Isaiah was a prophet and preacher during a time of political enthusiasm and turmoil. The Assyrians had risen as the world empire of the day. They had gained their power by terrorizing any nation that dared to stand in their way.
Other than the Assyrians, the Egyptians were the next largest military strength. Judah thought to themselves, “If we can make an alliance with Egypt, it will give us the power to defeat Assyria.”
Isaiah’s goal was to turn Judah back to having faith in God. In Isaiah 30, Isaiah responds to Judah’s decision to turn to Egypt for help, rather than to God. This text contains some important lessons for us today about the foolishness of turning to political strength for their help, rather than turning to God.
The Issue Was that of Trust
Their plan seemed flawless. “With the help of Egypt, we will protect God’s nation, and God’s enemies will be defeated.” This plan was probably applauded by the war generals and the people alike. And yet, Isaiah warned,
“Woe to the rebellious children,” declares the LORD,
“Who execute a plan, but not Mine,
And make an alliance, but not of My Spirit,
In order to add sin to sin;
Who proceed down to Egypt
Without consulting Me,
To take refuge in the safety of Pharaoh
And to seek shelter in the shadow of Egypt!” – Isaiah 30:1-2
Here Isaiah reveals their error. They had a plan, but their plan did not originate with God. The issue was that of trust. They trusted in Pharaoh more than they trusted in God. They were more impressed with the strength of Egypt’s army than they were with God’s strength. In the following chapter, Isaiah would go on to warn:
Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help
And rely on horses,
And trust in chariots because they are many
And in horsemen because they are very strong,
But they do not look to the Holy One of Israel, nor seek the LORD! – Isaiah 31.1
To misplace our faith is sin. Judah was rightfully described as rebellious and a woe was justly pronounced against them. They were, in profession, God’s holy people, but they were not acting as if they trusted in Him. Their weakness and danger was a result of their sin and idolatry, but rather than repenting, they chose to “add sin to sin.”
The Consequences of their Foolishness
Therefore the safety of Pharaoh will be your shame
And the shelter in the shadow of Egypt, your humiliation.
For their princes are at Zoan
And their Ambassadors arrive at Hanes.
Everyone will be ashamed because of a people who cannot profit them,
Who are not for help or profit, but for shame and also for reproach. – Isaiah 30.3-6
Observe the consequences of Judah’s decision to turn to Egypt.
The Egyptians would receive their alliance kindly. When Judah’s messengers arrived, they were given the opportunity to meet with Egypt’s princes and ambassadors. Judah loaded down their donkeys and camels with treasures (v. 6), and Egypt’s leading men welcomed their friendship and alliance with open arms.
But, the Egyptians would be unable to live up to their expectation. They could not help or profit them. Isaiah goes on to describe their help as “vain and empty” (v. 7).
Judah, who at one point was enamored with Egypt’s strength, would ultimately be ashamed. Their neighbors would look to God’s nation with shame and reproach. They would be ashamed of themselves. They would be ashamed for trusting in Egypt.
To the contrary, those who trust in God and in his power will never be put to shame. We must not expect too much from man, and we must not expect too little from God.
The Three Things Christians Must Know About Political Strength
When we turn to political strength, we must acknowledge that “these are only human plans.”
Judah took counsel, and they made a plan. But it wasn’t God’s plan. God had not spoken one word to indicate that he desired for his children to make an alliance with any of the earthly nations surrounding them. Likewise, there is not one word in the New Testament that would indicate that God wants for Christians to try to use the arm of government to fix the problems in society.
The New Testament has much to say about how Christians should relate to earthly governments. Christians are to pay taxes (Rom. 13.7), submit (Rom. 13.1-7; 1 Pet. 2.13), honor their rulers (Rom. 13. 7; 1 Pet. 2.17), and pray for their rulers (1 Pet. 2.1-2). Beyond this, the New Testament is silent.
Does this mean it is wrong to hold political office? To seek laws that enforce morality? To work for the military? Is it wrong to be politically involved? Scripture is silent in response to these questions. Therefore, if we do decide to turn to political means to reform society, we must acknowledge that we came up with these plans on our own. The plans did not originate with God. We are choosing to act based off of merely human plans.
