January 9, 2021

Civil obedience and the culture of the Kingdom of Heaven

by Maurizio Tiezzi in Kingdom of God, Maurizio Tiezzi, News

Civil obedience and the culture of the Kingdom of Heaven

This text is addressed in particular to Christians who are wondering how to behave in the difficult and exceptional situation we currently face due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the resulting restrictive measures adopted by various governments.

Some personal reflections I have decided to share, with the intention of offering those who find them useful a guide based on the Word of God and an encouragement to live through this time in accordance with the new nature we have received in the Lord Jesus the Messiah, as citizens of his Kingdom and members of God’s family.


””

—

A look at the world during this pandemic


Since the“Coronavirus” emergency began in Europe in March 2020, governments have sought to tackle it with various strategies, legislative and regulatory measures that have diversified and succeeded one another over time. Indeed, regardless of the political leanings of the various governments engaged in this fight against the invisible enemy, for everyone it has been something new, a threat never faced before that has challenged even the most robust healthcare systems and the most sound national budgets.

In particular, now that the second wave of this pandemic is severely affecting the old continent, a sense of social unease is rising and spreading among the population—almost in proportion to the virus—which has even led to violent protests, vandalism and destruction. This malaise is like a general and indiscriminate discontent that seems to draw its strength from the fear engendered by a deep sense of mistrust in state institutions. The ideals or political programmes of those in government and the parliamentary majorities are irrelevant. What matters is that whoever governs is, in the eyes of civil society, doing harm regardless, thus becoming an external target for the collective consciousness onto which to project anger, fuelled by the fear of uncertainty regarding the fate of nations. “No one can solve anything anymore!” This is the cry on everyone’s lips. Hence the growing desire not to be bound by ‘their’ laws and, indeed, to be released from them in the name of justice, thus dangerously flirting with the utopian anarchist ideal.

Society is realising that it is unable to solve the problems it has itself caused

Democracy is creating a vicious circle: the vote gives the voter the right to dissent, to assert their opinion, to claim rights and defend them even against those very rulers who are in power thanks to their own vote. And so others will come, and against them one will have the same right to dissent, to foster division, to raise protests. Anyway, as anyone among today’s populace might say, it’s all in vain. Regardless.

To this mistrust is added the frustration and anger it generates due to the fear that underpins it. The fear of not having the chance to live the life we deserve.

Then theories and hypotheses of all kinds spring up. I have heard it said that many people do not want to take the swab test because it is actually a plot by the powers that be to pierce the ‘membranes’ of people’s brains. Others are convinced that ‘the powers that be’ are surreptitiously attempting to stage mass testing to inject the virus into the noses of those who undergo the test. Still others tremble at the thought of another lockdown and spread the rumour that the virus does not exist, that there have been no deaths, or that the figures are inflated by the very same ‘powers’ that they themselves have legitimised with their vote. Whatever measures the government takes, they will never be appreciated because they do not take everyone’s individual needs into account. If we shut the country down, we die economically. If we leave the country open, we die of coronavirus or bureaucratic inefficiency or the inadequacy of the public health system. While some states are considering mass testing, healthcare corporations and political lobbies are boycotting any such attempt out of sheer prejudice, thereby creating not only political but above all social instability, in the hope of protecting their own corporate positions; or of securing new elections to seize ‘power’; or that the general chaos will celebrate and consume the anarchic dream of individualism at any cost, which says: ‘I am a law unto myself and no one can tell me what to do’.

—

Confusion and uncertainty reign because you never know what the truth is


According to the prevailing cultural trend, everyone has the ‘right’ to say how everything should work. And many do! Confusion and uncertainty reign because you never know the truth. The seed of doubt is in the minds of the masses: there is always the possibility that a hidden truth exists which might well be plausible, but cannot be proven in an absolute sense. On the internet and in the media in general, you can find everything and its opposite. If you want to know what is true and what isn’t, you have no reliable tools at your disposal to verify the objective ‘truth’ of the facts. What a tragedy. The scarcest commodity in the world is, as always, the TRUTH! “Wretched us! Who will deliver us from this systematic ignorance?” This could well be the cry of the people who belong to the world today. It is similar to the cry that the Apostle Paul also raised to heaven in Romans 7:24, but to be freed from the body of sin and the power of the “flesh”. A completely different story.

And so the sovereignists invoke national sovereignty as the solution to everything, as if everything had gone well when we were “sovereign”, everything had gone well. The pro-Europeans extol the strengthening of the Union as if it were the panacea for all ills, despite the obvious rotten fruits it has produced. The deniers are against masks, against social distancing, against sanitiser, against vaccines, against curfews, against mass testing carried out to avoid lockdowns, and against lockdowns imposed due to a lack of mass testing. Conspiracy theorists believe there is a grand scheme to implant ‘quantum dots’ into our bodies via Covid-19 vaccines; some fear that this is linked to ‘5G’, which will be able to control our emotions and thoughts through quantum dots; others add that this will be possible, but thanks to ‘chemtrails’ that make us detectable by ‘5G’. Others theorise that the virus is the new lethal weapon being used to deliberately wage a third world war; or that all the powerful are in cahoots to reduce the world’s population. What if it were all true? What if they were right? Who can say? And so, deep down, many hope that a strong leader will emerge to save everyone from this disaster, unmasking the evil plots and ensuring the triumph of the common good, as if, whenever we’ve had such men in command, good has ever triumphed!

It seems that, in the grip of the greatest delusion of omnipotence in history, the world is becoming aware of its own utter powerlessness. The collective consciousness is increasingly aware that it lies under the power of something malevolent that offers escape: amidst pandemics, famines, wars, terrorism, earthquakes and tsunamis, today’s false messiahs and false prophets pull the strings of power and information, taking advantage of the bewilderment caused by an evil that sustains and regenerates itself.

The systems are giving their ‘best’

Politics, whether unconsciously or consciously—we do not know (these are also situations that have never occurred before, and it is theoretically difficult to know what to do to tackle this kind of emergency)—is, in fact, rationing the amount of oxygen to be supplied to individual freedoms, with the consequence that it generates rebellion at times and tranquillity at others. The alternation between freedom granted and freedom taken away teaches individuals to depend on the powers that manage their freedoms and thus to obey them out of convenience and the need to survive.

