Calibrated Resistance: A Biblical Blueprint for Obeying and Disobeying Authority

Editor’s note: This article is part of an upcoming issue of Church Matters on pastoring the conscience.

* * * * *

Protestantism began as a conscientious resistance movement. We resisted man’s command, but only because we were conscience-bound to obey God’s. But how can we know when to resist man’s commands?

We calibrate our resistance with the categories of God’s Word (1 Thes. 5:21).^{11 .} See J.C. Ryle, “Private Judgment” in Knots Untied (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, f.p. 1874, repr. 2016), 49-68. Step one: tune the conscience to the frequency of the fifth command.

1. The Command

Protestants’ ethical discourse sees honoring parents as our paradigmatic response to all human authority.^{22 .} Luther extends the command to all those in authority as masters, “obedience due to superiors, persons whose duty it is to command and govern” (Larger Catechism, quoted in Patrick D. Miller, The Ten Commandments [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009], 208-209). So also Calvin, who treats each command as a part standing for the whole (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, eds. John T. McNeill, transl. Ford Lewis Battles [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1960], 1:372, 374, 376; 401-404). So also Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 105: The 5^th command requires “that I show all honor, love, and faithfulness to my father and mother, and to all in authority over me; and submit myself with due obedience to all their good instruction and correction, and also bear patently with their infirmities, since it is God’s will to govern us by their hand (Schaff, Creeds, 3:345). So also Westminster Shorter Catechism Q&A 64-65 (P. Schaff, Creeds 3:690), and Thomas Watson, “Father is of different kinds; as the political, the ancient [geriatric men], the spiritual [pastors], the domestic [heads of homes, including masters of servants], and the natural [dads]” (Thomas Watson, The Ten Commandments [Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth], 122). The verb “honor” is kabbēd, that is, to give glory or weight.^{33 .} Also noted by Joachim Douma, The Ten Commandments (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1996), 171; Miller, Commandments, 176. So we begin by taking human authority seriously—parental, vocational, governmental. We acknowledge its gravity.

Satan knew human authority mattered to God, so he upended it, bottom to top—he took animal form, to suggest to Eve, apart from Adam’s authority, that they contravene God’s authority (“did God really say . . . ?”). Sin inverts God’s authority structure, corroborating Patrick Miller’s insight that the fifth command bridges the first and second tables of the Law.^{44 .} Patrick Miller, The Ten Commandments 168, who also rightly notes, “The primary thrust of the commandment concerning parents is that authorities are to be honored. The primary thrust of the statutes and ordinances that explicate the parents’ commandment is that authorities are to be worthy of the honor they receive” (Miller, 212). Submission to socio-political authority latent in the fifth command expresses obedience to the first four commands and shapes obedience to the last five. “There is no authority except from God” (Rom. 13:1).

But sin does not just rebel against authority in the abstract or against qualms of conscience. It defies objective natural law, known instinctively from conscience, whether taught or not by the codification of natural law in the Decalogue. Our response to authority, then, is not itself reducible to a mere conscience issue. “Do this and live” stipulates an objective “this” which we must do—fifth command included.

Jesus obeyed the fifth command by taking human form, submitting to his fallen parents (Luke 2:51), paying pagan taxes (Luke 20:22–25), and even recognizing Pilate’s God-given authority over him (John 19:11). He became obedient to unjust crucifixion under corrupt leaders (Phil. 2:8) by entrusting himself to him who judges justly (1 Pet. 2:23)—notwithstanding his blamelessness. He did all this to satisfy God’s righteousness for us—not excusing us for further rebellion, but “leaving you an example [of submission to unjust authority], so that you might follow in his steps” (1 Pet. 2:21; cf. 1 Pet. 2:13–20). That’s not Protestant liberalism, and it’s not fundamentalist legalism. It’s the gospel ethic, and it has to matter if we want to be like Jesus.

The New Testament epistles then do not revoke the fifth commandment; they invoke it (Eph. 6:2). They “plead the fifth” as grounding obedience to parental, vocational, and governmental authorities (Rom. 13:1–7; 1 Tim. 2:1–2; , 1 Pet. 2:13–17).^{55 .} The noun honor (timh.n) in Romans 13:7 is cognate with the imperative verb honor (ti,ma) in LXX Exodus 20:12. For the New Testament, what conscience should be conscientious of is God as the authority behind all human authority (backing it up), as well as over it (holding it accountable). Indeed, God calls us, at times, to suffer injustice under unjust human authority to illustrate Christ’s sufferings (Col. 1:24; 1 Pet. 2:13–20).

