October 4, 2019 • 58 mins
- A huge thanks to Joseph McDade for his generous permission to use his music: https://josephmcdade.com/
- Discord Discussion Board: https://disboard.org/server/474580298630430751
- A fantastic, concise summary by Preston Sprinkle, covering much of what was said in this podcast: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/theologyintheraw/2015/12/romans-13-doesnt-tell-christians-to-kill-their-enemy/
- Tim Mackie's outline of politics in the Bible, including a great section on the context surrounding Romans 13: http://realitysf.com/assets/YOBL-Lectures-Slides/YOBL-The-Early-Church-and-Politics-Tim-Mackie-Handout.pdf
- My write-up on Romans 13
- Greg Boyd's take on Romans 13: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmUkvFffy4Y
- Some further reflections by Boyd: https://reknew.org/2017/03/podcast-militaries-world-established-god/
- My Book (Free and not updated): https://drive.google.com/open?id=1524xtT4iKmqr7pATaKnXTMZlwk_aONXG
- My Book (Kindle, updated): https://www.amazon.com/80-Conservative-Evangelicals-Prove-Relativists-ebook/dp/B07RDPW2NZ/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=j.+g.+elliot&qid=1564647522&s=gateway&sr=8-1
- Essay on Civil Disobedience (Thoreau): https://users.manchester.edu/Facstaff/SSNaragon/Online/texts/201/Thoreau,%20CivilDisobedience.pdf
- The Myth of a Christian Nation: https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Christian-Nation-Political-Destroying/dp/0310267315/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=the+myth+of+a+christian+nation&qid=1583004622&sr=8-2
- Kierkegaard on Politics: https://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/politics/politics-and-the-state
- Excerpt from Bonhoeffer: https://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/nonviolence/nonviolence-an-impossible-ideal
The Reformers . . . distinguished between personal sufferings and those incurred by Christians in the performance of duty as bearers of an office ordained by God, maintaining that the precept of nonviolence applies to the first but not to the second. In the second case we are not only freed from obligation to eschew violence, but if we want to act in a genuine spirit of love we must do the very opposite, and meet force with force in order to check the assault of evil. It was along these lines that the Reformers justified war and other legal sanctions against evil. But this distinction between person and office is totally alien to the teaching of Jesus. He says nothing about that. He addresses his disciples as men
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Derek (00:06):
Welcome back to the Fourth Way podcast. We are going
to continue discussing rebuttalsto Christian Nonviolence. And in
this episode, we are going tolook at what is probably the
most common rebuttal that I Ihear to Christian Nonviolence,
and that is the passage ofRomans 13. And a lot of
(00:26):
Christians are going to say,okay, even if I grant that Jesus
taught non violence, and even ifI'm gonna say that Jesus' life
is prescriptive for us, in thatwe live non violently, Romans 13
gives us a very clear exceptionto this. And in Romans 13, it it
(00:48):
essentially says that the stateis given the right by god to use
violence.
You know, whether that's capitalpunishments or, armies or
whatever it is that you wannasay. The state has the right
granted by God to wield thesword, and that's a good thing.
And so as a Christian, if I amin the army, if I'm a police
(01:11):
officer, if I become presidentand I'm the commander in chief,
or if I want to vote for thecommander in chief, then all of
those things are legitimate,based on Romans 13. And many
Christians can even go fartherand say, well, at least in
places like the United States,if somebody enters my home and
(01:31):
my life is in danger, and I'mjust an ordinary citizen, I have
the right to bear arms againstsomebody seeking my harm or the
harm of others. And in thatsense, I'm in the capacity of
the state who extends its rightto bear arms to me.
So I, an average citizen, canwield violence, bear arms
(01:54):
against somebody else in in thatregard. And that all fits with
Romans 13, according to thecommon reading. Now, I, of
course, don't really buy intothat common reading, and I'm
gonna break it down in a numberof different points for you in
this episode. Hopefully you'llbe able to hear me out and think
(02:17):
critically about these things,and push back where I might be
wrong, and hear me out where Imight not be. So, first point, I
want to talk a little bit aboutthe historical problems with
this reading of Romans 13.
I'm not gonna spend a lot oftime on this because we did a
whole episode, episode 3, whichfocused on the early church and
(02:41):
talking about what what theteachings were, what some of the
ecumenical documents were, andthat sort of thing. So if you
wanna kind of recap, you can goback and take a look at that.
But, you know, if if we take thecommon reading of Romans 13,
which gives the state the sword,and we we put that up against
what we see in the early church,that reading just doesn't fit
(03:05):
with what we see. Now, the earlychurch viewed the army as
problematic. We see that in theecumenical document at the
Council of Nicaea 325.
We see it in other broaderchurch documents. We see it in a
lot of the church fathers whotalk about even capital
punishment being problematic,being a soldier as problematic.
(03:28):
We see that in, discussions bysome of the early church fathers
talking about not wearing thecolors of of government
officials, of of high governmentoffice, and we see it in
examples of soldiers who wereleaving the army because they
just couldn't do the bidding ofthe Roman government. They
(03:49):
couldn't do violence in the nameof of a kingdom of anybody,
because that's not what thekingdom was. And so our our
modern understanding of Romans13 just doesn't fit with what we
see the historical understandingas in the first few centuries
after Christ.
(04:11):
Again, I don't want to to beat adead horse here. You can go go
ahead and dig deeper into thehistorical problems if you would
like to. But, very clearly, themodern interpretation does not
fit what we see in the earlyChurch. The second problem that
I have with the moderninterpretation of Romans 13 is
(04:36):
an exegetical problem. And thisis a problem where it seems like
we're imposing something on thetext rather than really
listening to it and drawing outfrom it.
And I think the problem comes,can be kind of summarized in in
what one of my favorite favoriteapologists says, and he says,
Never read a Bible verse. Andit's Greg Koukl who says that.
(05:00):
He says, Never read a Bibleverse. And what he means by that
is, it's it's very easy to read1 verse or a small section of
verses and pull some idea out ofit that is not within the
context of of the broader scopeof what's being said. And Romans
(05:21):
13, when you take it to meanthat that God approves of the
government, you've got somereally big exegetical problems.
And I just don't think thatyou're taking a look at the
broader view of what Paul issaying in Romans. As as you
really think about this, I wantyou to go back and I want you to
read Romans, but instead ofstarting in chapter 13, and, I
(05:47):
want you to start in chapter 12.And then don't stop with the
passage on government, but Iwant you to continue past verse,
the verse 10, I believe, and andlook beyond, or verses 8 through
10, which follow the governmentpassage. So you're gonna see,
starting in in chapter 12, thatPaul tells Christians we're to
(06:09):
be living sacrifices. We'resupposed to be patient in
affliction.
We're supposed to bless thosewho persecute us. We're supposed
to bless and not curse. We'resupposed to live in harmony with
one another. We're not to repayevil for evil. We're to do our
part to live at peace.
We're not to take revenge. We'reto leave vengeance up to God.
(06:31):
We're to feed our enemy if he'shungry. We're to give our enemy
a drink if he's thirsty. We'renot to overcome evil with evil,
but evil with good.
And that's what we see in inchapter 12. And then, we get our
passage on Romans 13, talkingabout government and and their
use of the sword. And thenimmediately following, we see
(06:53):
Paul say that we are we havethis continued debt of love
towards one another, that we'reto love our neighbor, and that
love does no harm to a neighbor.And so, what you see is Romans
13, the part about government,is sandwiched between all of
these things where where Paul issaying that we're to love, we're
(07:16):
to lay down our lives, we're toto give to our enemies, we're
not to take vengeance, we're toleave vengeance to God. We've
got this principle of love, andall of that surrounds this
passage on the government doingviolence to people.
And you have to figure out whathow does that make sense for
(07:38):
Paul to to tell these Christiansall these ways to lay down their
lives, and then to say, but youknow what? Tell you what. You
can go kill people in thisinstance. And I think there's a
better way to make sense ofthis, because when we when we
look at the passage aroundgovernment, everything that we
(07:59):
see there is antithetical towhat what Paul is just telling
Christians to do. The governmentbrings terror, causes fear,
bears the sword, they're agentsof wrath, and they bring
punishment.
Those are are all antitheticalto the the very things that Paul
is is surrounding this passagewith, telling Christians not to
(08:22):
do. And and you'll notice if youif you read in chapter 12, that
there's a a significant languageshift, not only in in terms of
ideas of of what a Christian'slike, but also in in the way
that Paul addresses thesegroups. So in chapter 12, we see
(08:43):
that most of what Paul is sayingis is directed at this this you
or you understood language. Sohe's talking to believers. But
when he gets to the sectionabout government, all of a
sudden he switches to they.
He switches to this language ofnot you, but but them, this
(09:05):
other group of individuals. Andthen, right after the passage on
government, he goes right backto this you understood language,
this this language talkingdirectly to Christians. And, it
seems then, based on not onlythe ideologies that we see in
(09:25):
chapter 12 and 13, but also theway that we see the language
shift, that what Paul is doingis he's saying, Look, you guys
are Christians, and this is theway that you're to live. But, we
know that there are someproblems with government. This
is probably around the timethat, Nero is persecuting
(09:47):
Christians.
And so Paul's just saying, look,I know that you don't have
control over the government. Iknow that the governments might
seem evil, that that thingsmight seem out of control, but
this is the way that you'resupposed to live your life, And,
just remember that God is incontrol of the government. God's
(10:08):
in control of them. But you, youlove, you lay down your life,
you sacrifice, you feed yourenemies. The government will
bear the sword, and God issovereign over that.
So, in this sense, Paul's,discussion here of government
isn't a prescription for whatChristians should do in
(10:30):
government, or this idea thatChristians should seek
government, but rather it'sthis, it's just this this
comfort to Christians that theycan live a sacrificial life and
leave everything else in inGod's hands. It's not their
responsibility to bear thesword, that vengeance is God's.
(10:54):
Now, I know at at this point,some people might be thinking,
well, that's just a crazyinterpretation. Like, that's
that's just a very convenientway to look at things. I mean, I
think the ideological shift andthe language shift is pretty
strong, and I think looking at abroader context paints a much
different picture.
