New Thoughts (08/23/14-08/29/14)
Civil Authority and the Limits of Submission (08/24/14-08/26/14)
There is a perennial challenge for the Christian regarding how he is to respond to government. It really ought not to be, I think, but it is. We see a good God and we see a corrupt government and we quickly convince ourselves that as we belong to the former we need not heed the latter. But, in doing so we are in grave danger of rendering ourselves as corrupt in God’s sight as the government we despise. So, we set ourselves the task of being obedient citizens and immediately the question arises as to where we ought properly to draw the line. At what point does the command to holiness rescind the command to obey?
Before we can begin to answer that question we must first reestablish some basic truths in our thinking. First, let’s see clearly what Peter is directing us to do: Submit to every human institution. But, sir! Our conscience is bound by no man! How, then, can we submit to these fallen, man-made rules? Well, we can start by recalling where these fallen men obtained their authority. The JFB records, “Governors have not been made by chance, but by the providence of God.” They are hardly alone in making this statement. But, we need to drill it into ourselves.
I suspect this is particularly true given our democratic background. Wait, we say: The system puts these men and women in place. It takes money and it takes organizational backing, and so on, and eventually one candidate manages to convince enough people that he is at the very least the lesser of two evils and so they elect him. Whether or not he will govern as he promised is anybody’s guess, but most would guess not. So, where is this Providence of God? It was the man who decided to run. It was men who funded and promoted him, and it was men who voted for him. How is this God’s doing? We think thus because we lose sight of the great Truth that God remains in control of all things in His creation, even the reprobate, even the atheist, even the devil. We and they have our freedom of movement and our freedom of choice, but the Great Conductor is still directing His perfect symphony and our choices and actions serve His perfect plan perfectly.
It is very hard to look at certain of our elected officials and be convinced that there is a man of God’s choosing. Well, rest assured that the men of Peter’s day had at least as hard a time looking at Rome’s Emperor as God’s choice. Really? The majority of the emperors were despicable men who came to power by trickery and force. They ruled for their own benefit and the benefit of their cronies, with little regard for the ruled other than to keep them quiet and under control. Yet, we must look beyond practice to the institution.
In this, sad to say, civil government is not so very different from the church. It seems that too often we must look past the current incarnation of the church, look past the muddle that men have made of her, to the Church as instituted. We must look to the ideal, not the current practice. How is it we understand this about our church, but not our government? Well, I suppose it could be argued that church is an association by choice where government is an association by accident or necessity of birth. But, that is no excuse. Both, at base, are institutions established by God which have been to one degree or another debased by man’s involvement. But, this was accounted for in the original plan.
I recall a discussion many years ago regarding the switch from theocracy to kingdom in Israel. With the installation of Saul as king, it was posited, Israel had settled for second-best. On one level this is certainly true. What could fail to come in a distant second to having God at the helm? But, there remains this counterbalance: God appointed Saul; not just the man, but the time. The nation of Israel did not somehow act in a fashion that left God scrambling for alternatives. Samuel may have felt that way. God did not. All was proceeding according to plan. How, after all, could there be a Son of David to come if David did not first arrive on the scene? And, what could display David’s glory more fully than to have Saul’s previous reign for purpose of comparison? The brightness of light would be unknowable apart from the contrasting darkness. This does not make the darkness desirable, but it does explain its purpose.
So, then: God establishes government. God establishes nations and empires. It is the height of man’s folly that he thinks this is about his skills, or the nation’s great value. I have said it before and shall surely say it again, but that particular American pride that supposes we are the last great hope of salvation only shows that we have lost our way. Israel thought of itself in just that way, but Israel was rejected, at least for a season. Britain thought of herself that way, but where is her empire now, and what has she done of late for the kingdom of God? It was said in the news this morning that there are more Brits serving in the Islamic militia at present than in her own armed forces. Can it really be supposed that America is somehow immune to the same foibles?
Here’s the thing, though: The most corrupt of governing authorities does not in the end succeed in perverting God’s ordinances. Calvin sets out a comparison to the institution of marriage. Granted, marriage is under assault in our day, both from within and from without. Certainly infidelities stain the marriage against which they are committed, and the mockery made of marriage by government interference and redefinition may occlude the beauty of the underlying institution. But, that underlying institution is unchanged by man’s foolishness and sin. It remains as it has been, as God has decreed it to be, and whatever men may set forth and claim as being marriage in the 21st century, it really doesn’t matter. It changes nothing. You can call a pig a fish, but it will remain a pig, and the true definition of fish will not take notice of your nonsense.
So it is with government. God establishes government for our benefit. Yes, even those tyrants in Rome, even the periods in which the wrong party is in power down in Washington. These are for your benefit. The office remains valuable whatever the condition of the man who currently holds it. At the very least, we can say this for government: At its worst, it remains preferable to anarchy. Many of our commentaries make exactly this point. In fact, the JFB goes so far as to declare that God will not allow government to devolve into anarchy. Calvin settles for pointing out that even the worst of governments retain at least some shred of equity, and thereby demonstrate their value over against anarchy.
I have to say that looking at some of the examples available in our day, it would seem a more difficult statement to make. Is the current state of affairs in North Korea, for example, truly better than anarchy? Yes, I suppose it is, hard though that may be to imagine. Is the reign of terror that is ISIS preferable to anarchy? I am not certain we could say it is anything but anarchy. It is anarchy weaponized, but it is anarchy nonetheless. Let’s have a definition. Anarchy: A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. And, let’s have a look at some synonyms: Nihilism, mob-rule, revolution, disorder, chaos. Yes, all of this would seem to sum up what we’re seeing. It is certainly no proper government that roves the streets in armed gangs.
