Christian Duty Under Corrupt Government

A Revolutionary Commentary on Romans 13:1-7

Preface
The political climate at the time the Apostle Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans was not a
healthy environment for anyone claiming to be a Christian. It was an atmosphere in which they
were hated, accused of treason, persecuted, and even executed.
Why did a government that tolerated every other possible religion discriminate against the one
known as the Way? The answer to this question is found in the inspired writings of Paul,
specifically Romans 13.
I chose to subtitle this book A Revolutionary Commentary on Romans 13:1-7 for three reasons.
First, it is revolutionary when contrasted with most modern commentaries on this passage. Some
people might respond, Well, if this commentary disagrees with the bulk of other commentaries,
it must be in error! If this is your initial response, please remember that we would still be under
the heel of Roman Catholicism if Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other Reformation leaders had
deferred to such thinking. Our Lord Himself made it quite clear that truth is not always to be
found where multitudes assemble:
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that
leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is
the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that
find it.
Matthew 7:13-14* (*All Scripture is quoted from the King James Version
unless otherwise noted. Portions of Scripture have been omitted for brevitys
sake. If you have any questions regarding a passage, please open your Bible and
study the text to ensure that it has been properly used.)
My second reason for employing the word revolutionary is because I quote extensively from
the early American ministers who were principally responsible for the spiritual environment that
precipitated the American Revolution. Their insight is so exceptional that in many instances I
have elected to step aside and allow these gifted men to speak for themselves. These
revolutionary preachers delivered revolutionary sermons from a revolutionary text.
My third reason is that I pray God will use this book to help begin the spiritual revolution that is
so desperately needed at this time. May our pulpits be revolutionized and our ministers stirred to
once again inflame the people of this country with a passion to live at all costs for the one and
only KING of kings and LORD of lords.

Ted Weiland
March 1997

Commentary
The first seven verses of the thirteenth chapter of Pauls epistle to the Roman Christians are
misused and abused by todays average clergyman. This has resulted in one of the most
destructive doctrines to come out of Judeo-Christianity* (*The term Judeo-Christianity refers

to the vast segment of Christendom that has been heavily influenced, often unknowingly, by the
Talmudic religion of Judaism.1) the false teaching of total submission to all government
authority. This theological falsehood has probably contributed to the loss of Christian* (*Not
everyone claiming to be a Christian has been properly instructed in the biblical plan of salvation.
Therefore, the designation Christian is used only in a generic sense. Mark 16:15-16, Acts 2:3641, 22:1-16, Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:26-27, and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied in order to
understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Yashua and to have ones sins
forgiven.2) dominion more than any other false doctrine. Judeo-Christianity relies on the
following three passages as its scriptural basis for this doctrinal error:
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of
God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the
power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to
themselves damnation. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for
wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for
they are Gods ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render
therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom
custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
Romans 13:1-7
Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates,
to be ready to every good work, to speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but
gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.
Titus 3:1-2
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake: whether it be to
the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the
punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will
of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish
men.
1 Peter 2:13-15
Most of Judeo-Christianity has interpreted these passages to mean that God sanctions all existing
government authority and that we are, therefore, to submit completely to any authority that
presumes to rule over us. They believe that resistance to such civil authority is rebellion against
Yahweh* (*Yahweh is the English transliteration of the Hebrew name of the God of the Bible.3)
and that God will punish those who rebel, except in the rare instance when someone is ordered by
government to deny Yashua** (**Yashua is the English transliteration of our Saviors Hebrew
name.3) the Christ.
The Bible does teach submission to government, but that submission is limited and not rendered
indiscriminately to any and all rulers. A careful reevaluation of Romans 13:1-7, which provides
the types of authority to which Christians are and are not obliged to submit, supports this view.

Verse 1
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers [governing authorities, NASV].
For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Romans 13:1

The Modern Interpretation

Because every civil or government authority is established by God, Christians

must totally submit to the one that God has placed over them at any given time.

Every Authority?
The teachings of most modern preachers contrast with many of their predecessors views. Even
King James I of England, speaking before Parliament in 1603, recognized that a rulers authority
has limits:
A king ceases to be a king, and degenerates into a tyrant, as soon as he leaves off
to rule according to his laws.4
In 1643, Pastor Samuel Rutherford wrote Lex, Rex, or the Law and the Prince, in which he
commented upon a kings limited power:
God hath given no absolute and unlimited power to a king above the law [of
God].5
When the magistrate doth anything by violence, and without law, in so far doing
against his office he is not a magistrate. Then, say I, that power by which he doth,
is not of God. None doth, then, resist the ordinance of God who resist the king in
tyrannous acts.6
Therefore an unjust king, as unjust, is not that genuine ordinance of God. So
we may resist the injustice of the king, and not resist the king. If, then, any cast
off the nature of a king, and become habitually a tyrant, in so far he is not from
God. If the office of a tyrant be contrary to a kings office, it is not from
God, and so neither is the power from God.7
English philosopher John Locke also wrote regarding limited authority:
Wheresoever the authority ceases, the king ceases too, and becomes like other
men who have no authority.8
Many of Americas early preachers and founding fathers concurred with Locke.* (*Early Tory
preachers, who were mostly Episcopalians and loyal to King George III, were not of this opinion.
Nearly a century before the Revolution, Charles IIs advisors warned him that the
[American] ministers were preaching freedom, and urged him either to regulate them or to
replace them with Episcopal priests.9) Just thirty-six days prior to the signing of the Declaration
of Independence, Pastor Samuel West preached a sermon from Titus 3:1 in which he addressed
the difference between magistracy and tyranny:
In order, therefore, that we may form a right judgment of the duty enjoined in our
text, I shall consider the nature and design of civil government, and shall show
that the same principles which oblige us to submit to government do equally
oblige us to resist tyranny; or that tyranny and magistracy are so opposed to each
other that where the one begins the other ends.10
Pastor Samuel Cooke, preaching at Cambridge, Massachusetts on May 30, 1770, before
Lieutenant Governor and Commander-in-Chief Thomas Hutchinson, shared similar sentiments:

Justice also requires of rulers, in their legislative capacity, that they attend to the
operation of their own acts, and repeal whatever laws, upon an impartial review,
they find to be inconsistent with the laws of God, the rights of men, and the
general benefit to society. This the community hath a right to expect.11
In 1765, British jurist Sir William Blackstone put it similarly in his commentaries on English law:
No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this [the law of God].12
In 1860, John Wingate Thornton further developed this thought:
We may very safely assert these two things in general without undermining
government: One is, that no civil rulers are to be obeyed when they enjoin things
that are inconsistent with the commands of God. All such disobedience is lawful
and glorious. All commands running counter to the declared will of the
Supreme Legislator of heaven and earth are null and void, and therefore
disobedience to them is a duty, not a crime.13
The wrong-headed teaching of many of todays clergy is at odds not only with our founding
fathers but with Scripture itself. Consider the words of the Prophet Hosea:
Set the trumpet to thy mouth. He shall come as an eagle against the house of
Yahweh,* (*Where the Tetragrammaton hwhy+ (YHWH) the four Hebrew
characters that represent the personal name of God has been incorrectly
rendered the LORD or GOD in Scripture, the author has taken the liberty to
correct this error by inserting Yahweh where appropriate.14) because they have
transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my law. Israel hath cast off
the thing that is good: the enemy shall pursue him. They have set up kings, but
not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not.
Hosea 8:1-4
Disobedient Israelites rebelled against Yahwehs law and set up kings whom Yahweh did not
know.. Are we to believe that the omniscient sovereign God actually did not know what these
rebellious Israelites were up to? Of course not. Hosea was informing us that these rulers were set
in positions of authority without Yahwehs favor.
No government can exist without Yahweh allowing it to do so. But we must keep in mind that
there are two different types of government for two different types of people. Nations that submit
to Yahwehs Word are blessed with just and righteous rulers. Nations who rebel against His Word
are visited with oppressive governments for the purpose of bringing them into submission. Hosea
provided a graphic example of the latter:
The Assyrian shall be his king, because they [Israel] refused to return [to
Yahweh].
Hosea 11:5
In Romans 13, when addressing a body of believers who had submitted themselves to Yashua as
King, Paul instructed them in the concepts of a Christian civil body politic. John Milton, in his
book Defense of the People of England, commented on Pauls intent:

It being very certain that the doctrine of the gospel is neither contrary to reason
nor the law of nations, that man is truly subject to the higher powers who obey
the laws and the magistrates so far as they govern according to law. So that St.
Paul does not only command the people, but princes themselves, to be in
subjection; who are not above the laws, but bound by them but whatever
power enables a man, or whatsoever magistrate takes upon him, to act contrary to
what St. Paul makes the duty of those that are in authority, neither is that power
nor that magistrate ordained of God. And consequently to such a magistrate no
subjection is commanded, nor is any due, nor are the people forbidden to resist
such authority; for in so doing they do not resist the power nor the magistracy, as
they are here excellently well described, but they resist a robber, a tyrant, an
enemy.15
Theologian Adam Clarke expressed similar sentiments:
Nothing can justify the opposition of the subjects to the ruler but overt attempts
on his [the rulers] part to change the constitution, or to rule contrary to law.
When the ruler acts thus he dissolves the compact between him and his people;
his authority is no longer binding. This conduct justifies opposition to his
government.16
Six decades earlier Pastor West preached the same ideology:
Unlimited submission and obedience is due to none but God alone and to
suppose that He has given to any particular set of men a power to require
obedience to that which is unreasonable, cruel, and unjust is robbing the deity of
His justice and goodness.17
In 1749, Pastor Jonathan Mayhew lucidly argued against unqualified compliance to civil
authority:
Children are commanded to obey their parents, and servants their masters, in as
absolute and unlimited terms as subjects are here commanded to obey their civil
rulers. Thus, also wives are commanded to be obedient to their husbands. In
all cases, submission is required in terms at least as absolute and universal as are
ever used with respect to rulers and subjects. But who supposes that the apostle
ever intended to teach that children, servants, and wives should, in all cases
whatever, obey their parents, masters, and husbands respectively, never making
any opposition to their will, even although they should require them to break the
commandments of God, or should causelessly make an attempt upon their lives?
No one puts such a sense upon these expressions, however absolute and
unlimited. Why, then, should it be supposed that the apostle designed to teach
universal obedience, whether active or passive to the higher powers, merely
because his precepts are delivered in absolute and unlimited terms? And if this be
a good argument in one case, why is it not in others also? If it be said that
resistance and disobedience to the higher powers is here said positively to be a
sin, so also is the disobedience of children to parents, servants to masters, and
wives to husbands, in other places of Scripture. But the question still remains,
whether, in all these cases, there be not some exceptions. In the three latter it is
allowed there are; and from hence it follows, that the use of absolute

