Ken wrote a paper for one of his seminary classes this summer and I thought the topic was very appropriate to the current situation in our country. This paper is entitled:
The Biblical Basis
for Civil Disobedience
The practice of civil disobedience
is morally acceptable, and even prescribed in the Bible, when religious
liberties are under attack by an oppressive government. The Scriptures have
much to say about the practice of civil disobedience, its justification,
limits, and practice. The recent law passed in our nation regarding the
requirements for the provision, or payment for the provision, of abortifacient
medical treatments by faith-based organizations has created a firestorm of
indignation over the diminution of religious freedoms, with many religious
leaders urging open defiance of the new law.
This paper will explore the biblical teaching on civil disobedience
using relevant biblical texts as well as scholarly sources from within
Christian thought. Examples of proper biblical civil disobedience will be
examined from both the Old and New Testaments, with particular attention paid
to the God-ordained role of earthly governments.
The
Meaning of Civil Disobedience
If disobedience in general is the
failure to follow a command or observe a prohibition, then civil disobedience
is the same failure with regard to the law as codified by the state. Civil disobedience, however, is not to be
equated with lawlessness, or mere refusal to submit to legal jurisdiction. On the contrary, the practitioner of civil
disobedience voluntarily submits himself to the proper punishment accorded his
acts as a show of fidelity to the rule of law. In civil disobedience the
resistance is not against the rule of law, but rather against laws in
particular, laws that are deemed unjust.
Thomas Aquinas argued in his Summa Theologiae that all law is derived
from eternal law. He believed that unjust
laws are not laws at all because they were not rooted in eternal law and
natural law, writing “in temporal law nothing is just and legitimate which men
have not derived from eternal law.” William
Blackstone, a renowned eighteenth-century English jurist, wrote “The law of
nature is dictated by God himself…is binding in all countries and at all
times…No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them
as are valid derive all their force and all their authority mediately or
immediately, from this original.”
The purpose of civil disobedience
is to achieve justness in law. The Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary
defines it as “refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a
nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the
government.” [4] According to Duane Heffelbower, for a
Christian, civil disobedience is the “purposeful, nonviolent action, or refusal
to act, by a Christian who believes such action or inaction is required of him
or her in order to be faithful to God, and which he or she knows will be
treated by the governing authorities as a violation of law.”
Martin
Luther King, Jr. recounted the origins of civil disobedience as dating back to
Old Testament times – to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who disobeyed the law
of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar for the sake of their conscience. He
wrote of Martin Luther, his namesake, who declared to the authorities “Here I
stand; I can do no other. God help me.”
He
also wrote of John Bunyan, who suffered lengthy imprisonment for his beliefs
vowing “I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of
my conscience.” And
King spent time in jail himself for his beliefs, using the occasion to pen a
letter to area pastors appealing to their consciences for support in his quest
for racial justice.
As successful as King’s crusade would later prove to be, the
principle upon which it was founded was just as important, for this principal
of eternal law was the basis upon which our United States government was
founded. Decades after its founding, the greatest moral struggle of its history
– the campaign to end slavery – turned on this same principle.
The
Role of Government as Ordained by God
As Christians we walk among two
kingdoms, possessing full citizenship in both.
We are, of course, citizens of a nation-state here on earth that is
governed by some form of civil government; and whether that government is free
or not is immaterial. We are also by
adoption through the blood of Christ citizens of the eternal Kingdom of
God. As Christians we have the hope and
assurance that in time we will be subject to the Kingdom of God alone, but
while on earth we cannot deny our earthly citizenship and the responsibilities
that come with that citizenship. Along
with enjoying the rights and privileges of such a membership, we also must live
up to the responsibilities and obligations that both demand. As dual citizens
of two very different realms of governance, it would seem apparent that at
times one will be at odds with the other. In those moments we are faced with the
question of whether or not it is proper to hold one kingdom in deference to
another with regard to the obedience of the laws which prevail and at times
contradict each other. Both the Old and the New Testaments have made it very clear
that God has ordained civil government for the proper order and justice of the
human race. As soon as sin made its appearance on earth, restraint of evil became
necessary. The Bible records the first
“crime” against another human being in Genesis 4, wherein Cain murders his
brother Abel, bringing upon himself the penalty of death, his life for Abel’s. However, it is not until Genesis 9:6 that the
actual establishment of the means and institution for carrying out such justice
is given to Noah, and henceforth, the institution of civil government. The power to wield the sword in meting out
justice and providing for the protection and civil order of all citizens was
from this point on placed in the hands of government representatives, where the
actual form of government was not a determining factor, but was deemed as the
ruling authority over its citizenry.