Here, it is worth seeing the quote from Horneius that the JFB brought forward. “Tyranny harasses many, but anarchy overwhelms the whole state.” That’s the problem. Anarchy overwhelms. It doesn’t govern. It cannot govern, for it is by its very definition a non-recognition of that authority which is required to govern. It is a refusal of every organizing principle of society. Let me set this against a quote from Barnes. “It is as important a part of the functions of the magistracy to protect the innocent, as it is to punish the wicked.” Where anarchy is the rule, there is no protection of the innocent. There is no punishment of the wicked. To subscribe to anarchy is to dispose of such categories from the outset, and there are plenty today who are doing just that. Right and wrong, we are told constantly, are just personal opinions. There is no basis for moral absolutes and therefore the natural progression is to conclude that there are no morals; only personal preferences.
But, as is true with marriage, as is true with government, as is true with the Church, so it is with Truth. Truth is not changed by opinion. All our wild suppositions to the contrary, Truth stands unchanged. You may insist with all your strength that there are no moral absolutes, but the Truth contradicts you, and the Truth shall win. You may think that the Law of God is nothing but the opinion of man, but the Truth stands. God has decreed it, and His decree is not subject to man’s willingness to comply. God is sovereign. Only a fool would defy his sovereign. Only a fool defies an earthly authority, and he is very soon found to be a very dead fool. What, then, when the Authority is Supreme, has all power and all knowledge?
So, then, we are given to understand that this same Supreme Authority stands behind the thrones of man. This same Supreme Authority sits behind the man behind the desk in the Oval Office. To resist his authority is to oppose God. Oh! But, we don’t want to hear that, do we? Surely, not him! Surely here is the breaking point, and we must ignore his rule as he seems to ignore the rule of law? But, friend, I am not pulling that thought out of the ether. It is right there before us in exceedingly plain language from one who would, himself, die by the hands of the very authority he insists we must obey. “Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God” (Ro 13:2). Let me put it more bluntly. You can’t oppose authority without opposing God. They are His servants, whether they recognize or admit it or not. On this basis alone we have cause to render each his due (Ro 13:6-7). That includes taxes. That includes living in accord with the laws they enact even if they will not do so themselves.
This draws us back into Peter’s instruction. “For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men” (verse 15). Doing right does not stop with church service. It does not stop with religious practices in the house. It continues beyond these things. It continues until it has enveloped every aspect of life. That necessarily includes how you deal with those in power, whatever their power may be. Perhaps it will help if we keep our status in mind; that which Peter pointed out at the start. You are strangers and aliens in the land. As such, you represent to these foreigners what your own kingdom is like. There’s a reason we find ourselves under scrutiny. They wonder. They’ve heard of this kingdom, but they’ve heard largely negative reports. But, here is a live example. Let us assess. Let’s see if they’re as special as they make themselves out to be. Let’s see if this God-King of theirs is any more impressive than our emperor, or our king of old. The point is simply this: We represent God. Never mind the role we have as His ambassadors. We represent God by the simple fact of citizenship.
When you travel abroad, you represent your country, and by degree, your country’s authorities. How you respond to foreign governments and laws is a reflection on how you respond to law and government at home, which is to say, whether those laws and whether that government matters to you. You represent your country by the sheer fact of being foreign. We read reports of how other countries perceive us. It is largely on the basis of media. The fictions of the television and movie industry are taken as being real-life depictions because they have no basis to know any better. They are opinions formed in ignorance, then, not because the people are stupid, but because they have no viable means of interpreting the data.
Thus it stands with the worldly man and matters of the Spirit, matters of our kingdom. They can see the data, and God willing, we present them with good data to parse; a true representation of our King and His governance. But, even were our example perfect (which it most assuredly is not) they would not arrive at a proper perspective of God. Why? They have no viable means of interpreting what they observe. They are as blinkered as ever we were before God made His sovereign move on our hearts. Unless and until God elects to impart this newness of life and to take up residence in the person of the Holy Spirit, we cannot parse what we observe so as to arrive at a true knowledge of Him.
Let me counterbalance that. We assuredly know enough to arrive at the conclusion that God must exist. We have enough data presented to us in the very nature of the universe around us to conclude not only that He is, but that He is good, all-powerful, and perfect in His planning. We know enough from general revelation, then, to seal our guilt. But, we cannot penetrate beyond this to saving knowledge unless God elects to take the blinders from our eyes and reveal the magnitude of His love for us.
Returning to matters of obeying authority; this goes beyond simple obedience, and even beyond simple submission. Submission and obedience may be given for no other cause than that we see no choice in the matter. It may be a coerced submission in that regard, not a willing submission. But, we are called beyond this to willingly submit. We are called to not simply obey, but to have loyalty to those whom God has set over us, and even to reverence them.
Can this be? Can God really expect me to look upon the sorts of men and women who are governing this country today and reverence them, honor them, even think them honorable? In a word, yes. However poorly they may fill the office in our view (and it may even be an accurate view), the fact remains unchanged: They are in office not because a majority of fools elected them, but because one all-wise God saw fit to set them there. Yes, even that one. Even that one who seems to do everything he can to destroy the people of God. Get this: Even the vicious power that is ISIS does not take power except God has decided that for this time and season they shall have it. But, know also that He has numbered their days. Rather than rail against their existence and complain to God of the great evil of the present day, far better we ask Him why He sees this as necessary.
Looking at that situation, I can sympathize, certainly, with how ancient Israel was feeling as Sennacherib and the Assyrians came sweeping through, and then Nebuchadnezzar after that. How can You, Lord? How can you allow such evil men to hold power? But, My child! It is for your good, for your chastising. Be assured that they shall know their own destruction in due time, for they do not act for our benefit but for their own evil pleasures. But, My hand is on events. They shall serve My purpose, and My purpose is for your hope and your future. Fear not. Only submit. Only seek the repentance that is so needful for you. Cease from your own wicked ways and seek Me.
