Nov
28

New Testament Theology of the State, Part 2

By

This paper was originally published on LewRockwell.com in September 2007. In April 2008, it won the Best New Paper Award at the Christian Scholars Forum at the University of Texas at Austin. In part 1, I examined the nature of the State in the Gospels, focusing on the Temptations of Christ and the famous “Render to Caesar” passage. In this section, I analyze Romans 13 and propose some potential application.

Paul’s Teachings on the State

While one is hard-pressed in the gospels to develop a thorough theology for how Christians should interact with the state, the epistles of Paul and Peter address these issues much further. Romans 13:1-7 is the clearest exposition regarding civil government, but other significant Scriptures include Titus 3:1-3, 1 Timothy 2:1-3, and 1 Peter 2:11-17. However, for brevity’s sake only Romans 13 will be examined in detail. The following analysis has benefitted greatly from the works of Dr. John Cobin, specifically his books Bible and Government and Christian Theology of Public Policy, which in this author’s opinion provide the best and most thorough attempt to integrate this passage into a consistent understanding of public policy theology.

christian_theology_public_policy Paul was a Roman citizen by birth, and even used his citizenship to his advantage on one occasion in Acts 22 and 23. Yet, he was a “Hebrew of Hebrews” and a Pharisee in regard to the law of God (Phil. 3:5). Hence, one would expect for him, like the Pharisees in the gospels, to be somewhat resentful towards the Romans because of their rule over the land of Israel. Yet in Romans 13, Paul seems to be quite positive towards Roman rule. A “face value” reading of the text might lead one to believe that the state is a very positive force in society and perhaps even a divinely ordained institution in the same way that the family and the church are divinely ordained.

However, I do not think this sort of interpretation is warranted. Apostolic admonitions regarding civil government cannot easily be reconciled with a casual, plain reading of the New Testament texts. Otherwise, you would conclude that the apostles were either wrong, speaking within an irrelevant cultural context, or just out of their minds. When one considers the actual historical context of Romans 13, rather than lifting it out of Scripture as merely abstract ideas, a surprising reading emerges. To illustrate this, how would the interpretation change if one replaced the words “governing authorities,” “rulers,” and the personal pronouns with the names of the emperor and kings of that time, namely Nero, Herod, or Agrippa? The text would read as follows:

1 Let every person be subject to Nero and Herod; for there is no authority except from God, and Nero and Herod have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists Nero and Herod resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For Nero and Herod are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of Nero and Herod? Then do what is good, and you will receive Nero and Herod’s approval; 4 for Nero and Herod are God’s servants for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the Nero and Herod do not bear the sword in vain! Nero and Herod are the servants of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject to Nero and Herod, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for Nero and Herod are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. 7 Pay to Nero and Herod what is due them – taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. (Romans 13:1-7, NRSV)

How should Christians today interpret this knowing that Nero was in power at the time of Paul’s writing? How can we resolve the problem of knowing that Nero killed good people, namely Christians, when the passage clearly says that civil government rewards and commends those who do good? Clearly, the interpretation problem is not resolved with an immutable maxim as simple as “do what the government says.” Both the Old and New Testaments manifest that this is not right or true on multiple occasions. Some examples include:

  • Hebrews defying Pharaoh’s decrees to murder their infants (Exodus 1)
  • Rahab lying to the King of Jericho about the Hebrew spies (Joshua 2)
  • Ehud deceiving the king’s ministers and assassinating the king (Judges 3)
  • Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refusing to comply with the king’s decrees, and were miraculously saved twice (Daniel 3 and 6)
  • The Magi from the East disobeying Herod’s direct orders (Matthew 2)
  • Peter and John choosing to obey God rather than men (Acts 5)

The text of Romans 13 can be better understood with an appreciation for the historical context and evident reason through Scripture and experience, rather than taking a “face value” interpretation as so many Christians often do.

1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.

Verse 1 says that state authorities are instituted by God. Paul’s primary message for Christians, however, is not that states are specially instituted in the same way as the family and church, but rather that the state is not operating outside of the plans of God. In this sense, the state is divinely instituted in the same way that Satan is divinely instituted. God is not surprised when states act the way they do. As noted specifically in the Gospels, the state is understood throughout Scripture as being intimately tied to Satan and his kingdom, and patently opposed to the Kingdom of God. The state’s status within God’s ultimate plan does not legitimize the evil the state commits.

Submission to civil government, then, is always qualified. The command is to obey in general, but sometimes we will disobey public policy because of personal and Scriptural conviction. Christians are to obey most policy whenever directly requested to do so, but ensuring active compliance with every public policy is unnecessary. All submission is directed at being expedient and practical toward men and glorifying toward God. Cobin explains that, “Any sin problem for disobedience arises only when one’s action is unwise, involves poor stewardship, requires neglecting one’s family duties, or detracts from the believer’s principal purpose in life” (Christian Theology of Public Policy, 120).

