Jacob Winograd [00:00:31]:
Hello, everyone, and welcome back to the Biblical Anarchy podcast. I’m your host, Jacob Winograd. Here at the Biblical Anarchy podcast, we seek to live counterculture to the empire of man and to instead seek the kingdom of God by unpacking what the Bible teaches about government, authority, and human relationships. Grounded in scripture, we aim to understand how our faith shapes our approach to loving our neighbors and our enemies, fostering peace, and inspiring meaningful change in a world in desperate need of the gospel and its transformative power. So this episode is going to serve as a redux or remastered. You’d say revised, updated, all sorts of adjectives. But for the original pilot episode of this podcast, what is biblical anarchy? It’s gonna reintroduce the mission and scope of this podcast while refining the vision that we began with, laying a stronger foundation for the conversations and reflections to come.

Jacob Winograd [00:01:31]:
So let’s not waste any more time. Let’s dive into it. Section one, defining biblical anarchy, foundations and misconceptions. The name of this podcast, biblical anarchy, was chosen to intentionally reflect the style and philosophical approach to Christian libertarianism that I aim to promote. Biblical is first for a reason. It emphasizes that our foundation is the word of God, treating the Bible and the exegesis of scripture with the seriousness it demands. Christian political thought must not be rooted in man made philosophies or personal preferences shaped by cultural biases. Instead, it should be grounded in a faithful and responsible reading of scripture, applying its lessons in a consistent and rational way that harmonizes the text.

Jacob Winograd [00:02:19]:
This isn’t to say we can’t gain valuable insights from the works of man. In fact, I’ll explore in this episode libertarian and anarchist thinkers, even those who are not Christians, and I think they can offer perspectives worth considering. However, we must be vigilant to ensure that these man made philosophies do not dictate our reading of scripture. The Bible must lead us, not the other way around. That said, we often find a helpful alignment between what man discovers through natural law and philosophy, what you could call general revelation, and what is revealed in scripture, what you could call special revelation. And this alignment can serve as a confirmation that we are approaching both exercises, the study of scripture, and engaging with reasoned thought correctly and faithfully. As for anarchy, well, that refers to the rejection of unjust authority in hierarchies, particularly systems of governance or organization founded or enforced, by the initiation of coercion. This does not imply a rejection of all authority.

Jacob Winograd [00:03:23]:
Anarchy recognizes and respects just authority, which we’ll get more into later. At its core, anarchy is based on the principle of self ownership. You own yourself, and no one has rightful claim to your labor or property, and coercion does not change that. More will be said to explain and justify this definition as the episode continues. The word anarchy can be unsettling or even taboo for many people. For Christians who might feel skeptical, I would encourage you to approach this discussion with an open mind. Like the term Christian, which is often misunderstood or misrepresented, whether by the media or by others who misuse it, the word anarchy has likewise been unfairly defined by its works. Worst examples by bad actors and I’d even say by propaganda.

Jacob Winograd [00:04:14]:
To be clear, I am not advocating for violent revolution or chaos or, Molotov cocktails being thrown through windows. Such things are antithetical to Christ and the teachings of scripture. Instead, I am calling for a deeper exploration of both what the Bible teaches about government and about what anarchy means and to strip both of prior misconceptions and prior assumptions. At its core, anarchy simply means an opposition to rulers, an meaning without, and anarchy meaning ruler. It aligns and overlaps a lot with libertarianism, although not all libertarians are anarchists. Philosophical anarchy has precursors throughout history, and it’s worth examining how the concept has evolved over time and what it means in modern context. Section two, the evolution of anarchist thought from Proudhon to early Western influences. The term amped sorry.

Jacob Winograd [00:05:12]:
The term anarchy as it pertains to the development of anarchist thought is often traced back to eighteenth century France. French Political Philosopher Joseph Proudhon in his 1840 work entitled What is Property, defined anarchy as the absence of a master or a sovereign. He famously wrote, as man seeks justice and equality, so society seeks order and anarchy. In his later work, Confessions of a Revolutionary, Proudhon declared, whoever lays a hand on me to govern me is a usurper and a tyrant. I declare him my enemy. Proudhon envisioned a society without unjust authority, advocating for what is now considered classical or left anarchism. Over time, however, Proudhon’s views evolved. In his posthumously published theory of property, he argued that property could serve as a counterweight to the state’s power.

Jacob Winograd [00:06:10]:
This marked a shift from his earlier stance, encapsulated in the phrase that he’s famously known for, property is theft. Proudhon began to see property rights, applied in a more egalitarian spirit as essential to liberty, protecting individuals, and providing the individuals the ability to own and trade goods as a defense from state overreach. Proudhon is often associated with mutualism, a branch of anarchism that takes a nuanced view of property. Mutualists are not against all property claims. They oppose property that is in their view illegitimately acquired or unearned, such as interest on loans or income derived from rent. However, they defend the ownership of goods produced through labor and legitimately traded for, such as homes, land, tolls, food, etcetera. In his later years, Proudhon grew more pragmatic, doubting whether the state could ever truly be abolished. He emphasized the importance of property as a means to maintain liberty and resist the state’s encroachment.

Jacob Winograd [00:07:17]:
While early anarchists like Proudhon are often caricatured as opposing all hierarchy and opposing all property rights, his philosophy is actually far more nuanced, blending a critique of unjust authority with a recognition of the need for practical solutions to preserve individual freedom. Following, Prudhomme’s groundbreaking ideas, political anarchism then splits sort of into two distinct directions, and it’s somewhat geographically tied. In Europe, figures like Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin took Proudhon’s critique of authority and property toward the left, emphasizing collectivism and communal owner ownership. Buchanan champion championed revolutionary collectivism, advocating for a complete abolition of both the state and capitalism, while Kaprak Kent developed Anarcho communism, arguing that mutual aid and shared resources were essential for freedom and human flourishing. These, you could say, Eastern anarchists laid the groundwork for movements that were more closely aligned with Marxist principles, focusing on class struggle and economic equality through collective action. In the West, however, Proudhon’s ideas inspired a more individualist trajectory or were influenced by a more individualist ethos. American thinkers like Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker emphasized personal liberty, voluntary association and contracts, and market based systems as a tools for dismantling state power. Spooner was a fierce abolitionist.

