Re-Thinking Romans 13 (Entire Series)

I've decided to put all the parts to this series in one post, and update this post each time I add another part and link to it. So, here it is, in its entirety so far:

Re-Thinking Romans 13 (Part 1)
What Romans 13 is not and what I think it is

As a supposedly bible believing, conservative Christian, I have always been taught that Romans 13 teaches us to obey the civil government (with a very few notable exceptions). I've heard it from pulpits, in theology books, and quite often as cliches from the mouths of believers. But I'm going to submit right here right now that a simple reading of the text, taken in the context of Paul writing to the church at Rome, and taken in the context of not only Romans 12-14, but of the entire book as well, and comparing it with similar passages elsewhere, demands a different conclusion.

This supposed obedience to the government is demanded in every instance, so we are told, both outwardly and from the heart, with only two exceptions: when the state commands us to do something God forbids, or when the state forbids us to do something God commands. And living in such a wonderful and free place as America means that these exceptions rarely exist for us. They exist in godless places like communist China, Iran, North Korea and Indonesia.

But a look at the text reveals no command to obey whatsoever. We are told to be "in subjection to the governing authorities." But subjection is not the same as obedience, and it is only assumed that this subjection is to the state. Now, I'm not sure what could be meant by this if it were not the state, so just for the sake of argument, I'll address this topic as if it were the state. In future posts on this issue I'll develop my ideas further, but for now I'll simply state what I think Romans 13 means.

It means this: subjection is required, not in obeying any and all laws, ordinances, statutes and the like of civil government, but only if you are being punished for a real (as determined by Scripture) evil that you have actually committed. In other words, if you have committed an act of evil, and are to be punished for it, accept your punishment as the ordinance of God. Verse 5 reads, "wherefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake." Wrath, because God has decreed that evildoers receive it, and conscience because we as Christians cannot believe that we have the right to do evil without consequences. Most interpretations I've heard dictate that we obey all laws for the sake of conscience. But I think it means that we submit to just punishment if it is warranted so that we don't allow our consciences to think that we can commit evil and get away with it just because we're Christians who have already been forgiven by God for our sins. This is miles from the status quo on this, but I think it is right. Romans 13 has nothing whatsoever to do with legislation by civil governments, but only with execution of justice; and this justice is defined by Scripture alone.

Much more to come on this topic.

Re-Thinking Romans 13 (Part 2)
Rebuking Caesar and cutting him down, too.

In part 1 I stated that the conventional conservative interpretation of Romans 13, that we are to obey all the laws of civil governments, is incorrect. I believe it teaches nothing of obedience, but rather merely to receive just punishment when it is due us for a real evil committed, without resistance. Not only do I believe that this passage has nothing to do with obeying the civil government, but it actually limits the authority of civil government to a very narrow area.

Verse one states, "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God." Isn't it interesting that Paul would write this to the church in Rome, which is the center of the empire, the very throne of Caesar. Those in Rome to whom this was written, and by extension those to whom it applied, would read it this way: "for there is no authority except from God, not Caesar." God, and not Caesar is the ultimate authority! This would have been the ultimate slap in the face of the Roman system. "Caesar is not Lord, but God is!" Not only that, but "those which exist are established by God" means that any authority that Caesar had was not self-derived, nor Jupiter or Zeus derived, but derived from God. This means that Caesar, and any other "authority" in the empire was subservient to the Christian God. This plain reading is so different from "all you Christians need to obey." Caesar, and not Christians, is the object of rebuke from Paul!

The conventional interpretation of Romans 13 also neglects its immediate context at the end of chapter 12, which tells us to never take our own revenge for evil committed against us. God has a way of dealing with this and it is through the execution of legitimate justice. Again, this context has nothing at all to do with obeying bureaucratic legislation.

Now, as to what it does say with respect to legitimate authority, starting in verse 3, "For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil." This authority has authority only to punish for evil, not good. Now an important question: how is evil defined?

We Protestants are quick to point out in every other area, except with regards to civil government, that Scriputre alone defines good and evil. But, if disobeying civil laws is evil, then the civil government is equal to God, because its word must be obeyed. Where does the Word of God give civil governments the authority to legislate good and evil? If we are to obey, and if disobedience is sin, then the government's laws are equal to God's. This idea is the ultimate in Caesar worship. In fact, in many instances I have heard Christians hold Caesar's laws over and above those of God, because we are "told to obey."

