rulers and therefore Christians have nothing to fear since “ the king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand o f the Lord; he turns it wherever he will” (Proverbs 21:1). In medieval times, the king was viewed as the vice-regent o f God, responsible to God alone. The theory of the absolute sovereignty of the ruling monarch was first set forth in the form o f a philo sophical theory by Hobbes, who went as far as to say that there “ can be no so-called legal right to disobey the established law of the land.” It has often been suggested that this is the bibli cal view. Actually, in the Old Testament, the kings o f Israel were always seen as servants o f God and therefore subject to the censorship o f the prophets. These men of God never hesitated to rebuke the king. Before the division o f the Jewish kingdom, the elders of the nation suggested to King Rehoboam that he should serve the people and that, in turn, they would become his servants. He did not accept the counsel of the older men and Israel rebelled against Rehoboam. The sympathy of the inspired historian is on the side of the nation over against the king. There is no word o f condemnation re garding this rebellion. King Hezekiah rebelled against the king o f As syria with the approbation o f God, who prospered the king in all his undertakings (II Kings 18:7). The position o f the king was not one o f unlimited power. He was bound by the Mosaic law and the living law as proclaimed by the prophets (Deute ronomy 17:14-20; II Kings 11:17). When Paul expressed the view that rulers are not a terror to good conduct, he assumed that the authorities would reward the good and reprimand the wicked. This is an empirical rule. When the sword becomes a menace to the good, the whole purpose of government is subverted and, from that stand point, a revolution may be an ethical necessi ty, a Christian duty. At this point, a Christian would have to weigh the pros and cons. There is always the danger of replacing the relative evil of despotism by the absolute evil of anarchy. Christian prudence would certainly demand that revolution not be attempted unless there is a solid chance to succeed. It must also be certain that the overthrow of the government be followed by the establish ment of one which would preserve the rights which have been gained. These conditions would seldom—if ever—pre vail in a democratic society such as the U.S. In our society we expect the government to be bound by all laws, and similarly all individuals are bound by the laws o f the land. It has been pointed out that in a. democracy a revolution is always unjustified and wrong because: 1) revolution of the minority against the majority is immoral since democratic government only ex-
By way o f contrast, H. A. W. Meyer, typical of many German commentators, expressed his views as follows: “ The Christian, according to Paul, ought to regard any magistracy whatever, provided its rule over him subsists de facto, as divinely or dained, since it has not come into existence without the operation of God’s will; and this applies also to tyrannical or usurped power, although such a power, in the counsel o f God, is perhaps destined to be merely temporary and transitional.” American expositors and theologians have been particularly sensitive to this issue, since the history o f the United States is rooted in the American Revolution. Timothy Dwight summarized the de bate and submitted the following propositions: 1. Subjects are not bound to obey the com mands o f the magistrates, as such, when they are not warranted by law. The law created magistrates and defines all their powers and rights; whenever they require that which is not warranted by law, they cease to act as magistrates and return to the character of citizens. In this role they have no au thority over their fellow citizens. It is not the man but the magistrate, whom God requires us to obey. 2. Subjects are bound to obey magistrates, when acting agreeably to the laws, in all cases not contrary to the will o f God as unfolded in the Scrip tures. If the ruler establishes a law contravening the laws of the land, he moves beyond the limits of his lawful authority, and obedience is dissolved. It is true, adds Dwight, that even in such cases, from motives of prudence and expediency, Chris tians may feel bound to obey magistrates, at least for awhile. The question arises, at what point—if ever—a nation is authorized to resist rulers when they are seriously encrouching on its liberties. Dr. Dwight assumed that resistance would be permissible only if the people would have a fair opportunity of pre serving or acquiring political liberty and of estab lishing, after the end of the contest, a free and happy government. That subjects are always bound to speak respectfully of their rulers is dictated by both revelation and reason. This does not mean that the faults o f rulers cannot be exposed, and the prophets of Israel certainly did not hesitate to do so. But when and in what maimer is a serious topic of investigation. This leads to the problem of dissent. According to Dr. Dwight there must be solid reasons for uttering censure: The accusation must be true; the purpose must be to do good; there must be moderation, not invective or ridicule. Subjects are also bound to defend their rulers. This duty includes opposition to private and civil violence, and resistance to open hostility. It is hardly necessary to add that subjects should pay taxes and that Christians are bound to pray for those in authority. Finally, every Christian would do well to remember that God Himself rules the
1«
THE KING'S BUSINESS
Made with FlippingBook Online document