Considering Biblical Directive on Submission to Authority

 

The following biblical verses concerning submission to authority have often given pause to Christians ― especially those accustomed to modern-day democracies with national elections periodically held for deciding whether to retain or replace the people’s choice of government:

•      “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities; ... whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God …”  (Romans 13:1-2)

•      “Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors …”  (I Peter 2:13-14)

•      “Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities …”  (Titus 3:1)

•      “My son, fear the Lord and the king …”  (Proverbs 24:21) but this brief dictate from the Old Testament’s wisdom literature is not as substantive as the preceding verses which the apostles wrote prior to the mass persecution of Christians during Emperor Nero’s reign.

 

The directive penned by Paul is clearly for “every soul” to comply with while the pronoun “yourselves” employed by Peter appears to be directed at anyone reading his epistle.  Apart from Paul’s and Peter’s submit-to-authority verses which are unambiguously applicable to Christians in general, the apostles added in their respective epistles the following injunctions that are specifically addressed to servants (including bond-servants or slaves):

•      “Bond-servants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but as bond-servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart …”  (Ephesians 6:5-6)

•      “Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh.”  (I Peter 2:18)

Naturally, the masters of households referred to in the latter pair of verses cannot be viewed in the same light as kings and governors in the earlier quartet of verses.  Even so, the notion of submission is a common theme for all these instructions regardless of whether the authority is exercised over a domestic estate or the nation state.  (NB: since the mention of slavery in the scriptures has already attracted much attention elsewhere, there is no further need to discuss this contentious issue here.)

 

Are the New Testament verses stipulating submission to authorities to be taken at face value?  Should this directive's scope be restricted to leaders who came to power via democratic processes?  Did Old Testament heroes submit to authority when pitted against pagan empires (such as Moses versus the Egyptian sovereign or Daniel’s 3 companions versus the Babylonian king)?  Given these and other considerations, commentators ― especially those with an activist bent ― have unsurprisingly been known to publish guidelines recommending when and how this biblical directive may be side-stepped.

 

Whereas Peter’s fisherman background might not have prepared him for legal writing, Paul had been “taught according to the strictness of our … law” (Acts 22:3) and would thus have been aware of the need to incorporate provisions for conditions and exceptions if they were indeed essential as accompanying addenda for what he articulated in Romans 13:1-2 and Titus 3:1.  In any case, Peter acknowledged having been “moved by the Holy Spirit” (II Peter 1:21) with regard to authorship of what II Timothy 3:16 describes as God-breathed scriptures and so the patent omission of provisions for possible scenarios necessitating non-submission to authority must have been intentional.

 

Instead of explicitly enumerating an add-on list of conditions and exceptions, both Old and New Testaments have prudently opted to offer instances of when biblical characters did not obey (like Moses, Rahab, Jehoiada, Daniel, Shadrach, Meschah, Abed-Nego, Peter and Paul just to name a few).  Each of these counter-examples has to be studied in detail in order to appreciate what litigation lawyers refer to as the fact situation (which opposing attorneys have to carefully peruse before their court case goes to trial).  Without an adequate understanding of the underlying circumstances, it is easy to be misled into thinking that a particular incident of non-submission found in the Bible (such as the account in Joshua 2 of Rahab hiding the Hebrew spies in flagrant defiance of her king’s command) may be freely extrapolated to also cover modern-day scenarios where the fact situations are vastly dissimilar.  Obviously, the task of analysing every single episode of non-submission recorded in the scriptures is beyond the confines of the present discussion and consequently only a representative selection will be looked at in the ensuing 5 paragraphs.

 

The thought-provoking question that immediately springs to mind is whether Jesus, Who during His sojourn on earth “made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bond-servant and coming in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:7), likewise had to submit to authority.  A hint may be found in Jesus’s following statement after His resurrection: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.” (Matthew 28:28)  On a number of occasions during His 3-year ministry, Jesus liberally lambasted the religious leaders for their hypocrisy and capitalised on opportunities to highlight their misapplication of the Torah’s edicts; for example, He intentionally healed the infirmed and the paralysed on the days of rest appointed for human beings so as to publicly reinforce His corrective teaching that “the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath.” (Mark 2:27)  When the time drew near for Jesus to fulfil His divinely-ordained mission as the sacrificial Lamb “Who gave Himself a ransom for all” (I Timothy 2:6), it is indisputable that He did not put up any form of resistance to the arresting party led by Judas and even instructed Peter to stop wielding his sword in an impulsive but vain attempt at defending Him.  Nevertheless, He told Pilate when the latter drew attention to his authority to either crucify or release Him, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above.” (John 19:11)

