Should Christians resist tyranny?

[John81]

The NT Christians were facing both religious and civil persecution. That's not really the point though. This all goes well beyond Romans 13. Throughout the NT Christians are told to submit to authority, render unto the government, but more importantly to be about seeking God's kingdom, to be living peacefully, to not render evil for evil, to love your enemies, to pray for your enemies, to busy ourselves in being about the Lord's work.

There are plenty of lost folks to tend to worldy affairs, but Christians are specifically called to be different, very different. We are to be winning the lost to Christ, pursuing holiness, building up other Christians, laying up our treasures in heaven, to live as citizens of heaven, pilgrims in this world; not revolutionaries going against governments or setting up our own nation.

Early Christians understood this and lived accordingly. It was a very long time before professing Christians took it upon themselves to become involved in these worldly affairs.

[Annie]

The NT Christians were facing both religious and civil persecution. That's not really the point though. This all goes well beyond Romans 13. Throughout the NT Christians are told to submit to authority' date=' render unto the government, but more importantly to be about seeking God's kingdom, to be living peacefully, to not render evil for evil, to love your enemies, to pray for your enemies, to busy ourselves in being about the Lord's work. [/quote']
Right...but one can be doing all of these things while being involved civically/politically, yes? Let's see...
"Submit to authority": Sure.
"Render unto government": Yep.
"Seeking God's kingdom": Yes. This can be done no matter where one is.
"Living peacefully": Yes. This is not necessarily in conflict with being involved in civil/political affairs. One can be at peace personally with everyone he meets...holding no grudges, etc...no matter what his job is.
"Rendering not evil for evil": Yes again.
"Busy ourselves in being about the Lord's work": Yes, we can do this wherever we are.


Yes, we are different in that our life's mission is to be about the things you mention here...but...


Yes, I agree that, according to Rom. 13, we are not to "go against our government," but, again, there's nothing wrong with setting up a new nation, or being involved in government. What about Daniel, Joseph, Nehemiah, Mordecai, Esther, etc., etc.? The Bible nowhere forbids Christians to be involved in government, whether that means setting up one, or ruling in one. It's just not there.


No, the early Christians' reasons with not being involved politically had nothing to do with what Scripture said, and everything to do with their circumstances and the prevailing conditions of the time (ancient Rome).

[John81]

You can't set up a new government where one already exists without violating Romans 13.

Those biblical characters you mentioned didn't revolt against the government and they didn't establish a new government. If anything, these folks are examples of not rebelling. They did not rebel, rather they allowed God to work things out by holding to His Word.

[Annie]

You can't set up a new government where one already exists without violating Romans 13.

John, this seems to be exactly the point at which we disagree. I don't understand how you can make this statement. Romans 13 merely tells Christians to be subject to the higher powers (which, in the context of the passage, refers to human government). That's all it says, besides mentioning that the "powers that be" are ordained by God to rule lawless men. The passage is completely silent about all of its possible applications and implications. It doesn't mention "new governments," except to affirm their legitimacy as being ordained by God. It doesn't describe how new governments come into being, or list "rules" for establishing new governments. It merely says that all human government is established by God. Quite simply, a person who subjects himself to any government is obeying God, according to Romans 13 (because all human government is ordained by God and has authority given by God). A person who refuses to subject himself to government, living instead as an outlaw, is in disobedience to God. Do you agree? If not, why not?

Those biblical characters you mentioned didn't revolt against the government and they didn't establish a new government. If anything, these folks are examples of not rebelling. They did not rebel, rather they allowed God to work things out by holding to His Word.

You're right...I was referring to these people in answer to your statements about not getting involved in "the affairs of the world." My point is that God's people can and should feel free to be involved in government--even wicked governments which war and conquer and enslave other nations, deposing monarchs and obliterating the existing government and setting up their own in its place (like the Babylonian and Persian governments). Talk about revolutionary empires! You had insinuated that God's people are, as pilgrims, to leave "all that dirty stuff"--worldly affairs--to those who don't know God. I'm not saying that Daniel, Joseph, Esther, et al were "revolutionaries," because they weren't. But they certainly did get involved in what you are calling worldly affairs and used their influence for righteousness.

[PreacherBen]

Annie said:

I agree 100%. Revolution, tyranny, and religious liberty aren't concepts mentioned in Scripture. Scripture neither mandates nor prohibits warring about civil matters.