Jacob Winograd [00:08:48]:
He attacked the legitimacy of The US constitution and proposed a society based on voluntary contracts. Tucker, deeply influenced by Proudhon, critiqued state backed monopolies while advocating for mutualist economics and still operating somewhat under a labor theory of value. This western tradition eventually culminated in the work of Murray Rothbard, who kinda combined Tucker’s individualism, the critique of the constitution that Spooner has, and then mixed in Austrian economics and capitalism and developed what we now call anarcho capitalism. Rothbard’s philosophy, emphasizing private property and free markets as the basis for liberty, represents the evolution of Prudhomme’s legacy and anarchism in a distinct in a distinctly rightward direction. And overall, we see that anarchism is a a versatile, broad, and enduring political philosophy. There’s a lot more than people initially think there is on a surface level view. Let’s go to section three, Rothbard and modern Western anarchism. Murray Rothbard, an American economist and political philosopher from the Austrian School, was a student of Ludwig von Mises, was largely attributed as, like, the father or one of the main fathers of Austrian economics.

Jacob Winograd [00:10:12]:
Rothbard argued that all services provided by the corporate state monopoly could be delivered more efficiently and ethically by the private sector. He described the state as an organization of robbery systematized and writ large. He criticized the central bank and fractional reserve, banking as fraudulent. He also categorically rejected all forms of military, political, and economic interventionism, in the affairs of other nations. Rothbard built upon the concept of property rights, which is something that Proudhon talked about, the idea of property rights as essential to limiting the state. So Rothbard builds upon this, and he takes this principle to sort of a logical and consistent conclusion. In his view, the state exists by violating property rights, which anarcho capitalists, Rothbard’s school of anarchism, see as foundational to defining and maintaining liberty. Rather than grounding, grounding anarchism in a social egalitarianism, Rothbard rooted in the principles of self ownership, property rights, and what’s known as the non aggression principle.

Jacob Winograd [00:11:19]:
This is called the NAP for short, review for some of you, but it is a simple summation of ANCAP thought and even libertarian thought. And it simply means that it is wrong or unlawful to initiate aggression or coercion against nonviolent or nonaggressive actors. The initiation is what’s key here. It doesn’t mean pacifism, and it would probably be more accurate to call it the NIAP other than the fact that that’d be a weird acronym and NAP just sounds better. So anarcho capitalism, as developed by Rothbard, emphasizes that anarchism is not an absence of rules, but an absence of rulers. It provides a framework for understanding liberty through a consistent application of these principles with property rights serving as the cornerstone of a free and just society. Anarchy today, especially of the Rothbardian western tradition, which I am mostly influenced by, distinguishes sharply between the state and governance. It rejects the state as a coercive monopoly, but allows for governance to exist in a decentralized polycentric as opposed to monocentric form through voluntary agreements, contracts, and private law.

Jacob Winograd [00:12:36]:
Another way to conceptualize this is that the state is monopoly governance, whereas anarchy is non monopoly governance. It simply means that there is no centralized authority, no ruler or master whose power is established and maintained through the initiation of force or coercion, which is, fundamentally what the state is and what makes it fundamentally antithetical to liberty. This vision is grounded in the principle of self ownership. You own yourself and by extension are not entitled to the labor or property of others. Anarchy also has another element, to its philosophy and especially in this more Western tradition. And it’s the idea of embracing moral universality. The idea that no position of power or authority, whether being a king, a soldier, a police officer, or a politician, grants anyone the right to commit actions that would otherwise be deemed immoral. Theft, coercion, aggression, these are wrong whether committed by an individual privately or by someone in the public sector or a state agent.

Jacob Winograd [00:13:48]:
Moreover, anarchists argue that a monopoly state cannot remain limited because a common objection to anarchy is to acknowledge the problems of monopoly governance and say, this is why we gotta keep the state as small and limited as possible. But anarchists, argue that this is not possible. Once an entity can operate by fiat rather than voluntary interaction, it inevitably creates incentives for those in power to prioritize their own interests, growing their wealth, consolidating control, and selling influence to elites and corporate interests over serving the people. This corrupt incentive structure distorts free markets and erodes genuine liberty. These principles of decentralization, voluntarism, and moral consistency offer a compelling framework for governance without the state. There are many questions one can ask about. Well, how does this work practically? I’ll explore those ideas and more about the writings of Murray Rothbard and others in that wing of anarcho capitalism who have done a lot of work explaining how this would actually be executable in future episodes. But for this episode, we’re gonna focus on the philosophical underpinnings and consistency.

Jacob Winograd [00:15:03]:
I would encourage us to think about this, in terms of laying we should always lay a foundation in defining what is right and wrong and what is morally normative, and then seek to find how to apply our principles in the real world second. If we’re led the other way, that would be to apply a a model of consequentialism rather than being led by moral principles. So we need to establish the moral principles first and then figure out implementation. So this is a broad overview of anarchy both historically and philosophically from Proudhon to Rothbard. And I obviously align more with Rothbardian anarchism, but I think it’s important to understand the history and the evolution of these ideas to fully appreciate their depth and significance. And Proudhon and his fundamental original critiques, the foundation of the monopoly state of coercion and the, the coercive nature of the state. These are ultimately the foundations that still exist in modern anarchism, and I think there’s a development of these ideas similar to what we see in the scientific field. How you could say you had Newtonian physics, which was later refined and built upon by more modern scientific discoveries.