The economy is screaming under the weight of lockdowns, especially when they are indiscriminate. Those who have nothing can no longer hold their heads high. But the more the weak and the poor disappear, the less those who have plenty will fear having to take care of them. The conclusion is that there will be fewer and fewer people to share the pie of prosperity.

Culture, surpassing all other systems, has now reached a level of ‘freedom’ that may well be irreversible: freedom of abortion, freedom to choose one’s gender, freedom of same-sex marriage, freedom of adoption by transgender and same-sex couples, freedom to be killed by the healthcare system through euthanasia or assisted suicide… As is the nature of earthly matters, laws follow the cultural path already laid down by people’s way of life. Therefore, we should expect laws to ratify what culture has already embodied.

Religion, finally, is bringing things full circle: everyone, in the name of their own god, calls for the freedom to pray together, provided it is done in the name of love and universal brotherhood. These are themes dear to the world, to its various ‘brotherhoods’ and ‘philanthropic’ circles. Moreover, these are increasingly shared by numerous Christian circles which have for some time now even accepted as tolerable, if not normal, some of the prevailing values in the world. Values such as the love of money, the manipulation of consciences and wills, abortion, homosexuality and same-sex unions, paedophilia, international financial fraud, the theft of money intended for the poor, and so on. All of this, very often with the blessing of the example set by those who ‘command’ or ‘lead’.

—

A look at Christianity


As Christians, what would be the right thing to do regarding laws that restrict our freedoms.

This is a truly delicate, confusing and difficult time. Living in the world, it is easy to start thinking and feeling as the world does, running the risk of absorbing its mindset when approaching various situations in life.

The question we can ask ourselves as Christians is what is the right thing to do regarding laws that restrict our freedoms. In other words, is it right as believers to rebel against ‘oppressive’ laws, to protest or even just to complain about the government? Is it right to demonstrate in the streets or to dissent always and regardless? Or does our new life as citizens of the kingdom of God suggest, approve and pursue other paths?

This is a matter pertaining to the moral sphere, not the political, social, economic or religious one.

I would like to offer some of my own reflections on the matter, which have developed as Christians in various parts of the world have felt it right to make their voices heard in civil protest. For example, in recent times there have been a number of statements, including from prominent believers, who have called on members of their churches to rebel against certain laws deemed unjust, adopted during the Covid-19 emergency. They claim these laws curtail the church’s religious freedoms, which are guaranteed by the constitution. This has even led to legal battles in the courts, where some churches are asserting their right to gather and praise God, singing without protective masks.

—

History can also help us broaden our perspective on the issue at hand


Even in the ancient world, and despite the persecutions of the early centuries, Christians were known to be model citizens, respectful of the laws and established civil authorities.

For example, the Epistle to Diognetus, probably written in the second half of the 2nd century AD, mentions that

“Christians are to be distinguished from other men neither by region, nor by language, nor by customs. Indeed, they do not inhabit cities of their own, nor do they use a distinct dialect, nor do they lead a special kind of life. Their doctrine is not found in the teachings of various thinkers, nor do they adhere to a human philosophical school, as others do. Living in Greek and barbarian cities, wherever they happen to be, and adapting to local customs in dress, food and all other respects, they demonstrate a remarkable and undoubtedly paradoxical way of social life. They live in their own country, yet as strangers; they take part in everything as citizens, yet are detached from everything as foreigners. Every foreign land is their homeland, and every homeland is foreign to them. They marry like everyone else and have children, yet they do not abandon their newborns. They share a table, but not a bed. They are in the flesh, but do not live according to the flesh. They dwell on earth, but their citizenship is in heaven. They obey the established laws and by their lives transcend the laws. They love everyone, and are persecuted by everyone. They are unknown, and they are condemned. They are killed, and they come back to life. They are poor, and they make many rich. They lack everything, and they abound in everything. They are despised, and in their despising they have glory. They are reviled and proclaimed righteous. They are insulted and bless; they are mistreated and honour. Doing good, they are punished as evildoers; condemned, they rejoice as if receiving life. They are fought against by the Jews as strangers, and persecuted by the Greeks, and those who hate them cannot say why they hate them.”

The Christians of the early centuries, therefore, were known, among other things, as those who obeyed the established laws. We also know from history that they affirmed, even during the Roman persecutions, their loyalty to the state and proclaimed themselves good citizens. Like Paul, aware of the advantages that Roman citizenship entailed, he declared himself determined not to rebel against the less pleasant aspects ofobedience to the law, stating: “If I am found guilty and have done something deserving of death, I do not refuse to suffer it”.

The radical rejection of civil disobedience was particularly evident in fiscal matters, to which Christians scrupulously adhered, in accordance with the famous precept to render “unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”. There remained, however, the problem of the Christians’ refusal to worship the emperor, as their pagan fellow citizens did. This refusal, in fact, was the cause of most of the persecutions against them.

Here, historically speaking, lies a first distinction: a Christian may morally, and therefore must, disobey a law of the State if that same law imposes idolatrous behaviour upon him. A second distinction is also found in the cases recounted in Acts 4 and 5, when the Apostles refused to obey the command imposed on them by the Sanhedrin not to preach or teach in the name of Jesus. This command objectively violated the one transmitted to them by the Lord and recorded particularly in Matthew 28, Mark 16 and Acts 1.

Some might object today that a similar situation can be found in modern China, where the so-called ‘underground’ churches (that is, those not subservient to or controlled by the communist political power) meet in secret, thus ‘rightly’ violating the law that forbids them from gathering; something we know also happens in Iran, as well as in other countries. That is to say, one could argue that if the church is restricted in its “freedom” to meet, its members are right not to observe the laws imposing such a ban and to meet anyway, because otherwise they would be breaking God’s law (this aspect will be discussed later). This justifies the current call by many churches to attend community gatherings, despite the legal ban on doing so.

