When I study the Bible with people, I very often inform them that the verse and chapter breaks were not in the original version of the Scriptures. It is helpful for a new Bible student to know this, so he or she can get into the habit of seeing texts of the Bible as a literary unit, instead of pithy sayings. For an illustration, I frequently point out the break between what we know as Acts 21 and 22.
When he had given him permission, Paul, standing on the stairs, motioned to the people with his hand; and when there was a great hush, he spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect, saying,
The above verse is the final verse of Acts 21 (Acts 21:40).
For those who are in the habit of reading one chapter of the Bible a day, do they live in suspense for 24 hours after having read Acts 21? Paul is on the edge of a knife here! He could be killed if he doesn’t calm his audience down. What does he say!?
Most of us are thankful for the work that went into dividing the Bible into verses and chapters. The divisions are helpful in many ways. However, there are some times that the divisions can skew our understanding of certain Scriptures if we are not careful.
In my opinion, one of the most unfortunate chapter breaks in the New Testament is the one between Romans chapters 12 and 13. When read together, it is clear that the apostle meant for the text to be understood as a single literary unit. However, most people view them as two seperate ones, which can even be seen through this website. The previous theme of articles was on Romans 12. Now, this theme is on Romans 13.
So, what’s the big deal? What difference does it make to treat them as two literary units, as opposed to one? Are there dangers in doing that?
The Danger of Misapplying Romans 13
The primary danger of separating Romans 13 from its previous chapter is missing the contrast and transition between the two and misapplying the passage.
Each imperative given in Romans 12 is with the Christian in mind. Notice the end of the chapter.
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. “But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him A drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12:14-21.
From there, the apostle transitions to a general, “every person,” which would include the Christian.
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. Romans 13:1-2.
Then, Paul gives God’s reasoning for appointing governing authorities.
For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honour. Romans 13:3-7.
During the entire discussion about ruling authorities, Paul does not include the Christians among them. Instead, the government is “it,” and the rulers are “they.” Is this significant? I believe so, and the significance can defeat two extremes.
There are those who would claim there are two laws in the New Testament–one to Christians and one to non-Christians. Many use this passage as a proof text. However, the difference between pronouns is not to provide instructions to different groups of people. All of the instructions in the passage are for Christians, and they were directly for the Christians in Rome. When dealing with government authorities, Paul’s point was not to instruct the governing authorities. Instead, it was to instruct Christians who live under governing authorities.
Secondly, this passage does not teach that it is a Christian’s responsibility to enforce the law. That remains the governmental rulers’ responsibility. The Christian’s job is to “be subject” to the governing authorities, in additions to honouring (1 Pet. 2:17) and praying for (1 Tim. 2:1-3) them.
John and Daniel have done fantastic jobs exegeting the first part of Romans 13, dealing with both what it says and what it doesn’t say. My job was to discuss why it matters that we know the difference. For most Bible students, it seems commonsense as to why it matters that we know what a passage says or doesn’t say. However, with Romans 13, perhaps more is at stake.
When we begin misapplying this passage to make it seem that the people of the world are outside of the law of God, then we have, at best, been distracted by the devil. Jesus’ message did not change when government officials approched Him. Peter didn’t preach a different gospel to Cornelius. God’s message is for all, although not all submit to it. Let us not get distracted from teaching men about God’s covenant offered through Jesus Christ.
When we begin misapplying this passage to teach that our responsibility is nation-building, then we have, at best, been distracted by the devil. Our purpose on this earth is not to make the community a better place. Our purpose on earth is not to ensure a prosperous and worry-free future for our children. Our purpose should be to carry on the work of Christ.
But He said to them, “I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose.” So He kept on preaching in the synagogues of Judea. Luke 4:43-44.
For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost. Luke 19:10.
It is God’s prerogative to appoint and destroy the kingdoms of men. It is ours to labour in the kingdom of God, no matter what earthly kingdom and authorities we also must submit to (see John’s article for help in understanding appoint and submit). So long as we are exiles and strangers to this world, our mission will not be for the kingdoms of men; it will be for the kingdom of God, and when our allegiance has been misplaced, the devil has won.
It’s easy to do and it happens all the time. We so often approach Scripture with our minds already made up as to what it means. Our “study” of Scripture is then no more than a search for proof-texts for our currently held position on any given topic. Or perhaps, we consult the Scriptures to answer a question, but our wills steamroll the honest, labor-intensive work that is required to understand God’s revealed will on the matter.
Most interpretations of Romans 13 fall into one of two broad categories. One category teaches Divine Right. The governing authorities have been established by God and is a minister of God for good. Therefore, governments of man are fundamentally good and ought to be obeyed and supported by children of God in all that they do. This view may even be pressed to justify some behaviors, attitudes, and actions that would be immoral if done by private individuals.
The other category that some interpretations might fall into might be described as the Divine Standard. This view sees Romans 13 as a description of what the governing authorities ought to do and justifies Christians using government to enforce the laws of God on those who only respond to threats of force and reject the persuading words of the Gospel. This view also may place a moral standard for governments to meet before men ought to submit themselves to it. If a given government is not ruling in a way consistent with the divine standard of praising the good and avenging the evil then this is an authority which Christians are not to be subject towards and may overthrow.
Many peoples’ views likely fall on a spectrum within one of these two categories and may even have some overlap into both as well. In fact, it’s the existence of slippery “spectrums” within each category and the ability for some fundamental principles to apply to both seemingly contradicting categories that highlights the existence of error in these interpretations. I’d like to now examine these two categories, consider the ultimate applications of them (following each spectrum to their logical conclusions), and look at why Romans 13 is not the text to support their claims.
Divine Right
Perhaps no other section of Scripture has been touted by the tyrants of world history more than Romans 13 for justification of their oppressive behaviors (or rather, for the people’s quiet acquiescence in the face of such behaviors). Their argument goes that if the governing authorities are established by God and governments are by their mere existence ministers of God for good, then the king, or Parliament, or President, or Judge simply must be obeyed – no questions asked. They are answerable to God alone.
The spectrum of this view is broad. Some would say that this justifies the use of death and taxes in God’s eyes and ought not be critiqued (Doesn’t the text say “It does not bear the sword for nothing…because of this you also pay taxes”?) The permitted use of death could range from a police officer’s use of deadly force in stopping a hostile break-in to the justification of the death of non-violent civilians walking too closely to enemy combatants during a drone strike or atomic bombing. Here are a few questions that ought to be considered by those who would hold the Divine Right interpretation of Romans 13:
Should Christians have served in Hitler’s army and done all they could to support their governing authorities who were “ministering for good?”
What about as a guard in Hitler’s concentration camps?
Which governing authorities should be obeyed in a civil war?
At what point does a certain group of people arguing with another group of people in the same territory get deemed the legitimate “governing authority” that ought to be obeyed?
Were Christians in the Confederacy and Christians in the Union both justified in slaying each other during the “War Between the States” (or, depending on your answer, could be called the “Civil War”, “War of the Rebellion,” “War of Northern Aggression,” etc.) since both sides were “submitting to their governing authorities” (the State governments and/or the Federal government)?
Does participation in government void a Christian’s responsibility to love their neighbors and enemies, not avenge themselves, and reject force as a way of changing others’ behavior?
While each of these questions can likely be answered by each person in a way that agrees with their conscience, let’s address a couple of the underlying assumptions to this viewpoint, which also begins with a question that ought to be asked: Does “established by God” mean “approved by God” and does “minister for good” mean that the actions themselves are morally good and right in God’s eyes?
When we consider the types of men and governments that are also said to have been “ordained” or “established” or placed into their roles in human history by the Sovereign of Creation, we find that this “ordination” by no means necessitated a blessing by God.
Consider Pharoah, who was raised up “for this very purpose… to demonstrate my power in you.” (Rom. 9:17) God’s will was satisfied through Pharoah, but this did not require God to have mercy on Pharoah in Pharoah’s rebellion.
Likewise, when Israel culminated their “Canaanization” after the period of the Judges with a demand for a king “like all the nations,” God chose a king for them (I Sam. 10:24), but this request was still deemed by God an act of rebellion against Himself (I Sam. 8:7) and the king was chosen in God’s anger (Hos. 13:10,11).
And it was not only Israel over whom God ruled in the affairs of man, but also the nations. The ruthless nation Assyria was deemed “the rod of My anger” (Isa. 10:5-10). While under Babylonian captivity, Daniel informs us that “the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men” (Dan. 4:17 KJV). God calls Cyrus, the pagan ruler of the Medo-Persians, his “shepherd” and his “annointed” (messiah). And just to make sure we don’t think God suddenly laid down his ways of choosing evil men and evil governments in order to satisfy his longer-term purposes of good, take note of our Lord’s statement to Pilate on the day of his crucifixion.
So Pilate said to Him, “You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have the authority to release You, and I have the authority to crucify you?” Jesus answered, “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above.” John 19:10,11.
And finally consider the command of Romans 13:1 in the historical and literary context. Paul has just commanded Christians that we are to not simply resist repaying evil with evil, but rather to bless those who pursue us, live at peace with others anytime the “ball is in our court,” provide for the well-being of our enemies and leave vengeance to God. He then immediately identifies the governing authorities as being agents of God’s vengeance in the present age. He has chosen governing authorities to do the very thing that Christians are forbidden to do on their own behalf. This is not a justification for their actions, but rather a providential means of dealing with evil men with men.
Romans 13 is written in the historical context of Caesar Nero, one of those most morally debased rulers of history. Nero is labeled by Paul as having authority established by God and a minister of God for good. This does not mean Nero was justified in his evil ways but rather highlights that despite Nero’s arrogant claims of divinity and sovereignty, God was indeed in charge.
Divine Standard
This point about Nero being the emperor at the time of Paul’s writing leads easily into the deconstruction of the category about Romans 13 describing the “ideal” government, or the description of a government that is indeed God-ordained or that a government that rebels against the law of God is fair-game for overthrow.
Paul does not say that all men ought to be in subjection to “good government” or “democratically elected government” or “to the government that you desire.” It simply says to be in subjection to the governing authorities that exist. Likewise, if our standard for “God-ordained” government is one that acknowledges the God of the Bible and enforces His laws, then it should quickly be recognize that every government of man is one that could be rebelled against. Every government ruled and administrated by sinful men fail to accurately enforce God’s law in some area.
