1 Peter 2: 13-15 Respecting People in Authority
For the Lord’s sake, respect all human authority—whether the king as head of state, or the officials he has appointed. For the king has sent them to punish those who do wrong and to honor those who do right. It is God’s will that your honorable lives should silence those ignorant people who make foolish accusations against you. For you are free, yet you are God’s slaves, so don’t use your freedom as an excuse to do evil. Respect everyone, and love your Christian brothers and sisters. Fear God, and respect the king. (Holy Bible – New Living Translation)
Although Romans 13 has often been used as prescribed Scripture for church-state relationship, more often than not it tends to be used out of context. This simply because we try to squeeze the text into out own predetermined position in situations such as the current constitutional crisis in Perak.
I am also not neutral in this. Neither would I encourage you to be a fence-sitter. Having no position is indeed a position itself, although a double-minded one. We are privileged to be guided by Holy Scriptures to enable us to arrive at a considered decision instead of a simplistic or speculative one. We thank God for Holy Scriptures preserved for our benefit.
The Apostle Paul in Romans 13:1 speaks of submission to governing authorities, and the Apostle Peter talks about respecting all human authority (1 Peter 2:1).
The context, therefore, is clear. At every level of human society, not just church-state relationship, Paul says all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.
Even as human society is fallen and marred by sin, God’s redemptive purpose is one borne of law and orderliness; of justice and righteousness. Therefore everyone must submit to and respect all authorities, including the institution of the family, religious authorities and, yes, even the income tax department, if we are relying on Romans 13.
The state, or the governing authorities, sits at the apex of our society as it were – Whether the king as head of state, or the officials he has appointed, as Peter points out.
There are a variety of governing authorities among the more than 200 countries in the world. constitutional monarchy, presidential democracy, communism, and dictatorship, are some of them. However, not all may conform to the model envisaged by God.
Peter alludes to the delegation of authority in a constitutional monarchy when he refers to the king as head of state, or the officials he has appointed.
God would expect righteousness as a cornerstone undoubtedly in any governing authority. It’s interesting that Peter outline the order of rendering respect or submission as respecting everyone first, fearing God, and then respecting the king (1 Pe 2:17). This prioritisation of submission is instructive.
The biblical model outlined by Paul is one arising from a willing heart and of mutual and reciprocal considerations of submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. (Ephesians 5:21).
So it is clear that we are not called to blindly or slavishly submit to governing authorities. My own understanding is that it is our duty not only to respect or submit but also to ensure that such authorities are imbued with a sense of respect for the people and are God-fearing, undergirded by an acute sense of justice and righteousness. No one would have any problem of respecting or submitting to such governing authorities.
But what happens if there are no viable government authorities, the Marcos dictatorship, being a case in point?
I was fortunate enough to be an eye-witness in Manila to the last days leading to the fall of the corrupt Marcos regime. The fact is that Marcos had rigged the elections and had won by fraud and his opponent, Aquino, was assassinated by the Marcos mafia. All law and order had broken down.
There was abundant empirical evidence that the Philippines, at that juncture, had no viable governing authorities. Far from being righteous, the regime was corrupt and murderous to the core. The Catholic Church, far from calling for its parishioners to submit, called for a peaceful overthrow of a rogue government. As well all now know, the truth prevailed and the devil had to flee. We re not called to submit to anarchy but ot law and order.
How do we assess the situation in Perak?
It is a hung assembly – or governing authorities. Both sides of the bench have an equal number of seats 28:28 with three assemblymen who had resigned from the Pakatan Rakyat coalition to be independent lawmakers but have declared they will throw in their lot with the Barisan. It is a constitutional crisis, whichever way you may want to see it.
To resolve this, the Menteri Besar Ir Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin petitioned Sultan Azlan Shah to dissolve the assembly to pave the way for fresh elections for a fresh mandate from the people as provided for in the State Constitution.
However, Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak as head of Perak Umno, went to see the Sultan to claim that Umno now commands the majority support in the state assembly on the basis of the three who had switched party and declared they will support Umno even remaining as independent assemblymen.
The Sultan in his wisdom decided to believe Najib. Nizar, who had been appointed by the Sultan is now duly disappointed. The Sultan then picked Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir from Umno to be the new MB in preference to dissolving the assembly or waiting for a vote of no confidence to be moved in the assembly. But Nizar refused to step down. His supporters tried to prevent the swearing in of the new MB. Perak thus, now have two MB’s, further compounding the crisis.
Did the Sultan do the right thing? Again it depends on who you talk to. Some argue that the Ruler’s decision cannot be challenged in court. But that does not tell us whether he did the right thing. And we need to know that. One thing is clear, in Malaysia, God has allowed the governing authorities model to be that of constitutional monarchy. Whether this is his preferred choice, we have no way of knowing till we get to heaven.
By no stretch of imagination can we conclude that the Sultan’s wisdom is always right and that his prerogative is absolute. Only the King of kings is absolute and perfect in truth.
So is there redemption in Perak? Yes. Firstly, the political system in Perak, and by extension, in the country, is maturing into a true two-party parliamentary democracy – 28:28, plus three crossover artistes, holding all and sundry to ransom.
We must remember that the Sultan himself derives his authority from the Perak State Constitution. It is said kings reign but the people rule through governing authorities. Now that the legislative and executive, and the monarchy have triangulated themselves into a stalemate, the ball it at the judiciary’s court to dispense justice with the wisdom of Solomon and with righteousness. Will our judges have the courage and wisdom? If it fails to play it’s God-given role, then the constitutional crisis in Perak will surely descend into chaos. In that event, there will be no prevailing governing authorities to respect or to submit to. In that case all the legislative, executive and the sultan, have no choice but to submit to the will of the people by going back to the ballot box.
According to Romans 13: 1 Everyone must submit to the governing authorities: “For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.”
And in 2 Peter 1:17, the principle is Respect everyone, fear God, and respect the king. The people comes first. Respect must be earned, not bought, stolen, switched or commanded. We can only submit to governing authorities if they are viable authorities. Thus, our duty is to ensure that the governing authorities in Perak are viable in the first place.
In your reflection, you may consider the Micah Mandate: “…the Lord has told you what is good, and this is what he requires of you: to do what is right, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.” (NLT)
Never in our history have both the monarchy and executive been so publicly outraged by the fury of the people. On the day the royal convoy, including that of the Raja Muda and the deputy prime minister, was making its way into the Istana for the controversial swearing in of the Mentri Besar, it was momentarily blocked by protestors and pelted with stones. Later that evening, Najib had to skip a Chinese New Year party for security reasons. Two wrongs do not make a right but the writing is on the wall. He who can read, let him read.
We are reminded by Paul:
I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. (1 Timothy 1-2 NLT)
Amen.
The Micah Mandate is a Christian-based public interest advocacy ministry that seeks a transformation of our nation through justice, mercy and humility.
February 16th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Contexts are politically and historically specific – one cannot afford to equate the politico-cultural situation in Imperial Rome with what happens in every modern-day situation where there is conflict between sectors of society etc. Biblically, the notion about putting God before man and every other power and principality is the soundest reasoning for being contextually selective about which stance to take in a politically contentious situation. One must not forget the fact that the early Christian community had a steadfast and almost notorious reputation throughout the Empire for standing strong against the feirsome tides of authoritarian might. In fact they successfully resisted cultural incorporation into Roman society at large by virtue of cultural dissent until the heniousness of persecution literally became genocidal. Historical accounts of various efforts on the part fo the Christian community to resist the imposition of totalitarian expectations that they “should succumb to pagan cultural ways” have shown in many and varied ways that they were indeed a very resiliant (and rather unique in this regard) cultural minority within the Empire and because of this, they were all the more to be feared by the likes of Caesar for he was absolutely paranoid about loosing his power and henceforth that of the whole Roman empire would go a-crumbling!!!!!!