Jesus said:

Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

QUESTION: How do you war against you enemy, and kill them, and love them at the same time?

Scripture does not directly probit the following: smoking cigarettes, smoking dope, doing crack, etc., and the list goes on. I gave enough scripture on the previous page (4) to prove by principle that the New Testament clearly teaches love of our enemies, and obedience to ordained powers. If I have to have a clear, "Thou shalt not __________!" then I am a pretty sorry and shallow Christian. No, instead the principles of NT text lead me to obey the spirit of the text. When Jesus says, "Love your enemies..." it doesn't take a Masters Degree in theology to understand, I cannot do what Jesus says while putting a bullet through the head of my enemy. I can't, can you?

Here is another good example:

Dirk Willems was fleeing persecution and came to a creek with a thin layer of ice. He took his chances and carefully crossed. His persecuter (enemy) was chasing him and when he attempted to do the same fell through into the icey water. Dirk, being a loving Christian, turned and helped the man out of the water. He was promptly arrested, tried, and executed for the testimony of Christ.

How many people would even be convicted to do such a deed according to this "kill you enemies" theology?

What good did he do? Ah that's where the rubber hits the road. He directly identified with his Master who told him,

Jhn 15:20 "Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you..."

[Annie]

Jesus said:

Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

QUESTION: How do you war against you enemy, and kill them, and love them at the same time?

The question is, "Who is my enemy?" What does Jesus mean by "enemies?" I think the meaning of that word is clear, given the context of Jesus' words. He is talking about people we meet in daily life who treat us wrongly in personal situations, not people who have broken the law of the government or who have attacked the country. The Bible says very different things about people who have broken the law; Scripture is clear that governments have the right to deal harshly (bear the sword) against those who disobey them or otherwise assault them. Look at Jesus' words more closely...the word enemies is given in the same context as "someone who smites thee on thy right cheek," "compel thee to go a mile," "asketh thee," and "would borrow of thee." These are personal, mundane matters, not matters of state.

Scripture does not directly probit the following: smoking cigarettes, smoking dope, doing crack, etc., and the list goes on. I gave enough scripture on the previous page (4) to prove by principle that the New Testament clearly teaches love of our enemies, and obedience to ordained powers. If I have to have a clear, "Thou shalt not __________!" then I am a pretty sorry and shallow Christian. No, instead the principles of NT text lead me to obey the spirit of the text. When Jesus says, "Love your enemies..." it doesn't take a Masters Degree in theology to understand, I cannot do what Jesus says while putting a bullet through the head of my enemy. I can't, can you?

Again, a warring soldier is not "my enemy" in the context Jesus is using. I have nothing against him personally (am not angry with him) as I war against him. Both he and I are there with the idea that either one of us could lose our life. We are both laying down our own lives for our nations/governments, not "being murdered." You are comparing apples and oranges here, just like John has. Ecclesiastes says that there is a time to war and a time for peace. Shooting opposing soldiers in submission to my government's authority, to protect those I love, is worlds away from holding a personal grudge and getting revenge, which is the attitude condemned in Matthew 6.

Dirk Willems was fleeing persecution and came to a creek with a thin layer of ice. He took his chances and carefully crossed. His persecuter (enemy) was chasing him and when he attempted to do the same fell through into the icey water. Dirk, being a loving Christian, turned and helped the man out of the water. He was promptly arrested, tried, and executed for the testimony of Christ.

How many people would even be convicted to do such a deed according to this "kill you enemies" theology?

This example is a great one! (It is on the "apples" side of the discussion, in that it is talking about personal persecution that was occurring because Willems was a Christian.) My only question is why hadn't Dirk Willems stuck around to offer the other cheek? Why did he run? Was he not following Jesus' words? All that aside, he absolutely did the right thing by helping his persecutor out of the ice. That is exactly what Jesus is talking about, not pacifism in wartime.

[John81]

Annie, what you propose can't stand firm. If anyone can call themselves a government, if anyone at anytime can say they don't like the government and are forming a new one, then there is no real government.

Governments have laws which forbid anyone in their dominion from rebelling against the government, setting up another government, or attempting to break away. In order for a person or group of persons to declare themselves a new government they would have to break the law of the current government to do so and thus violate being subject to or submitted to them.