Then how was Nero a minister for good if this a phrase that’s applied even to evil governments? I would suggest that it applies in a couple of very real ways. One is an application of Psalm 76
You caused judgment to be heard from heaven; the earth feared and was still when God arose to judgment, to save all the humble of the earth. For the wrath of man shall praise you; With a remnant of wrath You will gird yourself.
God rules over evil, uses it towards His own good purposes, and constrains it to go no further. Likewise Romans 8:28:
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God.
This encouraging statement is made within the context of enduring bad things. God rules over those things that cause us pain and suffering and even works them towards our good in a scheme and timeline that is often bigger than we can see at the moment when they first occur.
Also, consider that even evil governments have desire for fundamental order in society (this point would not apply to all governments since some governments seek greater power by causing greater chaos). Most governments still have laws against certain types of murder. Many governments that are perhaps very evil in some areas have laws that constrain evils that the governments often deemed “good” allow to go unchecked.
Conclusion
Christians are commanded to pray for our rulers with an eye towards our being able to live “quiet and tranquil lives” (I Tim. 2:1-4). We are commanded to submit to the governing authorities, even the evil ones. (Rom. 13). We are commanded to pay our taxes (Rom. 13) and given the example of Christians who “joyfully accepted the seizing of [their] property” (Heb. 10:34). But we are never to obey a command that contradicts the law of God (Acts 5:29), and we are to model our conduct and attitude after our Lord regardless of our occupation (I Pet. 2:21).
Submitting to the governing authorities is not a backdoor for otherwise evil behavior to be committed by either Christians nor non-Christians, but is a command to trust in the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and to live faithfully in His Kingdom. Likewise, it is not a backdoor for Christians to resist governments that fail to submit themselves to the God who establishes authority.
May we all pray for humility, peace, and endurance as we live as citizens of heaven among the kingdoms of man.
Government is ordained of God, sanctioned and entrusted with power by him. The law must be enforced by power until the people are trained to obey from principle.
– Joseph T. Duryea, Minister of the Collegiate Dutch Reformed Church of New York, 1863
and
While the Scriptures recognize government as a divine institution…they tell us in the same breath that legitimate rulers are the ‘ministers of God’ for good…hence, when governments become a ‘terror to the good,’ and ‘a praise to the evil,’ they cease to be legitimate…and it becomes the right of the people to abolish them.
– Phillip Slaughter, Episcopalian Confederate Chaplain to the 19th Virginia
These two quotations were preached as commentary on Romans 13:1-4, the first quote to Union soldiers, the second to Confederate soldiers. Both interpreters of this passage sought to morally justify their sides’ involvement in the bloodshed of the American Civil War.
Can you imagine Christians on both sides of the battlefield with Romans 13:1-4 still fresh on their minds ready to kill their brothers in Christ? Daniel Boyd has done an excellent job explaining the two major misinterpretations of Romans 13:1-4: Divine Right and Divine Standard. Christian soldiers within the Confederate and Union armies applied one of these interpretations to their cause which led to the untenable position that one Christian ought to kill other Christians in the name of his earthly government.
Despite the 150 years since the American Civil War, this is still a relevant discussion. I’ve recently seen Facebook statuses and blog posts written by Christians that take a side on a big issues like gun control, Syrian refugees, or US military intervention in the Middle East. The writer of whatever blog or Facebook status usually makes their argument and then claims “Romans 13” as the biblical authority for whatever their position was. Unfortunately I’ve often seen this passage used as a blanket statement to prooftext certain political stances. This is a dangerous way to approach this passage because it assumes that if you disagree with the political opinion of the author of the Facebook status, you disagree with the Bible!
It is the purpose of this article to give an accurate interpretation of Romans 13:1-4 that fits within the context of Paul’s letter to the Romans and within the larger context of the New Testament. Daniel’s topic was “What Does Romans 13:1-4 Not Teach?” and mine is meant to be answering in the affirmative, “What in fact does it teach?” though I will deal with certain misconceptions along the way.
One of Paul’s objectives within Romans 1-11 is to establish the unity of the Jewish and Gentile Christians within the body of Christ, despite their previous associations. Continuing onto what we know as chapter 12, Paul highlights the modus operandi of the newly assembled body of Christ: that instead of “being conformed to the pattern of this world,” they might be “transformed” into something visibly different than what the “pattern of this world” looks like.
The pattern of this world does not produce people who “bless those who persecute ” them (12:14). Neither does it produce those who aren’t “wise in their own sight” (12:16) nor those who “repay no-one evil for evil” (12:17). The cookie cutter of the world certainly doesn’t produce those who shun vengeance, opting instead to feed and take care of his enemy.
Romans 13 continues with apostolic commands as to how Christ followers, Jew and Gentile, ought to behave with regard to governmental authorities. Certainly it is an antithesis to the pattern that the world would produce under similar circumstances. Instead of rebelling against malicious dictators or seeking a forceful way to prevent Christian persecution, Paul tells the Romans to “be in subjection.”
Let’s consider the text Romans 13:1-4.
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
Notice that each person ought to be in subjection. Oftentimes I’ve heard Christians use Romans 13:1-4 to promote patriotism towards one’s earthly nation, or at least allegiance, devotion, and service to the governing authorities. Subjection, however, does not imply any of these things. In fact, every instance of “subjection” (ὑποτάσσω) in the New Testament indicates the presence of at least two seperate and potentially opposing entities: one entity placing itself subordinately under another entity. In each case of subjection, be it young Jesus to his parents (Luke 2:51), the wife to the husband (Colossians 3:18), or the church to Christ (Ephesians 5:24), one entity is limiting his powers or choices in relation to another entity. If subjection was a natural and unconscious process, the command to submit would not have been necessary. As Paul commands the Christians to submit to the government, one entity to another, he doesn’t imagine that the Christians in Rome were in complete agreement with everything the Roman government decided to do. He certainly doesn’t think that the Roman Christ followers had devoted their lives to the service of Rome. On the contrary, it is because they had pledged their allegiance to the Lord of Lords, Jesus Christ, why Paul commands them to submit to earthly government.
Other passages in the New Testament regarding the role of Christians to earthly governments use the same terminology of submission to earthly governments because of ultimate loyalty to God.
Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities…For we also once were foolish ourselves…but when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,He saved us. (Titus 3:1, 3-5)
Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For this is the will of God… (1 Peter 2:13-15)
Romans 13:1 tells us that our reason for subjection is because of God’s priority over earthly governments. This passage is reminiscent of the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate.
Pilate said to Him, “You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?” Jesus answered, “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above.” (John 19:10-11)
Notice that in both the above quoted passage and in Romans 13:1-4, God is credited with establishing the governing authorities and giving them authority. What does it mean that God established them?
What the NASB translates as establish (τάσσω) is translated elsewhere as institute, appoint, set into place, even specify. Jesus specified the mountain where He wanted to meet His disciples (Matthew 28:16). A specific day was appointed for Paul to meet with the Jewish leaders in Rome (Acts 28:23). We make appointments and specifications all of the time and think nothing of it. This passage tells us that God has appointed human governments to bear the sword to bring vengeance on the evildoer. Despite its importance, nowhere in this passage or other passages does the Scripture imply that God is pleased with this appointment, or that He wants His people to be involved in carrying it out. The Septuagint is full of examples of similar appointments (that also use the same Greek word). For instance, in Jeremiah 19:8, God appointed Jerusalem to be destroyed. Israel was said to have been appointed to be a wilderness by God in Hosea 2:3. Zechariah 7:14 and Malachi 1:3 are other examples of appointments made by God that weren’t exactly honourable.
More important to our discussion is Habakkuk 1:12b.
You, O Lord, have appointed [the Chaldeans] to judge; And You, O Rock, have established them to correct.
Did God approve of the “violence” (1:9) of the idolatrous Chaldeans, the means by which they would “judge” and “correct” His people? Not at all, for He Himself says, “They will be held guilty, they whose strength is their god” (1:11). Though they were serving God by delivering His cup of wrath upon the nations, eventually they would be forced to drink of that wrath as well (Habakkuk 2:15-16). The Chaldeans would be held accountable for their “bloodshed and violence” (2:8), as those who practice such things today can expect as well. God’s appointment of the Chaldeans was not for their glory or their good, but because of their tendency towards violence. Their violent nature was useful in accomplishing God’s purposes, but was not rewarded.
Romans 13:2 uses the term“ordinance” (διαταγή) to describe God’s appointment of earthly governments. This word normally comes with positive connotations. Though unbiblical, it is a common thing to hear someone speak of a religious minister being “ordained” by God. We shouldn’t, however, give special importance to this word either.These connotations aren’t seen in Strong’s Dictionary, which defines διαταγή as an “arrangement or institution.” Matthew 25:41 reminds us that hell is a place that has been “prepared for the devil and his angels.” Who was it that prepared hell? Who else, other than God would have the ability to do so? That being said, God’s preparation, arrangement, or even ordination of something, doesn’t mean He desires his people to take part in it, though it will serve his purposes.
Romans 13:4 and 6 gives two more words that ought not be given the positive connotation commonly given them in a Christian setting: minister (διάκονος) and servant (λειτουργός). Though these words are frequently used in a positive light, Satan’s angels are described as his “ministers” (2 Corinthians 11:15). These words simply denote a position of service.
Consider Jeremiah 25:9 and 12.
Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will send to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, My servant, and will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these nations round about; and I will utterly destroy them and make them a horror and a hissing, and an everlasting desolation…Then it will be when seventy years are completed I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation,’ declares the Lord, ‘for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans; and I will make it an everlasting desolation.’
Notice, God calls Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, His servant. He then takes full credit for the desolation brought upon Judah, thought it was Nebuchadnezzar who physically carried it out. Further, He claims full credit for the punishment of the Babylonians 70 years later, though it was Cyrus the Persian who physically carried it out.So, Nebuchadnezzar’s service to God was little more than God’s allowance of a violent nation to conquer a neighbouring people group, the Judeans.
Passages about Cyrus the Persian, mentioned earlier, give us the clearest picture of how God used and continues to use earthly nations, by their own penchant for violence, to accomplish His purposes for His people.
