What does the Bible say about rebellion?

Samuel stripped the disobedience bare, and revealed it's true character as God saw it. "Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft and stubbornness (i.e., self-will) is as iniquity and idolatry. Saul himself in his better days recognised the evil of witchcraft, and sought to suppress it (1 Sam. 28:3-9) and no graven image appears to have been set up during his reign. But he is now told that his self-will was the equivalent of both witchcraft and idolatry. Why? Because it displaced God for something else. The supremacy of God was thereby challenged by a creature. Self-will — the refusal to hear the divine voice — is as serious an evil today as when Saul stood arraigned by the prophet of God in Gilgal.

It is an evil man that indulges a spirit of revolt; for rebellion is hateful to God, and His Word gives it no quarter. Circumstances on earth yield constant opportunity, and hence such a one "seeks only rebellion." It gives an unhappy self-importance, which to vanity is irresistible. But God is not mocked, though it be the acceptable year, and not yet the day of His vengeance; and a "cruel messenger" will not fail to be "sent against him." Even now is there moral government.

Sin has wrecked God's fair creation, it has ruined men, separating them from God by a gulf that could only be crossed and removed by infinite love; but it has done more than this, it has challenged the very majesty of God in His own universe. Sin is rebellion against God's supremacy; it would climb to the eternal throne if it could and tear Him from thence; and this is what sin means whenever it shows itself in the life of a man; it is the determination of his heart to go his own way regardless of the will of God; it is lawlessness, the refusal to be subject to the throne of God.

Again, "authorities in power" (ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις) is an expression that embraces every form of governing power, monarchical, aristocratic, or republican. All cavil on this score is therefore foreclosed. The Spirit insists not merely on the divine right of kings but that "there is no authority except from God." Nor is there an excuse on this plea for change; yet if a revolution should overthrow one form and set up another, the Christian's duty is plain: "those that exist are ordained by God." His interests are elsewhere, are heavenly, are in Christ; his responsibility is to acknowledge what is in power as a fact, trusting God as to the consequences and in no case behaving as a partisan. Never is he warranted in setting himself up against the authority as such; for this were to resist the ordinances of God, and those that resist shall receive judgment for themselves. For it is by no means "damnation," but "sentence," or the charge for which he is condemned. Scripture is ever sober, as the apostle said he was, for our sakes: if he were ecstatic, it was for God, as it might well be. Other scriptures show that, where the authority demands that which is offensive to Him, as for instance that an apostle should speak no more of Jesus or that a Christian should sacrifice to an idol or an emperor, we must obey God rather than man, but suffering, not resisting, if we cannot quietly leave the scene of persecution. For it is evident that it is impossible to plead God's authority for obeying a command which dishonours and denies Him. Every relation has its limits in conduct which virtually nullifies it; and that is a requirement which undermines its own authority by antagonism to Him who set it up. But Calvin seems to speak unwarrantably when he goes so far as to say that tyrannies are not an ordained government; and those who listened to him or shared his thoughts have proved that they did not count it beneath Christians to take an active part in overthrowing what they considered tyrannical.

Hence, if collision come between God's word and the ruler's requirement, the believer's path is clear: God must be obeyed, but in suffering perhaps, not resistance to authority. He is always to obey, though in some cases it may be God rather than men. Nothing is so humble, nothing so firm. Naturally the believer might be feeble and timid; obedience by grace gives strength and courage. He might be self-confident and unyielding; obedience gives distrust in self and meekness in doing God's will. 'He that does the will of God abides for ever'; even as sin is self-will or lawlessness, and its end judgment and perdition. Therefore is obedience not only an inalienable duty, but the true pathway of power, and the sure means of extrication from every snare of the enemy. So the blessed Lord defeated Satan, and so the apostles now lay bare the tremendous fact that the Jewish heads and people were as wholly beguiled by Satan, as they themselves were wholly in simple-hearted subjection to God. Once the elect nation had God in the world, as they had the Messiah in hope. Now that they had rejected their Messiah, they were not only without God like the Gentiles but the proved adversaries of God. They were only 'men' like others, and 'obedience must be to God rather than men.'

