Romans 13 and Submission to Authority

[Amazing Rando]

In Romans 13, Paul writes:

Scripture Verse:

1Everyone 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. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For 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. 4For 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. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Now, did he mean just what it seems to me he's saying here? Are we to obey the governing authority in all that they do? In other words, is this an absolute? If it is, it would mean that wars like the American Revolution were unjust wars (at least from the Christian perspective). That's a possibility I'm open to as well.

I know some will argue that this passage is an interpolation, and was not part of Paul's original letter, but I don't believe that for a minute because it does fit in nicely with the letter's context as well as the rest of Paul's thought. But just how radical is the call to Christian obedience in this case? If there is no authority but what God has established, then are we ever right in standing up violently to an oppressive dictator, for example? I know there are some who answer this in the affirmative, and I suspect that they may have the stronger case because of the pattern of discipleship and radical obedience the NT portrays.

[Solly]

Now, did he mean just what it seems to me he's saying here? Are we to obey the governing authority in all that they do? In other words, is this an absolute? If it is, it would mean that wars like the American Revolution were unjust wars (at least from the Christian perspective). That's a possibility I'm open to as well.

I know some will argue that this passage is an interpolation, and was not part of Paul's original letter, but I don't believe that for a minute because it does fit in nicely with the letter's context as well as the rest of Paul's thought. But just how radical is the call to Christian obedience in this case? If there is no authority but what God has established, then are we ever right in standing up violently to an oppressive dictator, for example? I know there are some who answer this in the affirmative, and I suspect that they may have the stronger case because of the pattern of discipleship and radical obedience the NT portrays.

Well, for a start Peter and the other disciples didn't think it was unconditional obedience; obeying God was considered more important; but they were prepared to accept the consequences, as good prophets

We can stand up and oppose the powers that be, because they are ordained of God, and if they are not conforming to God's righteous standards, the Church has a prophetic call to challenge that. However, it should not be violent; the Church is not called to be the power that is. Nor are we promised that we will escape the actions of said powers that be via oppression. Our witness during such trouble is as vital as in opposing it.

But don't restrict this to violent dictatorships. Western countries wield economic power that oppresses the citizens of other nations, for instance.

[Amazing Rando]

Well, for a start Peter and the other disciples didn't think it was unconditional obedience; obeying God was considered more important; but they were prepared to accept the consequences, as good prophets

I agree with you- but how would we get around what appears to me to be Paul telling us not to rebel against authority?

We can stand up and oppose the powers that be, because they are ordained of God, and if they are not conforming to God's righteous standards, the Church has a prophetic call to challenge that. However, it should not be violent; the Church is not called to be the power that is. Nor are we promised that we will escape the actions of said powers that be via oppression. Our witness during such trouble is as vital as in opposing it.

<Sarcasm>

Typical Brit, still bitter over the American Revolution

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the preceding text was written in jest.

All kidding aside, this is a slant I like! I'm very predisposed to non-violent resistance, because I feel it's the pattern Jesus and the apostles set. I guess I should rephrase the question from my OP. How do you interpret Romans 13, especially verses 1 and 2?

But don't restrict this to violent dictatorships. Western countries wield economic power that oppresses the citizens of other nations, for instance.

You and I really do have similar worldviews, Solly!

[Solly]

Most of my answer can be found here and you were the only one to comment on it.

Most rebellions are based on the premise, you are wrong, we can do better - until said rebels get in power and, in the words of John Howard Yoder, the Revolution eats its own children.
But before I went further, i would want to look again at the verses in context, remembering that the whole section starts in ch 12: be transfomred by the renewing of your mind. how does this injuction in 13 contribute to that?

[Amazing Rando]

Most of my answer can be found here and you were the only one to comment on it.

Most rebellions are based on the premise, you are wrong, we can do better - until said rebels get in power and, in the words of John Howard Yoder, the Revolution eats its own children.
But before I went further, i would want to look again at the verses in context, remembering that the whole section starts in ch 12: be transfomred by the renewing of your mind. how does this injuction in 13 contribute to that?