Jacob Winograd [00:16:20]:
So, it’s important to understand that history and development. Section four, the contrast between monopoly and non monopoly governance in ancient Israel. So now that we have defined anarchy, the question arises, well, how can anarchy be biblical? So this is the central claim I wanna make. You could say it’s my thesis statement. Sort of what guides the entire podcast. I wanna justify this in this episode and in future episodes. And hopefully, I’ve made a case for that in previous episodes as well. Here’s the statement.

Jacob Winograd [00:16:54]:
God expresses disapproval for monopoly governance in his word, his moral decrees, and in his redemptive plan. As we’ve discussed, anarchy is at its core the rejection of monopoly governance. If this definition holds then, and the claim is justified, then biblical anarchy stands as a valid biblical concept. As Christians, we are called to live lives led by Christ and grounded in his word. So therefore, to make a case for biblical anarchy, we must now turn to scripture. The Bible speaks extensively about authority and government and human relationships, and it’s far more than one episode can cover. But I wanna start on two key passages. Before diving into scripture, though, let’s briefly address how to read scripture responsibly.

Jacob Winograd [00:17:43]:
All scripture, particularly, I would say this applies to the Old Testament, but this should be how we read all scripture, even New Testament passages, should be interpreted through various lenses to grasp its depth. The redemptive historical and fulfillment approaches, which emphasize God’s plan of redemption and how the text foreshadows Christ, should take priority. Additionally, we can draw then theological truths, moral lessons, and philosophical insights from character studies and from the world view scripture provides and the logical entailments of the teachings there within. This passage that I’m gonna start with first is first Samuel eight. This passage is a pivotal moment in redemptive history. We’re gonna start with that lens first so we can establish a foundation. In this moment in redemptive history, we see Israel rejects god as their king and instead seeks salvation through human rulers. This rejection is not merely political.

Jacob Winograd [00:18:45]:
It is deeply theological, and it demonstrates humanity’s misplaced hope, infallible human institutions, efforts, and kings. Ultimately, these flawed rulers highlight our need for a perfect king, Jesus Christ, who reigns with justice and love. At the same time, there are secondary now observations, practical lessons, theological and philosophical truths that we can glean from this text, particularly about civil governance and the dangers of centralized power. These observations are not the primary focus of the text, but are logical entailments and implications of the narrative. They provide valuable insights into the nature of human authority, and it’s divergent from God’s ideal for justice and leadership. So I’m not accused of overstating my case here or performing isagesis. Let me be clear. First Samuel eight, is not a text that is primarily about civil governance, whether in the Mosaic covenant or in what I would label as, like, the common grace order or church age that we live under in the new covenant.

Jacob Winograd [00:19:54]:
Its central message is redemptive, showing Israel’s rejection of God and ultimately pointing to our need for Christ, as I already said. But we can observe the actions and the consequences of those actions in the text and then draw these lessons. And these reflect broader biblical principles. So I wanna make sure that that’s very clear because, again, responsible reading of scripture is important, and I never want to suggest that I’m reading these texts as primarily being about these political implications and ignoring the very important, very foundational, Christological and covenantal truths that are being taught that ultimately point to the gospel. The gospel is the the leading sort of like the, overall worldview that we believe in as Christians, and the gospel has implications for human life and teachings for it as well. So let’s set the stage a little bit. This passage follows the book of Judges, a period characterized by, sort of tribal anarchy in ancient Israel’s history. As the book repeatedly states towards the the end of the book, quote, there was no king in the land, and everyone did what was right in his or her own eyes.

Jacob Winograd [00:21:15]:
During this time, God’s people lived without centralized monopolistic governance, Instead relying on a decentralized system where authority was limited and localized. This legal order, again, could be described as a sort of anarchy or something resembling an anarchist or polycentric legal order. If you’re gonna make a spectrum of total state to zero state, you would say that the period of judges is way closer to a zero state than a than a total state. An important disclaimer here, it’s important to note that the term anarchy in the text that I’m using it in the title biblical anarchy is referring to the horizontal realm of human relationships, not the vertical, paradigm of the relationship between God and man. As Christians, we affirm that God is Lord and Jesus is king. There is no anarchy between man and God. Because God’s authority is supreme, no human authority can rival or replicate it. And I would say because Christ is king, human authority is necessarily limited and cannot assume the form of divine sovereignty.

Jacob Winograd [00:22:23]:
This is why a common expression in Christian libertarian and anarchist circles is no king but Christ. But let’s continue. When we examine these horizontal relationships among humans during this period, we see over a couple centuries of a decentralized tribal system. And at many times, despite all the conflicts that are described in the book of Judges, there is also, I would argue, at least several decades, maybe even a hundred year period where not that there aren’t the consequences of sin and not that there aren’t issues that people have to work out, but in terms of peace versus, like, total war, there’s a a long era of relative peace and prosperity in the land. Again, it’s not utopia, and anarchy does not claim to be a utopian system, does not claim to eliminate evil. The truth is no system can eliminate evil. The anarchist critique would actually be that the state is sort of a utopian invention because it is state that is proposed as a solution to human evil. Yet history shows us that despite the existence of various forms of states over thousands of years, war, corruption, injustice persist.

Jacob Winograd [00:23:38]:
The purpose of anarchism is not to create perfection, but rather to limit evil and to avoid perpetuating it. For a time, the Israelites achieved a measure of relative peace under this decentralized system, and this is, you know, worth considering as a historical example of how god’s people and how people, can live without the concentration of power found in monopoly governance. Now I do wanna make another important, distinction here between the form of governance and the laws being enforced. For example, a a monarchy could enforce laws protecting gun rights just as a democracy could, or vice versa. And so during the era of judges, while the form of governance is this decentralized model, the laws prescribed by God are not necessarily the ones that I’m saying that we should be living under today. And these laws were, actually not in alignment with what I described earlier, the non aggression principle. There were laws prescribed by God to use force against nonaggressive sins. But the observation of the form of governance not requiring a monopoly still holds.

