Christian Duty Under Corrupt Government
by Ted R. Weiland
The first seven verses of the 13th chapter of the Apostle Paul's epistle
to the Romans are often abused and misused by today's average
clergyman. This has resulted in one of the most destructive doctrines
that has come out of "Judeo-Christianity" (that segment of
Christendom that is heavily influenced by the Talmudic religion of
Judaism) — the false teaching of total submission to all government
authority. This theological mistake has probably contributed more to
the loss of Christian dominion than any other false doctrine. Judeo-
Christianity relies on the following three passages for its Scriptural
basis for this doctrinal error:
Titus 3:1-2: Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and
powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to do every good work, to
speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all
meekness unto all men.
1 Peter 2:13-15: Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the
Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors,
as unto them that are sent by him .... For so is the will of God, that
with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.
Romans 13:1-7: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.
For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of
God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the
ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves
damnation .... Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for
wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute
also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very
thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due;
custom to whom custom;fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
Much of Judeo-Christianity has interpreted these passages to mean
that God sanctions all existing government authority and that we are
therefore to submit completely to any authority that happens to rule
over us. Further, they teach that resistance to civil authority is
rebellion against God Himself (except in the rare instance when
someone might be ordered by government to deny Yhshua the Christ)
and that God will punish those who rebel.
In fact, the Bible does teach submission to government. However, it
teaches a limited submission which is not rendered indiscriminately to
any and all who rule. Support for this view can be found from a
careful reevaluation of Romans 13:1-7 where we discover Scriptural
justification for the type of authority to which Christians are and are
not obliged to submit:
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers [governing
authorities, New American Standard Version; NASV]. For there is
no power [authority, NASV] but of God: the powers that be are
ordained of God. (Romans 13:1)
This verse is currently interpreted by most clergymen and government
officials to mean: "God has established every civil or government
authority, and thus Christians are bound to submit totally to whichever
government God has placed over them at any given time."
Every authority?
It is remarkable how the teachings of the majority of modem
preachers contrast with the views many of our predecessors held
concerning submission to government authority. In 1603, speaking
before Parliament, even King James I recognized that a ruler's
authority has limits: "A king ceases to be a king, and degenerates into
a tyrant, as soon as he leaves off to rule according to his laws."1
In 1643 Pastor Samuel Rutherford wrote Lex, Rex ( The Law and
the Prince) in which he explained: "...God hath given no absolute and
unlimited power to a king above the law [of God]... 2
"When the magistrate doth anything by violence, and without [outside
of] law, in so far doing against his office, he is not a magistrate. Then,
say I, that power by which he doth, is not of God. None doth, then,
resist the ordinance of God who resist the king in tyrannous acts.3
"Therefore an unjust king, as unjust, is not that genuine ordinance of
God .... So we may resist the injustice of the king, and not resist the
king. If, then, any cast off the nature of a king, and become habitually
a tyrant... he is not from God... If the office of a tyrant... be contrary
to a king's office, it is not from God, and so neither is the power from
God."4
The proper perspective on authority was also introduced by the
English philosopher, John Locke: "Where-soever the authority ceases,
the king ceases too, and becomes like other men who have no
authority."5
Many of America's early preachers and founders concurred with Mr.
Locke. In a message preached just thirty-six days prior to the signing
of the Declaration of Independence, Pastor Samuel West
emphatically proclaimed: "In order . . . that we may form a right
judgment of the duty enjoined in our text [Titus 3:1, supra], I shall
consider the nature and design of civil government, and shall show
that the same principles which oblige us to submit to government do
equally oblige us to resist tyranny; or that tyranny and magistracy are
so opposed to each other that where the one begins the other ends."6
Pastor Samuel Cooke, preaching at Cambridge, Massachusetts, on
May 30, 1770, declared: "Justice also requires of rulers, in their
legislative capacity, that they attend to the operation of their own acts,
and repeal whatever laws, upon an impartial review, they find to be
inconsistent with the laws of God, the rights of men, and the general
benefit to society. This the community hath a right to expect."7
In 1765, British jurist Sir William Blackstone put it similarly in his
commentaries on English law: "No human laws are of any validity if
contrary to [God's Law]."8
In 1860, John Wingate Thornton developed this thought further: "We
may very safely assert these two things in general without undermining
government: One is, that no civil rulers are to be obeyed when they
enjoin things that are inconsistent with the commands of God. All such
disobedience is lawful and glorious . . . All commands running counter
to the declared will of [YHWH] the Supreme Legislator of heaven
and earth are null and void, and therefore disobedience to them is a
duty, not a crime."9
The wrong-headed teaching of many of today's clergy is at odds not
only with our founding fathers, but more importantly, with Scripture
itself. Consider the words of the Prophet Hosea: "Set the trumpet to
thy mouth. He shall come as an eagle against the house of YHWH
because they have transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against
my law . . . They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made
princes, and I knew it not. (Hosea 8:14)
In this passage, disobedient Israelites are described as those who
"rebelled against [God's] law;' and "set up kings, but not by [God]."