Government power at its best is limited to only the power that humans can provide. We may have the most economic influence, the latest military technology, and the strongest police force on our side to enforce our plans, but we can still only accomplish what the arm of flesh can accomplish. As long as we are acting on human counsel and human plans, there will be a limit as to how much those plans can accomplish.
Government power, at its worst, can even end up like that of Egypt, leading to shame. It may appear to be a great asset, but could very well end up backfiring, leading to increased persecution.
Before turning to political plans, we should ask ourselves, “Do I want the strength of man on my side, or do I want God’s power working along with me?” All flesh, no matter how powerful and influential, has limitations to its power.
When we turn to political strength, we must realize “the help provided by earthly governments is inadequate.”
Judah needed help far greater than what Egypt could provide. So do we.
Our pagan society has turned increasingly wicked. No matter how many new tax laws are passed, greed continues. No matter how many prohibition laws are written, alcoholism and drug abuse continue. No matter how many checks and balances are written into the constitution to hold politicians accountable for their actions, corruption runs rampant. No matter how much blood and money is invested into the military, terrorism continues to gain strength.
Why? Because the many problems in the world are caused by sin. We are in need of strength far greater than any man or government of men can ever provide. We would do well to adopt the faith of the psalmist who wrote:
Some boast in chariots and some in horses,
But we will boast in the name of the LORD, our God. – Psalm 20:7
And,
The king is not saved by a mighty army;
A warrior is not delivered by great strength.
A horse is a false hope for victory;
Nor does it deliver anyone by its great strength.
Behold, the eye of the LORD is on those who fear Him,
On those who hope for His lovingkindness. – Psalm 33:16-17
And we should most certainly remember the admonition of Paul,
For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. – 2 Cor. 10.3-4
When the storm comes, our shelter will be tested. No human protection will be sufficient. No one is adequately armed unless they have God on their side.
When we turn to political strength, we must be aware that God may view our plans as rebellious.
I wonder what kind of response Isaiah received when he first preached the lesson in Isaiah 30?
“Rebellious? That’s an awfully strong word, not to mention judgmental and offensive. I am a follower of God. I have spent my whole life studying His law, bowing in worship, and caring for the poor. I have always made it a point to live differently from the world around me. But I don’t see anything wrong with enlisting Egypt as an ally. After all, we know that God rules over the kingdoms of men, and he uses them as His ministers to serve His purposes. It may be that God plans on using Egypt to restrain Assyria’s wickedness. We still trust in God, and if Egypt can help God’s people, we should turn to them.”
In the same way, there are many today who will say, “I know government cannot redeem the world from sin, but if we can use them as a tool to correct and restrain the wicked, we should. They are, after all, described as God’s ministers for good.”
This view makes a fatal mistake. It assumes that if one believes in God, he can do whatever he or she wants to do. To the contrary, when we put our faith in God, we are obligated to live our lives and fight our battles according to the directions He has given us. When Judah used another plan of action, He viewed their plans as rebellious. Would He view our own man-made plans any differently?
When we follow where God guides, we will see that God provides. We are under God’s protection when we submit to God’s direction. When we follow our own self-designed way, we are rejecting God’s wisdom and care for us.
A short time later, perhaps in direct response to the warnings of Isaiah, King Hezekiah gave the following message; a message God’s people should continue to rely on as we fight our battles even today:
Be strong and courageous, do not fear or be dismayed because of the king of Assyria nor because of all the horde that is with him; for the one with us is greater than the one with him. With him is only an arm of flesh, but with us is the LORD our God to help us to fight our battles. – 2 Chron. 32.7-8
Let’s talk about how subversive the Book of Romans is.
I mean, for the only book of the Bible written directly to people living in Rome—not to mention one that is so long and has so much to say—the city itself (and the Empire of Rome that the city is the seat of) is practically silent. In fact, the city itself is only named twice in the beginning, and in passing, merely as the location of the Church Paul writes to (1:7,15).