Am I suggesting that those poor Christians in Syria and Iraq were somehow as apostate as the Jews of that ancient era? Not necessarily. It seems entirely likely that the issue is not so much with them as with us. But, then, the mere fact of their martyrdom does not automatically establish them as more sanctified, either. They are men and women just like us. There were no doubt those in ancient Israel who, in spite of fidelity to the ways of God, yet suffered from the invasions. There are no doubt those in Syria and Iraq today who have died with faith fully intact, and are even now standing with God in heaven, fully accepted and their blood waiting for His justice. Rest assured, His Justice will come. But, the question we should be asking is not what they did to deserve so cruel an end, but rather, what ought we to be doing in light of this? “Do you suppose those eighteen upon whom the tower in Siloam fell were worse than any who live in Jerusalem? I tell you they were not. But, unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Lk 13:4-5). That’s where our focus should be in this. Not, “Thank God it’s over there and not here.” Not, “Lord, what have they done to deserve this?” Not even, “Thank You for keeping them through so terrible an end. Even so, come with vengeance, Lord!” No! We must pray for the salvation of those very ones who have done so great an evil. What greater marvel than that Nebuchadnezzar comes to recognize the sovereignty of God? We must further pray that we be given eyes to see our own fallenness, and hearts to repent of what we have made of the faith once imparted.
We must, I think, consider this matter of submission in light of those events. The question cannot but arise: At what point does it become permissible for the Christian to disobey? At what point does it become required? We are facing just these sorts of questions in the West today. When the government insists that we act against conscience, are we still obliged? When the government requires us to pay taxes that go, in part, to the funding of things utterly opposed to righteousness, are we still obliged? Is that one whose understanding of Scripture leads him to be a pacifist required to fight when drafted? If the law of the land requires that we not only accept the existence of sexual aberrations but offer our material support of the same, is it time to throw off the bonds of government?
These are not simple questions, and I don’t believe there are simple answers. That there is a line beyond which we dare not allow obedience to civil authority to take us is clear. Where that line lies is not so clear. I have to say that reading Calvin’s thoughts on this passage, it seems to me that he has come down on both sides of the equation. On the one hand, we have this very clear statement. “There is no kind of government to which we ought not to submit.” Yet, farther on, he says, that we should clearly understand from other points in Scripture that subjection to men, ‘is not to be so far extended as to lessen the authority of God’.
This latter point is made by all the commentaries I consult, however great the differences may be between the authors. Clarke sets the line here: So long as civil law is not in opposition to God’s law. Barnes is much the same: Obedience stops where it would be contrary to the law of God. The JFB makes note that the only exception we have to this commanded obedience is when obedience to the king requires disobedience to the King of kings. If obedience requires evil of us, I believe we have found that boundary line.
The Wycliffe Commentary points us back to Acts 4:19, with Peter and John standing before the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin has commanded that they cease from preaching this Jesus. Peter replies, “Whether God would have us obey you rather than Him, you be the judge.” Now, I had considered this verse myself, when coming through this passage previously, and concluded that the situation was not analogous. These were, after all, the religious authority, not the civil. But, I don’t think I am quite right in having made that distinction. First, as I was reminded the other day, they were both religious and civil authorities. As civil authorities they were rather forcefully subjected to Rome, but they remained civil authorities both under Rome’s governance and God’s. Secondly, the very point Peter is making here argues against trying to weasel our way out by such distinctions. If every authority is appointed by God, then whether civil or religious, they remain representatives of God. We must even recognize that whether knowingly or unknowingly, they remain representatives of God.
That point is particularly clear in the JFB’s boundary condition described above. If obedience to the king (earthly authority in any guise, be it tyrant, president, governor, police officer, pastor or elder) would constitute disobedience to the King of kings (from whom all such earthly authority depends), then obedience is not due. I know I have seen it argued elsewhere, probably in studying Romans, that where earthly authority makes such demands it has of necessity abrogated its authority. It has acted beyond what has been delegated. It is a rogue ambassador making demands that it is not within its rights to make. In short, it has ceased to be in authority having violated the terms of service.
At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the situation into which Peter was writing. Christianity under Roman governance was a risky business. Christianity amongst so pagan a culture was dangerous. And certainly, in a time and place where emperors demanded to be worshiped as gods, to refuse such recognition was bound to be interpreted as rebellion against the throne. All of this is to say that while we recognize and acknowledge these boundaries beyond which we may not go in obedience, we cannot fully apply the standard of obedience to God as the defining point beyond which civil obedience is no longer required of us. I say this advisedly, and with great desire to properly nuance my point, although I fear I shall fall far short of it.
Here’s the thing: We remain creatures with a fallen nature even in rebirth. We have hardly arrived at perfection. Just as sin was able to take the perfect Law of God and make of it a temptation to sin, so we will be inclined to take the good reality of this boundary upon civil obedience and make it an excuse for lawlessness. And, that is exactly what Peter is disallowing. If our mindset is so thoroughly upon spotting those things wherein we are no longer compelled by godliness to obey, what we are really doing is seeking excuses to rebel. We are looking for loopholes. Chances are very good that we are also looking for loopholes in our obedience to God. In fact, I would argue that’s all but a foregone conclusion. But, we come back to the fundamental point: Rebellion against authority is opposition to God. That is to say that where godliness demands disobedience, even then it does not demand rebellion. It is possible, I think, to disobey the demands of civil law without rebelling against the authority that imposes said law. It would consist, I should think, in submitting to the penalties set forth in that law; in accepting the consequences, knowing that God will provide Justice. That, I would suppose, is at least a part of the mindset that grants men the strength to remain faithful even unto death.