Jacob Winograd [00:24:52]:
I would also say it’s important to note, and this is a a little bit of a a rabbit hole, but I I can recommend further reading and study, is that there actually is a strong argument to be made that within this original theocratic context of ancient Israel that the laws and the sort of arraignment arrangement that God had made there doesn’t actually violate the non aggression principle. And this is because God is sovereign, has unique authority to establish a polity or a a society in governance that was both temporary and typological and pointed forward, of course, to Christ. This arrangement was specific for that time, and it’s not a model for civil governance in the new covenant era. And so there’s a deep dive for this that I’d recommend. There’s an episode of the reformed libertarians podcast, which is part of LCI as well, and a conversation I had with one of their hosts, Greg Baus. So two different episodes that I would recommend, and I’ll have those linked in the show notes. Alright. Section five, God’s warning against human kingship lessons from first Samuel eight.

Jacob Winograd [00:25:59]:
With that context in mind, we’ll now turn to first Samuel eight and explore God’s response to Israel’s request for a king. After the end of the book of Judges, Israel had endured a major civil conflict. And the sense we get from the text is that the Israelites were weary. Freedom and self governance required them to address their own problems. It seems that they had grown tired of that responsibility. This sets the stage for first Samuel eight, where the Israelites reject the decentralized governance they had under God and demand a king. When Samuel became old, he made his sons judges over Israel. Yet his sons did not walk in his ways, but turned aside after gain.

Jacob Winograd [00:26:36]:
They took bribes and perverted justice. Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah and said to him, behold, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like the other nations. Notice here that their appeal wasn’t grounded in scripture or divine argument. It’s cultural. Their reasoning is simple. They want to be like all the nations. This is not a biblical case for kingship, but an appeal to conformity.

Jacob Winograd [00:27:05]:
The text continues, but the thing displeased Samuel when they said, give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. According to all the deeds that they have done from the day that I brought them out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you. So here, god equates their desire for a king with idolatry. Just as they turned to the golden calf after leaving Egypt. Here, they forsake god’s rule and place their hope in human rulers. This is fundamentally a second commandment issue, a rejection of god as king and a desire to be ruled by man instead.

Jacob Winograd [00:27:48]:
Yet God allows it, saying, now obey their voice. Only you shall solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them. So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking for a king. And he said, these will be the ways of the king who will reign over you. He will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be for for perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your vineyards and fields and olive orchards and give them to his servants.

Jacob Winograd [00:28:32]:
He will take a tenth of your grain, that’s significant by the way, because a tenth is what belongs to God, and of your vineyards, and give it to his officers and his servants. He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys and put them to work. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day, you will cry out because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day. So it’s, again, it’s essential to compare and contrast Israel’s governance before and after the institution of the monarchy. Judges, we have the decentralized tribal, confederation or a sort of anarchy that has a theocratic element to it. The governance was guided by God’s covenant law and the leadership provided by judges raised during, raised by God during periods of crisis. There was no standing government, no gut monopoly.

Jacob Winograd [00:29:26]:
These judges, had temporary authority, often limited to specific military and judicial roles. Now certainly within the tribes, they probably had their own spontaneously formed governing structures, but we’re just looking at, like, Israel as a whole. Right? It was very decentralized. Violations of, sorry. These judges had temporary authority, often limited to specific, roles, and they did not have the power to create new laws or impose taxes. Violations of God’s law during this period were typically localized, tied to specific tribes or individuals, and then addressed in their immediate context. And so while there were instances of of of immorality, of lapses into idolatry, these were cyclical followed by repentance, and they serve to foster a greater reliance on God for deliverance. In contrast, then the monarchy introduces monopoly governance, centralized governance, with hereditary kings holding executive, legislative, and judicial powers.

Jacob Winograd [00:30:32]:
And while this system unified the tribes and maybe that was seen as a good thing, it also leads to a more rampant and more intensified systemic idolatry and oppression. Examples of well, this be would be, Solomon’s forced labor policies and, Jeroboam’s establishment of a rival worship system? Corruption became entrenched with rulers like Ahab and Manasseh leading the entire nation astray into rebellion against God, rather than just certain tribes falling away from God. Now we have the entire nation being led by a bad king. Although some kings were good. You have, like, Jay David and Josiah, and they sought to restore covenant faithfulness. But the monarchy as a whole brought heavy burdens such as taxation, forced labor, and political instability. The centralization of power highlighted the insufficiency of human kingship and the need for a perfect king. And it also highlighted the inability of the centralized power to fix the underlying problems that the king was asked for to to fix in the first place.

Jacob Winograd [00:31:41]:
It didn’t make them safer, and it didn’t deal with the problem of sin or idolatry or falling away from God. See, these contrasts reveal, why this warning in first Samuel eight remains so relevant today. The passage paints a vivid picture of the dangers of human governance. God warned specifically, about those dangers, and it’s monopoly governance he’s warning about. It’s a warning against the confiscation of property, the conscription of children, and the abuse of power for the benefit of the ruling elites and the ruling families. God explicitly declares, you shall be his slaves. And so we can see there’s kind of a dual image here, dual lesson here, that the rejection of God’s kingship inevitably leads to oppression. The oppression of sin and our bondage to sin, and then also the oppression and bondage of our lives to human kings and rulers that we put up in place of God.

Jacob Winograd [00:32:36]:
This warning resonates throughout history. Consider the countless lives lost or scarred by rulers manipulating young people or drafting them outright into wars that serve the interests of the ruling elites. The caution of first Samuel eight should compel us to critically evaluate human kingdoms and the state. Even if you’re not fully convinced of anarchy yet as a better alternative, the lesson still applies. As god states plainly, they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. And humans continue to do this today. Section six, tracing the lessons of first Samuel eight through the Old Testament and into the new covenant. The warning of first Samuel eight illustrates the inherent failings of human kingships as God foretells that the Israel’s, the Israel’s Monarchs would oppress the people, taking their children, property, and freedom for, their own gain.