This Peter proceeds to demonstrate in a few plain, pointed, irrefragable words. 'The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, Whom ye slew by hanging on a tree: Him God exalted with His right hand as Leader and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins. And we are [His] witnesses of these things, and the Holy Ghost Whom God gave to those that obey Him.' Here the proof is short and unanswerable, the antagonism to the God of Israel in chiefs and people beyond question. The God of their fathers (how unlike them the children!) raised up Jesus Whom ye slew (and with the deepest ignominy too) by hanging on a tree. Here, it is no longer the ambiguous word ἀνέστησεν, but the more determinate ἤγειρεν, not merely raising Him up as a living Messiah on earth, as in Acts 3:22, 26; Acts 7: (18), 37; Acts 13:33, but waking Him up after death. Nor was resurrection all: for God exalted Him (not 'to' as in Webster and Wilkinson, but) by His right hand (as Peter had preached, Acts 2:33, in fulfilment of the undeniably Messianic Psalm 110). For in what relation to them did He take His place in heaven? As Leader and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins. The door of grace was still open. God was waiting to be gracious to His people though guilty of the great transgression; and He could afford by that blood to free them even from their guilt in shedding it. Surely Christ will appear in judgment one day. Meanwhile He is announced as Leader and Saviour to give Israel just what they wanted — repentance and remission of sins.

The Christian's attitude is to be, in one word — subjection. We are to avoid "resisting the power," that is setting ourselves in opposition to it. The reason given for this must be carefully noted: the "powers that be" are a divine institution, and to set oneself in opposition is to oppose the God, whom they are intended to represent, and to merit judgment. In these verses (1-7) authorities are viewed in their proper character according to the divine intention, rather than as they often are in actual practice.

At once, therefore, we may call out as to the sad travesty of authority so frequently seen. But we must remember that, when these words were penned, Nero had just about ascended the imperial throne in Rome, and the man who wrote the words was soon to suffer grievous things at the hands of the religious authorities in Jerusalem. Read Acts 23:5, and 26:25, noting in these instances how effectively Paul practised what here he teaches us. Only one thing exempts us from the subjection here demanded, and that is when subjection to authorities would involve us in disobedience to God. Then we must be obedient to the highest Authority. As Peter said, "We ought to obey God rather than man" (Acts 5:29).

Were the civil power (how often has it done it?) to dispute God's authority over the conscience, and to command that which He has forbidden, any resisting it would not have praise from it; and if they did obey it in such a case, they would not be doing that which is good. Hence, subjection to it in its own lawful domain is what is here enjoined. If it oversteps the bounds, the answer of Peter to the rulers at Jerusalem will guide the Christian: "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken to you more than to God, judge ye" (Acts 4:19). Where man's claims conflict with God's claims, the path, however trying, is clear, "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). And this important question receives further elucidation. For the same apostle, who so boldly addresses the rulers in the council, wrote by the Spirit to saints scattered abroad, "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or to governors, as to them that are sent by him" (for civil power can be delegated) "for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God" (1 Peter 2:13-16). Subjection, then, to the civil power is to be rendered not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake. It is God's ordinance, and rulers are His ministers, and Christians are His servants. How this clears up matters, and would remove any scruples that might present themselves, arising out of the question of the ruler's religious belief. A heathen, an idolatrous monarch or ruler, was to be obeyed in that domain in which, according to God, he had lawful sway. And the Christian doing good would have praise of the same, and be manifesting that he was a servant of God.

Scripture is very careful to press the respect and obedience which are due to authority, but it is not a Christian's work to occupy himself with settling questions of the earth. He has nothing to do with the ways and means whereby kings or other governors have reached their place of authority. There may have been wars, and revolutions, and all sorts of questionable means for them to arrive at such exaltation. What he has to do is to obey, as a matter of fact, those who are in authority. "Let every soul be subject unto higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." (Rom. 13:1.) Scripture does not demand obedience to the powers that ought to be, but to "the powers that be." No doubt this may expose to danger where a revolutionary leader usurps authority for a season; but God will care for results, and the duty of the Christian remains simple and sure. He obeys the powers that be. Notwithstanding, all obedience in man has its limits. There are cases where the Christian is bound, I do not say to be disobedient, still less to set up his own authority (which is never his duty), but "to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29.) Where earthly authority demands sin against God, for instance where a Government interferes with and forbids the stewardship of the believer in proclaiming the name of Christ, it is evident that it is a question of a lower authority setting aside the highest. Consequently the principle of obedience to which the Christian is bound forbids his being swayed by what is of man to abandon what he knows to be the will of God.

