RTS Papers / Acts-Romans / Fall 2018
An Exegetical Paper on Romans 13:1-7
Another set of texts not yet considered have to do with Daniel's imagery of the secular state as the beast, which John picks up on in his Revelation. In his commentary on that final apocalyptic book, Richard Bauckham explains, “The Roman Empire, like most political powers in the ancient world, represented and propagated its power in religious terms” [34]. One of the main symbols for Rome was “the beast (represented: especially in chapters 13 and 17)” [35].
Afterwards this world authority is called Babylon, and God’s people are called to “Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues” (Rev. 18:4). Now an Anabaptist might hear in this a call to be uninvolved in the civil sphere. That is not the point at all. After all, God's design of the sword is not wicked. Usurpation of that sword is what is wicked. Consequently, it does mean saying “No” to a sufficient level of perversion of that state. Historically it has often meant civil separation.
We Reformed have a high value in letting Scripture interpret Scripture, a standard that the Reformed used to apply to texts on civil sphere as well as other doctrines. We can hardly ignore this imagery and think we have done justice to what the Bible says about the state and the citizen.
INTEGRATING THE TEXT IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE
Careful reflection upon this text and its parallels in Old and New Testament make it exceedingly difficult to maintain the pietist maxim that “The Bible has nothing to say about politics.” While it is true that the Scriptures do not offer us a one-size-fits-all public policy, and while we are warned against any form of idolatry (of which politics offers many), it is simply not true that there are no clear implications for politics in such passages. All sorts of political programs, radical agendas, state worship, forms of civil disobedience, and forms of government are ruled out by Paul’s teaching in Romans 13:1-7. While we may be called to bear suffering under tyranny, we are not given a black check by Paul to set up one. Nor is the magistrate given a blank check on the citizen’s obedience.
The earthly magistrate is ultimately neither a set of circumstances surrounding a particular officer, nor his particular performance in that office, whether good or evil. As in 1 Peter 2:14, so in the Romans 13 text, Paul is not simply speaking of God's decree, but God's design. That difference is utterly lost in our day. In other words, the biblical authors are telling us what the state is: its covenantal function and its service to God. When the state dissolves those covenantal bonds, it is no longer the same entity. Obedience to it is conditioned upon that basic design. The earthly magistrate is fundamentally an office designed by God. That office is the essential object in view for the Christian’s submission. That is why the principle can apply to diverse forms of government. That is why the principle can (paradoxical as it may seem) legitimize lawful prosecution of a tyrant. To argue otherwise is immediately self-defeating.
It is the advocate of Statism, in whatever collectivist form, who wants to have his cake and eat it too with respect to this passage. Romans 13:1-7 is wielded as if were the scepter of Christ at the American Christian to force submission to the present day federal government.
When the Christian replies that in our form of government, the people, via the Constitution, are actually in the position to legally redress and, if necessary, prosecute the civil magistrate, the advocate of Statism cries foul and changes the terms of the text.
Like it or not, in the United States form of government, political power flows from the individuals in the several States, through those representatives, down to the Federal Government. Nor would it make any difference if all of the drafters of that Constitution were just as Deist as you please. As the filthy hands of the minister do not pollute the waters of baptism, so the aristocratic pride of those Enlightenment farmers, jurists, and yes, slaveholders, do not get to change the meaning of words. That authority is also established by God (or would we like to assert our double-standard again?).
I understand that this interpretation is controversial in recent decades because of increasing levels of ignorance with respect to the study of civics. But I also reject the postmodern notion that we have a right to make words mean whatever we want them to—even if it is done in the name of supposedly holding biblical words in a higher esteem. Paul’s words cannot be twisted to make obedience “to the man” so much as to the office, no matter the man.
What follows is that if the form of government in question places the man under the same law as the citizens, then the man in office is the proper object of both obedience and lawful prosecution, depending on his relation to that law.
Far from demanding unconditional obedience to the state, Paul’s exhortation here actually sets up a general submission of all citizens (including the magistrate) to the rule of law. Such law implies officers: divinely ordained authority figures. However, the design of the office that they occupy is as much a divine ordinance as the obedience God commands of the citizenry. This was the dominant Christian position from at least the high Middle Ages to the end of the twentieth century.
If my thesis is true to Paul’s thinking, then we may have to accept that several historical “revolutions” were, at least in their main principle, biblically permissible after all: e. g., (1) the barons of England standing up to Prince John and forcing agreement to the Magna Carta in 1215; (2) the execution of Charles I by the Parliamentarians at the close of the English Civil War, 1642 to 1649; and yes, even (3) the War for Independence by the American Colonies from 1775 to 1781. Of course we would have to turn to other evidence to decide on their respective levels of moral permissibility. However we can at least say that in each case the earthly magistrate exceeded the boundaries of the law, thereby breaking the terms of the covenant and abdicating his divinely ordained office. We may even challenge whether these may be called “revolutions” at all rather than lawful prosecutions of objective tyranny.
The alternative position has one more glaring weakness, a kind of “selective separation of church and state.” If indeed the sword belongs to the powers of the state and the keys to those of the church, then what exactly is the argument against duly constituted state power defending the civil liberty of Christian citizens? The Statist will incredulously point back to the sword and say, “Well, because that is not the gospel!” Or, “that is not how we advance the kingdom!” Or, “that is not the church's role!” But when we remind him that we are not talking about the church in its unique function with the keys, but rather precisely about state, there is no comprehension whatsoever. It is as almost as if what is so offensive about the classical interpretation is nothing more than the man with the sword would rule on behalf of the liberty of Christian citizens. It is as if the only legitimate use of the sword that is confessed is one raised on behalf of tyranny.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beale, G. K. & D. A. Carson, ed. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007
Bruce, F. F. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976
Boyd, Gregory. The Myth of a Christian Nation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005
Byrne, Brendan. Romans: Sacra Pagina, Volume 6. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1996
Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979
Carson, D. A. & Douglas Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005
Carson, D. A. Christ & Culture Revisited. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008
Dunn, James D. G. Romans 9-16: Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, 1988
Gaventa, Beverly Roberts. “Reading Romans 13 with Simone Weil: Toward a More Generous Hermeneutic”. JBL 136, no. 1 (2017): 7–22
Kruger, Michael J. A Biblical-Theological Introduction to the New Testament. Wheaton: Crossway, 2016
Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993
Longenecker, Richard M. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016
Luther, Martin. Commentary on Romans. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publishing, 1976
Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996
Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965
Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998
Stott, John. The Message of Romans. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994
Comments