Jacob Winograd [00:33:31]:
This reality starkly contrasts with the standard for kingship that was given in Deuteronomy 17, where God commands rulers to lead in humility, meditate on his law, and avoid greed, pride, and reliance on military power. Yet no human king fully meets these expectations. David sinned grievously. Solomon amassed wealth and wives, and most others fell into systemic idolatry and corruption. These failings highlight the impossibility of perfect, human governance and point forward to Christ. And Christ is the only king who actually really fulfills the mandate of Deuteronomy 17 and the requirements completely. Jesus models a different type of leadership than the warnings given about what the human king will do in first Samuel eight. See, Jesus models servant leadership, and this isn’t passages like Mark 10, John 13, countless other places where the demonstration is humility and leaders that obey God’s law and that display sacrificial love.

Jacob Winograd [00:34:35]:
Unlike human kings who exploit their people, Christ embodies a a kingship and kingdom of justice and peace, fulfilling the role of the ideal king, honoring offering a radical alternative, a model that is radically different than the flawed systems of worldly power. See, Jesus teaches that true greatness lies not in using power to control others, but in viewing positions of authority and leadership as opportunities to serve others. And while these teachings, such as in Mark 10 and other ones about the kingdom of God, are primarily highlighting our status as citizens of god’s kingdom, a status that is secured not by our works, but by the work of Christ. They also provide a model for how Christians are called to live and how we should view authority. As followers of Christ, our perspective on leadership and governance should reflect humility, service, and accountability, whether we occupy positions of influence ourselves or evaluate those who do. Hosea sorry. Hosea 11 through 13 reinforces this message by reflecting back on first Samuel eight and Israel’s entire, persistent rebellion that transpired throughout the entire Old Testament and rejection of God as their king. These chapters emphasize how Israel’s pursuit of human rulers and alliances with worldly powers lead them further into sin and away from God’s covenant faithfulness.

Jacob Winograd [00:36:04]:
Matthew two then references Hosea 11, connecting explicitly connecting Christ to this narrative and showing how Jesus fulfills God’s promise to rescue his people, not through the kingdoms of this world, but through divine kingship. This highlights a consistent biblical theme. Salvation and true peace cannot be found in human governance or rulers, but only through Jesus Christ and the transforming work of the Holy Spirit in us. The state, no matter how idealized, cannot free us from the bondage of sin or secure eternal peace and security. This is the work of Christ alone. But this truth naturally raises an important question. Does God’s condemnation of Israel’s desire for a king mean he desires no government or laws at all? Or that Christians should entirely withdraw from the world since Christ’s kingdom is not of this world? Well, the answer to that is no. See, the problem isn’t with the concept of civil governance itself, but with its distortion through human sin and rebellion.

Jacob Winograd [00:37:07]:
Governance, when aligned with God’s principles, can serve to promote justice, peace, and order. However, when this is when this ordained office is abused through coercion, exploitation, or idolatry, it becomes a tool of oppression as illustrated in first Samuel eight. So then this raises a follow-up question. If monarchies and centralized states and monopoly government is condemned by implication in scripture, what model of governance is consistent with biblical principles? The answer lies in the distinction between coercive monopoly governance and governance that conforms to biblical principles and reflects God’s justice and love. And so we’re gonna explore Romans 13 and how scripture provides a framework for understanding governance that is rooted in these principles rather than the exploitation of power. Section seven. What about Romans 13? That was an inside joke for all the libertarians watching this. So let’s consider Romans 13.

Jacob Winograd [00:38:13]:
To understand the passage, we need to integrate it with what we’ve already discussed about authority in the Bible. I defined anarchy earlier not to impose it on the text, but to clarify how it aligns with biblical teaching on human relationships, authority, and governance. See, Jesus taught us to lead through love and service, not through coercion and control, yet there is a time for wielding the sword. I am not a pacifist. I think scripture affirms that defending the innocent against the wicked is a God ordained responsibility, and Romans 13 addresses this directly. Paul writes, let every person be subject to the governing authorities for there is no authority except that which is from God and that those that exist have been instituted by God. So from the outset, Paul ties authority back to God. And this means we must define such authorities based on God’s norms as revealed in his word and exemplified in Jesus Christ.

Jacob Winograd [00:39:20]:
The passage continues, therefore, whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed. And those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but too bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Do what then do what is good, and you will receive his approval. For he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain, for he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. What Paul describes here is not in contradiction to Jesus’ teaching in Mark 10 or John 13 or to god’s condemnation of centralized governance in first Samuel eight. Rather, Paul is affirming that God ordains the use of authority to defend the innocent and punish evil doers.

Jacob Winograd [00:40:15]:
This does not mean standing idly by in the face of evil. However, it’s crucial to note that Paul’s description of authority here is actually prescriptive. It’s not descriptive of any and all governing institutions or all de facto governments that exist. Or to put it another way, the description here of governing authorities is of just governing authorities in contrast to unjust governing authorities. The text is not describing unjust governing authorities. So embedded within this description of just authority is a prescription of what civil authority is authorized and not authorized to wield the sword against. Let’s also consider the context of Romans 12. And I think most people know that there were no chapter divisions in not just this book, but in many books of the Bible.

Jacob Winograd [00:41:15]:
They were added later. So Paul in Romans 12 towards the end is exhorting believers to love their neighbors and even their enemies and to live peaceably as far as it depends on them. Romans 13 then picks up at the end of this and continues this theme, and it’s affirming that the sword should only be wielded against wrongdoers and not to impose control or to coerce obedience. Romans 12 ends with a teaching against seeking revenge or responding to injustice with more injustice or evil with more evil. Then Romans 13 then comes alongside this and addresses then what Christians are supposed to do in response to injustice and aggression. God has ordained the office of civil governance to act as his servant in addressing injustice and aggression, wielding the sword to protect the innocent and punish wrongdoers. From the lessons of first Samuel eight and passages we’ve already discussed, we know this divinely instituted role is not a license for unchecked authority, but a call to uphold justice through proportional and restrained use of force aligning with God’s principles of righteousness and peace. This raises two critical questions then for those who use Romans 13 to justify statism or to oppose anarchy.

