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.
God is Sovereign!
20 Comments(+Add)
Amen, Chris L God is Sovereign
And Obama is our new president. That means we must submit to the governing authorities. Also, we must pray for Him and support him in that way.
Again, no man can possibly change this country. It is up to individuals to be given a new heart by God.
Those verses, and how that all works out practically, is a mystery. God ordained Hitler? Nero? It is beyond our finite minds, except to obey that which John just said. The evangelical community fell way short in praying for and showing honor to Clinton, we will see if we do better with Obama.
In the end we serve Christ, not any country. That should temper our political biases.
So – does this refer to offices or individuals?
As I told my son 9-10 years ago, we respect the office of the presidency, even if the person occupying the seat is completely corrupt.
In the same way that it was wrong for Dietrich Bonhoeffer to conspire to kill Hitler, since he was under the authority of that government, it is equally wrong for us to wish ill upon any individual in our presidency…
PB – I would note that Chris (no initial) posted this one, probably to temper and counterbalance my choice last night (prior to my being put in my place by him in IM….)
I would suggest that this Biblical principle is another reason why we should leave it in God’s hands and not get wrapped up in the spectacle of carnal power struggles, only to realize we voted against the one God ordained to be elected. There is something wrong with that.
Rick – I would disagree, as “authorities”, in our case of government, would be the offices of power, not the individuals who hold them. Too often we forget that in Rome, Caesar was a title, not a name, and that Caesar was an ‘authority’, not Titus Flavius Domitianus.
(which may be the answer to your conundrum in #2)
Given the principal of the context in the passage above, it is in establishing order and a rule of law, not a cult of personality. That is the function of an office, not an individual…
Democracy is anti-christ. It is fallen man ruling himself without the dictates of God’s direction. The constitution is treated as Scripture and the Supreme Court as the nine headed Trinity (Ninity?).
I think it is helpful to keep in mind that Paul expected the second coming to happen in the not too distant future.
PB used Rom 13 on my blog in a similar discussion. The following was my response to the issues surrounding this passage. Funny enough, he never brought it up again….
I don’t know that I would go that far, Rick. At one time, at least, it was a belief that man should rule only in securing those rights granted by God to man.
Now, unfortunately, it has become the secularists health-and-wealth gospel, where the state is the provisioner of health and wealth, and has declared both a “God-given right”…
Which is why I’m partial-preterist (an amillennial position), and not pre-mill…
I think also it is important to note that we are also to stand up to authority if it asks us to rebel against the will of God. If a ruler asked us to not love the Lord our God and worship him instead (the Caesers are a good example) or to not love our neighbors as ourselves (lots of examples come to mind) then we should stand up to them.
Now, the question:
Does stand up to them include supporting your country as it goes to war against a Hitler or Nero?
Does it include helping slaves escape, which was against the law in the South?
Would it include joining a resistance movement against an invading power that was killing innocents?
Just a few questions.
-Blessings
Mike – this is why, when reading Romans 13, I think that it is an important distinction that these verses are addressing the offices of government, itself, not the individuals holding those offices.
The God-given role of government is in justice and defense – maintaining the order in which society runs. So, there is no conflict in supporting your country if it uses all means necessary to stop Hitler or Nero. There is no conflict in helping escaped slaves, or hiding Jews. There is no conflict in resisting the evil promulgated by an individual in the role of President, so long as that role is not in overthrowing the government, itself…
This is the one I have the hardest time supporting from a Biblical perspective. I have a hard time seeing where Jesus gives us the option of turning to violence, even if it is in defense of others. That being said, resistance and violence aren’t necessarily the same thing. I just have a hard time justifying taking up arms against anyone.
Certainly the Roman occupation of Palestine could be described as a situation where innocents were killed, and in that case the Jews were on what they believed was land given to them directly by God. So even in that environment, Jesus didn’t advocate any type of violent resistance. And it’s not like there weren’t people who tried at the time, either.
Good point, Phil.
The type of resistance I see as acceptable would be like the other two examples:
1) Christians hiding Jews/lying to authorities about their whereabouts in 1940 Germany
2) Christians working the underground railroad during the pre-Civil War period. (Noting that my family has diaries of our Quaker ancestors who fully participated in the UR)
In these same situations, biblically unacceptable resistance would include:
1) Bonhoeffer’s plot to assassinate Hitler
2) John Brown’s raid
Howdy. I’m back from a military exercise in Vegas! Terrible town that is….
Anyways, what about a country stepping in and stopping genocide in another country? There is no solution sometimes other than destruction of the offenders to defend the weak and needy. Like it says, they do not bear the sword in vain.
God does advocate violence in the Bible, let’s not avoid the elephant in the room. I can’t say He merely “allows” it [like the Hebrews destroying so and so people] when He actually very well “commands” it. Jesus did not, however. That says something too.
Where do you draw the line? The answer is we don’t, we just do what is right. If the American military must stop the evils of another nation (Hitler’s Germany for instance) then so be it. What alternative is there when they’ve already made a blitzkrieg to take over the entire world and destroy millions of people?
Joe
Joe C – welcome back!
I agree with you, as well. The point of my comment was about doing violence within the system (which Jesus seemed to condemn in his comments about the zealots, and Paul seems to counsel against, as well), not about nations engaging in self-defense (or coming to the defense of their allies), which does have Biblical support…
So, while I wholeheartedly believe that abortion is murder, the proper answer is not to bomb clinics…
Joe C.,
Well the first thing I would say is that I’m not going to condemn those in the military at all. I think they all have to come to their own conclusions about what they’re conscience tells them to do.
As far as violence in the OT, I would say the simplest answer is that Israel was never permitted to go to war without explicit instruction from God. I’m not really comfortable saying that America has ever had explicit instruction from God to go to war. There are other things I could get into as far explaining the violence in the OT, but I don’t really want to get into it here.
Walter Wink’s The Powers That Be was one book that I found good in this area, and I also have appreciated some of Greg Boyd’s writing. The basic thrust of a lot of their writing is that we often limit what God may want to do by too quickly assuming violence is the answer to our predicament.
Wink’s book is excellent. Good stuff, Phil.
I see the line you’re trying to walk Chris L, but I think it’s too easy to use that rhetoric to allow for some pretty unChristlike attitudes and rhetoric toward persons.
The text clearly speaks of the persons as the ministers of God. (God’s servants).
It’s a mystery…it’s tough to swallow sometimes, but I had to grill it up and eat it while I watched the Reps rape a good man (McCain) in 2000 and then get Bush re-elected while he surrounded himself with some ethically/morally challenged people and pursue policies that have been disastrous for us.
Being pro-life and anti-gay does not a competent official make.
I had to trust God…and I still do…even with this new President.
Just something to think about.
But please keep in mind the Hebrews always lived with the tension of the promise of an imminent event and the reality of a long wait (as we reckon time). For that reason I can’t say with total confidence that Paul was expecting an immediate return, not an imminent one.