Nevertheless, I think I can evendo better than that. Because for
(11:17):
the third point, rather thanjust the mere exegesis of this
this passage, of Romans 12 and13, if you take a look at the
the broader biblical coherence,you see a a much broader theme
of of how God views governments,and and how, governments are
(11:40):
treated throughout the Bible.And, one of the the biggest
misconceptions, I think, comesin in this word that we find in
Romans 13, which is oftentranslated as minister. So,
governments are a minister or aservant of God. And so people
think, well, that's that's agood thing.
(12:01):
Right? They're a minister ofGod. They're a servant of God.
That's like God's stamp ofapproval on governments. He
likes that.
Right? But that's not at allwhat we see elsewhere in the
Bible. Daniel 4 17 talks abouthow God is sovereign over
governments, and He uses thelowliest people as rulers.
(12:22):
There's not this high view of ofwho is in government and who
participates in it, and who Goduses. It's not this holy group
of people, it's lowly people,often power hungry people, who
are are evil, and God issovereign over them.
And we we see examples of this,like in in Jeremiah 27, the the
(12:46):
passage that the chapter islargely about Nebuchadnezzar,
and it calls Nebuchadnezzar thisevil Babylonian ruler, it calls
him a servant of God. But,Nebuchadnezzar was was an evil
and wicked servant, yet Godexpected people to submit to
(13:08):
this servant. And and we see itagain in Jeremiah 43:10, where
Nebuchadnezzar, again, is calledGod's servant. And he's called
God's servant because heaccomplishes God's will. But
then, in in Jeremiah 43, we seethat then Nebuchadnezzar is
thrown to the side, and he'she's judged.
(13:29):
So even though Nebuchadnezzaris, Nebuchadnezzar is wicked, he
does evil, vile, terriblethings, God is sovereign over
him, and calls him his servantbecause God is guiding his heart
like a river, as Proverbs says.And, God accomplishes His will,
and God will have Nebuchadnezzarjudged. And even through all
(13:52):
this, he expects people tosubmit to his rule. But this
idea of servant or minister isnot a positive thing. It's not
meant to put a stamp on God'shigh view of government, but
rather it puts a stamp on God'shigh, high not view of
sovereignty, but His ability tomaintain sovereignty over
(14:18):
governments and over wickedpeople.
We see something similar inIsaiah 10 with Assyria. Assyria
is a tool of God. They're notdirectly called a servant or
minister, but they're called therod of God's anger and the club
of His wrath. God says that, Isend him. And in this way,
(14:39):
Assyria is doing God's bidding,in a sense.
And then they're judged for theevil that they that they do,
because they're not doing thisin submission to God, they're
doing it out of their ownwicked, vile hearts. But because
God is sovereign, He's able touse them like a tool to
(15:00):
accomplish what He wants toaccomplish. We see somewhat
similar concepts. We see in Luke4, that Satan has authority over
kingdoms. He he offers authorityto Jesus, if Jesus would just
bow to him.
And Jesus refuses because that'snot how he takes authority. He's
(15:25):
not going to bow to Satan. Andso, even though Satan has
authority, that's not a goodthing. In Acts 2, we see that
that, once again, we have God'ssovereignty and human rulers on
the scene. It talks about howwicked men put Jesus to death.
(15:45):
Wicked men like like Pilate.And, we know that Pilate was an
authority, and Pilate, didsomething evil. Yet at the same
time, Acts 2 clearly shows usthat God was sovereign over that
action. And I think when youtake a a broader look at the
(16:06):
Bible, how it uses the the termminister or servant, and how how
rulers are often viewed, I thinkit's hard to look at Romans 13
and see that really what Paul issaying is a positive thing about
(16:27):
governments there. That justdoesn't seem like that's what
the the biblical view ofgovernment tends to be.
Especially if you you understandIsrael's history, and how God
never wanted a king to rule overIsrael, but God has always
wanted to be the king. There's aa great section in the book, The
(16:52):
Old Testament Case forNonviolence, which I think
really highlights, or gives acomprehensive look at this this
idea of of kingship andgovernment as a concession by
God, and how it's not really hisideal, and how he takes that
back in Jesus Christ. So I'mgonna read an extended quote
(17:14):
from that here to kind of giveyou a a an overarching view of
of the history of government andGod's view of that. Since
creation, God has always wantedhis followers to be distinct
from all other earthlyorganizations. Initially, he
formed them into the uniquelytheocratic, demilitarized,
(17:37):
morally advanced nation ofIsrael.
Unfortunately, they couldn'tmaintain their distinctiveness
for long. They got tired ofbeing different and asked God
for a king such as all othernations have. In their sin, they
wanted a typical earthly kingdomled by a typical warrior king.
God interpreted their request asa rejection of his leadership
(17:59):
and warned that a king wouldexploit them for his own
purposes, particularly his ownmilitaristic ones. Nonetheless,
they persisted, reiteratingtheir request to have a king so
they could be like all othernations with a king to lead us
and to go out before us andfight our battles.
So God, fully aware thatnationalism did not coincide
(18:21):
with his will and would only gethis people into trouble,
accommodated them. But when theMessiah arrived, he would have
none of it. Jesus didn't gatherGod's followers to take back
territory, militarily orotherwise. Instead, he
repeatedly declined to adopt theagenda of Jewish nationalism. He
(18:41):
unequivocally rejected typicalkin kingship, declining the
devil's offer of control overall the kingdoms of the world,
refusing to use his supernaturalpowers for political gain,
running from a crowd that wantedto enthrone him, waiting to
announce his messiahship untilhe could redefine it to exclude
nationalism, choosing to ride ona donkey instead of a war horse
(19:03):
during his inauguration parade,and eventually declaring himself
king of all people in allnations, not just Israel.
Likewise, he shunned allpolitical power and commanded
his followers to do the same,instructing them not to lord it
over others, sending them intothe world as sheep among wolves,
not as a well organized army orpolitical brigade, scattering
(19:27):
them across the globe asforeigners, exiles, and
sojourners whose primarycitizenship is in heaven, and
ordering them to put theirswords away instead of defend
him, let alone a nation, whilealso definitively proclaiming to
the Romans that his followers donot fight. The Jewish
(19:47):
nationalists were right to beafraid. In doing all this,
rejecting national kingship,issuing political power,
including Gentiles, etcetera,Jesus denationalized God's
followers. He turned them from anation into the church, from a
typical earthly kingdom into thetransnational, inter ethnic,
(20:09):
nongovernmental, nonviolent,geographically dispersed
organization we call theuniversal church. He revoked
God's earlier nationalisticconcession and declared
statehood to be inappropriatefor his followers.
In In short, he revealed God'sinstitutional ideal to be the
nationless body of Christ.That's good news. Jesus freed us
(20:31):
from the concerns andconstraints of maintaining an
earthly nation because God'sinterests are no longer tethered
to any particular nation'sinterests. Obedience to him no
longer involves political powerstruggles. Instead, doing his
will today requires transcendingsuch nationalistic
entanglements.
It means engaging intransnational disciple making,
(20:52):
not nation building. God doesn'twant us to make America into a
Christian nation. He wants us tobe the church. One important
caveat. Although Jesusdenationalized God's followers,
he didn't depoliticize them.
The church isn't an apoliticalentity. It's an alternative
(21:13):
political entity. In fact, theGreek word for church, ekklesia,
is a political word, not areligious one. Historically, it
meant the political assembly ofcitizens of an ancient Greek
state. Yoder translated it as atown hall gathering or assembly
where people come together tomake decisions and to do
(21:34):
business.
The church deals with the sameissues as all traditional
political communities just in anontraditional way. It is
absolutely political. It justdoes politics differently,
lovingly. That extended quotehighlights just about everything
(21:54):
I I would wanna say. This ideathat God has always been king
and has always wanted to be kingand has not wanted to give that
over to anybody else.
This idea that kingship and anda political entity other than
God, is a concession. It is notsomething that is viewed as
good. It's something that Godwarned about and said would be a
(22:17):
bad thing. When you look at the,the guidelines for kings in
Exodus, I believe it is, and yousee all of the things that these
kings are supposed to do, somesome of which revolve around not
building up military, militarypower. And, you see what what
(22:38):
kings actually end up doing withthe power.
When you see this idea of Godcontinually telling the
Israelites that I will go beforeyou, I will fight for you, yet
these these kings, building up,build up their military might or
seek allegiances with pagannations and, just compromise all
(22:59):
over the place instead ofrelying on God and trusting in
Him to fight for them, You justdon't get a good taste for
politics in your mouth even evenwith, those individuals who
might seem like good leaders inIsrael, end up causing some some
very major problems. And thenwhen you couple that with with,
(23:21):
Jesus, who certainly madepolitical statements in what he
did, and, even some of histitles are extremely political.
The way he went about things waspolitical. The institutions he,
attacked, he did so in politicalways and attacked political
institutions. The terminologyused for, not only not only
(23:46):
Jesus, not only his titles, butalso the church.
Everything just revolves aroundpolitics. The church is an
alternative politics. And I Ithink when you look at Romans
13, out of context of of Romans12 and and the part that
follows, the the section ongovernment in Romans 13, I think
(24:09):
you really miss miss out on thelarger context of not only
Romans itself, but the largercontext of the New Testament.
You know, you throw 1st Peter,especially 1st Peter in there,
and the gospels and all theirtalk about the kingdom. And and
then you even add to that theOld Testament and the way that
(24:29):
it viewed politics and kingshipand, other than God, you just
you just really have a problemtaking this set of 7 verses and
trying to make that aprescription, for politics or,
this this description of how aChristian can beautifully engage
(24:53):
in politics.
That's just not the vision thatyou really get when it comes to
how the how God views politicsand, the alternative politics of
of the Messiah and of thechurch. And if you if you are
going to be able to rememberthat there is this kingdom
(25:15):
distinction, that Jesus Christbrought the kingdom, that He
ascended to the right hand ofthe throne of God, and He sits
there now, and He reigns inpower now, you you recognize
that that this idea of kingshipor being ruled by somebody else
isn't something that God wanted.He was very angry with Israel
(25:38):
when they imposed the king, buthe allowed it. And then you
understand that, well, JesusChrist took that kingship back,
and as Peter tells us, we arenow aliens, like, who who are
under the rule of God directlyright now, God rules us, not the
nations, then it is just so hardto look at Romans 13 as a
(26:05):
positive assertion of of how weshould try to take power and
wield the sword as part of thegovernment. We not only see
glimpses of this in the OldTestament, but we do see some
other glimpses of this in in theNew Testament.