expressions is no proof that obedience to civil rulers is in all cases a duty, or

resistance in all cases is sin.18
Pastor Rutherford joined other Christian leaders in demonstrating the foolishness of the position
that Christians are to blindly submit to any authority under all circumstances:
It is true, so long as kings remain kings, subjection is due to them because [they
are] kings; but that is not the question. The question is, if subjection be due to
them when they use their power unlawfully and tyrannically. Whatever David
did, though he was a king, he did it not as king; he deflowered not Bathsheba as
king, and Bathsheba might with bodily resistance and violence lawfully have
resisted king David, though kingly power remained in him, while he should thus
attempt to commit adultery; else David might have said to Bathsheba, Because I
am the Lords anointed, it is rebellion in thee, a subject, to oppose any bodily
violence to my act of forcing of thee; it is unlawful to thee to cry for help, for if
any shall offer violently to rescue thee from me, he resisteth the ordinance of
God.19
Was David, as a minister of God, never to be resisted simply because he was king?
Pastor Cooke testified to the reciprocal relationship between those in authority and the laws of
God:
Rulers of every degree are, equally with others, under the restraints of the
divine law. The Almighty has not divested Himself of His own absolute authority
by permitting subordinate government among men. Without true fear of God
justice will be found to be but an empty name.20
If Christians are required to submit to every authority, what choices do they have in the midst of a
revolution, such as when the colonies in America revolted against the Crown of England? At such
times when there are two competing authorities Christians who attempt to conform
themselves to todays Judeo-Christian interpretation of Romans 13 will find themselves in an
impossible position. Common sense tells us that such a doctrine must be wrong.
The second clause of verse 1 of Romans 13 reads: For there is no power [authority, NASV] but
of God. The literal translation of the Greek words ei) mh\ (ei me) is if not.21 If we replace
the word but, as found in the KJV, with the literal translation, this verse would read:
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power if not of
God.
Any civil authority that is not set up and sanctioned by Yahweh and that does not enforce His
laws is not the authority Paul is depicting. Even the Encyclopedia Britannica reports that this was
the understanding of the early Israelites.
In the period of the Hebrew monarchy the thought that Yahweh is the divine king
of Israel was associated with the conception that the human king reigned by right
only if he reigns by commission or unction from him.22

To put it another way, legitimate authorities are only those established by God. J.B. Phillips
agreed when he translated verse 1 in The New Testament in Modern English:
Everyone ought to obey civil authorities, for all legitimate authority is derived
from Gods authority.
Americas early preachers interpretation of verse 1 was much more scriptural than the one
advanced in many churches today.

Verse 2
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they
that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Roman 13:2

The Modern Interpretation

Anyone who resists or rebels against any civil authority commits a crime and
thereby opposes God Himself, and he will therefore be punished by God.

What Exactly Is Rebellion?

If the modern interpretation of verse 2 is correct, Shiphrah and Puah (Exodus 1); Amram and
Jochebed (Exodus 2); Moses (Exodus 2, 5-14); Rahab (Joshua 2); Ehud (Judges 3); Gideon
(Judges 6-8); Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego (Daniel 3); Daniel (Daniel 6); and Peter, John,
and the rest of the apostles (Acts 4-5) should have been condemned and punished by Yahweh for
opposition to the rulers of their day.
Were Americas founding fathers condemned by Yahweh for resistance to the King of England,
their governing authority? Are Christians in transgression when they reject todays Mystery
Babylon as their governing authority?
Not one biblical example exists of Yahweh blessing anyone for practicing the Judeo-Christian
teaching on Romans 13. So how are Christians to exist while wicked rulers reign? During such
times, if the people of God are wise as serpents (Matthew 10:16), they may not only exist but
even prosper. Consider the Prophet Jeremiahs advice to the Judahites during their Babylonian
captivity:
Thus saith Yahweh of hosts, the God of Israel, unto all that are carried away
captives unto Babylon; build ye houses, and dwell in them; and plant gardens,
and eat the fruit of them; take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take
wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear
sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished. And seek
the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and
pray unto Yahweh for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace. For I
know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith Yahweh, thoughts of peace, and
not of evil, to give you an expected end. Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall
go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you. And ye shall seek me, and find
me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. And I will be found of you,
saith Yahweh.
Jeremiah 29:4-14

One will search the Bible in vain to find an example of Yahweh honoring anyone for submitting
to mans law in violation of His law. The great biblical role models demonstrate just the opposite.
Yahweh did not condemn them for their disobedience to the unrighteous decrees issued by the
governments of their day, but rather blessed and honored them because of their disobedience.
Many of them are honored in Hebrews 11, where we find the following concluding remarks:
And what shall I more say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of
Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the
prophets: who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained
promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the
edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight,
turned to flight the armies of the aliens. Women received their dead raised to life
again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain
a better resurrection: and others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea,
moreover of bonds and imprisonment: they were stoned, they were sawn asunder,
were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and
goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (of whom the world was not
worthy).
Hebrews 11:32-37
These men and women were not considered ungodly, nor were they condemned by Yahweh when
they resisted unlawful, wicked authority. Their active faith provides us with a model to emulate.
Without their type of faith, we cannot please Yahweh (Hebrews 11:6).
Many Christians today react negatively to the idea of any kind of rebellion against civil authority.
They should consider one of the definitions for rebellion found in Noah Websters 1828
American Dictionary of the English Language:
An open and avowed renunciation of the authority of the government to which
one owes allegiance; or the taking of arms traitorously to resist the authority of
lawful government.23
Let there be no mistake: according to Paul, Christian rebellion against authority is wrong, but
only when it is against lawful or God-commissioned government. Pastor Mayhew agreed:
Here the apostle argues that those who resist a reasonable and just authority,
which is agreeable to the will of God, do really resist the will of God himself, and
will, therefore, be punished by him. But how does this prove that those who resist
a lawless, unreasonable power, which is contrary to the will of God, do therein
resist the will and ordinance of God? Is resisting those who resist Gods will the
same thing with resisting God? Or shall those who do so receive to themselves
damnation?24
How can we reconcile the theology that resistance against any authority is rebellion against
God with Scriptures that teach we are to expose and even reprove government impropriety?
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove
[expose, NASV] them.
Ephesians 5:11

Demonstrated by nearly all of the Old Testament prophets, this instruction applies as much to the
crimes of government as it does to the wickedness of individuals.
When the Prophet Daniel was forbidden by mans law to pray, he demonstrated that opposition
against civil authority is not necessarily wrong. Following his remarkable deliverance from the
lions den, Daniel declared his innocence:
O king, live for ever. My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions
mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him [Yahweh]
innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt
[committed no crime, NASV].
Daniel 6:21-22
Daniel understood that he was not obligated to obey any edict of man that was contrary to the will
and laws of Almighty God. To disobey such edicts was neither a crime against Yahweh nor
against the king.
Although the supporters of absolute obedience to government authority would have us believe
that Yahweh will punish anyone who disobeys mans commands, the Prophet Hosea taught the
exact opposite:
Ephraim is oppressed and broken in judgment, because he willingly walked after
the commandment [of man, NASV].
Hosea 5:11
It is mans command, not Yahwehs, that teaches submission to man rather than to God. And is
this so surprising?

Verse 3
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be
afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the
same.
Romans 13:3

The Modern Interpretation

Silence.
A similar passage left unanswered by most modern commentators is found in the Apostle Peters
first epistle:
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake: whether it be to
the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the
punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
1 Peter 2:13-14

Submission to Whom?
Most Christians have no ready explanation for either Romans 13:3 or 1 Peter 2:13-14. These
passages are avoided because they stipulate the kind of government to which Christians must
submit and because they do not describe the governments in power today. Pastor Mayhew
commented on verse 3:

It is obvious, then, in general, that the civil rulers whom the apostle here speaks
of, and obedience to whom he presses upon Christians as a duty, are good rulers,
such as are, in the exercise of their office and power, benefactors to society. Such
they are described to be throughout this passage. Thus, it is said that they are not
a terror to good works, but to the evil; that they are Gods ministers for good;
revengers to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil; and that they attend
continually upon this very thing.25
The modern Judeo-Christian interpreters of Romans 13 must remain silent on this verse because
they know that not all rulers terrorize the wicked nor do they praise the doers of good. In the book
of Acts, did the government praise Peter and John when they healed the lame man in the name of
Yashua?* (*Although the attack taken against Peter and John was initiated by the temple priests
and guards, it was still a government action because the priests authority limited as it may have
been was delegated by the Roman regime.)
And as they [Peter and John] spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain
of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, being grieved that they taught
the people, and preached through Yashua the resurrection from the dead. And
they laid hands on them, and put them in hold. And it came to pass on the
morrow, that their rulers were gathered together at Jerusalem. And when they
had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye
done this? Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the
people, and elders of Israel, if we this day be examined of the good deed done to
the impotent man be it known unto you all that by the name of Yashua
Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified even by him doth this man stand here
before you whole. And beholding the man which was healed standing with
them, they could say nothing against it. But when they had commanded them to
go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves, saying, What shall
we do to these men? For that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is
manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it. And they
called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of
Yashua.
Acts 4:1-18
For doing good works, Peter and John were arrested, held in prison overnight, tried as criminals,
and ordered to desist from similar deeds in the future. How did Peter and John respond to such
orders?
But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight
of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but
speak the things which we have seen and heard.
Acts 4:19-20
The abuse continued:
And when they [the rulers] had brought them [Peter, John, and the other
apostles], they set them before the council [a second time]: and the high priest
asked them, saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in
this name? And, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend
to bring this mans [Yashuas] blood upon us. And when they had called the

