It is the New Testament that people most commonly and directly distort to persuade themselves that eternal torture could be just (for refutation, see Deuteronomy 25:1-3, Matthew 10:28, Luke 12:47-48, John 3:16, Romans 6:23, Revelation 20:11-15, and many more), that wives should submit to husbands but not also the other way around (see Genesis 1:26-27, 2:24, 5:1-2, 1 Corinthians 7:2-5, Ephesians 5:21; also of relevance is Deuteronomy 24:5), and so on. Likewise, it is the New Testament that is most easily misinterpreted at times to prescribe submission to all or almost all governments. However, if it did teach such things, by strict logical necessity and according to other Biblical doctrines as will be demonstrated, this aspect of the New Testament would be false, as well as evil by the standards of the more foundational parts of the Bible. In 1 Peter 2, there are verses that might seem to call for such a thing. I, as a rationalist, have no difficulty in recognizing that if the author actually means exactly what they say in the following and surrounding verses, they are philosophically wrong, and this does not render all else in Biblical Christianity false:
1 Peter 2:13-14, 17--"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and commend those who do right . . . Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor."
After these words, Peter then makes statements about slaves submitting to even evil masters, which I will address in a subsequently scheduled post. Though 1 Peter 2:13-17 does not inherently exclude lack of submission to unjust political hierarchies--not merely institutions that try to force people to sin (such as by demanding that a person murder someone), but that are unjust in any manner--the verses about submission of slaves to masters do specify that even distinctively evil masters are in view. This illuminates 1 Peter 2:13-14. Just as is true in very particular ways regarding slaves, this would contradict the rest of the Torah and, more foundationally, reason itself regarding governments, since submitting to evil could not possibly be obligatory. An unjust or irrational regime, to the extent that it is unjust or irrational, cannot deserve honor and submission. It would deserve to be fought and overpowered--but not by yet another tyrant, which would likewise be in violation of reason and morality. At best, submission to evil people, whoever they are, could be good but optional, or beyond what is required (supererogatory). Now, perhaps good and evil exist, and perhaps not. Either is possible and neither can be proven. Regardless, it is a contradiction for it to be morally required to submit to evil people. Since the Bible has a great deal of evidence in its favor, its moral teachings elsewhere are vital, and they absolutely are not consistent with default submission to government.
Some people might imagine that Deuteronomy 17:8-12's prescription of respect is applicable to all judges and those higher than them. However, this passage from Deuteronomy 17 is exclusively about submitting to authorities who act according to actual moral obligations, which in the Judeo-Christian worldview are detailed in the Torah laws. For disregarding their pronouncements in alignment with true justice, the penalty is death, which would logically and Biblically apply to any ruler or official; Deuteronomy 17:12 alone already requires this, in addition to basic logical consistency, as well as Deuteronomy 17:18-20. Submission is not owed to people for having power or if they misuse it. See Exodus 21:26-27 and Deuteronomy 23:15-16 for examples of statements affirming this with slaves, whom Peter contrarily encourages or commands, depending on his intended meaning, to submit to injustice. Also, the crimes and punishments addressed in the Torah, as well as what follows from them by logically necessary extension, are universally binding according to both Testaments (Leviticus 18:24-28, 20:22-24, Deuteronomy 4:5-8, 12:29-31, 18:9-13, Psalm 19:7, Matthew 5:17-19, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, Hebrews 2:2, etc.) except for logically necessary exceptions, like how a Levitical priest's child cannot be burned for prostitution if there is no active priesthood (Leviticus 21:9).
Any deviant governing body would thus be in the wrong by Biblical standards and deserve opposition. Ironically, the Acts narrative describes Peter himself as pushing back against submission to those with political power when they tell him not to promote commitment to Jesus (4:18-19, 5:27-30). A more common but logically and Biblically invalid (according to the moral ideas prescribed by Yahweh himself) is that unless there is direct pressure for you to personally commit a clear sin like theft, you should obey the arbitrary laws and instructions of political figures in your time and region--as if conflicting laws in different countries could simultaneously be correct anyway! It is not sinful to not own a bicycle, or an R-rated film, or some other objectively permissible thing on real Judeo-Christianity. Nowhere are such things condemned directly or by extension. The only reason some think otherwise is due to subjective persuasion/feelings and appeals to other pseudo-Christians or tradition. What if a government forced people to own something like a bicycle?