And besides all this, reverence for rulers is wise, and those who counsel otherwise will normally suffer ruin (Prov. 24:21–22; cf. Eccl. 8:2–3). Still, we should think through categories of abusive authority, conditions for obeying it, and criteria for resisting it.

2. Categories of Abusive Authority

Scripture shows us at least three categories of abusive authority that Christians can, and sometimes even should, resist. But when, how, and why we resist authority is often a matter of conscience, to be considered case-by case. What follows, then, is not a prescription for every case, but rather a set of biblical categories and criteria for thinking through cases where we will need to decide if and how we should resist authority. The expression of resistance will need to be commensurate with the abuse. Thankfully, there are levels of resistance for conscience to consider, among which are flight, verbal protest, civil demonstration, appeal to higher authorities, outright disobedience, or principled violence. Scripture shows us at least three categories of abusive authority we might want to resist.

Sinning Against Subjects

Pharaoh sinned by enslaving the Israelites (Exod. 1), yet when Moses resists by killing the Egyptian foreman vigilante-style, his conscience strikes him—“surely the thing is known” (Exod. 2:14)—and Pharaoh seeks the death penalty. Moses knew better than to do what he did—even in protest of ethnic slavery—and he was exiled for forty years. Pharaoh sinned against his subjects again by telling them to make bricks without straw (Exod. 5), but when the Israelite foremen confront him about the new policy, they’re made to regret it (Exod. 5:15–23). All the while, Pharaoh is resisting God’s authority . . . and only God can make him regret that.

Ahab (through Jezebel) extorted Naboth out of his vineyard, and Naboth resisted at the cost of his life (1 Kings 21). Herod wrongfully imprisoned the Baptist (Matt. 14). Rapacious taxation (Luke 3:13–14) and judicial partiality (Lev. 19:15) also qualify as sinning against subjects, as does any unjust boss (1 Pet. 2:18), and any unjust use of physical force, financial threat, or judicial power, either by a parent, teacher, boss, or ruler. This category is where we are often called to “endure sorrows while suffering unjustly” (1 Pet. 2:19). Sometimes authorities are sinning against us, resisting is futile, and we can do nothing but pray and endure it.

Yet there are times it would be unreasonable, and even unrighteous, to not defend ourselves against serious verbal or physical abuse, out of respect for the image of God in ourselves and a concern for the sixth command to be upheld in civil society—especially in the domestic sphere. A wife can do more than flee a violent husband—she can and should call the cops on him, get a restraining order, prosecute, even kill him in self-defense if absolutely necessary. A child can flee or report abusive parents whose treatment goes beyond legitimate corporal punishment. Congregations can and should fire abusive pastors. Scripture often lets these domestic exceptions go without saying (e.g., Eph. 5–6), but they are grounded in the imago dei principle of Genesis 9:5–6.

Legalizing Sin for Subjects

Ahasuerus authorized private citizens to exterminate Jews in Esther 3:7–15, allowing some subjects to sin against others. Yet God raised Esther to prominence with the king, she foils the plot, and the Jews are permitted by law to defend themselves. The U.S. has witnessed the legalization of colonial slavery, mid-century ethnic segregation, pornography, abortion, and no-fault divorce. Some companies allow questionable use of employee expense accounts. Here, Christians shouldn’t sin even though we legally could. Instead, we should promote virtue, protest vice, expose injustice, and shrewdly petition lawmakers—like Esther did.