Consider the apostles. Peter would eventually find himself prisoner of these very authorities to whom he advised obedience. Did he rebel? Did he seek by force of arms to break free of their grasp? Not that we are made aware of. Rather, he submitted to the cruelest of punishments they knew how to inflict, and even – if the legends are to be believed – sought that it might be made slightly worse, lest he be taken as somehow the equal of Christ. Paul would also meet his end at the hands of this government to which he had advised obedience, to which he had appealed for justice. This is not the act of a rebel. This is the death of one who has willingly made himself subject to authority, but not willingly disobedient to God.
I wrote in my first pass that there’s not even an escape clause in this obedience for such laws as may run counter to God. I was incorrect. There is no other way to address this. Whatever my train of thought may have been, it clearly derailed on that statement. What we may not do is rebel in the name of God. We may not refuse our taxes because we don’t like what the money is spent on. We may not refuse the penalties of breaking civil law, even when breaking civil law is made a necessity of righteousness. We must escape obedience to such laws as run counter to God, but we do not escape the commanded submission. If submission means unjust punishment, so be it. Stand fast. Persist in doing good. Do what is right, and let the chips fall where they may. Who knows but what your submission may be just the thing that brings salvation to those in power?
Christian Liberty (08/27/14-08/28/14)
As I take up the matter of Christian liberty, I want first to take notice of the bookend thoughts that Peter wraps around the subject. We have the call to consistent action and behavior in verse 15. Doing right constantly, with the particular example of submitting to governance, is our means of countering false and foolish charges. And, lest we miss the extent of this instruction, we close out in verse 18 with the clearly stated point that sinful conduct on the other party’s part does not justify sinful behavior on our part. Our submission is not contingent upon the righteousness of the one to whom we submit, but upon the righteousness of God. This being the case, we may as well say there is no contingency at all. It is unqualified.
I will simply reiterate here that distinction I have arrived at in the preceding section: the distinction between submission and obedience. We are always called to submit. Obedience is required only to the extent that obedience can be had without sin. Again, take the apostolic example. Peter and Paul did not obey Rome to the point of sinning against God. They did, however, submit to Rome’s authority, even to the point of death. Consider, too, the martyrs under Rome’s tyranny. They did not rebel for being singled out for such cruel punishments. In truth, the record shows that many of them sought out that punishment, not out of some perverse desire for harm, but for the honor of being counted with Christ. The key factor for this discussion is that rebellion did not enter into it. They submitted to the unjust condemnation inflicted by their government. But, obedience to its ungodly decrees? Never! This was the powerful impact of their insistence on proclaiming Christ alone as Lord. Here is God. Here is only God. It matters not whether it is the crass idolatry of other religions, or the even crasser claims of divinity by mere mortals like Caesar. Here only is God, and we shall give no other the honor of that name. Slay us if you must, but we shall never make such proclamation.
Even in this, then, it had to be admitted finally that they had persisted in doing right and thereby silencing the ignorant, foolish people who not only spoke against them but acted against them, putting them to death. It may seem they had lost the case, but in truth, their case has been appealed to a much higher Authority. He shall see justice done.
So, certainly these Christians found no space for sinful conduct in the condition of their authorities. They found no justification of rebellion in the fact that their rulers were entirely corrupt. Even with the madness that beset various of the emperors of Rome, the call never came for Christians to rise up and wrest government from the emperor’s hands. It was not, let us understand, a cold calculation based on strength of arms. It was not the pragmatism of supposing victory impossible and therefore never trying. It was quite simply that God commanded submission. “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church,” wrote Tertullian. It was true then. It remains true now.
Set this in contrast to what is sometimes advised as the proper course for Christians today. I am not suggesting we have no business entering into politics. Far from it! I would, however, advise that one who would enter to be very sure of the strength of his faith and the quality of his support network. It is a realm of unparalleled temptation and trial, and many a believer has foundered seeking to brave its dangers. But, to rise up in rebellion? I do not think we can find justification for this in Scripture.
Having written this, I recall the book I read regarding the seeds of revolution in America, and how these related to the Great Awakening. It was posited that the message of Christian liberty was the very thing that gave rise to thoughts of political liberty. I have to say, based on what I am seeing here, that if this was truly the case, then it was a misapplication of the message. I will also praise God that He saw fit to ordain that this nation should come into being, and that it should be founded upon principles including the freedom of religion. I would even pray that he would see fit to preserve it through our days and our children’s days after us, but only if it can be preserved with Church intact. I do not need to see it made a theocracy, nor do I see much to suggest that such an eventuality would be to the good. The record for theocracies in the hands of man is pretty bleak. I’m perfectly happy to reserve that form of government for Christ’s return. But, may God see fit to populate the halls of power with godly men, that we might indeed live peaceable lives in pursuit of righteousness.
There is, I think, sufficient foundation for comprehending Christian liberty. What Christian liberty does not permit of is a sense of being above the law. Faith does not elevate us beyond human authority. Faith does not elevate us beyond God’s authority. One would think this went without saying, and yet we know full well that many churches would proclaim that the Law of God no longer applies, that Christian liberty means, effectively, that there are no rules. But, that’s not liberty. As many a commentator decries, that is anarchy. And anarchy is a thing greatly to be loathed.
