Popular Alternative Methodologies in Biblical Interpretation

 Here is a list of some terms that others and myself have coined for alternative ways of interpreting Scripture that don't include exegesis. Of course, the most common term used is eisegesis, where one imports something into the text that isn't there but there are many more colorful ways one can interpret the text to consider.

Myopiagesis - when one can only seem to see the verse and not the immediate, literary or canonical context of the verse in front of him. Also can be applied to those without any skill or insight that would lead to seeing the verse in its larger context.

Narcigesis - when one sees himself in the heroes of Scripture and makes all Scripture, rather than about the glory of God through Jesus Christ, about himself. 

Assumegesis - when one assumes that he already knows what Scripture teaches about a topic or what a Bible passage already means without consideration of context or further study.

Likegesis - when one picks the interpretation that sounds right to him. In this method of interpretation, the interpretation that resonates most with his traditions and thinking must be the right one, since God would not say anything that he finds to be unpalatable or runs contrary to his desired self-image or lifestyle. 

Ignoregesis - when one ignores all arguments of his interpretations to the contrary. Also could be referred to as "blindanddeafegesis."

Note: The popularity of these methods display the reason why the plurality of scriptural interpretations in the modern church by their mere existence do not support the claim of their validity.

Observations on Jesus' Statements to Pilate

I find Jesus' statetment to Pilate to be illuminating in terms of what view of government He taught. Ask yourself whether the following sounds like Jesus had a libertarian view that Pilate does not have authority to punish Him as an innocent man or whether He has the view that Pilate's authority is given to him to use at his own discretion, and therefore, he retains it even when not exercising it justly. 

 

"So Pilate said, “Do you refuse to speak to me? Don’t you know I have the authority to release you and to crucify you?” Jesus replied, “You would have no authority over me at all, unless it was given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of greater sin.” (John 19:10-11) 

 

Jesus acknowledgs that Pilate has authority over Him but because it was given to him from "above," which can only refer to God in the context of John. 

Hence, God has given Pilate authority over Jesus who Pilate now is going to condemn unjustly. Jesus acknowledges that Pilate is doing this unjustly because although he states the one who delivered Him up has the greater sin, that very statement implies that Pilate is sinning. 

At no time in this conversation does Jesus say that Pilate doesn't have the authority to do this sinful and unjust thing toward Him. Instead, the opposite is affirmed. 

Hence, authorities can sin in their use of the authority given to them by God without losing their authority. Of course, it is understood that they will be judged by God for abusing it.

The Stoning of the Rebellious Adult Son

 https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=99421171318540&target=safari

The Authorities That Exist

 Some have tried to argue that Paul's teaching in Romans 13 is just a generic statement that has nothing to do with the government the Roman Christians are under at the time. However, the statement he makes in v. 1 αἱ δὲ οὖσαι ὑπὸ θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν means that he is referring to those authorities that currently exist. The phrase literally means "the authorities that presently exist are ordained by God."

But what is the character of these authorities, and is Paul merely saying this of a just Roman Empire before it reaches the craziness of Nero's later persecution? Some have tried to argue by this that Paul's words only apply to a just government and not the unjust or tyrannical one that would supposedly come later. Let me just say that this is a completely unhistorical understanding of the Roman world in the first century. The Empire did not go from just to unjust under Nero's persecution over night.

Romans is likely written between AD 57-58, a time that most scholars argue is characterized by civil unrest in the city due to over-taxation. There were undoubtedly many Roman Christians caught up in the zealotry of opposing the Roman government in their excessive taxes and rebellion was brewing. This is why Paul likely commands the Roman Christians to submit to the government and to pay their taxes to whomever they are due. One might notice that Paul does not say that the system is corrupt and taxation is theft.