Which is weird, right? I mean, if an apostle wrote a letter to Christians in Washington D.C., we might imagine he’d have all this stuff to say about America, about our country, about what the “founding fathers” wanted and how Christians in America—particularly her capital—have all this potential for turning the capital of the world’s most powerful empire into the hands of God. “Now let’s get a Christian in the white house and Congress and turn this nation [back] to God.”
So why don’t we see much about Rome in the book of Rome? The truth is, much of the Letter to the Church in Rome is saying all kinds of things about Rome, both the empire and the city.
The first reason why Paul is not going to say anything about Rome in the letter is to protect the Christians there and elsewhere. It’s no secret that Christianity was a peaceful “threat” to Roman Empire, but Paul is not going to say anything obviously negative in a letter that might be apprehended by Roman soldiers. Jesus taught us to understand that we will have an enemy in every earthly nation, but his followers were not taught to make a habit of upsetting earthly leaders just for the sake of it. Persecution will come, but it shouldn’t be because we outright insulted earthly leaders, but because our teaching threatens their power. So, if Paul thinks Rome is a stinking heap of manure, he’s not going to write that, but it doesn’t mean he’s not thinking it. Like any good Christian, he’s clever as a snake.
The second reason why Paul is not going to say anything about Rome in the letter is to silence the significance of Rome. By making Rome only a place on a map, Paul is reducing the capitol of the empire to its rightful place in the plan of God. Despite all the powerful leaders, vast structures, and impressive festivities, Rome is nothing but a heap of ruin and sin to God. It doesn’t have to be said. Paul is effectively yawning at the empire, as if to say “Everybody’s all like ‘Hail Caesar!’ and I’m over here like ‘Praise Jesus!'”
The third reason, and of course most important, is simply that Paul is writing a letter to Christians about Christ and his Kingdom. What could be more important? Nothing on earth. No matter how important it looks to the eyes of the flesh. Not even Rome.
Let’s look at how Paul’s silence about Rome actually says a lot about how God’s kingdom relates (and doesn’t relate) to Rome—and how it matters us as Christians in America:
Paul, a Roman citizen, doesn’t even introduce himself as a citizen of Rome. He could have used that to his advantage in case he was searched by a Roman soldier. It’s like he doesn’t care. His citizenship is in Heaven, and although elsewhere in scripture he’s mentioned his Roman citizenship (Acts 16), he only uses it to convenience the Gospel and humble Roman authorities. Instead, he reaches them as one sent in the name of Christ “in power” and “among all nations.” It’s a subtle way of saying, “I’m writing to the citizens of a great power stretching across the earth—you know, Jesus’ kingdom.” Burn.
Paul is eager to go to Rome, but not to do anything associated with Rome itself. It’s like, “I can’t wait to go to D.C. and meet some special people.” “Political leaders?” “Um, no. I’m visiting the Church there.”
Right after Paul mentions Rome, he says he’s not ashamed of the Gospel (1:16). It’s a brave move of defiance. “I don’t care what they do to me. I love Jesus and his Message.”
And then, right after that, he says “the wrath of God” is against all who “suppress the truth.” Another subtle move, implying that Rome is being judged by God for persecuting Christians and practicing horrible sin. Talk about a subtweet.
He calls God the God of the Gentiles (3:29). Oh, and by the way, he’s the only God. A spit in the face of Jupiter, Diana, Baal, and any other false god in the world.
He says that Christians are heirs of the world, being by faith children of Abraham. In other words, not Rome. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, if he had no humility, Paul might could have well said, “Hey, Caesar, this world you rule? It actually belongs to my God, and therefore we’re going to get it in the end. Not you.”
He tells Christians to be happy they’re being persecuted. That’s a show of defiance. To be sad is to show weakness and defeat, or even guilt and repentance. Governments don’t harm people hoping they’ll be happy about it. They want to stop something. Not only is Paul encouraging the faithful, he’s telling the Church and those who persecute her that such suffering can make them stronger, better people. “The more you hurt us, the more powerful our hope.” Bold words from a leader in a cult dedicated to a helpless man-god who died in the hands of Roman soldiers.