And I talked before in previouspodcasts about Jesus referring
(26:27):
to, His kingdom not being ofthis world. Peter is very clear
about us being strangers andaliens, and and Peter has just
fantastic language that that youcan go and and, look up. I wrote
a little bit about it on on myRomans 13th section section that
I'll link below, and Peter's useof Psalm 34, and Psalm 30 four's
(26:48):
language of of, God being theprotector and defender, and and
all that. It's just wonderful.But we also get some glimpses
from from Paul about his view onon government.
And Paul, I believe it's in 1stCorinthians 6, he talks about,
(27:09):
you know, why would you go tooutside of the church to handle
your business? Like, why wouldyou do that? Why would you go
before, I forget the exact wordthat he uses, not secular, but,
he he just talks about not goingbefore, unrighteous. That's it.
(27:33):
He talks about not going beforethe the unrighteous.
Like, why would you go outsideof the church and go before this
unrighteous government, theseunrighteous judges? That's just
not what what Christians do. Weare in the kingdom. We're gonna
judge angels. Like, we handlethis this in house because we
(27:53):
are distinct in our rule.
And I I really understand thatpeople have a a difficult time
with with this distinction andfeeling like it it is sort of a
retreat. And I I reallyunderstand that. And, hopefully,
(28:14):
in the next episode, I'll I'lltry to hash that out and show
why that's not really the case.But we we do also get glimpses
of this, already not yet mindsetthat that I think can kind of
help us to to at least pushthrough here at this this moment
so I can provide you with withsome further explanation. Paul
(28:39):
and and Peter specifically talkabout this idea of slaves and
masters.
And it's it's kind of hard forus to to think about Paul and
Peter not saying, masters, getrid of your slaves right now.
Like, that's just wicked. That'sevil. But but they don't do
(29:00):
that. In fact, they actuallytell slaves to submit to their
masters.
And and in our in our modernunderstanding, that that makes
no sense. But what what Paul andPeter were saying is not that
slaves are really lesser orthat, slavery is really just,
(29:23):
but what they were saying isthat, look, slaves, it doesn't
matter what social positionyou're in right now. In Christ,
you are 100% the image of God,valuable human. And so, they
could say, submit. It's theposition you find yourself in
right now.
(29:45):
Submit. Do do what your societyexpects you to do. Bear up under
injustice like your savior did,even though you know that your
identity means that youshouldn't have to deal with
this. That's not the way thatyou should be treated. And
that's why, at the same time,they could tell masters, hey.
Look. You better be treatingyour slave like your brother.
(30:08):
And if you're treating yourslave like your brother, you
wonder how long can you reallyhave that slave. And, he's he's
gonna become a brother. He's notgonna be a slave.
And, if you're treating him theway that that you're supposed
to. And there's kind of thisalready not yet. It's like your
(30:28):
your image as a slave is already100% valuable in Christ. But
that doesn't mean that you'regoing to experience that from
other people in this world rightnow. And, you might have to have
this patient, expectant hope forthe future when Christ restores
(30:49):
all things and makes thingsright.
But until then, you bear upunder, the not yet, and you
wait. Wives are called to do thesame thing to to husbands who
are are unbelievers and notgreat to them. And that is
unjust, and that is that isterrible. And in their culture,
(31:13):
a big part of what that probablymeant, I don't I don't
understand all theramifications, but I know that
there was a lot of sexualpromiscuity. And so wives who
who are Christians, who knowthat their husbands should be
faithful to them, and and knowthat their their marriage is to
be a picture of Christ and thechurch, and of holiness and
(31:34):
faithfulness, they're supposedto bear up under what's what's
going on, this injustice,committed by by their husbands.
And that's terrible, and that'sthey shouldn't have to do that.
And one day, that will be maderight, and they won't have to
face injustice. But just asChrist bore up, stood up under
(31:59):
injustice, so spouses are calledto do the same. And we also see
the same thing in in Romans.Okay.
The the government has thesword. Just like in Roman
culture, the husbands had therights over wives. And just like
(32:19):
in Roman culture, the mastershad rights over slaves. Okay. So
so the government bears thesword, but citizens of the
kingdom, even though they mightexperience the sword from an
unjust ruler, and and eventhough that sword shouldn't
exist because we should be atpeace and and there shouldn't be
(32:42):
injustice, we might need to bearup under the sword.
And it might make our selfsacrifice difficult, might make
all those things listed inRomans 12 and 13 difficult. But,
nevertheless, we are called tosubmit even in injustice and and
(33:06):
stand up under persecution, justas Jesus Christ did. So if we if
we understand this this muchlarger theme that goes all
throughout the Bible, both Oldand New Testament, which views
rulers, authorities of not justgovernments, but, other societal
(33:28):
relationships, like master,slave, husband, wife. When we
see the way that authorities areare viewed, and when we see that
coupled with this concept of ofgod's sovereignty and of already
not yet, it's not hard to seehow Romans 13, especially when
(33:49):
when read, in context of Romans12 and the verses following the
governmental passages, it's veryeasy to see how how this passage
isn't really about prescribingfor Christians what we should do
to try to seek governmentalpower, but it's trying to show
(34:10):
us how we can live faithfully asChristians and bear up even
under injustice, just like inall these other societal
relationships that we've heardthe same message from. Because
God is sovereign, and we can wecan have faith in that, and we
can be live in hopefulexpectation.
(34:32):
And that's a a good andbeautiful thing. And I think
this is especially powerfulcoming from what we talked about
in the last episode of ofRevelation. I mean, the book of
Revelation is essentially whatwe just talked about right here
so far, Romans 12 to 13. That'sexactly what Revelation is
(34:55):
about. Revelation shows us thiswicked, evil government, this
regime, and it calls Christiansto faithfulness and to bear up
under persecution anddifficulty, and trust in the
sovereignty of God, and livefaithfully without compromise.
(35:15):
That's revelation right there,And we get a glimpse of it in,
Romans 12 and 13. Alright.Let's, let's move on to the 4th
point here. That would becontextual evidence. Like I
already said, Romans 13 wasprobably written, when the
(35:38):
government, the Romangovernment, was antagonistic to
Christians.
Quite possibly under, underEmperor Nero himself, who is not
very friendly to Christians. Andeven if it wasn't under Nero,
Rome was an extremely unjustpower who who slaughtered and
abused a lot of people. The waythat they they took land, just
(36:01):
what they what they did toIsrael alone in, in the century,
leading up to Romans 13 andduring this time, I mean, they
were just crucifying people,taking people's land. They were
doing some terrible, terriblethings. Rome was not a nice
power.
So even if Christians aren'taren't facing the the harsh
(36:24):
persecution under Nero, for Paulto be talking positively about a
government, which was Rome atthe time, just doesn't make any
sense, because Rome wasextremely wicked. And, and
that's just discussing the, theviolent aspects of of Rome.
That's not getting into theextortion, the heavy taxes, the
(36:48):
idolatry, and all of that otherstuff that was going on. In
summary then, the early churchdidn't read Romans 13 like us,
and neither did soldiers in thearmy in the first few centuries,
those whose lives hinged on thespecific interpretation of
Romans 13. I mean, soldiers werewilling to leave the army and,
(37:13):
and face death.
And you'd think that if theirlives were on the line, and a
reasonable interpretation ofRomans 13 says to submit to
government, they'd have noproblem staying in the army.
Yet, we don't see that. The armyhas not talked about positively
at all, that I I know of in thefirst few centuries of, of
(37:35):
Christendom, or of Christianity.If you dig beyond the historical
content and you get into toreading the Bible, and you you
read it holistically, yourecognize that, evil regimes
were declared god servants andwere subsequent subsequently
judged for their service. Godhas always reigned.
(37:56):
He's always sovereign, and hedoesn't want competition. He
hated the idea of of a king whenIsrael asked for it. And now, in
the New Testament, Jesus hasestablished his reign officially
as king. He's taken that back.And, while he might allow
governments to function, and hemight be sovereign over them, He
(38:17):
is the king and our only master.
And when we look at at Romansspecifically, we can go all the
way back to Romans 10, and andwe see that Romans 10 declares
God's faithfulness. In chapter11, we see a specific
faithfulness, to to, those inexile. In chapter 12, we're
(38:40):
asked to live as sacrifices toGod in light of His faithfulness
to us in in even the most direof circumstances. And in chapter
13, Paul declares that even theauthorities who likely seemed
unjust and out of control andand extremely powerful are
actually under God's sovereignhand. And in in light of God's
(39:02):
sovereignty and and what hecalls us to, we must continue to
live in love because our hopefulexpectation will soon be
actually realized in Christ whenhe returns.
When you look at Romans thatway, it is just beautiful. It's
not, Romans 13 is not just thislittle detour that Paul takes,
(39:30):
this this little exception that,that mixes all of the the stuff
that he just told Christians todo. It it isn't this, you know,
set of 6 or 7 verses that youcan find to pull out to negate
the life that Christ lived andthe teachings that he he gave.
(39:50):
It's not this trump card. It'sthis, this beautiful depiction
of God's sovereignty and Hisrequest for us to remain
faithful even in difficultcircumstances, that we see all
throughout the bible.
And that's what we see here inRomans 13. We'll we'll end there
(40:13):
for as as far as my assertionsof of what I think Romans 13
actually says. And I want to endthen kind of pushing back on the
common view of Romans 13. Soinstead of instead of giving you
an alternate possibility, analternate reading for what makes
(40:33):
the most sense of all of theevidence, I wanna kind of
undercut the common reading ofRomans 13 by discussing some
things that I think are reallyproblematic for the common view.
So in the modern view of Romans13, when when you read Romans
13, there are no parameters orcaveats.
(40:55):
And we see throughout the Biblewicked, empires like Assyria and
Babylon deemed God's servants.And Nebuchadnezzar specifically,
actually, God says, you know,everybody better, follow Him, or
else there are gonna be problemsfor those people. So, on the
modern reading then, whatgovernment isn't of God and
(41:18):
worthy of submission? And, whatgovernment isn't unassailable by
Christians? Like, how can therebe any governmental any
rebellion against thegovernment?
