Sermon Tone Analysis

“Whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement.”

[1]

The Book of Judges concludes on a gloomy note.

The last verse of the book reads, “In those days there was no king in Israel.”

Then, this dark assessment is appended “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” [JUDGES 21:25].

Tragically, the verse describes anarchy in high dudgeon.

The author describes an ungoverned, and what is worse still, an ungovernable, society.

Paul, in our text, is teaching us that the state is God’s provision for avoiding anarchy; and thus, it is good.

The FIRST VERSE of ROMANS 13 instructs us that we who are Christians are responsible to obey the governing authorities; the following two verses provide reasons why we should obey, while at the same time defining the role of government.

If we fail to be subject to the governing authorities, we are disobedient to God, and He will punish us [VERSE TWO].

However, the Apostle also cautions us that disobedience to government will lead to punishment meted out by the government itself.

In the message for this day, I am focused on the SECOND VERSE of this chapter, “Whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement.”

This particular statement raises significant questions for those of us who think deeply concerning our role in the particular society wherein God has placed us.

Thoughtful believers are compelled to ask whether there exist conditions which would negate this command.

In other words, is this teaching absolute?

Can we imagine conditions which would make rebellion against the existing authorities justified?

What if a government is tyrannical?

Suppose the state violates human rights?

Where are the limits of obedience for us as Christians?

Must Caesar always be obeyed?

JESUS ADDRESSES GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY — Jesus addressed the issue of the authority of the state on at least two occasions.

One of those occasions was examined in a previous message.

Jesus had been brought before Pilate, the Roman procurator of Judea.

Pilate appeared agitated by the fact that the Master neither grovelled before him nor attempted to mount a vigorous defence for Himself.

The procurator asked Jesus whether He was aware of the authority over the life of individuals that was held by the state.

The Master appears to have startled Pilate with His reply, “You would have no authority over Me at all unless it had been given you from above” [JOHN 19:11].

Jesus, showing respect for the position Pilate occupied and showing respect even for the government represented, nevertheless held Pilate accountable for sin.

The Master acknowledged that Pilate did indeed possess authority; but we saw that it was a delegated authority.

Since governmental authority Pilate wielded was given by God, Pilate was responsible to God for how he used that authority.

With these words, Jesus lays the groundwork for the limits of the authority wielded by the state.

The authority of the state is delegated authority, and representatives of government must ultimately answer to God.

Another incident demonstrates Jesus’ view of state-church relationship.

Various groups were testing Him, seeking any flaw in either His teaching or His character.

The Pharisees were the first to attempt to trick Jesus into stumbling over his words.

Note how the account begins.

“The Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle Him in His talk.

And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians” [MATTHEW 22:15, 16a].

The Pharisees and the Herodians were bitter enemies.

The Pharisees were Jewish patriots; they detested the secularisation of society which resulted from Greek rule in the previous centuries, just as they resented the current Roman rule.

The Herodians were pragmatists.

They sought to adopt not only the social trappings of the Greeks and Romans, but they also endeavoured to introduce Greek political and cultural thought to the whole of Judean society.

Mutual hatred of Jesus united the two disparate groups in a singular vile plot.

Since they could not trip Him up with a theological question, they would manoeuvre Him into making a political misstep.

“Tell us, then, what you think.

Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not” [MATTHEW 22:17]?

They thought the question foolproof; surely they could trap Jesus either into approving the Roman occupation or into advocating secession.

If He approved of paying taxes, they could discredit Him as a collaborator.

If He disapproved of paying taxes, they could denounce Him to Roman authorities as subversive.

It seemed to them that Jesus was firmly impaled on the horns of a dilemma.

Jesus asked for a coin, “and they brought Him a denarius” [MATTHEW 22:19b].

Likely holding the coin so they could easily see it, Jesus asked whose portrait and whose inscription was on the coin.

The obvious answer was quickly forthcoming, “Caesar’s” [MATTHEW 22:21a].

To this expected response, Jesus responded with what has become one of His best-known statements of responsibility to the state.

