I’m saying that the Romans didn’t think that they held authority by the delegation of Jehovah and Christ corrects Pilate.
Brothers if you can’t say that Pilate knowingly convicting an innocent man and putting him to death is an act of tyranny I don’t know if anything is.
I’m still stuck at “tyranny” as a Biblical category. How would the Bible define tyranny? What does the Bible instruct us to do if we see it?
The way I would put this is that we should disobey a governing authority or magistrate if we are obeying a higher, or more fitting, authority instead. If my governor command that I should give a pinch of incense to Caesar, or to teach my child that boys can become girls, it is obedience to God rather than rebellion that promts my refusal to obey.
Similarly, but less clearly, if (hypothetically) the president says I must take a vaccine and my governor says that I am not bound to do so, I must choose to obey an authority, although this case which to obey will include a measure of reflection and prudence.
We should make sure that we are not rebels or rabble rousers, we should be able to explain how our action is in respectful submission to lawful authority.
Sometimes the application is difficult or unclear, we don’t always know exactly how to all God’s word. We should be charitable to others who are trying to work through it (while rigorously testing/challenging their positions when needed). However, I seem to be seeing many men with a political or culture wars position who are rifling through scripture trying to find some shred to support them, and it make me very uncomfortable.
I see no reason to think Pilate would disagree with Jesus’ statement. He didn’t say “Jehovah.” He said “from above.” Pilate would see that to mean Caesar, which is true insofar as it goes. Caesar is the one who gave him authority to execute people. We know from other places that Caesar/Biden got that authority from God.
Pilate putting Christ to death is tyranny. But him having that sword from God is not tyranny.
Christ doesn’t rebuke him for having authority. He tells him God gave him that authority. The sin isn’t using the authority. The sin is wrongfully using the authority to put an innocent man to death.
Pilate was a tyrant. That’s unlawful.
His office wasn’t a tyrannical office. It was lawful.
There’s a massive difference between those two things.
And establishing that someone is being a tyrant and sinning in their position of authority does not make it obvious how you, as a subordinate, are supposed to respond.
I didn’t say the office was tyrannical but the man who held it was.
We have to distinguish between God’s revealed will and hidden decree. All things happen by his hidden decree but that doesn’t mean all things follow his revealed will for us. It’s true that tyrants can only operate by his hidden decree but that doesn’t mean then that the church has nothing to say to them. We can’t lose our prophetic voice and we must instruct civil magistrates. And not just the ones who happen to darken the door of our church buildings. I completely disagree with anyone who says we can only speak to them if they come to us. It’s not how the prophets of old worked. It’s not how the apologists of the early church worked. It’s not how the saints throughout history worked.
We should be able to say to our civil magistrates that they have broken God’s law including in their half truths and hypocritical behavior with Covid.
President Biden has done great evil. And I’m not railing or rivaling to say it. Nor am I undermining submission to authority to say it.
It’s very difficult and takes wisdom and charity. And charity is difficult because when we come to a solution we think is wise we think if it’s wise and other people don’t see it there must be something wrong with them. Or sometimes a good strategy would work if you got enough people to agree to it but then it’s hard when people don’t agree.
The one thing I know is that we must be humble and crying out to the Lord.
So I’ve heard it said that foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, and perhaps that describes me. So my small mind immediately thinks we aren’t being very consistent in our principles concerning authority.
I mean, can we at least say there are limits to authority. Can we at least say that those in authority delegitimization themselves by their own behavior. Can’t we discuss Q130 of the WLC and speaking of our nation’s leaders as having dishonored themselves, or lessened their own authority, by unjust, indiscreet, rigorous, or remiss behavior. It’s not deconstructionist or anti-authority to do so is it.
One of the reasons I stepped away from a dispensational church, was the general indifference dispensationalism has to matters of public controversy. Specifically Abortion, but also much more. As long as the magistrate doesn’t make you personally sin, pretty much everything they do or make you do is only proof of the forthcoming rapture.
Simply put, we need not reserve our contempt for the deconstructionists in the Universities, when there are just as many ruling our nation. That’s not anti-authority, that’s pro-authority, without the moral relativism.
I’ve pointed out before on Sanityville that in the American system of government, the people (collectively) are sovereign. This means that President Biden, Congress, the Supreme Court, heads of agencies, etc., are all lesser magistrates who are subordinated to the greater magistrate of the American people. So in a sense, it is very easy to change policy – all that needs to be done is to elect office holders who will govern rightly. Once six years have passed, all the old politicians will be gone. Worried about election shenanigans? – just win by a larger margin. Worried about the federal civil service? – Congress can rewrite the laws to make it easy to fire those who refuse to administer rightly. Worried about the Supreme Court? – write up articles of impeachment, have the House vote to impeach, have the Senate vote to convict, and the Justices will be cleaning out their desks. All of the above is perfectly lawful and constitutional.
