Quote:
Originally Posted by rbcbob  Do I understand that you actually approve a subordinate official rebelling against a superior official? How can that be allowed in light of the Word of God? |
Yes, I actually approve of that.
The problem with simplisitic prima facie readings of Scripture is that one quickly absolutizes things to the "insaneth" degree. Take for example Ephesians 5:24... Wives are told to submit to their husbands "in everything." Really? Absolutely EVERYTHING? After all, isn't the word "EVERYTHING" absolute in its comprehensiveness? But as we both know (at least I hope we BOTH know...) there are other things that have to factor into how we interpret this passage.
The same is true in regards to submitting to rulers. Since all human authority/submission commandments stem from the 5th Commandment, I think this is a decent example...
If a FATHER is brutally abusing the son or daughter, does the MOTHER have the right - the duty, perhaps - to rise up and defend the child in defiance against her husband, the head of the house, the "greater ruler?" Both are rulers in the home, though the mother is the "lesser."
What if the father is brutalizing the mother? Can the children - the ones who owe obedience and honor to both "rulers in the home" - legitimately use force to defend their mother in defiance against their father?
I say yes in both cases. In neither case does being the "greater ruler" in the home give him the absolute right to brutalize with impunity.
Since both governmental and parenting authority/submission relationships flow from the 5th Commandment, I believe that this example would hold true at the governmental/citizenry level as well.
As to why Paul didn't write about rebelling... well, it was probably for the same reason that he didn't write against slavery or any other social issue.