Coercing Subjects to Sin

Pharaoh commands midwives to perform late-term abortions (Exod. 1:16), and God rewards the midwives for resisting (Exod. 1:17–21).^{66 .} Their resistance predates Sinai, so they are not responding to special revelation, but to natural law written on their hearts. They knew to preserve human life, notwithstanding a king’s command to the contrary. They couldn’t not know. God vindicates Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego’s disobedience to Nebuchadnezzar’s compulsory image worship (Dan. 3:15–20), then vindicates Daniel’s defiance of Darius’ edict against private prayer (Dan. 6:7–24). Mordecai refuses to bow to Haman at the king’s command, and Haman hangs from the gallows he meant for Mordecai (Esther 3:1–2).^{77 .} Though Joseph seems to make a surprisingly quick peace with people bowing to him in Egypt (Gen. 41:43). The Sanhedrin forbids the apostles to testify of Jesus’s resurrection, and the apostles refuse to comply (Acts 5:28–29). Included here is government sponsored torture to elicit apostasy, and crackdowns on public religious gatherings (Heb. 10:32–34), which contextualize the counsel of Hebrews 10:23–25.^{88 .} So H. Attridge (Hermenia, 290), F.F. Bruce (NICNT, 257, 259, says unfaithfulness was “actuated by fear of the authorities” or “the imperial power”), G Cockerill (NICNT, 479, 501, noting official opposition and imprisonment often accompanying confiscation of property), D. Hagner (NBC, 166, notes “persecution, whether from Romans or the non-Christian Jewish Community), L.T. Johnson (NTL, 36, 261), W. Lane (Word, 2:290, 300, considers the possibility of “official judicial action of magistrates who imposed heavy fines or confiscated property” and the “decree of expulsion in AD 49” as previous historical context for current Christian fears).  P.T. O’Brien (PNTC, 371, n.155, 385, popular persecution of Christians “increased the likelihood of arrest”), T. Schreiner, BTCP, 321, 331, quoting O’Brien, 385, on imprisonment by the authorities). All cite a renewed coercive persecution like the one mentioned in the immediate context (Heb. 10:32-34) as a probable impetus for early Christians to abandon Lord’s Day gatherings in 10:24-25. Historically, it’s common knowledge that Judaism was still a licit religion in the empire, while Christianity was not. That’s why the readers would be tempted both to revert back to Judaism and to quit attending church. This category provides the clearest threshold for resisting authority. In other words, when any authority over you requires you sin against God, you should resist.

3. Conditional Obedience

Yet even our obedience to human authority is qualified. Paul says, “Children obey your parents in the Lord” and servants obey masters “as you would Christ” (Eph. 6:1, 5)—which apparently includes the unfair ones (1 Pet. 2:18). Wives submit to their own husbands as to the Lord (Eph. 5:22). We obey all human authority, not only in the Lord, but also as to the Lord. This is why the Lord commanded Gideon to commandeer “your father’s bull, and pull down the altar of Baal that your father has, and cut down the Asherah that is beside it and build an altar to the Lord your God” (Judg. 6:25–26). If that’s not dishonoring your father in his own front yard, then I’m not sure what is. But it’s not sin for Gideon because the first command informs the fifth (cf. Ezek. 20:18–21).

Jesus commands our ultimate loyalty on the same basis. “Anyone who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me” (Matt. 10:37). That’s not just an affectional priority; it’s volitional, which is why his disciples defy any injunction against evangelism (Acts 4:19–20; 5:29). We are not allowed to not evangelize, notwithstanding state law or family custom to the contrary. It’s the same with gathering as local churches in Hebrews 10:23–25, where some of the members were apparently staying clear of the gathering out of fear of state (or parental) reprisals.

So we obey authorities in all things that don’t lead us to sin, either against God (1st table), others (2nd table), or ourselves (God’s image in our own persons). And if we must resist, then we make sure we know what specific sin we’re refusing to commit, we resist in a righteous way, and we resist in proportional degree.

4. Criteria for Resistance

A clear threshold for disobedience appears when authority deploys power to coerce people into sins of commission or omission (Pharaoh’s infanticide, Nebuchadnezzar’s image, the Sanhedrin’s prohibition, injunctions against church gatherings). Equally obvious is legalized murder of citizens by citizens (a purge like in Esther 3). Note the seriousness—either human life at any stage is imminently threatened, or God’s supremacy in worship is being usurped by the state.

But we don’t get a pass to disobey just because an authority sins against a subject or legalizes sin for subjects. Not every such instance rises to a degree that compels non-compliance or demands public protest. The Westminster divines acknowledged as much: “Infidelity or difference in religion doth not make void the magistrate’s just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to him [citing only 1 Pet. 2:13, 14, 16]: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted.”^{99 .} Westminster Confession 23.4, quoted in Schaff, Creeds, 3:654. The American Revision pertaining to separation of church and state has less to do with the paragraph here cited and more with the one prior on the magistrate’s authority to call synods, xxiii.iii (Schaff, Creeds 3:653-654).