Furthermore, the idea that the Roman government was somehow a just system run by honorable men before Nero's persecution of Christians is nonsense. At the end of Tiberius' reign, he largely retired and left the empire in the hands of his Praetorian prefects, first Lucius Aelius Sejanus and then Quintus Macro, the former of which murdered Tiberius' son and the latter ordering the murder of the emperor himself as well as previously killing off the family members of Sejanus. Sejanus himself had taken hold of power in the absence of Tiberius and began to purge, i.e., kill, the senate and the wealthy class of any political opposition, having many people falsely accused at trial in order to fill his pockets with lands and wealth when they chose suicide as their punishments. Caligula was a psychopath who was so hated for his tyranny that he was killed by his own Praetorian Guard. He killed quite a few members of his family, against Roman law executed people without trial, bankrupted the state from giving out money to gain political favor, auctioned off the lives of gladiators at shows so that people could pay to see them die horrific deaths, stole property, caused famine and economic ruin by seizing grain boats to make a bridge, he had numerous senators killed for trumped up charges, began dressing up as various gods and calling himself a god at political meetings, tried to get an image of himself placed in the Jerusalem temple so that the temple would now be dedicated to him as Jupiter manifested upon the earth, temples were erected in Rome for his worship, and he cut off the heads of numerous statues of the gods and replaced the with his own. The following is a good summary of the man.

    Philo of Alexandria and Seneca the Younger, contemporaries of Caligula, describe him as an insane         emperor who was self-absorbed, short-tempered, killed on a whim, and indulged in too much                 spending and sex. He is accused of sleeping with other men's wives and bragging about it, killing for      mere amusement, deliberately wasting money on his bridge, causing starvation, and wanting a statue     of himself in the Temple of Jerusalem for his worship. Once, at some games at which he was                     presiding, he was said to have ordered his guards to throw an entire section of the audience into the         arena during the intermission to be eaten by the wild beasts because there were no prisoners to be             used and he was bored. While repeating the earlier stories, the later sources of Suetonius and Cassius     Dio provide additional tales of insanity. They accuse Caligula of incest with his sisters, Agrippina the     Younger, Drusilla, and Livilla, and say he prostituted them to other men. They state he sent troops on         illogical military exercises, turned the palace into a brothel, and, most famously, planned or promised     to make his horse, Incitatus, a consul, and actually appointed him a priest.

After Caligula was killed, his loyal guard sought vengeance and killed numerous conspirators along with innocent senators and bystanders.

Claudius issued decrees that forbade the religious assemblies of Jews and likely Christians to meet in Rome and ended up banishing Jews/Christians from Rome. He killed numerous senators to fortify his political position but was likely used by his wife Agrippina. 

Nero was always a loose canon even under the finger of his mother until he had her killed in AD 59, but from 54-59 she basically ruled through him, a woman who had likely murdered her husband Claudius and now ruled through her son who was basically a puppet king, continuing to murder her political rivals, subjects over whom she ruled through her son. The Empire was characterized by the corruption of its leaders all the way to the top. There were secret trials, bribery in judgments, ignoring Roman law and the autonomy of the Senate, etc. Even though he attempted to end taxation for Roman citizens in the city in AD 58, a way to gain favor with the people, Nero's building projects had largely bankrupted much of the city and brought it to ruin due to his desired contributions from its citizens. Scholars argue that Nero's mental state declined after he had his brother murdered in AD 55.

 It is in this context that Paul tells the Christians to submit and honor those who presently have authority, to pay to them their taxes (rendering to Caesar what belongs to Caesar), not because they are great people who are not abusing their power but because God put them in those positions and they represent Him in their authority, not in their character and just behavior toward their citizens. At the time of Paul's writing, Nero was only 19 or 20 years old. As the emperors before and after him, he would assume titles from various nations in his empire that lifted him up to the highest status (e.g., in Egypt, he would be given the title, "Emperor [Autokrator] Nero, King of kings, chosen by Ptah, beloved of Isis, the strong-armed one who struck the foreign lands, victorious for Egypt, King of kings, chosen of Nun who loves him." 