10

apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the
name of Yashua, and let them go.
Acts 5:27-40

Apostles Preaching Without Government Sanction

(No 501(c)(3) preachers in this group.26)
When the Apostles were again imprisoned, tried, and even scourged, how did they respond? Did
they finally submit?
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God
rather than men. And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing
that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. And daily in the
temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Yashua Christ.
Acts 5:29-42
The Christian stand on every issue should be obedience to God rather than men.
Regrettably, few modern governments conform to Yahwehs standards of a righteous government
any better than did the Roman Empire. For example, governments today try to curtail and punish
those who:

Attempt to stop the murder of unborn infants.27

Oppose the ungodly financing of homosexuality, pornography, and other abominations.28
Protest ungodly taxes.
Home school their children without state approval.
Heal with natural remedies.
Expose the evil deeds of antichrist forces.
Preach Israels true identity.29

These things are good. So why do American citizens involved in such activities have reason to
fear todays government?
More often than not, government is the antithesis of the type of authority Paul described.
Government in power today often praise and reward the workers of iniquity while punishing the
righteous. As a result, they are condemned by Yahweh:
He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are
abomination to Yahweh.
Proverbs 17:15
Would Yahweh have Christians submit to an abomination? Pastor Mayhew eloquently answers
this question:
Here the apostle argues, more explicitly than he had before done, for revering
and submitting to magistracy, from this consideration, that such as really
performed the duty of magistrates would be enemies only to the evil actions of
men, and would befriend and encourage the good, and so be a common blessing
to society. But how is this an argument that we must honor and submit to such

11

magistrates as are not enemies to the evil actions of men, but to the good, and
such as are not a common blessing, but a common curse to society?30
Modern preachers are obligated to answer Mayhews challenge. If they cannot or will not, their
teachings are not in accord with those of the Apostle Paul.

Verse 4
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil,
be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a
revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Romans 13:4

The Modern Interpretation

More silence.

Ministers of God
Verse 4 further identifies the kind of authority described by Paul. Not all governments fit his
description, and consequently, many modern interpreters are once again silent regarding this
verse. The civil magistrates in verse 4 are described as ministers of God. Is that, by any stretch of
the imagination, an accurate description of most bureaucrats* and politicians** (*bureaucrat
2. an official who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent judgment. Random House
Dictionary of the English Language (New York: Random House, 1969) p. 180.
**politician 4. a person who seeks advancement or power within an organization by dubious
means. Ibid, p. 1027.) in office today?
Some people claim that Pauls description applies to all rulers because Yahweh has used even
despots such as King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon for His purposes. Yahwehs sovereignty in
using even the worst of men for His purposes has no bearing on the stipulations Paul described in
his epistle to the Roman Christians. In verses three and four, Paul was very specific concerning
the type of rulers to whom he was referring.
What then is meant by the term minister of God? The answer is quite simple: a government
official who ministers on behalf of God and His laws. According to the inspired writings of both
James and Isaiah, legitimate law is derived from only one source:
There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy.
James 4:12
For Yahweh is our judge, Yahweh is our lawgiver, Yahweh is our king.
Isaiah 33:22
A story about George Washington relates how he was asked just prior to his presidential
inauguration if he wanted to be addressed as king. He responded in the negative, choosing instead
to be addressed as president, one who presides on behalf of the King of kings. The Bible hero
Gideon declared essentially the same thing after Yahweh gave the Israelites victory over the
Midianites:
Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule thou over us, both thou, and thy
son, and thy sons son also: for thou hast delivered us from the hand of Midian.

12

And Gideon said unto them, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule
over you: Yahweh shall rule over you.
Judges 8:22-23
King Jehoshaphat of Judah understood that the judges he appointed would judge on behalf of
Yahweh, and he warned them of their responsibility to uphold His laws:
And he set judges in the land throughout all the fenced cities of Judah, city by
city, and said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but
for Yahweh, who is with you in the judgment. Wherefore now let the fear of
Yahweh be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with Yahweh
our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.
2 Chronicles 19:5-7
Moses warned his appointees* (*To Vote or Not to Vote?, a biblical study contrasting elections
and appointments, may be read at www.missiontoisrael.org/vote.php.) that their judgments were
to be the judgments of Yahweh:
And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your
brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the
stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall
hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for
the judgment is Gods.
Deuteronomy 1:16-17
If the judges determinations had been based on the arbitrary values of man and not on the
perfect, immutable laws of Yahweh, their judgments would not have been His:
The law of Yahweh is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of Yahweh is
sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of Yahweh are right, rejoicing the
heart: the commandment of Yahweh is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of
Yahweh is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of Yahweh are true and
righteous altogether.
Psalm 19:7-9* (*Despite the teachings of some people, Yahwehs laws have
not changed. His moral laws are a reflection of His unchanging moral nature.
Hence, if the laws of Yahweh have changed, then Yahweh must also have
changed. Scripture resoundingly declares that Yahweh does not change (Malachi
3:6, Hebrews 1:12, 13:8). More can be read about Yahwehs laws and how they
apply under the New Covenant can be read at www.missiontoisrael.org/yahslaws-1.php and www.missiontoisrael.org/law-of-liberty.php.)
While counseling his son-in-law Moses, Jethro provided us with some additional qualifications
for civil rulers who act as ministers of God:
Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee:
Be thou for the people to Godward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God:
and thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way
wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do. Moreover thou shalt
provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating
covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of
hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.

13

Exodus 18:19-21
The book of Deuteronomy provides added obligations for those who would be governing
authorities:
And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall
write him a copy of this law in a book. And it shall be with him, and he shall
read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear Yahweh his God, to
keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them.
Deuteronomy 17:18-19
As provided in Exodus 18:19-21, Deuteronomy 1:16-17, 17:18-19, and 2 Chronicles 19:5-7, the
qualifications for civil rulers follows:

Fear Yahweh.
Fear not man.
Write out a copy of Yahwehs law.
Read Yahwehs law daily.
Study Yahwehs law.
Observe Yahwehs law scrupulously.
Seek after righteousness.
Declare truth.
Render impartial judgment.
Shun bribes.
Hate dishonest gain.

If government consisted of officials who met these requirements, it would be a minister of God to
us for good. In which case, Christians would be obligated to submit to it.
Unrighteous governments some times have laws in harmony with Yahwehs laws. In such
instances, Christians are obligated to submit to those laws. For so is the will of God, that with
well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. (1 Peter 2:15)
Instead of manifesting the previously listed virtues, current government commits such atrocities
as:

Promoting and financing the indiscriminate massacre of our unborn children.31

Failing to condemn and even financing homosexuality, pornography, 32 and other
abominations.
Destroying our Christian heritage and culture.
Allowing the construction of idolatrous synagogues and temples and the worship of other
idolatrous gods.
Enslaving us by means of a counterfeit monetary system.
Maintaining an unbiblical and confiscatory tax on our land and property.33
Levying oppressive taxation on wages.
Stealing from the rich to give to the poor.
Selling us into world-government slavery via international treaties.

14

Funding illegal immigration and outsourcing jobs.

Banning alternative healing methods and persecuting health practitioners.
Conspiring to disarm us.34

Because these are not the actions of a minister of God to [us] for good, Americas present
government does not fit the description in Romans 13. It is better depicted by the following
maxim: No ones life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.
Unlike many of todays ministers, those who preached prior to Americas War of Independence
had no difficulty seeing Pauls intent. Consider, for example, this brilliant exegesis by Pastor
West:
Can we conceive of a more perfect, equitable, and generous plan of government
than this which the apostle has laid down to have rulers appointed over us to
encourage us to every good and virtuous action, to defend and protect us in our
just rights and privileges, and to grant us everything that can tend to promote our
true interest and happiness; to restrain every licentious action, and to punish
every one that would injure or harm us; to become a terror of evil-doers; to make
it their constant care and study, day and night, to promote the good and welfare
of the community, and to oppose all evil practices? Deservedly may such rulers
be called the ministers of God for good. They carry on the same benevolent
design towards the community which the great Governor of the universe does
toward his whole creation.35
Pastor Cooke expounded on verse 4 with equal clarity:
Rulers are appointed for this very end to be ministers of God for good. The
people have a right to expect this from them, and to require it, not as an act of
grace, but as their unquestionable due. It is the express or implicit condition
that they attend continually upon this very thing. Their time, their abilities, their
authority by their acceptance of the public trust are consecrated to the
community, and cannot, in justice, be withheld; they are obliged to seek the
welfare of the people, and exert all their powers to promote the common interest.
This continual solicitude for the common good is what rulers of every degree
have taken upon themselves; and, in justice to the people, in faithfulness to God,
they must either sustain it with fidelity, or resign their office.
The faithful ruler will not forget that he ruleth over men who are moral
agents, and under absolute control of the High Possessor of heaven and earth, and
cannot, without the greatest impropriety and disloyalty to the King of kings, yield
unlimited subjection to any inferior power.36
Several chapters earlier in his epistle to the Roman Christians, Paul addressed this same principle:
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye
are to whom ye obey?
Romans 6:16