We have not died to responsibility. We have not died to authority. And, fundamentally, we have not died to duty. We are freed to pursue our duty, having been freed from sin. But, hear Peter’s message! Don’t make this new freedom a covering for evil. How would we do so, Peter? By shirking responsibility with some claim that being a new man, any responsibilities of the old man no longer apply. By suggesting that you are no longer obliged to atone for past actions because Jesus paid it all. By seeking to cast off the reins of government in the ill-founded belief that your citizenship in heaven leaves you free to thumb your nose at mere human authority. All of these things, after all, are at root matters of disobeying God Himself. We have been over this. If all authority is from God, then all opposition to authority is opposition to God.
The terminology Peter uses invokes a particular feature of Roman society: The status of being a freeman. There were slaves. There were Romans by birth. There were citizens by purchase of the right. Freemen, if I understand the category correctly (I am not, after all, a scholar on Roman civilization) would include both the natural citizen and the citizen by purchase. In short, you have the rights of citizenship. We see from Paul’s record what some of those rights entailed. It meant that certain forms of punishment were not permitted the government. It meant one could appeal to Caesar if he felt himself treated unjustly by any lesser representative of Rome. It meant one could travel the empire at will. The slave, by way of contrast, could do none of these things. His labors, his travels, his very life were matters of his master’s determination. Whether he was paid for his labors or not was up to the master. He had, in effect, no rights. The freeman did have rights.
So, then, this call to act as free men is not a call to lawless living. It is a call to dignity. Don’t go about as if cringing in fear of your fellow citizens or of your government. Stand tall! But, that is not a call to rebel. It is a call to dignified submission. It is a call to willing submission, not that sort of submission which is merely being cowed by fear and beaten down by lack of alternatives. Honor authority. Reverence authorities. This is not the attitude of a slave with no options. It is an act of the freed will. It is an expression of liberty to thus acknowledge the law.
Liberty, I have often said, is freedom within boundaries. Freedom without boundaries is anarchy which is, in the end, no freedom at all. But, the government which sets boundaries upon our liberties also has its boundaries. Every governing authority is, by definition, subject to another, higher authority. If God appoints, then He has final say. We have addressed this point in some fashion already. I want now to turn to some points Barnes makes on this subject.
He lists a series of liberties that are the right of every Christian. We find these codified in the Constitution of the United States, although they remain matters that seem to require constant defense. Freedom to worship, to read the Bible: These are fundamentals to us, and yet we also know that there are many nations where those freedoms do not exist. Freedom to possess the fruits of our labor and to train our children as we see fit: These, I am a bit more surprised by. Not that they are not freedoms we should own, but that they are set out as particularly being the right of the Christian. But, the former at least is certainly contained in our Constitution as well. The latter might be more difficult to nail down, yet it is if anything, more critical. The final freedom he notes might be taken as a summation of the whole: The freedom to plan one’s life for his own ends. Now, he sets a boundary: To the extent that these freedoms do not interfere with the same rights in another.
Go back to the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” Note well that this document does not limit these truths to Christians, but to every man. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness: What are these but the freedom to plan one’s life for his own ends? So, then, Barnes drives to this conclusion: “Every system which prevents this […] is contrary to the religion of the Savior.”
Here, I can hear some of those Christian fires that lit the revolution, but I still find myself pulled up short by the question of whether that application could be justified by Scripture. It is one thing to declare the system contrary to Christian religion. It is quite another to declare that this renders the system null and void. I do not believe you can make that case on Christian principles. The command remains unchanged: Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every institution. There is nothing there to say this only applies to Christian-compliant institutions. There is much to say this is not the case at all. “Be submissive with all respect, not just to the good and gentle, but to the unreasonable.” It is said particularly of masters, but the context strongly suggests we can carry that same sentiment back to the beginning statement.
Act as men with full rights, but don’t you dare make that freedom an excuse for evil actions. Liberty is not licentiousness, nor freedom from duty. What you have been set at liberty from is sin, spiritual bondage, the very evil against which Peter exhorts us. Servants of God are free. We are free of sin and Satan. But, notice the wording: Notice how often the Apostles proudly take hold of that title: Servants of God, bondslaves of God. Who could not? We have been purchased by Him at great price. He Who purchases owns His purchase, does He not? He Who owns has right of His possessions, does He not? We are free of sin and of Satan, but we are most assuredly not free of God. Rather, we are bound to God, and duty-bound to obey Him. That obedience, as we are being told in this section (and in Romans 13), incorporates a call to submission for His sake. We submit, but we submit as men with full rights in the kingdom of heaven. We submit, not as men beaten into submission, but as men honoring authority.
It is a curious thing, this liberty, for it is a liberty that frees us to be bound to our Savior, and it is only in being bound to Him that we are finally free. In those mastered by Christ, God works the willing and doing of His good will. How often have I quoted that passage? But, this time, I am actually looking at some thoughts from the Wycliffe Commentary. He works the willing and the doing as we are set in bond-servitude under Him, and thus and only thus are we finally, truly free. But, it is not the bondage of the conquered. It is not the bondage of the one who has found himself so indebted that he cannot repay. It is the willing subjection to a beloved master. Even this, it must be confessed, is His doing. It is not in us to come to this love of God. That love must be God-implanted, and as that commentary says, “It is this God-implanted love for His way that makes Christ’s yoke easy.”
But, how is this love for God implanted in us? It is by the Holy Spirit’s entering in. He enters, and He works this change in us, until we become both Spirit-filled and Spirit-impelled. This is not an impartation of the charismata, although nothing precludes them from being imparted. It is at once something far simpler and something far greater. It is what the Wycliffe Commentary speaks of as “Spirit-impelled self-control”, and that is a thing marvelous indeed. They note this as the only lasting basis for freedom. Indeed. Without self-control we remain in the bonds of sin. Face it. If we do not have self-control, then our self is necessarily controlled by another. But, look at Scripture’s announcement of the better news. If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law (Gal 5:18). You are not, to be clear, granted to ignore the Law, for the Law remains good. But, you are not still indebted by the Law, and answerable for its penalties. You are, because of this Spirit-impelled self-control, empowered to obey that Law, and by this you truly arrive at your liberty.