Examine the following passage closely.
Thus says the Lord to Cyrus His anointed, Whom I have taken by the right hand, To subdue nations before him And to loose the loins of kings… “For the sake of Jacob My servant, And Israel My chosen one, I have also called you by your name; I have given you a title of honor Though you have not known Me. “I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me. Isaiah 45:1, 4-5.
Both the explicit terminology as well as its implications in this passage are meaningful. In verse 1, Cyrus is called the anointed of the Lord. The Hebrew transliteration of this word is “Messiah.” From the Greek it is transliterated as “Christ.” In the Christian mindset these words are normally reserved solely for Jesus, God’s chosen one to bring salvation to the world. While this is correct, the vocabulary wasn’t invented solely for the purpose of describing Jesus’ position of service. In this case, Cyrus was anointed by God to “subdue nations” “for the sake of” Israel, “though [Cyrus had] not known [God].” Cyrus, as “Messiah” (also called God’s chosen shepherd in Isaiah 44:28) would serve God by toppling the Babylonians and paving the way for the Israelites to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. Though he played a crucial part in bringing about God’s plan, Cyrus was said to “have not known” God. In the same way, earthly governments today can still be pictured as serving God without knowing Him. This service, as seen in the cases of Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzar, does not result in salvation or glory for the servants, since they did not know God (2 Thessalonians 1:8).
What type of service do the earthly governments carry out? Romans 13:4 calls them “an avenger” who “bears the sword” to “bring wrath on the one who practices evil.” Certainly being an avenger is a good thing right!? Like Captain America or Iron Man! Well…not in the biblical sense of the word. Jeremiah 50 shows us that those who have been the bearers of God’s vengeance (the Babylonians) will incur God’s vengeance themselves!
Draw up your battle lines against Babylon on every side, All you who bend the bow; Shoot at her, do not be sparing with your arrows, For she has sinned against the Lord. Raise your battle cry against her on every side! She has given herself up, her pillars have fallen, Her walls have been torn down. For this is the vengeance of the Lord: Take vengeance on her; As she has done to others, so do to her.Jeremiah 50:14-15.
This passage is reminiscent of Jesus’ command to Peter in Matthew 26:52b: “for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.” In their active obedience to Romans 12, Christians would be free from God’s vengeance, never having taken vengeance on their own enemies. Instead the Christian remembers the sermon on the mount: “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy” (Matt. 5:7). Indeed, “whatever one sows, that will he also reap” (Gal. 6:7).
The “sword” is the named weapon of God’s vengeance used by the civil governments. In Isaiah 10:5-7, Assyria is described as a “rod” and an “axe” that God used to carry out his purposes. Note the fact that God is using Assyria though their intentions are different than His.
Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hands is My indignation, I send it against a godless nation And commission it against the people of My fury To capture treasure and to seize plunder, And to trample them down like mud in the streets. Yet it does not so intend, nor does it plan so in its heart, But rather it is its purpose to destroy, and to cut off many nations.
It’s critical to note that the weapon held by Assyria is associated with God’s “indignation.” Though Assyria arrogantly assumed its own plans and purposes, God simply used them as a tool in His hand. As a tool, Assyria is implemented to accomplish God’s plan.
Is the axe to boast itself over the one who chops with it? Is the saw to exalt itself over the one who wields it? That would be like a club wielding those who lift it, Or like a rod lifting him who is not wood. Isaiah 10:15.
Despite the usefulness of the tool, the One who used it has no need for it after His purposes are completed. Note the final outcome for the Assyrians.
So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will say, “I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness.” Isaiah 10:12.
Bringing our discussion back to Romans 13:1-4, what exactly is God accomplishing for His people by allowing earthly governments who do not know Him to be the ones who bear the sword of vengeance? The Bible doesn’t specifically say. Perhaps 1 Timothy 2:1-4 provides an answer.
First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
God’s primary concern is the salvation of mankind. Paul isn’t telling us to pray for the good of the earthly kingdoms or that their plans will prosper. He is telling us to pray that they will stay out of the way of the advancement of the gospel! Jeremiah 29:7 echoes this as well.
Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf; for in its welfare you will have welfare.
Ought we to seek the welfare of our earthly country? Of course, but only because we will partake in the good of its welfare and the difficulties of its hardships. However, we ought not forget that God can use seemingly difficult situations, even persecutions, to bring about His glory. The early Christian writer Tertullian noted in Apologeticus 50, “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.” If one lost soul was brought to Christ because of your physical death, would it be worth it? Jesus certainly thought so. As we follow His example we must always remember that this world is not our home. We’re just passing through. We are exiles.
Contrary to popular belief, Romans 13 does not say anything about whether Christians can be involved in the vengeance of the governing forces. It does not encourage Christians to rejoice in the government’s use of the sword. It simply teaches the responsibilities of each group. Notice that in every command to the church in Romans 12 and 13, Paul speaks in second person plural pronouns (“You all”). In every description of the governing authorities he uses either the third person singular (“He”) or third person plural (“they”) pronouns, verbs, and participles. The Greek cases show a distinct separation between the “You” (Church) and the “They” (governing authorities).
If we were to ask the question, as many have, “Should a Christian take part in the vengeance prescribed to governing authorities?”, we could respond with another fitting question: How could the Christian fulfill both responsibilities?
Romans 12
Romans 13
Never avenge yourself
Avenge the evil doer
Leave it to God’s wrath
Carry out God’s wrath
Feed your enemy
Bear the sword
One might ask, “How could blood-thirsty, deranged, Nero, who regularly persecuted Christians for his own pleasure, be considered God’s minister for good”? The same way that Nebuchadnezzar could be called His servant, Assyria His rod, and Cyrus His messiah. But we know the outcome for each of these kingdoms (Daniel 2:31-45) as well as the final outcome for the earthly kingdoms of today (1 Corinthians 15:24-25).
As long as sinners are in rebellion against God, it would be resisting the ordinance of God to resist one’s human government by seeking to overthrow it. It is God’s ordinance for punishing sin and sinners, and as such it is right and good for the end for which God ordained it. Christians are commanded to submit to the authorities that exist, not the authorities they prefer, not the authorities they may believe constitutional, but the authorities they happen to be under.
God has demanded Christians to submit to earthly governments, not anything more than that. Romans 13:1-7 doesn’t give license to participate or support earthly governments by using the same methods that these governments do. It certainly doesn’t show obligation of the Christian to “protect their country” as many have taught. A great example of this was the prophet Daniel. Daniel knew life as an exile. When under the government of Babylon he submitted to Nebuchadnezzar and was subservient to him as his slave. When Babylon was overthrown by the Persians, Daniel submitted to Darius, and served him with equal fidelity. Can you imagine Daniel fighting the Persians to uphold the Babylonian government? It seems absurd, yet we hear many using Romans 13:1-7 to teach that Christians are somehow obligated to physically defend the “freedoms” of their earthly governments.
In summary, the text of Romans 13:1-7 tells Christians to be in subjection to governing authorities. It also tells us of God’s appointment of them to bear the sword. To this end, they are His “minister” and his “servant.” Despite the positive connotation these words usually carry, it is obvious from similarities between the Old Testament passages referenced and the explanation of governmental authorities in Romans 13 that modern governments are part and parcel with the ancient Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians. Their anger and warmongering were used by God to punish the people of Israel. Their actions were not pleasing to God, but he used them to accomplish His purposes before destroying them as well.
Let us pray that we and all of our Christian brethren will submit to our earthly governments, wherever we happen to live. Let us pray also that we give all allegiance, devotion, and service to Jesus Christ and His otherworldly kingdom. Let us work diligently for the kingdom established by God “that will never be destroyed” (Daniel 2:44).
After teaching English to a Hindu family, I was very interested in learning more about the primary Hindu text: the Bhagavad Gita (BG).
Bhagavad Gita, Translated by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, 2nd Edition; Revised and Enlarged, The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International, Inc., 1972, 1983
The BG is a story about the supreme Hindu god, Krishna, and his discussion with his follower, Arjuna. The setting is a battlefield where Krishna calls Arjuna to fight against his enemies, though many in the opposing army are members of Arjuna’s family. Krishna encourages Arjuna to keep his duty, which is the highest devotion one can pay towards Krishna. For more, see here.
The wife in the family I was studying with assured me that the BG, just like the writings of other religious groups (the Bible, the Quran, etc.), was all about love. She said that each of these writings taught their respective communities how to love one another and make the world a better place. In modern society, this is a very appealing statement. It is tempting to accept the notion that all religions are just different, but very similar, representations of each culture’s desire to leave the world better than they found it. If this was true, how could any religion claim to be superior to another?
As I read the BG, however, I didn’t find very much about love. In fact, I can’t recall “love” ever being mentioned in a positive light. Unfortunately, I believe my friend has been misguided. She is a very sincere and lovely person, but the religion that she and so many other Hindus follow is wholly inadequate when compared to the Christian religion. It is my purpose in this article to show the inadequacies of the supposed god Krishna and, thus, question the foundations on which many Hindus base their faith.
From what I have learned, there are many important Hindu writings, which I am sure would benefit me in my study of this religion. The translator, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, assures that though there are many important writings the BG is sufficient in leading one into the “truth” of Krishna.
Because Bhagavad Gita is spoken by the supreme personality of godhead, one need not read any other Vedic literature…This one book will suffice because it is the essence of all Vedic literature (BG Intro, 28).
Though the preface to the book claims that the BG is “historically authorised” (BG, xvii), The historicity of the BG, unlike that of the Christian and Jewish writings, is difficult to certify because of the lack of evidence. The introductory material of the BG actually claims that:
Krishna descends to this planet once in a day of Brahma, or every 8,600,000,000 years (BG, xviii).
One can imagine how difficult it would be to historically prove this claim. Because of the lack of information, most assert that the BG would fit in the literary category of the epic, along with Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. The writing of the BG has been dated somewhere between 400 BC and 200 AD but there is no evidence within the writing itself that assumes a historical date of the events therein.
Swami Bhaktivedanta, in the introductory material, makes claims about the Bhagavad Gita that differ from my friend’s more inclusive statements about all religions:
The Krishna consciousness movement is essential in human society, for it offers the highest perfection of life.