To this objection, however, one might counter with the legal consideration that the current ban on assembly, subject to compliance with certain health conditions, is, by its very nature, temporary, exceptional and dictated by the need to protect public health. In contrast, in the cases mentioned above, the rationale behind the laws imposing restrictions on the freedom of Christians is to prohibit the worship of God (China) or the worship of a god other than the state god (Iran), resulting in persecution, even to the point of death for those who are discovered.

—

The great deception of rebellion justified by the need for justice


A lack of hope characterises the lament of the majority in this world who are realising they have no escape and are increasingly enslaved to the evil designs of some destructive force that is indefinable and even indefinable to them. We know that it is not a force, but theDevil.

It is worth noting that, when self-awareness of one’s situation arises, it means that this is the moment when one must either change or go all the way down the path already taken. In other words, when a society is aware of its own despair, there are two possible paths: either its members individually change “world”, or they are destined to meet the same fate as the mouse within the society of which they remain a part. And to change the world means placing oneself under the rule of heaven, under the kingdom of God, given that the earthly world offers no solutions, except that of imploding in its own inherent wickedness.

It is a serious matter. The proposal is to be born again. Nicodemus too stumbled over this very proposal, even though he should have known that there was no other way to enter the kingdom of God.

It is clear that many Christians too, some of whom are so only by tradition, are lost, confused and even indignant. And it is likely that they risk ending up believing that the only possible reaction is to rush to defend their own opinions, traditions and rights, yet ending up in the maelstrom of rebellion that feeds personal justice, from which the rebellion itself draws its strength.

—

A great deception is underway. I shall try to explain it.


Many fail to see what is wrong with joining the demonstrators in the streets who, whether genuinely or for their own ends, shout “freedom! freedom!”. After all, it is true that their freedom has been severely curtailed. After all, it is true that the pandemic could have been tackled in many other ways. After all, it is true that those in power sit in their palaces making strange laws without risking anything. They’ve got their salaries! After all, we know that the governments of this world are evil.

But certain questions arise spontaneously: can one be faithful to the meek and humble Jesus and at the same time entertain the idea of civil disobedience as legitimate, if not actually practise it? Is this not a contradiction in terms? Is it not the case that when we decide to live according to the purity of our new, eternal life and experience an intimate relationship with God, we can no longer act ambiguously or in a contradictory manner that goes beyondambivalence, because our regenerated conscience would not allow it?

In truth, Scripture tells us this and the Holy Spirit attests to it in our conscience: when we are part of the kingdom of heaven, we can no longer be rebellious towards the authorities established on earth. Nor can we practise any form of civil disobedience.In fact, we live on earth as citizens of the heavenly kingdom. We know what it means to have a king. It entails obedience born of trust and filial reliance. It therefore comes naturally to us to follow with meekness those in authority on earth. Indeed, we can no longer even feel aggrieved in our earthly civil expectations. After all, in a kingdom one has only privileges, and we are no longer inclined to feel entitled to demand anything from those in authority.

Those who are not yet part of the kingdom of God do not have this frame of reference, so the most they can do, if they are acting in good faith, is to protest and hope that the uprising will lead those in power to see reason. If, on the other hand, they are not acting in good faith, but are carrying out actions designed to destabilise society and public order, then they become part of a serious manipulative act that sometimes even turns violent and vandalistic. Be that as it may, in both cases we are dealing with people who, sadly, have neither a solution nor hope.

Let’s return to the question, ‘What’s the harm?’. Many have felt unjustly deprived of their rights, others seriously threatened by the alleged disasters of an incompetent government, and still others outraged by the measures designed to destroy the economy, employment in general, family savings, the minimum subsistence level… and the social and healthcare situation is truly critical!

After all, those who are angry with the world’s system and criticise and condemn anyone holding public decision-making or executive powers think as follows: “Is it not perhaps permissible, if not even a duty, because it is morally correct, to express one’s anger and indignation at the restrictions on personal freedom introduced by the anti-Covid-19 regulations?”

Although these measures were and are temporary and exceptional in nature, one might arrive at this paradox: if Christians were to protest or rebel against the established authorities, they would ultimately find themselves defending the very same value system and thus becoming allies of, or being exploited by, political groups that are against everything and everyone, willing to destroy and obtain what they want by force (changing the government, defeating the parliamentary majority, et cetera…); or of those who, on the other hand, are truly desperate because they have lost or risk losing their jobs, health and relationships, yet do not have the Lord Jesus as the solution to all their needs, nor the strength to face life. From here, it would be a very short step indeed to approve, practise and even instigate civil disobedience—that is, to disobey the laws in force—justifying one’s behaviour by claiming that one’s rights have been infringed.

Fundamentally, society is expressing its distrust of institutions and of the actions of legitimately constituted governments, whatever their political persuasion. A sense of fear, threat and anger has now become widespread. Poverty is on the rise, and this time not only among those who were already poor but also among the so-called middle class who were doing well or reasonably well before Covid-19.

Social groups around the world have their own ways of expressing dissent: they protest and disobey, morally justifying their rebellion with indignation at the infringement of their rights. But could this ever be the hallmark of Jesus’ disciples?

How should we behave in a situation like this as faithful disciples of Jesus?

Protest in the streets, in the media, from the pulpits and within the institutions to which we have access? Make our voice heard by the state to tell it that we have a constitutional right to assemble and that therefore, Covid or no Covid, no one can stop us? Speak ill of the government, amongst ourselves and to others, complaining about the government’s handling of everything? Align ourselves with the values of civil disobedients, deniers, anti-lockdowners, no-maskers, no-social-distancers, no-testers, no-vaxxers, no-everything?

Does social outrage morally justify civil disobedience on the part of a disciple of Jesus, a trusted member of his close-knit and faithful community on earth (the church)?
I believe that for a Christian, this question, like any other moral issue, can only be answered in the Word of God. And so, let us begin a brief journey through Scripture to try to find our bearings and also to help others find theirs.

