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.