 

Among the limited number of mortal men selected for the present review, Moses stands out foremost since he stood up to Pharoah not twice or thrice but a total of 12 times.  Initially unwilling and diffident, he did not fare well during his very first appearance before the Egyptian sovereign and he thereafter grumbled to God, “Why is it You have sent me?  For since I came to Pharoah to speak in Your name, he has done evil to this people …” (Exodus 5:22-23)  With each successive encounter, he grew in confidence and was ultimately able to retort Pharoah that “your servants shall come to me and bow down to me …” (Exodus 11:8) during the aftermath of the tenth plague.  By the way, there is absolutely no doubt that God could have driven Pharoah to immediately succumb by simply skipping over the first 9 plagues and killing the Egyptian first-born males in one go at the very outset; instead, He confided to Moses that “Pharoah will not heed you so that [all of] My wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 11:9)  Another factor to be borne in mind is that each of the plagues was directed at what the Egyptians idolised because God declared that “… against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment.” (Exodus 12:12)  This is therefore an extraordinarily illustrative example where Moses’s insubordination to authority was actually facilitated by God over the entire course of the 10 plagues.

 

The most well-known non-submission narrative (which practically every Sunday School kid has been regaled with) ought to be Daniel’s disobedience that resulted in his night of incarceration in the den of lions.  God orchestrated opportunities for the Babylonian king to discover that Daniel was “ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers who were in all his realm” (Daniel 1:20) and subsequently “the king promoted Daniel and … made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon and chief administrator over all the wise men of Babylon” (Daniel 2:48); although catapulted to high office far away from his homeland, Daniel realised that he had been placed there to convey God’s counsel to the pagan king who eventually learned to utter that “I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol the King of heaven … and I blessed the Most High … Who lives forever.” (Daniel 4:36-37)  God also retained Daniel to serve the succeeding Medo-Persian empire where once again he “distinguished himself above the governors and satraps … and the king gave thought to setting him over the whole realm.” (Daniel 6:3)  After realising that Daniel was the target victim of the lion-den conspiracy, “the king was greatly displeased with himself” (Daniel 6:14) for having been unsuspectingly manipulated to sign the decree devised by Daniel’s envious rivals.  Powerless to thwart the plot set in motion by the league of conspirators, the exasperated king recommended divine intervention as a last resort and throughout that night “God sent His angel to shut the lions’ mouth ...” (Daniel 6:21)  Convinced thereafter of God’s power in protecting the governor whom he favoured but failed to shield from harm’s way, King Darius felt driven to publicly issue another decree that “in every dominion of my kingdom men must tremble and fear before the God of Daniel.” (Daniel 6:26)  Daniel could not by any stretch of imagination comply with the one-month prohibition against praying but God rescued His de facto ambassador who was strategically stationed at the very heart of two expansive empires.

 

Equally fascinating is the accompanying anecdote about Daniel’s 3 companions (viz Shadrach, Meschah, Abed-Nego) who were hauled by King Nebuchadnezzar’s guards to face the fiery furnace.  The popular version recounted during Sunday School and reproduced in kiddie bibles is that the trio were assured of God’s deliverance at the point of being cast into the midst of the flames.  However, that is not really what Daniel 3 recorded for posterity: while expressing on the one hand full confidence in God’s ability to deliver them (as noted in Daniel 3:17), the 3 brave friends had not been proffered any prior guarantee of such a positive outcome when they steadfastly disobeyed the furious king’s authoritarian command to bow before the image of gold that he had fashioned for all his subjects to worship.  Should on the other hand God choose not to deliver them (as noted in Daniel 3:18), the intensity of their faith still impelled them to defiantly refuse to be seen in any manner of compromising subservience to the idol that dominated the ceremony.  Since Daniel was already effectively serving as a divinely-appointed counsellor to show the pagan king the ways of God, this particular occasion of persecution against 3 more de facto ambassadors provided a public opportunity for the Lord to intervene so spectacularly as to demonstrate that “there is no other God Who can deliver like this.” (Daniel 3:29)  Read in context with the other learning episodes described at length in the adjoining chapters, the event narrated in Daniel 3 should be viewed as yet another lesson for the prideful king to behold the power of God before he was in due time troubled by a dream which Daniel interpreted as a forewarning that subsequently came to pass when Nebuchadnezzar was “driven from men and ate grass like oxen … till his hair had grown like eagles’ feathers and his nails like birds’ claws.” (Daniel 4:33)