15

Anyone who submits to the ungodly decrees of men becomes a slave of ungodly men. On the
other hand, if a government is a minister of God carrying out Yahwehs will, then submission to
such a government is submission to Yahweh Himself.
Submission to the ungodly decrees of men is rebellion to Yahweh and transgression of the
following mandate:
Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
1 Corinthians 7:23
Even without the light of Christian revelation, Aristotle rightly discerned the difference between
tyranny and legitimate authority:
A tyrant seeketh his own, a king the good of the subjects; for he is no king who is
not content and excelleth [not] in goodness.37
Pastor Rutherford understood that Pauls instruction required that at times we make a
distinction between the office and the man in office:
The ruler, as the ruler, and the nature and intrinsical end of the office is, that he
bear Gods sword as an avenger to execute wrath on him that doth evil, and so
cannot be resisted without sin. But the man who is the ruler, and commandeth
things unlawful, and killeth the innocent, carrieth the sword to execute, not the
righteous judgment of the Lord upon the ill-doer, but his own private revenge
upon him that doth well; therefore, the man may be resisted, the office may not
be resisted; and they must be two different things.38
Regrettably, few preachers today see as clearly as Pastor Mayhew did when he commented on
verse 4:
If rulers are a terror to good works, and not to the evil; if they are not ministers
for good to society, but for evil and distress, by violence and oppression; if they
execute wrath upon sober, peaceable persons, who do their duty as members of
society, and suffer rich and honorable knaves to escape with impunity; if, instead
of attending continually upon the good work of advancing the public welfare,
they attend continually upon the gratification of their own lust and pride and
ambition, to the destruction of the public welfare; if this be the case, it is plain
that the apostles argument for submission does not reach them; they are not the
same, but different persons from those whom he characterizes, and who must be
obeyed, according to his reasoning.39
Twenty-eight years later, Pastor Samuel Webster agreed with Mayhew and wasted no
words when he declared:
But depend on it, no government is Gods ordinance but that which is for the
good of mankind.40
This concept is borne out in the word revenger in verse 4 of Romans 13. It is translated from
the Greek e&kdiko$ (ekdikos) which means carrying justice out,41 or executing righteousness.
Righteousness originates from only one source:

16

Only in Yahweh are righteousness and strength.

Isaiah 45:24
Righteous art thou, O Yahweh, and upright are thy judgments.
Psalm 119:137
If ye know that he [Yahweh] is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth
righteousness is born of him.
1 John 2:29
In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever
doeth not righteousness is not of God.
1 John 3:10
The government described by Paul is one that carries out the righteousness, or justice of God.
Solomon made it clear that only the righteous can carry out Yahwehs justice:
Evil men understand not judgment [justice, NASV]: but they that seek Yahweh
understand all things.
Proverbs 28:5
Solomon also commented upon the results of righteous leadership:
When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked
beareth rule, the people mourn.
Proverbs 29:2
In sweeping imagery, the Prophet Isaiah pictures a few of the benefits of a righteous body politic:
Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment
[justly, NASV]. And a man shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert
from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock
in a weary land. And the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of
them that hear shall hearken. The heart also of the rash shall understand
knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly.
Then judgment [justice] shall dwell in the wilderness, and righteousness remain
in the fruitful field. And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect
of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever.
Isaiah 32:1-17
Paul instructed Timothy to be thankful for the type of government described by Isaiah that brings
quietness and peace:
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and
giving of thanks, be made for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we
may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
1 Timothy 2:1-2
Timothy would certainly not have been obligated to give thanks for any government that did not
produce a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. It is obvious that Paul did not
regard the civil authorities of his day as consonant with the magnanimous government he

17

described in 1 Timothy 2 and Romans 13. If he had, he would never have told the Corinthian
Christians to avoid their jurisdiction:
Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust
[non-Christian judiciary], and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the
saints shall judge the world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are ye
unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels?
How much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of
things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the
church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you?
No, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to
law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
1 Corinthians 6:1-6
Note especially that Paul was not only dissuading Christians from depending upon the ungodly
courts of their day, but he was also chiding them for not forming their own civil body politic, by
which they would eventually judge the world and punish all disobedience.
Those who would keep government in the hands of the wicked have worked tirelessly to convince
the American people that our founding fathers intended to separate religion from government. But
any honest person who examines Americas early documents especially those of the 1600s and
early 1700s will discover that Christianity and Yahwehs laws should be the guiding light of
Americas civil body politic.
Volumes of documents testify that early Americans formed Christian governments designed
around Yahwehs laws. Out of the numerous instances that could be cited, consider the following:
1639 FUNDAMENTAL AGREEMENT OF THE COLONY OF NEW HAVEN :
Agreement; We all agree that the scriptures hold forth a perfect rule for the
direction and government of all men in duties which they are to perform to God
and to man, as well in families and commonwealth as in matters of the church; so
likewise in all public officers which concern civil order, as choice of magistrates
and officers, making and repealing laws, dividing allotments of inheritance, and
all things of like nature, we will, all of us, be ordered by the rules which the
scripture holds forth; and we agree that such persons may be described in Exodus
18:21 and Deuteronomy 1:13 with Deuteronomy 17:15 and 1 Corinthians 6:1, 6
& 7.
So impressive was Connecticuts precedent that the Encyclopedia Britannica commented
upon it:
1639 CONNECTICUT HISTORY: In June 1639, however, a more definite
statement of political principles was framed, in which it was clearly stated that
the rules of Scripture should determine the ordering of the Church, the choice of
magistrates, the making and repeal of laws that only Church members could
become free burgesses and officials of the colony and in 1644 the general
court decided that the judicial laws of God as they were declared by Moses
should constitute a rule for all courts.42
After studying New Englands early legislative records, French historian Alexis de Tocqueville
addressed this remarkable time in American history:

18

They exercised the rights of sovereignty; they named their magistrates,

concluded peace or declared war, made police regulations, and enacted laws as if
their allegiance was due only to God. Nothing can be more curious and, at the
same time more instructive, than the legislation of that period; it is there that the
solution of the great social problem which the United States now present [sic] to
the world is to be found.
Amongst these documents we shall notice, as especially characteristic, the code
of laws promulgated by the little State of Connecticut in 1650. The legislators of
Connecticut begin with the penal laws, and they borrow their provisions from
the text of Holy Writ. Whosoever shall worship any other God than the Lord,
says the preamble of the Code, shall surely be put to death. This is followed by
ten or twelve enactments of the same kind, copied verbatim from the books of
Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Blasphemy, sorcery, adultery, and rape
were punished with death.43
McGuffeys Sixth Eclectic Reader also testified to Americas early theocratic government:
Their form of government was as strictly theocratical insomuch that it would
be difficult to say where there was any civil authority among them entirely
distinct from ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
Whenever a few of them settled a town, they immediately gathered themselves
into a church; and their elders were magistrates, and their code of laws was the
Pentateuch.
God was their King; and they regarded him as truly and literally so.44
Noah Webster, statesman and compiler of the original Websters dictionary, confirmed the
importance of forming a Christian civil body politic based upon the Scriptures:
...The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the
basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. These principles and precepts have
truth, immutable truth, for their foundation; and they are adapted to the wants of
men in every condition of life. They are the best principles and precepts, because
they are exactly adapted to secure the practice of universal justice and kindness
among men; and of course to prevent crimes, war and disorders in society. No
human laws dictated by different principles from those in the gospel, can ever
secure these objects. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice,
crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their
despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.45
Pauls admonition to the Corinthian Church was implemented in America well into the nineteenth
century when on the frontier, churches functioned as the seat of government:
The church exerted such effective discipline that it had far-reaching influence on
the morals of the frontier at a time when virtually no other organized restraining
force existed. Discipline [by] the church, as a rule, preceded that of the
courthouse. The law of God in many regions was the regulator of society and
business before legislatures and grand juries prevailed. The Scriptures stood as

19

the statutes of the land, the church building the Lords courthouse, the clergy
served much as judges on the bench directing proceedings, with the deacons and
elders frequently serving in a fashion as prosecuting and defending counsel, and
the church membership sitting as a jury.
No act, from the market place to the boudoir, escaped the churchs concern. And
church action was quicker than court trials. The church membership could
assemble and dispense immediate judgment.46
Biblical government, as promoted by the New Testament authors, was once the rule in this
country. The only reason that this may seem strange to Christians today is that most of modern
Judeo-Christianity has swallowed the separation of church and state lie that has been spoon fed to
them by their enemies.

Verse 5
Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience
sake.
Romans 13:5

The Modern Interpretation

It is the conscientious duty of every Christian to submit to all civil authority,
whether it be godly or not.

For the Sake of Conscience

What is Paul really teaching here? Considering the context, especially the two previous verses,
Paul is teaching Christians to be in submission for conscience sake because to submit to a
righteous government is to submit to Yahweh Himself. Pastor West explained the duty of
Christians required in this verse:
While, therefore, they rule in the fear of God, and while they promote the welfare
of the state, i.e., while they act in the character of magistrates, it is the
indispensable duty of all to submit to them, and to oppose a turbulent, factious,
and libertine spirit, whenever and wherever it discovers itself. A factious,
seditious person, that opposes good government, is a monster in nature; for he is
an enemy to his own species, and destitute of the sentiments of humanity.
Subjects are also bound to obey magistrates, for conscience sake, out of regard
to the divine authority, and out of obedience to the will of God; for if magistrates
are the ministers of God, we cannot disobey them without being disobedient to
the law of God. To oppose them when in the exercise of lawful authority is an
act of disobedience to the Deity and, as such, will be punished by him.47
Ungodly authorities are another matter altogether. Did Yahweh require Shiphrah, Puah, Amram,
Jochebed, Rahab, Ehud, Gideon, Elijah, Shadrach, Meschach, Abed-nego, Daniel, Peter, John,
and the other apostles to be conscience-stricken when they disobeyed the ungodly authorities of
their times? If anything, their consciences would have been seared had they not rebelled against
the unrighteous governments of their day. As Pastor Rutherford explained, these are the very
people who receive heavenly rewards for their acts of faith:

20

They that resist the power and royal office of the king in things just and right
shall receive to themselves damnation, but they that resist, that is, refuse, for
conscience, to obey the man who is the king, and choose to obey God rather than
man, as all martyrs did, shall receive to themselves salvation.48

Verse 6
For this cause pay ye tribute [taxes, NASV] also: for they are Gods ministers,
attending continually upon this very thing.
Romans 13:6

The Modern Interpretation

Christians should be honored to pay taxes to all civil authorities.