Jacob Winograd [00:42:42]:
First, how do we reconcile the state’s foundational and fundamental nature with Paul’s description of godly governance? The state, by definition, operates through the initiation of coercion and the threat of force and the confiscation of property. These mechanisms are not, like, incidental, but rather central to its function. Taxation, for example, is the process by which the state acquires resources to fund its activities, yet taxation is definitionally a form of extortion. It takes property under the implicit or explicit threat of force, leaving no room for voluntary consent in exchanging a property. If an individual refuses to pay taxes, they risk fines, seizure of their property, or even imprisonment, and you can extrapolate what happens when you resist these things. This method of acquiring wealth directly contradicts the biblical principle of voluntary giving and stewardship over one’s property, as it uses coercion and the initiation of coercion rather than freedom and voluntary exchange to achieve its ends. Similarly, the state’s reliance on coercion extends to its enforcement mechanisms. All state laws are ultimately backed by the threat of violence.

Jacob Winograd [00:44:08]:
For instance, individuals who fail to pay taxes or comply with licensing regulations, both of which involve no act of aggression towards others, face fines, property seizure, or imprisonment. Likewise, nonviolent offenses, such as drug possession, operating a business without government approval, such as maybe during lockdowns, a peaceful, or peaceful protests conducted without the required permits. These are nonviolent crimes. These are crimes that don’t have a victim, but they are met with punitive measures. They are responded to with force, including incarceration despite no violation of another person’s rights. This initiation of force often extends far beyond the scope of what Paul describes, legitimate governance as being in Romans 13, which is to act as God’s servant to protect the innocent and punish those who commit aggression. Instead, the state frequently becomes the aggressor, using its coercive power to extract wealth, control behavior, and enforce compliance even in matters that do not involve aggression or coercion towards others. The state is actually the antithesis of what Jesus describes in the passages we described earlier where Jesus tells his apostles in in Mark 10 to not be like the Gentiles who use positions of authority and power, and they seek these out to rule over other people and to dominate them, to be archists, but rather that to be the greatest and to be, the one who leads is to be an act of, serving, as we’ve seen.

Jacob Winograd [00:45:52]:
This fundamental nature of the state then we see is inherently at odds with the purpose of authority as described in Romans 13. Godly governance, as Paul outlines, has meant to uphold justice by wielding the sword against wrongdoers. It’s not for initiating force against peaceful individuals. If Romans 13 were describing the state as it operates today, it would logically follow that the state would be required to wield the sword against itself for violating the very principles of justice it’s supposed to uphold. This contradiction underscores the need to critically evaluate whether the modern state can genuinely fulfill the role of a of just authority or as ordained by God. See, the more we examine the state, the more we see that the state is often, despite what Romans 13 says, a terror to those who do good. That’s a direct contradiction. So if Romans 13 describes the state and the state is a terror to those who do good, then the text would fail.

Jacob Winograd [00:46:58]:
And maybe for some people who don’t believe in the inspiration of scripture, that would be fine. But here, we believe in the inspiration, the infallibility, and the inerrancy of scripture. And so then we have to ask the state and these state rulers, can we really say that they are God’s servant for good when these states throughout history, even in biblical history, we see that there are state sanctioned genocides. There there is the waging of unjust wars, the imprisoning of nonviolent, people who have committed crimes that have no victim. We see the exploitation of people through coop corruption and coercion. These servants are not at all living up to the prescription that is here in Romans 13. And there’s no exception given in Romans 13 to these rulers that they are actually allowed to uphold justice while violating justice. There that wouldn’t even make sense.

Jacob Winograd [00:47:59]:
So are we to believe that such regimes fulfill Paul’s description of godly authority then? Section eight, covenant theology and the principle of proportionality. One might raise an objection at this point that Romans 13 calls for government to oppose and limit all sin and not just civil crimes or aggression. This is the view of theonomists, for example. And so if Romans 13 prescribes righteous governance, is it right that we limit, its prescriptions to civil crimes rather than sin more broadly? Does this passage open the door to theocratic interpretations or suggest that the enforcement of all moral duties through coercion is acceptable? Well, beyond what I’ve already talked about, I wanna dive into this a little bit deeper. Because while I agree while we agree here, with establishmentarians and theonomists on an important point that Romans 13 describes the kind of governance that God calls righteous rather than simply endorsing all existing authorities as being legitimate, we strongly disagree on how far this prescription extends. They fail to fully account for the fact that the old Mosaic covenant along with its unique and temporary theocratic laws for ancient Israel has come to an end. With the old covenant now obsolete, the principles of governance applicable under the Mosaic theocracy have ended. And Romans 13 reaffirms the broader principles of justice established in the Old Testament beginning in Genesis nine through what’s called the lex talionis or the law of proportionality.

Jacob Winograd [00:49:49]:
Outside of the Mosaic Covenant, coercion may only be used against actions that are themselves coercive. The, those that violate another person’s life, liberty, or property, Using force to punish nonaggressive immorality actually would violate the proportionality of justice that God has established. So we see in Genesis nine verses five through six, this is the, no added covenant. It’s the establishment of the principle of a universal standard of justice, and this is before the Mosaic covenant. And it’s the, if a man’s, blood is shed, then by, man shall his blood be shed. So that’s the institution of a proportional norm of justice. And what it’s showing is that the use of force is legitimate only in response to the initiation of force. And so by requiring a reckoning specifically for murder, the passage limits coercion to cases where force has first been initiated, emphasizing that justice demands proportionality and restraint.

