There are many good Christians who believe Biden’s theft of the U.S. presidency could only have occurred in accordance with God’s will (Insha’la as the Muslims say). It reminds me of a chapter in Josephus in which, shortly after occupying Canaan, some neighboring nation attacked them. The enemy was amazed to discover the Israelites refused to fight on the Sabbath. Shortly before the impending massacre of hundreds of thousands of Israelites the elders appealed to Moses to ask God. God, probably in astonishment, told them to fight on the Sabbath to preserve His people. Duh, DUH! This passive interpretation of “God’s will” ignores the premises contained in the Declaration of Independence … and a host of historical precedents throughout the history of Mankind. “Pacifism is not neutral. Failure to support your country ipso facto results in aiding the enemy.” – Winston Churchill
“John Adams called the Reverend Jonathan Mayhew a “transcendent genius.” Commemorating the anniversary of the execution of Charles I, Reverend Mayhew delivered his Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission on January 30, 1750. In it he argued against the divine right of kings and any form of royal or ecclesiastical absolutism. In a letter to Hezekiah Niles in 1818, Adams said, “it was read by everybody, celebrated by friends, and abused by enemies.” The reigns of King George the First, George the Second, the two Jameses and the two Charleses were considered a disgrace by Britons and held in abhorrence by Americans. The persecutions and cruelties suffered by the colonists’ ancestors under those reigns had been transmitted by history and tradition, and Mayhew seemed to raise up to revise all their animosity against tyranny, in church and state, and at the same time to destroy their bigotry, fanaticism, and inconsistency.” – Annals of America, Volume I; p, 481
In keeping with the historical nexus between God and America, and the almost identical current times that try men’s souls, I can do no less.
- “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 he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth.
- Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath but also for conscience sake.
- For, for this cause pay you 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. – Romans 13:1-7
“It is evident that the affair of civil government may properly fall under a moral and religious consideration, as it relates to the general nature of magistracy and to the extent that submission a person ought to yield to those who are vested with authority. This must be allowed by all who acknowledge the divine origin of Christianity. Although there be a sense in which Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, His inspired apostles have, nevertheless, laid down some general principles concerning the office of civil rulers and the duty of subjects together with the reason and obligation of that duty. From hence it follows that it is proper for all who acknowledge the authority of Jesus Christ and the inspiration of His apostles to understand what the doctrine is concerning this matter.
It is the duty of Christian magistrates to [educate] themselves on what it is which their religion teaches concerning the nature of their office. It is equally the duty of all Christian people to [educate] themselves what it is their religion teaches concerning that subjection which they owe to the higher powers.
The passage read is the most full and express of any in the New Testament relating to rulers and subjects. The apostle’s [St. Paul] doctrine… may be summed up in the following observations, viz. …
That the end of magistracy is the good of civil society, as such …
That civil rulers are the ministers of God; it being by His permission and providence that any bear rule and agreeable to His will that there should be some persons vested with authority in society, for the well-being of it.
That which is here said relates indifferently to monarchial, republican, aristocratic government, and to all other forms which answer the sole end of government, the happiness of society; and to all the different degrees of authority in any particular state, to inferior officers no less than to the supreme.
That disobedience to civil rulers in the due exercise of their authority is not merely a political sin but a heinous offense against God and religion.
That the true reason of our obligation to be subject to the higher powers is the usefulness of magistracy (when properly exercised) to human society and its subservience to the general welfare.
That obedience to civil rulers is equally required under all forms of government which answer the sole end of all governments, the good of society; and to every degree of authority in any state.
And, lastly, that those civil rulers to whom the apostle enjoins subjection are the persons in possession; the powers that be, those who are actually [legitimately] vested with authority.
There is one very important and interesting question, the extent of that subjection to the higher powers. Some have thought it glorious to disobey the civil powers in certain circumstances and, in cases of very great and general oppression when humble remonstrances fail and when the public welfare cannot be otherwise provided for and secured, to rise against the sovereign in order to redress their grievances; to vindicate their natural and legal rights; to break the yoke of tyranny and free themselves and posterity from inglorious servitude and ruin. It is upon this principle that many royal oppressors have been driven from their thrones into banishment, and many slain by the hands of their subjects. …
We are expected … to be subject to the higher powers, and … to be subject for conscience sake. …
Since it is certain there were persons who imagined that civil government in general was not to be regarded by them, it is reasonable to suppose that the apostle designed his discourse only against them. He argues the usefulness of civil magistracy in general, its agreeableness to the will and purpose of God who is over all, and deduce from hence the obligation of submission to it.
It does not follow that because civil government is a good institution there are no cases in which resistance to it can be objected to. The apostle enforces the duty of submission to the higher powers, only to those who actually [legitimately] perform the duty of rulers by exercising a reasonable and just authority for the good of human society.
It is obvious that the civil rulers whom the apostle here speaks of are good rulers in the exercise of their office. What reason is there for submitting to a government which does not answer the design of government? “Wherefore ye must needs be subject not only for wrath but for conscience sake” (Rom. 13:5). Here the apostle argues the duty of a cheerful and conscientious submission to civil government as he had before laid it down. … But how does what he says here prove the duty of a cheerful and conscientious subjection to those who forfeit the character of their rulers? – to those who encourage the bad and discourage the good? The argument here no more proves it to be a sin to resist such rulers than it does to resist the devil!