When the question of submission to civil authority was put forth
to Jesus by Jewish religious leaders in an attempt to trap Him into saying
something seditious against the government regarding the paying of taxes, He
responded with the words “Render to Caesar the things that are
Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” [9] When Jesus was arrested and asked by the
Roman governor Pilate to give an account for His words and deeds, Jesus
answered “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my
servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the
Jews. But my kingdom is not of the world.”
[10]
Ryrie posits that a failure to
distinguish the civil government from the religious hierarchy of the day caused
many to actually see Jesus as an example of civil disobedience, but a more
studied approach to this pericope makes it quite evident that Jesus had no
aspirations of making civil change, only spiritual revolution.
In the New Testament, the apostles
spoke extensively on the importance of obeying the civil rulers, as they have
been placed in their positions by God’s sovereignty and His will. Romans 13 opens with “Let
every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority
except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” [12]
Paul warns that whoever fails to obey government is in effect resisting God.
Here again, there is no mention of obedience based on the form or quality of
the governing system. Even after years
of persecution, including beatings and imprisonment for preaching Christ, Paul
did not waver in his convictions on this matter. In a letter to Titus, he
instructs him to remind Christians to “be submissive to rulers and authorities,
to be obedient, to be ready for every good work…” [13]
The apostle Peter was not quiet on this
topic either. In I Peter, he wrote “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to
every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to
governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do
good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence
the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your
freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone.
Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.” [14]
Both Peter and Paul wrote their teachings
while living under the despotic rule of the Roman Emperor Nero, who delighted
in persecuting Christians and defiling all that is right and good in
society. Nevertheless, these servants of
Christ never relented in their firm convictions on the necessity of submitting
to the ruling authorities. Paul even
reminded us that “supplications, prayers, intercessions, and
thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high
positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in
every way.” [15] In
summary, the entire Bible is consistent in teaching complete civil obedience to
government by Christians with no exceptions in principle.
Prevailing
Views on What the Bible Says Regarding Civil Disobedience
There
are three basic views on the interpretation of the Scriptures with regard to
the issue of civil disobedience for the Christian church. One stance is similar to the radical
patriotism associated with the issue of war. The government, being ordained and
established by God, must be obeyed in all instances and in all ways. To the radical patriot it is never acceptable
to wage resistance against a government de facto, even one that governs
unjustly and brutally. Their example to
be followed is that of Peter, Paul, and the other disciples, especially those
martyred for their faith. As Nero was
burning Christians to light the streets at night, those same Christians were
being admonished not to resist, even unto the point of death.
Contemporary
notable proponents of this view are scarce in number. Few influential theologians and leaders
within the Christian church continue to hold to this view within evangelical
circles, and that is especially so within the United States. The situation in America is unique in that it
is born of a cultural inclination towards freedom, democracy, and
self-determination. The individualism
and sense of self-governance characteristic of American culture dominates thinking
in this area, as witnessed by the appeal to higher law in justifying forceful
liberation of peoples around the world through military and coercive diplomatic
actions on the part of our government.
A
second view of biblical interpretations of civil disobedience, albeit one this
writer considers irrational and self-destructive, is the idea that government
must be resisted in all instances wherein one’s rights and conscience are
threatened.
