Skip to main content

Are Christians to Submit to Government...Always?

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer" (Romans 13:1-4).

Paul’s teaching in Romans 13:1-4 regarding Christian submission to government must be seen in light of the whole of the Bible’s teaching. The Bible says that believers are to be in submission to civil government, but also those who govern are to be in submission to God (c.f. Psalm 2, Daniel 4:34-35). No government can say it rose to power on its own (c.f. John 19:11). God has established governing authorities to reward those who do good and to be an “avenger” upon those who do evil. Biblically there is no double standard for good and evil. All nations must honor God’s law or be brought to an end. (Daniel 2:31-35).

The Bible is clear that the magistrate is not free to create and enforce his own arbitrary set of laws to serve his own ignoble ends (c.f. Isaiah 5:20). To do so would be a license for tyranny, something Jesus opposed (c.f. Luke 22:25-26). As a “minister of God,” the civil government is charged with upholding God’s justice, not man’s quest for totalitarian control over others. Nations that throw off God’s law face severe punishment. The blessings and curses that relate to the Law given to Israel apply equally to all nations of the world (c.f. Psalm 82:7).

Therefore, Paul is not giving carte blanche to all governmental actions. Rather, he is pointing to God’s intended design for government. He is mainly concerned with submission to the principle of authority – the function that God has appointed the magistrate to fulfill.

Gary DeMar writes, “Paul is describing what a ruler’s proper function is. The apostle is not making a moral judgment about any particular ruler or political party. Rather, his words describe what civil governments ought to be and ought to do."

The context of Romans 13 reveals that there is no basis to conclude that Paul was encouraging Christians to submit to political oppression. His main concern is submission to the principle of authority as it comes from God.

Comments

  1. John, am I correct in discerning that you're trying to soften a blunt and counter-intuitive command? Submission to oppression is precisely what Paul is commanding here. That's why he has to command it. Paul says that government is God's (generally unfaithful) servant for your good (even the worst government provides some good), so out of reverence for God, people must submit to government. The only qualification I see is Acts 5:29. You may disobey (but not revolt) if the government is requiring you to sin.

    The response of intermediate authorities to injustice is another matter.

    My students routinely bristle at this notion. Their sympathies are with Locke rather than Paul on this point. Understandably. It's a radical teaching because it reflects a radically different cosmology (the unseen Creator Covenant God governs all things) and a radically different hope ("longing for a better country--a heavenly one"). The cultural mandate is not the basis for popular rebellion, but rather for this paradoxical submission that testifies to the sovereignty of God and the hope of glory.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Paul wrote the letter to the Romans in A.D. 57 during the early part of Nero’s reign. There appears to be no indication that at this time Nero was a tyrant and brutal ruler. The Jews had been expelled in A.D. 49, but that was under Claudius and things appeared to be different in A.D. 57. There was a problem with tax protests under Nero in A.D. 58, which likely explains Rom. 13:7. Therefore, we may assume that political conditions were fairly stable and that the Christian church enjoyed the status of religio licita (note change of status from A.D. 35 when the Roman Senate declared Christianity strana et illicita "strange and unlawful." On this point, see Frend, W.H.C. Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church. A Study in Conflict from the Maccabees to Donatus. Oxford: Blackwell, 1965. I do not have the page number off the top of my head). Both the grammatical and historical context of Romans 13 reveals that there is no basis to conclude that Paul was encouraging Christians to submit to political oppression. His main concern, as I previously mentioned, was submission to the principle of authority as it comes from God (vs. 1).

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Andy Stanley and the “NEW Hermeneutic”

The problem of faith and reason is longstanding in the history of theology. Augustine held that faith aids reason (credo ut intelligam) and that reason aids faith (intelligo un creadam). The church father is, however, inclined to stress the later over the former. It was with Thomas Aquinas, and his Summa Theologica, that the effort to reconcile faith and reason reached its apex. Rejecting the medieval doctrine of double truth, he placed natural reason prior to faith in effectively every area of the Christian life. The restrictions are the mysteries of the faith that reason cannot penetrate.
Thomas’ affirmation of the high role of native reason in Christian belief is linked to his stress on dialectical method in study, seminally set forth by Peter Abelard. The form of study is dependent largely on logic to argue both sides of a theological question. Christian belief is thus the proper result of process or synthesis. Faith then assents to the final proposition arrived at by reason.
Thom…

Pat Robertson is Warned!

Pat Robertson is taking it on the chin again. Seems each time he opines on why bad things happen to us, there is someone to call him on it.
Most recently, Dr. Richard Mouw has taken up the challenge in response to Robertson's recent statement on the Las Vegas shooting, in which at least 59 people were killed and more than 500 were wounded in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
In a piece, titled, "You've Been Warned, PatRobertson!" Mouw, for whom I have deep respect, pens,

"It didn’t take long for some preachers to start telling us why God caused the horrible mass murder in Las Vegas to happen. Pat Robertson led the way, declaring that it was divine retribution for the widespread 'disrespect' for Donald Trump in America."
If Robertson had limited his rationale for the Vegas shooting to God punishing us for people dissing the President, I'd be smacking him on the chin myself. But he didn't.
Robertson's brief remarks f…

Fighting Abortion is Not the Fourth Sign of the Church

Some Christians are what I call, “single-issue.” I recall one family that left a church because everything did not revolve around Evangelism Explosion. But that's just one issue.
The issue I'm thinking about is abortion on demand. Some concerned Christians expect their pastor to thunder away almost each week on this topic, or at least mention it. He must make it is his central motif. He must protest outside the abortion clinic. If he doesn’t, he can say he’s against abortion all he likes, but it’s not enough.
Motivating the single-issue congregant is a deeper judgment. He thinks that the ultimate reason abortion on demand still happens is because pastors let it. Churches let it.
As one who has taken a virulent stand against abortion, both in the pulpit and with pen, I can say without qualification, “I hate it.”  Period. I pray the day that Roe is overturned. Nonetheless, as a former pastor, an as one who may return to the pulpit someday, here’s the bottom line.
We are called to …