Because we see the most depravedempires like Babylon, under
god's sovereign control andcalled god's servant. Yet, yeah,
(41:45):
at least in the states, we weapprove of the American
Revolution, and that that wasfar different than than Babylon.
You know, we we talk aboutwanting to overthrow countries
like North Korea, where Iran,and how wicked they are. And I
agree, they're they'reabsolutely wicked. But, I really
(42:07):
struggle with with how you canread Romans 13, which gives
approval for governments.
No parameters. No caveats. Readconsistently with, with the way
other evil regimes have beenviewed. Understanding how evil
the Roman Empire was. I I I justreally struggle with how that
(42:28):
doesn't give all governments afree pass, if you're a Christian
living in that country,especially.
I just yeah. That doesn't seemto make any sense. Another
question I have, and and Ibrought this up in in one of the
previous episodes, I thinkepisode 4, where I kind of
pushed back a little bit on onjust war. But, if if I'm a
(42:54):
soldier in one country, and I'ma Christian, and there's another
soldier soldier in anothercountry, and they're a
Christian, and we both havelet's say they're not completely
evil regimes like North Korea,but kind of, you know, very,
very muddy waters. And we bothgo to war for our countries.
(43:15):
Let's even say we're drafted,make it a lot clearer. So our
governments tell us that we needto to serve them in war, and we
go to war, and we try to killeach other. Who's who's moral
and who's immoral in thatsituation? Me serving the United
States, trying to kill somebody,kill a fellow Christian, or the
(43:36):
person from the other countrytrying to kill me? Are we both
moral trying to kill each other?
You're gonna tell me that thatwe are both moral trying to go
out there and blow the otherone's brains out. That that
doesn't make sense to me. That,you know, especially for from my
(43:58):
conservative and evangelicalupbringing, this this idea of
objective morality doesn't makeany sense of both of us serving
our country and being moral,trying to blow each other's
brains out. And maybe you'reyou're kind of an American
idealist who thinks that that,you know, well, we would never
(44:20):
go to a country, war againstanother country who wasn't evil,
even though I strongly disagreewith that. Okay.
Take it back to to other wars,European wars, where you've got
supposedly Christian nations andand Christian soldiers trying to
kill each other. It just doesn'tmake any sense of objective
(44:40):
morality to say that because I'mserving my government, that it
legitimizes me going out thereand trying to kill another
Christian. Anybody, really, butespecially another Christian, it
just doesn't make sense.Alright. Here's a third
question.
(45:00):
At least in my circles, mostconservatives that I know don't
trust the government with moneyand power, and I completely
understand that. I I don'teither. But I'll tell you
something that makes even lesssense to me than entrusting the
government with with money andpower, and that's entrusting the
(45:22):
government with the lives ofpeople. Like, the ability to
choose to kill somebody. And so,it it doesn't make any sense for
me, especially if I if I'm goingto say that we don't live in a
theocracy, and many of ourleaders aren't Christians, it
(45:44):
doesn't make sense to me that Iam so willing to entrust the
power of life and death into thehands of the government.
But I don't wanna entrust taxdollars for universal health
care to help other people. So II trust them with I don't trust
(46:04):
them with with money, but Itrust them with the lives of
people, especially foreignpeople. Right? Like, immigrants?
Okay.
Well, that doesn't matter. Thatdoesn't affect me or the people
I know. Or, you know, Iraq. Idon't know any Iraqis, and, I
mean, I probably never will.Like, so, okay.
(46:27):
We can go do what we want there.But that just doesn't make sense
to me, That, especiallyparticularly for conservatives,
that we don't trust thegovernment with money, but we
trust them with the power oflife and death. And that doesn't
seem like something we shouldwant to be in anybody's hands
(46:48):
but God's, and why Paul probablysays that we're to leave
vengeance in God's hands. And,that's the way we should want it
to be, and when our governmentgoes and kills people, it seems
like we should probably bemourning and weeping, not
condoning, and at the same timerecognizing that God is in
(47:08):
control over that, but notwanting to take any part in
that. And I just don'tunderstand kind of the the, the
seeming double standard there toto to value and protect our
money more than we value andprotect the right of of life,
(47:28):
particularly the lives of otherpeople.
Okay. Here's, this one's kind ofmore interesting than it is,
undercutting like some of theother ones were. It doesn't
disprove, or or create, like,this huge conundrum, but it's
more of a practical applicationto Romans 13. So if if you think
(47:51):
that governments are valuable,governments are sanctioned by
God, that ministers and servantsreally means these positive
things, and you can't reallymake distinctions between, say,
the United States and, GreatBritain or France or or whatever
else, then doesn't that kind oflimit you in in what you can do
(48:16):
as a Christian in terms of ofgovernment? So for instance, it
seems like it would preventclandestine operations, where
you, or or, operations where youuse propaganda to try to get
citizens to go against theircountry.
It doesn't seem like you wouldwant to undermine the the
(48:38):
government in the eyes of otherpeople. You you you shouldn't
want to incite rebellion,because rebellion is wicked.
Rebellion is evil, because thegovernment are God's servants.
So how does that limit the typesof things that you do, in terms
(48:58):
of of how you deal with othernations if you do go into the
government? It seems like a areading of Romans 13 that's
highly positive would wouldseverely limit what you can do.
Which, again, doesn't make thereading wrong, it's just
something interesting to thinkabout. Alright, here is, one of
(49:21):
what I think is probably the thebiggest problems I have. It's a
little bit hard to to flesh outhere on, on just a little bit of
time we have left, but I'll I'llI'll give it a shot. And I think
the problem is that there'sthere's a sacred secular problem
with the modern modern view ofRomans 13. Or maybe a different
(49:44):
way to put it would be there'sthis there's this problem
between viewing Romans 13 asbeing prescriptive versus
descriptive or or permissive.
So, for example, if if Romans 13uses the word servant or
minister here to kind of denotethat governments are these
(50:05):
sacred actors, these thesesacred, individuals or groups
who have authority to do thingsthat only God can do. Right? In
Romans 12, it just said, leavevengeance to God. But if you're
gonna say, no. No.
No. Governments are sacredactors who have permission to
bear the sword, to do this thingthat God was explicitly given
(50:27):
permission to do, the only oneable to do in Romans 12. But,
no, the government can be thehand of God permissively, or or
prescriptively. And if they're aminister of God in this
approving sense, then in in whatway can seeking a theocracy be
(50:49):
avoided? So if think of it thisway.
If if God is saying, hey. Look.Governments are my ministers. I
want them to bear the sword forme, because I want them to
establish order and and bringjustice. That's their job for
me.
Then, if I get a bunch ofChristians in government, and
(51:12):
God has given me the sword, andI believe in objective morality,
and I believe in the revelationof God, and and he has made
clear what his law is. He's laidout a lot of things in the Old
Testament for what He thinks thethe penalty should be for for
certain crimes, for a lot of ofmoral laws. And I can
(51:35):
distinguish between theceremonial law and the moral
law. So I'm not gonna, as agovernment official, I'm not
gonna pass judgment on somebodyfor not sacrificing or for not
keeping a certain feast. But achild disobeying their parents,
can I stone them?
Why not? God showed me that Hekinda likes that in the Old
(51:58):
Testament. Or, somebody caughtin adultery, can we stone them?
I mean, it seems like weprobably should because God made
that clear that that's part ofHis law. And now, in the New
Testament, He prescribes that aspart of the government, that I
carry out justice.
(52:18):
And God's shown me what hisjustice is, what just
punishments are. So not onlydoes that mean that I should
seek to make the same laws Ifadultery was wrong in the Old
Testament, and it wasn't aceremonial law, and morality is
objective, then adultery isstill wrong. If God punished it
(52:42):
violently in the Old Testament,I mean, it seems like I at least
have the ability to to punish itviolently in the New Testament,
or or to in this era, post NewTestament. And, in fact, it
seems like maybe I should dothat if God's granting me the
sword, and I've I've seen howGod views this particular sin in
(53:06):
the past. Then maybe I shoulduse the sword in that manner, as
the government, not the church.
So viewing a minister of God ora servant of God in this way in
Romans 13 really brings lots ofproblems up for for people who
want to argue that we don't livein a theocracy. Well, maybe we
(53:30):
don't live in a theocracy whereGod tells us to go and and
slaughter civilians in othercountries. But as far as making
the the United States atheocracy, if the government has
the sword of God, and they're tomake laws and bring justice and
and meet out punishment, I failto see I fail to see how we
(53:56):
wouldn't want to live as atheocracy, how how God's
prescription for us to rungovernment doesn't make us seek
a theocracy. I fail to fail tosee that. I think there's
there's a huge inconsistencythat we see, especially in in
(54:17):
the religious right, where theyact like we're not an theocracy
and that we shouldn't seek that,but then they want to use Romans
13 in a prescriptive manner, andthat's just inconsistent.
That doesn't make sense. But onthe other hand, if you don't
(54:37):
acknowledge that Romans 13 viewsthe government as a a sacred
actor, then that means that theyview them as a a secular actor.
And if the government's asecular actor, then in what way
can a Christian who is justcalled to feed enemies, not
return evil and leave vengeanceup to God, in Romans 12, in what
(55:02):
way can they, as a secularactor, carry out the role of God
in bringing vengeance and doingviolence to enemies? If it's not
a sacred role, if it's notsomething that that God gives
and desires, if it's not a aprescription for us, then it
(55:25):
seems more like it's a it's adescription of what governments
tend to do. And if it's adescription, and and God's not
rescinding all of the thingsthat he said in Romans 12 for
what Christians are supposed todo, then he's not negating the
things that he told Christiansto do in chapter 12.
(55:45):
He's just saying, look. This iswhat governments are going to
do. So submit to him, and trustme in it, and be faithful. So it
seems like either way you readit is gonna be a problem for the
common understanding of ofRomans 13, justifying violence
that Christians seek to doagainst evildoers. So, in in
(56:08):
summary, it seems like thecommon reading of Romans 13
doesn't go far enough in eitherdirection.