This view espouses the
disobedience and resistance of any law or action of the government that does
not square with one’s Christian beliefs. This view borders on revolution, as it
reserves the right to outright reject the authority of the government. Some
believe Henry David Thoreau’s essay, “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,”
professed the belief that he was for a complete refutation of the authority of
government.
Thoreau wanted government to
“treat him as a neighbor” and to see the individual person as a “higher and
independent power.”
Secular
philosopher and author Carl Cohen writes that “Thoreau’s act may have been
noble but in seeking to place himself above the law, or outside its
jurisdiction, he acted as a rebel and strictly did not engage in civil
disobedience.”
The
third view, dubbed Biblical Submissionism in
Christian Ethics, by Norman Geisler, argues that disobedience to
governmental authorities is permitted, and even obligatory, given certain
conditions and motives. As Frank Stagg describes it, Paul instructed all
believers to willfully and obediently submit to governmental authorities and to
do so out of conscience.
That same
conscience, in a different scenario, compelled John the Revelator to refuse
submission to the state and to disengage from the civil religion which gave its
stamp of imprimatur to the beastliness of the state. Under Nazi
totalitarianism, Niemöller, Barth, and Bonhoeffer had to make the same calls.
Examples of Acceptable and Required Civil Disobedience in the Bible
In
Scripture, a
s early as Exodus, the Bible illustrates an example involving the
refusal to kill male babies of the Israelites by the Hebrew midwives Shiphrah
and Puah as ordered by Pharaoh. The
midwives were said to have “feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt
commanded them, but let the male children live.” [21]
After
the exodus of the Israelites, and their subsequent wanderings in the
wilderness, they arrived at the point of entering the Promised Land and readied
an attack on the fortress city of Jericho. The Israelite spies in Jericho found
a harlot named Rahab to take them in and hid them from the king of Jericho, a
clearly treasonous act on her part. Joshua 2 records that she feared the Hebrew
God more than the king, and chose to act on that authority above her own civil
government.
In Daniel 3 the story is told of the
three young Israelite captives who would not bow to Nebuchadnezzar’s golden
image, resulting in being thrown into a fiery furnace for their disobedience.
God delivered them as a testimony of His saving power and approval of their
actions in obedience to Him.
In
the New Testament, Acts 4 recounts the arrest of Peter and John for preaching
the gospel in Jerusalem. The religious
leaders, though they did not represent civil government, had the power to
arrest and prosecute Peter and John.
They demanded that the men cease and desist at once this seditious
teaching and submit their authority.
Peter and John replied “Whether it is right in the sight of God to
listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for
we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.” [24]
Also
in the Bible, in reference to the end times to come, Revelation records in
John’s vision the scene where believers will refuse to worship the antichrist
at the pain of death. The 12th chapter of Revelation foretells that
they “conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their
testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death.” [25]
Criteria for the Biblical Practice of Civil Disobedience
Theologian Norman
Geisler qualifies civil disobedience as being acceptable and incumbent upon a
believer only when the government usurps God’s authority. Geisler lists a set
of circumstances for qualified civil disobedience against the government that
includes seven points:
1. When
it does not allow worship of God.
2. When
it commands believers to kill innocent lives.
3. When
it commands that God’s servants be killed.
4. When
it commands believers to worship idols.
5. When
it commands believers to pray only to a man.
6. When
it forbids believers to propagate the gospel.
7. When
it commands believers to worship a man.
Geisler sees a commonality in
these seven circumstances: They all involve government taking the place of God
versus taking its place under God.
Governments can enact laws permitting evil, but cannot command citizens
to commit that evil.
While it is
acceptable to engage in civil disobedience under the above criteria, it is not
acceptable to do so simply in response to injustice.
The Bible gives us no sanction for acquitting
ourselves of the responsibilities as earthly citizens.