Peter's writing is likely even later in Nero's reign, when Nero had started executing his political opponents, and declining ever more so into madness; and yet, he still commands Christians to submit even to unjust authorities and those who are not in line with God's revealed will.

And Americans whine about the injustice of their governing authorities because they have to wear a mask in public that is meant to help stop a disease.

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.

Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2-3: A Conversation

Libertarian: Those texts are prescriptive.

Me: What do you mean by that?

Libertarian: I mean that they tell us what government is established by God for, and therefore, they tell us when we do or do not need to submit to government.

Me: We all agree that they tell us one of the reasons God establishes government, but if your view is to thrive it must establish two things from the text: 1. That the only purpose for God establishing government authority is described here, and 2. The text must indicate, or even allow, that your conclusion, i.e., when a government does not fulfill its purpose it need not be obeyed, is true.

Libertarian: Well, if it only has authority to be a fear for those who do evil then it doesn’t have it when it is a fear toward those doing good or does anything else outside of the bounds of the former.

Me: Where does the text say that it only has authority to be a fear for those who do evil? The text does not limit its authority to only those times it fulfills that specific purpose. Furthermore, where does the text indicate that there are no other purposes God has for government authority? Again, you are reading these two things into the text and claiming them but you are not establishing them from the text.

Libertarian: The apostles disobey the government when it overreaches, so that means that they can overreach.

Me: We all agree that the government overreaches when it tells us to disobey God. That is not the dispute. Are there any instances in which the apostles disobey government authority when it is not a matter of them trying to obey God and obeying the government authority would conflict?

Libertarian: All authority is established by God for the purposes described. Therefore, they only have authority when doing those things.

Me: Where in that text does it indicate that one does not have to obey an authority that is not exercising it in accordance with the purpose for which God established it? Doesn’t it indicate otherwise?

Libertarian: Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2-3 tell us that government is established to punish those guilty of crimes, so we don’t have to obey it when it doesn’t do that.

Me: That’s just a restatement of your position but you haven’t established those two propositions I submitted to you yet in order to support that idea.  Let me counter by saying that the text seems to indicate in 1 Peter 2-3 that government authorities have authority even when they do not function within the purpose for which God made them. Hence, you have husbands disobedient to the Word rather than husbands washing their wives in the Word and masters who are harsh and abusive when the master-slave relationship was instituted for the thriving of both parties. These relationships seem to be tyrannical and yet Peter tells the people to submit and obey even in these things that are out of bounds of His original purposes. Furthermore, Peter argues that if one suffers unjustly he ought to be like Christ and not revile authority but rather submit to it. I imagine you would not argue that government was given by God to be unjust toward its subjects, would you?

Libertarian: No, of course not.

Me: What this indicates, then, is that Peter is arguing a position that runs counter to yours. He is arguing that all government authority has authority to use or abuse and if it abuses it, one must submit to God and His purposes in using an unjust authority rather than arguing that Christians can cast off that authority whenever it is unjust. If we join this with Paul’s statements, we see that all authority is established by God and to resist it is to resist God’s authority. Peter tells us that this is any authority from the highest to the lowest forms, creating a merism that indicates all authority whatsoever. So, it seems to me, that the Christian is to submit to God through authority at all times and no matter what that government authority is doing or commanding, and the only time one would not do so is because he is continuing to submit to God when a government authority tells him not to do so.

On the Nature of Government and Christian Submission

We might think we live in unique times but we don't. There is nothing new under the sun and that means that there is nothing new when it comes to figuring out how a Christian should respond to authority. Revolts are as old as the world itself and are rooted in our original sin. If it is, in fact, our primary problem, i.e., rebellion against God's authority, then it will manifest itself wherever it has opportunity to do so. Indeed, it will manifest itself even in the form of piety when we pit an exercise of God's authority through a human agent against God's authority itself. Conspiracy theories abound to justify defiance but would it really matter if they were all true? Because there seems to be a lot of confusion on the matter, I submit this teaching on the nature of government and Christian submission to those who have ears to hear.