You have clearly visible boundaries set by this Law. You have simple, distilled guidance as to what God is like and what He expects. And, you have this Spirit-enabled capacity to meet the demands of the Law. No, I do not suggest you are so empowered as to comply perfectly in this present life. The body of the old man still attaches to us and we are yet in training as to how we resist his counter-attacks. But, we are now Spirit-empowered, Spirit-filled, Spirit-impelled. We have a self-control that we never had before. Oh! We don’t always exercise it, but it’s there. This is something more than the benefits of maturity. This is strength to conquer our sins on this condition: That we are seeking to conquer where the King is battling.
I have watched this unfold in my own life. I can go to no end of effort to quell the sin that bothers me, and find it all to no avail. But, if I will attend to the sin that bothers God, He is in the effort, and it seems almost that there is no effort. It’s like He’s just sprayed on sin-be-gone, and the stain is washed away immediately. What I have learned is that the sins that most bother me are those that are most visible. In point of fact, they might not even be classified as sins. But, they are things generally frowned upon, and which would, were they more widely known, sully my reputation. God, on the other hand, is far more concerned with the more hidden, inward sins: the ones that may leave reputation intact even as they thoroughly corrupt the soul. That’s where He’s at work. That’s the one He knows needs to be dealt with and destroyed. We do not, in ourselves, have the eyes to see as He does, to assess as He does. But, we are not left in ourselves alone. We are Spirit-filled men. It is thus, to take one final comment from the Wycliffe, that we are “enabled to meet demands unreasonably, yes, quite impossible on any other basis.”
Indeed. How often do we cry out to God that we can’t take any more? And how often, having said this, do we discover that yes, in fact, we can. And having discovered this, how else do we suppose we have been able to meet the demands of whatever situation the present has thrown at us except that the Spirit of the Living God has taken residence in us, and He is at work in us both to will and to work according to His good pleasure and purpose? Praise be to God that we are not only at liberty in this pasture, but we have so great a Shepherd as to train us that we might be healthy and happy sheep, at ease within our fenced lands.
Submission in Liberty (08/28/14)
It seems strange, does it not, that we are told in one breath to submit and in the next to act as free men? Aren’t these two things in opposition? Well, in our minds perhaps they are. But, then, in our minds perhaps we are adding or subtracting from the message imparted. On the one hand, we are discussing the outward-directed aspects of life and on the other the inward. One has to do with our interactions with others. The other has to do with our understanding of our relationship with God.
So, then, we act as free men. We do not think of ourselves as slaves and we do not act like slaves. This sets a certain tone in our submission to authority. We accept that we are subject to civil authority, but we do not, in so doing, lose sight of our blessed liberty as those made free by the Son of God. We do not submit as men with conscience bound. We do not make ourselves slaves of government. But, we submit. We submit, if we do so aright, out of concern for God’s opinion of us and not the opinions of man. We submit because He says it is right that we do so. We do not submit in fear of punishment. We do not act out of a dread for the consequences of our sins should we do otherwise. We act because we desire nothing so much as to avoid sinning in the first place. We submit as friends of liberty. We submit in the understanding that liberty and authority are co-tenants, and even great friends.
We act as God commands, or we endeavor as best we may to do so. God commands thusly: Honor all men (v17). So, then, we make it our goal that honoring all men shall be our habit, our instant response, and not some effort we must work up in ourselves. Likewise the love we are to have towards our brothers in Christ. The honest man must admit that there are times when it is difficult to love our brother. Some brothers just rub us the wrong way. Some are simply not what we would naturally consider simpatico. But, we make this our practice: That the love we have for our brothers is so much a part of our constitution that it transcends personal preferences and quirks. This love is not, after all, a demand that we find each other to be perfect companions. It’s not the sappy, emotional matter that pop culture equates with love. It’s care and concern. It’s compassion and respect. It’s recognition that here is my brother, my sister, my mother. Here is family. I may not find all my siblings to be the best of company. They may not all be the sort I would choose to hang out with. But, they are family. If they hurt I hurt. If they have cause to rejoice, I am happy for them. If they are in need, I help. That is what’s in view here; not just some sense of comradery. Comradery has its place and its benefit. But, there is love that goes beyond.
The tension remains though. Indeed, it shows in another regard. We see the tension between liberty and submission. There is also a tension to be maintained between the honor due our governors and the absolute reverence reserved for God. The JFB sets the distinction after this fashion. The king is to be honored, but God alone is to be feared. Call it a matter of degree. But, this is exactly that divide we considered previously. God alone is due unquestioning obedience. He alone is worthy of unquestioning obedience because He alone is Good. But, God in His goodness has appointed this king, this governor, this president. He has seen fit to set just such a one over you, and He has seen fit to command that you honor this man. It may very well be that you have to honor this man disregarding what you think of him. Be that as it may, you honor him. You honor the office. You do so in large part by respecting and obeying such laws as this man may impose, however distasteful, right up to the point where this obedience and the absolute obedience due God alone are in conflict. At that point, we have arrived at the border and we mustn’t go further.