—

Jesus’ priorities


I shall begin with a general observation. Jesus said that to find peace, his followers would have to learn from him, for he was gentle and humble in heart (Matt. 11:28–30). Therefore,humility and meekness are human virtues manifested by the Lord, which his disciples too are called to develop, nurturing them in their hearts. Their behaviour in society will depend on these virtues.

Jesus clearly indicated that the humble, the meek and those persecuted for righteousness’ sake are those who would possess the kingdom of heaven and inherit the earth, according to his laws (Matt. 5:3–10). Indeed, for Jesus, the priorities upon which the very existence and life of his faithful depend are seeking to find, take hold of, understand and attain both the kingdom and the righteousness of God (Matthew 6:33).

Incidentally, Paul made it clear that, on the contrary, seeking earthly justice through laws and courts was something inappropriate, even ‘shameful’ for the Messiah’s followers. Indeed, the apostle writes that, “When one of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take them to court before the unrighteous rather than before the saints? … a brother is suing a brother, and does so before unbelievers. It is certainly a fault of yours in every way that you have lawsuits amongst yourselves. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather suffer loss? Instead, it is you who are doing wrong and causing harm; and to your own brothers, no less. Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? (from 1 Cor. 6:1–9)”.

Apart from the broader context of the quotation, it sets out a general principle suited only to the humble and meek character of which Jesus spoke: the disciple who thinks of seeking satisfaction of a right of his own (all the more so if against a ‘brother’) before civil or even religious authorities, should absolutely avoid doing so, doing better instead to suffer an injustice, to endure some harm. Indeed, for Paul, it is precisely the attempt to secure one’s civil rights that becomes a wrong or a loss simply by virtue of having been invoked.

In other words, it is the pursuit, if not the triumph, of personal justice that makes us unjust, in contrast to the justice of God that Jesus urges us to seek even to the point of suffering persecution. Paul himself went so far as to urge the Philippians that their gentleness should be known to all men, for the Lord is near (Phil. 4:5).

Therefore, to conclude this introductory reflection, in our particular case it can be summarised that humility and meekness consist in preferring to suffer an injustice or harm, rather than seeing our thirst for personal justice satisfied and our civil rights recognised.

We know, in fact, that our life and everything we need to live it depend exclusively on God’s goodness and sovereign intervention on earth (Matt. 6:25–34).

—

The Lord’s disciple and the established civil authorities


What, then, should we do if we feel that our rights have been violated by a political class and a government that we consider incapable, or inept, or “corrupt” or malicious, even though they are democratically in power by our own choice? Is it morally right to regard the established civil authorities as worthy of rebellion because of their supposed incompetence or disloyalty? And if the government were to adopt measures which, albeit only temporarily, restrict our freedoms to protect a greater good such as public health, is it morally right to oppose, protest and even disobey, invoking “justice”?

Let us read what the Holy Spirit thinks, who inspired Paul and Peter in writing the following passages:

Romans 13:1–7

1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except that which God has established, and those that exist have been established by God. 2 Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists theorder established by God. And those who resist will bring judgement upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not to be feared when one does good, but when one does evil. Do you not wish to be free from fear of theauthority? Do what is right and you will receive its approval, 4 for it serves God for your good. But if you do wrong, then be afraid, for it does not bear the sword in vain; it is indeed God’s servant to bring just punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to be subject, not only out of fear of punishment, but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For this reason, therefore, you must pay taxes, for those who are entrusted with this task are God’s servants. 7 Pay to everyone what is owed to them: to whom tax is due, pay tax; to whom duty is due, pay duty; to whom honour is due, honour; to whom respect is due, respect.


1 Timothy 2:1-4

1 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercessions and thanksgiving be made for all people, 2 for kings and all those in authority, so that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.


Titus 3:1-2

1 Remind them to be subject to the magistrates and authorities, to be obedient, ready to do every good work, 2 not to speak evil of anyone, not to be quarrelsome, but to be gentle, showing great kindness to all people.


1 Peter 2:13-17

13 Submit yourselves, for the Lord’s sake, to every human institution: to the king, as to the sovereign; 14 to the governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For this is the will of God: that, by doing good, you may silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16 Do this as free people, not using your freedom as a cover for evil, but as servants of God. 17 Honour everyone. Love your brothers and sisters. Fear God. Honour the king.


The internal limit of submission to established civil authorities

A believer’s civil disobedience is justifiable only if compliance with the laws of the state in which they live requires them to disobey God; for example, this would occur when a believing doctor were compelled to perform abortions, or when believers were forbidden to speak or teach in the name of Jesus.

Conversely, any other ‘Christian’ expression of civil disobedience is not morally permissible because its motivation would be inevitably and intrinsically selfish. Indeed, would serve only to protect or assert the private rights and interests of individuals or of social, religious or ethnic minorities to the detriment of the community or against the established government.

Consider the specific case of disobedience and protest displayed by some Christians during the Covid-19 against measures restricting personal freedom and adopted to safeguard public health requirements. In fact, invoking both the constitution of their earthly country and that of their supposed heavenly country, they consider their civil disobedience to be morally permissible on the basis of certain arguments such as the following:

– the constitution recognises freedom of assembly and freedom of religion;

– the Bible requires Christians to gather together. In this regard, 1 Cor. 14:26 is cited, which indeed exhorts us to do everything for edification ‘when you come together’. But here, the focus of the exhortation is the call to edification, not the obligation to meet in itself. On the contrary, it is clear that the passage is intended to resolve a local pastoral problem: when they met, there was disorder and vain boasting;

– the Bible commands Christians not to neglect church meetings, and in this regard Hebrews 10:24–25 is cited. But the aim of this passage is not compliance with the command to gather, but rather the exhortation to resolve a pastoral problem within the community to which the letter is addressed, namely that some were in the habit of neglecting communal gatherings, even though they were able to attend;

– consequently, it is argued that it is morally right not to comply with regulations that restrict the constitutionally guaranteed right to hold religious meetings. Indeed, the exercise of this right constitutes obedience to God, whilst disregarding it would make us rebellious towards God.