What is holding back such a simple solution? Obviously, the votes are lacking to elect the right sort of office holders. But this is where energy should be directed. It’s pointless to rail against lesser magistrates while ignoring the role of the greater magistrate who is in a position to discipline the lesser magistrate. The American government is the way it is because, more or less, that is the way the American people (collectively) want it to be. It’s the heart of the people that needs to be renewed.
Joel, your standard, a purely democratic solution, is one of might makes right. And that is precisely how the liberals have retained so much more authority. Every liberal Poli Sci professor I had in College and Grad school, would smugly say something like, “hey if you don’t like it get the votes, election are a non-violent Revolution”. That’s utter nonsense.
America is not a democracy, it’s a republic, which necessitates limitations on authority so that even a democratic majority could not violate the values stipulated by the founding documents of our nation.
But our universities and the liberal elite have nullified our republic by using the universities as a proving grounds for our national leaders. It’s collusion really.
Every one of them have take an oath to honor and uphold the Constitution, but a new commission has advised that the Constitution and Declaration should not longer be referred to as The Charters of Freedom, because of one reason, they hate America.
I am not advocating for violence or rebellion, but I refuse to honor the violent rebels who are terrorizing our nation.
I agree. The decision he made was an act of tyranny.
But my point was that your example is wrong. Jesus does not tell Pilate off for his tyranny. For starters, Pilate had not committed any tyranny yet. He did have the right to judge in this capital case, and when he tells Jesus that he has the authority to execute or release him, Jesus does not disagree with him. He affirms it to be true and gives the reason for it. Then, when Pilate judges tyrannically, sending Him to the cross, Jesus submits quietly to the tyrannical judgment.
Edit: No, I’m not saying that is some sort of universal requirement. At other times, Jesus refuses to comply when the authorities seek to arrest him tyrannically.
But here’s the problem, Jesus was avoiding direct confrontation for at least three years of his ministry.
His reasoning was never explained as “it’s the morally right way to deal with people who are trying to kill you”, but rather he explained his time had not come yet. Well we don’t know our time and it’s probably not gonna be that we will be glorified.
But even Jesus’ statement of “rendering unto Caesar” is ironic, as it both suggests there are either things that belong to Caesar but not to God or the more likely meaning is all things belong to God, and rather than waste an offering from the treasury, his Heavenly Father pays the toll from the mouth of a fish. It’s almost hilarious, and really kind of an insult to Caesar.
The more relevant account would be that of Jesus cousin, who Jesus did not rebuke for dressing down wicked magistrates. I know I know, I’m mis-handling scripture…but am I really?
If you think I’m saying that the civil magistrate cannot be corrected, rebuked, etc. you’re not hearing me right. But Rome was an oppressive power over the Israelites, and what they all wanted was freedom.
And the reason many of the Jews rejected Jesus was because he didn’t oppose the “tyranny” of the Roman oppressors, but rather left their bodies under their masters.
Bringing up Jesus’ mild agreement with Pilate where He even lets him off the hook somewhat while intensifying the condemnation of the Jews—not for their tyrannical use of authority, mind you, as the contrast Jesus sets up, along with their own acknowledgement, is that they don’t have authority, thus their guilt is greater—bringing this up is a perfect example of how low a priority Jesus placed on the Roman tyranny.
But Jesus did deal very strictly with the tyranny of the spiritual authority of the Pharisees, who tied up heavy burdens on the people, but didn’t lift a finger themselves. Nevertheless, he told the people to do what they say, not what they do. No, He didn’t mean everything they say. Corbin is an example of something they were not to do. Still, responding to the tyrannies we face today with the following…
is a denial that they “sit in the seat of Moses.” It is an utter rejection of how Jesus teaches us to deal with bad authorities. It is a statement that no obedience is due any longer, and indeed, given the criteria, that no obedience has been required for many years, if ever.
Not at all. My solution is perfectly consonant with the founding documents of the United States.
And that has happened largely because the voters (collectively) have been content to have it so.
But how could it be otherwise? Sure, you can point out that the Constitution doesn’t provide a right to abortion, but if the Supreme Court says otherwise, how are you going to get that changed aside from winning elections?