Next, I'll deal with some more limitations of civil government out of Romans 13.

Re-Thinking Romans 13 (Part 3)
More limitations on civil authority

I read Romans 13 not as a call for Christians to obey civil governments' whimsical authoritarianism, but as a proclamation of liberty from state tyranny. Let's consider verse 4. Paul tells us that if we do good, we will receive praise from the authorities he speaks of just previously. "[F]or it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God; an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil." Notice that twice the word "minister" is used. In the Greek this word is diakonos, which can be just as easily translated as servant. The civil magistrate is a servant of God! This flies in the face of those authoritarians who would have us believe that Christians are servants of the state, whether monarchy, dictator or bureaucratic democracy. Paul's rebuke of Caesar, and not liberty-loving Christians, is thus continued in this verse.

I've already dealt with verse 5 in part 1, so let's now look at verse 6 which picks up the context of verse 4. "For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing." Stop right there. Notice very closely that both the devotional servanthood of rulers to God in executing justice and the support of this activity via taxes are in the singular. "For because of this" and devotion to "this very thing" are thus limits on state activity and source of revenue.

Romans 13 limits the duty of civil authorities to one thing only: execution of justice. Note that the Scripture does not say "devoting themselves to not only this, but to thousands of other things, all of which you are taxed to death for." Punishment of evildoers is the state's only legitimate biblical concern. Not only this, but the passage also limits collection of taxes to this one function: "for because of this you also pay taxes." All other taxes are biblically illegitimate.

Now some additional comments are in order here. I think that punishment of evildoers isn't necessarily limited to criminal activity within any given jurisdiction, but I could see military defense of some kind (punishment of the invading evildoers) and some other similar things included. I also would hasten to add that the authority to punish is not broad enough to cover all sins against God, but that there is a very limited range of evil that can be punished. I will deal with (and have already in other posts on my blog) these issues in the future. Additionally, I will try to cover the issue of taxes, especially with the much butchered interpretation of Jesus' encounter with the religious rulers over the poll tax and Caesar's coin. And I shan't forget to consider 1 Peter 2, Galatians 5 on the fruit of the Spirit, the rest of the book of Romans, and other related passages. Keep in mind, too, as I go along in future "re-thinking Romans 13" posts that my use of the terms "state", "civil authority", etc., are not necessarily synonyms of our familiar brand of geo-political nation state ideology.

In summary, my Part 3 looked at limitations placed on civil authorities for the promotion of our liberty in Christ.

Re-Thinking Romans 13 (Part 4)
The insanity and impossibility of the doctrine of obeying the state

In his writings, RJ Rushdoony notes that rabbinical traditions have counted 613 separate laws in the Torah, our Old Testament. Six hundred thirteen. He has also noted that today in America there are billions of pages of laws written in millions of volumes of law books, and these are stored in thousands of law libraries all over the country.

Not only that, but this monstrous body of law is constantly changing and growing. New laws are being added at a torrid rate, as city, county, metro, state and federal legislative bodies routinely pass bills that are hundreds or even thousands of pages long. And as James Leroy Wilson points out at Independent Country, the legislators don't even read the bills they vote on, and his efforts at DownsizeDC call for this to change. This body of law is also contradictory, whereas God's law is consistent. Our courts of appeals, all the way up to state and US supreme courts, deal largely with the contradictory nature of this law. This right is argued against that statute, state's rights versus individual freedoms, on and on and on.

And the most amazing thing about this difference in the size of the two bodies of law is that the typical modern evangelical rejects Old Testament law as burdensome, preferring the "age of grace" that we live in, yet at the same time believes that the bible teaches, in Romans 13 and other passages, that we are duty bound to obey the civil government no matter how much we might disagree with their laws.

How is it even possible to obey, with billions of contradictory laws that are mostly unknown to even the best lawyer? Do you know all of them? I certainly don't. If we are to obey, why aren't these laws taught in church? I suggest that the only ones who could hold to an impossible doctrine of obedience to the state are themselves insane.

Re-Thinking Romans 13 (Part 5)
Avoiding Conflicts of Authority

The majority view of Romans 13 within Christianity that we are to obey the state has a large problem: conflict of authority.

