Lux Lucet

The Hebrew Midwives

In Exodus 1, we read where Pharaoh ordered the Hebrew midwives to kill any male child born to the Hebrew women.  “But,” we read, “the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive.” 

This raises the question, did the Hebrew midwives sin by not doing as the king of Egypt commanded them?  The answer clearly is no, they did not sin.  We read, “And so it was, because the midwives feared God, that He provided households for them.”  That God rewarded the Hebrew midwives for their faithfulness to him refutes the idea that Christians are required to obey the civil authorities no matter what.  And not only did the Hebrew midwives not sin by disobeying Pharaoh, we can deduce by God’s rewarding them that, had they in fact obeyed Pharaoh, they would have been guilty of the sin of murder.

The quote at the top of this post from Hebrews deals with the exact same issue as was faced by the Hebrew midwives.  “By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden three months by his parents, because they saw he was a beautiful child; and they were not afraid of the king’s command.”  In this case, the choice faced by Moses parents was between obeying the king, which meant killing their son Moses, or keeping him alive.  Moses parents are commended for their faith shown in their decision to reject the evil command of the king and to preserve the life of their son. 

Put simply, both the Hebrew midwives and Moses’ parents engaged in civil disobedience and they are commended by the Scriptures for doing so.  

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego

Without a doubt, the account of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego’s defiance of Nebuchadnezzar’s command to bow down to the golden image is among the most famous examples of civil disobedience found in the Bible. 

In short, everyone in the kingdom of Babylon was ordered to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s image upon pain of death.  The three Hebrew young men refused, were dragged before the king and sentenced to death by being burned alive. 

Not only was Nebuchadnezzar angered by the young men’s defiance, he was beyond angry.  The Scriptures say, “he was full of fury and the expression on his face changed toward Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego.  He spoke and commanded that they heat the furnace seven times more than it was usually heated.”  In fact, the fire was so hot that it killed the troop detail that had the job of casting the young men into the furnace.

Now if we take the stance that Christians are always to obey whatever the civil magistrate says no matter what, very clearly the three young men owed Nebuchadnezzar an apology for their defiant stance.  They should have done what they were told and bowed down to the golden image.  In fact, Nebuchadnezzar gave them the opportunity to do so.  But the young men refused.

Were they wrong to do so?

Certainly not!

We know this, because God saved them alive from the fiery furnace such that not even the smell of fire was upon them. 

Daniel  

When Babylon was under the rule of Darius the Mede, Daniel found himself the object of the hatred and jealousy of some of his fellow rulers in the kingdom for the “excellent spirit” that was in him.

These rulers plotted to entrap Daniel by convincing Darius to sign a decree forbidding anyone to petition any god or man for thirty days except Darius.  Darius foolishly took the bait and signed the decree.

Then we read, “Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went home.  And in his upper room, with his windows open toward Jerusalem, he knelt down on his knees three times that day, and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as was his custom since early days.” 

Daniel’s enemies in the king’s court were, apparently, well aware of Daniel’s custom and were waiting for him to violate the king’s decree.  It didn’t take them long to catch Daniel in an act of “lawlessness” and they made haste to make his defiance known to Darius. 

As we know, Daniel was cast into the lion’s den for the crime of praying to God.  So, did Daniel sin by ignoring the king’s command, of which he was well aware as the Scriptures make clear?  Should Daniel have begged Darius that he forgive his impertinence and promised that he wouldn’t do it again?  Should Daniel have simply prayed in private?  After all, he didn’t have to pray toward Jerusalem with his windows open.  It was only his practice to do so. 

By no means should he have done any of those things.

How do we know?  When Daniel answered Darius from the lion’s den, he explained his deliverance by saying, “My God sent His angel and shut the lion’s mouths, so that they have not hurt me, because I was found innocent before Him; and also, O king, I have done no wrong before you.”

Daniel played the man by righteously ignoring the king’s command – Daniel engaged in civil disobedience – and was rewarded by God for his faithfulness.

We Ought to Obey God Rather Than Men – Peter and the Apostles before the Sanhedrin

While the accounts from the Old Testament are enough to establish the duty of Christians to resist civil magistrates when they overstep the bounds of their rightful authority, the clearest statement of this principle can be found in the New Testament in the Acts.   