He says Christians are united as a new creation through Christ’s death. Real subtle, but it’s there. A group of people being united despite the empire is scandalous. Calling them a new kind of person that doesn’t live under the same rules as Rome is scandalous. And both those things being under a man Rome executed for rebellion is scandalous.
While Law was a big deal to Romans, Paul never mentions Rome’s law or its “source.” Instead, he says we delight in the Law of the Lord.
He literally says, “if God is for us, who can be against us?” (8:31). Imagine this letter being read in a secret basement in the midst of the capital. How rebellious! Any antagonism toward Christians Paul sees as insignificant and powerless to topple God’s plans. “Who can bring any accusation against God’s elect?” (v33). He might as well add, “I dare you.” Oh, and by the way, he implicitly says, “our King you killed, he came back. You can’t stop him.”
And then, right after that, he says Christians are “more than conquerors.” Rome is just a conquering empire. That’s it. All they do is exercise temporary power over people’s bodies, but not their hearts and souls. Christians have a better role: We are ruled by a more powerful being, and we can use love to conquer hearts, truly convicting people of real power. Paul even says that nothing, not even Rome, can stop Jesus. Only he does it without actually naming Rome. He says “rulers” and “powers.” We smell what he’s cooking. He then adds firmly, “I am speaking the truth.” Boom.
He says there’s no meaningful distinction between any race, ethnic group, or nationality. That’s anti-empire.
He says people who carry the Good News have beautiful feet. The main reason is to praise people for spreading the Gospel, but it’s also implied that the one thing Rome tries to oppress is actually beautiful. Always rebellious. “We’re gonna do it anyway, because it’s awesome! And those who do it are awesome!”
He says Gentiles can be “grafted” into Abraham’s lineage, essentially inviting Roman people to happily “defect” to Jesus.
He tells Christians not to act just like typical Romans, but instead transform into a better way of living. Abandon the culture you’re in, he means, and adopt the culture of the man Romans hung on a cross for treason.
But WAIT A MINUTE. He also says “let everyone be subject to governing authorities,” (13:1) and even says that God set them in place, and that they are servants of God. So now what? Is Paul tooling out? Is he actually endorsing Rome?
This is a very misunderstood passage. It’s important to remember the context here. The whole time Paul has been implicitly defying Rome as demonic and impotent (what John also does in Revelation). He’s NOT about to shill out to Caesar just for the sake of peace and order. If you look at his use of language, Paul is not endorsing Roman rule, but merely asking Christians to respect the order and relative justice these leaders inadvertently bring about, but he phrases it in a way that makes him look like an obedient, non-hostile law-abider. But it’s not because Rome is good, but because Rome is a tool God uses to carry out his justice.
Earthly powers inherently rebel against God by claiming authority they don’t have, but God can even use their efforts at control to bring about his vision of justice. This is why Christians aren’t supposed to rebel just for the sake of it, or disobey laws just to say “stick it to Caesar.” Our rebellion should be for the Gospel, not to pick a fight. Hence why Paul’s letter is very anti-Rome without being up front about it.
Right after offering conditional respect to rulers, Paul immediately tells his followers to follow a better legal system, put on their armor for a fight, and kill Roman culture.Only, the fight is not physical, and the killing of another culture is not oppressive, but voluntary. We kill the culture in us, not in Romans. Unlike Rome, we don’t force people to assimilate. Instead, we use love to invite them to Jesus. Paul even goes on to demonstrate how flexible and non-judgmental true Christian culture is, despite being so anti-Roman.
Paul directly quotes Isaiah, claiming Jesus came to rule Romans (and other Gentiles). Just not by force, but by a love more powerful than force.
He lays out his plans to travel everywhere the Roman empire stretches, praising Jesus the executed traitor and making more of his followers. Between the lines, “oh and yeah, I totally plan to stretch through your whole empire and repeat this stuff. I have no plans to quit. Oh, and plenty of your subjects are happy to help me. They’re everywhere, and more will be joining them.” He even names some followers by name. Unashamed.