It must be remembered that all authority has been given to Jesus (Matt 28) so all human authority is derivative and delegated. But all of us have been given authority in our various positions within the realms of individual, family, church and civil government. And this authority comes directly from God through His word. And along with that authority delegated to us from God comes the authority to act on that authority. This seems obvious, but it is necessary to point out, as I will show.

The fault with the "obey the state" view, is that nearly the entire history of human civil governments is one of usurpation of the authority of another. States are tyrannical. The "obey the state" view sets up the civil government as an authority that is an authority over all other authorities; it is the highest authority. Thus it has implicit veto power over God's direct commands to others who have authority. If it then has veto power over God Himself, then the state is higher than God, which is idolatry. So, those who view Romans 13 as a call to obey the state hold an idolatrous view.

For example, parents are given authority over their children and are commanded to raise them in the admonition of the Lord. If this is so, then the parents, not the state, are in charge in the family. If parents think it right to train their teenage children in the proper consumption of alcohol in order to have self control as adults, this is good. How then can the state legislate a drinking age of 21? If the parents have authority in the family, then the civil government is subject to the parents' authority in the matter, and not the other way around.

Another example is in exercise of gifts. If one has the gift of healing (not necessarily in the miraculous sense), and has talents that enable him to heal people of diseases, and God has already commanded us to exercise our gifts in serving others, then he has the authority from God Himself to heal. If he heals somebody, nobody but a bunch of Pharisees would cry foul. So then how could the state have authority to prosecute (read persecute) this man for "practicing medicine without a license" unless the state held a higher authority than God? The exercising of gifts for the good of others would come under the realm of individual government, with the individual holding the position of authority, and again not the state.

So for Christians to claim that the state has veto power authority over already delegated authority is to claim the sovereignty of Caesar over God. When Christians give the state authority to do more than its only granted authority of punishment of evildoers, contradictions arise. The beauty of Christian liberty is the authority that God gives us to carry out our duties before God. We have the authority and duty to do good, no matter what man may say.

Re-Thinking Romans 13 (Part 6)

Is Jesus Lord of the State?
-or, in other words-
Does God's Word Apply to the State?

Ask any theologically conservative Christian if Jesus is Lord, and the answer will be "of course." Ask if He is Lord of everything and the same answer will be given. And ask if the Word of God applies to everybody and everything for all time; same answer again. Well, if this is all true, then how do Christians hold to a doctrine that we should all obey the state?

If this is all true, then it should be asked if the following Scriptures apply to the state. Here's my list, and I'd love to get some feedback from those who believe that we need to obey the state.

1) "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Deut. 4:2 and a similar verse, 2) "I testify to everyone who hears the words of the Prophesy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book;..." Rev. 22:18. If nobody has any right to add to God's word for what constitutes righteousness, then why would the state be exempt from this when it legislates?

3) Mark 7:5-13 (read it here). Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for substituting man's traditions for God's word. Today's lawyers and politicians that make up our state legislative bodies do the exact same thing. If adding to God's word is so forbidden, then how could obedience to those additions be required by the same God? Jesus warned of the leaven of the pharisees, so why should we do as they do? Just because our pharisees are civil legislators, we need to obey?

4) "Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand." Romans 14:4. Paul is speaking of liberty of conscience and how we shouldn't judge somebody else simply based on our own conscience. If this is so, then how could the state judge me by its conscience as an evildoer for something that's not a violation of God's word?

If all these scriptures apply to all of us as individuals, then they certainly apply to us as individuals if we work as civil magistrates. The state has no business legislating against things that aren't already determined by God to be sin, and has no business creating punishments for sins that aren't already determined by God. If God's word can't be added to, then the state can't add to God's word. Is this simple enough? If the state is exempt from God's word, and can make up its own crimes and punishments, then the state is equal to God.

Re-Thinking Romans 13 (Part 7)
Others who don't buy into the Romans 13 status quo.

I've come across a blog (The Blessed Economist) by an economist and theologian living in New Zealand that has an extensive network of blog posts and weblinks, with quite a few things to say about civil government and faulty interpretations of Romans 13. It is a very interesting read. He also sees the contradictions between the ideas of submitting to all civil governments and being good Christians. Here's just one link to a commentary of Romans 13.