Taxes Due Gods Ministers

When Paul wrote for this cause we are to pay taxes, he could not have been much clearer
taxes are for the upkeep of Gods ministers. Pastor Mayhew delineated between Gods
ministers and despots:
Here the apostle argues the duty of paying taxes from this consideration, that
those who perform the duty of rulers are continually attending upon the public
welfare. But how does this argument conclude for paying taxes to such princes as
are continually endeavoring to ruin the public, and especially when such payment
would facilitate and promote this wicked design.49
It would be interesting to hear todays Judeo-Christian pastors respond to Mayhews pointed
question. Adam Clarke elucidates upon Pauls intent:
There is no insinuation in the apostles words in behalf of an extravagant and
oppressive taxation, for the support of unprincipled and unnecessary wars; or the
pensioning of corrupt or useless men.50
Thomas Jefferson declared that we should not be forced to underwrite legislation that supports
immorality:
To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of
opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.51
Christians should gladly pay taxes to the type of lawful government described by Paul: a
government set up under Yahweh that does good works, supports the righteous, and brings wrath
down upon the wicked. We should have no hesitation paying biblically authorized taxes to such
government; in fact, we are explicitly charged to do so.
Men are stricken in their consciences for different reasons. One man believes he should not pay
taxes (although in certain situations he may have no alternative) because his tax dollars are used
to support murder, homosexuality, and pornography. Another man believes he should pay taxes,
(even though he is mindful that his money is being used to finance wickedness) because
government says he should. Both men are stricken in conscience for the same reason, because of
the gods they serve. The first man is stricken in his conscience because his God, Yahweh, has
declared these acts to be abominations. The second man is stricken because his god, government,
commands him to pay.

21

Verse 7
Render therefore to all their dues: tribute [tax, NASV] to whom tribute is due;
custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
Romans 13:7

The Modern Interpretation

Christians are obligated to pay every tax pressed upon them by government, no
matter how oppressive the tax and no matter what abominations the tax will be
used to finance.

Tax to Whom Tax Is Due

If taxes are payable to all governments, why would Paul have instructed Christians to render
taxes to whom taxes are due? Once again, Pastor Mayhew posed a penetrating question to those
who teach blind submission:
Does this argument conclude for the duty of paying tribute, custom, reverence,
honor, and obedience to such persons as, although they bear the title of rulers, use
all their power to hurt and injure the public? such as are not Gods ministers,
but Satans? such as do not take care of and attend upon the public interest, but
their own, to the ruin of the public? that is, in short, to such as have no just
claim at all to tribute, custom, reverence, honor, and obedience? It is to be hoped
that those who have any regard to the apostles character as an inspired writer, or
even as a man of common understanding, will not represent him as reasoning in
such a loose, incoherent manner, and drawing conclusions which have not the
least relation to his premises. For what can be more absurd than an argument thus
framed: Rulers are, by their office, bound to consult the public welfare and the
good of society; therefore, you are bound to pay them tribute, to honor, and to
submit to them, even when they destroy the public welfare, and are a common
pest to society by acting in direct contradiction to the nature and end of their
office?52
Christians should indeed pay taxes to whom taxes are due, but are taxes due those who promote
and finance the murder of babies? Are they due those who finance homosexuality? Are they due
those who promote pornography? Are they due those who conspire to disarm us? Are they due
those who promote an antichrist world government?
Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate Yahweh? Therefore is
wrath upon thee from before Yahweh.
2 Chronicles 19:2
Paul plainly declared that we are to render to all what is due them, not what they demand is due
them. Even if we consider this matter from a constitutional perspective,* (*As a preacher of the
gospel of the kingdom of God, my objective is to point our people back to the laws of Yahweh
not to the Constitution. My discussion of the Constitution is simply to demonstrate that even the
Constitution of the United States of America, which every elected official has sworn to uphold,
can be used to prove my point.53) we see that our founding fathers never intended that we pay
taxes indiscriminately, and especially not to corrupt rulers.
Today, our current government is de facto:

22

An officer de facto is one who performs the duties of an office with apparent
right, and under claim and color of an appointment, but without being actually
qualified in law so to act.54
This aptly describes our current government from both a constitutional and, more importantly, a
biblical point of view.
Our current government is no longer the de jure one that was established to abide by the Bible or
even the Constitution. But even todays de facto government does not demand payment of all
taxes: IRS publication #21 acknowledges that the federal government obtains its income taxes by
voluntary compliance. Hence, whether we view the matter from a biblical, constitutional, or
legislative perspective, Americas current government is not one to which taxes are necessarily
due.
Paul entreated us in Ephesians 5:11 not only to expose the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but also
to avoid participation in them. To knowingly and willingly finance and submit to ministers of evil
is a tacit endorsement of their abominable acts.
Consider King Saul and his campaign to destroy David, Yahwehs anointed. Did David and his
men pay taxes or provide aid and comfort to support Sauls policies? Of course they did not.
While Saul was still on the throne, were Davids followers considered traitors or seditionists?
Perhaps in Sauls eyes, but not in Yahwehs!
The conditions under which Christians are living today are not substantially different from the
conditions under which Davids men lived. Even though Yashua, Yahwehs anointed, is the
Christians King (Acts 17:6-7), other kings, like Saul, continue to sit on their thrones and demand
tribute to finance their antichristian campaigns.
Many modern-day Christians claim that Yashua promoted paying taxes to Caesar when He
declared, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesars. The context of this verse
shows that He was teaching just the opposite. When the scribes and chief priests asked Him, Is
it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no? He perceived their craftiness. (Luke 20:2223) If Yashua were promoting Caesars tyrannical and oppressive government by paying taxes,
why would the scribes have tried to trick Him? Obviously, Yashua was not paying taxes, and the
Pharisees knew it. When He responded, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be
Caesars, and unto God the things which be Gods, He was avoiding their trap while at the same
time challenging them to choose their god. In other words, if you serve Caesar as god, you had
better give him his due tribute and obeisance. But if you serve Yahweh as God, your tribute
belongs to Him and His administrators.
And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
Matthew 22:18-20
Yashuas declaration, Render therefore to Caesar the things which be Caesars, is
equivalent to Pauls statement Render . tribute to whom tribute is due.
Is the King of kings or His subjects required to pay taxes to an opposing king?* (*In practice,
most people have little choice. The government compels businesses to withhold taxes from their
employees paychecks. Widows and orphans are often at the mercy of the government for their
very survival (an indictment against todays derelict churches); if they were to resist the system,

23

they would likely find themselves out on the streets, homeless, and starving.) Yashua Himself told
those under His authority that the sons of the Kingdom are exempt from the taxation of other
kings:
Yashua [said] , What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth
take custom or tribute? Of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto
him, Of strangers. Yashua saith unto him, Then are the children free.
Matthew 17:25-26
In this particular instance, after correcting Peter for his response to the tax collectors, Yashua told
him to pay the tax, but only so that Peter would not be proven a liar. Even then, Yashua did not
permit him to pay the tax out of their own treasury. Instead, He told Peter to go and catch a fish in
whose mouth he would find a coin with which to pay the tax.

Additional Thoughts
Resistance to Tyranny
At certain times in the Israelites history, Yahweh allowed His people to suffer under the unjust
abuses of ungodly, tyrannical rulers. The book of Nehemiah provides the reason why:
Neither have our [Judahs] kings, our princes, our priests, nor our fathers,
kept thy [Yahwehs] law, nor hearkened unto thy commandments and thy
testimonies. For they have not served thee in their kingdom, and in thy
great goodness that thou gavest them, and in the large and fat land which thou
gavest before them, neither turned they from their wicked works. Behold, we are
servants [slaves, NASV] this day, and for the land that thou gavest unto our
fathers to eat the fruit thereof and the good thereof, behold, we are servants in it:
and it yieldeth much increase unto the kings whom thou hast set over us
because of our sins: also they have dominion over our bodies, and over our
cattle, at their pleasure, and we are in great distress.
Nehemiah 9:34-37
The book of Judges also describes Yahwehs reasons for appointing oppressive leaders:
And they were to prove Israel by them, to know whether they would hearken
unto the commandments of Yahweh.
Judges 3:4
The Israelites time of testing was for the purpose of determining whom they would choose for
their sovereign: Yahweh or mans ungodly government. When they chose mans government, it
meant rebellion against Yahweh. When they chose Yahweh, it meant resistance against all
opposing kings. The remainder of the book of Judges testifies to this inviolable principle.
Under the New Covenant, we have the same choices for our king: man or Yashua. Anyone who
has not chosen Yashua as king must submit to the other king. Those who have placed themselves
under the kingship of Yashua must submit to Him alone (and to those who are administering His
laws). At times, this submission will result in disobedience to an ungodly king or government
authority. Such disobedience cannot be rebellion because rebellion, by definition, is against
lawful authority. Resistance against oppression or tyranny is not contrary to Romans 13 because
tyrants have no lawful jurisdiction over Yahwehs subjects. On the other hand, Moses warns us in

24

Deuteronomy 13 just how serious it is for anyone to incite rebellion against the kingdom or
government of Yahweh. According to Yahwehs law, it was, and remains today, a capital crime.
Noah Websters American Dictionary of the English Language defines tyrant as:
1. A monarch or other ruler or master, who uses power to oppress his subjects; a
person who exercises unlawful authority, or lawful authority in an unlawful
manner; one who by taxation, injustice or cruel punishment, or the demand of
unreasonable services, imposes burdens and hardships on those under his control,
which law and humanity do not authorize, or which the purposes of government
do not require. 2. A despotic ruler; a cruel master; an oppressor.55
John Wingate Thornton put it in the following fashion:
Tyranny brings ignorance and brutality along with it. It degrades men from their
just rank into the class of brutes; it damps their spirits; it suppresses arts; it
extinguishes every spark of noble ardor and generosity in the breasts of those
who are enslaved by it; it makes naturally strong and great minds feeble and
little, and triumphs over the ruins of virtue and humanity. This is true of tyranny
in every shape: there can be nothing great and good where its influence reaches.
For which reason it becomes every friend to truth and human kind, every
lover of God and the Christian religion, to bear a part in opposing this
hateful monster.56
In one of the earliest textbooks of American history, Edward Johnson took this concept a step
further:
Neither will any Christian of a sound judgment vote* (*To Vote or Not to
Vote?, a biblical study contrasting elections and appointments, may be read at
www.missiontoisrael.org/vote.php.) for any, but such as earnestly contend for the
Faith.57
The American Declaration of Independence urges us to resist and even throw off destructive and
despotic government:
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; and among these
are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights,
governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes
destructive to these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and
to institute a new government laying its foundations on such principles, and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall most likely effect their safety
and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established
should not be changed for light or transient causes, and accordingly all
experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and
to provide new guards for their future security.