As if what does and does not logically follow from what is stated in the Torah is not clear enough to rational people (and this does not require that they are Christians), Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 do say to not add or subtract from God's commands. The exact aforementioned instructions from Deuteronomy are unnecessary to recognize this because if something is permissible but not obligatory, each person has the right to do as he or she pleases concerning the matter without sinning in the process. Any government that prohibits what is permissible or forces what is not obligatory is unjust. Criminalizing public nudity (contrary to Genesis 2:25, Exodus 22:26-27, Deuteronomy 4:2, and more), enforcing exact speed limits when there is no danger to pedestrians or other drivers because none are present (see Exodus 21:28-32, Leviticus 19:16, and Deuteronomy 22:8 for relevant verses), and so on is Biblically unjust. No one could possibly be obligated to submit to such laws according to Biblical doctrines. What is permissible does not become mandatory or evil because a government acts otherwise.
Disobedience to a government logically and Biblically depends wholly on whether that body is in the right in a given matter. Also, not every situation involving an irrational or immoral government involves forcing people to do something evil or imposing mere social constructs or subjective whims. What about a situation where a ruler does not force compliance with his or her petty wishes one way or another but is still evil? Suppose they declare themself a god but do not force any worship to be directed towards them. Even in isolation, Deuteronomy 13 would be clear in its ramifications for this scenario, which involve not just refusal to share in their sin, but active hostility to the point of unflinchingly killing them:
Deuteronomy 13:6-10--"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, 'Let us go and worship other gods' (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death . . ."
Of great importance is the focus placed on the siblings, children, and spouses of those enticed to worship other gods. By extension, a person's parents are necessarily included in this obligation. While unlisted, they are still biological family, which is given no more protection from death by stoning than those outside the family, which is none at all. Without such emphasis on family members not being shielded, it would still be true that if enticing someone else to worship anything besides Yahweh, real or imagined, merits capital punishment, then this should be inflicted even by someone on their own father or mother. As Deuteronomy states more than once (see the complementary verses Deuteronomy 17:2-7), including in this very excerpt, the witnesses's hands must be the first to hurl a stone at them; this is not the same as attacking them or intentionally physically harming them in another context outside of self-defense (Exodus 21:15).
Not even the broad obligation to honor one's father and mother (Exodus 20:12) overrides the moral necessity, according to the Bible, of aiding in the killing of one's own parents when they commit a capital sin and you are a witness, perhaps the victim. Now, your parents brought you into existence, but the governing body did not. One's father and mother are thus, in the Judeo-Christian worldview, morally owed a special respect that is not obligatory towards other general authority figures. If fathers and mothers, who are singled out as deserving respect and perhaps varying degrees of submission (based upon their instructions, not their genders, I mean!), there would certainly be no exception, stated or logically necessitated, for governing officials. It would also be true that enticement to worship other gods being a capital sin, wholly apart from Deuteronomy 13's specific emphasis on not regarding family differently, still would require not shielding political figures. It would also situationally require you throwing the first stone.
The monarch (or by logical equivalence any other "supreme" political leader) is as already stated in fact to explicitly not be above the Law (Deuteronomy 17:18-20), as would have to be the case if a legal system and regime truly are in the moral right. An immoral deed should by nature never be done, no matter who carries it out. A ruling political power simply has no true authority unless it is in alignment with reason and morality, if the latter exists. Egoistic and otherwise irrationalistic leaders cannot deserve submission by logical necessity, since logic is inherently true and all else hinges on it, so even accidental correctness in the midst of assumptions and egoism is still stupidity because a person is not looking to objective reason. Unjust leaders could not deserve submission for the additional reason that if morality exists, and thus the capacity for actual injustice by deviating from it, they have forfeited any right to be as much as regarded highly as leaders.
Deuteronomy goes beyond agreement with such facts and mandates putting people to death without any respect for who they are societally (16:20). No one is to be spared, not even a monarch. It cannot be true that putting a monarch or other ruler to death does not entail rising up against them, which 1 Peter 2:13-14 combined with 18-19 would seeming to teach against on their own! Therefore, for many reasons, Peter, or the author of 1 Peter 2, sets himself up against reason and the Torah. As with slaves and submission, if sincere, Peter is objectively wrong logically (not that morality necessarily exists, but if it does, evil people cannot deserve submission) and according to the foundational moral tenets of the Old Testament--moral prescriptions that his philosophy must be consistent with to even possibly be tied to the same God--unless he does not mean his words in a strictly literal sense. The only two possibilities, besides something improbable such as these verses being added in by a later heretical copyist or Peter meaning something else entirely because words have no inherent meaning, are that Peter contradicts reason and the Torah or that he only means that submission is supererogatory. In the next part, I will explore how the context of 1 Peter does ultimately point to the latter.
No comments:
Post a Comment