This position is, for example, supported on the basis of two accounts narrated in the Book of Acts.

In Acts 4, after healing a lame man at the temple gate known as ‘Beautiful’, Peter spoke to the people. The priests, the captain of the temple guard and some Sadducees arrived, indignant because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead, and they arrested Peter and John, putting them in prison. The next day, they gathered with the high priest Annas, Caiaphas, John, Alexander and all those of the high priests’ family; and having Peter and John brought before them, they questioned them about the healing of the lame man. Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, declared openly that the man had been healed in the name of Jesus Christ, whom these very men who were now accusing him had crucified, but whom God had raised from the dead. So they ordered them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied to them: ‘Judge for yourselves whether it is right, in the sight of God, to obey you rather than God. As for us, we cannot help but speak of the things we have seen and heard.’ Once released, they went and told the other brothers what had happened; and, with one accord, they began to pray: the place where they were gathered shook, they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they proclaimed the Word of God with boldness.

In Acts 5, following the incident involving Ananias and Sapphira and after many miracles had been performed by the apostles, the high priest and the Sadducees, filled with envy, had them imprisoned; but during the night an angel of the Lord set them free and told them to return to the temple to preach. And so they did. Then they were arrested again and brought before the Sanhedrin, where they were accused of having transgressed theorder they had already given to Peter and John in Acts 4. But Peter and the other apostles replied to them: “Judge for yourselves whether it is right, before God, to obey you rather than God,” and they began to speak to them about Jesus. It was then that the members of the Sanhedrin, clearly feeling openly defied and filled with anger, wanted to kill them; but thanks to the intervention of Gamaliel, a Pharisee of the Sanhedrin, the apostles were released with the repeated order not to speak in the name of Jesus. They, however, disregarded that order once again and continued to teach and proclaim that Jesus is the Messiah.

Certainly, the Bible offers many other stories of righteous people who refused to renounce God and his commandments, disobeying the ‘royal’ decrees of the King of Babylon and of Darius, King of the Medes and Persians.

Consider the three young men whom King Nebuchadnezzar had thrown into a blazing furnace because they had refused to worship the statue representing him. The three did not try to free themselves from the unjust sentence, but told the king that their God would deliver them and that even if this did not happen, they would never violate the first and second commandments of Yah. And so the fire did not burn the three young men, but rather those who had thrown them into the furnace (Dan. 3).

And what of Daniel, who ended up in the lions’ den for having prayed to his God instead of obeying a royal decree that forbade it, requiring that petitions and prayers be addressed only to King Darius? That decree was obtained through theinsistence of certain leaders of the land who were envious of Daniel; yet, when he was thrown into the den, he did not utter a word. He made no attempt to defend himself. Well, miraculously, the lions did not devour Daniel, but rather his accusers, who, by the King’s order, were then thrown into the lions’ den (Dan. 6).

In all these great stories, the protagonists refused to obey men rather than God, for otherwise they would have violated the Lord’s commands. Yet none of them rebelled against established earthly authority. They entrusted their defence and salvation to the God they served and awaited His mighty intervention. Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit as he answered; an angel opened the prison for all the apostles; a fourth man (resembling a heavenly figure) was seen in the fire with the three young men, and the lions’ mouths did not open upon Daniel.

In the first of the two cases recounted in the Book of Acts, the other believers simply waited for the return of Peter and John. They did not organise protest marches. They did not make their voices heard in the halls of power. In the second instance, no one tried to approach the Sanhedrin, or Gamaliel himself, to persuade him to defend the apostles, by promising ‘political’ loyalty or threatening rebellion. Nor did Daniel lift a finger, and the three young men in the furnace said it was better to die than to sin.

I see no parallels between the biblical stories recounted above and the current events surrounding Covid-19. Which of the Lord’s commandments would we be breaking if we were to comply with the emergency laws that are gradually being adopted? In what way would we be sinning if, even for a short while, we had to endure not being able to meet in person with our brothers and sisters? In Acts 5, before being released, the apostles were flogged. Instead of protesting that their rights had been violently trampled upon, they went away rejoicing that they had been found worthy to suffer insult for the sake of Jesus’ name!!

Conversely, one might cite the example of Jesus who, in his indignation, overturned the money-changers’ tables in the temple and drove out all the merchants (John 2 and Matthew 21).

That is to say, justifying ‘Christian’ civil disobedience on the grounds that the Lord himself would have acted out his righteous anger by breaking the temple rules and rebelling against the status quo of religious power. But, on closer inspection, the Messiah’s indignation was caused by the fact that, as Jesus himself told them, the merchants, money-changers and priests had turned his Father’s house into a marketplace (John 2:16) and a den of thieves. It was zeal for the house of God that led him to act to restore the Lord’s justice in the place dedicated to him (John 2:17 and Ps. 69:4). The priests had jurisdiction over the temple and dictated its rules of operation. But they had not been chosen by the people. They had been chosen by God, who selected the house of Levi from among the 12 tribes of Israel for His service. And it was God himself, who came to earth in human form and was called Yeshua among and for mankind, who told the priests he had appointed that they had transgressed the commandments he had given to their ancestors in his time. In other words, they had failed in their task, and this was being told to them by the One who had appointed them and who was the master of the house!

The comparison, therefore, would be rather bold and does not stand up to scrutiny. Otherwise, we would have to regard God as a prime minister or a president of our times and Yeshua as a revolutionary rebelling against an unjust centre of earthly power. Jesus was the King of the Jews (John 19:19) and at that moment was re-establishing his rules in his own house, situated amongst his people. I consider it rather inappropriate to use Jesus’ indignation as a justification for those who today wish to ‘overthrow the government, the rules…’ in the name of Jesus himself: by distorting the meaning of the Lord’s holy indignation, one risks promoting the approval of personal justice by those driven by zeal for the protection of their civil rights rather than God’s justice.

—

Jesus and ‘unjust’ laws


Jesus found himself in situations where he could have reacted to social injustice with protest or civil disobedience. Yet his example points in the completely opposite direction.