Culturally militant and to some extent socially endogamous, although not exclusivistic (since exclusivism is contrary to Christian values) they nontheless maintained a quasi-seperatist idenitity relative to the rest of society, their initial strident efforts to actively resist cultural assimilation were met with vehement opposition and brute force by the governing authorities. As these respective stances continued from both sides, the result was begining to show up that the strength in numbers within the community was begining to decline – thence forth a decree was adopted within the community as a tactic to avert the avid/ribald attention of Caesar and cohorts to what was going on at an intra community level – a quieter approach to the whole relationship bewteen the Christian community and State came into vogue wherein it was accepted/believed that to avoid any confrontations which were of further detriment to the numeric survival of the population, community members would defer to trying to go about their business quietly without displaying any open defiance as this was becoming ineffective for the particular needs the community had (in sheer survival terms) visaviz the majority culture/government. Some would probably argue that this then only goes to ‘prove’ that dissent is no way to solve culture clashes and the like. But I must agree to disagree here on this point as the only reason for the Christian community’s radical take on being true unto God’s ways was that “to leave everything to Caesar that is Caesar’s and everything to God that is God’s” was indeed lived out as doing away with conforming to the impositions of Caesar for they were incompatible with fidelity to God – as man cannot serve two masters – he either will love one and hate the other but he cannot be devoted to both God and mammon (note here that mammon is often generically translated or looosely interpreted to mean “money” but in actual fact it’s deeper meaning is much broader as it really encompasses the idea of “the world” and all that is associated with it’s ways, be that desires of the flesh or the princes and rulers of this world. Because the early Christian community were overtly conscious of the need to be seperate from the ways of the world but at the same time remaining actively participatory in the affairs of the world around them, they had enedeavoured to adhere as purely and unadulteratedly as possible to the values and ways of being and doing transmitted by God throuh His one and only begotten Son who is Christ Jesus. Ephesians 6:11-12 issues forth a foundational premise upon which the Christian community rested in it’s active engagement with the world through a socialy challenging and transformative model for resisting the immoral majority: “Put on the whole armour of God so that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly realms.” Here, it is imperative to understand that by stating that the fight concerns not flesh and blood, the early Christians were emphasising that they would not blame “humans in their ignorant humanness/the weakness of their humanity” for the political problems – instead, they had they spiritual insight and wisdom to know that behind wicked rulers were the forces of evil and these forces were to be reckoned with – not through a physical battle where the humanity of those transgressing righteousness is besieged but in a spiritual battle of wills – where it was God’s will against that of Satan. There were, it must not be overlooked, different ways of atesting to God’s will being far more worthy of respect and honour than the will of Caesar. Sometimes, the ways to demonstrate this were in overtly/outrightly/openly resisting the self-justified rulership of Caesar. When the wind of the Spirit changed direction, tactics of dealing with such confrontational situations had to change – hence we come across the idea of what seems like a passive deference to Caesar in both Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-15. It is essential that we don’t miss the contextual relevance of these passages in terms of how the need for tactical difference emerged as things became far more bare-survival oriented. Resistance by a more openly subversive stance was gradually replaced by more and more tactics incorporating a giving-in-to-showing the rulers that no matter what they did, they were not able to crush the dignity of the people whom they intended to conquer and subdue – some have tended to equate this passivity with Homi Bhaba’s idea of the oprressed turning their oppression into a political statement which would do more to positively advance their cause in certain “aptly suited” contexts than would open and outright revolt. See Elizabeth A Castelli’s work on this historical context.
Perak is another matter yet again – a whole other question, a vastly different set of circumstances. I read recently though that the newly voted in state govt of the Pakatan Rakyat Coalition (2008) granted through court process some overdue land entitlements to Christian communities, which took them very much by surprise!!!!!!!! These communities then started thinking rather positively about the then-new govt in Perak. See COAC website for further details.