The first place we need to start when looking at the nature of authority is at its source. According to the Bible, all understanding stems from what is called the "fear of God." It may have been said to you at one point that "fear" here means "respect." This is a complete falsehood. Our word for respect has more of a correspondence to the concept of honor in the Bible. The word "fear" actually means "fear," not respect, and this is a very important point. Fear is linked to any person or situation where one realizes he has no control. It is the thing outside of himself, outside of his control, that has control, and he therefore becomes afraid. The Bible tells us that the fear of God, i.e., the recognition that He has control and we do not, is the beginning of all wisdom. It is only when we realize that God has all of the say and we have none of it that we can begin to understand that the world around us is about God's glory and act in a manner that acknowledges that fact in everything that we do and say.

 

One might think that he is good so far. He recognizes that God has all of the control and we have none but there seems to be a fundamental disconnect when it comes to those to whom God delegates His control/authority. The very idea that one can pit a human authority against the authority of God implies that the human authority is a lesser authority and not the same authority. What I want to argue here is that the Bible teaches that the authority of magistrates/human governments is not a lesser authority, but one and the same authority as God’s. I do not mean by this that the government is God, of course, but rather that its authority is not something other than God’s authority. Paul makes this very claim in Romans 13:1 when he says οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐξουσία εἰ μὴ ὑπὸ θεοῦ “because there is no authority if not by God.” So authority only exists as the authority of God. If not by God, there is no authority at all. Some will argue that ἐξουσία is a lesser, delegated authority, but this is not gained from the word. The word is used in places that refer to absolute authority, such as in Matthew 28:18. It simply refers to authority, and as Paul has argued, there is only one authority and that belongs to God. Paul means to say here, then, that all authority that is in place has God’s authority, and he makes this clear by saying that αἱ δὲ οὖσαι ὑπὸ θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν “and the authorities which exist are established by God.” Hence, if anyone has authority, it is God’s authority which he or she wields and God has appointed that person to be so.

This brings us back the issue concerning the fear of God. Those who have authority have it from God and exercise an authority that is derived from God. Hence, the term “fear” is used when referring to human authorities (Rom 13:3-4, 7; Eph 5:33; 6:5; 1 Pet 2:18; 3:2), which themselves are connected to a fear of Christ and recognition of God’s authority (Rom 13:2; Eph 5:21; Col 5:22; 1 Pet 2:13, 17).

What this means is that a governing authority has the authority of God Himself, and to obey that authority is to obey God. To disobey that authority is to disobey God, and this authority is not one derived from the people under it but rather from God.

This latter point is very important. If the authority of an individual in government is derived from God and is described as something that one should be in fear of, then this means that it cannot be conferred upon or revoked by those who are under it. They have no control over whether an authority exercising the authority of God uses it correctly or incorrectly. The authority has power over the individual no matter what that individual desires.

Hence, the apostles argue that no one is really obeying a human authority but God and Christ by obeying those human authorities that have been set in place by them. Romans 13:2 tells us that “the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur condemnation.” Ephesians 5:22 states: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” Ephesians 6:5-8 states:

5 Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ, 6 not like those who do their work only when someone is watching—as people-pleasers—but as slaves of Christ doing the will of God from the heart. 7 Obey with enthusiasm, as obeying the Lord and not people, 8 because you know that each person, whether slave or free, if he does something good, this will be rewarded by the Lord.

1 Peter 2:13-14 command believers to “be subject to every human power for the Lord’s sake, whether to a king as supreme or to governors as those he commissions to punish wrongdoers and praise those who do good.”