For example, whilst in Jerusalem shortly before being betrayed and killed, the chief priests, the scribes and the elders, who had been publicly confronted and rebuked by Yeshua in the temple, sought to arrest him. They sent a coalition of Herodians and Pharisees, who would never have got along with one another. The Herodians, in fact, were politically aligned with the Romans. The Pharisees, on the other hand, in the name of God, were opposed to the Romans as foreign and pagan oppressors. However, united by their common hatred of the Messiah, they went to catch him out in his speech and find grounds to accuse him. “They … said to him, ‘Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and that you show no partiality, for you do not regard the appearance of people, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful, or not, to pay the tax to Caesar? Should we pay it or not?’ But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, ‘Why are you testing me? Bring me a denarius, that I may see it.’ They brought it to him, and he said to them, ‘Whose image and inscription is this?’ They said to him, ‘Caesar’s.’ Then Jesus said to them, ‘Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s’. And they marvelled at him” (Mark 12:14–17).

Is it socially just to pay taxes to the established civil authority? Is it right even if the taxes are so high as to nullify the efforts of those who work honestly? Would it not be right, instead, to disobey and refuse to pay? Or to evade taxation by concealing one’s income?

How relevant these questions are to us today. How many Christians today might claim that, if high taxes prevent you from having what is rightfully yours, it is morally right not to pay them! But if that were the case, civil disobedience in the tax sphere (evasion, avoidance and so on) would become one of the ways of asserting individual rights and freedoms against the oppression of the enemy, which is the usual ‘thieving’ government!

But what did Yeshua say? Well, after asking his interrogators whose image and inscription were on the coins, he said: ‘Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.’ And the Pharisees and Herodians? They simply ‘marvelled at him’.

Paul himself took up this theme, telling the Roman believers to be subject “to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except that which God has established, and those that exist have been established by God … Therefore it is necessary to be subject … even for reasons of conscience. For this reason, therefore, you must pay taxes, because those who are dedicated to this task are God’s servants. Give to everyone what is due to them: to whom tribute is due, tribute; to whom taxes are due, taxes; to whom fear is due, fear; to whom respect is due, respect” (from Rom. 13:1–7).

There was also a different situation in which Jesus found himself faced with another tax, this time due to the temple. We are in Capernaum. Those who collected the annual half-shekel tax due to the temple treasury for the maintenance of worship approached Peter. This tax was to be paid by every Israelite aged twenty and over. They asked Peter whether their teacher intended to pay that tax. Peter said yes, but “when he had gone into the house, Jesus spoke to him first and said, ‘What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect tribute or tax? From their own children or from foreigners?’ ‘From foreigners,’ Peter replied. Jesus said to him, ‘Then the children are exempt. But, so as not to scandalise them, go to the sea, cast your hook and take the first fish that comes up. Open its mouth: you will find a stater. Take it, and give it to them for me and for you’” (from Matthew 17:24–27).

In this case, the legislative source was not Roman or in any case temporal, but biblical. The tax was due according to Exodus 30:11–16 and 38:26, and there are some points to consider:

– The rabbis were exempt from paying this tax, as were the priests in Jerusalem. The tax collectors asked whether Jesus too would claim such an exemption, and the question implied that he paid regularly, as Peter also thought.

– Jesus, however, said he was not obliged to pay this tax, not because he was a rabbi or a priest, but because he was the son of the one to whom the worship financed by the tax was directed. Indeed, kings do not collect taxes from their own children, but from foreigners.

– Nevertheless, Jesus recognised theimportance of avoiding unnecessary controversy in order to assert his privilege. He therefore declared himself willing to pay the tax, but only so as not to offend those who collected it, not because it was right to demand the king’s tribute from the king’s own son.

– Therefore, Jesus said it would be inappropriate to set a bad example and urged Peter to go further, even to suffer an injustice, in order to show others the path of meekness to follow.

– This ‘going further’ was this: once we are willing to suffer an injustice so as not to cause a scandal, God intervenes and miraculously provides Jesus with the money needed to pay the tax for both Jesus and Peter.

– It is not every day that someone catches a fish and removes a coin from its mouth. But Jesus trusted in the Father’s providence to pay his taxes.

As Spurgeon, the famous 19th-century English preacher, said: “Thus the great Son pays the tax levied for his Father’s house; yet in doing so he exercises his royal prerogative and takes the shekel from the royal treasury. As a man he pays, but first, as God, he causes the fish to bring the shekel in its mouth.”

Once again, the words of Paul written in his letter to the Romans echo, where he reminds the believers in Rome that God wants everyone to be given what is due to them by law. Just as his words resound when, on the basis of the principle put into practice by Jesus in theepisode of the temple tax, he reminds the members of the church in Corinth not to give cause for offence to Jews, Greeks or the church of God. Paul himself says of himself that he pleases everyone in everything, seeking not his own advantage but that of the many, so that they may be saved (from 1 Corinthians 10:32-33).
/a
—

There is no room for personal justice in a disciple of Jesus


It is clear that there is no room for personal justice. There is no room for asserting one’s rights. Better to suffer an injustice than to set a bad example.

I would like to recall another episode in which we can appreciate the humble and meek attitude of the Messiah’s followers. It is recounted in Acts 12. After having James, the brother of John, put to death, Herod imprisons Peter, intending to kill him after Passover. “But fervent prayers were being offered to God for him by the church” (Acts 12:5). The night before Peter was to be brought before the people, miraculously an angel of the Lord set him free and led him out of prison: chains falling of their own accord from his hands, guards seeing nothing of what was happening, doors opening of their own accord, and Peter walking out unhindered into the street! Aware of the situation, Peter went straight to the house of a certain “Mary, the mother of John, also called Mark, where many of the brothers were gathered in prayer” (Acts 12:12). He told them what had happened and asked them to pass the news on to the others. Then he went to hide elsewhere.

What did the disciples do in the face ofinjustice of the established authority? They prayed! Many of them, gathered together in a house. They did not protest in the streets. They would have been killed. They did not organise a rebellion, for they would have fought the world with the world’s weapons. But they offered fervent prayers, gathering in large numbers in the homes of some of them.