Either it refuses to pull theChristian out of a vile
institution of government, or itrefuses to call a sacred
institution to full use for Godand objective morality. Now, I I
(56:29):
know a lot of people areprobably thinking at this point,
well, that's kinda harsh ongovernment, and it seems like
you really don't like thegovernment at all. And that has
been a struggle for me as I'veI've been thinking through the
implications of of nonviolence.And, I'm not a 100% sure where I
stand on, actions in governmentand and whatnot. But in the next
(56:56):
episode, I am hoping to fleshthat out a little bit and
hopefully come to a conclusionfor myself, at least help you to
see what some of theimplications of all of this
might be and what that mightlook like.
Because, throwing governmentunder the bus to our modern
ears, most of us who arepolitical idolaters and who
(57:22):
think that power comes throughthrough government, Throwing off
the power of government seemsjust absolutely crazy. And I
understand that, because it itdoes sound crazy. But,
hopefully, I can kinda give youa vision for that in the next
episode of what that might looklike and why it actually might
(57:43):
be more powerful to circumventthe government and live in the
kingdom. So that's all for now.So peace, because I'm a
pacifist, and I say it, and Imean it.
Welcome back to the Fourth Way podcast. We are going
to continue discussing rebuttalsto Christian Nonviolence. And in
this episode, we are going tolook at what is probably the
most common rebuttal that I Ihear to Christian Nonviolence,
and that is the passage ofRomans 13. And a lot of
(00:26):
Christians are going to say,okay, even if I grant that Jesus
taught non violence, and even ifI'm gonna say that Jesus' life
is prescriptive for us, in thatwe live non violently, Romans 13
gives us a very clear exceptionto this. And in Romans 13, it it
(00:48):
essentially says that the stateis given the right by god to use
violence.
You know, whether that's capitalpunishments or, armies or
whatever it is that you wannasay. The state has the right
granted by God to wield thesword, and that's a good thing.
And so as a Christian, if I amin the army, if I'm a police
(01:11):
officer, if I become presidentand I'm the commander in chief,
or if I want to vote for thecommander in chief, then all of
those things are legitimate,based on Romans 13. And many
Christians can even go fartherand say, well, at least in
places like the United States,if somebody enters my home and
(01:31):
my life is in danger, and I'mjust an ordinary citizen, I have
the right to bear arms againstsomebody seeking my harm or the
harm of others. And in thatsense, I'm in the capacity of
the state who extends its rightto bear arms to me.
So I, an average citizen, canwield violence, bear arms
(01:54):
against somebody else in in thatregard. And that all fits with
Romans 13, according to thecommon reading. Now, I, of
course, don't really buy intothat common reading, and I'm
gonna break it down in a numberof different points for you in
this episode. Hopefully you'llbe able to hear me out and think
(02:17):
critically about these things,and push back where I might be
wrong, and hear me out where Imight not be. So, first point, I
want to talk a little bit aboutthe historical problems with
this reading of Romans 13.
I'm not gonna spend a lot oftime on this because we did a
whole episode, episode 3, whichfocused on the early church and
(02:41):
talking about what what theteachings were, what some of the
ecumenical documents were, andthat sort of thing. So if you
wanna kind of recap, you can goback and take a look at that.
But, you know, if if we take thecommon reading of Romans 13,
which gives the state the sword,and we we put that up against
what we see in the early church,that reading just doesn't fit
(03:05):
with what we see. Now, the earlychurch viewed the army as
problematic. We see that in theecumenical document at the
Council of Nicaea 325.
We see it in other broaderchurch documents. We see it in a
lot of the church fathers whotalk about even capital
punishment being problematic,being a soldier as problematic.
(03:28):
We see that in, discussions bysome of the early church fathers
talking about not wearing thecolors of of government
officials, of of high governmentoffice, and we see it in
examples of soldiers who wereleaving the army because they
just couldn't do the bidding ofthe Roman government. They
(03:49):
couldn't do violence in the nameof of a kingdom of anybody,
because that's not what thekingdom was. And so our our
modern understanding of Romans13 just doesn't fit with what we
see the historical understandingas in the first few centuries
after Christ.
(04:11):
Again, I don't want to to beat adead horse here. You can go go
ahead and dig deeper into thehistorical problems if you would
like to. But, very clearly, themodern interpretation does not
fit what we see in the earlyChurch. The second problem that
I have with the moderninterpretation of Romans 13 is
(04:36):
an exegetical problem. And thisis a problem where it seems like
we're imposing something on thetext rather than really
listening to it and drawing outfrom it.
And I think the problem comes,can be kind of summarized in in
what one of my favorite favoriteapologists says, and he says,
Never read a Bible verse. Andit's Greg Koukl who says that.
(05:00):
He says, Never read a Bibleverse. And what he means by that
is, it's it's very easy to read1 verse or a small section of
verses and pull some idea out ofit that is not within the
context of of the broader scopeof what's being said. And Romans
(05:21):
13, when you take it to meanthat that God approves of the
government, you've got somereally big exegetical problems.
And I just don't think thatyou're taking a look at the
broader view of what Paul issaying in Romans. As as you
really think about this, I wantyou to go back and I want you to
read Romans, but instead ofstarting in chapter 13, and, I
(05:47):
want you to start in chapter 12.And then don't stop with the
passage on government, but Iwant you to continue past verse,
the verse 10, I believe, and andlook beyond, or verses 8 through
10, which follow the governmentpassage. So you're gonna see,
starting in in chapter 12, thatPaul tells Christians we're to
(06:09):
be living sacrifices. We'resupposed to be patient in
affliction.
We're supposed to bless thosewho persecute us. We're supposed
to bless and not curse. We'resupposed to live in harmony with
one another. We're not to repayevil for evil. We're to do our
part to live at peace.
We're not to take revenge. We'reto leave vengeance up to God.
(06:31):
We're to feed our enemy if he'shungry. We're to give our enemy
a drink if he's thirsty. We'renot to overcome evil with evil,
but evil with good.
And that's what we see in inchapter 12. And then, we get our
passage on Romans 13, talkingabout government and and their
use of the sword. And thenimmediately following, we see
(06:53):
Paul say that we are we havethis continued debt of love
towards one another, that we'reto love our neighbor, and that
love does no harm to a neighbor.And so, what you see is Romans
13, the part about government,is sandwiched between all of
these things where where Paul issaying that we're to love, we're
(07:16):
to lay down our lives, we're toto give to our enemies, we're
not to take vengeance, we're toleave vengeance to God. We've
got this principle of love, andall of that surrounds this
passage on the government doingviolence to people.
And you have to figure out whathow does that make sense for
(07:38):
Paul to to tell these Christiansall these ways to lay down their
lives, and then to say, but youknow what? Tell you what. You
can go kill people in thisinstance. And I think there's a
better way to make sense ofthis, because when we when we
look at the passage aroundgovernment, everything that we
(07:59):
see there is antithetical towhat what Paul is just telling
Christians to do. The governmentbrings terror, causes fear,
bears the sword, they're agentsof wrath, and they bring
punishment.
Those are are all antitheticalto the the very things that Paul
is is surrounding this passagewith, telling Christians not to
(08:22):
do. And and you'll notice if youif you read in chapter 12, that
there's a a significant languageshift, not only in in terms of
ideas of of what a Christian'slike, but also in in the way
that Paul addresses thesegroups. So in chapter 12, we see
(08:43):
that most of what Paul is sayingis is directed at this this you
or you understood language. Sohe's talking to believers. But
when he gets to the sectionabout government, all of a
sudden he switches to they.
He switches to this language ofnot you, but but them, this
(09:05):
other group of individuals. Andthen, right after the passage on
government, he goes right backto this you understood language,
this this language talkingdirectly to Christians. And, it
seems then, based on not onlythe ideologies that we see in
(09:25):
chapter 12 and 13, but also theway that we see the language
shift, that what Paul is doingis he's saying, Look, you guys
are Christians, and this is theway that you're to live. But, we
know that there are someproblems with government. This
is probably around the timethat, Nero is persecuting
(09:47):
Christians.
And so Paul's just saying, look,I know that you don't have
control over the government. Iknow that the governments might
seem evil, that that thingsmight seem out of control, but
this is the way that you'resupposed to live your life, And,
just remember that God is incontrol of the government. God's
(10:08):
in control of them. But you, youlove, you lay down your life,
you sacrifice, you feed yourenemies. The government will
bear the sword, and God issovereign over that.
So, in this sense, Paul's,discussion here of government
isn't a prescription for whatChristians should do in
(10:30):
government, or this idea thatChristians should seek
government, but rather it'sthis, it's just this this
comfort to Christians that theycan live a sacrificial life and
leave everything else in inGod's hands. It's not their
responsibility to bear thesword, that vengeance is God's.
(10:54):
Now, I know at at this point,some people might be thinking,
well, that's just a crazyinterpretation. Like, that's
that's just a very convenientway to look at things. I mean, I
think the ideological shift andthe language shift is pretty
strong, and I think looking at abroader context paints a much
different picture.
Nevertheless, I think I can evendo better than that. Because for
(11:17):
the third point, rather thanjust the mere exegesis of this
this passage, of Romans 12 and13, if you take a look at the
the broader biblical coherence,you see a a much broader theme
of of how God views governments,and and how, governments are
(11:40):
treated throughout the Bible.And, one of the the biggest
misconceptions, I think, comesin in this word that we find in
Romans 13, which is oftentranslated as minister. So,
governments are a minister or aservant of God. And so people
think, well, that's that's agood thing.
(12:01):
Right? They're a minister ofGod. They're a servant of God.
That's like God's stamp ofapproval on governments. He
likes that.
Right? But that's not at allwhat we see elsewhere in the
Bible. Daniel 4 17 talks abouthow God is sovereign over
governments, and He uses thelowliest people as rulers.
(12:22):
There's not this high view of ofwho is in government and who
participates in it, and who Goduses. It's not this holy group
of people, it's lowly people,often power hungry people, who
are are evil, and God issovereign over them.