Are we to believe that the omniscient sovereign God actually did not
know what these rebellious Israelites were up to? Of course not!
Hosea is simply telling us that these rulers were set in positions of
authority without God's favor.
No government can exist without God allowing it to do so. However,
we must understand that there are two different types of government
for two different types of people. A people who have submitted
themselves to YHWH's Word are blessed with just and righteous
rulers. But those who have willfully rebelled against YHWH's Word
are visited with an oppressive government for the purpose of bringing
them back into submission to God. Hosea 11:5 provides a graphic
example: "... the Assyrian shall be his king, because they [Israel]
refused to return [to YHWH]."
While this is true for the wicked, in Romans 13 Paul is addressing a
body of believers who have submitted themselves to Yhshua as King,
and is instructing them in the concepts of a Christian civil body politic.
John Milton, in his book Defense of the People of England,
commented on Paul's intent:
"It being very certain that the doctrine of the gospel is neither contrary
to reason nor the law of nations, man is truly subject to the higher
powers who obey the laws and the magistrates so far as they govern
according to law. So that St. Paul does not only command the
people, but princes themselves, to be in subjection; who are not
above the laws, but bound by them . . . but whatever power enables a
man, or whatsoever magistrate takes upon him, to act contrary to
what St. Paul makes the duty of those that are in authority, neither is
that power nor that magistrate ordained of God. And consequently to
such a magistrate no subjection is commanded, nor is any due, nor
are the people forbidden to resist such authority; for in so doing they
do not resist the power nor the magistracy, as they are here
excellently well described, but they resist a robber, a tyrant, an
enemy."10
Theologian Adam Clarke expressed similar sentiments: "Nothing can
justify the opposition of the subjects to the ruler but overt attempts on
[the ruler's] part to change the constitution, or to rule contrary to law.
When the ruler acts thus he dissolves the compact between him and
his people; his authority is no longer binding . . . . This conduct
justifies opposition to his government."11
Pastor West preached: "Unlimited submission and obedience is due to
none but God alone . . . and to suppose that He has given to any
particular set of men a power to require obedience to that which is
unreasonable, cruel, and unjust is robbing the deity [YHWH] of His
justice and goodness."12
In 1749 Pastor Jonathan Mayhew argued lucidly against unqualified
compliance to civil authority:
"Children are commanded to obey their parents, and servants their
masters, in as absolute and unlimited terms as subjects are here
commanded to obey their civil rulers . . . . Thus, also wives are
commanded to be obedient to their husbands . . . . In all these cases,
submission is required in terms at least as absolute and universal as
are ever used with respect to rulers and subjects. But who supposes
that the apostle ever intended to teach that children, servants, and
wives, should, in all cases whatever, obey their parents, masters, and
husbands respectively, never making any opposition to their will, even
although they should require them to break the commandments of
God, or should causelessly make an attempt upon their lives? No one
puts such a sense upon these expressions, however absolute and
unlimited.
"Why, then, should it be supposed that the apostle designed to teach
universal obedience, whether active or passive to the higher powers,
merely because his precepts are delivered in absolute and unlimited
terms? And if this be a good argument in one case, why is it not in
others also? If it be said that resistance and disobedience to the higher
powers is here said positively to be a sin, so also is the disobedience
of children to parents, servants to masters, and wives to husbands, in
other places of Scripture.