Up to that point, we do well to remember that in every moment of every day we are representatives of the God we serve. This is the thought that lies behind Peter’s admonitions here. Barnes writes, “One of the best ways of meeting the accusations of our enemies is to lead a life of strict integrity. It is not easy for the wicked to reply to this argument.” Of course, the evidence is all around us that this course is no guarantee that we shall be left alone. Far from it. That wouldn’t have been the case for Peter’s first readers either. The way that God commends to us is not some sort of insurance policy against every sorrow and injustice of life. It wasn’t so for Jesus. Why would we think it should be so for us? The slave is not greater than his master, nor the student his teacher.
But, we walk this world as ambassadors of a greater Kingdom. The world knows this. We are on public display; don’t ever doubt it. “The eye of the world is upon us,” writes Barnes. This is not arrogance. It is warning. What the world thinks of God is largely going to hinge on what they see of you. There is a reason why the media seems to go out of its way to find the worst possible representatives for Christianity; representatives that are quite probably Christian in name only. The worse light they can show Christianity in, the easier to discount its claims. The world is looking for an excuse not to believe, and it is thus that we have so great a caution as to our character and action. It is thus that we are urged to live a life as nearly spotless as we may. After all, as Barnes points out, “If religion fails there, they judge that it fails altogether.”
That strikes me as one of those statements that should just be emblazoned before our eyes. It’s right there with Aaron’s medallion. “Holy unto the Lord.” I have had past thoughts on how it must change my behavior were so bold a declaration upon my forehead for all to see. Would you respond the same way to situations if the one you are about to abuse for some petty annoyance could turn to look at you and see those words upon your face? How differently must we respond to the petty aggravations of the day if we remained conscious of this simple truth? What if, in my every action, I had this thought in mind: “If religion fails here, they will judge that it fails altogether.”
Is that overwrought? I fear it is too mild. I set it together with the commands given the watchman on the wall. If you warn and they don’t heed, it’s on them. But, if you fail to give warning, it’s on you. This is similar. If my actions lead this person to conclude that my religion is worthless and the God I claim as my own is powerless and insignificant, what have I done? I have set a major stumbling block in this person’s path, perhaps jeopardized their very salvation. No, in truth I do not believe I have such great influence as to cause God’s election to fail. At the same time, it is a very serious matter in God’s sight if we make the work harder. It is a very serious matter if we are found impeding access to those He would call. It is a matter that I should be taking seriously in all my activities. This is not a Church thing. This is not a matter for how I deal with those I am trying to reach. It’s a matter for how I deal with everybody, every day and in every situation. It is, then, a matter wherein I am in great need of the continuing work of the Spirit in me that I might be both willing to do right by all, and enabled to do so. With this man, it is impossible. But, with God, all things are possible.
Civil Order (08/29/14)
I have likely worn this subject out already, but let a few points be reiterated. If we would have liberty we must have boundaries. This is the purpose of civil law. It establishes those boundaries within which we are individually at liberty to do as we please. It does so because societal structure requires that it do so. There is a good reason that a good God has established this as our norm. It is well for us that we remember that God has established the civil authority, whatever we may think of it in its current state.
It is God’s Providence which has invested the President with authority. Clarke builds on this point to say that for this reason the President is to be obeyed even if he is worthy of no reverence. Though the man be utterly unworthy of respect, yet respect the office. We have a real problem with this, I think. It has not been taught with sufficient vigor, and so respect for the office has been lost. It doesn’t help that those who have held office have so often made a mockery of it; making it a tool for avarice and self-gratifications of the worst sort. But, hear the message: The man has not unmade the office, only sullied the man. For our part, we must persist in doing what seems to us impossible: To honor the office in spite of the man, and to do so by obeying the man in spite of the man.
Calvin makes the matter this serious: He instructs us that if civil order does not prevail with us then we do not fear God. That’s a serious charge! But, what it drives at is that we do not understand just how seriously God takes this matter. We have, in our own way, arrived at a complete misunderstanding of what it means to have separation of church and state. We complain of those who use that phrase to set barriers around the governing powers, insisting they are not permitted to so much as hear a prayer spoken in their presence. God must not be mentioned in the halls of power or in any halls that accept any form of funding from said power. But, we have our own overstated perspective: that the government, being rejected from establishing a religion, is to be summarily ignored by religion. And this is no more the case than the ridiculous demands that God must be silenced.
We must be careful, though, of Clarke’s insistence that we must obey even the bad man. Boundaries! I do believe there comes a point where obedience would be utterly sinful. I must maintain that if the bad man commands evil, we must respectfully decline to comply. One needn’t look so very far for examples. Consider Daniel and his friends in the courts of Babylon. We will not bow to your idol. Think Peter and John before the Sanhedrin. We will not cease from proclaiming the Gospel. But, understand that even where obedience must be withheld, submission may not be. Again, look at Daniel and company. We will not bow down, but we will not refuse to face the due penalty. We will render under the king what is his. If that means death in the fiery furnace, so be it. So far as the record shows, there was no attempt to escape bonds, no struggle against so unjust an end. There was, to take Peter’s phrase, doing right, acting as free men. That, I think, must be our model. That is the balance point.
“If respect be banished, subordination will flee with it, and anarchy and ruin will rise up in their place.” The quotation is Clarke’s. I read that with trepidation as I read it, for I think he is quite right. And, thinking him quite right, I find myself greatly concerned for our current state here in America, as well as pretty much everywhere else around the world. We are seeing it play out. Respect has been banished, rightly or wrongly. Subordination has fled. Consider the case of that police officer who declared that if the President saw fit to ignore the Consitutional limits set on his office, there was no reason for this officer to pay those limits any greater heed. If the chief ignores them, why shouldn’t I? Respect is gone. Subordination has fled. Or, let us take the situation in Ferguson, Missouri. I don’t claim to know all the facts of that situation, but I can see this much: Respect has been banished. The citizenry have no respect for the police. We can debate whether they have good reason for this or not, but that doesn’t really matter. Respect has been banished, and subordination has fled. Seemingly, reason has been quick on subordination’s heels. What has filled the gap? Anarchy.