-BG, xix
In this present day, people are very much eager to have one scripture, one God, one religion, and one occupation. Therefore,…let there be one scripture only, one common scripture for the whole world – Bhagavad Gita…let there be one God for the whole world – Sri Krishna…and one hymn, one mantra, one prayer – the chanting of his name…and let there be one work only – the service of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
– BG Intro, 29
It is clear from these quotations that the respected swami does not consider all religions to be good and useful. On the contrary, the BG and its introduction makes similar claims of religious exclusivity that the Bible makes.
Ephesians 4:4-5
There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.
If both of these religions claim to be exclusively true, their teachings deserve examination.
Searching Out the Truth in the Gita and in the Bible
Let’s first examine the methods by which these books ought to be read.
Lord Caitanya clearly says that anyone who tries to understand Bhagavad Gita from the Mayavadi (those “without perfect knowledge of Krishna”) point of view will commit a great blunder. The result of such a blunder will be that the misguided student of Bhagavad Gita will certainly be bewildered on the path of spiritual guidance and will not be able to go back to home, back to the Godhead.
-BG, xviii
In order to save oneself from this offence [interpreting the Bhagavad Gita without first trusting in Krishna], one has to understand the Lord as the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
-BG, xviii
To understand Bhagavad Gita, one must “be a devotee in a direct relationship with the Lord.”
-BG Intro, 4
Bhagavad Gita should be taken up in a spirit of devotion.
-BG Intro, 5
The Gita is “for devotees only.”
-BG note, 716
Much like the Book of Mormon (Moroni 10:4) , the BG asks its reader to trust it as absolute truth before reading it. I find this to be a major logical fallacy. Ought we trust someone just because they tell us they are trustworthy? In everyday life, we only trust things that have already proven themselves to us. The Bible teaches this clearly:
1 Thessalonians 5:21
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
1 John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
Revelation 2:2
I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false.
Unlike the BG, whose translators tell us, “Vedic knowledge is complete because it is above all doubts and mistakes… We have to accept perfect knowledge which comes down, as is stated in Bhagavad-gita” (BG Intro, 13), the Bible actually tells us to test everything and only accept it if it passes our tests. If a god capable of giving us intellect and reason actually exists, we would expect his writings to be in accordance with the intellect and reason that his creatures exhibit. “Trust me, because I said so” is not a mantra fit for the questioning and logical human mind.
Let’s consider some conclusions that the BG asks us to trust, just because “Krishna says so” (10.14).
Societal Divisions and Prescribed Duty in the Bhagavad Gita
Krishna – “The four divisions of human society are created by Me.”
– BG 4.13
The duties and qualities of each of the four divisions (Brahmans, Ksatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras) are laid out in BG 18.42-44.
Peacefulness, self-control, austerity, purity, tolerance, honesty, knowledge, wisdom and religiousness – these are the natural qualities by which the brahmanas work. Heroism, power, determination, resourcefulness, courage in battle, generosity, and leadership are the natural qualities of work for the ksatriyas. Farming, cow protection and business are the natural work for the vaisyas, and for the sudras there are labor and service to others.
Take note of what this passage teaches. There are certain classes of people who cannot attain to virtues such as: purity, honesty, knowledge, and wisdom. The lowest class cannot attain to anything higher than physical labor and service to others. Krishna specifically states that women, vaisyas, and sutras are of “lower birth” (BG 9.32).
The subsequent outcome of the caste system, Krishna’s four divisions of society, is the prescribed duty of each individual in whatever caste they find themselves born into. Examine the teachings of the BG passages regarding duty.
BG 2.27 – Duty is unavoidable.
BG 2.31 – Duty is specific according to caste.
BG 2.33 (3.8) – It is sin to reject your given duty.
BG 2.47 (3.19, 31; 18.9) – “You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of your action. Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your actions.”
BG 3.5- Duty is prescribed by being born into a specific caste.
BG 3.22-24 – Even Krishna is subjected to prescribed duties.
BG 18.7 – “Prescribed duties should never be renounced.”
BG 18.59 – “By [Arjuna’s] nature, [he] will have to be involved in warfare.”
In summary, everyone is born into a particular caste, which comes with its own particular duty. It is sinful to reject your prescribed duty or to aspire to a higher duty than the one you have been born into. Because of the prescription of duty and the unchanging nature of your caste, you shouldn’t feel responsible for the consequences of your actions. Consequences of actions are, after all, not your fault since Krishna demands that you follow your duty.
Take careful note of the implications of the following passage:
By following his qualities of work, every man can become perfect. Now please hear from Me how this can be done. By worship of the Lord, who is the source of all beings and who is all-pervading, a man can attain perfection through performing his own work. It is better to engage in one’s own occupation, even though one may perform it imperfectly, than to accept another’s occupation and perform it perfectly. Duties prescribed according to one’s nature are never affected by sinful reactions…Therefore one should not give up the work born of his nature, O son of Kunti, even if such work is full of fault
-BG 18.45-48
These particular words of Krishna’s are in response to Arjuna’s reluctance to killing his brothers and cousins in war. In essence, Krishna says, “You must do it. You are a soldier and it is your duty.” In this teaching, perfection is not a moral standard to be aspired to, but a blind acceptance of one’s duty, despite the outcome of one’s actions.
Isn’t it interesting that Krishna admits that certain types of prescribed duties are “full of fault” ? It is human nature, as Arjuna argues, to hold more tightly to moral obligations than to perceived caste duties. Should the son of a family of beggars, with a talent for music, not seek to improve his family’s desperate status by leaving his socio-economic class behind for a better, more prosperous status? Should the boy born in Nazi Germany have honoured his duty to fight as a soldier upholding Hitler’s evil regime, instead of his moral obligation to fellow man? Would Krishna be pleased with someone born to a family of beef butchers who worked in the slaughterhouse because of his prescribed duty?
Societal Divisions and Prescribed Duty in the Bible
Consider the aspects of societal divisions and“duty” as seen from the Bible. It is evident, I believe, that the teachings found in the Bible fit within the moral obligations inherent in human society, much better than the notion of prescribed duties taught by Krishna in the BG.
Instead of the caste system, in which all people are divided, the Bible teaches that Jesus has come and torn down those barriers which formerly separated groups of people. Everyone has the same value, no matter their race, gender, and economic standing.
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.
Ephesians 2:14-15
For [Jesus] Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall…so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace.
Christianity teaches the unity of mankind where every individual is equally valued and important. In accordance with this teaching, every man and woman has the same duty.
Ecclesiastes 12:13
The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person.
Matthew 22:36-40
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”
The duties taught by Krishna might very well include fighting and killing because of the group you were born into. The duties taught by Jesus include loving God and as a natural outgrowth of that love, loving all other humans.
Standard of Morality in the Gita Compared to the Bible
You can imagine that the standards of morality given by Jesus and Krishna would be as vastly different as the prescribed duties that each of them teach. In the following passage, Arjuna tells his reluctance to fight his brethren. In fact, he is much closer to the moral teachings of Jesus before he is convinced by Krishna to follow his duty as a soldier.
Arjuna – I do not see how any good can come from killing my own kinsmen in this battle, nor can I, my dear Krishna, desire any subsequent victory, kingdom or happiness…Of what avail to us are a kingdom, happiness or even life itself when all those for whom we may desire them are now arrayed on this battlefield? …Why should I wish to kill them, even though they might otherwise kill me? …I am not prepared to fight with them even in exchange for the three worlds, let alone this earth…Sin will overcome us if we slay such aggressors…How could we be happy by killing our own kinsmen?…Why should we, who can see the crime in destroying a family, engage in these acts of sin?
– BG 1.31-38
Alas, how strange it is that we are preparing to commit greatly sinful acts…Better for me if the sons of Dhrtarastra, weapons in hand, were to kill me unarmed and unresisting on the battlefield. – 1.44-45
Arjuna’s words of love and sacrifice for his family are very similar to the words of Jesus in Luke 6:27-29, 31-33.
But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either…Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
Unfortunately, Arjuna listens to Krishna, who tells him that his love for his family is “degrading impotence” and “weakness of heart” (2.4) because he is not ready to uphold his duty.
Krishna’s reasoning for saying these things is as follows:
Never was there a time when I did not cease to exist, nor you, nor all these kings; not in the future shall any of us cease to be. – BG 2.12
“How can a person who knows that the soul is indestructible, eternal, unborn and immutable kill anyone?” – BG 2.22
“If, however, you do not perform your religious duty of fighting, then you will certainly incur sins for neglecting your duties and thus lose your reputation as a fighter.” – BG 2.33
Here is another passage in the BG where devotion to Krishna requires a blind acceptance of Krishna’s words as truth, solely because “he said so.” Why ought we to believe in the cyclical rebirths and reincarnation taught in the BG? Because Krishna says we ought to, and because we ought to have already come to faith in Krishna before we started reading the BG. This reasoning is as cyclical as the cycles of reincarnation taught in this book.
It is remarkable that Krishna, after commanding Arjuna to fight and kill his family members, he then tells him to “keep all abominable activities far distant” from him (2.49).
The Christian might ask, “If killing isn’t abominable, what is?”, but the BG is consistent in the teaching that sin is only accomplished when one does not keep his duty (2.33).
Krishna wavers in his definitions of what is abominable. In one passage, an “abomination” is simply failing to uphold one’s prescribed duty. In a later passage, his definition of “abominable” seems to be more inline with Arjuna’s perceived moral obligation to love his family. In this case, however, Krishna reminds Arjuna that:
Even if one commits the most [seemingly] abominable action, if he is engaged in devotional service he is to be considered saintly because he is properly situated in his determination. – BG 9.30
This is in complete contrast to what is taught in the Bible.
Romans 12:9
Hate what is evil. Hold fast to what is good.
Notice that the things God hates are certain types of behaviour that humans take part in. Therefore, unlike the teachings of Krishna, the God of the Bible has set a divine standard for human behaviour. See Proverbs 6:16-19:
There are six things which the Lord hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil, A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers.
Questions for the Bhagavad Gita
1) If Krishna truly desired peace (BG, xiv), why did he give his army to Duryodhana and give himself as advisor and chariot driver to the Pandavas, Duryodhana’s enemies? If he truly desired peace, why did he command Arjuna to fight at least five times (BG 2.18, 39; 3.30; 8.7; 11.33-34) ?