 

Jehu is not a famous character commonly cited during pulpit sermons or bible study.  As an army commander, he naturally owed allegiance to King Joram (ruling complicitly with Jezebel who was the queen mother notorious for being wicked to the core).  Jehu’s life took a dramatic turn after a prophet’s servant arrived at the camp with instructions from God to “strike down the house of Ahab your master that I may avenge the blood of My servants the prophets, and the blood of all the servants of the Lord, at the hand of Jezebel.” (II Kings 9:7)  Experienced in leading military manoeuvres, he was ruthlessly efficient when despatching the king as well as his Phoenician mother and in the process he unwittingly fulfilled the prophecy uttered much earlier by Elijah to King Ahab that “the dogs shall eat Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel.” (I Kings 21:23)  At the end of the well-coordinated massacre, Jehu received divine commendation that “you have done well in doing what is right in My sight, and have done to the house of Ahab all that was in My heart.” (II Kings 10:30)  This is therefore an instance where the duty to submit to authority was set aside by God Himself but modern-day activists are not at liberty to draw from this exception any scriptural support for them to likewise scheme to overthrow governments if they, unlike Jehu who was specially anointed in II Kings 9:6, have not been specifically anointed to do so.  In fact, any would-be activist ought to refer beforehand to biblical verses pointing out in no uncertain terms that “the authorities which exist are appointed by God” (Romans 13:1) and “He removes kings and raises up kings” (Daniel 2:21); even Jesus had not been tasked during His earthly ministry to take on the Roman authorities for their high-handed manner in ruling Judea and Samaria (although the mistaken presumption at the time was that such a mission was expected of the Messiah) and, when thrust onto the proverbial hot-seat with the hot-potato issue of whether to pay Roman taxes, He illustrated how the Jews ought to distinguish between their obligations to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and [to render] to God the things that are God’s.” (Luke 20:22)

 

The preceding 5 paragraphs have outlined examples of non-submission to authority noteworthy for their positive outcomes.  For completeness, the present discussion must take cognisance too of counterpart incidents that did not fare just as favourably — bearing in mind Paul’s warning that “those who resist will bring judgment to themselves.” (Romans 13:2)  The following may help to shed some light in this regard:

(a)   The so-called Hall of Fame, while highlighting non-submission heroes such as Moses for “not fearing the wrath of the king” (Hebrews 11:27) and Daniel “who through faith … stopped the mouth of lions” (Hebrews 11:33), additionally mentions hapless victims who were “tortured, not accepting deliverance” (Hebrews 11:35) with some of them reported in Hebrews 11:37 as having been mercilessly stoned, slain with the sword or sawn into two.  Also to be remembered are the nameless martyrs crying out with a loud voice in Revelation 6:10 to find out when their blood will be avenged.

(b)   When reminded of the directive in I Peter 2:13-14 enjoining submission to secular leaders as well as every ordinance of man, Christians are likely to turn in response to the oft-quoted retort of Peter before the Sanhedrin: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge.” (Acts 4:19)  Apart from the Sanhedrin’s release in Acts 4 of Peter and John after merely issuing a warning, there is the notable record in Acts 12 of an angel facilitating the miraculous escape by Peter from prison.  Nevertheless, it should be emphasised that Peter had already been forewarned before Jesus’s ascension that “another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish” (John 21:18) thereby “signifying by what death he would glorify God.” (John 21:19)

(c)   Practically all Christians know that Paul was not one to mince his words and would unflinchingly refuse to compromise: “When Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face because he was to be blamed; ... and the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy” (Galatians 2:11-13) despite the glaring fact that Peter (who had been personally been commissioned by Jesus to feed His flock) remained a key leader at the time of Paul’s non-subservient outburst.  Indeed, the book of Acts portrays Paul as fearless when meeting challenges during his missionary trips but then God had disclosed beforehand that “he must suffer for My name’s sake.” (Acts 9:16)

(d)   The majority of Christians can readily recall that, after the well-publicised challenge held before King Ahab on Mount Carmel, Elijah ordered the 450 prophets of Baal to be seized and brought down to the Kishon Brook for mass execution.  However, most believers may not be that familiar with what transpired during the aftermath: on receiving Jezebel’s vengeful threat of next-day assassination, Elijah “arose and ran for his life and went to Beersheba … and [there] he prayed that he might die.” (I Kings 19:3-4)  The flush of success from the Mount Carmel challenge did not lift him from his protracted state of depression and the Lord stepped in to ask, “What are you doing here, Elijah?” (I Kings 19:9)