A lesson they must have learnt from the Lord, particularly from the event that follows. And this is perhaps the most eloquent of all those I have mentioned above.

Jesus appeared before Pilate, who said to him: “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus replied: ‘Are you saying this of your own accord, or have others told you about me?’ Pilate replied, ‘Am I a Jew? Your own people and the chief priests have handed you over to me; what have you done?’ Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight, so that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not from here.’ Then Pilate said to him, ‘So you are a king?’ Jesus replied, ‘You say so; I am a king; I was born for this, and for this I came into the world: to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.’ Pilate said to him, ‘What is truth?’ (John 18:33–38).

Before the established authorities and before the wicked who have trampled on his freedom as a man and handed him over to Pilate to be put to death on a false charge, Jesus does not fight with the weapons of the world to defend his right to life. He simply states that he does not intend to do so becausehe is King, but that his kingdom is not of this world and that in his kingdom people live differently. Otherwise, his followers would have fought to prevent him from being handed over to the Jews, perhaps referring to his arrest in Gethsemane, where Peter did indeed attempt a sort of armed resistance, but which Jesus nipped in the bud, rebuking Peter himself.

The Lord’s meekness is not a pretence that injustice does not exist. Rather, it stems from the conscious and deliberate limitation of his sovereign power. So it is for those who are born again.

Whoever belongs to the kingdom of God and is a citizen thereof is a son of the King and an ambassador of his Lord. And, as Jesus did, they do not fight the world with the world’s weapons. But they entrust their fate to God, waiting for him to fulfil his plans and to stir up the will and action even within the world’s established authorities.

The faithful of King Jesus are like him: meek and humble, they live to see God’s justice established and for this they are also persecuted. They do not cause offence. They pray and work for peace and justice, even in earthly political spheres, but acting in accordance with the culture of the kingdom to which they belong and which, at the same time, belongs to them.

Prayer is not a means for us to obtain from God what we want. Rather, prayer is the means by which we become instruments for God so that He may fulfil His will on earth as it is in heaven (Derek Prince).

The meek are not passive. They are simply prudent and merciful people who have made God’s priorities their own in their lives. Paul exhorted Timothy, telling him that he wanted ‘supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings … for all those in authority, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceful life in all godliness and dignity. This is a good thing and well-pleasing in the sight of God our Saviour,  who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth’ (1 Timothy 2:1–4).

In other words, the Holy Spirit urges us through Paul to ask God to grant us good earthly government, so that:

– we may live peacefully, serenely, with dignity and free to worship God;

– the government itself may enact laws that do not prevent the truth from reaching everyone for their salvation.

The purpose of our prayer is not to preserve our subjective rights, our constitutional freedoms or our interests, but to keep the world’s path open to God’s purposes for all people.

Paul also urged this upon the Colossians when he asked them: “Pray also for us at the same time, that God may open a door for the word, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in prison, and that I may make it known, speaking of it as I ought.” (Colossians 4:3-4).

And to the Thessalonians, he asked them to pray for him and for those with him, that “the word of the Lord may spread rapidly and be honoured, just as it is among you, and that we may be delivered from wicked and evil men, for not everyone has faith” (2 Thessalonians 3:1-2).

God has the power to direct rulers and every established earthly authority according to his purposes. And for this reason, he needs the kingdom of priests that has been formed on earth to act according to the principles of his kingdom and not according to those of this world.

If we pay our taxes, God has the power to bring the necessary resources to us. Peter found them in a fish.

If we pray for the government, whatever happens, the doors to the preaching of the word of truth will never be closed and, along the way, we will be delivered from wicked and troublesome men who have no faith. Peter was miraculously led out of prison by an angel.

So, to disapprove of everything the government does, criticising those in power, protesting even publicly, and joining forces with those who lack faith to assert needs deemed common, reduces us to holding and advocating their very values: rebellion, personal justice, individualism, and mistrust of everything and everyone.

The point is that if, as is true, YHWH is God and is the one true God and there are no other gods apart from him, then he rules the universe and bends to his will whomever he wishes, whenever he wishes and however he wishes.

Consider Nebuchadnezzar, the mighty Babylonian king who for a time had the known world at his feet. God humbled him. He told him that in reality he was nobody and that he would live like an animal, as though without reason. This actually happened. His kingdom was taken from him for a time, and when this period ended, the king, having come to his senses, recognised the one true God who has “the power to humble all who walk in pride”, and his kingdom was restored to him. Of course, God brought about this powerful transformation also through the collaboration of some of his heroes: the three young men whom the king himself had thrown into the furnace, and Daniel, who, by supernatural power, had explained to the king the dream that was tormenting him.

On earth, the Lord has chosen to act by working with men, choosing from among them those who respond to his call to holiness. This, then, is what it means: that what his people permit on earth is permitted by God; what they forbid on earth, God forbids.

Protesting against the wicked or incompetent rulers of this world and rebelling against their laws by disobeying them brings no solution. I believe that civil liberties are not safeguarded in defiance of the established authorities, just as, for that matter, a discontented, confused and fearful non-believer might do, seeking only to assert his freedom and rights on this earth.

—

We are a kingdom of priests


Today’s challenge is great: as never before, we are called to take a stand so that we may be found aligned with divine action on earth.

It is time for the ‘kingdom of priests’ that God has formed on earth to begin functioning with the awareness that we are channels of the Lord’s authority and power, so that His will may be done on earth as it is in heaven and His kingdom may come, just as it is in heaven.

It is time for us to exercise our royal priesthood because we are a kingdom of priests. By the way, did you know that?

We are a chosen race because, in the new creation, we are spiritually descended from Jesus, the firstborn among the resurrected. We are a holy nation because we live in a special, unique way, different from that of everyone else. Our values do not change. Our purpose is written in heaven, and our potential can manifest it on earth. We are called to reign spiritually in life and influence the nations by opening spiritual channels of power so that the Lord may advance His kingdom.