2) If Krishna is completely separate from the material world, why would he desire his followers to offer material things to him (BG 9.26-27) ?
3) Krishna urges Arjuna to “be relieved of the miseries of material existence” (BG 9.1). If Krishna created the material universe (BG Intro, 11), why did he create it to be so miserable?
4) Why does Krishna give conflicting commands to Arjuna? He tells Arjuna to fight and kill his enemies (family members), and then later says that if anyone wishes to come to him, he must be “friendly to every living being” (BG 11.55)? Later, Krishna says that if one wishes to be his devotee, he must be “a kind friend to all living entities” (BG 12.13). Furthermore, Krishna states that godly men will show “charity,” “nonviolence,” and “compassion for all living entities” (BG 16.3; see also 17.14 and the comments on 18.17). How do these commands harmonise with one another?
5) Who prescribed Krishna’s duties (BG 3.22-24)? If Krishna really is the “Supreme Personality of Godhead” (BG Intro, 29), who would have the authority to tell him what to do?
Differences between the teachings of Krishna and Jesus
Krishna says:
BG 3.13 – Enjoying food is a sin.
Jesus says:
1 Timothy 4:4 – For [every food] created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving.
Krishna says:
BG 5.20-21 – Rejoicing because of something pleasant or lamenting because of something unpleasant is evil.
Jesus says:
Romans 12:14 – Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.
Krishna says:
BG 6.10 – A holy person ought to live alone in a secluded place.
Jesus says:
Matthew 5:14-16 – “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden…Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
Krishna says:
BG 7.11 – Sex for pleasure is sin.
Jesus says:
God created sex to be good and enjoyed between a husband and wife.
Hebrews 13:4, Song of Solomon, 1 Cor. 7:2-5
Krishna says:
BG 8.13 – All sensual engagements are sin.
Jesus says:
Jeremiah 2:7 – “I brought you into a plentiful land to enjoy its fruits and its good things.”
Krishna says:
BG 16.16 – Hell is for those who enjoy the senses.
Jesus says:
1 Timothy 6:17 – God richly provides us with everything to enjoy.
Krishna says:
BG 6.15 – Heaven is the “cessation of existence.”
Jesus says:
Revelation 21:1-4 – Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “ Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away
Differences in the person of Krishna and the person of Jesus
Krishna’s mercy depends on our perfection
“A person free from all attachment and aversion and able to control his senses through regulative principles of freedom can obtain the complete mercy of the Lord” – BG 2.64
Jesus’s mercy depends on His perfection
“He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy” Titus 3:5.
Krishna desires destruction.
“To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I myself appear, millennium after millennium.” – BG 4.8
“Time I am, the great destroyer of the worlds, and I have come here to destroy all people.” – BG 11.32
Jesus desires no-one to perish.
“The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”- 2 Peter 3:9
Krishna claims to be death.
“I am all devouring death.” – BG 10.35
Jesus claims to be light.
“Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, ‘I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.'”. – John 8:12
Conclusion
I urge all followers of Krishna and the BG to consider the logical fallacies found within this book. The life that the God of the Bible has created for you is not meant to be hated. Life’s joys are meant to be enjoyed and our sadnesses and griefs such as death, infidelity, and loneliness bring sadness to God as well. He has created us in His image (Genesis 1:26) and we have the same moral values as our Creator. This is why Arjuna initially felt wrong in killing his family members. Arjuna was right before he listened to Krishna! God created us and he has put within us a compass pointing us to do what is right and to flee from what is evil.
The caste system and subsequent duty taught by Krishna in the BG is not reconcilable with the human values of: love, compassion, and improvement. These values are found in the Bible and are celebrated as being from God.
Likewise, Krishna teaches that perfection is found only when all earthly desires are rejected. Jesus teaches that physical desires are not inherently evil, and that God’s creation (food, relationships, beauty) are made to be enjoyed.
If you are a Christian, please show love to your Hindu friends and neighbours. Tell them about the “abundant life” that Jesus has provided for everyone who follow Him (John 10:10).
If you are a Hindu, please consider this article. Consider your feelings and emotions. Do you think God created everything that is pleasing to mankind just so he can make us feel bad for enjoying it? Of course not.
Jesus loves you and wants you to enjoy your life.
John 10:10
Jesus- I came that [you] may have life, and may have it abundantly
He also wants you to be prepared to meet Him in the next life.
Romans 2:6-11
God will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well- doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self- seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil… but glory and honour and peace for everyone who does good…For God shows no partiality
In every American college football game at least two different songs can be heard. The first song, the National Anthem, is played before the game starts. The second song is the home team’s fight song, and will likely be played multiple times throughout the contest. Why do we play these songs? These songs are designed to encourage and unify the people behind one common purpose. The words and the melodies of these songs remind the people of who they are, what side they are on, what they stand for, and what they stand against. These songs serve as rallying calls.
The children of God have a “song” which they sing. They have a rallying call. They have a common purpose, a common value, a common trait which runs through all that they say and do. Our song is love; true and genuine love. Jesus, when summing up the greatest commandment, put it this way: “’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets’” (Matt. 22.36-40). Paul puts it simply, “Let love be without hypocrisy” (Rom. 12.9).
Christian love is more than simply a claimed love; it is a love that is lived. Christian love is more than just a talked about love; it is a deep emotional love. Christian love is more than just a theological teaching; it is the very core of who we are. Christian love is not just a natural emotional occurrence that is felt as relationships are developed with our neighbors; it is a love that we strive to achieve even when we are mistreated, hated and persecuted. Love is a thread that runs through everything we say and do. True, genuine love is our song. It calls us to one purpose. It unites us. It encourages us. It reminds us of who we are, what we stand for, and what we stand against. Love is the song of God’s people.
Genuine Love
In Romans 12, Paul expounds upon the way this genuine love is seen in our lives. In verses 7-9, Paul instructs Christians to use our varying gifts accordingly. When we use the gift of serving, we must put that service in to action. If our gift is exhortation, we must exhort. When we give, we must give liberally. When we exercise leadership, we must lead with diligence. When we do acts of mercy, we must do them with cheerfulness. So also, when we love, we must continually demonstrate the genuineness of our love, just as Paul describes in verses 9-12:
Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor; not lagging behind in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, persevering in tribulation, devoted in prayer, contributing to the needs of the saints, practicing hospitality.
Love must ALWAYS be genuine, sincere, and most importantly, put into action.
Christians must never be heard saying, “I abhor evil, but…”, “I love my brethren, but…”, “I know we have a better hope, but…”, “Yes, we must patiently persevere tribulation, but…” “Yes, we must care for the poor, but…”, “Yes, our homes should be used for hospitality, but…”, “Yes, we must love our enemies, but…”. There are no “ifs”, “ands” or “buts” about it! The Holy Spirit commanded that our love must be without hypocrisy! Love must never be reduced to something we talk about, but refrain from putting into action. It doesn’t cut it to simply say “Of course I love my brethren” or “Of course I love my enemies”. Christian love must be put into action in our words, in our thoughts, in our emotions and in our actions.
Love for our Brethren
When it comes to our brethren, our love must characterize us so completely that we are never tempted to “fake it.” Not only must we have “agape” love for one another (v. 9), we must also have “brotherly love” for one another (v. 10). That is, our love must be not only a commitment to love, but we must also cultivate and develop those feelings of brotherly affection. It is a love that must affect our very preferences: “give preference to one another in honor.” We must fervently throw ourselves into our service towards one another as we serve the Lord (v. 11). The hope we have together surpasses even the most severe and depressing of earthly trials, hardships, disappointments and frustrations (v. 12). Therefore when those trials come our way, we can persevere, all l because of the “song” we keep singing. And when we see our brethren going through those hard times, the devotion of our love must show through in our constant prayer, generous giving, and warm hospitality.
We sing this song together. We rejoice together. We weep together. We suffer together. We persevere together. We have this same mind towards one another (vs. 14-15). Paul continues, “Do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly” (v. 15). When we are more concerned about ourselves, we cannot show the kind of love Paul describes. Notice how Jesus puts it in Luke 23.25-26:
And He said to them, ‘The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called ‘Benefactors.’ But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest and the leader like the servant.
If our minds seek after highly respected places in this life, we will never be great in God’s eyes. The song of God’s people is not greatness or power or respectability. The song that calls us together is “love.”
Love for our Enemies
Showing love towards our brethren is not the only kind of love Paul speaks of in Romans 12. In verses 14-21, Paul challenges us to take our love to a completely different level as he challenges us to love our enemies.
“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse” (v. 14). The same thing was taught by Christ himself when he commanded us to “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous (Matt. 5.44-45). Yes, a Christian can (and must) continue to “abhor what is evil”, but we must deal with the evil man with love, so as to lead him to what is right. Responding to evil with good is not optional. It is something the disciples of Christ must do. If when we are reviled, we revile in return, and if when we suffer, we threaten the lives of our enemies, we are not following in the steps of Christ (1 Pet. 2. 21-23).
“Never pay back evil for evil to anyone” (v. 17). The Holy Spirit didn’t say “Most of the time, it is wrong to pay back evil for evil”, nor he did say “Never pay back evil to evil, unless you are dealing with someone who is really evil, like a terrorist or something”. He said “never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men” (vs. 17-18). That’s genuine love. That kind of concern for our enemies is the kind of love that identifies the followers of Christ.
What is the Christian responsibility for peace? If it is in our ability, it is our responsibility. We must use anything and everything in our power to strive for peace, even with wicked men. We must be willing to sacrifice everything, even our own lives. The only thing we cannot and must not sacrifice for the sake of peace is our faithfulness to the Lord and our firm stance for His truth.
This is not to suggest that Paul desired that we simply stand by and allow wicked men to have their way. (Any interpretation that would aid wickedness would certainly be an odd understanding of Scripture). Christian love should not eliminate the desire for justice. If anything, Christian love should enhance our compassion for the victims of evil. Righteous judgment is one of the great attributes of the God we serve!