(e)   As and when warranted initially, Samuel had to rebuke the neophyte king who lacked prior training and relevant experience when starting to reign.  Subsequently, “Saul established his sovereignty over Israel … [and] he harassed wherever he turned.” (I Samuel 14:47)  When instructed by God to anoint David, Samuel thus replied, “How can I go?  If Saul hears it, he will kill me.” (I Samuel 16:2)  The Lord did not deny the climate of intimidation prevailing then but instead proposed that a sacrifice ceremony be held so as to mask the purpose of Samuel’s unannounced trip to Bethlehem.  Nevertheless, “the elders of the town trembled at his coming” (I Samuel 16:4) wondering whether there was more than met the eye.

 

Before the present discussion can be drawn to a conclusion, there is the necessity to additionally consider David who, despite having been anointed as king at a young age, opted to remain in submission to King Saul — biding his time until when “the Lord shall strike him [viz David's predecessor], or his day shall come to die or he shall go out to battle and perish.” (I Samuel 26:10)  Since God intended David to be the first in the line of kings culminating in the Messiah Whom the Jews hailed as the “Son of David” (Matthew 22:41) with Paul affirming that “Jesus Christ … was born of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3), such a ruler ought to be free from any taint of having ascended to the throne via dubious means.  It would certainly have been ideal if the king had been so grateful for the public slaying of Goliath that he volunteered as mentor to groom the pre-ordained successor but then “when Saul saw that David behaved very wisely, he was afraid of him” (I Samuel 18:15) and the sitting ruler thereafter devised devious schemes against the rising star who rapidly became the people’s favourite.  It would otherwise have been acceptable if the king had turned out to be a benign ruler with a track record of caring for his subjects but then King Saul ordered the massacre of 85 priests on the trumped-up charge of conspiracy against him.  It would actually have been tolerable if the insecure king’s reign had been short-lived but then Luke recounted that “God gave them Saul … for 40 years” (Acts 13:21) after the Hebrews kept clamouring for a sovereign.  Were there any negative consequences for David who repeatedly chose not to counter-strike arising from his conviction that “the Lord forbid that I should stretch out my hand against the Lord’s anointed” (I Samuel 26:11)?  Scriptures document the following obstacles and perils that David encountered while fleeing from the mercurial ruler’s clutches:

(1)   David and his band of misfits had to be constantly on the run because “Saul had come out to seek his life” (I Samuel 23:15)

(2)   since David no longer held any official position in the palace, the inhabitants of Keilah and Ziph were willing to betray him by disclosing his whereabouts to the reigning king

(3)   with no opportunity to settle down and farm or trade for a living, the fugitives had to resort to the undignified livelihood of seeking protection money from sheep-farm owners

(4)   leaving Saul’s jurisdiction was David’s final option but his band of 400 men must then keep looking out for raiders on the prowl to plunder unsuspecting communities

(5)   outside of Israel’s territory, David had to feign allegiance to the Philistines even though he had previously been tasked by King Saul to lead campaigns against the natural enemies of the Hebrews

(6)   it was essential for the 600-strong troop to mask their intentions all the time in order for Achish to continue believing that “David has made his people utterly abhor him and therefore he will be my servant forever” (I Samuel 27:12)

(7)   while David and his 600 men were busily feigning to be allies at the Philistines’ camp, their town of refuge Ziklag was burnt and looted by the Amalekites who took all women and children away as captives.

 

It is hoped that the selected materials provide sufficient fodder for reflection on the biblical directive that Christians must submit to authority unless otherwise directed by God Himself — given the lack of scripturally explicit guidelines for any human being to exercise his or her own initiative to pursue other options when faced with unreasonable, unscrupulous or unhinged leaders (who in the business community may take the form of office bosses or controlling clients).  At no time did the different authors who “were moved by the Holy Spirit” (II Peter 1:21) during the drafting of their respective epistles or books attempt to white-wash the harsh reality that those who on account of their faith valiantly stood up to authorities might have to endure hardships (as in the case of David who led his loyal men throughout their flight from King Saul) or suffer persecution (as in the case of Peter and Paul who, according to extra-biblical sources, were eventually martyred by Roman rulers). 

PS: there will likely be readers preferring certain other biblical characters to be included in the present discussion and (given the ease of integrating updates on this blog platform) their associated narratives may in future be explored here as well if interested parties submit requests that are worth considering.