"But the question still remains, whether, in all these cases, there be not
some exceptions. In the three latter it is allowed there are; and from
hence it follows, that... the use of absolute expressions is no proof that
obedience to civil rulers is in all cases a duty, or resistance in all cases
is a sin."13
Pastor Rutherford joined in demonstrating the foolishness of arguing
that Christians are to blindly submit to authority under all
circumstances: "It is true, so long as kings remain kings, subjection is
due to them because [they are] kings; but that is not the question. The
question is, if subjection be due to them, when they use their power
unlawfully and tyrannically. Whatever David did, though he was a
king, he did it not as king; he deflowered not Bathsheba as king, and
Bathsheba might with bodily resistance and violence lawfully have
resisted king David . . . . "14
David was a minister of God, and was beloved of God, but was he
never to be resisted, simply because he was king? Of course not!
Pastor Cooke pointed out the relationship between those in authority
and the laws of God: "Rulers of every degree... are, equally with
others, under the restraints of the divine [YHWH's] law. The Almighty
has not divested Himself of his own absolute authority by permitting
subordinate government among men . . . without true fear of God,
justice will be found to be but an empty name."15
Further, if Christians are required to submit to every authority — to
which authority would God require them to submit in the midst of a
revolution? At such times there would be two competing authorities,
and Christians who attempted to conform to the present-day Judeo-
Christian interpretation of Romans 13 would find themselves in an
impossible position. Common sense tells us there must be something
wrong with such a doctrine.
The second clause of Romans 13:1 reads: "For there is no power
[authority, NASV] but of God." The literal translation of the original
Greek words is not "but" — it's "if not."16 If we replace the word
"but," as found in the KJV, with the literal translation, this verse would
read: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is
no power if not of God . . . ."
In other words, any civil authority not set up and sanctioned by God
and not enforcing His laws is not a legitimate authority, at least not
over Christians who have submitted themselves to the Kingship of
Yhshua. J.B. Rotherham arrived at the same conclusion in the
Emphasized New Testament, when he translated verse 1: "for there is
no authority save by God."
Even the Encyclopaedia Britannica reports under the heading
"Messiah," that this was the understanding of the early Hebrews: "In
the period of the Hebrew monarchy the thought that Yahweh is the
divine king of Israel was associated with the conception that the
human king reigned by right only if he reigns by commission or
'unction' from him [YHWH]."17
The latter part of Romans 13:1 reads: ". . . those [authorities] which
exist are established by God." To put it another way: "Legitimate
authorities are only those established by God." J.B. Phillips obviously
understood this when he translated verse 1 in The New Testament in
Modern English: "Everyone ought to obey civil authorities, for all
legitimate authority is derived from God's authority."
Apparently our early American forefathers' interpretation of verse 1
was much more Scriptural than the one advanced in many churches
today.
In his book, Mr. Weiland analyzes the other six verses (Romans 13:
2-7), offers a Conclusion which includes the following excerpts:
We can be thankful that many of our early preachers and founding
fathers were not encumbered by the false theology so widespread
today. They properly understood the question of submission to
government and preached and wrote extensively on the subject. Had
they followed modern Judeo-Christian notions, the United States of
America simply would not exist.
America's Christian forefathers and patriotic citizens were courageous
and stood upon the Word of God. They knew they must not
surrender to tyrants. In 1773 the following famous proclamation was
heralded by the men of Marlborough, Connecticut: "Death is more
eligible [at least for some] than slavery. A freeborn people are not
required by the religion of Jesus Christ to submit to tyranny. . . . [We]
implore the ruler above the skies, that He would bare His arm in
defense of His church and people, and let Israel go."60 Preachers like
West, Cooke, and Mayhew accurately taught early Americans what
the Apostle Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write.