Additionally,
it is helpful to delineate between laws that sanction injustice and/or evil,
and laws that mandate injustice and/or evil. It is one thing to be subject to
the allowance of these things, but the compulsion to submit to them must be
resisted. Geisler is careful to word his criteria in such a way as to avoid the
tacit approval of civil disobedience for the former.
The
passage in the beginning of Exodus 5 provides an excellent example of the
first criterion;
not allowing one to worship God.
In this pericope
, Pharaoh forbids the Israelites from going into the wilderness
for a time of special worship of God. It is important to note here who the
combatants in this confrontation were. Rather
than viewing this as a personal and political conflict between Moses and
Pharaoh, it should be seen as a clash between the God of the Israelites and
Egypt’s gods. As Pharaoh, the Egyptian
leader was considered a god himself, and thus part of the Egyptian pantheon.
Pharaoh’s
reply to Moses was: But Pharaoh said, “Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice and let Israel go? I do not know the Lord, and moreover, I will not let Israel go.” Pharaoh’s determination and rash response was indicative of this
spiritual conflict. As a consequence of
Moses’ persistence, Pharaoh increases the workload of the Israelites and
demands that they make the bricks for his building projects without the benefit
of straw.
In
the above example involving the Egyptian midwives in Exodus, a clear command was given to kill innocent lives
by the “king of Egypt.” This was a
violation of the second criterion,
and rightfully should have been disobeyed.
This conviction is further affirmed in verse 21, wherein it states that
because they feared God, He gave them families as well.
The
midwives had a sense of who God was, and they feared Him sufficiently to risk
the consequences of disobeying the king’s order to kill the male children born
of the Hebrew women. They were not, it seems by verse 19, highly religious,
however. They had no problem lying to
and deceiving the king as well.[29]
In
1 Kings 18, an example of the third
criterion can be found. Obadiah, a
servant of King Ahab, and a God-fearing man, upon learning of the killing of
God’s prophets by the queen Jezebel, took and his 100 prophets in and hid them
in caves. He provided for their food and
water as well, in order to spare their lives from certain annihilation. It is
apparent in verse 4 that Jezebel was determined to exterminate the worship of
Jehovah, and sought to carry out this plan by executing the prophets of the
true God.
As a
Jew, it is interesting that King Ahab, who by now worshiped foreign gods, would
keep an adherent to the old religion in his court. It was for Obadiah’s faith, a faith that
assured Ahab of his faithfulness and trustworthiness that he was allowed to
continue to administer for the king.
This trust was built on many years of faithful obedience and observance
of the prevailing government. Without
this earned credibility and favor of the king it is highly doubtful that
Obadiah would have been in such a place to save the prophets.[30]
The
first commandment given to Moses and God’s people on Mount Sinai was that “You
shall have no other gods before me.”
It is made very clear that we are not to worship any God but Jehovah.
Herein lies the basis for the
fourth criterion;
a command to worship idols.
In
the third chapter of Daniel three young Hebrew men, captives in Babylon since
the conquest of their homeland by Nebuchadnezzar, defied an order by the king
to bow in deference and worship before a huge golden image. It is not clear if
this image was of the king himself, or one of their gods. Also, they were not
explicitly asked to deny their God, only to bow before the king’s image. Nevertheless,
the purpose became clear once the herald made the proclamation that anyone who
did not bow would immediately be cast in to a fiery furnace. Bowing before the
image was a display of total allegiance to the king, and that they could not in
good conscience do.
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, privileged as
they were among the remnant of Israel, would not submit to this decree. However, they did willingly submit to,
without trying to flee, the punishment set for them. Death was better than betraying their God.
When given one more chance to comply they bravely stood their ground, placing
all confidence in the one true God, whether or not He chose to rescue
them. Their story could have ended
there, but God chose to spare them for His glory.
This
fifth criterion empowering a believer
to operate in civil disobedience is when one is commanded to pray only to a man. In a conspiracy to destroy Daniel
and his influence with King Darius, certain government officials advised the
king to sign a decree disallowing anyone to make an appeal to any god but Him
for thirty days. It was seen as a sign
of adoration to the king and the officials appealed to his own pride and
arrogance in making this proposal.
