In the first part of this series we dissected the increasingly popular but errant misreading of Romans 13 and its complementary passage, 1st Peter 2 — a misreading which has served as a theological bulwark for cowards and collaborators alike. We have demonstrated, line by line, that the Apostles do not advocate for unconditional subservience to the civil authorities. Rather, they outline the moral terms under which civil authority is to be obeyed. In this concluding essay, we will trace this understanding through redemptive history and the testimony of the Church, showing that godly resistance to tyranny is not only permitted — it is often required.
There are few passages in Scripture more damning of this insidious form of political idolatry than Psalm 94 (emphasis mine):
20 Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?
21 They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood.
— Psalm 94:20-21 KJV
As the rest of the Psalm elucidates for us, verse twenty is a rhetorical question in which the answer is an emphatic NO. Indeed, it is a particularly sanctimonious kind of villain that walks into a courtroom with polished shoes and statute in hand, ready to despoil the innocent. What the Psalmist plainly describes here is wickedness not in spite of human laws, but through them. Indeed, wicked rulers have ever sought to codify their evils into the so called law (which, as we have discussed previously, is truly no law at all.)
Now a comprehensive theology of government — its purpose, scope, and proper function — is a vast and worthy endeavor. It lies, in some respects, beyond the immediate frame of this essay. Yet we must establish at least one immovable premise upon which all legitimate government rests: that is, that the protection of the innocent is the core and non-negotiable duty of the magistrate. Strip that away, and its legitimacy crumbles.
