Does God ordain dictatorships?

[Southern_Cross]

Hi everyone!

Speaking of government authority Paul in Romans 13:1-2 states…

Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.

Here’s my problem; the passage states that ALL government authority comes from God, that all rulers no matter how despotic (i.e. Hitler, Stalin and Hussein) are acting on a mandate from God, even Atheistic communist dictatorships.Not only this but the passage states that any attempt to resist such authority is unacceptable, thus making any revolution, including The American Revolution entirely sinful.

Can anyone help me out?

Thanks

 

[Tom]

Hi everyone!
Speaking of government authority Paul in Romans 13:1-2 states…
Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
Here’s my problem; the passage states that ALL government authority comes from God, that all rulers no matter how despotic (i.e. Hitler, Stalin and Hussein) are acting on a mandate from God, even Atheistic communist dictatorships.Not only this but the passage states that any attempt to resist such authority is unacceptable, thus making any revolution, including The American Revolution entirely sinful.
Can anyone help me out?
Thanks

Hi Southern Cross, welcome to the forums!
Sure, read carefully the words of Paul. The higher authority is God, not man. There is no authority except from God. A government of a country has no authority. An atheistic government decrees that you will denounce the existence of God, does this constitute “an authority”? No, the only “authority” is God. God has established His Church on this earth, there’s your authority on this earth. Keep in mind the words of our first “Pope”:
www.drbo.org:

2 Peter 3, 13 But we look for new heavens and a new earth according to his promises, in which justice dwelleth. 14 Wherefore, dearly beloved, waiting for these things, be diligent that you may be found before him unspotted and blameless in peace. 15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Hi everyone!

Speaking of government authority Paul in Romans 13:1-2 states…

Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.

Here’s my problem; the passage states that ALL government authority comes from God, that all rulers no matter how despotic (i.e. Hitler, Stalin and Hussein) are acting on a mandate from God, even Atheistic communist dictatorships.Not only this but the passage states that any attempt to resist such authority is unacceptable, thus making any revolution, including The American Revolution entirely sinful.

Can anyone help me out?

Thanks

Sure. Keep reading Romans 13. Romans 13:8 says, “Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another.”

Was Paul too dense to understand that Verses 1-2 might mortally conflict with Verse 8?

Of course not. Paul was aware of the horror innocent Christ was subjected to at the hands of government. Paul was aware of Peter’s imprisonments and unlawful ESCAPE from prison with the assistance of God’s angels. Paul used to call himself the greatest of sinners because he, with the assistance of the law, used to kill.

Romans 13:1-2, according to Paul’s intent, merely had a limited application to a limited audience.

 

[Katholish]

Southern Cross,

Insofar as a dictatorship holds legitimate authority, it is from God. However, not every exercise of power over people constitutes legitimate authority. Once a government has been established for some time, however, it is generally considered legitimate even if it is fundamentally flawed. Even Hitler is generally regarded as having held legitimate authority. The other thing to understand is that rulers often do things which go beyond their authority. Obviously Hitler in particular committed many unjust acts in which he was not exercising his God-given authority, but trying to impose his own will in a grossly immoral fashion.

What implication does this have for revolutions? The Church has been opposed to revolutions in almost every case imaginable. Some popes have been extremely firm on this issue, even though some theologians like St. Thomas think that there might be some circumstances which allow it, even if they are rare.

As for the American Revolution, I think that a good case can be made for it and was made for it by the Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence, Charles Carroll. Firstly, Carroll argued that the British King George III was illegitimate because the “Glorous Revolution” of 1688 was unjust and overthrew the true King because he was Catholic. Most Catholics at the time were Jacobites (supported the Stuart claim to the British crown), and hence regarded George III as a usurper. Furthermore, Carroll argued that the Colonies charters established self-rule under the British monarchy and were at no time ever subject to the British Parliament but their own elected assemblies. When Parliament began to directly tax the colonies, they were claiming an authority which they never possessed, and so resisting them was like resisting an external invader, and not a revolution by any means. Both of these seem like strong arguments. However, if one were to conclude that George III was a legitimate King and Parliament had the authority to tax the colonies, then indeed the American Revolution would have been a highly immoral undertaking (which is of course how the British themselves and the Loyalists viewed it.)

Tom,

“A government of a country has no authority.” This statement is certainly incorrect as is. Just because God is the source of authority, does not imply that He does not grant it to civil societies and rulers. The Church is not the only authority on earth, she is a spiritual authority, but the government is a real temporal authority.

 

[Southern_Cross]

Hi Katholish, and thanks for your reply!

Those are great points. Especially your point about legitimate authority. I found this…

Hosea 8:4
They set up kings, but not by Me; They made princes, but I did not acknowledge them. From their silver and gold They made idols for themselves—That they might be cut off.

