ORDINATION OF “THE POWERS THAT BE.”
By W. N. Glenn
Various indeed are the conclusions drawn from the statement in Rom. 13:1 that “the powers that be are ordained of God.” There is, however, quite a unanimity of opinion that reference is had to civil government; in fact, the context will admit of no other conclusion. But, while this fact is so commonly conceded, there is great diversity of opinion as to what constitutes proper subjection to the power so ordered of God. Without reference to any particular form of government, the Scripture says of rulers that they “are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.” Verse 3. Again it is said, “If thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he [the ruler] beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Verse 4. The “sword” is the emblem of the power of the civil government, and expresses the extent of that power. The sword being always recognized as a deadly weapon, and the ruler being “a revenger to execute wrath,” it is a logical conclusion that the ruler, or the government, may execute the death penalty. This fact, modified as it is by the statement that “we ought to obey God rather than men,” and further modified by the fact that God has at sundry times sustained his servants in their defiance of civil rulers, is proof positive that there is a limit to the matters over which the civil ruler may legitimately take cognizance. Then the question arises, What is the limit? This is made plain by reference to the matters in which God has approved the action of his servants when they disobeyed the civil law. Meshach, Shadrach, and Abednego disobeyed the decree of King Nebuchadnezzar when he commanded them to worship an idol which he had set up. Daniel disobeyed the decree of King Darius which forbade prayer to any one but himself for thirty days. Peter and others disobeyed the order6 (310)of the Jewish council when commanded not to preach in the name of Jesus of Nazareth. In all these instances God delivered his servants from the vengeance of the powers which he had ordained. In the first two instances, the accused parties were not merely subjects but captives by the direct providence of God in the hands of the rulers from whose vengeance he delivered them. Now what was the subject matter concerning which the Lord thus forbade the civil ruler to exercise authority?—It was concerning their obedience of the law of God; it was concerning their worship; concerning matters of conscience. This is emphasized in the fifth verse of this same thirteenth chapter of Romans, from which we have before quoted: “Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.” If, then, one is to be subject for conscience’ sake, it is clearly unreasonable and unjust to expect him to be subject beyond the limit of conscience. Here the jurisdiction of the civil ruler is estopped. In matters of religion, of conscience, God has not ordained that “the powers that be” shall have jurisdiction. But some will say there is a great variation in the matter of conscience with different individuals. Then so much the more reason why human judgment is incompetent to judge in this realm. The human judge would naturally draw an arbitrary line, and, being fallible, his rule would be imperfect; consequently violence to the conscience of many would be the result. It will also be said that the consciences of some in religious matters would lead them to override the rights of others, even to murder and other overt acts of lawlessness, and that these consciences should be restricted by the civil law. Just so; and the men who are so anxious to have the civil government exercise authority in the realm of conscience are the very class that is most inclined to ignore the rights of others, and hope to secure the help of the civil law in bringing all others in line with their own ideas of right. Therefore the apostle Paul gives us a rule for the consideration of questions of conscience: “Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other; for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?” 1 Cor. 10:29. Those who ask for the compulsion of conscience by human authority always ask for the compulsion of those consciences that are out of harmony with their own. Those religionists whose religion includes uncivil ceremonies are also estopped by the word of Him who ordained “the powers that be.” They are reckoned as having gone beyond conscience. Either they have put it away (1 Tim. 1:19) or it has become “seared with a hot iron” (chap. 4:2). In either case it has become inoperative. Uncivil acts, such as transgress the natural rights of others, can not legitimately be deemed acts of conscience. Properly speaking, conscience is bounded by the Golden Rule: “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” Outside of this boundary all action comes within the purview of the “powers that be.” Outside of this boundary is the field of action of the evil-doers, whose uncivil deeds God has specially given the civil government the power to punish. 1 Peter 2:14. As long as the power thus ordained of God confines its operations to the field set apart for it, it is the Christian’s duty to obey its ordinances. But when there comes a usurpation of the realm which God has reserved to himself, duty is equally clear: “We ought to obey God rather than men.” Acts 5:29. It should be borne in mind that we are to submit to “every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake.” 1 Peter 2:13. Now no one who disobeys the word of God, whether voluntarily or under pressure of fear of the civil magistrate, can justly claim to do so for the Lord’s sake. No act, by whomsoever commanded, will be recognized as having been done for the Lord’s sake unless it be in harmony with his word.