The life of David examples well the concept that not just anyone can declare themselves to be leader/government. Consider how David dealt with Saul and how David dealt with his rebellious son who established a "new government". It's obvious the "new government" was NOT established by God but rather was a rebellious counterfiet.

[Annie]

Annie' date=' what you propose can't stand firm. If anyone can call themselves a government, if anyone at anytime can say they don't like the government and are forming a new one, then there is no real government. [/quote']

I'm confused by these statements. When have I said that "anyone can call themselves a government," or that "anyone at any time can say they don't like the government and are forming a new one?" That is certainly not what I believe, so I apologize if I've given that impression. That isn't what the colonial govt did, anyway. It wasn't just that they didn't like the English laws and decided to make their own. They separated on matters of principle, and were prepared to govern, not rebel. As men of honor, they formally and peacefully (even sorrowfully) informed the English monarchy of their intentions. They were not lawless mavericks acting on their own, on a whim, or deposers like Absalom. They were not radical or anarchistic, like the French. They stayed in subjection to government; they were not outside the law. Anyway, you cannot argue with the part of Romans 13 which states that ALL governments are ordained by God. God is the one who established our government, so we can see that it has been a legitimate governmental authority since its inception.


I suppose that's one way of looking at it. (I'd be interested, BTW, in any documentation you have for these statements...like actual quotations from actual laws.) When a group of people have declared themselves to be independent of another entity, they are no longer under that entity's laws. They have formed a new coalition, and have subjected themselves to this new government's laws. Since they have remained in a state of subjection to government (were never outside the accountability of government), they have not violated Romans 13. It's the same as changing one's citizenship. Choosing which authority to be under is not anti-Romans 13. The message of Romans 13 is quite simply that all of us should be accountable to government, not outside that accountability.


Yes, I never said that just anyone can declare themselves to be leader/government. In Absalom's case, he wasn't establishing a separate entity...he was seeking to depose David and warring against him, which is an entirely different approach than the American colonists' course of action.

[PreacherBen]

The question is, "Who is my enemy?" What does Jesus mean by "enemies?" I think the meaning of that word is clear, given the context of Jesus' words. He is talking about people we meet in daily life who treat us wrongly in personal situations, not people who have broken the law of the government or who have attacked the country.

Key words made bold in above quote, "I think..." You have absolutely no grounds upon which to justify your private interpretation. Jesus merely said,

Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

There is absolutely nothing in the context of the Lord's statement implying this is someone you meet in daily life.

Ecclesiastes says that there is a time to war and a time for peace. Shooting opposing soldiers in submission to my government's authority, to protect those I love, is worlds away from holding a personal grudge and getting revenge, which is the attitude condemned in Matthew 6.

Again, this is Old Testament theology, not New Covenant commands for believers.

This example is a great one! (It is on the "apples" side of the discussion, in that it is talking about personal persecution that was occurring because Willems was a Christian.) My only question is why hadn't Dirk Willems stuck around to offer the other cheek? Why did he run? Was he not following Jesus' words?

Jesus said:

Mat 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

He was obeying Jesus instead of rationalizing with great volume of words and philosophical arguements on why he should let this rascal just drown. He did turn the cheek, they arrested him and took him away to execution. You tritely say, "This example is a great one!" You insult the blood of the martyrs that cries out from the ground for the Lord's day of vengence.

All that aside, he absolutely did the right thing by helping his persecutor out of the ice. That is exactly what Jesus is talking about, not pacifism in wartime.

So where is the clear command in the New Covenant for believers to take up arms and take the lives of people they almost surely are going to send straight to hell when they kill them? Furthermore, consider these words of our Saviour:

Mat 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
Mat 5:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
Mat 5:36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
Mat 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

The wording of the current oath of enlistment is as follows:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Jesus said, "Sware not at all..." How can a believer simply brush away the clear command of Jesus and sware this oath when Jesus said don't do it? It is not a matter of pacifism, it is a matter of obedience to the clear commands of Christ, something the 21st century church has grown accustomed to disregarding under the misunderstood umbrella of grace.

Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

One way we deny our Lord is to count his commands as nonessential.

P.S. Here is a link to a good article regarding Calvin and Dominion Theology.

[John81]

There is no difference between the Founders forming their own government against the will of the current government than the men of your church doing the same thing or our town council doing this. If not just anyone can form a government then who is to say who can?