Here we read how the apostles were, for a second time, dragged before the Sanhedrin and rebuked by them for teaching in the name of Jesus.  “Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name?  And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man’s blood on us!”

Now if it’s true that Christians are to obey the decrees of the civil magistrates no matter what, then Peter and the other apostles owed the Sanhedrin a big apology.  After all, this was the second time they ran afoul of the civil authorities for teaching in the name of Jesus.  They were repeat offenders!  Recidivists and scofflaws all!  Peter and John should have begged the Sanhedrin’s mercy, promised not to teach the Gospel anymore and gone back to their fishing business.

Is that what they did?

No! And thank God for that.

Peter’s reply to the Sanhedrin, in fact, is the very definition of Christian ethics, ethics being the theory of correct behavior.

In response to the Sanhedrin, “Peter and the other apostles answered and said: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’”

Not only was it not wrong for Peter and the apostles to publicly preach Christ – they had, after all, received what we now call the Great Commission from Jesus himself – they would have sinned had they acceded to the Sanhedrin’s order and ceased to do so.

Points of Application

In closing, I’d like to draw a few points of application from the cases of Biblical civil disobedience we’ve looked at.

In the first place, civil government is legitimate and limited.  As Paul tells us, governing authorities “are appointed by God” and are “God’s minister to you for good.”  Civil government is not a human, but rather a divine institution.  Christians are not anarchists.

But while civil government is legitimate, at the same time its authority is limited in scope.  There are two jobs given to the civil magistrate, the praising of good works and the punishment of those who practice evil.  As John Robbins noted in one of his lectures on political philosophy, it’s important to note that the civil magistrate’s authority to punish is itself limited to those who practice evil.  The civil magistrate is not given the authority to define and punish thought crimes. 

Historically, one of the big problems with civil magistrates is that they recognize no limits on their power, even going so far at times as putting themselves in the place of God himself. 

Second, civil governor’s sin when they impinge upon the rights of other divinely ordained governmental institutions.  Civil government is not the sole, God ordained source of authority over men.  Along with civil government, Christians have recognized that the Bible has also established two other forms of government, that of the church and that of the family.  While the civil government has the power of the sword, church government has the power of the keys – that is, the preaching of the Gospel – and family government the power of the rod, the ability to corporally punish children.

Civil governors are not to have authority over what the church teaches or how the church conducts its internal affairs, neither does Caesar have the right to interfere in the affairs of the family.   Contra Hillary Clinton, it’s not the business of the village how Christian parents raise their children.

Third, just because the Bible countenances civil disobedience, this does not justify all such acts.  As Christians, we must pray to God that he would give us both the knowledge of his Word to understand what it teaches and the wisdom to apply it to the men and situations that we face in our lives. 

Fourth, but while it is possible for Christians to too readily seek to undertake civil disobedience to right some perceived wrong, it is also possible for them to be too slow to act.  Instead of resisting tyranny, Christians also can err by putting up with outrageously evil acts from the civil authorities rather than speaking up. 

Writing in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin observed, “For, when Jeroboam made the golden calf, they forsook the temple of God, and, in submissiveness to him revolted to new superstitions (1 Kings 12:28).  With the same facility posterity had bowed before the decrees of their king.  For this they are severely upbraided by the Prophet (Hosea 5:11).”

In the New Testament, Paul expressed his concern that the Corinthians would too easily put up with false doctrine.  “For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted – you may well put up with it!” 

Indeed, it is much easier and less risky to go along with false doctrine from supposedly Christian teachers and put up with tyrannical decrees from arrogant civil magistrates than it is to speak out against them.  Speaking out against and defying tyranny makes one a target, and that is scary and dangerous. 

Even our Declaration of Independence acknowledges the tendency of people to suffer tyranny quietly rather than resist.  “[A]nd accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

The great danger to Christians when it comes to civil disobedience is not that they will act too rashly, but that they will fail to act when they should. 

In closing, it has been the purpose of this post to show that, not only does the Bible countenance civil disobedience, but that under certain circumstances it requires it.  This is an important concept for Christians to understand.  Perhaps especially for Western Christians, who, in the coming years, may well find themselves, for the first time in their lives, forced to chose between the commands of Christ and the those of Caesar.

Let us first be clear in our own minds what God requires of us.  It is only then that we will be able to do the right thing with conviction.    

Pages: 1 2