top of page
Reformed Classicalist

Paul's Exhortation to the Christian Citizen: Part 3

RTS Papers / Acts-Romans / Fall 2018

An Exegetical Paper on Romans 13:1-7


DIVINE JUSTICE: EXEMPLIFIED AND MOTIVATING


How does divine justice, displayed in the magistrate, translate into any motive for the Christian citizen’s godly submission? The motivation is actually similar to the more private exhortation of 12:19. Vengeance belongs to God. Peter makes a few statements in his first letter that are very illuminating on this matter. The upshot is that Jesus looked to final justice in the face of temporal injustice. He did this at the heart of the gospel; and Peter mentions it directly after the section on submission to the state: “when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly” (1 Pet. 2:23). In other words, trusting in the perfection of final justice cultivates a willingness to wait under imperfect temporal justice. Here common grace and the gospel work together. “Christians are not to take retributive justice into their own hands, but rather are to submit to the God-established governmental authorities in these matters (13:4b)” [Longenecker, 961]


The simplest motive presented in the text is an appeal to our conscience before God: “not only to avoid wrath, but also for the sake of conscience” (v. 5). 1 Peter 2:13 has this same thing in mind: subjection “for the Lord’s sake.” The indication is that the true Christian knows the norm. Under general circumstances, rebellion incurs God’s wrath.


There is another way that God’s justice through the civil magistrate provides ethical data to the Christian citizen. It is a controversial idea today, but it has great support from church history. I am referring to what is sometimes called “the lesser magistrate doctrine.” Although some trace its roots back to some of Calvin’s descendants [Hall, 129-90], it has precursors in several works prior to the Reformation [Hall, 4-23]. Because of the limits of this essay, my only concern is to show how the text itself might actually inform such a doctrine. The most concise way to put it is this: When Paul speaks of what God has done with this character called the “authority,” there is not merely “decree language” but also “design language.”

In other words, Paul’s words do not merely say that God has willed for x individual to be in power in this time or place, but that God has built the office with a definite and limited nature. It does not do everything, but simply punishes the bad and praises the good, and this in matters pertaining to civic interest.

An objection may easily be imagined in the following form: “Paul’s exhortation is entirely to Christian citizens and not at all to the magistrate. Consequently even the ethical demands that God places on the magistrate, being implied in this text, are really none of our business.” Several replies could be given. A hermeneutical reply would be sufficient. Let us ask whether this objection could be applied across the board and on what principle. This test would require analogous situations; and texts that exhort Christians to submit to authorities in various institutions would be the obvious choice for the comparison. So it is to relevant New Testament parallel texts that we now turn.


PARALLEL TEXTS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT


One important note to strike here is that Paul is echoing what Jesus had already commanded about taxes. Compare 13:7 to Matthew 22:15-22 (cf. Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:19-26). On the extreme opposite to statism, it is fashionable in some circles to maintain that “taxation is theft.” However that creates a significant dilemma in the whole biblical worldview. If Jesus commanded that we pay our taxes, and yet taxation is theft, then it would follow that Jesus commands theft. But this would put Jesus at odds with the eighth commandment. Consequently we cannot entertain such a rationalistic libertarianism. What is more pertinent concerning Christ’s words about taxes is the larger context of what he said about authority and obedience.


D. A. Carson provides an apt summation. After pointing out the dual nature of the answer to “Whose image is this?” he adds, “Far from privatizing God’s claim, that is, the claim of religion, Jesus’ famous utterance means that God always trumps Caesar” [57]. All things belong to King Jesus. Some of those things have been delegated to the earthly king. Scripture commands a relative obedience to that which is delegated in proportion to the design of our Lord, to whom alone obedience is unqualified and absolute. That all secular governments are Christ’s property fits the context of Romans 13:1 very well.


In a similar vein to the Kuyperian notion of “sphere sovereignty,” Murray comments that, “It is not the prerogative of the ruler to deal with all sin but only with sin registered in the actions which violate the order that the magistrate is appointed to maintain and promote” [151]. Waters seems to agree with this in saying: “Our obedience to these rulers is not implicit. Both they and we stand under God, and we may never obey human authority when that means disobedience to God” [193].


A clearer passage for many is Acts 4:1-22, where Peter and John stand before the Jewish authorities. After being questioned by the authorities and pressured to submit, their culminating words are: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard” (vv. 19-20).

Advocates of unqualified obedience to the state would object to normative use of this text on the grounds that these Apostles were preaching the gospel. “Of course the Christian is to continue to preach the gospel!” However it is not clear where to draw the line around this lone “exception” of justifiable civil disobedience. Does one draw it at speech per se, speech content, audience, application, etc?

The most straightforward way to read this passage is that Peter and John are drawing the line at “what God has said,” such that if the civil magistrate commands the Christian to believe, speak, or act contrary, then we must “listen to God” rather than man. To limit this civil disobedience to “gospel speech” certainly begs a few questions that this text does not seem to explicitly answer.


1 Peter 2:13-17 is a crucial text because it implies both the decree and design elements already mentioned. When that Apostle commanded, “Honor the emperor” (v. 17), this was Nero. Clearly the divine decree to raise up every single ruler is in play. We cannot object to the office because of how evil the man is. On the other hand the office is given form by those same scriptures. The civil office is designed “to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” (v. 14). The Apostles several times warned against false liberty that rebels against authority for insufficient reasons. So Peter says “not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil” (v. 16). The implication is that there are sufficient reasons that were being twisted.


One more piece of the puzzle is necessary. Submission is a broader category than obedience, even when the words for “obey” (Eph. 5:21, 22, 24; 6:1, 5; Col. 3:18, 20, 22; 2 Thess. 3:14; Heb. 13:17) and “be subject” or “submit” (Rom. 13:1, 5; 1 Cor. 16:16; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 2:13, 18; 3:1; 5:5) are used. That is because obedience to human authorities is relative to the ultimate authority of Christ. Children, wives, slaves, church members, and citizens are called to be submissive in all things and yet also find occasions in which to disobey with a submissive spirit. There is no contradiction here because of the concept of derived authority.


Because the earthly authorities are derivative, a portion and stewardship of Christ’s authority, the submission is consequently relativized. 1 Timothy 2:1-2 and Titus 3:1-2 round out our survey. Cumulatively, we are to live consistently with our prayers for a quiet life. Both the prayers and the good citizenship commended are not prayers and cooperation for the secular agenda to succeed, but rather for the gospel to expand unmolested. In none of these ideas is the state supreme.


8 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page