I'm gonna bump up that thread, see if we can't get some talking going on.

[Amazing Rando]

Most of my answer can be found here and you were the only one to comment on it.

Most rebellions are based on the premise, you are wrong, we can do better - until said rebels get in power and, in the words of John Howard Yoder, the Revolution eats its own children.
But before I went further, i would want to look again at the verses in context, remembering that the whole section starts in ch 12: be transfomred by the renewing of your mind. how does this injuction in 13 contribute to that?

That's really interesting, thinking "I can do better than them, Why not fight them and knock them off?"

I'd say that most rebellions go back to C.S. Lewis' "Great Sin" of pride. The same goes for rebellions against God. What are we really thinking in our hearts besires, "I know better than God what's best for me," When we sin.

[Solly]

I had a quick look at Moo in the IVP New Bible Commentary 4th edition. he points out that historically there was a lot of agitation about taxes in those days; and of course paying our taxes is also submission to the powers that be.

He says:

Paul’s demand that Christians submit to government means simply that they recognize government’s rightful place within the hierarchy of relationships estabished by God, a hierarchy at whose pinnacle is God. When, therefore, government usurps its place, and commands us to do something contrary to our ultimate Lord, we are free—indeed obliged—to disobey. This view may, however, unduly weaken the meaning of ‘submit’. Perhaps the best solution, then, is to view 13:1–7 as a general statement about how the Christian should relate to government, with exceptions to this advice assumed but not spelled out here.
Carson, D.A.; et al., The New Bible Commentary, (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press) 1994.

And certainly, you would have to tie in not only the context of Romans, ie living the Gospel which Paul has outlines in cpp 1-11, but also the NT and then OT teaching on authority and submission. I preached on Esther a while back, and saw it as something of a paradigm for life for Christians today in a post-Christian pluralist society. And ultimately, it goes back to the fact that, having been saved by his death, will we not much more be saved by his life? One must avoid abstracting political principles that are divorced from the Gospel and the disciple call.

[Augustine2004]

This thread seems to be the best place for this article link
• Edited by a Moderator •
I don't necessarily agree with the article all, but I do want to discuss it.

Moderated By: themuzicman

Argument by weblink is not allowed

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[timspong]

blimey, I thought Solly was back, then I realized that this thread was from 2004!!!

[Anoetos]

One thing is sure, when the ideals of the early church conflicted with those of the pagan state the church DID not rebel against the state.

[JeremiahParker]

Did anyone read Francis Schaeffer's book A Christian Manifesto?

[Obsidian]

One thing is sure, when the ideals of the early church conflicted with those of the pagan state the church DID not rebel against the state.

Not true. Look into Tiradates III of Armenia and his dealings with the emperor.

[Anoetos]

That was quite different than a pagan Roman state enforcing anti-christian law on a Christian subject.

Tiridates, as king of Armenia fought the Romans in a war that had to do with land and vassalship, not theology or ethics.

[Obsidian]

I'm not 100% sure it was Tiridates III, although this event would presumably have occurred during his reign.

2. In addition to this the tyrant [Maximinus Daia] was compelled to go to war with the Armenians, who had been from ancient times friends and allies of the Romans. As they were also Christians and zealous in their piety toward the Deity, the enemy of God had attempted to compel them to sacrifice to idols and demons, and had thus made friends foes, and allies enemies.

3. All these things suddenly took place at one and the same time, and refuted the tyrant's empty boast against the Deity. For he had boasted that, because of his zeal for idols and his hostility against us, neither famine nor pestilence nor war had happened in his time. These things, therefore, coming upon him at once and together, furnished a prelude also of his own destruction.

4. He himself with his forces was defeated in the war with the Armenians, and the rest of the inhabitants of the cities under him were terribly afflicted with famine and pestilence, so that one measure of wheat was sold for twenty-five hundred Attic drachms.

from http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250109.htm

[Anoetos]

Again, we're talking about organized, bottom up rebellion against duly constituted authority, not war between ostensible peers over territory and vassalship where Christianity is incidental.