Christians are not told to obey authorities because they are good people, because they stay in their lanes for why God set them up, because they are right in what they say, because they have the best of intentions, because they mean the people no harm. Instead, they are told to obey them because they represent God in their authority and their authority is God’s authority. Hence, Christians are to recognize this, realize they do not have control of who is over them or what is commanded, fear God and the authorities over them, and therefore, submit to God through them. Hence, it does not matter if all that is said of these authorities is true. They could be incompetent, inconsistent, wicked, conniving, conspiring to do harm, etc. All of this is irrelevant to whether they retain their authority and whether we should obey them in the fear of God.

Now, this is very important. It is often argued that we see exceptions from other Scriptures so these Scriptures must not be absolute. However, these Scriptures give no exception because there isn’t any exception. Christians are told to obey God. They obey God through the Scriptures, through the Church, and through the government. They are always obeying God. That is the point of obeying these means that carry His authority in them. Scripture cannot err by commanding one to disobey God, but the Church and government can. One’s husband can err by telling his wife to disobey God. One’s parents can err by telling one to disobey God. Hence, it is very important to understand that there are not exceptions because these texts are telling Christians to always obey God, whether through Scripture or through human agency. So there is no need to go off to other Scriptures, like Acts 5:28-29, since all of these texts already make it clear that one is to always obey God.

What this means is that human authorities always have God’s authority and have the right to command whatever they desire of their subjects. They simply don’t have the authority to tell people to disobey God because Christians are never really engaged in the act of obeying any human authority but rather always engaged in the act of obeying God’s. To undercut God’s authority, then, is to undercut their own and any need to obey them. However, even if an authority should command such a thing, this does not mean that they lose authority to command anything else that does not conflict with obeying God’s revealed will.

Parents do not lose the right to tell their children to wear a suit to church or to get out of the street because they may tell their children to lie. The children are only obeying the parents because they are obeying God, and since God tells us to tell the truth, they will obey God rather than man. So there is no exception. The commands to obey human authorities were always commands to obey God in everything and nothing more.

This is why these texts can say to wives under a human authority, “so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything (Eph 5:24)” or to children, “Children, obey your parents in everything, for this is pleasing in the Lord” (Col 3:20), or to slaves, “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in every respect (κατὰ πάντα  “according to all things” v. 22). Because they are always obeying God in all things they can obey their authorities in all things but the “all things” is understood to not be in conflict with what God has commanded believers to obey. Believers are not told to obey human authority, therefore, by any of these texts. They are told to obey God’s authority in all things through human authorities.

This means that one has no justification for disobeying a human authority unless that human authority has commanded him to disobey God’s authority. It does not even matter if the human authority uses or abuses its authority to reach beyond the boundaries for which that authority was given. This is why submission to God’s authority through human authorities is commanded even when those human authorities do not use their authority for the benefit of the people under them. In 1 Peter 2:18-23, we see those in authority who have not used it properly for the benefit of their subjects but rather in an abusive manner.

18 Slaves, be subject to your masters in all fear, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are σκολιοῖς “wicked/perverse/unjust/unfair.” 19 For this finds God’s favor, if because of conscience toward God someone endures hardships in suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it if you sin and are mistreated and endure it? But if you do good and suffer and so endure, this finds favor with God. 21 For to this you were called, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving an example for you to follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin nor was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was maligned, he did not answer back; when he suffered, he threatened no retaliation, but committed himself to God who judges justly.

Likewise, wives under husbands, who instead of washing their wives in the word as husbands were given their authority to do, and are disobedient to the word, are still told to submit to them (3:1-6).

Although some try to make the argument today that the Roman authority when Paul is writing is not that abusive, most scholars recognize two facts: (1) Paul mentions taxes here because there was much civil unrest about over-taxation in Rome at the time and many wanted to say the Roman government had no right to collect them. (2) Not only can the argument be made that Nero, the emperor at the time (Romans and 1 Peter were written under Nero) was a bad guy before he persecuted the Christians, the Christians were being mistreated and people in general oppressed by Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius before him. Peter and Paul are not unaware of the abuses of these human authorities or of the governments under them. The wicked priests in the Sanhedrin crucified the Son of God. How much more evil could you possibly get. If anyone was no longer worthy of their authority it would be that priesthood. Yet, the high priest functioned as a governor over Jerusalem since the time of the Maccabees and so was a ruler of the people. Hence, when Paul ignorantly speaks against the high priest after being unjustly hit in the face for proclaiming the truth, even breaking the law to do so (surely not the purpose of God in that government’s authority), Paul repents by saying, "Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: 'Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people'" (Acts 23:5).