2 Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; 4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer.

Verses 2-4 indicate that if you irritate the state then you will face wrath, but if you behave in the way the state wants then they will be pleased. At many points, what the state defines as good and evil may be very much opposed to what God defines as good and evil. But what Paul is telling the believers in Rome is that if they do something that the Roman government defines as evil then they will likely be punished for it. We cannot abstract this verse from its cultural context and make it an absolute requirement on all cultures at all times. To do so would be to put Christians under a great bondage to bad public policy. There is no compelling reason to think that Paul was deliberately writing about any particular rulers other than those in the first century Roman Empire.

Paul knew full well the power of Nero and the potential harm he could cause to Christians in Rome – he calls it “the sword” – and he does not want believers to be persecuted for anything other than the name of Christ and what he stands for. Paul reminds the Roman Christians, though, that even the dreadful power of the state is not outside the power of God. His message to them is the same as Romans 8:28, that “all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.” The state can indeed be a means of sanctification for the Lord’s church.

5 Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing.7 Pay to all what is due them – taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

Verses 5-7 expand upon the reasons for submitting and include practical ways the Roman Christians were to respond to Paul’s message. Cobin says, “The reason we must submit to government is to avoid wrath or worrying about being harmed by the state authority. God does not want us to be entangled with the affairs of this world to the point where such involvement detracts from our primary mission” (Christian Theology of Public Policy, 125). The word “conscience” in verse 5 should be interpreted in a similar manner as 1 Corinthians 10 (regarding food sacrificed to idols). The believers were concerned that the Roman state would find a legal reason to persecute them. One cannot use this verse in an absolutist sense to say that Christians can never participate in removing any authority, such as in the American Revolution. Paul also encourages Christians to “overcome evil with good” as understood in Romans 12:21 (this includes evil authority), and to work to be free if at all possible (1 Corinthians 7:20-23).

Paul also says to submit to paying taxes for the same reason: avoiding state wrath in order to live for God. One despises paying taxes, but in order to abate the state’s wrath one pays them. Likewise, “pay to all what is due them” is commanded for the same purpose, especially considering the political tumult of the time. But does this mean that a man sins if he makes a mistake on his Federal tax return? Paul would very likely answer no. Modern taxes are very different from Roman taxes. In fact, the Greek word for “taxes” in verse 7 is more accurately rendered “tribute,” which is specifically the capitation tax (or “head tax”) in a Roman township census. The Romans would send soldiers from house to house, count the residents there, calculate the tax, and then demand full payment immediately. If a Christian did not comply at once, then he, his family, and possibly even his fellow believers could be in imminent, serious trouble. Paul says to not resist these men when they do this, just pay the tax. Refusal to pay would identify them as part of the tax rebels and political rogues of the day, and would give the Romans a reason to persecute Christians in Rome and perhaps throughout the empire. Paul wanted the Roman Christians to avoid becoming public spectacles and government targets.

As a general principle, modern Christians should do the same when immediate threat of state force is upon them, taxes or otherwise. However, modern taxes are not often like this; tributes and tariffs are not culturally transcendent forms of payments to states. Hence, one is most certainly not sinning if a mistake is made on a tax return. Cobin would even go so far to say that some taxes can be completely avoided without guilt (Christian Theology of Public Policy, 129).

Romans 13 is not an abstract, blanket statement that requires submission to all state laws, in all places, for all circumstances, at all times. Nor is it a prescription for what particular form of government is sanctioned by God or for how states should act. The historical context and wording requires us to be careful when making pronouncements about what a Christian’s submission to the state looks like.

Christian obedience to government is for the purpose of expedient peaceful living and bringing no dishonor to the name of Christ. We are not obligated to follow every jot of public policy. Moreover, we are not supposed to follow any law that goes against the law of God. If we are to be persecuted, it should be for the name of Christ and what he stands for, not for refusing to follow some random law when directly threatened by state action.

In conclusion, developing a theology of the state from the New Testament is understandably difficult. Examining the gospels, one finds that the state is not related to the Kingdom of God in any way, and in fact the state stands with Satan in direct opposition to God. The “Render to Caesar” encounter with Jesus does not legitimize the state and does not form the basis of a Christian’s interaction with government. Finally, a full understanding of Romans 13, taking into account its proper context, helps us to make better decisions within whatever state authority we find ourselves under.

Endnote

1. Some scholars are not convinced that Romans 13 is actually referring to civil government. Mark Nanos argues that what Paul is talking about here is the obligation of Christians, particularly Christian gentiles who associated with the Jewish synagogues of Rome, to “subordinate themselves to the leaders of the synagogues and to the customary “rules of behavior” that had been developed in Diaspora synagogues for defining the appropriate behavior of “righteous gentiles” seeking association with Jews and their God.” (Nanos 291)

If you haven’t already, read part 1 of this article.