25

Perhaps our founding fathers received some of their inspiration from Pastor Samuel Rutherford.
In Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince, he related resistance to the concept of true religion:
The king is obliged to God for the maintenance of true religion therefore
when the king defendeth not true religion, but presseth upon the people a false
and idolatrous religion they are not under the king, but are presumed to have
no king and are presumed to have the power in themselves, as if they had not
appointed any king at all.58
If we presume the body had given to the right hand a power to ward off strokes
and to defend the body; if the right hand should by a palsy, or some disease,
become impotent, and be withered up, when ill is coming on the body, it is
presumed that the power of defense is recurred to the left hand, and to the rest of
the body to defend itself in this case as if the body had no right hand, and had
never communicated any power to the right hand. If therefore he [the king]
defend not religion for the salvation of the souls of all in his public and royal
way, it is presumed as undeniable that the people of God, who by the law of
nature are to care for their own souls are to defend in their way true religion,
which so nearly concerneth them and their eternal happiness.59
In 1774, the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts publicly promoted resistance as a duty:
Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each
individual. Continue steadfast, and with a proper sense of your dependence on
God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take
from us.60
As a member of the original committee for the design of the Great Seal of the United States,
Thomas Jefferson suggested a depiction of Moses standing on the Shore, and extending his
Hand over the Sea, thereby causing the same to overwhelm Pharaoh who is sitting in an open
Chariot, a Crown on his Head & a Sword in his hand. Rays from a Pillar of Fire in the Clouds
reaching to Moses to express that he acts by Command of the Deity. 61 The following
motto surrounded the portrayal: Rebellion To Tyrants is Obedience to God. Pastor Rutherford
expressed a similar sentiment: Truth to Christ cannot be treason to Caesar.62
United States citizens view the presidency as the highest human authority in the American
government and all other authorities, such as the local constable, below the president. If the
president is opposed to murder, but the local constable promotes it, those who hold to the JudeoChristian interpretation of Romans 13 would readily declare that they are not obligated to obey
the local constable in this regard. They would declare that a Christian should resist this lower
authority and obey the higher authority. But, suppose it is the president who promotes murder.
Are we not then obligated to resist the president in obedience to an even higher authority
Yahweh our God? The logical conclusion demands that we obey the highest authority above all
other lower authorities and that we disobey any lower authority when it is contrary to the highest
authority Yahweh. The following four passages conclusively affirm Yahwehs absolute
authority:
Thine, O Yahweh, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory,
and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the

26

kingdom, O Yahweh, and thou art exalted as head above all. Thou reignest
over all; and in thine hand is power and might.
1 Chronicles 29:11-12
And Yashua came and spake unto them, saying, All power [authority, NASV] is
given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Matthew 28:18
He [Yashua] that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly,
and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.
John 3:31
The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is
the exceeding greatness of his [Yahwehs] power to usward who believe,
according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when
he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly
places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every
name that is named, not only in this world [age, NASV], but also in that which is
to come: and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over
all things.
Ephesians 1:18-22
In 1579, Junius Brutus wrote A Defence of Liberty Against Tyrants, in which he developed the
idea that we are always to obey higher authority:
God is always just, and that of men may be, and is, oftentimes unjust, who can
doubt but that we must always obey Gods commandments without any
exception, and mens ever with limitation.63
If God commands one thing, and the king commands the contrary, what is that
proud man that would term him a rebel who refuses to obey the king, when he
forbids him to yield obedience to God.
Briefly, if God calls us on the one side to enrol [sic] us in His service, and the
king on the other, is any man so void of reason that he will not say we must leave
the king, and apply ourselves to Gods service: so far be it from us to believe, that
we are bound to obey a king, commanding anything contrary to the law of God,
that, contrarily, in obeying him we become rebels to God; no more nor less than
we would esteem a countryman a rebel who, for the love he bears to some rich
and ancient inferior Lord, would bear arms against the sovereign prince, or who
had rather obey the writs of an inferior judge than of a superior.64
For as often and ever as the apostles admonish Christians to obey kings, and
magistrates, they do first exhort, and as it were by way of advice, admonish every
one to subject himself in like manner to God, and to obey Him before and against
any whatsoever, and there is nowhere to be found, in any of their writings, the
least passage for this unlimited obedience, which the flatterers of princes do
exact from men of small understandings. For if we obey the king, because, and
for the love of God, certainly this obedience may not be a conspiracy against
God. But the apostle [Paul in Romans 13] will stop the gap of all ambiguity in
adding that the prince is the servant of God for our good, to wit, to do justice;

27

from this necessarily follows that we must rather obey God than him who is
His servant. We must practice these precepts, according to the order they are
set down in: to wit, that as servants are not bound to obey their masters if they
command anything which is against the laws and ordinances of kings, subjects in
like manner owe no obedience to kings, which will make them to violate the law
of God.65
The doctrines of the Bible do not require Christians to submit to tyranny. Indeed, Christians are
obligated to resist tyranny. Pastor West concurred:
As our duty of obedience to the magistrate is founded upon our obligation to
promote the general good, our readiness to obey lawful authority will always
arise in proportion to the love and regard that we have for the welfare of the
public; and the same love and regard for the public will inspire us with as strong
a zeal to oppose tyranny as we have to obey magistracy. Our obligation to
promote the public good extends as much to the opposing every exertion of
arbitrary power that is injurious to the state as it does to the submitting to good
and wholesome laws. No man, therefore, can be a good member of the
community that is not as zealous to oppose tyranny as he is ready to obey
magistracy. A slavish submission to tyranny is a proof of a very sordid and base
mind. Such a person cannot be under the influence of any generous human
sentiments, nor have a tender regard for mankind.66
What has been said is, I apprehend, abundantly sufficient to show that tyrants are
no magistrates, or that whenever magistrates abuse their power and authority to
the subverting [of] the public happiness, their authority immediately ceases, and
that it not only becomes lawful, but an indispensable duty to oppose them; that
the principle of self-preservation, the affection and duty that we owe to our
country, and the obedience we owe the Deity, do all require us to oppose
tyranny.67
When the Apostle Peters directive is correctly translated, it is apparent that, rather than being
told to submit to all government authority, Christians are instead enjoined to resist ungodly rulers:
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh
about, seeking whom he may devour: whom resist stedfast in the faith.
1Peter 5:8-9
Many people assume that Peter was alerting Christians to beware of and to resist Satan. This is
not the case. The Greek dia/bolo$ (diabolos), translated devil, is the very same Greek word
translated slanderers and false accusers in 1 Timothy 3:11, 2 Timothy 3:3, and Titus 2:3. The
word adversary in 1 Peter 5:8 is derived from the Greek a)nti/diko$ (antidikos), which
literally means an opponent (in a lawsuit).68
When studying Scripture, bear in mind that the Bible is always its own best commentary. Peter
portrays the falsely accusing adversary-at-law as a roaring lion who is seeking someone to
devour. Who else in the Bible is described as a roaring and devouring lion? The book of Jeremiah
provides the answer:

28

Israel is a scattered sheep; the lions have driven him away: first the king of
Assyria hath devoured him; and last this Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon hath
broken his bones.
Jeremiah 50:17
They shall roar together like lions.
Jeremiah 51:38
Jeremiah, along with David, Solomon, and Zephaniah equate oppressive tyrants with devouring,
roaring lions (Psalm 14:4, 17:9-12, Proverbs 19:12, 20:2, 28:15, Zephaniah 3:3). Hence, we
understand that Peter was depicting a despot who falsely accused Christians, opposed them at
law, and had them executed. At the time of Peter, no one fit this description better than the Roman
emperor Nero. Did he not falsely accuse Christians of burning Rome? Did he not use his laws
against Christians? Did he not murder Christians? Peter was not telling Christians to resist some
demon of darkness, but instead to resist that devil Nero and others like him.
In obedience to Yashua (Matthew 10:16), Peter was being wise as a serpent when he did not
identify Nero by name in his first epistle. Adam Clarke pointed out that Paul was being just as
astute in Romans 13:
As Christianity was then growing, and the powers of the world began to take
notice of it, it was not unlikely that this letter might fall into the hands of the
Roman magistrates. And when that happened it was right, not only that they
should see that Christianity was no favourer of sedition,* (*Websters New
Collegiate Dictionary defines sedition as: incitement of resistance to or
insurrection against lawful authority.69) but likewise that they should have an
opportunity of reading their own duty and obligations. But as they were too
proud and insolent to permit themselves to be instructed in a plain, direct way,
therefore the apostle with a masterly hand, delineates and strongly inculcates the
magistrates duty; while he is pleading his cause with the subject, and
establishing his duty on the most sure and solid ground, he dexterously sides with
the magistrate, and vindicates his power against any subject who might have
imbibed seditious principles, or might be inclined to give the government any
disturbance; and under this advantage he reads the magistrate a fine and close
lecture upon the nature and ends of civil government. A way of conveyance so
ingenious that Nero himself, had this epistle fallen into his hands, could not fail
of seeing his duty clearly stated. The apostle explains the foundation,
nature, ends, and just limits of the magistrates authority, while he is pleading his
cause, and teaching the subject the duty and obedience a Christian owes to civil
government.70
Pastor West agreed:
It is also worthy to be observed that the apostle prudently waived mentioning any
particular persons that were then in power, as it might have been construed in an
invidious light, and exposed the primitive Christians to the severe resentments of
the men that were then in power. Now, though the emperor might at that time
be such a tyrant that he could with no propriety be said to be ordained of God, yet
it would be somewhat strange if there were no men in power among the Romans
that acted up to the character of good magistrates, and that deserved to be
esteemed as the ministers of God for good unto the people. If there were any