Consequently, they felt no inhibition for resisting ungodly authority and
establishing in its stead an American civil body politic that more
closely resembled God's design. Pastor Mayhew answered all of his
previous questions with the following ringing declaration:
"It is blasphemy to call tyrants and oppressors God's ministers. They
are more properly 'The Messengers of Satan to buffet us.' No rulers
are properly God's ministers, but such as are 'just, ruling in the fear of
God.' When once magistrates act contrary to their office, and the end
of their institution — when they rob and ruin the public, instead of
being guardians of its peace and welfare — they immediately cease to
be the ordinance and ministers of God, and no more deserve that
glorious character than common pirates and highwaymen."61
"Thus, upon a careful review of the apostle's reasoning in this passage,
it appears that [Paul's] arguments to enforce submission are of such a
nature as to conelude only in favor of submission to such rulers as he
himself describes; i.e., such as rule for the good of society, which is
the only end of their institution. Common tyrants and public
oppressors are not entitled to obedience from their subjects by virtue
of anything here laid down by the inspired apostle."62
Christians can serve only one master. The consequence of Judeo-
Christianity's ambivalence is clearly seen in the John 19:14-15
account of the trial and crucifixion of Yhshua: "and he saith unto the
Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away
with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King?
The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar."
This is a far cry from the disposition of the first-century Hebrew
zealots and the eighteenth-century Christian patriots. The watchword
of the zealots was: "No God but Yahweh, no tax but to the Temple
...!"63 The rallying cry of America's early Christian patriots was: "No
king but King Jesus;"64
If Paul and Peter had lived what modern preachers say they wrote
i.e., — unconditional submission to King Nero's government — then
Nero would have never have put them to death. Instead, Paul and
Peter would have been lauded and honored as loyal citizens. Caesar
put them to death because they preached and lived unconditional
submission to King Yhshua and taught disobedience to all antichrist
authority. Consider the following unmistakable proof of Acts 17:6-8:
"And when they [the Thessalonian Jews] found them [Paul and Silas]
not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city,
crying, These that have turned the world upside down [effecting a
change in government by what they were preaching] are come hither
also... and these all do [act, NASV] contrary to the decrees of
Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Yhshua."
Was Yhshua another current king? Yes, definitely! Were these first-
century disciples preaching only a future king? If so, the rulers of their
day would not have troubled themselves about Him. Christians
looked to Yhshua as a reigning King who alone deserved their
allegiance. . . .
It is any wonder that the authorities were disturbed in the Apostle
Paul's day? They and their system of government were being toppled
by this "new" King and by what first-century Christendom was
preaching and practicing. Whether modern Christendom understands
it or not, the Thessalonian authorities understood that proclaiming
Yhshua as Lord and King required unconditional submission only to
YHWH and His laws.
Modem Judeo-Christianity calls resistance to tyranny sin against God;
whereas true Christianity understands that such resistance is
obedience to God. Christians who understand the Apostle Paul's
intent in Romans 13 are today's point men. They, as the "salt of the
earth" and the "light of the world," are once again "turning the world
[order] upside down" for their Lord and King, Yhshua the Christ.
May our banner forever be: Obedience To God Rather Than To
Men!
[Editor's note: Wieland's fiery book ends with a more moderate
"Epilogue" by Pastor James Bruggeman: ]
America has been enslaved economically if not (yet) militarily. The
process of enslavement has been so gradual and so subtle that most
Americans still have not recognized their bondage-captivity...
Recently, however, many more Americans are being awakened to the
true state of affairs, namely their bondage .... But those who
understand Romans 13 properly, along with understanding the whole
counsel of God in relation to government, are confronted with a
dilemma: At what point of government oppression is civil
disobedience and/or resistance in order?
Since the possible scenarios are myriad, we cannot give any more
than general guidelines. We must look to Scriptural examples. At
what point did the Hebrew midwives practice civil disobedience? At
what point did Daniel defy King Nebuchadnezzar? When did Daniel's
three friends rebel against this same king? Upon reflection of these
incidents, it becomes apparent that just because our present
government may be increasingly oppressive, that does not give carte
blanche to any and all citizens to refuse to obey whatever laws and
regulations they choose.
To cite one case history from the Scriptures, we can be certain that
many laws, rules, and regulations in Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon galled
Daniel severely. For example, if Babylon required a license for one to
drive a chariot, our guess is that Daniel had one. Remember, Daniel
was not only "in the system," he was a very high government official in
Babylon. His was an Old Testament example of "being in the world,
but not of the world." Daniel recognized that his people's captivity
was a God-sent chastisement. Yet, he drew the line when a "federal
law" prohibited him from praying to his God. We would do well to
study this and other such Biblical examples.