Re-Thinking Romans 13 (Part 8)
Related Passages - Galatians 5: Self-Government (Not Civil Government) Is The Fruit of The Spirit

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Galatians 5:22-23 [Emphasis mine]

It is interesting that Scripture paints controlling one's self, i.e. governing one's self, as the very fruit of the Spirit. Neither family government, nor church government, nor civil government are the fruit of the Spirit. But self-government is. It is also very interesting that, according to God, there is no law against the fruit of the Spirit. No law at all. Imagine that. Nobody can legislate against the Holy Spirit. But what about civil government laws that are against the fruit of the Spirit? Well, God's word tells us. There is "no law" against such things. If something is against good fruit, then it is "no law" at all, and we aren't bound to obey it.

But the truth of the matter is that the state legislates against God all the time, and many Christians seem to agree with the state, and that those who obey God in the form of self-government, rather than man in the form of usurped civil government, are in sin. I can't count the number of times I've heard Christians state their opposition to something obviously good with something like, "oh, that's against the [state] law!" as if state law were the definition of morality.

Re-Thinking Romans 13 (Part 9)
Related Passages - 1 Peter 2 (Part 1): Keeping Your Behavior Excellent

The next few comments in this series will be about the passage found in 1 Peter 2:11-17.

Verse 12 states:

"Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may on account of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation."

Peter starts this passage with an exhortation to abstain against fleshly lusts in verse 11. In keeping with this we are told in verse 12 to keep our behavior excellent among the Gentiles. What does this mean? I've heard this twisted out of context to mean that we should obey the government so that unbelievers will have nothing bad to say about us, and this of course ties in perfectly well with the twisting of Romans 13.

But this begs the question; why would they slander us as evildoers? Well, because they're unbelievers, of course. They're so evil, that's all they can do in life is slander Christians. And on Judgment Day, God will show those pagans just how righteously obedient we really were to the government. The unbelievers are the ones, after all, who don't obey the government, and they're just jealous so they make up stories about us.

But is this so? I don't believe so. In fact, quite the opposite at each point. They slander us as evildoers, not because they're always hateful, but because they have a different standard of righteousness than we do. Their standard (they were Caesar worshippers) was Caesar's law, not God's law. Since our behavior is according to God's law and not the civil government's law ("should we obey God or man?"), it is excellent if we obey God's law. Unbelievers today, typically, hold to the laws of their civil governments as standards of righteousness, just like always. So because God's law is so often opposed to man's, we are slandered as evildoers.

When unbelievers see us obey God's law, they will give glory to God in His day of visitation, whether that means in their conversion to Christianity, remembering our deeds, or on Judgment day when God reveals the good works He prepared for us to walk in.

Re-Thinking Romans 13 (Part 10)
Related Passages - 1 Peter 2 (Part 2): Human Institutions' One - And Only - Purpose

This group of comments in this series will be about the passage found in 1 Peter 2:11-17.

Verses 13-14 state:

"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right."

Peter admonishes us in verse 12 to keep our behavior excellent among the Gentiles. Verses 13-14 is but one example of how this is accomplished. But verses 13-14 are quite commonly misinterpreted as a blanket call to obey the state and all of its laws. This misinterpretation is possible, in a practical sense, because a period is ideologically placed either after the term "human institution" or after the term "or to governors." But the true meaning is hidden when this is done. Submission here is modified by the term "punishment of evildoers."

The duty of kings and governors here is spelled out. They have only one duty. To punish evildoers, and praise those who do right (which could be closely tied in.) Notice the passage does not say, "Submit yourselves... to kings... and governors... for everything they legislate, one small part of which is the punishment of evildoers." The only area of submission required by this passage is in the punishment of evildoers.

This reflects what I've already concluded about the Romans 13 passage itself in Part 1. Since adding to God's Word is prohibited by Scripture, the state has no authority to legislate. And God is the only one who gets to define good and evil. So, if we've committed evil, according to God's Word, we submit to legitimate punishment of it.

Re-Thinking Romans 13 (Part 11)
Related Passages - 1 Peter 2 (Part 3): Act As Free Men

This group of comments in this series will be about the passage found in 1 Peter 2:11-17.

I will briefly comment on verse 15 before getting to the main idea here.

"For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men."

I admit that I am at a loss as to how verse 15 fits in to the context of the greater passage here. I am not sure how it fits either with my view of Romans 13 or with the "obey the state" view. I don't see it as contradictory of either view, nor as necessary for the development of either. It could be that this is a universal statement about doing good that is not subject to the immediate context.