Republicans have won the presidency three times since I’ve been eligible to vote. Six of the nine Justices were appointed by Republicans. With this composition they somehow discovered that “discrimination” against people who claim not to be able to figure out what sex they are is the same as sex discrimination. Do you have any confidence that this court will meaningfully restrict Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey? I’ll believe it when I see it.
Ultimately, democracy isn’t rule by the people, democracy is rule by the people who tell the people what to think. Probably 25% of Americans will go to their graves believing that President Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election. Getting them to believe this was a literal conspiracy hatched in the Clinton campaign and perpetrated by the highest levels of law enforcement, intelligence agencies and the media.
Maybe I should vote harder next time.
If you mean the current set of Justices, I have no confidence. But I do not expect otherwise since there is no strong pro-life commitment among currently elected Republicans, nor a pro-life majority in the Senate.
Of course, which makes the witness of the church even more important.
I don’t intend to minimize the difficulties. Rather, my point is to counter the notion that some people seem to have that we are being tyrannized by rulers like Pilate who was appointed by some distant, foreign emperor. No, our tyrannical rulers were appointed by our own countrymen. And our countrymen are not voting that way because they were convinced by deep state disinformation but rather because they (collectively) want abortion to be available and they (collectively) want people to be forced to be vaccinated. Heck, that might be the outcome even if you restricted the franchise to members of NAPARC churches.
So yes, getting the votes to elect a supermajority of truly pro-life office-holders will be extremely difficult. But what’s the alternative?
Jesus tells him it is a sin. But yes Jesus submitted to the tyranny. He submitted to the whole evil conspiracy between Rome and the Jews. But don’t think He didn’t judge them. It is my view that Revelation is a book that condemns both the unbelieving Jews and the beast of Rome. It foretells the destruction of both Jerusalem and the empire of Rome.
In fact so much of NT scripture is pitting Jesus against Caesar. For example a coin of Rome used to say Caesar is Lord. There is no other name by which men could be saved.
Christianity doesn’t destroy civil authority but it certainly undermines those who think they hold authority by their own power.
We have to be able to tell all those in authority that they only have the office because God has given it them and that they will answer for how they use it. Civil magistrates have the duty to use the sword to punish evil and praise the good. Only God’s law gives us the definition of good and evil, The magistrates must obey His law.
It is unlawful for someone in authority to substitute his own word for God’s and to rule his people harshly. It breaks the 5th, 6th, and 8th commandment along with the first.
Now I’m not advocating Revolution or rebellion on our part but we have to speak to both superiors, inferiors, and equals, about the law of God.
Joel, I get that you are speaking pragmatically but we are talking normatively. The Supreme Court doesn’t have the right to dissolve the constitution any more than the President does.
Now this statement is factually untrue. What you describe here something more of a democracy, rather than the constitutional republic that we inherited.
The greater magistrate is not the people it is the founding charter documents of our nation. The oath of office has since 1789 obligated every Supreme Court Justice, every President, and every officer in the military not to the opinion of the majority but to the Constitution. It even goes further to say that the one taking the oath will defend the constitution against even domestic enemies with no mention of minority or majority. If it were merely to support and defend the majority rule of the people that would be truly an overthrowing of all authority, and a perverting of justice.
Exodus 23:2 (NASB)
2 You shall not follow the masses in doing evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after a multitude in order to pervert justice;
This is why Abortion is tolerated, not because it is legal. It’s not. This is why though a majority may want to signal their virtuous woke-ness, it can never be the legal standard over and against the standard of the Constitution. It doesn’t matter how many vote for it.
Yes, but much of those burden were tied to the collusion between the Pharisees and Rome. It was their false piety and maintaining their own authority by obeying Rome at the expense of God’s people.
And my point is that Americans have voted over and over, starting forty years ago, for limitations on Roe v. Wade and we’ve gotten almost nothing in return. Likewise, we’ve voted over and over for bringing order to the southern border and an end to endless wars. We’ve had very little to show for either of those either, though—seriously—kudos to Biden for biting the bullet on Afghanistan.
The American government is obviously not run by the people, the elected representatives of the people, or by any written constitution. The military is openly insubordinate to the President and the FBI and CIA are rigging American elections like we are El Salvador.
So where to from here? It will be fire and sword, as it has been so many times for the English-speaking people in the last 500 years or so. We are overdue for a paroxysm of fraternal violence, and the storm clouds are brewing. Both teams have rejected modern elections as being rigged, which is game over for any kind of democracy.