Legitimate Authorities

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; (Romans 13:1-3)

I start the study of this chapter by examining the meanings for the original Greek words.

Person = sentient spirit – soul.

Subjection = subordinate; reflexively, to obey:--be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto.

Also compare to verses in chapter 12 such as be devoted to one another (10), give preference to one another (10), be of the same mind toward one another (16), be at peace with all men (18).

Governing authorities = huperecho and exousia

huperecho = to hold oneself above, i.e. (figuratively) to excel; participle (as adjective, or neuter as noun) superior, superiority:--better, excellency, higher, pass, supreme.

Exousia = (in the sense of ability); privilege, i.e. (subjectively) force, capacity, competency, freedom, or (objectively) mastery (concretely, magistrate, superhuman, potentate, token of control), delegated influence:--authority, jurisdiction, liberty, power, right, strength.

The reasoning behind this is that apart from God there really is no real power or authority, so the authentic authorities that exist are in fact (ordained) to arrange in an orderly manner, i.e. assign or dispose (to a certain position or lot):--addict, appoint, determine, ordain, set – of God.

So Pilate said to Him, "You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?" Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin." (John 19:10-11)

A question that seems to be left unanswered is, did Pilate actually have the authority that he claimed he had or not? I realize most religious people teach that Pilate was the ordained authority within Rome and that this verse confirms it. But an open-minded reading of this does not necessarily prove that assumption. While Jesus did not defy the claim of Pilate to having authority or resist him, neither do I see this as a ringing endorsement of Pilate's claims. Jesus says, unless it had been given you..., but does not confirm that it indeed had been given to him.

Another point to ponder here. How much is this passage referring to authorities within the body and how much outside? Of course, since all authority comes from God I suppose that is a superfluous question. But the movement in this chapter seems to be an outward progression of relational attitudes from one on one relationships within the body to how we are to relate to the world at large.

How is it that earthly authorities are established by God? The word comes from tasso which means, To arrange in an orderly manner, i.e. assign or dispose (to a certain position or lot):--addict, appoint, determine, ordain, set.

As with many issues involving evil, particularly in the Old Testament, God accepts responsibility for events and authorities because He is the one who created everything and put all forces into being to counterbalance each other. That does not mean He intended them to act the way they do or for them to abuse their power. They will be held accountable to Him for any abuse of power just as everyone is. It is not our responsibility to pass judgment on the faults and sins of those in power or else we will become infected with the poison of bitterness and become vulnerable to craving power ourselves. With that attitude we are also very vulnerable to abusing such power ourselves if we were to be entrusted with it. Our greatest responsibility is for how we choose to respond and relate to those in power or placed in authority over us.

But I still believe it is a valid question to ask, what constitutes legitimate authority and what is illegitimate, usurped authority? Just because any ol' person comes along and asserts a claim over our life in order to exploit or abuse us does not mean they are an authority established by God, does it? Is a robber threatening your life an established authority? Is the Mafia an established authority? They have rules and organizations and territory just like more legitimate governments. What determines that an authority or person in power is established or not?

This is the crux of some very important issues that most people want to avoid or skip over because it creates too many hard questions of conscience that are difficult to grapple with. It tends to make the one's asking them very different from everyone who are just willing to submit to anyone who intimidates them enough. But just because an organization claims to have authority and uses brute force and intimidation or massive, complex deceptions to assert their legitimacy does not necessarily give them the role of established authority. This issue is going to become more and more sharp and difficult as we near the end of history, because there is going to be a concerted effort to enforce the will of evil men on the body of Christ that will violate their allegiance to God. And it is going to be much deeper than simply what day you keep for Sabbath or what denomination you subscribe under.

I do not yet have a clear answer for this question of what attributes an established authority needs to have to be recognized as such. I know that I have made choices about this issue that has put me at odds with the majority opinions and that will continue to do so. I am also aware somewhat of the history of the abuse of this passage in the past, such as enlisting support for the authority of Hitler from the religious people and churches in Germany. There was great pressure on church members of nearly every denomination to patriotically support the wonderful programs and the advancements that Hitler was doing for his country while overlooking the slight discomforts of some of his quirky ideas on the margins. No one knew at that time how tragic his plans would end up after their full exposure, so those people could not make their decisions based on the perspective that the world has now looking back. They had to take a seemingly indefensible position based on a high percentage of admittedly good things Hitler was doing that have been largely overlooked since that time in our emphasis on his later atrocities.

Those who chose to not support him based on what was considered at the time to be insignificant issues of conscience came under intense criticism and were often ostracized by the church leaders of the day. They were sometimes evicted from their churches and were viewed as fanatical and unpatriotic for their concerns about the direction they felt things were going. And remember, Hitler was not some fly-by-night terrorist trying to set up some power grab to get attention or just enrich himself. He was a legitimate ruler set up by a legitimate government and acknowledged by the world as the established head of authority in Germany. So in a very real sense, those who chose to oppose his agenda were refusing to submit to the governing authority.

And that was the very argument used most often against them by others. So what are we to say about them in retrospect? Was it wrong for these dissenters to stand for their concerns in the face of intense opposition and apparently against the explicit Word of the Bible here in Romans 13 that was being thrown into their faces? Does their situation apply to anything we are facing today or was that just a fluke in history?

Many now view these resistors as heroes, but they were certainly not viewed that way in their time. They were vilified as dissenters as have many of God's people throughout history. This chapter creates a tension that may be one of the most difficult for Christians to struggle with because of the internal conflict it creates between cooperation with earthly authorities and allegiance to moral convictions.

(next in series)