He tops it off with a reminder that Jesus is for all nations (not Roman rule), according to the command of God (not Caesar), to bring about obedience of faith (not obedience to Roman rule). And not just to Paul’s God, but to the only God. A-men. Mic. drop.
In recap, Paul defies Rome by pointing to God’s grace instead of Caesar’s power, calling for Christians to trust in the Messiah Rome had executed, abandoning any cultural practices (many of them Roman) that are against Christ, and boasting in how God has helped him spread the news of a nation encompassing all nations that has nothing to do with Rome.
Paul also says a lot about how Jews aren’t saved just for “being Jewish” either. Holding to Jewish law and culture won’t save them because it’s not trusting in Christ. Being in the lineage of Abraham won’t save them any more than being a citizen of the greatest empire. For us, being “American” has nothing to do with making us saved, even if America’s origins included some Christian values.
Editor’s Note: It is often argued that since God ordained governments, it is right for Christians to support and maintain those governments. In the following article, Barton W. Stone addresses this commonly held belief. This excerpt is taken from “Interview Ninth” from “Interview Between an Old Preacher and a Young Preacher”, originally published by James M. Mathes in the “Works of Elder B. W. Stone” (1859). You can read the interviews in their entirety here. For additional study, take the time to view the hyperlinks you will find throughout this article.
Old Preacher–Well, my son, what success have you had in enlisting soldiers for the holy war since we last met?
Young Preacher–None, none. The way is completely obstructed by counter currents of worldly policy, called politics. This appears to be the all-absorbing theme, and spring of action among the people of every age, sex, religion and profession in the land. It is a thick veil thrown over eternity and eternal things–it is an opiate which has induced a senseless torpor to religion–it is ruination to Christian character–it has banished shame from the heart of the professor, who seems to enjoy the revels of the day…The small still voice of religion can not be heard in such a turmoil, nor can she have entrance or abode into hearts so heated with politics….To preach during such excitement appears in vain; and yet to refrain I can not. I find a few, and but a few mourners in Zion, who weep for her desolations. This upholds my sinking spirit, with the heart-cheering truth, the Lord reigneth. Here the young preacher’s sorrows burst into a flood of tears, and prevented further utterance.
O. P.–My son, wipe your tears and trust in the Lord. It is true a dark cloud hangs over the world, which may burst in vengeance or mercy. An exterminating war has long been waging between religion and the world, and “the fight will be maintained until the weaker dies.” A compromise can never be effected between them; for whosoever loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him; and whosoever will be a friend of the world is an enemy to God. The friendship of the world is enmity to God. To seek the friendship of the world and the friendship of God at the same time, can not be done consistently with truth–it is a vain work; and yet this work, vain as it is, seems to mark the professors of Christianity at the present day; almost an armistice seems to be concluded between the world and professed Christianity. The God of this world has blinded the eyes of professed Christians, and is fast leading them deceived into their ranks into captivity–into bondage and death. Christians are virtually forsaking the government and laws of heaven to prop up and sustain the governments and laws of men, whether those men and laws be ecclesiastical or political; in fact, they are based upon the same foundation.
Israel were always scattered when they forsook the laws and ordinances of heaven and followed their own devices. Their enemies prevailed against them, and led them into captivity; nor were they ever gathered together from their dispersions, till they returned to the laws and ordinances of God which they had forsaken. These things were written for our example, on whom the ends of the world are come. We must return to the government, laws and ordinances of our rightful king, the Lord Jesus, before we shall ever be gathered together and become worthy subjects of his kingdom. We must unite our energies, advance the government and kingdom of our Lord, and meddle not with the government of this world, whether human, ecclesiastical, political or civil; all others aside from that of heaven will be put down by a firm decree of our Lord before the end come.
Y. P.–You astonish me. Are not the civil powers and governments that be, ordained of God? And is it not the duty of Christians to be subject to them, and to sustain them? Do instruct me on this subject.