Now for verse 16:

"Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God."

It is interesting here that Peter admonishes us to act as free men. What does it mean for men to be free? They are bound by God's law only. If we apply this to today's totalitarian bureaucracies such as is found in America, where every conceivable aspect of life is regulated or outlawed by civil legislatures, the command to act as free men is not even possible without disobeying the state. To act as a free man would be to sin, if we are called to obey the state. Peter wouldn't command anybody to sin, so this also seems to reject the idea that Christians are required by the bible to obey the state.

Re-Thinking Romans 13 (Part 12)
Related Passages - 1 Peter 2 (Part 4): The Foolishness of Ignorant Men

This group of comments in this series will be about the passage found in 1 Peter 2:11-17.

In part 11 I admitted my inability to tie in verse 15 with the rest of the 1 Peter passage.

"For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men."

Subsequently, I found an interesting commentary on this at Harmless as Doves Ministries. Their commentary on Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 equate politicians with ignorant, foolish men:

Peter wrote that Christians should submit themselves to governmental institutions, because if they were to violently resist, then the government would have reason to persecute them. Instead, if Christians are to do only good, the government will have no reason to persecute them. By living good lives, not using “your freedom as a cover-up for evil,” the hypocrisy of the government will be shown, and the church will “silence the ignorant talk of foolish men" (please note, Peter here referred to governmental leaders as ignorant and foolish men).

I'm not sure I agree with them about what it means to submit to authorities, but I think they do make a good point that Peter may have in mind here that all government leaders are ignorant and foolish. The bible forbids adding to God's Word, and adding to God's Word is what politicians do best. Foolish indeed.

Re-Thinking Romans 13 (Part 13)
Another View - Chuck Baldwin

LewRockwell.com posts this from pastor Chuck Baldwin regarding what he believes Romans 13 really means. He, too, doesn't believe that Romans 13 means "obey the state." Although I don't agree with everything he says, I agree with most of it. A good read.

Re-Thinking Romans 13 (Part 14)

It's been quite a while since I've done a post in my Re-Thinking Romans 13 series. I have much more to write, but I need to be in that particular mood to write. Hopefully I'll continue this series after the New Year.

In the meantime, here's a summary of what I believe about Romans 13 and the civil magistrate (i.e. the state):

• Romans 13 is the most abused chapter in the bible.
• Romans 13 does not stand alone but was written in the context of Romans 12. The chapter division is artificial - and dangerous.
• Romans 13 has nothing whatsoever to do with obeying civil government.
• Romans 13 limits the duty civil magistrate to one thing: punishment of evildoers.
• If somebody commits evil against us, we are not to take our own revenge (Romans 12), but leave room for God's revenge... which is...
• Which is where Romans 13 comes in. The civil magistrate is to perform the punishment (revenge) spoken of in Romans 12.
• Submitting to punishment for evil we commit is the only subjection to the civil magistrate required of us.
• God prohibits adding to His word.
• All civil legislation is adding to God's word, and therefore prohibited by God. The state has no authority to add to God's word. It cannot define good and evil. Only God can do that.
• There is a difference between sin and crime. Only crimes can be punished by the civil authorities. Sins that are not crimes cannot be punished.
• Anything I have Christian liberty to do cannot be legislated against. (Galatians 5) Against the fruit of the Spirit there is - and can be - no law.
• Romans 13 was a rebuke to Caesar and showing clearly how authority comes from God and not Caesar.
• Romans 13 was a rebuke to Caesar in that Paul states clearly that Caesar was a servant of God.
• Romans 13 cannot mean that we are to obey the government, for that would be impossible. Today's governments have millions of laws which are ever changing and ever growing. They contradict one another, which means we are guilty simply by existing. Not even the best lawyer knows a small percentage of laws.
• Romans 13 cannot mean that we are to obey the government, for that would mean that it has the authority to veto all other authority that God gives us as individuals, in families, churches and every other area of life. If this were true, the government would be God because it would have a higher authority than the God who delegates authority to us in the first place.
• The bible is full of examples of believers who disobey authority in the name of God. "Shall we obey God OR man?"