And we we see examples of this,like in in Jeremiah 27, the the
(12:46):
passage that the chapter islargely about Nebuchadnezzar,
and it calls Nebuchadnezzar thisevil Babylonian ruler, it calls
him a servant of God. But,Nebuchadnezzar was was an evil
and wicked servant, yet Godexpected people to submit to
(13:08):
this servant. And and we see itagain in Jeremiah 43:10, where
Nebuchadnezzar, again, is calledGod's servant. And he's called
God's servant because heaccomplishes God's will. But
then, in in Jeremiah 43, we seethat then Nebuchadnezzar is
thrown to the side, and he'she's judged.
(13:29):
So even though Nebuchadnezzaris, Nebuchadnezzar is wicked, he
does evil, vile, terriblethings, God is sovereign over
him, and calls him his servantbecause God is guiding his heart
like a river, as Proverbs says.And, God accomplishes His will,
and God will have Nebuchadnezzarjudged. And even through all
(13:52):
this, he expects people tosubmit to his rule. But this
idea of servant or minister isnot a positive thing. It's not
meant to put a stamp on God'shigh view of government, but
rather it puts a stamp on God'shigh, high not view of
sovereignty, but His ability tomaintain sovereignty over
(14:18):
governments and over wickedpeople.
We see something similar inIsaiah 10 with Assyria. Assyria
is a tool of God. They're notdirectly called a servant or
minister, but they're called therod of God's anger and the club
of His wrath. God says that, Isend him. And in this way,
(14:39):
Assyria is doing God's bidding,in a sense.
And then they're judged for theevil that they that they do,
because they're not doing thisin submission to God, they're
doing it out of their ownwicked, vile hearts. But because
God is sovereign, He's able touse them like a tool to
(15:00):
accomplish what He wants toaccomplish. We see somewhat
similar concepts. We see in Luke4, that Satan has authority over
kingdoms. He he offers authorityto Jesus, if Jesus would just
bow to him.
And Jesus refuses because that'snot how he takes authority. He's
(15:25):
not going to bow to Satan. Andso, even though Satan has
authority, that's not a goodthing. In Acts 2, we see that
that, once again, we have God'ssovereignty and human rulers on
the scene. It talks about howwicked men put Jesus to death.
(15:45):
Wicked men like like Pilate.And, we know that Pilate was an
authority, and Pilate, didsomething evil. Yet at the same
time, Acts 2 clearly shows usthat God was sovereign over that
action. And I think when youtake a a broader look at the
(16:06):
Bible, how it uses the the termminister or servant, and how how
rulers are often viewed, I thinkit's hard to look at Romans 13
and see that really what Paul issaying is a positive thing about
(16:27):
governments there. That justdoesn't seem like that's what
the the biblical view ofgovernment tends to be.
Especially if you you understandIsrael's history, and how God
never wanted a king to rule overIsrael, but God has always
wanted to be the king. There's aa great section in the book, The
(16:52):
Old Testament Case forNonviolence, which I think
really highlights, or gives acomprehensive look at this this
idea of of kingship andgovernment as a concession by
God, and how it's not really hisideal, and how he takes that
back in Jesus Christ. So I'mgonna read an extended quote
(17:14):
from that here to kind of giveyou a a an overarching view of
of the history of government andGod's view of that. Since
creation, God has always wantedhis followers to be distinct
from all other earthlyorganizations. Initially, he
formed them into the uniquelytheocratic, demilitarized,
(17:37):
morally advanced nation ofIsrael.
Unfortunately, they couldn'tmaintain their distinctiveness
for long. They got tired ofbeing different and asked God
for a king such as all othernations have. In their sin, they
wanted a typical earthly kingdomled by a typical warrior king.
God interpreted their request asa rejection of his leadership
(17:59):
and warned that a king wouldexploit them for his own
purposes, particularly his ownmilitaristic ones. Nonetheless,
they persisted, reiteratingtheir request to have a king so
they could be like all othernations with a king to lead us
and to go out before us andfight our battles.
So God, fully aware thatnationalism did not coincide
(18:21):
with his will and would only gethis people into trouble,
accommodated them. But when theMessiah arrived, he would have
none of it. Jesus didn't gatherGod's followers to take back
territory, militarily orotherwise. Instead, he
repeatedly declined to adopt theagenda of Jewish nationalism. He
(18:41):
unequivocally rejected typicalkin kingship, declining the
devil's offer of control overall the kingdoms of the world,
refusing to use his supernaturalpowers for political gain,
running from a crowd that wantedto enthrone him, waiting to
announce his messiahship untilhe could redefine it to exclude
nationalism, choosing to ride ona donkey instead of a war horse
(19:03):
during his inauguration parade,and eventually declaring himself
king of all people in allnations, not just Israel.
Likewise, he shunned allpolitical power and commanded
his followers to do the same,instructing them not to lord it
over others, sending them intothe world as sheep among wolves,
not as a well organized army orpolitical brigade, scattering
(19:27):
them across the globe asforeigners, exiles, and
sojourners whose primarycitizenship is in heaven, and
ordering them to put theirswords away instead of defend
him, let alone a nation, whilealso definitively proclaiming to
the Romans that his followers donot fight. The Jewish
(19:47):
nationalists were right to beafraid. In doing all this,
rejecting national kingship,issuing political power,
including Gentiles, etcetera,Jesus denationalized God's
followers. He turned them from anation into the church, from a
typical earthly kingdom into thetransnational, inter ethnic,
(20:09):
nongovernmental, nonviolent,geographically dispersed
organization we call theuniversal church. He revoked
God's earlier nationalisticconcession and declared
statehood to be inappropriatefor his followers.
In In short, he revealed God'sinstitutional ideal to be the
nationless body of Christ.That's good news. Jesus freed us
(20:31):
from the concerns andconstraints of maintaining an
earthly nation because God'sinterests are no longer tethered
to any particular nation'sinterests. Obedience to him no
longer involves political powerstruggles. Instead, doing his
will today requires transcendingsuch nationalistic
entanglements.
It means engaging intransnational disciple making,
(20:52):
not nation building. God doesn'twant us to make America into a
Christian nation. He wants us tobe the church. One important
caveat. Although Jesusdenationalized God's followers,
he didn't depoliticize them.
The church isn't an apoliticalentity. It's an alternative
(21:13):
political entity. In fact, theGreek word for church, ekklesia,
is a political word, not areligious one. Historically, it
meant the political assembly ofcitizens of an ancient Greek
state. Yoder translated it as atown hall gathering or assembly
where people come together tomake decisions and to do
(21:34):
business.
The church deals with the sameissues as all traditional
political communities just in anontraditional way. It is
absolutely political. It justdoes politics differently,
lovingly. That extended quotehighlights just about everything
(21:54):
I I would wanna say. This ideathat God has always been king
and has always wanted to be kingand has not wanted to give that
over to anybody else.
This idea that kingship and anda political entity other than
God, is a concession. It is notsomething that is viewed as
good. It's something that Godwarned about and said would be a
(22:17):
bad thing. When you look at the,the guidelines for kings in
Exodus, I believe it is, and yousee all of the things that these
kings are supposed to do, somesome of which revolve around not
building up military, militarypower. And, you see what what
(22:38):
kings actually end up doing withthe power.
When you see this idea of Godcontinually telling the
Israelites that I will go beforeyou, I will fight for you, yet
these these kings, building up,build up their military might or
seek allegiances with pagannations and, just compromise all
(22:59):
over the place instead ofrelying on God and trusting in
Him to fight for them, You justdon't get a good taste for
politics in your mouth even evenwith, those individuals who
might seem like good leaders inIsrael, end up causing some some
very major problems. And thenwhen you couple that with with,
(23:21):
Jesus, who certainly madepolitical statements in what he
did, and, even some of histitles are extremely political.
The way he went about things waspolitical. The institutions he,
attacked, he did so in politicalways and attacked political
institutions. The terminologyused for, not only not only
(23:46):
Jesus, not only his titles, butalso the church.
Everything just revolves aroundpolitics. The church is an
alternative politics. And I Ithink when you look at Romans
13, out of context of of Romans12 and and the part that
follows, the the section ongovernment in Romans 13, I think
(24:09):
you really miss miss out on thelarger context of not only
Romans itself, but the largercontext of the New Testament.
You know, you throw 1st Peter,especially 1st Peter in there,
and the gospels and all theirtalk about the kingdom. And and
then you even add to that theOld Testament and the way that
(24:29):
it viewed politics and kingshipand, other than God, you just
you just really have a problemtaking this set of 7 verses and
trying to make that aprescription, for politics or,
this this description of how aChristian can beautifully engage
(24:53):
in politics.
That's just not the vision thatyou really get when it comes to
how the how God views politicsand, the alternative politics of
of the Messiah and of thechurch. And if you if you are
going to be able to rememberthat there is this kingdom
(25:15):
distinction, that Jesus Christbrought the kingdom, that He
ascended to the right hand ofthe throne of God, and He sits
there now, and He reigns inpower now, you you recognize
that that this idea of kingshipor being ruled by somebody else
isn't something that God wanted.He was very angry with Israel
(25:38):
when they imposed the king, buthe allowed it. And then you
understand that, well, JesusChrist took that kingship back,
and as Peter tells us, we arenow aliens, like, who who are
under the rule of God directlyright now, God rules us, not the
nations, then it is just so hardto look at Romans 13 as a
(26:05):
positive assertion of of how weshould try to take power and
wield the sword as part of thegovernment. We not only see
glimpses of this in the OldTestament, but we do see some
other glimpses of this in in theNew Testament.
And I talked before in previouspodcasts about Jesus referring
(26:27):
to, His kingdom not being ofthis world. Peter is very clear
about us being strangers andaliens, and and Peter has just
fantastic language that that youcan go and and, look up. I wrote
a little bit about it on on myRomans 13th section section that
I'll link below, and Peter's useof Psalm 34, and Psalm 30 four's
(26:48):
language of of, God being theprotector and defender, and and
all that. It's just wonderful.But we also get some glimpses
from from Paul about his view onon government.
And Paul, I believe it's in 1stCorinthians 6, he talks about,
(27:09):
you know, why would you go tooutside of the church to handle
your business? Like, why wouldyou do that? Why would you go
before, I forget the exact wordthat he uses, not secular, but,
he he just talks about not goingbefore, unrighteous. That's it.
(27:33):
He talks about not going beforethe the unrighteous.