29

such, not withstanding the tyranny of Nero, the apostle might with great propriety
enjoin submission to those powers that were ordained of God, and by so
particularly pointing out the end and design of magistrates, and giving his
definition of a ruler, he might design to show that neither Nero, nor any other
tyrant, ought to be esteemed as the minister of God.71
Paul warned the Christians about Nero, and Peter admonished them to resist him. David
expressed a similar thought in the book of Psalms:
Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? Or who will stand up for me
against the workers of iniquity? Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship
with thee, which frameth mischief by law? They gather themselves together
against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood.
Psalm 94:16-21
What a fitting description for our government today a government that promotes and finances
the murder of infants and approves and rewards the lawless taking of lives by such agencies as
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the Federal Bureau of
Investigations (FBI), and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The questions posed by the
Psalmist are as relevant today as they were in the day they were penned. The wisdom of Solomon
is also just as pertinent:
They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend
with them.
Proverbs 28:4
When Christians read Romans 13, they should consider beginning with the last verse of chapter
12, which could be understood to convey:
Be not overcome of evil [government], but overcome evil [government] with
good [government].
Romans 12:21

Conclusion
The Call of Our Forefathers
We can be thankful that many of our early preachers and founding fathers were not encumbered
by the false theology that is so prevalent today. They properly understood the question of
submission to government, and they preached and wrote extensively on the subject. Had they
followed modern Judeo-Christian thinking, the United States of America would not exist today.
Americas Christian forefathers and patriotic citizens courageously stood upon the Word of God.
They knew that they must not surrender to tyrants. In 1773, the men of Marlborough, Connecticut
heralded the following famous proclamation:
Death is more eligible than slavery. A freeborn people are not required by the
religion of Jesus Christ to submit to tyranny. [We] implore the ruler above the
skies, that He would bare His arm in defense of His church and people, and let
Israel go.72

30

Preachers like West, Cooke, and Mayhew accurately taught early Americans what Paul was
inspired by the Holy Spirit to write. They felt no inhibition when it came to resisting ungodly
authority and establishing in its stead an American civil body politic that more closely resembled
Yahwehs design.* (*The republic that our American forefathers established following the War of
Independence was certainly preferable to English tyranny, just as it was far superior to the
government that it has eroded into today. Nevertheless, the republic those brave patriots formed,
although probably mans best, still fell short of the ultimate government founded upon Yahwehs
laws alone.73)
Pastor Mayhews ringing declaration is a witness against Judeo-Christianitys false teaching on
Romans 13:1-7:
It is blasphemy to call tyrants and oppressors Gods ministers. They are more
properly The Messengers of Satan to buffet us. No rulers are properly Gods
ministers, but such as are just, ruling in the fear of God. When once
magistrates act contrary to their office, and the end of their institution, when
they rob and ruin the public, instead of being guardians of its peace and welfare,
they immediately cease to be the ordinance and ministers of God, and no more
deserve that glorious character than common pirates and highwaymen.74
Thus, upon a careful review of the apostles reasoning in this passage, it appears
that his arguments to enforce submission are of such a nature as to conclude only
in favor of submission to such rulers as he himself describes; i.e., such as rule for
the good of society, which is the only end of their institution. Common tyrants
and public oppressors are not entitled to obedience from their subjects by virtue
of anything here laid down by the inspired apostle.75
Yashua Himself condemned the current Judeo-Christian interpretation of Romans 13:1-7:
Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people
honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do
they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying
aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men.
Mark 7:6-8
Many preachers today are not only teaching as doctrines the precepts of men, but they are also
instructing their flocks to neglect the commandments of God and to submit to the decrees of
ungodly tyrants in their place. Yashua forcefully warned us:
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other;
or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.
Matthew 6:24
Christians can serve only one master. The consequence of Judeo-Christianitys ambivalence is
clearly prefigured in the Apostle Johns account of the trial and crucifixion of Yashua:
And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith
unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with
him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief
priest answered, We have no king but Caesar.
John 19:14-15

31

This is a far cry from the disposition of the first-century Hebrew zealots and the eighteenthcentury Christian patriots. The watchword of the zealots was: No God but Yahweh, no tax but to
the Temple.74 and the rallying cry of Americas early Christian patriots was: No king but
King Jesus!75
If Paul and Peter had lived what preachers today proclaim they wrote that is, unconditional
submission to Neros government Nero would never have put them to death. They would have
been lauded as loyal citizens. In reality, Caesar put them to death because they preached and lived
unconditional submission to King Yashua and taught resistance to all antichrist authority:
And when they [the Thessalonian Judahites] found them [Paul and Silas] not,
they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that
have turned the world upside down are come hither also and these all do
contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Yashua.
Acts 17:6-7
Had Yashua been only a future king as some people teach, the rulers of that day would not have
opposed Him or His followers. Christians looked to Yashua as the one reigning King who alone
deserved their allegiance. In a prophecy regarding Yashuas birth, Isaiah declared:
The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the
land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. For unto us a
child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his
shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God,
The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government
and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his
kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from
henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Yahweh of hosts will perform this.
Isaiah 9:2-7
It is no wonder that the authorities in Pauls day were disturbed. They and their system of
government were being toppled by this new King and by the preaching and practices of firstcentury Christendom. Whether twenty-first century Judeo-Christianity understands it or not, the
Thessalonian authorities certainly realized that proclaiming Yashua as Lord and King required
unconditional submission to Yahweh and His laws alone.
Modern Judeo-Christianity calls resistance to tyranny a sin against Yahweh, whereas true
Christianity understands that such resistance is obedience to God.
Christians who understand Pauls intent in Romans 13 are todays point men. As the salt of the
earth and the light of the world, they are once again turning the world upside down for their Lord
and King, Yashua the Christ. May our banner forever be: Obedience to God rather than men!

Epilogue
By Pastor James Bruggeman
Authors Note: As the manuscript for this book neared completion, I asked my colleague, Pastor
James Bruggeman, to review it and offer suggestions or criticisms. In the course of my

32

discussions with him, we both felt that in view of the present religio-political situation, the
following comments were warranted.
America has been enslaved economically if not (yet) militarily. The process of enslavement has
been so gradual and so subtle that most Americans still have not recognized their captivitybondage. The media, of course, has played a key role in persuading people that we are the most
free nation on earth. While this may or may not be true, most people have never considered this
possibility: If all the other nations were under 100% totalitarian dictatorships, and the United
States of American was only under a 95% totalitarian dictatorship, it could still be said that
America is the most free nation on earth. So it is a rather meaningless boast.
More and more Americans are being awakened to the true state of affairs, namely their bondage.
Their reactions to this realization depend largely upon how well they know the Word of God. If
they are not Christians, they may drift toward anarchy and/or overt and violent activities against
various levels of government. We do not condone this. Such actions are foolish and play right into
the hands of the would-be totalitarians. It only provides them excuse to further crush our liberties.
On the other hand, the average Judeo-Christian who has a false understanding of Romans 13 is
likely to do absolutely nothing.
Those who properly understand Romans 13, as well as the whole counsel of God in relation to
government, are confronted with a dilemma: At what point of government oppression is open
civil disobedience and/or resistance appropriate?
The possible scenarios are myriad. We must look to and study scriptural examples. At what point
did the Hebrew midwives practice civil disobedience? At what point did Daniel openly defy King
Darius of Persia? When did Daniels three friends rebel against King Nebuchadnezzar of
Babylon? Upon reflection of these incidents, it becomes apparent that just because our present
government may be increasingly oppressive, it does not give carte blanche to any and all citizens
to refuse to obey whatever laws and regulations they choose.
To cite one example, we can be certain that many laws, rules, and regulations in
Nebuchadnezzars Babylon galled Daniel severely. Nevertheless, if Babylon required a license
for one to drive a chariot, our guess is that Daniel had one. Remember, Daniel was not only in
the system, he was a very high government official in Babylon. He was an Old Testament
example of being in the world, but not of the world. Daniel recognized that his peoples
captivity was a God-sent chastisement, but he drew the line when a federal law prohibited him
from praying to his God.
In summary, while there may be some who are called to fight the present, ungodly system via
court challenges, common law, the Constitution, etc., everyone who comes to the proper
understanding of Romans 13 must therefore revoke his drivers license, marriage license, Social
Security number, etc., and fight the system. By much prayer, Scripture study, counsel from others,
and scrutiny of current conditions, Each person must come to a conclusion for himself concerning
what God is calling him to do at this critical time in history. Let every man be fully persuaded in
his own mind. (Romans 14:5)

Source Notes
1. The term Judeo-Christian is an oxymoron. The religions of Judaism and Christianity are
wholly incompatible as demonstrated by their respective books of faith the Talmud and the
Bible. This incongruity is addressed in the book Gods Covenant People: Yesterday, Today and