Paul, in discussing our genuine love, embraces the idea of the wrath and vengeance against evil. Yet he is very clear that the execution of justice is not the responsibility of Christians themselves. “Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord.” The Holy Spirit admonishes us be patient in tribulation. As we witness evil, and our desire for revenge arises, be patient! Vengeance WILL be executed! “I will repay” is the promise of our Lord. As is explained in Romans 13, God in His overruling authority uses governments as his minister for doing this very thing. But the words of Romans 12:19 couldn’t be clearer; it is our responsibility to leave vengeance in the hands of God. It is our responsibility to love our enemies.
Love Wins
We must never forget that we are in a war; not a physical war against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, and against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. The question is this: will we overcome evil, or will we be overcome by evil? The answer to this question depends on our faith in the strategy given to us in Romans 12. 20-21.
But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good.
If we love our enemies, if we do kindness to them, if we feed them when they are hungry, if we give them drink when they are thirsty, we have the promise their evil will be overcome. But if we forget our song, if we forget our purpose, if we forget our rallying call, if we forget that true, genuine love, the Holy Spirit warns us that we will be overcome by evil.
Love is our song. It is our purpose. It is our rallying call. It is what identifies us as followers of Christ. We must never stop singing that song.
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.
Romans 12:2 was the first passage I ever seriously considered and meditated upon. This occurred many years before I was introduced to the concepts of historical or literary context. This passage was initially introduced to me as a supporting verse for 2 Timothy 2:22 and fleeing “youthful lusts.”At that time, I interpreted the verse to mean that the more I read my Bible, the easier temptation would be to deal with. While I was certainly not too far off, I later came to realise that my interpretation was incomplete.Perhaps we can find more meaning within the historical context of the Roman church at the time and of the literary context of Paul’s writing.
The Historical Background of the Roman Church
We know that “visitors from Rome” were present in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost when the initial 3,000 were baptised into Christ (Acts 2:10). Assuming that these early Christians returned and worshipped in Rome, the earliest Roman church would have been composed entirely of early Jewish believers. Their evangelistic efforts, at this point, would have been limited to other Jews in the synagogues of Rome. Later, however, the Roman church would have begun reaching out to the Gentiles, as the other early churches did. Following the conversion of the first Gentile converts, Cornelius and his household (Acts 10), the first mass outreach to Gentiles began (Acts 11:19-21). The successes among the Gentiles that Paul and Barnabas experienced during their first missionary journey (Acts 13:48-49; 14:1, 27) actually prompted the church in Jerusalem to send a letter to the Gentile brethren in nearby locations (Acts 15:23-30). Though we only have available the travels of Paul recorded in Acts, we can imagine the conversions among Gentiles continued to increase in the churches, including the church in Rome.
Paul’s meeting with Roman couple Priscilla and Aquila gives us more insight into the historical context of the Roman church (Acts 18:1-12). Priscilla and Aquila’s “trip” to Corinth was arranged by Emperor Claudius, who decreed that all Jews must leave the city of Rome. Roman historians Suetonius and Cassius Dio reinforce the biblical text of this historical occurrence. Looking to archaeology, we find that the Gallio inscription (Acts 18:12) in Delphi dates this event sometime between January of 51 and August of 52. The majority of the Roman congregation, presumably Jewish, would have been subject to Claudius’ edict. The welfare of the early Roman church, therefore, would have been left to the propriety of the rather recent Gentile converts for a significant amount of time.
By the time Paul, who had at that point had not personally visited the Roman church (Rom. 1:10-13), wrote to them, the Jewish population had returned (Romans 16:3). As you can imagine, the differences between the Jews and Gentiles in the church were amplified by the return of the Jewish Christians who most likely felt an overwhelming sense of culture shock. I can imagine them saying, “What happened to our synagogue style, mostly Jewish assembly?”, “Can you believe the Gentiles are coming to worship then going out for lunch at the temple of Athena!?”, “These guys don’t know our scriptures very well! What qualifies them to teach about Israel’s prophesied Messiah?”
The Literary Context of Romans 12
For obvious reasons, Paul spends considerable time in the book of Romans reconciling the brethren in Rome. His letter begins with passages like 1:16, 2:9-11, and 3:9, 29-30 which remind the brethren that: the stain of sin has affected ALL mankind, ALL mankind will be judged according to their works, and fortunately, the saving gospel of Jesus is also for ALL mankind. Spiritually speaking, “There is no distinction between Jew and Greek” (3:22; 10:12).
Therefore the spiritual realities of: baptism (Romans 6:1-11), the release of the Jews from the Mosaic law that bound them to sin (Romans 7), and the promises of the Spirit (Romans 8) all serve to bring the Jewish and Gentile believers together into a new category: those who have responded to God’s call through faith in Jesus.
Chapter 1:18-32 focuses on “them,” the Gentiles with no regard for God. Chapters 9-11 focus on “them,” the Jews who haven’t accepted Jesus as the Messiah. Chapter 12, however, begins with an appeal to the Christians in Rome. Unlike the hedonistic Gentiles and the self-righteous Jews, the Christians ought to recognise the disobedience of all mankind, and the greatness of God for giving the opportunity of mercy to both Jew and Gentile (11:30-36). This discussion provides the immediate literary context for Romans 12:1-2.
To summarise Paul’s argumentation, it’s almost as if he’s saying, “Enough talking about ‘them.’ Let’s talk about ‘you’ Christians. You’re all from different backgrounds, but you’ve found a new identity in Christ. Forget the past. Whether it be the sensuality you formerly knew, or your supposed self-sufficiency in observing the law, you’ve all died to your former lives, and now you know that God’s mercy comes through Jesus.”
A Closer Examination of Romans 12:2
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.
How would the early Roman church have read this passage?
Romans 12:1 urges the Christians “to present [their] bodies a living and holy sacrifice.” It’s within the context of the epistle to suppose that this passage might have been presented to the Gentile Christians and their previous lives of sensuality. 12:2, however, is likely directed to the Jewish Christians who risked conforming their minds to a worldview that allowed no room for a crucified Saviour from Nazareth.
The Jewish Christians could be encouraged by this passage to use the available evidence (the Old Testament scriptures- Acts 17:1-2 and apostolic signs- 2 Cor. 12:12) to prove that: faith in Jesus, as opposed to faith in the observance of the law, is actually God’s will. Subsequently, the inclusion of the Gentiles into the family of God was also part of God’s plan (Eph. 2:11-22). By accepting these things, the first readers of this epistle wouldn’t be moulded by the societal or religious status quo of first century diaspora Judaism, but instead would be transformed, together with their Gentile brethren, into the “body of Christ” (Rom. 12:5).
Applying Romans 12:2 Today
“Since we’ve answered the question, “What did this passage mean to them?,” we can now ask, “What should it mean to us?”.”
There are major differences between our context and that of the original audience. Primarily, the distinction between Jew and Gentile is nonexistent today. Our western society generally champions the ethics of diversity and inclusivity, sometimes to a fault. Our society generally accepts any religious faith and practice, while the first century Christians were subject to eviction from their homes (as in the situation in Rome) and other types of persecution.
Despite the differences there are notable similarities between our churches and theirs. For one, division in the church is still a significant issue. Despite Jesus’ plea for unity among believers (John 17:20-23), there are more denominations than ever before in church history. The “World Christian Encyclopedia” by Barrett, Kurian, and Johnson (Oxford Univ Press, 2nd edition, 2001) counts as many as 33,820 Christian denominations. Paul’s exhortation “to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus” (Romans 15:5) is completely applicable to contemporary church culture defined by differences.
The widespread division between churches raises another similarity between the modern and early Christians: falsehood taught under religious pretext. The blind observance of Pharisaic traditions led many Jews to ultimately deny that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ. Can we say that we would have fared any better? How do we know that the religious sentiments we express today in our daily lives and our worship services aren’t just man-made traditions?
The Bereans come to mind in this conversation. They were said to have “received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” (Acts 17:10-11). They weren’t focused entirely on new teachings as the Athenians were (Acts 17:21). Neither were they “always learning but never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7). They were eager to hear a new teaching (Jesus as Messiah), but they also examined what was being taught with what they already knew to be true, the objective standard of Scripture.
How can we benefit from the example of the Bereans and Paul’s exhortation to the Roman church?
Don’t wholeheartedly accept everything you’ve been given. I love my parents, my friends, and my former teachers who have all taught me spiritual things. Though I have a great respect for these individuals, the outcome of my own soul is even more important to me. Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6). If Christianity is the exclusive pathway to heaven as Jesus says it is, what is the outcome of all the Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims who wholeheartedly accept the teachings of their friends and family? The outcome of their souls depends on their willingness to honestly examine all the evidence. If I expect this type of attitude from my non-Christian friends, I ought to exemplify this attitude in my own approach to seeking truth.
Don’t wholeheartedly reject everything you’ve been given. I’ve noticed that some, in the spirit of rebellion or because of a personal flaw within a person who taught them, completely reject everything that they’ve been taught. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 instructs us to, “Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.” It would be a logical mistake to imagine that every single aspect of religious information we were taught is wrong, simply because we inherited it from our parents or faith community.
Accept the fact that you’ve been wrong before, and it’s likely that you’ll be wrong again. It takes a humble person to admit this but it is vital to our growth as Christians. Just because someone brings a different interpretation that I haven’t heard before, doesn’t automatically make them wrong. Apollos gives us an example of humbly accepting correction and moving on with newfound knowledge to the glory of God (Acts 18:24ff).
Accept the fact that you’ve been right before, and it’s likely that you’ll be right again. If we take the previous point too far, we might begin doubting that it’s possible to know anything. If I’ve been wrong before, how do I know that I’ve ever been right before?! Without going to that extreme, I can accept that every interpretational decision I’ve made is based upon the best evidence that I’ve processed so far in the best way I know how. I have a rational mind able to examine evidences and come to proper judgments.
By adopting this attitude, every new idea that is presented to me will inevitably renew my mind because my interpretational decisions will be further confirmed or reasonably questioned. If we take to heart Paul’s exhortation, we won’t allow ourselves to be conformed to the world’s desire to mould us, be it sensual or pseudo-religious. I pray that we constantly and consciously invite our minds to be renewed. This process won’t allow us to become close minded to any question asked of the Scripture. Neither will it allow us to accept every teaching as equally valid. Only when our minds are open to renewal will we be able to “prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.”