The tribal rights of Israel, and the honour of the heads of families in their priestly position, were set aside to a considerable extent by the divine institution of rule and priesthood. A widespread and determined opposition grew up, which culminated in an organized rebellion against the prince, or king, and the high priest. Princes and chiefs were the aggrieved parties; they leavened the mass of the people with their own spirit, and a combination of certain princes of Levi, Reuben, and other tribes was formed. The high priest was first aimed at as an usurper of rights, the shaft directed against him being cut from the popular tree of national holiness. "All the congregation are holy," ran the gainsaying of Korah the Kohathite. "… Jehovah is among them… wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of Jehovah?" (Num. 16:3.) Since all are holy, all are His congregation, and consequently all may approach Him; why then one high priest? The plea is so similar to widespread religious teaching of our own time that, while few are inclined to doubt the antiquity of this part of the Book of Numbers, yet the voices of the Levites of to-day seem giving forth their sound according to St. Jude. No small number of pulpits and platforms teach the inherent holiness of all men, and therefore the right of all to draw near to God without the intervention of the One High Priest, Christ Jesus, by Whom and by Whose propitiation alone, the access may be obtained.

What an appalling scene! Next to the one in the wood of Ephraim, referred to at the end of the preceding chapter, there is hardly any of equal awfulness throughout the Old Testament. Parents, commanded by Jehovah Himself, Who "is Love" as He "is Light," to lay hold of their own off-spring, and bring him before the elders and the congregation, to be stoned! It was a private affair — a family matter. What had the elders and the congregation to do with it? God had to say to it, and to see to it! In His sight, there is, next to the abomination of an idol, nothing more horrible and unbearable than a rebellious child. Its existence was a spot to the camp where God dwelt. The congregation had to purge itself from its presence, else the whole congregation of Israel, as well as the family to which the rebellious son belonged, would have been defiled by his continued presence.

The sin of disobedience and rebellion is here dealt with in connection with drunkenness; not because drunkenness was the capital sin (comp. v. 18), but because the crime of such stubbornness and disobedience to parents is of such an unnatural and dastardly character, that it can be only imputed to the maddening influence of drink, whilst showing at the same time, that drunkenness cannot be admitted as a plea for such a crime before God, as it ought not to be, and, generally, is not admitted as a plea before human judges.

But what, in the case of a stubborn and rebellious son in a Christian family; rare, I trust, as such a terrible case may be? Is grace to prevail, and he to remain in the house, because the law of Moses is no longer applicable? Is the stubborn and rebellious son to stay, until he has infected all the children with the leaven of his wickedness, and turned the whole into a mutinous camp? Fearful, indeed, in its consequences, would be the sinful folly, and awfully solemn the responsibility of the over-indulgent parent in such a case! If the word of love and grace, and the rod of chastisement have proved ineffectual, the family ought, without further delay, to be purged from the defiling presence of the rebellious child, and the door shut upon him. God's blessing cannot rest upon a household where He is dishonoured by the sufferance of such an abomination in His sight. Let the obstinate one learn, under the iron rule and the heavy yoke of the stranger, to appreciate and bow to the sacred claims of a loving father's or mother's authority, and in the icy atmosphere of a selfish world, to yearn and long for the genial flame of the homely hearth, and the peaceful haven of his family, the privileges and affections of which he had spurned. If, in such an extreme, deplorable case, outraged parental authority has firmly and graciously asserted its inalienable claims, and thus the sanctuary of the family been purged from that which is an abomination in the sight of God, their prayers for the wanderer will ascend to the throne of grace, and result, in God's own time, in the sigh for the "father's house," and the tearful cry of repentance: "Father, I have sinned against thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son."