Consider the world situation, and you see it playing out on a larger scale. This is not a conflict of nations we have in the Ukraine, nor is it a conflict of ideologies playing out in Syria and Iraq. Those are surface characteristics. But, look below the surface and one finds anarchy. You have armies posing as peace keepers and rebels. You have rebels posing as armies. You have the rule not of law, but of lawlessness. There are no rules. There is only force and power. There are no boundaries. Therefore, there is no freedom.
I could go back a year or two, and consider the ‘Occupy’ movement. I suppose it’s still around. Such foolishness does not fade easily. But, what was this? It was anarchy. It was an utter disrespect for achievement, for property rights, for any rights of others. It was an insistence on mob rule, which is to say, no rule. We will do what we want and you have no say in the matter. If we feel like a bit of property destruction, you can’t stop us. If the cops try and do something about it, we’ll give them what for. And, what is the response? We have the police stocking up on military weaponry. We have over-reaction from them on seemingly every front, a flaunting of the laws by those tasked with enforcing them. It is a death spiral, and it is a death spiral that must involve all of civilization if it is not reversed. God help us.
Christianity in the Workplace (08/29/14)
In verse 18, it is possible to see a change of topic. We have been dealing with government and now we’re dealing with servitude, with in-house labor relations. Here, I think we have to make a bit of cultural adjustment. The particular relationship that Peter addresses is that of household slave and household master. Some of our commentators stress the point that this does not require us to think that the masters in view are Christians or that the relationship in view is one of forced, involuntary slavery. The terms admit of a wider understanding, although Peter’s message tends to argue in favor of the narrower application.
That said, it seems to me that the relationship he is exploring has clear application to us in our own employments. We are not slaves, it is true. We have no legal restraints upon our ability to seek employment elsewhere, if our current boss is not to our liking. There are limits, to be sure. But, those limits are more psychological and situational in nature. But, the admonitions Peter gives to the slave are perfectly applicable to us as employees. I would even say they are perfectly applicable to those civil authorities he has been discussing. Even the king is an employee in the end. I am not even thinking of the common gripe that these civil servants are (by the very definition of terms) employees of the public at large. Yes, even the President is, in the end, a civil servant – an employee at will of the people – whether he chooses to act accordingly or not. But, the larger point is that the President, wittingly or not, willingly or not, is the servant of God, Who alone appoints all authorities.
But, let me return to the more personal application; the matter of our own duties as employees. “Be submissive with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable.” That is verse 18 with but four words removed: Servants, and to your masters. By removing those words, the underlying point is made without the distracting connotations of our distaste for the institute of slavery. The same limiting factors apply here as with the civil authority. Our submission does not go so far as to require us to pursue wickedness at their wicked command. It does not go so far as to suggest that we should treat as honorable those unreasonable traits the boss may exhibit. We honor the role or office of boss. We honor what is honorable, admirable in the boss. For, as was said of tyrants, so can be said of the worst of bosses: There remains something about them that may be counted admirable. Even the worst of men will have some trace of humanity left him, something which, if not a redeeming quality, is at least a remnant of that image in which he was created.
As we go into the workplace, we do well to remain mindful of this. A lousy boss is yet the boss, and therefore due respect. Bad bosses are not an excuse for bad work. For so long as we remain employed, it can be said (as Clarke does), “Your time belongs to your master.” The worker is worthy of is food, said Jesus (Mt 10:10). He was speaking to His disciples at the time, and the context sets them in the role of worker. It was not, then, an instruction to employers to pay their workers a living wage. It was an instruction to the worker to work so as to be worthy of said wage.
The JFB looks at this section and concludes what should be clear: Submission’s requirements hold under all circumstances. This, I think, is the point Peter is driving home. We will see this more as we proceed. Going into Chapter 3, we see the same message applied to family life. It plays into Church life. The church submits to the leadership of the elders, and the elders submit to one another (and more importantly, to Christ). The leadership does not lord it over the led, but leads as submitted to the led for their own good. That may seem an impossible organizing principle, and with man, it probably is. But, with God? Well, let Matthew Henry set the tone: Fear God with highest reverence and submission. For, apart from this, no other duty can be done aright.
In closing out this study, I want to turn back to those particular terms Peter has chosen for master and slave, for there is something to be seen there. Much is made of it through the several commentaries. The particular servants in view are the domestics, those who serve in the house and are therefore in close relationship, even intimate relationship with the ones they serve. Indeed, we could hear this as a call to have just such an intimate relationship with those served, as well as a clear command to have a heart for dedicated service. The call is to do these things not as under compulsion, but as free men dedicating themselves to the tasks by our own free will.
One day, we shall be servants in the household of God Himself. Yes, we are His children. But, we shall also be His servants. This is not a shameful office, but really, one of great honor. It shall also be one of great intimacy as we remain in His presence and privy to His thoughts and plans. Shall we serve Him as we ought, with dedicated hearts? I don’t see how it could be otherwise. But, let us recognize this present life offers us ample opportunity to practice just such service. “The one who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen” (1Jn 4:20b). Cannot the same be said of this devoted service? If we cannot honorably serve the boss we have seen, how can we serve God whom we have not seen?
Let us, then, make this most holy and appropriate submission our goal, and let us do so in every setting, every aspect of life. The call is ever to submission, and to live godly in this ungodly world. The call is to set the example, not to act the rebel. This will not come naturally. But, God does not require us to do it by our own nature. He is with us. He is working. Therefore, we are able. Let us submit to Him by submitting to His command to submit to others.