O. P.—If it be the duty of Christians under one worldly government to uphold and support that government, then it is the duty of Christians living in every worldly government to uphold and support that government; those living in North America must uphold and support the democracy of all the United States; those in Britain must support the monarchy of England; those in Russia must support the despotism there; those in Rome must support the government of the pope, the man of sin, the Antichrist of our rightful Lord; those in South America must support every petty tyrant that wades through blood to sit in the supreme chair of State. These governments must be supported and sustained by all their power, influence, blood and treasure. Can we for one moment think that the Lord enjoined on his people under the Caesars of old to uphold and defend their bloody governments, which enjoined the extirpation of the Christians, or to force them to abandon their religions and sacrifice to idols? Can we think it possible that the government of the pope, the man of sin, the true Antichrist, must be supported by Christians at the expense of all their influence, blood and treasure, and that by oath, and I may add, at the expense of their own souls? I grant that Christians are bound to submit to the powers as far as to pay their dues, as custom, tax, etc. But they are not enjoined to seek for nor fill those powers, and thus sustain the government. How awful the thought that the Lord would enjoin on his followers to sustain and support the antipodal, the antagonistic government of Rome, which aims at the subversion of his own!
Y. P.–You confound me; but are not the powers or governments that exist ordained of God? Is it not then right for Christians to support or maintain them?
O. P.–If all the governments which exist are ordained of God in the common acceptation of the term, then it undeniably follows that all the jarring governments on earth are Divine and good–constitute parts of his own government. Will this be admitted by any intelligent man? No, not one. The translation of the verse (Rom. 13.1) has caused this confusion. The wordsare ordained,in our version, are in the present tense, but in the original, are in the perfect, and should be translatedhave been ordained.Trace the history of God’s government from the beginning, and we shall find that he, as monarch of the world, always gave his own laws to his people for their government, but always ordained or appointed men to rule under him according to those laws. But we never find that he ever gave authority to uninspired men to make laws in any age or nation for the government of his people. The authorities or executors of any laws but his own, it is evident he did not ordain.
The people soon, through their depravity, became dissatisfied with God’s government and laws, and began to depart from the laws of Heaven, and to legislate for themselves; yet they retained the authorities and offices which God had ordained. Then were the people scattered, and formed nations, and made laws, and instituted governments for themselves, retaining the offices Divinely ordained to execute the laws, not those laws given by God, but those made by themselves. Thus the whole world is divided into kingdoms, states, governments and parties, whose opposite laws and governments, create collision of interests, strife, war and carnage. The kind purpose of God was to reunite the jarring world, and to make them one, and to reconcile the world unto himself by his Son. This will never be effected till they all return to the government and laws of God, and forsake their own. These laws are given us by Jesus Christ, and when received and fully acted upon will unite the world in harmony, love and peace; wars will cease to the ends of the earth, and discord and strife be known no more forever. It will truly be the kingdom of peace–of heaven on earth.
Y. P.–Could we live on earth in safety without civil government? Would not the strongest sect of professed Christians persecute and oppress the weaker, unless checked and restrained by the civil authorities? Would not the wicked part of the world continually bring upon us tribulation and distress?
O. P.–We may imagine a thousand difficulties; but have we not a king in Zion, who is jealous for the glory of his Church upon earth? Is he not almighty? Can he not check and restrain opposing powers? Will he not hear prayer, and interpose in time of need? To these queries our enlightened judgment answers in the affirmative; but where is our faith? Can we trust in this king? Persecution would add a score to the ranks of Immanuel for one cut off. The Church would continually gain from the world by the truth, and sufferings for it, until he whose right it is to reigntriumphantly over all. While civil governments exist, we may, as did Paul, appeal to Caesar from the judgment of our enemies; he is to keep his subjects from injuring us, because we honestly and punctually pay our dues to his government. The amalgamation of Church and State is an unholy alliance, and every advance to it is a departure from truth. The world is beginning to be awake to this subject. Yet some of the parties seem to cast a wishful eye to the highest.
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).
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.
The Christian Exile 