Rather than justify disobedience to these authorities who abuse their power, these texts challenge Christians to display their submission to God even when they are abused by their authorities as a picture of Christ and the gospel as well as an opportunity to silence those saying that Christians are rebels. Christians are to display that they are always obeying God, even when it is hard to do so under unjust authorities, and the display of that submission relates that submission to God both when they obey in all things not in conflict with God’s commands and when they do not obey human authorities when what is commanded does conflict.

A rebellious child is rebellious not because he is obedient to God but because he is a devil. A Christian child obeys God in all things and at all times, so that he is only in rebellion against human authority when God’s commands demand it. So also a wife or a slave or a citizen of a nation.

So herein is the point. All Christians are to obey God in all things and that means they are to obey human authorities, whether they overreach beyond the purposes for which they were made or not. They are to obey them because they are obeying God and the singular reason for not obeying them at any given time is to continue to obey God in all things. One under authority has no right to revoke the authority over them. He is merely obeying God by not obeying man in those cases. He has no right to revoke the authority of God that was given by God. He is to remain in fear, i.e., the recognition, of God’s authority through these human agencies, an authority not derived from its human subjects but from God. Hence, a human subject can never sit in judgment over a human authority. He must let God decide what must be obeyed and not obeyed through His revealed will. This means that the human in subjection to government authority has no right to decide when he will or will not obey it apart from what God has commanded that may be in conflict with that human authority. This means that one cannot simply say that the government is not doing its job or it is overreaching and therefore does not need to be obeyed. That is a judgment for God to carry out, not the human subject. Children do not get to tell their parents that putting a suit on to meet Aunt Sally is not a part of the job description for why God gave them authority. “What does putting a suit on have to do with being raised in the fear and admonition of the Lord?” they might argue. Yet, it is the very fear and admonition that is being secured in the obedience to human government. Likewise, a wife could argue that her husband’s command to clean the house has nothing to do with washing her in the Word and therefore she need not obey. But, again, this misunderstands that the very obedience he requires is a washing in what God has commanded in the Word. Hence, God brings about His sanctifying work in the Christians life and the exaltation of the gospel that will restrain the criminality of wicked men by even having His appointed authorities exercise His authority in areas for which He did not give it, even unjustly, not because God is pleased with injustice, but because He is pleased with the submission of His people even when it is a loss in this world for them to submit, even when it is inconvenient.

The real tyrant is the flesh of the Western Christian that has been programmed to be dogmatic in its rebellion against any authority that inconveniences it. It works hard to justify itself with every bad argument possible, using the type of biblical interpretation one would expect from a JW on the Trinity or a gay Christian on the homosexual passages of Scripture. Every verse taken out of context and twisted, every dissenting voice slandered as "not getting it," every irrelevant issue and grievance brought as a support beam, thought to be a cedar of Lebanon in the mind of its orator but nothing more than a broken reed once the weight of good exegesis is put upon it, any and everything to justify a defiance, not of human authority that commands something that makes it impossible for the Christian to continue to obey God, but of God's authority through human agents, who may use or abuse their authority but not in such a way so as to hinder obedience to God. Yet, all authority is established by God and he who resists authority resists the decree of God. The real evil, the real incompetence, the real inconsistency and conspiracy theory here is the same one that has existed from the beginning. Man does not want to submit to God. He wants to be God and he'll make every excuse in the book to be as pious as he can in being so.