“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” [MATTHEW 22:21].

In saying this, Jesus lays the foundation for the precise teaching Paul provides in ROMANS 13:7.

“Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honour to whom honour is owed.”

The denarius Jesus held had Caesar’s picture imprinted on it.

We could certainly draw the conclusion that Caesar was infatuated with money since he put his picture on it.

Jesus was saying, “If Caesar wants this stuff, give it to him.

However, bear in mind that the imprint of God is on your soul and you have a responsibility to Him also.”

There was great hypocrisy in the question posed to the Master on that day, for the Herodians and the Pharisees did enjoy numerous benefits purchased with Roman taxes.

If they truly thought that all taxes were onerous and odious, they need to cease accepting the benefits.

OPTIONS FOR GOVERNMENT — We are considering issues surrounding the authority of the state and the limits of Christian compliance with the state’s authority.

To the brilliant mind of Dr. James Montgomery Boice, Jesus’ words about taxes suggested four options for Christians responding to the state.

[2] For the Christian, God may be sole authority, denying any role for Caesar.

Opposed to that view, Caesar alone may be the sole authority, with the authority of God denied.

God and Caesar may share authority with Caesar in the dominant position.

Or God and Caesar may share authority with God in the dominant position.

Each of these options needs to be examined in turn.

The first option is that God alone is the Christian’s authority.

During various periods of history, some Christians have adopted this view, especially when the state had become corrupt or oppressively abusive.

In the ancient church, some individuals isolated themselves in desert places.

They became hermits, separating themselves from all social contacts in order to permit themselves to focus on God and His will.

Perhaps you think that only anchorites or eremites associated with ancient monastic orders practised such religious seclusion.

You would be wrong if that were your conclusion.

Monasticism is the practical approach of far too many evangelical Christians.

When we separate ourselves from contemporary culture, refuse to participate in the electoral process, isolate ourselves so that we have only Christian friends or refuse to work for anyone other than a Christian employer, we effectively become monastics.

The second option proposed by Dr. Boice presents Caesar alone as our authority.

Certainly, the more secular members of society qualify as holding this particular view.

I dare say that the majority of our parliamentarians hold this view, and perhaps even the majority of the members of our various provincial legislative bodies as well as civic politicians.

The Jewish leadership during Christ’s trial chose this way, you will recall.

When presented with the opportunity to declare themselves for or against God, they cried out, “We have no king but Caesar” [JOHN 19:15].

Tragically, there are professing Christians who choose this option, either through neglect or out of convenience.

Of the options presented, this is without doubt the most dangerous, for there are no checks on the authority of the state.

There is nothing to restrain the power of the state.

Though the American State has checks and balances built in, the checks or balances for the Canadian State are less well defined.

The courts seem unbound by the will of Parliament, and Parliament seems often to serve essentially as a dictatorial power under the usual majority governments.

There is a check on the untrammelled power of Parliament as the people are permitted to vote from time-to-time, but it is a tenuous check, at best.

The Governor General of Canada, and the Lieutenant Governor of the various provincial legislatures, can serve to hold Parliament and the legislatures in check in an emergency, but these checks are seldom employed.

The Psalmist warns that human rulers conspire against God; tragically, human governors do so with astounding regularity [cf.

PSALM 2:1-3].

Should a society forsake God, the people are left at the mercy of the governors.

Each form of government has a guiding principle.

The guiding principle of monarchy is honour.

Aristocracy holds as its guiding principle, moderation.

The guiding principle of despotism is fear.

For democracy, whether republican democracy or parliamentarian democracy, the guiding principle is, of necessity, virtue or what is good.

Canada is a parliamentary democracy; therefore, for democracy to succeed, the guiding principle must be virtue or goodness.

In a previous message, we defined “good” as that which is pleasing to God.

Should the people of Canada fail to be virtuous, society must soon degenerate into a corrupt system where people misuse the power of government for their own narrow ends.

I suggest that in no small measure, that is precisely what we are witnessing in this day.