Does Romans 13 Teach Blind
Obedience to Government?
Over the years I have heard several sermons preached on
Romans, chapter 13, and the Christian response to that portion of God's
Word. Most of what I have heard has advocated blind, unquestioning
obedience to government, no matter what the situation might be. Since most
Christians today, not having been taught to think critically, reason that
government is the "lawful authority" they next reason that they are bound
to obey it in all instances no matter what. Suffice it to say that I
disagree. I do not advocate revolution and I do not advocate overthrow of
the government, rather I advocate that we look anew at what Romans 13
really says.
Romans 13 is a statement that declares the limits of
government. It sets out the proper role of the magistrate as God's
minister. In other words, the magistrate should only be doing what God
allows him to do within the limits of his office, and for him to go
further than that is usurpation.
Pastor Steve Wilkins of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian
Church in Monroe, Louisiana has noted: "If you think Nero was pleased to
read Romans 13, think again. Romans 13 is a declaration of the proper role
of the civil magistrate [i.e. that he is a 'minister' of God] - this was
viewed by Nero as high treason. He was not encouraged by Paul's
instruction [if he ever read it.] Paul is in fact bringing a scathing
indictment against the Roman emperor and the divine state [i.e. he
contradicts every claim made by the Roman state.] Jesus did the same when
He said 'Render unto Caesar, the things that are Caesar's, BUT render unto
God the things that are God's. This was a treasonous statement given the
divine claims of the Roman emperor, who believed nothing belonged to any
God apart from himself."
Pastor Wilkins observed that the Christians did not
promote bloody revolts against Rome as did some, including apostate Jews,
rather they did something else that was, in the long run, more devastating
to Rome. They preached the Word of God and told men to repent of their
sins and to trust "in the only name given among men whereby they must be
saved." And that name was Jesus Christ. However, even that was considered
treasonous, considering that the same claim was made by one of the early
Roman emperors. Romans 13 points out that the state isn't God. It points
out that the current ruler in any State anywhere is not God on earth. The
ruler has to be limited in his authority and, according to God's Word,
strictly limited in his power, given the propensity of human nature to
always grasp for more power than is allowed. The ruler's authority is
limited and the obligation to obey him is also limited to those areas
where he rightly exercises his God-given authority. Pastor Wilkins has
said that: "Any covenant head who rebels against his God-ordained position
may be lawfully opposed [always and only, however, in lawful ways - i.e.
no sinning against him - which rules out lawless revoltion."
It would seem that today, in light of where government,
especially at the federal level, has taken us since the advent of the
Lincoln administration, we should begin anew to consider the implications
of Romans 13. What would Romans 13 have had to say to the actions of the
Lincoln administration, had anyone at that time thought to ask the
question? Truly, at that point, the federal government went well beyond
the limited scope of what its activities should have been. Lincoln claimed
that he did what he did to "preserve the Union." However, given the nature
of how the federal government was set up and the restrictions placed upon
its powers by the Constitution, did he go beyong the scope of the powers
allowed? In no place in the Constitution was secession mentioned as being
illegal, yet Lincoln moved to combat secession by invading the Southern
states and terming their lawful secession as a "rebellion" which really is
was not. The Southern states did not attempt to depart from the Union
through lawless revolution, nor did they attempt to overthrow the federal
government in Washington. All they did was, in their respective states, to
vote to secede and depart from the Union. Of course, since the South paid
the Lion's share of expenses for the govenrment via the tariff, while the
North got most of the benefits from that, Lincoln could not have been
expected to let them depart in peace. The money interests in the North
that got Lincoln elected would not have been happy with him, so he had to
do something, even if it was unlawful, given the limits of his authority,
both federally and what was God-ordained. In the War of Northern
Aggresion, Mr. Lincoln was the real revolutionary, not the South.
And today, we are faced with a situation where our
federal government, in the name of "fighting terrorism" has usurped even
more of our rights, has exceeded its constitutional authority by leaps and
bounds, and has left the God-ordained limits on government somewhere back
in the dust!
Rather than trying to understand this and to point it
out, most Christians have defended and cheered the Bush administration on
as it gobbles up what little remains of our personal liberties. It would
be an interesting and worthwhile study to check out, from the Lincoln
administration up to the present one, where the federal government has
gone way beyong what Romans 13 allows for it to be doing. Does the State
today consider itself to be divine, God walking upon the earth? While our
federal officials don't come out and blatantly make such a statement [yet]
it seems more and more that this is the way they think and act.
Click here to purchase homeschool curriculum from Al
Benson, Jr.
More info about Al
Benson, Jr.