It is now clear that the time for political and cultural battles, philosophical influences, social gospels and pharisaical rebukes couched in the language of theologies and doctrines. The conflict is already purely spiritual and will increasingly become a battle of power.

The Lord Jesus clearly said that the world would go from bad to worse (Matt. 24: 4–14; Lk. 21:8–19), but that in the darkness destined to grow ever darker, his faithful disciples and apostles would shine ever more brightly (Mt. 5:14–16). It is precisely in the darkness that light is needed, and when everything goes wrong, we can switch on the turbo of the kingdom of God (Isa. 58:6–12). It comes as no surprise to those who live for the Lord and for his kingdom to see that civil society is falling apart. Jesus said this would happen with increasing intensity and frequency, with events that would shake even the most stable systems. Do not misunderstand me. I am not a pessimist. I simply believe that what the Bible says is the truth and that we who are already in the kingdom of God will not be overwhelmed by the world and its corruption. We remain steadfast, for we have built our earthly dwelling on the rock, with deep foundations (Matt. 7:24–27; Luke 6: 46–49). On the Messiah and His Word. On His covenant and His eternal kingdom. Whilst the world grows ever worse, God will provide for us, for He has called us to reign in the life we now have on this earth, to make a difference by shining with our light. We shall never lack anything we need to fulfil our task (Ps. 23:1; Matt. 6:33). Our kingdom, the kingdom of heaven, which is already within us and among us, is never shaken by anything. It does not crumble, it does not decay, it does not lack resources. In our kingdom, trust in the King never fails because he is faithful and just, and he is the only authority who decides everything always and solely for the good of all. In this kingdom, we always hope and endure all things in view of the things that are yet to come. Even if we were to suffer persecution, and even if some were to be persecuted unto death, we know that all will be for the glory of God as we await the return of the King of kings and Lord of lords, whilst the certainty of the resurrection remains firm in our hearts.

In the kingdom of heaven we have the innate ability to stand firm in faith, so that God’s will may be done on earth as it is in heaven. We are not made to speak negatively, to criticise, to condemn, to become discouraged, to give in to fear, and to destroy everything with our tongues and our hands. We are the faithful of the King of thewho can take up their position of victory.

Some are deterred by the media’s negative reporting. The fact is that it is often impossible to know what is actually happening. The truth about the circumstances we only hear about is multifaceted and always veiled by false denials. But God is sovereign, and we are called to pray ‘spiritually’, not ‘politically’ according to the world. That is to say, we are not called to ask God for one party, a man or an earthly ideal over another, but that God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven. As the church of Yeshua, we are above earthly affairs, yet at the same time we are in the world. Jesus prayed to the Father not to take us out of the world, but to keep us from the evil one. Indeed, if you take the light out of the darkness, who will be able to see the path to walk upon? And if it is not we, through our lives, who reveal God’s power and how heaven views every circumstance on earth, how can those who are still distracted attribute the good that happens on the planet to God or glimpse the hope of the ‘Spirit’s’ way that leads to peace, the true one (Matt. 5:14–16)?

Yeshua’s death secured for us the forgiveness of sins. Through his resurrection, we have received eternal life. Through his ascension, we have been given spiritual authority over every government of this world. With the coming of the Holy Spirit, we have been given the power to bear witness throughout the world to Yeshua, the sovereign King of kings. Therefore, we are directly involved in the heavenly governance of the earth, through which Yah can frustrate the plans of the nations and bring the designs of the peoples to nothing (Ps. 33:10). Let it be clear that I am not saying we should not concern ourselves with earthly politics, if that is our calling. But, even in that case, we can only engage in it by knowing who we are and why we are involved.

The values we serve do not change. They are those of our Father, not those of the world, however appealing or similar to our own they may be. Wherever we are and whatever earthly role we are fulfilling, let us pray that the kingdom of heaven may come on earth as it is in heaven and (Matt. 6:10) on our planet, in the specific circumstances for which we pray, may God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven. And let us act accordingly.

The citizens of God’s kingdom do not always know exactly what is happening. They know who they are, what their position is and what their potential is, who they are, what their position is and what their potential is, and from whom and where they come. They know where they are going. They know the end from the beginning, but not the details of the path to get there. Some, like faithful watchmen who discern the signs of the times and spiritual dangers, have the special task of warning of the lack of a sincere return to God. Others have the task to strengthen the members of Yeshua’s church so that their courage may not fail, and wherever they are, they may proclaim the truth and pray with authority and power for circumstances to change. I repeat, we do not know exactly what is happening in the world today, but we have the potential to pray that God’s will be done on earth and to act accordingly. Let us place our trust in this great truth! Let us believe that God will act as He has promised: let us place our trust in God, let us rely on Him, and He will act (Psalm 37: 5)! Let us remain faithful to the King of kings, and where we have room for manoeuvre through concrete actions, let us act according to our conscience and the laws of our kingdom; for it is God, in fact, who, according to his benevolent designs, inspires us regarding the decisions to be made and the actions to be taken. And God is faithful!

We may form an opinion on what is happening at this precise moment in history, but what use is that if we do not know whether it is the right one? After all, “the plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer comes from God” (Prov. 16:1). As ambassadors of God’s kingdom on earth, we are charged with speaking and acting in accordance with the will of the heavenly government we represent, in order to reconcile people with God.

As his diplomats and representatives in a foreign land, here where we are we can open a spiritual channel to heaven, so that through our lives the Holy Spirit may manifest the Father’s will on earth. Heavenly wisdom, in fact, teaches us to entrust our activities to God, and our plans will succeed (Prov. 16:3).

Whoever is ready to deny themselves for the sake of God’s kingdom is today a witness to the Lord’s resurrection and will be a witness to his triumphant return.

Those who lose themselves in the whirlpools of rebellion, lured by a sense of personal justice, risk missing the train of the Kingdom that is passing by and boarding the train of anarchy instead.

There has been a shift in the heavens. And consequently, we are seeing it on earth. Perhaps it will not be our generation that witnesses the Lord’s return. But it could be our children’s generation; and this is the hope we can leave them as a legacy.

 

 

 

 

Share on WhatsApp