Re-Thinking Romans 13 (Part 15)

In Romans 12, Paul sets up the context for Romans 13 when he says in verses 17-19, "Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'"

The context is in taking personal revenge. Why would anybody want to take personal revenge? Because that person would be the victim of a crime. God's vengeance that He claims is his, is revealed in punishment of evildoers (evildoers who commit crimes against others). So how would smoking a joint or not riding a bicycle with a helmet or doing some good deed without a license be punishable by the state? They wouldn't, because there is no crime committed against another person. The fact that these things are punished shows how our civil law is not according to the bible.

Re-Thinking Romans 13 (Part 16) - Calvin's Warnings

Kevin Johnson at Prophezi (formerly Reformed Catholicism) posts about Calvin's warnings of obeying the state and its laws. Tyranny is very much alive and well in the world in which we live, most certainly more now than ever in the form of democracy. Be careful what you obey.

Re-Thinking Romans 13 (Part 17) - Punishing All Evil Everywhere

Bruce Gerencser points out a common mis-application of a common mis-interpretation of Romans 13. Quoting Steve Bennen on pastor Rick Warren:

Last night, on Fox News, Sean Hannity insisted that United States needs to “take out” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Warren said he agreed. Hannity asked, "Am I advocating something dark, evil or something righteous?” Warren responded, "Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped…. In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers. Not good-doers. Evildoers.

Such an idea extends way beyond the intent of Romans 13. Unfortunately, artificial chapter divisions have given people cause to take Romans 13 out of its Romans 12 context, where the Apostle Paul instructs believers not to take personal revenge out on others who might wrong us. Wrong interpretations of Romans 13 have resulted in the giving of enormous amounts of power to state politicians and military leaders. Accordingly, the US military can go around the world and kill (read: murder?) anybody who they don't like, provided first that enough propaganda can be manufactured as to somebody else being evil. This works both ways, of course, so that any group of people elsewhere in the world that call themselves a government can kill Americans on American soil simply because they believe them to be evil. Of course, most conservative evangelicals in America would disagree with the latter, because we're America after all. It's simply amazing to me that so many Christians are willing to give government so much power beyond anything the bible allows. They're the same ones who complain about how many Democrats are in Washington.

Re-Thinking Romans 13 (Part 18)
When Caesar is Lord and When God Contradicts Himself

The doctrine that holds its interpretation of Romans 13 as meaning that Christians should "obey" the state and all its laws has two large logical problems. First, if God requires obedience to Caesar's laws, then Caesar's laws are equal to God's word. Since the overwhelming majority of all laws that we supposedly live under come from the state and not from God, then Caesar is our ultimate authority, for he has written far more laws than God has. His word reigns supreme. When Caesar speaks, it is just as if God Himself spoke. Caesar is Lord.

Second, since it is against God's word to add to God's word, and since the majority of Caesar's laws that we are supposed to obey are added to God's word in direct contradiction to God's word prohibiting the adding to it, obeying all of Caesar's laws is contradictory to God's word. God would be requiring us to obey something He prohibits.

So, for the "obey the state" interpretation of Romans 13, Caesar is Lord and God contradicts Himself.

Re-Thinking Romans 13 (Part 19)

Vache Folle posts an interpretation of Romans 13 which is basically this: Paul is saying to the Roman believers, "don't stand out looking like a bunch of lawbreakers, and avoid trouble with the government as much as possible." My own pastor, who preached through Romans a few years ago, had the idea of maintaining a "posture" of humility in subjection to the government. I interpret his interpretation as even if the government is flat out false, chill a bit and act like you're complying. Of course this leaves it open to completely oppose the government, as long as you don't openly rebel.

Vache Folle also comes up with some good questions about authority and how to recognize when that authority changes:

What is meant by authority, anyway? If Caesar conquers my country by the sword
and exercises power over me, does he likewise have authority as from God? If we are never to rebel against authority, was not the founding of the United States via treason and rebellion a sin? And what of the simple subject of the crown in that rebellion? With whom was he to side? At what point is he supposed to recognize a new authority even when it is conceived in rebellion? Were the conspirators in the Underground Railroad sinners against God? What happens when one authority opposes another as in a war? Is God fighting God? Were the martyrs of the early church defying God when they defied Caesar?

With either of these interpretations, the usual "obey the state" idea is set aside.

For any continuation of this blog series click here. The reason for this is explained here.