The Founders were busy fomenting Revolution well before they ever declared independence. Many acts of lawlessness were committed prior to the issuance of the Declaration. Under English law the Founders were legally viewed as traitors.

There is no justification in the NT for Christians to rebel against any government or to make any attempt to establish their idea of a better government. Instead, Christians are told to live in obedience and peace with the government, witnessing Christ in word and deed, being good citizens the government would have no reason to condemn, praying for those in government.

[Germany4Christ]

Gideon led a rebellion against the Mideonites and God didn't rebuke him. Barack led a rebellion against the very goverment that controlled their country and God didn't seem to have a problem.

[HappyChristian]

Gideon led a rebellion against the Mideonites and God didn't rebuke him. Barack led a rebellion against the very goverment that controlled their country and God didn't seem to have a problem.

Sorry, I already tried to point that kind of stuff out...doesn't matter, 'cause it's OT. I guess we could really just throw out the OT, for all we can apply it. :Green

[John81]

Gideon led a rebellion against the Mideonites and God didn't rebuke him. Barack led a rebellion against the very goverment that controlled their country and God didn't seem to have a problem.

Were these men Christians living under the New Testament? God directly commanded Gideon to do what he did. God has also given Christians specific commands for how we are to live. Christians are to live according to what we are commanded in the New Testament, not according to what the Lord specifically commanded Gideon.

[Annie]

Key words made bold in above quote, "I think..." You have absolutely no grounds upon which to justify your private interpretation. Jesus merely said,

Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

There is absolutely nothing in the context of the Lord's statement implying this is someone you meet in daily life.

Jesus is talking about personal interaction here. Cursing someone is personal; hating someone is personal; despiteful using and persecution are personal.

Again, this is Old Testament theology, not New Covenant commands for believers.

I don't think of Old Testament theology as contradictory to New Testament theology or consider them to be at odds with each other. Why do you?

He was obeying Jesus instead of rationalizing with great volume of words and philosophical arguements on why he should let this rascal just drown. He did turn the cheek, they arrested him and took him away to execution. You tritely say, "This example is a great one!" You insult the blood of the martyrs that cries out from the ground for the Lord's day of vengence.

I did not say "this example is a great one," flippantly or tritely. I honestly do think it is a great example of someone who did what Jesus said: returning good for evil, etc. He did the right thing, and I pray I'd do the same in that situation. My other comments about this situation were made tongue-in-cheek, since your statement was that Jesus clearly said to offer the other cheek.

So where is the clear command in the New Covenant for believers to take up arms and take the lives of people they almost surely are going to send straight to hell when they kill them? Furthermore, consider these words of our Saviour:

I did not say there was a clear command, because there isn't. I just said that Jesus' admonitions in Matthew 6 are clearly about personal issues...about not holding grudges, about loving those who hate you, etc. Soldiers in wartime do not hate each other or have personal issues against each other.

Mat 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
Mat 5:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
Mat 5:36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
Mat 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

The wording of the current oath of enlistment is as follows:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Swearing is merely promising. Doesn't God promise and swear and ask His people to do the same? He entered into numerous formal covenants and oaths with His children through the years. Jesus Himself promised things to His disciples while He was on earth. If these things are true, then your interpretation of these verses is not correct.

Is the enlisting soldier "swearing by" any of the things mentioned in these verses? These verses are simply speaking of talking carelessly...like saying, "I swear on a stack of Bibles," or "by gum," instead of just saying, "I will do this," or, "I promise to do this." They are not prohibiting formal oaths of allegiance. It seems that you need to check the context here also.

P.S. Here is a link to a good article regarding Calvin and Dominion Theology.

Thanks. I'll check it out!
EDITED TO ADD: This article, unless I missed something, does not say that Calvin was a dominion theologian. It merely says that the man who was the grandfather of the dominion theology movement shared one idea with Calvin. Using your logic, then, we're all Calvinists, since we agree with Calvin on a few things like salvation through Christ's shed blood.

[PreacherBen]

Well then, I guess we'll just go by te bumper sticker I saw the other day:

KILL THEM ALL, LET JESUS SORT OUT THE BODIES

I cannot change the command of Christ to "personal" when it is general. I'll just go on trying to love my enemies and bless them.