®™©
Christians
and the Coming Tyranny
By de Andréa,
Opinion Editorialist
for ‘THE BOTTOM LINE’:
for ‘THE BOTTOM LINE’:
Published May 21, 2015
Does the Bible teach total passiveness when it comes to
tyrants? The Jews thought so up until the
year 1945, and just look at what happened to them? While the Scriptures teaches
that it is proper to obey those in authority over us, it also teaches us to
rebel against any unlawful order, excluding us from being total subjects of
tyranny.
And if you don't believe tyranny is coming..well it's already here watch this.
And if you don't believe tyranny is coming..well it's already here watch this.
In the past I have discussed the biblical principle of
Christian resistance for example as it relates to the upcoming Supreme Court
decision on same-sex marriage. As I pointed out there are examples in the Bible
of God’s people resisting direct commands by civil officials based on a very
specific set of higher law principles.
Christian apologist Francis A. Schaeffer wrote: “Let
us not forget why the Christians were killed. They were not killed because
they worshipped Jesus... Nobody cared who worshipped whom as long as the
worshipper did not disrupt the unity of the state, centered in the formal
worship of Caesar. The reason Christians were killed was because they were
rebels”1 and placed the god
of the Bible over the claim that the State and its Caesars were gods. The
proof?: “they all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is
another king, Jesus” (Acts 17:7).
Contrary to what many people have been told, King James of
the King James Bible wanted a translation that countered the notes in the 1559
Geneva Bible, the Bible of the Puritans and Pilgrims. Not just to translate the
Bible into the English language. The Geneva Bible was already in English. “For example, the margin notes for Daniel 6:22
imply that the commands of kings are to be disobeyed if they conflict with the
law of God: ‘For he [Daniel] disobeyed the king’s wicked commandment in order
to obey God, and so he did no injury to the king, who ought to command nothing
by which God would be dishonored.’”2
Alister McGrath comments:
“Notice also how the Genevan notes regularly use the word
‘tyrant’ to refer to kings; the King James Bible never uses this word—a fact noted with approval as much as relief
by many royalists at this point.”3
It’s no wonder that King James authorized a fresh
translation of the Bible to undermine the republican implications of the Geneva
Bible. 4
Because of its no exception tone, Romans 13 is seen as
prohibiting all resistance to the law of the State: "Let every person be in
subjection to the governing authorities. . .” (v. 1). The apostle lists
no exceptions. Peter makes a similar statement: "Submit yourselves for the
Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in
authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and
the praise of those who do right" (1 Peter 2:13-14). Again, no
exceptions. This is the same Peter who declared, "We must obey God rather
than men" (Acts 5:29; cf. 4:19-20). How do we reconcile this apparent contradiction?
Jonathan Mayhew (1720-1766) states the following in his
1750 sermon “Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher
Powers”:
There are a number of places in Scripture where one verse speaks
in absolute terms and other verses offer exceptions. This is not unusual. If I
tell my grandchildren to go outside and play until dinner is ready, I have
spoken in absolute terms. They are not to come into the house until they are
called. No exceptions are given. What if it rains? What if a large dog enters
the yard? Can they enter the house without violating my absolute and no
exception command?
They would not be violating the “no exception” command because
there are unspoken exceptions. They are assumed to
be operating without them having to be repeated each time a new command is
given. They have been told on previous occasions to "come in when it's
raining" and "do not get near stray dogs that wander into the yard.
The Bible operates in the same manner. In one place Jesus says, "All
those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword" (Matt.
26:52). Does this include the civil magistrate? What about the person who
strikes an assailant in self-defense? Is this not an exception to Jesus' “no
exception” statement? Since the Bible already discusses self-defense (Ex.
22:2-3; Deut. 19:21) and the role of the civil magistrate (e.g., Gen. 9:6),
there is no need to repeat the exceptions since Jesus’ hearers knew He has
anarchy and revolution in mind (e.g., Lev. 19:18), not the just use of the
sword. Romans 13:4 explains that it is the duty of the civil magistrate to use
the sword in certain specified cases. Is this a contradiction? No.
So then, when we read passages like Romans 13:1 and 1 Peter
2:13-14, we must not neglect the rest of the Bible that is equally
authoritative and more fully explains and qualifies these passages.
“Many general statements of Scripture must be open to admitting
exceptions even those qualifications are not immediately spelled out. Why are
so many generalizations stated without qualification? Because the exact conditions
restricting their applicability are not known, or because the
"accidental" or providential circumstances that render them
inapplicable occur so seldom as to be practically negligible, or because such
qualification has already been stipulated in another inscripturated context.”5
THE BOTTOM LINE: We must recognize that as the
State becomes more and more despotic and non-Christian in its social and
political policies, conflicts between church and State will multiply. That
conflict may make it necessary for Christians to say no’ to statist laws that
will force them to violate the laws of God as well as their own constitution,
forcing the people to choose just which laws they are going to recognize.
There is an additional reason why Christians must understand the
limits of civil jurisdiction and the limits of resistance. Because of a desire to see the current
corruption in our own nation reversed, some Christians may take it upon
themselves to bring about change by revolutionary means. While the Spirit of
revolution is unbiblical, but as the patriots in early America had tyranny
thrust upon them with only the alternative to obey or die, we must look to the
exception of self-defense and self-preservation.
How Christians go about resisting is a question that needs to be
answered in exacting detail. The fact that we have lesser magistrates – state
governments, governors, and state constitutions – that can serve as legitimate
governing authorities as a means to rebuff civil and judicial tyranny is a
viable governing avenue for Christians to take.
But what if those in authority violate their own laws???
Think about it, my Thanks
for listening – de Andréa
Please pass on this article to everyone on your email
list. It may be the only chance for your
friends to hear the truth.
Copyright © 2014 by Bottom
Line Publishing, All Rights Reserved - Permission to reprint in whole or
in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Disclaimer - The writer of
this blog is not responsible for the language or advertisements used in links
to referenced articles as source materials.
No comments:
Post a Comment