Like, why would you go outsideof the church and go before this
unrighteous government, theseunrighteous judges? That's just
not what what Christians do. Weare in the kingdom. We're gonna
judge angels. Like, we handlethis this in house because we
(27:53):
are distinct in our rule.
And I I really understand thatpeople have a a difficult time
with with this distinction andfeeling like it it is sort of a
retreat. And I I reallyunderstand that. And, hopefully,
(28:14):
in the next episode, I'll I'lltry to hash that out and show
why that's not really the case.But we we do also get glimpses
of this, already not yet mindsetthat that I think can kind of
help us to to at least pushthrough here at this this moment
so I can provide you with withsome further explanation. Paul
(28:39):
and and Peter specifically talkabout this idea of slaves and
masters.
And it's it's kind of hard forus to to think about Paul and
Peter not saying, masters, getrid of your slaves right now.
Like, that's just wicked. That'sevil. But but they don't do
(29:00):
that. In fact, they actuallytell slaves to submit to their
masters.
And and in our in our modernunderstanding, that that makes
no sense. But what what Paul andPeter were saying is not that
slaves are really lesser orthat, slavery is really just,
(29:23):
but what they were saying isthat, look, slaves, it doesn't
matter what social positionyou're in right now. In Christ,
you are 100% the image of God,valuable human. And so, they
could say, submit. It's theposition you find yourself in
right now.
(29:45):
Submit. Do do what your societyexpects you to do. Bear up under
injustice like your savior did,even though you know that your
identity means that youshouldn't have to deal with
this. That's not the way thatyou should be treated. And
that's why, at the same time,they could tell masters, hey.
Look. You better be treatingyour slave like your brother.
(30:08):
And if you're treating yourslave like your brother, you
wonder how long can you reallyhave that slave. And, he's he's
gonna become a brother. He's notgonna be a slave.
And, if you're treating him theway that that you're supposed
to. And there's kind of thisalready not yet. It's like your
(30:28):
your image as a slave is already100% valuable in Christ. But
that doesn't mean that you'regoing to experience that from
other people in this world rightnow. And, you might have to have
this patient, expectant hope forthe future when Christ restores
(30:49):
all things and makes thingsright.
But until then, you bear upunder, the not yet, and you
wait. Wives are called to do thesame thing to to husbands who
are are unbelievers and notgreat to them. And that is
unjust, and that is that isterrible. And in their culture,
(31:13):
a big part of what that probablymeant, I don't I don't
understand all theramifications, but I know that
there was a lot of sexualpromiscuity. And so wives who
who are Christians, who knowthat their husbands should be
faithful to them, and and knowthat their their marriage is to
be a picture of Christ and thechurch, and of holiness and
(31:34):
faithfulness, they're supposedto bear up under what's what's
going on, this injustice,committed by by their husbands.
And that's terrible, and that'sthey shouldn't have to do that.
And one day, that will be maderight, and they won't have to
face injustice. But just asChrist bore up, stood up under
(31:59):
injustice, so spouses are calledto do the same. And we also see
the same thing in in Romans.Okay.
The the government has thesword. Just like in Roman
culture, the husbands had therights over wives. And just like
(32:19):
in Roman culture, the mastershad rights over slaves. Okay. So
so the government bears thesword, but citizens of the
kingdom, even though they mightexperience the sword from an
unjust ruler, and and eventhough that sword shouldn't
exist because we should be atpeace and and there shouldn't be
(32:42):
injustice, we might need to bearup under the sword.
And it might make our selfsacrifice difficult, might make
all those things listed inRomans 12 and 13 difficult. But,
nevertheless, we are called tosubmit even in injustice and and
(33:06):
stand up under persecution, justas Jesus Christ did. So if we if
we understand this this muchlarger theme that goes all
throughout the Bible, both Oldand New Testament, which views
rulers, authorities of not justgovernments, but, other societal
(33:28):
relationships, like master,slave, husband, wife. When we
see the way that authorities areare viewed, and when we see that
coupled with this concept of ofgod's sovereignty and of already
not yet, it's not hard to seehow Romans 13, especially when
(33:49):
when read, in context of Romans12 and the verses following the
governmental passages, it's veryeasy to see how how this passage
isn't really about prescribingfor Christians what we should do
to try to seek governmentalpower, but it's trying to show
(34:10):
us how we can live faithfully asChristians and bear up even
under injustice, just like inall these other societal
relationships that we've heardthe same message from. Because
God is sovereign, and we can wecan have faith in that, and we
can be live in hopefulexpectation.
(34:32):
And that's a a good andbeautiful thing. And I think
this is especially powerfulcoming from what we talked about
in the last episode of ofRevelation. I mean, the book of
Revelation is essentially whatwe just talked about right here
so far, Romans 12 to 13. That'sexactly what Revelation is
(34:55):
about. Revelation shows us thiswicked, evil government, this
regime, and it calls Christiansto faithfulness and to bear up
under persecution anddifficulty, and trust in the
sovereignty of God, and livefaithfully without compromise.
(35:15):
That's revelation right there,And we get a glimpse of it in,
Romans 12 and 13. Alright.Let's, let's move on to the 4th
point here. That would becontextual evidence. Like I
already said, Romans 13 wasprobably written, when the
(35:38):
government, the Romangovernment, was antagonistic to
Christians.
Quite possibly under, underEmperor Nero himself, who is not
very friendly to Christians. Andeven if it wasn't under Nero,
Rome was an extremely unjustpower who who slaughtered and
abused a lot of people. The waythat they they took land, just
(36:01):
what they what they did toIsrael alone in, in the century,
leading up to Romans 13 andduring this time, I mean, they
were just crucifying people,taking people's land. They were
doing some terrible, terriblethings. Rome was not a nice
power.
So even if Christians aren'taren't facing the the harsh
(36:24):
persecution under Nero, for Paulto be talking positively about a
government, which was Rome atthe time, just doesn't make any
sense, because Rome wasextremely wicked. And, and
that's just discussing the, theviolent aspects of of Rome.
That's not getting into theextortion, the heavy taxes, the
(36:48):
idolatry, and all of that otherstuff that was going on. In
summary then, the early churchdidn't read Romans 13 like us,
and neither did soldiers in thearmy in the first few centuries,
those whose lives hinged on thespecific interpretation of
Romans 13. I mean, soldiers werewilling to leave the army and,
(37:13):
and face death.
And you'd think that if theirlives were on the line, and a
reasonable interpretation ofRomans 13 says to submit to
government, they'd have noproblem staying in the army.
Yet, we don't see that. The armyhas not talked about positively
at all, that I I know of in thefirst few centuries of, of
(37:35):
Christendom, or of Christianity.If you dig beyond the historical
content and you get into toreading the Bible, and you you
read it holistically, yourecognize that, evil regimes
were declared god servants andwere subsequent subsequently
judged for their service. Godhas always reigned.
(37:56):
He's always sovereign, and hedoesn't want competition. He
hated the idea of of a king whenIsrael asked for it. And now, in
the New Testament, Jesus hasestablished his reign officially
as king. He's taken that back.And, while he might allow
governments to function, and hemight be sovereign over them, He
(38:17):
is the king and our only master.
And when we look at at Romansspecifically, we can go all the
way back to Romans 10, and andwe see that Romans 10 declares
God's faithfulness. In chapter11, we see a specific
faithfulness, to to, those inexile. In chapter 12, we're
(38:40):
asked to live as sacrifices toGod in light of His faithfulness
to us in in even the most direof circumstances. And in chapter
13, Paul declares that even theauthorities who likely seemed
unjust and out of control andand extremely powerful are
actually under God's sovereignhand. And in in light of God's
(39:02):
sovereignty and and what hecalls us to, we must continue to
live in love because our hopefulexpectation will soon be
actually realized in Christ whenhe returns.
When you look at Romans thatway, it is just beautiful. It's
not, Romans 13 is not just thislittle detour that Paul takes,
(39:30):
this this little exception that,that mixes all of the the stuff
that he just told Christians todo. It it isn't this, you know,
set of 6 or 7 verses that youcan find to pull out to negate
the life that Christ lived andthe teachings that he he gave.
(39:50):
It's not this trump card. It'sthis, this beautiful depiction
of God's sovereignty and Hisrequest for us to remain
faithful even in difficultcircumstances, that we see all
throughout the bible.
And that's what we see here inRomans 13. We'll we'll end there
(40:13):
for as as far as my assertionsof of what I think Romans 13
actually says. And I want to endthen kind of pushing back on the
common view of Romans 13. Soinstead of instead of giving you
an alternate possibility, analternate reading for what makes
(40:33):
the most sense of all of theevidence, I wanna kind of
undercut the common reading ofRomans 13 by discussing some
things that I think are reallyproblematic for the common view.
So in the modern view of Romans13, when when you read Romans
13, there are no parameters orcaveats.
(40:55):
And we see throughout the Biblewicked, empires like Assyria and
Babylon deemed God's servants.And Nebuchadnezzar specifically,
actually, God says, you know,everybody better, follow Him, or
else there are gonna be problemsfor those people. So, on the
modern reading then, whatgovernment isn't of God and
(41:18):
worthy of submission? And, whatgovernment isn't unassailable by
Christians? Like, how can therebe any governmental any
rebellion against thegovernment?
Because we see the most depravedempires like Babylon, under
god's sovereign control andcalled god's servant. Yet, yeah,
(41:45):
at least in the states, we weapprove of the American
Revolution, and that that wasfar different than than Babylon.
You know, we we talk aboutwanting to overthrow countries
like North Korea, where Iran,and how wicked they are. And I
agree, they're they'reabsolutely wicked. But, I really
(42:07):
struggle with with how you canread Romans 13, which gives
approval for governments.
No parameters. No caveats. Readconsistently with, with the way
other evil regimes have beenviewed. Understanding how evil
the Roman Empire was. I I I justreally struggle with how that
(42:28):
doesn't give all governments afree pass, if you're a Christian
living in that country,especially.
I just yeah. That doesn't seemto make any sense. Another
question I have, and and Ibrought this up in in one of the
previous episodes, I thinkepisode 4, where I kind of
pushed back a little bit on onjust war. But, if if I'm a
(42:54):
soldier in one country, and I'ma Christian, and there's another
soldier soldier in anothercountry, and they're a
Christian, and we both havelet's say they're not completely
evil regimes like North Korea,but kind of, you know, very,
very muddy waters. And we bothgo to war for our countries.