In fact, Calvin argued that “they who rule unjustly and incompetently have been raised up by him [God] to punish the wickedness of the people. . . . [W]e need not labor to prove that a wicked king is the Lord’s wrath upon the earth.”^{1010 .} Calvin, Institutes, 2:1512, citing Hosea 13:11; Isaiah 3:4; 10:5; Deuteronomy 28:29. See also 2:1510-1518. When’s the last time we thought about that? To our dismay, Calvin says,

Therefore, if we are cruelly tormented by a savage prince, if we are greedily despoiled by one who is avaricious or wanton, if we are neglected by a slothful one, if finally we are vexed for piety’s sake by one who is impious and sacrilegious, let us first be mindful of our own misdeeds, which without doubt are chastised by such whips of the Lord [cf. Dan. 9:7]. By this, humility will restrain our impatience. Let us then also call this thought to mind, that it is not for us to remedy such evils; that only this remains, to implore the Lord’s help, in whose hands are the hearts of kings, and the changing of kingdoms [Prov. 21:1 . . . Ps. 82:1 . . . Ps. 2:10–11].^{1111 .} Calvin, Insts., 2:1516-1517.

Ah yes, we almost forgot—the subduing effect of self-examination. . .

Still, we might resist on behalf of others if given the chance to defend them from being sinned against by authorities. After all, Pharaoh’s decreed infanticide wasn’t just sinning against the midwives, but against the infants. Here we commend Harriett Tubman for the Underground Railroad, Corrie Ten Boom for hiding Jews from Nazis, white solidarity with blacks against Jim Crow laws or apartheid in South Africa, and Bonhoeffer’s plot against Hitler.^{1212 .} Yet we should not drape the mantle of ethnic civil rights around the neck of every sexual minority. That’s a category mistake, as Voddie T. Baucham Jr. clarifies, It’s Not Like Being Black: How Sexual Activists Hijacked the Civil Rights Movement (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Faith, 2024).

All told, sometimes when authority sins against subjects or legalizes sin, we might be wise and righteous to submit and suffer, depending on the circumstances. Other times, when authority sins against subjects or legalizes sin, we can and should resist. The form of resistance, whether fight, flight, or somewhere in between, will be an issue of wisdom, conscience, and degree. But again—and this is big—every time an authority coerces us to sin against a clear command of God, we are indeed right to “obey God rather than men.”

5. Kinds of Resistance

How then shall we resist? We distinguish among legal recourse (Esther’s exposure of Haman’s plot and her appeal to the king; Paul’s appeal to his citizenship and to Caesar), non-compliance (the Hebrew midwives; Daniel; apostolic evangelism contrary to command), and vigilante justice (Moses killing the Egyptian). The first two are allowed, whereas the third normally is not, though in rare cases where leaders are committing crimes against humanity at scale, as in Hitler’s case, it’d be unreasonable and unrighteous to remain complicit. That said, when God wants to avenge unjust rulers for their injustice in Scriptural narratives, he normally raises up other official leaders like Jehu to execute Ahab’s house with the sword of the state (2 Kgs. 9–10). Or he sends them into battle to die at the random draw of a military bow (1 Kgs. 22:34). Athaliah was executed by the army, not a private citizen (2 Kgs. 11:13–16; para. 2 Chr. 23:12–15).

Here we acknowledge (and ground?) the Reformed doctrine of the lesser magistrates, which orbits around Calvin’s clarification:

For if there are now any magistrates of the people, appointed to restrain the willfulness of kings . . . I am so far from forbidding them to withstand, in accordance with their duty, the fierce licentiousness of kings, that, if they wink at kings who violently fall upon and assault the lowly common folk, I declare that their dissimulation involves nefarious perfidy, because they dishonestly betray the freedom of the people, of which they know that they have been appointed protectors by God’s ordinance.^{1313 .} Calvin, Insts., 2:1519. This is quoted approvingly by, among many others, no doubt, William Bridge, The Wounded Conscience Cured (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, f.p.?, repr. 2022), Works 5:207. On the right of revolution, Joachim Douma apparently agrees with Calvin that “lesser governments, or people who are recognized as leaders by the general populace, are the ones who should lead such a revolution” (The Ten Commandments [Philipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1996], 203). Perhaps this standard is one rubric among others by which to evaluate and debate the ethics of the American Revolution.

Short version: Lower authorities have a duty to restrain higher ones from abusing their power. But such is not the business of private citizens, who are normally limited to resisting through legal recourse or non-compliance, especially in matters pertaining to first-table law.^{1414 .} “. . . But in case the civil powers do, or shall at any time impose things about matters of religion, which we through conscience to God cannot actually obey, then we with Peter also do say, that we ought in such cases to obey God rather than men; Acts 5:29. And accordingly to hereby declare our whole, and holy intent and purpose that through the help of grace we will not yield, nor in such cases in the least actually obey them; yet humble purposing in the Lord strength patiently to suffer whatsoever shall be inflicted upon us, for our conscionable forbearance.” (The 1660 Standard Confession XXV, quoted in Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions, 233).

