Romans 13 in ContextBy David Alan BlackThe Covenant News ~ January 10, 2005
Recently I received the following email from a DBO reader.
It raises some very pertinent questions about the Christian’s relation
to the state, and especially about the meaning of Romans 13.
Dear professor Black,
Your essays are fascinating and
they resonate with my own opinions.
I am a Christian of the
Reformed Baptist persuasion. I hold to the Scriptures alone, Lord
willing to the best of my ability.
I have been struggling with
some theological issues concerning the relationship between church and
state for a long time now.
I hear some people saying that this
nation was founded on Christian principles. I hear others saying that
that is not true.
Could you answer a question or two for
me?
How can I prove from the Bible that liberty of the sort
spoken of by many patriotic Americans, including Thomas Jefferson (who
was no Christian!) is a God-given right?
And if it can be shown
from the Scriptures, then what forms the essence of this
freedom?
If, as Dabney says, “Government is not the creator but
the creature of human society,” isn’t he denying its God-given
authority? If government is not the master, but a servant, “of, by,
and for the people,” how am I to understand Paul's meaning in Romans
13?
When does government become illegitimate in God’s eyes?
Christ submitted to death on a cross. He paid taxes. And yet, clearly
governments sin against God, to the detriment of men. Is there an
illegitimacy of government in God’s eyes that rests on something other
than preventing personal obedience to the 10 commandments out of
conscience to God?
Perhaps you could recommend some good books
on the relationship between church and state. I have found only Martyn
Lloyd-Jones commentary on Romans 13 to be helpful so
far.
Regards and may the Lord bless,
Mark
S.
Here is a brief response:
Dear Mark:
I
agree with you that there is a great deal of confusion about the
Christian’s attitude toward the state. According to the limited insight
God has given me, permit me to say a few things in response to your
excellent questions.
I believe we may dismiss from the outset any
thought of a servile, uncritical attitude toward the state. I stress
this because so many Christians today believe they are to give
unquestioning obedience to the state. Such an attitude is based on a
faulty misinterpretation of Romans 13:1: “Let every soul be subject to
the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God,
and the authorities that exist are appointed by God” (please read vv.
2-7 also). Statists are accustomed to appeal to this text as if it
supported an unconditional and uncritical subjection to any and every
demand of the state. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The
immediate context shows that Paul’s point is something quite different.
He is at pains to show that the state performs properly what is
forbidden to the individual Christian: it takes vengeance on the one who
does evil (see verse 4). Christians, on the contrary, must never
repay evil for evil (12:17), and therefore they are not to oppose this
legitimate function of the state but are to submit to it. God alone may
take vengeance, and it is the “sword” of the state that he uses for this
purpose. Essentially, Paul is teaching the same thing that Jesus taught:
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the
things that are God’s.” Jesus assumes that the existence of the state is
willed of God – even the existence of the pagan Roman Empire. But the
disciple of Jesus is not allowed to give to the state what is God’s.
Whenever the state makes an illegitimate claim to what is God’s it has
transgressed its limits; and the Christian will not render to the state
what is unjustly required of him.
The state is often confused
with the kingdom of God. Indeed, many Christians are guilty of this
false association. The state is a temporary institution (see 13:11). It
will pass away, whereas the kingdom is eternal. Therefore, as long as
the present age exists, Christians need not oppose the institution of
the state as such. Rather they are to give the state what it needs to
exist (e.g., taxes) and submit to its right to bear the sword. This is
the plain meaning of Romans 13.
Keep in mind that while the state
is “ordained” of God, it is not by nature a divine institution nor are
its principles equally valid to those pertaining to the kingdom.
Elsewhere Paul uses the term “rulers of this world” (1 Cor. 2:8) to
refer to earthly political leaders. The state in which they rule is
willed by God and hence Christians have to affirm the state as an
institution. But, as Paul says in another passage, Christians are not to
allow their controversies to be judged by the state because Christians
themselves will one day sit in judgment over the very powers that now
stand invisible behind the state (see 1 Cor. 6:1 ff.). So there is no
question of Christians obeying the state at any point where it demands
what is God’s. For Paul at least, this meant that no Christian could say
“Caesar is Lord” or “Let Jesus be accursed,” even though such
confessions might be demanded by the Roman state. The state that deifies
or absolutizes itself has freed itself from its proper constraints as
the servant of God and has, in fact, become satanic.
Inasmuch as
the state remains within its proper limits, the Christian will
acknowledge it as the servant of God. But inasmuch as the state
transgresses its limits, it is to be considered the instrument of Satan.
But even when the state functions properly as God’s servant, the
genuine state for the Christian – his politeuma (the Greek
word Paul uses in Phil. 3:20) – is in heaven. (On the concept of our
Christian citizenship, please see my essay, The Christian as Citizen.)
And so the Christian
gladly acknowledges the place of the state in God’s earthly economy, but
he also knows the state’s place within the divine order. For that reason
he will see his task regarding the state as one of watching to see that
at no point does the state fall away from the divine order.
Thus
I am forced to conclude that, far from teaching that the state is to be
accepted uncritically in all that it does, Paul’s discussion in Romans
13 serves as a warning against the state exceeding its limits. How this
works itself out in daily life is, of course, another topic and one I
hope to address in a book that I am currently writing entitled
Unleashing the Church.
Thank you again for writing, and my
very best wishes and warmest regards,