The Sphere of Government Authority: Those Texts Are Prescriptive?

 One often hears the claim that Christians only need obey the government when the government uses their authority for the purposes God ordained it. It is said that this theory is supported by the idea that the statements in Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:11-3:22 are prescriptive not descriptive. 

Now, this seems rather confused as the only explicit prescriptions are the commands to submit and support the government authorities given to every Christian. 

What seems to be the proposal being made is that the descriptive texts concerning the specific purposes of God in establishing government given in the text are actually a prescription to governments if they are to maintain the authority given to them by God. 

First, it must be admitted by those who make this argument that the texts are not to government authorities but are rather about government authorities, which is to say that they are not commands, i.e., prescriptions but descriptions of some reasons government authority should be obeyed by Christians. These texts are to Christians, and hence, clearly are prescriptive to them.

Now, description can be prescription if the context indicates such, especially something in a narrative context or even something described and commended in a didactic text. The problem is that there is nothing in this text that would indicate that governments must fulfill the purposes for which God intended them in order to retain their authority to command Christians to submit to them. There is further nothing in these texts that indicate that these governments only have authority when what they command pertains to a specific sphere that is created by God's stated purpose for them in the passages. So the claim that these passages are prescriptive is an odd one and likely a case of Christians wanting these texts to say something that they do not in an effort to secure exceptions to the rule.

Second, the fact that many reasons given to submit to government authorities are mentioned in these passages, as well as other places throughout Scripture, indicates that these reasons for submitting are not meant to be exhaustive. Romans 13:1-7 alone lays out three reasons, not just one, as to why Christians ought to submit to government. Moo summarizes the argument of the passage as follows:

General command: "submit to the authorities" (v. 1a)

First reason ("for") for submission: They are appointed by God (v. 1b)

Consequences ("so that") of resisting the authorities: God's judgment (v. 2)

Second reason ("for") for submission: rulers are God's servants to reward good and punish evil (vv. 3-4)

Reiteration ("therefore") of general command, with abbreviated reference to reasons for submission (v. 5)

"because of [fear of] wrath" and

"because of conscience" 

Appeal to practice: the Roman Christians are paying taxes (v. 6)

Specific command ("because of this"): pay your taxes and respect the authorities! (v. 7) (Moo, Romans 811)

What this would mean is more than one reason given here as to why Christians should submit to their government authorities. Only one of these reasons is that government was established as a good to restrain criminal behavior. The first reason, however, is that it is a representative of God and given its authority by God, not men, and therefore, to obey it is to obey God through it. 

Likewise, in 1 Peter 2-3, another argument as to why Christians should obey government authorities is given along with what is parallel to the second reason given in Romans, namely, that Christians communicate their submission to God through it, even if the government authority is not out for their well-being, and in doing so they both provide an argument against the claim that Christians are troublemakers who just don't want to obey law and they create opportunities to preach the gospel. They also reflect Christ's submission to unjust authorities, and therefore, submitting to government authorities is a part of their sanctification in becoming like Christ.

Other reasons why government is given authority are not mentioned in Romans 13 as well. Government is to take care of the poor, but that is not mentioned in Romans 13. Government is to protect its citizens from invading armies, but that is not mentioned in Romans 13 either. Government is also to organize its kingdoms through things like a census, hear and settle private disputes, etc., none of which are mentioned in Romans 13. What this means is that Romans 13 is not teaching that the government only has authority in this particular sphere, which then means that Romans 13 is not an exhaustive list of the rightful sphere of government authority, nor does any other passage in the Bible that mentions government responsibilities contain an exhaustive list. 

Even if one wants to argue, then, that the description of God instituting government authority for a specific thing is prescriptive, it does not follow that it is exhaustive in its prescription. Furthermore, it does not follow that authority is revoked when it goes beyond the bounds prescribed for it. None of these claims are ever proven but rather just stated as though they are self-evident. 

Take the analogy of spiritual gifts. Spiritual gifts are given by God for the specific purpose of edifying believers. However, in 1 Corinthians 14, Paul must command them to stop using them in a way that hinders edification. If the Corinthians were only given these spiritual gifts for edification and did not have them when they misused and abused them then there would be no reason for Paul to order them to stop using them inappropriately. We see that what is granted by God for a particular purpose, although can be revoked by God, is often retained by the individual even when it is abused. God's giving authority to government is parallel in that He granted it to them for a specific purpose, and that is what they should do with it but it is not revoked when they abuse it. Hence, government authorities always have the authority granted to them by God, and when they abuse it, they are still to be obeyed as God is to be obeyed at all times through them. Again, the only time one would not obey them is when one cannot obey God by obeying them as this removes the very biblical reasons given for obeying them in the first place.

So there is very little point to be made in saying that these texts are prescriptive, as (1) they are given descriptively, (2) they are not exhaustive in their description of what the sphere of government actually is, and (3) it has nothing to do with whether Christians are to submit to them either way.

This why Peter is not in conflict with Paul when he argues that one should still submit to unjust authorities, husbands who are not obedient to the Word, and masters who are harsh and abusive of their positions of authority. This is why God says to Israel about the tyrant Nebuchadnezzar, who incidently does not come for the good of the people but to kill, take away their lands, enslave and exile them:

     Give them a message from the LORD of Hosts, the God of Israel, to relay to their masters: "By My         great power and outstretched arm, I made the earth and the men and beasts on the face of it, and I give     it to whom I please. So now I have placed all these lands under the authority of My servant                         Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. I have even made the beasts of the field subject to him. All nations     will serve him and his son and grandson, until the time of his own land comes; then many nations and     great kings will enslave him. As for the nation or kingdom that does not serve Nebuchadnezzar king of     Babylon and does not place its neck under his yoke, I will punish that nation by sword and famine and     plague, declares the LORD, until I have destroyed it by his hand." (Jer 27:4-9)

This should concern Christians as many scholars argue that Paul would then be making the argument in Romans 13 that those who resist the ordinance of God by not submitting to these authorities will be damned as God condemns the nations for not submitting to His chosen secular ruler who certainly does not stay in the lane libertarians argue government must observe in order for Christians to obey them.

Moo writes:

    "Bringing judgment" could refer to the action of the secular ruler, with the implication (spelled out in         v. 4b) that God's own judgment is present in the punishment meted out by the ruler. But Paul's                 argument has not advanced this far. It is better to understand the judgment here to be the                         eschatological judgment of God: those who persistently oppose secular rulers, and hence the will of         God, will suffer condemnation for that opposition. (Romans 816)

If can be viewed as a punishment from the secular authority, however. The real issue is that Paul provides another reason for obeying these human authorities, i.e., to avoid be punished. What this means is that Christians, rather than looking for a fight, should be looking to avoid one if they can. If there is no conflict between obeying God and obeying the government, and the only conflict is between the Christian's own sovereignty and the governments, the Christian should find ways to submit before he looks to rebel against a human authority. 

Paul uses an interesting play on the variations of the word τάσσω.

ὑποτάσσω Submit (to existing governing authorities)

       because they are

τάσσω Appointed (by God)

       and he who

ἀντιτάσσω Resists

      opposes the

διαταγή [verbal form διατάσσω] Ordinance (of God)

 

 These link the concepts together so that submission is due because God demands His representative powers be obeyed as He is to be obeyed. Disobedience to them is disobedience to Him, and thus, it will have the consequence of all who rebel against God.

And that is the true prescription here. There is no need to eisegetical gymnastics to discover it. Every single soul is to be in subjection to government authorities because every single soul is to be in subjection to God.