Romans 13:2

Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God [This is the enunciation of the general principle without any accompanying exceptions. Pressed to its limits, this precept would prevent any revolution from succeeding, for the leader of the revolution could never be permitted of God to rule, as his rulership would then be countenanced by God as of his ordaining, and thus, in countenancing and ordaining both opposing governments, God would be divided against himself. The principle and its exceptions would best be understood by comparing the life of a government with that of a man. Each life is an emanation from God, and therefore each is protected by the general, fundamental law, "Thou shalt not kill." But this law in each case presumes that each life, whether governmental or individual, will so comply with the precepts and purposes of God, and so fulfill the ends for which it was created, as to deserve to live. If it does things worthy of death, it shall be put to death (Genesis 9:6). Paul, therefore, in laying down the rule, has in mind the age-long principle which, in our common law, finds expression in the maxim, "The king [government] can do no wrong." Only the most obvious, evident breach of this maxim can justify revolution. Each life must, as it were, be rigidly protected from lynch law, and must be given the calm deliberation of a judicial trial. When this is not the case, the one who assails the individual life becomes a murderer, and the one who attempts the life of the state "resists the ordinance of God." Every revolt, for a time, shakes public confidence in a divine institution, so there must be no resistance until the demand for it becomes practically unavoidable; otherwise we incur the resentment of God, for our conduct has tended toward anarchy and confusion. We should therefore exhaust legitimate expedients, such as protests, political reactions etc., before we resort to revolutionary extremes]: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment. [Commentators, unable to define the preceding precept, and regarding it as ostensibly a prohibition of all revolution, or practically to that effect, have consoled themselves by limiting "judgment" to the punishments which the state inflicts, thus arriving at the conclusion that rebels have a right to rebel if they are willing to suffer the temporal punishment attendant on failure. But the context forbids this mollifying modification. If we resist the ordinance of God, we shall undoubtedly taste the judgment of God, and rightly, too, for what terrific misery, poverty, suffering and loss of life attend on revolution! Shall not God award justice to those who lightly and for personal ambitions fill the world with such horrors?]