(43:15):
Let's even say we're drafted,make it a lot clearer. So our
governments tell us that we needto to serve them in war, and we
go to war, and we try to killeach other. Who's who's moral
and who's immoral in thatsituation? Me serving the United
States, trying to kill somebody,kill a fellow Christian, or the
(43:36):
person from the other countrytrying to kill me? Are we both
moral trying to kill each other?
You're gonna tell me that thatwe are both moral trying to go
out there and blow the otherone's brains out. That that
doesn't make sense to me. That,you know, especially for from my
(43:58):
conservative and evangelicalupbringing, this this idea of
objective morality doesn't makeany sense of both of us serving
our country and being moral,trying to blow each other's
brains out. And maybe you'reyou're kind of an American
idealist who thinks that that,you know, well, we would never
(44:20):
go to a country, war againstanother country who wasn't evil,
even though I strongly disagreewith that. Okay.
Take it back to to other wars,European wars, where you've got
supposedly Christian nations andand Christian soldiers trying to
kill each other. It just doesn'tmake any sense of objective
(44:40):
morality to say that because I'mserving my government, that it
legitimizes me going out thereand trying to kill another
Christian. Anybody, really, butespecially another Christian, it
just doesn't make sense.Alright. Here's a third
question.
(45:00):
At least in my circles, mostconservatives that I know don't
trust the government with moneyand power, and I completely
understand that. I I don'teither. But I'll tell you
something that makes even lesssense to me than entrusting the
government with with money andpower, and that's entrusting the
(45:22):
government with the lives ofpeople. Like, the ability to
choose to kill somebody. And so,it it doesn't make any sense for
me, especially if I if I'm goingto say that we don't live in a
theocracy, and many of ourleaders aren't Christians, it
(45:44):
doesn't make sense to me that Iam so willing to entrust the
power of life and death into thehands of the government.
But I don't wanna entrust taxdollars for universal health
care to help other people. So II trust them with I don't trust
(46:04):
them with with money, but Itrust them with the lives of
people, especially foreignpeople. Right? Like, immigrants?
Okay.
Well, that doesn't matter. Thatdoesn't affect me or the people
I know. Or, you know, Iraq. Idon't know any Iraqis, and, I
mean, I probably never will.Like, so, okay.
(46:27):
We can go do what we want there.But that just doesn't make sense
to me, That, especiallyparticularly for conservatives,
that we don't trust thegovernment with money, but we
trust them with the power oflife and death. And that doesn't
seem like something we shouldwant to be in anybody's hands
(46:48):
but God's, and why Paul probablysays that we're to leave
vengeance in God's hands. And,that's the way we should want it
to be, and when our governmentgoes and kills people, it seems
like we should probably bemourning and weeping, not
condoning, and at the same timerecognizing that God is in
(47:08):
control over that, but notwanting to take any part in
that. And I just don'tunderstand kind of the the, the
seeming double standard there toto to value and protect our
money more than we value andprotect the right of of life,
(47:28):
particularly the lives of otherpeople.
Okay. Here's, this one's kind ofmore interesting than it is,
undercutting like some of theother ones were. It doesn't
disprove, or or create, like,this huge conundrum, but it's
more of a practical applicationto Romans 13. So if if you think
(47:51):
that governments are valuable,governments are sanctioned by
God, that ministers and servantsreally means these positive
things, and you can't reallymake distinctions between, say,
the United States and, GreatBritain or France or or whatever
else, then doesn't that kind oflimit you in in what you can do
(48:16):
as a Christian in terms of ofgovernment? So for instance, it
seems like it would preventclandestine operations, where
you, or or, operations where youuse propaganda to try to get
citizens to go against theircountry.
It doesn't seem like you wouldwant to undermine the the
(48:38):
government in the eyes of otherpeople. You you you shouldn't
want to incite rebellion,because rebellion is wicked.
Rebellion is evil, because thegovernment are God's servants.
So how does that limit the typesof things that you do, in terms
(48:58):
of of how you deal with othernations if you do go into the
government? It seems like a areading of Romans 13 that's
highly positive would wouldseverely limit what you can do.
Which, again, doesn't make thereading wrong, it's just
something interesting to thinkabout. Alright, here is, one of
(49:21):
what I think is probably the thebiggest problems I have. It's a
little bit hard to to flesh outhere on, on just a little bit of
time we have left, but I'll I'llI'll give it a shot. And I think
the problem is that there'sthere's a sacred secular problem
with the modern modern view ofRomans 13. Or maybe a different
(49:44):
way to put it would be there'sthis there's this problem
between viewing Romans 13 asbeing prescriptive versus
descriptive or or permissive.
So, for example, if if Romans 13uses the word servant or
minister here to kind of denotethat governments are these
(50:05):
sacred actors, these thesesacred, individuals or groups
who have authority to do thingsthat only God can do. Right? In
Romans 12, it just said, leavevengeance to God. But if you're
gonna say, no. No.
No. Governments are sacredactors who have permission to
bear the sword, to do this thingthat God was explicitly given
(50:27):
permission to do, the only oneable to do in Romans 12. But,
no, the government can be thehand of God permissively, or or
prescriptively. And if they're aminister of God in this
approving sense, then in in whatway can seeking a theocracy be
(50:49):
avoided? So if think of it thisway.
If if God is saying, hey. Look.Governments are my ministers. I
want them to bear the sword forme, because I want them to
establish order and and bringjustice. That's their job for
me.
Then, if I get a bunch ofChristians in government, and
(51:12):
God has given me the sword, andI believe in objective morality,
and I believe in the revelationof God, and and he has made
clear what his law is. He's laidout a lot of things in the Old
Testament for what He thinks thethe penalty should be for for
certain crimes, for a lot of ofmoral laws. And I can
(51:35):
distinguish between theceremonial law and the moral
law. So I'm not gonna, as agovernment official, I'm not
gonna pass judgment on somebodyfor not sacrificing or for not
keeping a certain feast. But achild disobeying their parents,
can I stone them?
Why not? God showed me that Hekinda likes that in the Old
(51:58):
Testament. Or, somebody caughtin adultery, can we stone them?
I mean, it seems like weprobably should because God made
that clear that that's part ofHis law. And now, in the New
Testament, He prescribes that aspart of the government, that I
carry out justice.
(52:18):
And God's shown me what hisjustice is, what just
punishments are. So not onlydoes that mean that I should
seek to make the same laws Ifadultery was wrong in the Old
Testament, and it wasn't aceremonial law, and morality is
objective, then adultery isstill wrong. If God punished it
(52:42):
violently in the Old Testament,I mean, it seems like I at least
have the ability to to punish itviolently in the New Testament,
or or to in this era, post NewTestament. And, in fact, it
seems like maybe I should dothat if God's granting me the
sword, and I've I've seen howGod views this particular sin in
(53:06):
the past. Then maybe I shoulduse the sword in that manner, as
the government, not the church.
So viewing a minister of God ora servant of God in this way in
Romans 13 really brings lots ofproblems up for for people who
want to argue that we don't livein a theocracy. Well, maybe we
(53:30):
don't live in a theocracy whereGod tells us to go and and
slaughter civilians in othercountries. But as far as making
the the United States atheocracy, if the government has
the sword of God, and they're tomake laws and bring justice and
and meet out punishment, I failto see I fail to see how we
(53:56):
wouldn't want to live as atheocracy, how how God's
prescription for us to rungovernment doesn't make us seek
a theocracy. I fail to fail tosee that. I think there's
there's a huge inconsistencythat we see, especially in in
(54:17):
the religious right, where theyact like we're not an theocracy
and that we shouldn't seek that,but then they want to use Romans
13 in a prescriptive manner, andthat's just inconsistent.
That doesn't make sense. But onthe other hand, if you don't
(54:37):
acknowledge that Romans 13 viewsthe government as a a sacred
actor, then that means that theyview them as a a secular actor.
And if the government's asecular actor, then in what way
can a Christian who is justcalled to feed enemies, not
return evil and leave vengeanceup to God, in Romans 12, in what
(55:02):
way can they, as a secularactor, carry out the role of God
in bringing vengeance and doingviolence to enemies? If it's not
a sacred role, if it's notsomething that that God gives
and desires, if it's not a aprescription for us, then it
(55:25):
seems more like it's a it's adescription of what governments
tend to do. And if it's adescription, and and God's not
rescinding all of the thingsthat he said in Romans 12 for
what Christians are supposed todo, then he's not negating the
things that he told Christiansto do in chapter 12.
(55:45):
He's just saying, look. This iswhat governments are going to
do. So submit to him, and trustme in it, and be faithful. So it
seems like either way you readit is gonna be a problem for the
common understanding of ofRomans 13, justifying violence
that Christians seek to doagainst evildoers. So, in in
(56:08):
summary, it seems like thecommon reading of Romans 13
doesn't go far enough in eitherdirection.
Either it refuses to pull theChristian out of a vile
institution of government, or itrefuses to call a sacred
institution to full use for Godand objective morality. Now, I I
(56:29):
know a lot of people areprobably thinking at this point,
well, that's kinda harsh ongovernment, and it seems like
you really don't like thegovernment at all. And that has
been a struggle for me as I'veI've been thinking through the
implications of of nonviolence.And, I'm not a 100% sure where I
stand on, actions in governmentand and whatnot. But in the next
(56:56):
episode, I am hoping to fleshthat out a little bit and
hopefully come to a conclusionfor myself, at least help you to
see what some of theimplications of all of this
might be and what that mightlook like.
Because, throwing governmentunder the bus to our modern
ears, most of us who arepolitical idolaters and who
(57:22):
think that power comes throughthrough government, Throwing off
the power of government seemsjust absolutely crazy. And I
understand that, because it itdoes sound crazy. But,
hopefully, I can kinda give youa vision for that in the next
episode of what that might looklike and why it actually might
(57:43):
be more powerful to circumventthe government and live in the
kingdom. So that's all for now.So peace, because I'm a
pacifist, and I say it, and Imean it.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.