as a result he was given an overnight jail sentence with some not-so-cool-cats (see Daniel 6:16).
Of course for those confused souls who seem to think God has changed and that a point is valid only if it comes from the New Testament, let's observe two New Testament examples of disobedience. In the 19th chapter of the Gospel of John verses 8 and 9 we find Jesus refusing to obey the authorities, in this case Pilate: When Pilate therefore heard this statement, he was the more afraid and he entered the Praetorium again and said to Jesus, 'Where are you from?' But Jesus gave him no answer.
This example is equivalent to a police officer or judge demanding to see a man's I.D. or driver's license and being refused because of no probable cause.
Another New Testament example is that of two apostles found in Acts Chapters 4 and 5. And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said to them, 'Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge.' Acts 4:18-19
Acts 5: And when they had brought them, they stood them before the Council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. But Peter and the apostles answered and said, We must obey God rather than men. Acts 5:27-29
In these passages we see the Apostles refusing to obey the authorities, and for it, these men of God were physically beaten. (Acts 5:40)
Haven't things changed! Men once would disobey to proclaim Jesus Christ even if it cost them a physical beating. Today when a council of men tells Christians they cannot have prayer and Bible in public schools they cower and obey for it may cost them some federal funds. The reason is they often do not understand Bible teaching on authority.
PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE AUTHORITY OF ROMANS 13 AND RELATED TEXTS.
It goes without saying that we have numerous Bible examples of disobedience to higher powers or governing authorities, but it also goes without saying that Romans 13:1 teaches one is to obey governing authorities- "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities." I Peter 3:13 teaches this as well. ls there, thus, a contradiction? No!
What there is, is two types of governing authorities or higher powers taught in the Bible. Christians are to obey the one described in Romans 13 and with slight study of the text it becomes obvious what that is.
Romans 13:1 identifies it as authority which comes from God-There is no authority except from God. Romans 13:2 further identifies the authority as that which is in keeping with the will of God, that is, executing his law he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God. Verse 3 identifies the authority as an authority that one need not fear if he is doing no wrong—For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior but for evil, and as an authority which praises good behavior. Verse 4 shows the authority is that which punishes evildoers as a minister of God—For it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil. Then verses 6 and 7 teach that for such authority taxes are paid. It goes without saying that said authority or rulers must be financed and ought to be financed by Christian people who—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.
The authority the scripture speaks of comes from God, does His will, i.e., executes His law, punishes evildoers, and gives no cause to fear to those who do good. IT IS NOT a governing authority that would protect homosexuals, forbid Bibles and Jesus in school, finance and promote the murder of babies in the womb, slaughter our youth in unconstitutional no-win wars, forbid Christian parents from giving their children a Christian education, forbid travel without a license, forbid preaching without a license, deny the first fruits of our labors, feed those who will not work, require a number to exist (Social Security), etc. For all of this is not in keeping with the law of God.
Such a governing authority causes those who do good, such as hold church in their home or have prayer in class, to be in fear and causes those who do evil, such as homosexuals, to be protected. Such an authority is not what the scriptures teach obedience to nor support of.
This does not mean another authority or higher power does not nor cannot exist which does all these unlawful humanistic deeds. It simply means this is not the authority of Romans 13 or I Peter 2:13.
A COUNTERFEIT AUTHORITY EXISTS
OTHER THAN THAT OF ROMANS CHAPTER 13.
Hosea 8:4 says - They have set up kings but not by me. They have appointed princes but, I did not know it. This passage teaches that man can set up higher powers which are not the authorities God intends for His kingdom.
Let's illustrate this point with a true story. About one hundred years ago there was a Christian settler and his family moving west into Colorado in a covered wagon. Shortly after having crossed over the Colorado-Kansas line enroute to his future homestead he was approached by two men on horseback. The one stayed off in the distance while the other rode up to the wagon to tell the settler that it would be necessary to pay a toll tax before crossing through the valley ahead of him.
The settler, recognizing a highwayman when he saw one and knowing he had a God-given right to freedom of travel, resisted these two potential-higher-powers by pulling out a rifle and stating that he did not think that tax applied to him.
Would any church dare condemn this settler's disobedience as unchristian?
No!
It is recognized by God and man that the two horsemen were not the authority meant for the Kingdom.
No comments:
Post a Comment