So it appears that there may exist authority that God does not approve of. I think Peter Dawson also has a point when he says we must look at Romans 13 in context. When Paul says “all authority” he may very well only be referring to “all authority” within the city of Rome, or at best the greater Roman Empire, which, for Paul would have constituted the whole known world

 

[KyivAndrew]

Here’s my problem; the passage states that ALL government authority comes from God, that all rulers no matter how despotic (i.e. Hitler, Stalin and Hussein) are acting on a mandate from God, even Atheistic communist dictatorships.Not only this but the passage states that any attempt to resist such authority is unacceptable, thus making any revolution, including The American Revolution entirely sinful.
Can anyone help me out?

This troubled me too some time long ago. I read E.P. Sanders’ book on Paul averring that this was the “apocalyptic” Paul speaking who truly believed the end was fast approaching and in the interests of getting the Message of Christ across quickly, Christians were not to argue with authority in any “end-days” scenario.

But then the late Father Raymond Brown’s exegesis is better:

“It is unwarrented to absolutize the Pauline instruction as if his were the were the NT view applicable to governing authorities of all time…The directive to be subject to governing authorities is particularly appropriate in a letter to the capital. (I Pet 2:13-15, written from the capital will have a similar tone.) By this time Claudius, who had driven the Jews out of Rome, was dead, and the new emperor (Nero) had not yet shown hostility to the Christians; consequently Paul can speak of the (Roman) ruler as God’s servant. The instructions to pay taxes and to respect and honor authority would make model citizens of Christians. Did Paul’s obedient attitude stem from his personal good experience with Roman authority with Gallio in Corinth (Acts 18)? Or were his instructions a defensive strategy? Or was he pastorally concerned that the recent expulsions of the Jews (AD 19 and AD 49) by annoyed Roman emperors not be repeated in the instance of the Christians?
[Moreover], when we discuss Revelations, we shall see that by the end of the century a different Christian attitude toward the Roman Emperor had developed, shaped by imperial persecution and harassment of Christians.”

From Brown’s An Introduction to the New Testament.

 

[Katholish]

Southern,

So it appears that there may exist authority that God does not approve of. I think Peter Dawson also has a point when he says we must look at Romans 13 in context. When Paul says “all authority” he may very well only be referring to “all authority” within the city of Rome, or at best the greater Roman Empire, which, for Paul would have constituted the whole known world

No, I am pretty sure that the proposition “All authority comes from God” is infallibly taught by the Church. What I said is that there is a distinction between power and authority. There can be no authority, however, which is not granted by God.

One of the coolest writings on this topic is Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos. I love teh example he gives of the Early Church sumbitting to the authority of the depraved Roman Emperors even during persecution.

1. We have learned that certain teachings are being spread among the common people in writings which attack the trust and submission due to princes; the torches of treason are being lit everywhere. Care must be taken lest the people, being deceived, are led away from the straight path. May all recall, according to the admonition of the apostle that “there is no authority except from God; what authority there is has been appointed by God. Therefore he who resists authority resists the ordinances of God; and those who resist bring on themselves condemnation.”[27] Therefore both divine and human laws cry out against those who strive by treason and sedition to drive the people from confidence in their princes and force them from their government.

1. And it is for this reason that the early Christians, lest they should be stained by such great infamy deserved well of the emperors and of the safety of the state even while persecution raged. This they proved splendidly by their fidelity in performing perfectly and promptly whatever they were commanded which was not opposed to their religion, and even more by their constancy and the shedding of their blood in battle. “Christian soldiers,” says St. Augustine, “served an infidel emperor. When the issue of Christ was raised, they acknowledged no one but the One who is in heaven. They distinguished the eternal Lord from the temporal lord, but were also subject to the temporal lord for the sake of the eternal Lord.”[28] St. Mauritius, the unconquered martyr and leader of the Theban legion had this in mind when, as St. Eucharius reports, he answered the emperor in these words: “We are your soldiers, Emperor, but also servants of God, and this we confess freely . . . and now this final necessity of life has not driven us into rebellion: I see, we are armed and we do not resist, because we wish rather to die than to be killed.”[29] Indeed the faith of the early Christians shines more brightly, if with Tertullian we consider that since the Christians were not lacking in numbers and in troops, they could have acted as foreign enemies. “We are but of yesterday,” he says, “yet we have filled all your cities, islands, fortresses, municipalities, assembly places, the camps themselves, the tribes, the divisions, the palace, the senate, the forum…For what war should we not have been fit and ready even if unequal in forces – we who are so glad to be cut to pieces – were it not, of course, that in our doctrine we would have been permitted more to be killed rather than to kill?..If so great a multitude of people should have deserted to some remote spot on earth, it would surely have covered your domination with shame because of the loss of so many citizens, and it would even have punished you by this very desertion. Without a doubt you would have been terrified at your solitude… You would have sought whom you might rule; more enemies than citizens would have remained for you. Now however you have fewer enemies because of the multitude of Christians.”[30]