The Life of Christ Challenges Us to Non-Conformity
When one becomes a Christian, it does not take long for reality to sink in. Living like Jesus is difficult. Pressure and instructions come from all places, yet the one place that is supposed to triumph all is the voice of Jesus Christ. That one voice is the one that the world tries so desperately to distort, ignore, or silence. How is the Christian supposed to live up to the old adage, “You are in the world but not of the world”?
Consider deeply the character of Jesus Christ. Do your very best to put the media’s image of Jesus out of your mind, and allow the word of God to paint the picture. How did Jesus respond to each situation? How did He act toward those who were sick? Those who were sinful? Those who were hypocritical? Those who were politically powerful? Those who were hungry? Those who were dead? Consider deeply the character of Christ. Did He allow the world to shape His thoughts and actions?
During Jesus’ three years of ministry on earth, how many people did He heal, forgive, rebuke, teach, feed, and raise? We do not know. Apart from the many times the gospel authors simply said “multitudes” or “crowds,” John helps us understand the enormity of Jesus’ impact on the lives of others when he writes:
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written. John 21:25.
It is important that we consider the character of Jesus Christ before we commit to our passage at hand, which is:
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. Romans 12:2.
Romans 12 Challenges Us to Non-Conformity
Prior to chapter 12 in the letter to the Romans, Paul teaches on the status of Israel in the eyes of God. After chapter 12, he teaches God’s view of the Gentile world and those who come into the kingdom as Gentiles. Both Jews and Gentiles are susceptible to the influence of the world. Though perspective is different, the temptation is the same.
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. 1 John 2:16.
The words of Romans 12 have been strategically placed between the address to the Jews and the address to the Gentiles, because no one is free from the temptations of lust and pride. Romans 12 and 13 teach that all people ought to not exalt themselves. We must utilize our gifts properly. We must love genuinely. We ought to be sympathetic with those in pain. We must never retaliate. We must respond to evil with the love of Christ. We must live obediently under civil law.
We know all of that is part of the Christian lifestyle. We would know that even if Romans 12 and 13 were never written. Jesus Himself both taught and exemplified all of these imperatives and more. So, why did Paul write them? Why did he take the time to command these Christians to do what they had already committed to do? It is because all of the commandments in Romans 12 and 13 go against the natural flow of life.
If a person were to simply follow the whims of his heart and body, he would not obey a single imperative in this passage. It takes no effort to be conformed to this world. “Do not be conformed to this world” should not be treated as a commandment by itself. Instead, it should be seen as the removal of stumbling blocks on a Christian’s path of transformation.
Why Non-Conformity Is Important
Why is it important that Christians do not look like the rest of the world? Is it simply to “make the world a better place”? No. It is because Christians are to belong in a different “world.” According to many scholars, the word for world (aiōn) in this passage is sometimes difficult to translate. It is translated as world seven times in the NASB. However, it is rendered as age 20 times. Consider Galatians 1:4.
who gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father. (emphasis added).
With the coming of the kingdom of Christ, a new culture, a new society, a new age has been ushered in. Christians have been transferred from the domain of darkness (this present evil age) into the kingdom of God’s Son (Col. 1:13). It is as Jesus prayed:
I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. John 17:15-19.
Christians are living in the world and among worldly people. Yet, Christians do not assimilate into the world. Instead, Christians are transformed into the image of Christ by the renewing of the mind. Such renewal is often difficult, as the voice of the world is loud and demanding.
The voice of Christ says:
Make peace.
Return violence with love.
Feed your enemy.
Be compassionate.
Deny self.
Forsake possessions.
Above all, love.
The voice of this age says:
Revenge is sweet.
Hit your enemy harder.
Destroy your enemy.
Mind your own business.
Take care of yourself first.
Buy, buy, buy.
Love those who love you.
The will of God is to be like Jesus. To be like Jesus is to “prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12:2). Being conformed to this age is easy and natural, but being transformed is disciplined and spiritual (see Rom. 7:14-25).
Avoiding Worldly Distractions
In addition to contradicting the will of God, what the world offers today is also distracting from a Christian’s duty as a soldier for Christ.
Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier. 2 Timothy 2:3-4.
Among those things that distract Christians from true service for Christ are those things that appear quite good on the surface. Many well-meaning Christians spend much of their free time concerning themselves with the politics and policies of this world. Entangling oneself with such things may help “make the world a better place” (then again, it may not), but one must remember that Jesus did not call Christians for that purpose. Legislating morality is not the same thing as making disciples. Righteousness can only truly be obtained by the righteousness of Christ, not the good deeds of a society. While it is true that “Righteousness exalts a nation” (Prov. 14:34), Christians must remember that “nation building” take priority over, or even distract us, from faithfulness. Good works done apart from the work of Christ is vanity. Even to the nation of Israel, God’s elect people, when they did not have the right frame of mind, Isaiah was able to say, “For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment” (Isa. 64:6).
Christians must remember that the world and the kingdom of Christ are and will always be two separate domains. It is not the Christian’s job to persuade the world to be conformed to the kingdom. It is the Christian’s job to call people out of the world and into the kingdom.
Conclusion
Again, consider deeply the character of Jesus Christ. How should the Christian measure up? How would he measure up if he closely followed the imperatives of Romans 12 and 13?
The world has many things to offer. Some of them are horrendous. On the other hand, some even seem good. However, Christians will always be called to be separate from the world. The disciple is to avoid participating and being distracted by the deeds and policies of this world. He is to look more like Jesus and less like the world every day. Doing so will “prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect” and “please the one who enlisted him as a soldier.”
A man who insists on having his rights, will frequently find more wrongs than rights in this world. This world is not the world where right rules; on the contrary, it is an evil world,—a world where Abel dies while Cain lives; a world where God’s servants are killed all the day long, and are accounted as sheep for the slaughter; a world where the wisest of men see that in the place of judgment wickedness is there, and in the place of righteousness iniquity is there,—and find their only consolation in the fact that at last God shall judge the righteous and the wicked, and so right the wrongs that nothing else will ever remedy. We may as well accept these facts at first as to learn them by bitter experience at last; and we may as well content ourselves to bear the iniquities, the falsehoods, the slanders, robberies and wrong-doings that occur in this world, for so surely as we undertake to right the wrongs that are perpetrated, we shall receive fresh injuries and be made the victims of still greater wrongs. Charity “beareth all things,” and though there may be times when iniquity demands rebuke, and wrong-doing requires exposure, still he who does this with the hope of securing his own advantage, may expect to be disappointed. For one’s own personal profit it is better to endure almost any wrong than to undertake to obtain redress. We are in an enemy’s land, and a man may find perils where he least expects them. Hence we are to arm ourselves with the same mind that Jesus had, and suffer patiently, overcoming evil with good. The Talmud has this saying, which illustrates the life of one who beareth all things in the spirit of Christian charity:—“He who says, Mine is mine and thine is thine is a just man; he who says, Mine is mine, and thine is mine, is a wicked man ; he who says, Thine is thine, and mine is thine, is a pious man. ‘Love seeketh not her own.’” This principle of yielding, bearing, and enduring is not merely the dictate of Christian forbearance and charity, but it is also, in an evil world, the dictate of worldly prudence and common sense. Unless a man can make up his mind to a life of warfare and strife, which may in the end involve him in injustice and personal wrongdoing to others, through a determination to have his own way, he may well make up his mind to suffer injury trusting in God who, in the day of final account, shall make all things right and shall give reward to his servants the prophets, and to his saints, and to them that fear his name, both small and great.
In the Prospectus for the present volume of the Gospel Advocate, we announced our intention of examining the relation which the Church of Jesus Christ sustains to the World-powers – civil, military, and religious, by which it is surrounded and with which it often comes in contact. On this, as on many other subjects, we are apt to imbibe the ideas and adopt the habits of those by whom we are surrounded in childhood, without ever questioning ourselves as to whether those ideas and customs and correct – are they in accordance with the teachings of the great Master? Now Jesus Christ gave rules that will guide his children, safely and securely according to his will, if they will only diligently hearken to those teachings. All scripture given by inspiration of God, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction is righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. God has given us direction, how we should conduct ourselves in all the relationships of life, as parent and child, husband and wife, master and servant, friend, enemy, neighbor and stranger, he has certainly not left indefinite our duty in that relation – which is so liable to be used to control the whole man, soul and body, time, talent and energy as the world organizations under which we live.
We ask you then, courteous reader, to calmly investigate with us the connection that Christ has established between His kingdom and the World-Powers, or institutions, that we may learn our duties with reference to them, and be prepared ever in this, as other matters to be found walking according to the will of the Master. But for the present we will content ourselves with merely stating the three leading positions of the religious world in reference to this subject.
The 1st and most popular idea, taking the whole professed Christian world into consideration, is that the church should form alliances with the world institutions, for the purpose of controlling and using those institutions for the advancement of its own interest. The member of the Church according to this idea, enter into these organizations not for the intrinsic value of these institutions, but that the interests of the Church may be advanced. With this idea, when the interests of the Church demand it, the identical institution will by the same power be destroyed. This idea we denominate the Roman Catholic idea. It is the ruling principle with the Roman Catholic Church. She approves no special form of human government, but allies herself with every form, as her interest may demand, or her influence thereby be extended. Her votaries worship at every political shrine, and espouse antagonistic causes, yet never disturb the unity of their mother church. The same motive prompts the French Catholics to sustain the cause of France against Austria, that prompts the Austrian Catholics to uphold the cause of Austria against France. The one object that moves each is the advancement of the interests of mother Rome, the augmentation of her interests by giving her control of each government. She in a sense peculiarly of her own, thus becomes all things to all men, Austrian to Austria, French to France, that she may gain both Austria and France to her support. This idea holds that there is nothing good or desirable in political institutions, farther than they may used for the advancement of the Church.