For Further Reading

1. P. J. Achtemeier, Romans (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1985).

2. R. A. Batey, The Letter of Paul to the Romans (Austin, TX: R.B. Sweet Co., Inc., 1969).

3. G. Berry, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Romans (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998).

4. J. Cobin, Bible and Government: Public Policy from a Christian Perspective (Greenville, S.C.: Alertness Books, Ltd., 2003).

5. J. Cobin, Christian Theology of Public Policy: Highlighting the American Experience (Greenville, SC: Alertness, Ltd., 2006).

6. D. English, The Message of Mark (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992).

7. C. R. Erdman, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1929).

8. P. F. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003).

9. J. A. Fitzmyer, The Anchor Bible: Romans (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1964).

10. K. Grayston, The Epistle to the Romans (Peterborough, England: Epworth Press, 1997).

11. M. Green, The Message of Matthew (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000).

12. D. R. A. Hare, Matthew (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1993).

13. T. G. Long, Matthew (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1997).

14. I. H. Marshall, New Testament Theology (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004).

15. M. D. Nanos, The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996).

16. T. H. Olbricht, His Love Compels: The Sacrificial Message of God from the New Testament (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2000).

Norman Horn

Norman is the founder and editor of LibertarianChristians.com. He holds a PhD in Chemical Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin and a Master of Arts in Theological Studies from the Austin Graduate School of Theology.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
TwitterFacebookLinkedInPinterestGoogle PlusYouTubeReddit

Categories : Articles
  • Trutherator

    Suggestion: Consider that most churches today (including what compromised Christian media likes to call “The Church”) are more comparable to the Pharisees than they are to the Acts 2 and Acts 4 churches, or the churches that Paul wrote to or of Revelation.

    THE church is “two or three gathered together” in the name of Christ and has NOTHING to do with buildings. That’s Jesus word. Fellowship is mandated and unfruitful doctrinal disputes to be avoided but it is good to seek out like-minded for fellowship. Christ took his disciples OUT of the “church” of his day and even out of the system of doing things the expected “Roman” way. He called them to “drop out”, but also acknowledged not everyone would.

    There are congregations that do not bow down to Baal or to Caesar.

  • Trutherator

    Note that my King James Bible is a scathing rebuke at the “divine right” of kings, no matter how much one speculates on the intentions and motives of the man for the hour, and your modern filthy-lucre-motivated, government-monopoly-protected, government-forced copyright-royalty supported modern translations do no better at “clarifying” the spirit of Romans 13 than the King James. James did not propose the idea anyway, it came from a Puritan.

    Take a hint from some of the unique stamps of authority. One, you get an idea of what Romans 13 means from Romans 17 and 18 where GOD himself puts it in the heart of the ten kings who share power with the Beast himself, to burn the Great Whore with fire.

    In another point dear to the hearts of Christian libertarians especially ancaps, is this word “servant”, correctly translated in the King James Bible. But in every one of the copyright-tainted NCC-influenced versions it is instead translated as “slave”. These modern books purport to use modern language, but in modern English the word “slave” refers to chattel slavery, where the slave is fully owned and has no more rights than a pig.

    A clear reading of the context in the laws of Moses shows that the word “servant” does not mean “slave” AT ALL, but usually more like contractual work or restitution. Funny, the only time the word “slave” appears in the KJB is a contemptuous reference as a spoiled “homeborn” slave, but any such “slaves” bought from “strangers” were to be treated as family.

    And in the laws of Moses is a clear ban on forcing free men into any servanthood.

    The other “smoking gun” sign of diabolical NCC theology infiltration is the prolific use of the word “race”, as in “holy race”, in the modern translations, instead of the more proper use of the word “seed”. It is less carnal, and we see counter-examples to that mistranslation in Rahab, Ruth, David’s Mighty Men of all kinds of “races”, Esther (“many of the people of the land became Jews”), and Paul’s pointing out that we are children of Abraham in the spirit of the faith of Abraham.

  • Aaron David

    Yep.

  • Michael Alford

    I tried to throw my two cents into this discussion with one of my postings, and allow me to congratulate you. Although I disagree with a couple of the finer points, I think you covered a complicated subject as well as anyone could hope to cover it.

  • http://libertarianchristians.com Norman Horn

    Thanks Michael! I don’t expect everyone to agree with me 100% for sure, but what I do expect is that we can learn from each other through good, respectful discussion. :-)

Who is behind LCC?

Norman Horn is the creator and primary writer for LCC. Learn a little bit about him in the About Page. You can write him a note or ask a question at the Contact Page. Follow him on Twitter.
×

Need a good read? Check out our bookstore!