In summary, while there may be some who are called to fight the
present, ungodly system via court challenges, common law, the
Constitution, etc., we do not believe nor expect that everyone who
comes to the proper understanding of Romans 13 must therefore
revoke his driver's license, marriage license, Social Security number,
insurance policies, etc., and "fight the system." Each person must by
much' prayer, Scripture study, counsel from others, and study of
current conditions, come to the conclusion for himself concerning
what God is calling him to do at this critical time in history. "Let every
man be fully persuaded in his own mind."
Pastor Bruggeman's moderating Epilogue implies that even the
Religious Right and Fundamentalist communities are reluctant to
release the passions of faith into the body politic. The lessons of
history — especially the first American Revolution — make it clear
that an unbridled Christianity can be an awesome political force.
Instead of calling for a revolution, author Weiland seems only to warn
that if the principles of the Religious Right concerning issues like
school prayer and abortion are not given enough political space to
survive, another American revolution fueled by religion may in fact
occur.
Footnotes:
1 King James I, quoted by John Wingate Thornton. The Pulpit of the
American Revolution Political Sermons of the Period of 1776 (New
York: Da Capo Press, 1970) p.74.
2 Pastor Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince
(Originally printed in London for John Field, October 7, 1644)
(Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1982) p. 101.
3 Rutherford, p.103.
4 Rutherford, p.117.
5 John Locke, quoted by Thornton, supra p.74.
6 Pastor Samuel West quoted by Thornton, supra p.270.
7 Pastor Samuel Cooke quoted by Thornton, supra p. 167.
8 Sir William Blackstone, Blackstone's Commentaries (Philadelphia:
George W. Childs Publisher, 1870) Vol. l, p.41.
9 Thornton, supra p.86.
10 John Milton, quoted by Thornton, supra pp. 67- 68.
11 Adam Clarke, Commentary and Critical Notes (Nashville, New
York: Abingdon Press, 1831 ) Vol. VI, p. 145.
12 Pastor Samuel West quoted by Thornton, supra p.283.
13 Pastor Jonathan Mayhew quoted by Thornton, supra pp.65-66.
14 Rutherford, p. 149.
15 Cooke, quoted by Thornton, p. 168.
16 Wesley J. Perschbacher, The New Analytical Greek Lexicon
(Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1990) p.119.
17 "Messiah," Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th Ed. (Encyclopaedia
Britannica, Inc., 1910-1911) Vol. 18, p.192.
60 The Men of Marlborough, Connecticut, quoted by George
Bancroft, History of the United States (Boston: Little Brown and Co.,
1854) Vol. VI, p.442.
61 Mayhew quoted by Thornton, supra, pp73-74.
62 Mayhew, quoted by Thornton, supra p.78.
63 Quoted by Abram Leon Sachar, A History of the Jews (Alfred A.
Knopf, 1968) p.I 17.
64 Committees of Correspondence, quoted by Cushing Strout in The
New Heavens and the New Earth (Harper & Row Publishers, 1974)
p.59. l
Ted Weiland is a former rodeo bull rider, current evangelist, and
writer who has permitted us to reprint excerpts from his book,
"Christian Duty Under Corrupt Government." This book offers an
alternative analysis (primarily) of Romans 13:1-7 which is so strong
that his work should be studied by anyone who seriously supports or
rejects the Religious Right's political activism. [Note: Mr. Weiland
prefers to use the Hebrew translation "Yhshua" rather than the name
"Jesus" used by most Americans. He also uses the Tetragrammaton,
"YHWH" (God's name in the Old Testament name; pronounced
"Yahweh"), wherever he believes "it has been incorrectly replaced
with the words 'the LORD' or 'GOD'."]
-end article-
----------------
"The rights of the colonists as Christians....may be best understood by
reading and carefully studying the institutes of the Great Law Giver
and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly
written and promulgated in the New Testament."
-Samuel Adams
"If the power of the Gospel is not felt throughout the length and
breadth of this land, anarchy and misrule, degradation and misery,
corruption and darkness will reign without mitigation or end."
- Daniel Webster
"Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the
social compact on the Foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon
earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first
precepts of Christianity?"
-John Quincy Adams 1837
*********************[EMAIL PROTECTED]********************
The Patriot Resource Center: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6627/
Online Patriot Internet Radio: http://www.geocities.com/aresister_2000/
**********************Live Free or Die!*********************<><
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid
matters
and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
<A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