The next idea that we present, holds that political governments are of Divine origin, as such must be supported and sustained, for their own intrinsic worth, and because they are essential to the well being not only of the world, but the Church itself, and in many respects more essential to society than the church. This conception of the relationship existing between them, changes the positions of the two institutions, makes the Church subserve the interest of the State, makes the State first, the Church second. Church members enter into the contests, strifes, animosities and partisanships of the State because their first, highest duty is there, the chief interest of society is embodied therein. With this idea all Church harmony depends upon political unity. This condition of affairs makes the Church the tool of the political clique, at once the victim and fosterer of the sectional prejudice and a party to the national conflicts. We denominate this idea the Protestant idea. Protestantism has its birth in the rebellion of the political rulers of England, Germany, and Switzerland, against the assumption of Rome to control them for the benefit of the Church assisted it is true, by a religious reformation excited by Luther, Zuringle* [Zwingli], and Calvin. Each branch of Protestantism received its peculiar embodiment from the nature and interest of the national government with which it allied itself. English Protestantism differed widely from German, and Swiss from both. This view of the relationship of Church and State pervades all the denominations of Protestant Christendom. We may safely affirm that not one of these has ever been able to maintain its unity intact, its harmony of feeling and action undisturbed, when two nations in which that Church existed was engaged in strife, or even when political partisanship or sectional excitement ran high in any one government. Hence, when the United States separated from England politically, the Church of England in this country and England severed in twain. Also, in the sectional and political strifes in our own country, sectional animosity and bitterness ran fully as high in the religious bodies even before it did in the body politic.
There is yet another view of this relationship that we desire to present. A few individuals in all ages of the Church, from the days of Jesus Christ, to the present time, have maintained that the two institutions, the Christian and the worldly, were necessarily separate and distinct. That they could form no alliances. That each was necessary in its proper place and for its proper subjects. That God’s institution, or the Church, was perfect and needed no help or addition from human hands to enable it to direct the affairs of its own children. On the other hand, that God had left those who refused to submit to his government, to form a government to their own liking, to manage it according to their own views of propriety and for the accomplishment of their own desired ends. And with this, Christians have nothing to do, farther than God has connected them with it. The limit and bound of which connection is a quiet submission to its requirements, when these do not conflict with their obligations to God. In a word, that the Christians cannot become the partisan of any human government or institution. It is his duty to submit to all alike, and with fidelity as to God himself, comply with the requirements of whatever one he may be under, modified by his first duty to obey God unto death itself rather than any man-power, but it is not his province to become an active participator or partisan of any human government or form of government.
This idea prevailing in a church and being acted upon, will at once render that church free from discords and strifes on political grounds. It causes the Christian in England to submit to the government of England, not because he approves that government, but because God requires him to submit to it. It causes the Christian in Mexico to submit to the Republic of Mexico, when under the Republic, not because he approves a republic, or is a republican, but because God says to be subject to the powers that be. It requires him in turn to submit to the Empire of Mexico, when an empire is established; not because he is a monarchist, or a partisan of the empire, but because God says submit to the powers that be, not the ones that ought to exist, or that he prefers, but to the ones that actually do exist. These three ideas of the connection of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ with the world powers and institutions, with their modifications, embrace the faith and practice of the professed Christian world on this subject. These ideas direct the actions of their respective advocates, and exercise a wonderful effect upon the course and destinies of those churches.
Will our readers ponder these questions in their bearing upon the peace, purity, unity, and destiny of the Church of Jesus Christ and the well-being of the world, and with us examine the Sacred Scriptures to see which, if any one of them be true positions assigned the church by its Divine founder.
Editor’s note: The following article has been abridged to provide a brief overview of Fanning’s arguments. The original article first appeared in the Christian Review, March 1847, and can be read in full here.
Does the Christian Institution Permit Its Subjects To Engage in War?
We will submit such arguments to the candid, as satisfy us that Christians, as a nation, church, or individuals, have no divine authority for engaging in war, offensive or defensive, for fame, plunder, revenge, or for the benefit of themselves or their enemies. Under this head, we shall adopt the following order:
The Prophecies
The prophecies, in reference to Christ and his kingdom, clearly teach that, the whole tendency of the new institution, was to put an end to war. Isaiah said, when speaking, as all the world agree, of the gospel age: “They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore” (Is. 2:4). Again he says: “They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea” (Is. 11:9). To the same effect, he says: “Violence shall no more be heard in thy land; wasting nor destruction within thy borders” (Is. 9:18).
Ezekiel writes:
And I will set up on shepherd over them, and he shall feed them; and I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them; and I will make with the a covenant of peace; and will cause the evil beasts to cease out of the land; and they shall dwell safely in the wilderness, and sleep in the woods.
Ezekiel 34:23-26
Jeremiah writes:
Behold! The days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers; I will put my law into their inward parts, and write them in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people; and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, know ye the Lord; for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive them their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more.
Jeremiah 31:31-35
In Isaiah, 35th chapter, it is written:
And a high way shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called the way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those; the way faring men, though fools, shall not err therein. No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, it shall not be found there; but the redeemed shall walk there: and the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come unto Zion with sons, and everlasting joys upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.
Jeremiah 34:8-10
More prophecies would be superfluous.
We have been asked the question: “Why are we not authorized to go to war as well as Joshua, David, etc?” The times have changed. God has established a new dispensation, in which the subdued heart alone have an inheritance… Swords and spears were not to be the weapons of the citizens of this new dispensation. “They shall not hurt, nor destroy, in all my holy mountain” says the Lord.
We would now, most respectfully, ask the lovers of truth, if these plain and pointed declarations do not fully establish the point, that the reign of Messiah was to be one of universal peace? We believe all that is necessary to convince the world of the truth of the proposition, that – Christians are not permitted to engage in the bloody conflicts of the infidel nations, is to let those scriptures have their wonted influence upon the mind.
The New Testament Teachings
The New Testament teachings will next be considered. To get fairly at the point, it will be necessary to notice again, briefly, the Jewish polity. It was a national and worldly institution, to serve – “Till the seed should come”, and then it was to be rolled up, as a vesture, and laid aside. “The law of commandments” which tolerated war, was “the enmity” between Jews and Gentiles; but Christ “took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross”, and, according to Apostolic teaching, there was “a change made in the law.”
Again: we wish it clearly understood that, Christ’s kingdom was not to be propagated by flesh and blood relations…. The kingdom of Christ then, it will appear, was to differ very widely from the bloody church of Moses. Now it remains to be shown that the differences are so great in the two institutions, that war could be tolerated in the former, but not in the latter. Before, however, offering our arguments, we wish to say to those who may desire to find fault with us, we are not contending that war is never justifiable in the nations of the earth. Indeed, we doubt not, it is often Heaven’s policy, to regulate nations by the sword; but we wish our readers to understand us to say, that the Almighty acknowledges no nation as peculiarly his, at this day; yet he has “a peculiar people”, selected from the nations, and peregrinating “as strangers and pilgrims in the nations”, but who have nothing to do with national policy and revolutions.
Our remarks, then, upon war, we wish to extend no further than the boundaries of Christianity.
We proceed to give… a few reasons, drawn directly from the gospel, for believing that Christians have no right to engage in war.
Christ Did Not Appeal to Arms to Establish His Kingdom
If the spirit of war had existed in the government of Christ, we might reasonably suppose he would have appealed to arms to establish it. So far, however, from being the case, the Apostle applies the language of the Prophet to him:
He shall not strive, nor cry, neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he shall not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.
Matthew 12:19-20
His laws were to be rendered triumphant and glorious, without the aid of earthly weapons. Not so much as a tender reed was to be disturbed, or the smoking flax quenched, for his cause to be victorious. The exhortation to the Apostles was: “Be ye wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” The whole doctrine of Messiah was, to conquer the world by love. This was contrary to the experience and philosophy of mankind, and it is perfectly antipodal to the sentiments of the world, and even to nine-tenths of the religionists at present day.
Christ’s religion has extended to every nook and corner of the earth, where human beings have been capable of receiving it, and in his transcendent love, and matchless kindness, and he has done every thing without an appeal to arms.
Resist Not Evil
A distinguishing feature of Christianity is, the abrogation of the lex talionis, by the gospel. The law said, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”: but not so in Christ’s kingdom. “If ye be smitten on one cheek, turn the other”, is the teaching of the New Testament religion (Mt. 5:38-39). How the command “Resist not evil” is to be reconciled with the spirit or practice of war, we are not prepared to see.
Love Your Enemies
In the law of Moses, and amongst most partisans of the earth, the doctrine and practice are: “Love your brethren, or party, and hate all the world besides”, but Christianity says:
Love your enemies; bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you, and persecute you; that you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 5:44-45
We observe that being children of the Heavenly Father, is put upon the condition of “Loving our enemies, and praying for those who despitefully use us, and persecute us.”
No people have engaged in bloody deeds, without transgressing this precept. Christianity is so unlike the religions of the age, that few of its striking features can be inferred from the institutions which are said to be modeled after it. We solemnly appear to those professed Christians, who think it is right, and obedient to the cause of God, for them to take the life of their fellows, to say if such things are done in love to their enemies? God has promised his protecting power to his saints, and when we take up arms to defend ourselves, we show very clearly that we lack confidence in our Father in heaven.
Do Not Avenge Yourselves
With regard to vengeance, the Apostle says in Romans 12:19, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath; for it is written, vengeance is mine. I will repay, saith the Lord.” From this, it appears, that the idea of revenge, is wholly incompatible with the spirit and genius of Christianity. The doctrine of Christ is, “Overcome evil with good.” “If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head” (Rom. 12:20). The reader will keep in mind, that these things are to be observed towards enemies.
Follow Peace With All Men
We are commanded: “To follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which, no man shall see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14). Eternal life here, is placed upon the condition of following “peace” with the world, and “holiness” towards God.
The Fruit of the Spirit
The Spirit of “Joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, meekness, forbearance” etc, which Christians are commanded to cultivate, forever precludes the spirit and practice of war. The servant of God, should desire above all things, the conversion of his fellow creatures; and labor to “pluck them as brands from the burning”, but this cannot be done, with swords and staves.
A Kingdom Not of This World
Christ’s declaration, “That his kingdom is not of this world, for if it were, his subjects would fight for it”; is demonstrable evidence that Christian war had no countenance from the Savior. His kingdom was unlike all others: it was spiritual, and to be built and defended by spiritual men and spiritual measures.
Closing Remarks
Had we space, we would be pleased to answer all arguments upon the subject of Christian wars; but we must bring our remarks to close, without recapitulation… If we had taken the right view, Christians are in great error and must reform. If we are mistaken, we would gladly be corrected.
The Christian Exile 