Jacob Winograd [00:51:00]:
Importantly, there is no command in the Old Testament for humans to use force against nonaggressive sins outside of the Mosaic covenant or Israel’s, theocracy. Instead, scripture shows that god himself carries out judgment for such sins, which is his derine prerogative, not ours. And this is what it means in Romans twelve nineteen, which his vengeance is mine, says the lord. To use force against someone for actions that do not involve aggression, such as, let’s say, consensual homosexual relationships, well, that violates the principle of lex talionis because it initiates force rather than responding to aggression. Punishing nonaggressive behavior contradicts Genesis nine standard of proportionality, and it makes the person implementing the punishment the initiator of force and therefore injustice. Thus, Genesis nine affirms that force in human relationships is divinely authorized solely as a defensive or retaliatory measure against aggression. Connecting this to Romans 13, well, Paul’s use of the Greek term, kakos, which is commonly try translated as evil in Romans thirteen three through four, further clarifies the role of governing authorities and ties directly to the principle of proportionality in Genesis nine. In this context, this Greek word kakos does not refer to all sin or moral evil broadly, but it’s specifically speaking to aggression or wrongdoing in a civil sense, actions that disrupt justice and peace.

Jacob Winograd [00:52:46]:
For example, in acts, twenty eight five, I’m gonna show examples here of Caicos having different meanings in different contexts. When Paul shakes off a snake bite into the fire, he suffered no harm or kikos in that, in that passage. So in that passage, kikos means physical harm rather than moral wrongdoing. Now in Luke 23 verse 22, Pilate uses kakos to question whether Jesus has committed any kakos, any criminal act deserving punishment. So this is a context where we would understand it having a legal or civil connotation. These contexts demonstrate that this term often pertain pertains to physical harm or unlawful actions, and it doesn’t strictly refer to moral or religious evil in a broad sense. And so then Romans 13, because we’re talking about the civil magistrate and we’re not in the Mosaic covenant context, Caicos is best understood as referring to behaviors involving aggression committed upon others, reinforcing that the government’s god ordained role is to restrain such behaviors and uphold civil justice, not to enforce all moral duties. This interpretation aligns with the biblical framework that coercion is directed at addressing violations of life, liberty, or property rather than nonaggressive sins.

Jacob Winograd [00:54:14]:
The use of the sword is limited to matters of civil justice, not the enforcement of all moral duties, even external ones. This limitation is consistent with the principle of proportionality. Outside the unique theocratic context of ancient Israel, coercion cannot justly be used to enforce against what is not itself coercive. To read Genesis nine or Romans 13 as meaning coercion can be morally sanctioned against nonaggressive sins, would be logically incoherent as it would violate this principle of proportionality. In other words, we know that Romans 13 does not authorize the coercive enforcement of all moral duties because that unique arrangement of the old covenant covenant is over, and its sanctions do not apply outside of that specific administration. Romans 13 then shows that governments the requirements for governance is that it adheres to essentially the non aggression principle as coercion beyond what is proportional to protect against it’s against aggression itself becomes aggression, and therefore, it’s violating God’s principles of justice established in Genesis nine and repeated in Romans 13. So this understanding here and I I can give you more resources to think about this, more deeply. But I think once you understand this principle, you see that this understanding of Romans 13 reinforces this broader biblical framework we’ve been building and discussing, that god’s prescriptions for justice and for governance are grounded in service and justice and proportionality, and that the biblical brain the biblical framework for governance is not the initiation of coercion, instituting control or domination, or returning to theocratic models of governance where we’re trying to use statecraft to limit and punish all sins, including nonaggressive sins.

Jacob Winograd [00:56:19]:
Any interpretation that allows for the criminalization of nonaggressive sins violates this principle of proportionality and misunderstands the importance of the Mosaic covenant and the theocracy and why it’s ended. And this is why I said called this section covenant theology because, well, I don’t think you need to be reformed for this understanding to make the most sense. No matter what background you’re coming from, you do need to understand the different covenants and the place they hold, and I do think reformed covenant theology expresses this concept in the best way. The implications and entailments of this interpretation are many, but the two most important are the recognition of what the of what the proper role of civil governance is and understanding of what Christians are called to submit to. We are indeed called to submit to just authority. The important corollary to this, though, is that we are not called to obey or submit to unjust authority. Indeed, we see the contrary throughout the biblical narrative that god’s people frequently refuse to follow or submit to unjust laws or rulers. Now there may be times when submitting to an unjust authority is a matter of prudence, much like handing over a wallet to a mugger, and such actions may reflect wisdom or desire to deescalate.

Jacob Winograd [00:57:43]:
But they do not negate the recognition that the authority is, in fact, unjust. Both the act of submission in these cases and the acknowledgment of the underlying injustice being committed remain consistent with the teachings of scripture. So we see that Romans 12 through Romans 13 actually gives us one coherent message, and we see that we’re not called to take personal revenge or to respond with injustice with injustice, but rather that there is a specific role in God’s creation, the civil magistrate, and that role is meant to respond to initiations of coercion with responsive coercion to achieve an approximate justice. It’s not a perfect justice or a perfect dealing of sin. That remains with god. When we distort civil governance to instead try to use coercion in a fashion that would be initiating it and against not aggressive sins, this is in fact doing the opposite of Romans 12. And that would be trying to overcome evil with evil. And if we are creating more evil, if we are violating moral precepts in the pursuit of limiting other sins, we’re missing the mark of what we’re supposed to focus on as Christians.