33

Forever, which provides a documented dissertation identifying Israel with todays Celtic,
Germanic, Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon, and kindred peoples. Most of Gods Covenant People
may be read at www.missiontoisrael.org/gods-covenant-people/tableofcontents.php, or it may be
obtained in its entirety from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska
69363, for a suggested donation of $23 (hard cover) or $14 (soft cover).*
2. For a more thorough explanation concerning baptism and its relationship to salvation,
Baptism by the Scriptures and Fifty Objections to Baptism Answered may be read at
www.missiontoisrael.org/baptismbythescriptures.php and www.missiontoisrael.org/objectionsto
baptismanswered.php, or the book Baptism: All You Wanted to Know and More may be ordered
from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4
donation.*
3. For a more thorough explanation concerning the use of the names of God, The Third
Commandment may be read at www.missiontoisrael.org/3rdcom-pt1.php, or the book Thou shalt
not take the name of Yahweh thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries,
PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*
4. King James I, quoted by John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution:
Political Sermons of the Period of 1776 (New York, NY: Da Capo Press, 1970) p. 74.
5. Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince (Originally printed in London for
John Field, October 7, 1644) (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1982) p. 101.
6. Rutherford, p. 103.
7. Rutherford, p. 117.
8. John Locke, quoted by John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution:
Political Sermons of the Period of 1776 (New York, NY: Da Capo Press, 1970) p. 74.
9. Peter Marshall and David Manuel, The Light and the Glory (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H.
Revell Company, 1977) p. 258.
10. Samuel West, A Sermon Preached before the Honorable Council, and the Honorable House
of Representatives of the Colony of the Massachusetts-Bay, in New-England, May 29th, 1776,
quoted by John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution: Political Sermons of
1776 (New York, NY: Da Capo Press, 1970) p. 270.
11. Samuel Cooke, A Sermon Preached at Cambridge, in the Audience of His Honor Thomas
Hutchinson, Esq, Lieutenant-Governor and Commander-in-Chief, The Honorable His Majestys
Council, and the Honorable House of Representatives, of the Province of the Massachusetts-Bay
in New-England, May 30th, 1770, quoted by John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the
American Revolution Political Sermons of the Period of 1776 (New York, NY: Da Capo Press,
1970) p. 167.
12. Sir William Blackstone, Blackstones Commentaries (Philadelphia, PA: George W. Childs
Publisher, 1870) Volume 1, p. 41.
13. John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution: Political Sermons of the
Period of 1776 (New York, NY: Da Capo Press, 1970) p. 86.

34

14. For a more thorough explanation concerning the use of the names of God, The Third
Commandment may be read at www.missiontoisrael.org/3rdcom-pt1.php, or the book Thou shalt
not take the name of Yahweh thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries,
PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*
15. John Milton, Defense of the People of England, quoted by John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit
of the American Revolution: Political Sermons of the Period of 1776 (New York, NY: D Capo
Press, 1970) pp. 67-68.
16. Adam Clarke, Commentary and Critical Notes (Nashville, New York: Abingdon Press, 1831)
Volume VI, p. 145.
17. Samuel West, A Sermon Preached before the Honorable Council, and the Honorable House
of Representatives of the Colony of the Massachusetts-Bay, in New-England, May 29th, 1776,
quoted by John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution: Political Sermons of
the Period of 1776 (New York, NY: Da Capo Press, 1970) p. 283.
18. Jonathan Mayhew, A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to
the Higher Powers, quoted by John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution:
Political Sermons of the Period of 1776 (New York, NY: Da Capo Press, 1970) pp. 65-66.
19. Rutherford, p. 149.
20. Cooke, quoted by Thornton, p. 168.
21. Wesley J. Perschbacher, The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, Inc., 1990) 119.
22. Messiah, Encyclopedia Britannica, Eleventh Edition (Chicago, IL: Encyclopaedia
Britannica, Inc., 1910-1911) Volume 18, p. 192.
23. Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (San Francisco, CA:
Foundation for American Christian Education, reprinted 1967).
24. Mayhew, quoted by Thornton, p. 75.
25. Mayhew, quoted by Thornton, pp. 69-70.
26. More on the 501(3)(c) tax-exempt status of todays churches may be read in The Second
Commandment at www.missiontoisrael.org/2ndcom.html, or the book Thou shalt not make unto
thee any graven image may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248,
Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*
27. More on infanticide may be read in The Sixth Commandment at
www.missiontoisrael.org/6thcom.php, or the book Thou shalt not kill may be ordered from
Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4
donation.*
28. More on homosexuality and pornography may be read in The Seventh Commandment at
www.missiontoisrael.org/7thcom-pt1.php.

35

29. Gods Covenant People: Yesterday, Today and Forever provides a documented dissertation
identifying Israel with todays Celtic, Scandinavian, Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, and kindred
peoples. Gods Covenant People may be read in part at www.missiontoisrael.org/gods-covenantpeople/tableofcontents.php, or it may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248,
Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested donation: hard cover $23 or soft cover $14.*
30. Mayhew, quoted by Thornton, pp. 75-76.
31. More on infanticide may be read in The Sixth Commandment at
www.missiontoisrael.org/6thcom.php, or the book Thou shalt not kill may be ordered from
Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4
donation.*
32. More on homosexuality and pornography may be read in The Seventh Commandment at
www.missiontoisrael.org/7thcom-pt1.php.
33. More on unlawful property taxes may be read in The Second Commandment at
www.missiontoisrael.org/secondcom.php, or the book Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven
image may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska
69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*
34. Information on the biblical mandate to be armed may be read in Firearms, Scripturally
Defended at www.missiontoisrael.org/firearm-right.php.
35. West, quoted by Thornton, p. 291.
36. Cooke, quoted by Thornton, pp. 162-163.
37. Aristotle, quoted by Rutherford, p. 198.
38. Rutherford, p. 145.
39. Mayhew, quoted by Thornton, pp. 70-71.
40. Samuel Webster, A sermon preached before the Honorable Council, and the Honorable
House of Representatives, of the State of Massachusetts Bay, in New-England at Boston, May 28,
1777, quoted by Franklin P. Cole, They Preached Liberty (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Press) p. 53.
41. James Strong, e&kdiko$, Greek Dictionary of the New Testament, The New Strongs
Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990) p. 26.
42. Connecticut, Encyclopaedia Britannica (New York, NY: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.,
1929) Volume 6, p. 269.
43. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (New York, NY: The Colonial Press, 1899)
Volume 1, pp. 36-37.
44. William Holmes McGuffey, McGuffeys Sixth Eclectic Reader (New York, NY: American
Book Company, 1879) p. 225.

36

45. Noah Webster, Advice to the Young, History of the United States (New Haven, CT: Durrie
& Peck, 1832) p. 53.
46. Ross Phares, Bible in Pocket, Gun in Hand: The Story of Frontier Religion (Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska Press, 1964) p. 94.
47. West, quoted by Thornton, pp. 276-277.
48. Rutherford, pp. 144-145.
49. Mayhew, quoted by Thornton, p. 77.
50. Clarke, Volume VI, p. 147.
51. Thomas Jefferson, preamble to the Virginia Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, 1789.
52. Mayhew, quoted by Thornton, pp. 77-78.
53. More on Yahwehs laws versus constitutionalism can be read in A Christian Response to
Chuck
Baldwins
You
Might
be
a
Constitutionalist
If
at
www.missiontoisrael.org/constitutionalist.php.
54. John Bouvier, Bouviers Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia (Kansas City, MO:
Vernon Law Book Company, 1914) Volume 1, p. 761.
55. Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (San Francisco, CA: The
Foundation for American Christian Education, reprinted 1967).
56. John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution: Political Sermons of the
Period of 1776 (New York, NY: Da Capo Press, 1970) p. 51.
57. Edward Johnson, Wonder-Working Providence 1628-1651 (New York, NY: Charles Scribners
Sons, 1910) p. 146.
58. Rutherford, pp. 55-56.
59. Rutherford, p. 56.
60. The Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, 1774, in a resolution addressing the inhabitants of
Massachusetts Bay, quoted by George Bancroft, Bancrofts History of the United States (Boston,
MA: Charles C. Little & James Brown, 1838) Vol. VII, p. 229.
61. Thomas Jefferson, quoted by Richard S. Patterson and Richardson Dougall, The Eagle and
the Shield, A History of the Great Seal of the United States (Washington: Office of the Historian,
Bureau of Public Affairs, Department of State, under the auspices of the American Revolution
Bicentennial Administration, 1976) p. 14.
62. Rutherford, The Authors Preface, p. xxi.
63. Junius Brutus, A Defence of Liberty Against Tyrants (New York, NY: Lenox Hill Pub. & Dist.
Co., 1972) p. 65.

37

64. Brutus, pp. 79-80.

65. Brutus, pp. 82-83.
66. West, quoted by Thornton, pp. 282-283.
67. West, quoted by Thornton, pp. 284-285.
68. James Strong, a)nti/diko$, Greek Dictionary of the New Testament, The New Strongs
Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990) p. 13.
69. Sedition, Websters New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, MS: G. & C. Merriam
Company, 1975) p. 1045.
70. Clarke, Volume VI, p. 144.
71. West, quoted by Thornton, pp. 293-294.
72. The Men of Marlborough, Connecticut, quoted by George Bancroft, History of the United
States (Boston, MA: Little Brown and Company, 1854) Vol. VI, p. 442.
73. More on Yahwehs laws versus constitutionalism can be read in A Christian Response to
Chuck Baldwins You Might be a Constitutionalist If at www.missiontoisrael.org/
constitutionalist.php.
74. Mayhew, quoted by Thornton, pp. 73-74.
75. Mayhew, quoted by Thornton, p. 78.
76. Quoted by Abram Leon Sachar, A History of the Jews (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf,
1968) p. 117.
77. Committees of Correspondence, quoted by Cushing Strout in The New Heavens and the New
Earth (New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, 1974) p. 59.
*We are admonished in Matthew 10:8, freely ye have received, freely give. Although there is a
suggested price for our books, we do not sell them. In keeping with 2 Corinthians 9:7, this
ministry is supported by freewill offerings. If you cannot afford the suggested price, inform us of
your situation and we will be pleased to provide you with whatever you need for whatever you
can send.

38