John 19:11 And Theonomy

The Bible is not unclear about God's demands on human government.  Political and legal infrastructures are not neglected issues!  I've still seen a lot of people in my life hold that people should generally submit to their governments as they are, even citing Scriptural passages like Romans 13 or John 19:11 as Biblical confirmation that God has little to no objective instructions for all governments and that citizens of practically all regimes are objectively obligated to submit to them, sometimes going as far as to say that no objective universal standard of criminal justice exists and that human governments are free to rule as they see fit, according to their own conceptions of justice.

No, Romans 13 does not teach that governments have innate authority to do and punish as they please, but I have addressed that elsewhere [1].  I've dismantled the asinine and morally horrendous claim that the thieves on the cross, or by extension those crucified by Rome other than Jesus, deserved such wicked tortures [2], another thing I've only seen defended by those who claim that governments have innate authority simply by being governing political bodies.  I've proven logically and philosophically that morality is not invented by or changed by any era of time or society, as it exists grounded in God's nature and God must reveal moral information to us for us to have moral knowledge [3].  In short, I have already established the conclusion which I will affirm yet again here.

What of John 19:10-11?  I will quote them here.


John 19:10-11--"'Do you refuse to speak to me?' Pilate said.  'Don't you realize I have the power either to free you or to crucify you?'  Jesus answered, 'You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above.'"


Is Jesus condoning Roman ideas of "justice"?  Is he endorsing crucifixion and Roman legal customs?  Jesus is saying that God could easily emove all of Pilate's alleged "authority", not that God approves of the Roman legal and political system, with its nationalism, racism, and heinously unbiblical forms of torture, to name just three grave sins of the Roman Empire.  Yahweh cannot endorse what contradicts his moral nature.  To say that John 19:11 means God condoned Rome is to say that God was not vehemently opposed to a system of oppression, tyranny, and discrimination based upon a worldview of arrogance and militarism, all things which his own Law condemns directly.

A government that treats foreigners as if they do not have the same human rights as nationals (Exodus 22:21, 23:9, Leviticus 24:22), that uses illicit forms of torture meant to wholly degrade and maliciously inflict as much artificially prolonged agony as possible in the name of "justice" (Deuteronomy 25:1-3), that preys on other civilizations with its malevolent imperialistic militarism--and that later persecutes Christians and demands its emperors be worshipped as deities--does not have moral authority because it is both out of alignment with the only objective moral obligations that exist (those which correspond to God's nature and are revealed in Scripture) and is practicing some of the worst evils condemned by the Bible.

If a leader is obligated to act in a certain way--and Scripture is clear in Mosaic Law that leaders are not to act as tyrants, discriminate against people because of their ethnicity or gender, authorize any tortures beyond the limited range prescribed in the Bible, receive worship as if they are gods or goddesses, or engage in militaristic behaviors--and that leader instead rules as a tyrannical, oppressive, malevolent, unjust figure, then that leader is not abiding by the only obligations that could make him or her a ruler with any moral authority.  Such rulers have no right to be called or treated as if they are just or good; government does not decide what is just or good [1], as God reveals these things.

No human social leader has authority in himself or herself.
Apart from alignment with God's moral nature, a ruler simply
imposes one arbitrary value judgment instead of a different
one.

God does not want people to submit to a regime like Rome that practices tyranny, murder, rape, illicit slavery, emperor worship, illicit tortures, militarism, racism, and sexism.  He already revealed what a just society will do to those who murder and rape and abduct--the penalty is death in all cases (Exodus 21:12-14; Deuteronomy 22:25-27; Exodus 21:16).  If God prescribed this response and his moral nature does not change (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17), then how could he protect the reign of tyrants and instead condemn those who resist tyranny for opposing what is intrinsically evil?  Anyone who disputes these truths must hold to the Biblically impossible position that God was more concerned with telling first century men and women to tolerate tyranny and injustice than he was with actually ending the blasphemies, sexual violences, wicked military campaigns, and immoral tortures of the era.  They must embrace an absurdity which teaches that it is morally good to tolerate moral evil.

God already revealed his prescriptions for how to handle these depravities.  Only the objective morality grounded in God's nature and revealed in Scripture has authority; no other moral claim can.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/11/romans-13-and-reconstructionism.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/we-are-getting-what-our-deeds-deserve.html

[3].  See here:
A.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-illusionary-guidance-of-natural-law.html
B.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-nature-of-conscience.html