May 15th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
I must beg to disagree with your view that 1 Peter 2:17, “Honour everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the Emperor”(ESV) is to be regarded as an “order” or “prioritisation” which you assert to be instructive, and on which you have based your reasoning for a significant portion of your commentary. Again you have referred to this verse, incorrectly though, as 2 Peter 1:17, towards the end of your article, as a “principle”, a basis on which you have built your case for “the people comes first”.
The apostle Peter does not instruct explicitly here that the four imperatives of submission in verse 17 should be taken in order. I am also not aware of any such order of “honour the people first, before you love the brotherhood, before you fear God, and finally then only you honour the king” being taught in any of the writings of the apostles in the NT.
Furthermore, there are other instances in the NT where imperatives are similarly written, which are normally not regarded as “ordered priorities”, in the manner you have taken verse 17. For example, Paul in Romans 12 gave a long list of Christian imperatives. Should we regard them as an ordered list? If we do, then for instance, in Rom 12:12 – 15 we cannot weep with those who weep until we have rejoiced with those who rejoice. Likewise, we’d be unable to “continue instant in prayer” until we have successfully rejoiced in hope!
As such, I find it somewhat adventurous to interpret 1 Peter 2:17 as a definition of a priority of “ordered submission”. Instead, I’d understand it to be a wholesome collective reminder for godly Christian behaviour in society.
May 16th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
I am partial towards agreeing with the last commenter’s position that we cannot look at 1 Peter 2:17 as being a definition of priority in ordered submission. It does not invalidate the commentary itself though.
Even if I were to look at 1 Peter 2:17 as an omnibus collection of principles, it would still imply that the values of respecting all, fearing God and respecting the King are symbiotic and not one at the expense of the other.
May 16th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
A “wholesome collective reminder for godly Christian behaviour in society” is of course warranted but I do think there is in the overall witness of Christian Scripture and Church history of the more prophetic dimensions of our faith which needs due attention which in my humble opinion sincere Bible believing Christians are uncomfortable with for fear of disobeying God’s Will.
Without going into the trees and possibly missing the forest of the main concern of how Christians should relate to the Government specifically and “Authorities” in general, I’ve found the insights The Christian and Civil Disobedience by
Duane Heffelbower (http://www.directionjournal.org/article/?534) helpful.
Let me lift out two sections, but the discussions on “obedience” from Heffelbower is helpful.
* * *
“civil disobedience” is defined as:
Purposeful, nonviolent action, or refusal to act, by a Christian who believes such action or inaction is required of him or her in order to be faithful to God, and which s/he knows will be treated by the governing authorities as a violation of law.
* * *
One commentator has suggested five qualifications on civil disobedience (not necessarily Christian in its motivation): (1) The law opposed is immoral, in conflict with a higher claim; (2) every possible nondisobedient recourse has been exhausted, with the definition of “possible” and “exhausted” being tempered by the situation; (3) the protest is not clandestine; (4) there is a likelihood of success (drawing a distinction between purely personal action taken for conscience sake and the sort of social disobedience which seeks to change society and thus must have its potential bad effects balanced against the good likely to emerge); (5) there is willingness to accept the penalty. Looking more specifically at the church’s witness to the state, another commentator finds three additional tests, which also apply to individual Christian witness to the state: (1) The witness must be representative of the church’s clear conviction; (2) the witness of the church must be consistent with her own behavior; (3) the church should speak {28} only when she has something to say, rather than feeling obligated to “cover the field.”8 If we follow these suggestions, there is much more likelihood of civil disobedience being truly holy obedience.
* * *
Perhaps, the guidelines above would serve to be helpful for Christians who feel called to be in solidarity with others who want to play a part in voicing their concerns on matters of truth and justice.