But Daniel did not alter his prayer
practices, and continued to call out to God from his upper chambers with the
windows thrown open. The conspirators, of course, knew this would be the case
and caught him in the act. Though it pained the king greatly, the punishment of
being thrown into a den of lions was carried out. Here again, it could have ended there, with a
martyred Daniel remaining faithful to God.
Once again, though, God saved him for His own glory, and Daniel’s
enemies, along with their entire families, perished in their own trap. Darius then issued an official statement
praising Daniel’s God as the sovereign Lord of the universe, who miraculously
delivers His servants.[33]
In
Acts 4, Peter and John are hauled before the Sadducees by the “temple police” and
forbidden to preach the gospel of Jesus and His resurrection from the
dead. When a court was gathered to try
them for their religious crimes, they replied with a forceful testimony of the
gospel that astonished the learned group, as they knew that these men were not
educated and had no experience addressing such an august audience. Furthermore, once they had testified of
Christ, they responded to the command to cease preaching by saying “Whether it
is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must
judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.”
This
example in Scripture of the sixth
criterion for biblical civil disobedience is perhaps the most quoted
justification for resistance to government authority in the Bible today; albeit
the officials persecuting Peter and John were not government representatives
per se, but rather enforcers of a highly legalistic form of Judaism. The
Sanhedrin were attempting to prevent the
apostles from propagating the gospel by forbidding any speech regarding the
resurrection of Jesus, the resurrection being a belief not held by the
Sadducees in general, and specifically with regard to Jesus. In Peter and John’s reply to this sham of a
court, they boldly make their appeal to the highest authority, one that governs
both the members of the Sanhedrin as well as the apostles. They appeal to God,
challenging the court to examine its verdict to see whether it conforms to
God’s law. [35]
Lastly,
the seventh criterion, when a believer is compelled to worship a man, can be seen in
Revelation 13.
In verses 7 and 8, the
Antichrist is pictured as one who
seeks to imitate Christ, who purchased his
people from every tribe, language, people, and nation. This person will receive the adulation of all
the people on the earth, except the saints. John clearly divides humanity into
those who worship the beast and those whose names are recorded in the book of
life. [36]
Those
whose names have been recorded in the Lamb’s Book of Life will resist this Antichrist,
will be persecuted severely, and many will die defending their faith. However, they will win in the end, having
been faithful even unto death.
Conclusion
Following
the above guidelines of Geisler, it is interesting to examine past events in our
own history to determine whether or not these criteria were met. Would the
American Revolution or the lunch counter sit-ins of the Civil Rights Movement
pass muster? Would the Civil War, insofar as it was fueled by the anti-slavery
struggle, be justified by these stringent qualifiers?
Throughout
history civil disobedience has been practiced in some form or another. For the Christian, it is of utmost importance
to be able to discern righteous and justifiable civil disobedience from that
which the Word of God labels as no more than rebellion and a bad witness to the
world. Though Scripture lays out clear
criteria for practicing civil disobedience in keeping with our Christian
mandate to obey the governing authorities as servants of God, it is this author’s
opinion that the majority of acts labeled civil disobedience down through
history did not meet those qualifications. A careful analysis of Scripture
reveals a much higher bar than has historically been accepted among believers.
It
is incumbent upon us as disciples of Christ, and charged with the spread of the
gospel, to act in obedience and humility before our earthly leaders, so that
our witness will not be compromised.
This discernment will be especially important as we see the signs of the
times approaching, and the reign once again of injustice and governmental
challenges to the authority of God and his eternal law.
Bibliography
Chisholm, Robert
B. "The Major Prophets", in Holman
Concise Bible Commentary: Simple, Straightforward Commentary on Every Book of
the Bible, ed. David S. Dockery. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman
Publishers, 1998.