How does this argument conclude paying taxes to princes who are continually endeavoring to ruin the public? And especially when such payment would facilitate and promote their wicked designs?
Romans 13:7 – Here the apostle sums up the duty of subjects to rulers. “Since magistrates who execute their offices well are common benefactors to society and may be properly styled the ministers and ordinance of God, and since they are constantly employed in the service of the public, it becomes you to pay them tribute and custom to reverence, honor, and submit to them in the execution of their respective offices.
But does this argument mean the duty of paying tribute, custom, reverence, honor, and obedience to such persons as use all their power to hurt and injure the public? – such are not God’s ministers but Satan’s! – such do not take care of the public interest, but their own!
It is hoped those who have regard to the apostle’s character as an inspired writer, or even as a man of common understanding, will not represent him as reasoning in such a loose, incoherent manner and drawing conclusions which have not the least relation to his premises. For what can be more absurd than an argument thus framed? – even when they destroy the public welfare and are a common pest to society by acting in direct contradiction to the nature of their office?
Upon a careful review of the apostle’s reasoning, it appears his arguments to enforce submission conclude only submission to such rulers as he himself describes; i.e., such as rule for the good of society. Common tyrants and public oppressors are not entitled to obedience from their subjects by virtue of anything here laid down by the inspired apostle. The apostle’s argument proves the direct contrary. If the end of civil government be the good of society, and the motive for submission to government be the usefulness of civil authority; if follows that when no such good government can be answered by submission there remains no motive to enforce it; and if a contrary end is brought about and the ruin and misery of society effected by it, here is a plain and positive reason against all submission in all such cases. In those cases a regard to the public welfare ought to make us withhold that obedience and subjection.
If it be our duty to obey our king in order for him to rule for the public welfare, it follows that when he turns tyrant and makes his subjects prey to devour and to destroy instead of to defend and cherish, we are bound to throw off our allegiance to him and to resist. To continue our allegiance in this case would be to join with the sovereign in promoting slavery and misery of that society, the welfare of which we ourselves are indispensably obliged to secure and promote. It is true the apostle puts no case of such a tyrannical ruler, but it is plain he implicitly authorizes and even requires us to make resistance whenever it shall be necessary to the public safety and happiness.
The advocates for universal submission and passive obedience always speak with reference to kingly or monarchial government. If any power oppresses the people it is allowed that the people get redress by resistance if other methods prove ineffectual. If any officers in government go beyond the limits of the power which they have derived from the people and attempt, illegally, to take away the properties and lives of their subjects, they may be forcibly resisted.
There is nothing in Scripture which supports this scheme of political principles. The apostle does not concern himself with the different forms of government. He leaves this entirely to human prudence and discretion. The consequence of this is that unlimited and passive obedience is no more enjoined in this passage under monarchial as any other form of government. The apostle leaves the determination of oppression of society to the reason and conscience of men. Nothing can be imagined more contrary to common sense than to suppose that millions of people should be subjected to the arbitrary, precarious pleasure of one single man (who has naturally no superiority over them) so that their estates , and everything that is valuable in life, even their lives, shall be at his absolute disposal if he happens to be wanton and capricious enough to demand them.. What man can think that God made all to be subservient to the lawless pleasure and frenzy of one so that it always be a sin to resist him! Nothing could make a sober, impartial man believe such a monstrous, unaccountable doctrine.
The hereditary, indefeasible divine right of kings, and the doctrine of nonresistance are as fabulous and chimerical as transubstantiation or any of the most absurd reveries of ancient or modern visionaries. These notions are fetched neither from divine revelation nor human reason. It is a pity that such doctrines should be propagated in society, to raise factions and rebellions both in the last and in the present reign.
It is unquestionably the duty of children to submit to their parents. But no one asserts that it is their duty to obey and submit to them in all cases. Does this tend to subvert the just authority of parents. Or introduce confusion and anarchy into private families? No. How does the same principle unhinge the government of that larger family, the body politic? No one asserts they are not obliged to submit to them in all things without exception but may reasonably and innocently resist them in some cases. These principles are acknowledged by everyone, whatever difficulty there may be in fixing the exact limits of obedience. Is the principle false merely because it may be abused and applied in instances in which it not ought to be applied? According to this argument, there would be no true principles in the world, for there are none but what may be wrested and perverted to serve bad purposes, either through the weakness or wickedness of men.
A people really oppressed by their sovereign, cannot be insensible. For an abused nation to arise unanimously and resist their ruler is not criminal but a reasonable way of vindicating their liberties and just rights; it is making use of the only means which God has put into their hands for mutual and self-defense. It would be highly criminal not to make use of this means. It would be stupid tameness and unaccountable folly for whole nations to suffer one unreasonable, ambitious, and cruel man to wanton and riot in their misery.
Let us all learn to be free and to be loyal. Let us not profess ourselves vessels to the lawless pleasure of any man on earth. Let us remember government is sacred and not to be trifled with. It is our happiness to live under a government ruling lawfully. Let us prize our freedom but not use our liberty for a cloak of maliciousness. There are men who strike at liberty under the term licentiousness. There are others who aim at popularity under the guise of patriotism. Be aware of both.
While I am speaking of loyalty let me remind you to be loyal to the Supreme Ruler of the universe. To which King eternal, immortal, be all honor and praise, dominion and thanksgiving through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen”
“You’ve got to stand for something, or you’ll fall for anything.
You’ve got to be your own man, not a puppet on a string.” – country singer Aaron Tippin