Jacob Winograd [00:59:04]:
Section nine. What about paying taxes and rendering unto Caesar? Now some will not be satisfied with everything I’ve said because I haven’t yet addressed, both in Romans 13 and also at Matthew 22, the idea about paying taxes to whom taxes are due or rendering onto Caesar. Both of these passages, Romans 13 and Matthew 22, have aligned saying to kind of pay taxes to whom they are due. But this raises an important question. Does it align or sorry. Does what does the Bible teach about what is truly due? Does it align with claims made through extortion, or would what is due reflect the biblical norms of private property and justice? Scripture consistently teaches that we owe others what is rightfully theirs under God’s standards, respect for property, voluntary exchange, and stewardship, not what is seized or demanded through coercion. Taxation, again, by its nature, is the compulsory confiscation of property, and that stands in contrast to these principles. Now for sake of time, I have a more detailed presentation of this argument, and I would invite you to listen to episode seven of this podcast where I explore whether Christians should pay taxes and how these passages align with God’s moral decrees.

Jacob Winograd [01:00:28]:
Suffice to say that people like to focus, though, on render unto Caesar and not render unto God in Matthew 22. And then similarly in Romans 13, they like to focus on pay all to what is owed them, taxes to whom taxes, but not what comes after that, which is owe not no one anything except to love one another. Loving our neighbor while initiating aggression against them is impossible, and putting a badge on or holding a certain office doesn’t suddenly make what is clearly evil in any other context now good. Conclusion. So let’s end on some final thoughts. My brothers and sisters, I encourage you to reflect on what I’ve said. I am not opposed to authority. And on the contrary, I affirm the necessity of being subject to the higher powers instituted by God.

Jacob Winograd [01:01:20]:
However, I urge you to recognize that Romans 13 does not describe the state as we know it today or throughout history. Instead, it prescribes a vision of godly governance, one that is just, restrained, and committed to defending the innocent and punishing the guilty. By this standard, no analysis can reconcile the nature of the state with the kind of authority that Paul describes. If I sound impassioned, it is because I am profoundly moved by a Christ like love for the countless lives, indeed millions of lives that the state has slaughtered, oppressed, and terrorized both throughout history and even today. This injustice of the state is a constant in today’s society, including in our own nation. Even worse, these injustices are often committed in the name of our lord and savior Jesus Christ. And this is not only taking the lord’s name in vain, it is to subvert the gospel of Jesus Christ. The purpose of this podcast, biblical anarchy, is to serve as a prophetic voice against the empires and kingdoms of this world, holding them accountable to the standard of God’s word.

Jacob Winograd [01:02:31]:
And this involves confronting those who claim authority, measuring their actions against the principles outlined in in these texts we’ve gone over, and exposing their failures to act as true servants of god. When rulers violate these principles of justice and service, they forfeit their legitimacy as divinely instituted authorities, to be clear, in a morally prescriptive way. God does providentially establish unjust authority, but it’s not morally good. It’s not morally normative, and we have to make that distinction. Instead, unjust governing authorities, they become akin to the false gods and idols described in first Samuel eight, leaders who draw people away from God’s will. As Jesus taught, we cannot serve two masters. And there is an aspect of allegiance that needs to come into this consideration of evaluating the state as well. Throughout the Bible, we see examples of faithful servants of God standing firm against unjust authority and calls to divide their allegiance.

Jacob Winograd [01:03:38]:
Moses confronted Pharaoh, demanding that he let God’s people go. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to bow to king Nebuchadnezzar, even under the threat of being thrown into the fiery furnace, the and declaring that they would only bow to God. Daniel continued to pray and worship God despite the decree that sent him to the lion’s den. Esther risked her life to confront the king and save her people. The apostles faced imprisonment and even death at the hands of authorities who wanted to silence their preaching, yet they refused to stop proclaiming the gospel. Even Jesus himself resisted the authorities of his time, but not with violence, with radical love for his neighbors and even his enemies. His life and teachings challenged the oppressive systems of power, showing us a path of humility, service, and unwavering faith in God. And so all these biblical examples and passages remind us that our ultimate allegiance is to god’s kingdom and not to the rulers or systems of this world.

Jacob Winograd [01:04:40]:
When human authorities stray from their god ordained purpose, it is our duty to stand stand firm in truth and love and following the example of Christ and the faithful believers who came before us. So this conversation is not over, but this updated episode be serves as a refreshed or a refreshed introduction to the ideas that we’ve been exploring since this podcast first began. But it’s by no need means exhaustive. The purpose of biblical anarchy has always been to glorify Christ by humbly diving into his word, seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and practicing sound exegesis to understand what the Bible teaches about government and human authority. And it remains my firm conviction that if we take the Bible seriously as wholly inspired, inerrant, and harmonious, and if we are committed as Christians to being Christ like, following after Jesus’ example, then we are led to a consistent case for biblical anarchism. This updated episode reflects not only my own ongoing conviction, but also my growth and understanding and clarity on these matters. If you’re not fully convinced yet, that’s okay. My hope is that this episode sparks thought, challenges any prior held assumptions you’ve hold, and encourages you to keep exploring these important questions.

Jacob Winograd [01:06:02]:
Let’s continue this conversation. For further exploration beyond my podcast, I encourage you to visit libertarianchristians.com and check out the wealth of resources from the Libertarian Christian Institute, which makes the case for libertarianism from a Christian worldview. If you’re looking for a deeper dive, I highly recommend the book in my hand, faith seeking freedom, which tackles many of the questions you might have about this topic and keep your eye open for a second edition of that coming out later this year. As we move forward, my hope is that this episode not only reintroduces you to these ideas, but also gets you thinking about the nature of the state and whether loyalty to the status apparatus is truly compatible with following Christ. Thanks for tuning in to this remastered pilot episode of the Biblical Anarchy podcast. If you’ve enjoyed what you’ve heard, I would greatly appreciate it if you’d subscribe to the show. Leave a review wherever you watch this. Give a thumbs up if you’re watching on YouTube.

Jacob Winograd [01:06:59]:
Share this episode with others. There’s so much more to explore, and I look forward to continuing this journey with you. Until then, live at peace, live for Christ, take care.

LCI uses automated transcripts from various sources. If you see a significant error, please let us know.