Colson, Charles. How Now Shall We Live? Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.,
1999.
Davis, Nancy J. “Rejoinder to Hunter: Religious Orthodoxy – An
Army without Foot Soldiers?” Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion 35 (Fall 1996): 249-251.
Ferguson, Everett. "Early Christian Martyrdom and Civil
Disobedience." Journal of Early Christian Studies 1 (Spring 1993):
73-83.
Franklin, Robert Michael. “An Ethic of Hope: The Moral Thought of
Martin Luther King, Jr.” Union
Seminary Quarterly Review 40 no. 4 (Fall 1986): 41-51.
Gamble, Richard C. “The Christian
and the Tyrant: Beza and Knox on Political Resistance Theory.” Westminster
Theological Journal
46, no. 1 (Spring 1984): 125-139.
Geisler, Norman L. “A Premillennial View of Law and Government.” Bibliotheca Sacra 142, no. 567
(September 1985): 250-266.
Heffelbower, Duane. “The Christian and Civil Disobedience.” Direction 15, no. 1 (Spring 1986):
23-30.
Keil, Carl
Friedrich and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary
on the Old Testament, 1 Ki 18:1–19 Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002.
Kistemaker, Simon
J. and William Hendriksen, vol. 17, New
Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, New Testament
Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-2001.
Lederach, Paul M.
Daniel, Believers Church Bible Commentary,
Scottsdale, PA.: Herald Press, 1994.
Lovin, Robin W. “The Christian and the Authority of the State:
Bonhoeffer’s Reluctant Revisions.” Journal
of Theology for Southern Africa 34 (March 1981): 32-48.
Ryrie, Charles C. “The Christian and Civil Disobedience.” Bibliotheca Sacra 127, no. 5 (April
1970): 153-162.
Spence-Jones,
H.D.M., ed. The Pulpit Commentary: Exodus
Vol. I Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2004.
Stagg, Frank. “Rendering to God What Belongs to God: Christian
Disengagement from the World.” Journal of
Church and State 18, no. 1 (January 1976): 217-232.
Vos, Johannes G. “Christian Missions and the Civil Magistrate in
the Far East.” Westminster Theological
Journal 3, no. 1 (November 1940): 1-24.
Yoder, William. “Do “Iron Curtains” Happen More than Once?”
Religion in Eastern Europe XXXI, no. 4 (November 2011): 24-31.
Charles C. Ryrie, “The Christian
and Civil Disobedience,” Bibliotheca
Sacra 127, no. 5 (April 1970): 153.
[4] Merriam-Webster, Inc., Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary., 11th ed. (Springfield, MA:
Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003).
Duane Heffelbower, “The Christian and
Civil Disobedience.” Direction 15,
no. 1 (Spring 1986): 23.
[14] 1 Peter 2:1317 (ESV).
[15] 1 Timothy 2:1-2 (ESV).
Charles C. Ryrie, “The Christian
and Civil Disobedience,” Bibliotheca
Sacra 127, no. 5 (April 1970): 158.
[21] Exodus 1:15-21 (ESV).
[25] Revelation 12:11 (ESV).
Norman L. Geisler, “A Premillennial View of
Law and Government,” Bibliotheca Sacra
142, no. 567 (1985): 262.
[29] The Pulpit Commentary: Exodus Vol. I, ed. H. D. M. Spence-Jones,
(Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2004), 17.
[30] Carl Friedrich Keil and
Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament,
1 Ki 18:1–19 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002).
Paul M. Lederach, Daniel, Believers Church Bible Commentary,
(Scottsdale, PA.: Herald Press, 1994) 80-81.
[33] Robert B. Chisholm,
"The Major Prophets", in Holman
Concise Bible Commentary: Simple, Straightforward Commentary on Every Book of
the Bible, ed. David S. Dockery, (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman
Publishers, 1998), 336.
[35] Simon J. Kistemaker and
William Hendriksen, vol. 17, New
Testament Commentary : Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, New
Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-2001), 161.