6. Cruciform Suffering Before, or Because of, Resistance

Contrary to modern thought, human nature remains objective, finite, fallible, and fallen. A fallen conscience can be functional, but it’s not always reliable. Here we are calibrating conscience to the standard not only of God’s law, but also his gospel. In many cases where authority is not coercing us to sin, it is right for us to relinquish our rights and submit to unjust authority—as Jesus did for us (Phil. 2:5–8).

Key to all this is having an eternal perspective. “You joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one” (Heb. 10:34). The writer of Hebrews was working with congregations who had had their property plundered. In the case of these Christians, authority had clearly sinned against them by violating the eighth commandment! The counsel in Hebrews 10, however, was not to bring a lawsuit, bear arms, or stage a sit-in. Nor was it to roll over and quit meeting together publicly just because Caesar demanded it. Rather, it was to accept getting plundered for non-compliance because of their loyalty to the gospel. But you will only accept getting plundered here if you know you have a better possession elsewhere.

The church’s witness to Jesus is often more effective when we patiently endure injustice than when we fight it. “For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly” (1 Pet. 2:19). In fact, “To this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps” (1 Pet. 2:21). So before we think we are conscience-bound to resist, perhaps we should ask if we are called by Christ to suffer. Or maybe we should realize that resistance will elicit suffering, and that we’re called to endure it.

7. Critical Questions for the Resistance

• Are we being forcibly prevented from obeying God’s commands or coerced into obvious sin?
• If an authority is wronging me or legalizing others to do so, is Christ calling me to endure it?
• Am I a private citizen or a public authority entrusted with holding higher authorities accountable?
• If I am a private citizen resisting legalized sin, then does the manner and degree of my resistance reflect the fact that the authority is merely permitting sin but not coercing people to commit sin?
• Do I have vocational or legal recourse to lodge a moral complaint with a lesser authority that can hold a higher authority accountable for its abuse?
• If an authority is legalizing sin, am I still honoring this authority “in the Lord”?
• If an authority is sinning against those under it, is my private individual resistance likely to succeed and liberate, or fail and further enslave or kill (Exod. 5:15–21; Prov. 24:21–22; Eccl. 8:2)?
• If I’m violently resisting authority that sins against subjects, am I “killing the Egyptian” as Moses did? That is, am I taking retributive authority into my own hands vigilante style, illegitimately, as if I am allowed to execute vengeance privately in the same way the state wields the sword? Am I really being a Bonhoeffer? Does the situation really warrant such violence, by a private citizen like me?
• If I’m resisting, do I still seek to live a quiet life, godly and dignified in every way (1 Thes. 4:11–12; 2 Thes. 3:12; 1 Tim. 2:1–2)?
• If I think I’m being abused at home, have I talked with godly church elders to see if I’m right about the degree, severity, or extent of the mistreatment?
• If I’m a clearly abused wife, am I passively sinning against God’s image in myself by allowing my husband to deface it? (Gen. 1:26–28)
• Am I sinning against my clearly abusive spouse or parent by not confronting and/or reporting his sin (Lev. 19:17)?

Conclusion

Unjust authority (especially state authority) is the untamed beast of revelation that inevitably persecutes the church. May we resist? Yes, at times we can and should. But let’s be clear. In the end, we lose the culture war. The beast kills the church in Revelation 11:7. Yes, the Two Witnesses rise, but only to go to heaven (Rev. 11:12), not to execute their own vengeance or bring the authority of the kingdom to earth themselves. The day will come when “the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ” (11:15)—but only after the church is taken up to heaven (“Come up here,” Rev. 11:12).

Later in Revelation, we read this: “They overcame by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death” (Rev. 12:11). We die. That’s how we win. That doesn’t make pacifism invariably right or resistance always wrong. It will be a conscience issue for each of us, on a case-by-case basis. But in the end, we overcome Satan and the beast by not loving our lives even unto the death, because that’s how Jesus did it. Joachim Douma was right. “The style of our obedience must remain Christian, which means: it must correspond to what Christ did. Honoring those who are over us requires, then, that we must be ready to endure a lot.”^{1515 .} Joachim Douma, The Ten Commandments, 178.