The Scope of Romans 13
Discussions of Romans 13 have arisen significantly considering the vast
manifestations of executive orders that have been offered during the prevalence
of COVID-19. I dare suggest that Romans 13, along with a few other passages and
verses of Scripture, is one of the most misused scriptures in the entire
biblical canon. Submission to authorities is vital to godliness; yet, the scope
of Romans 13 is perhaps not what many understand.
In the time Paul wrote his letter to
the Romans, government was corrupt and even persecuted Christians. Paul,
however, instructs believers to submit or be subject to the governing
authorities. The Greek word for “be subject” is hupotasso, which literally means to place or rank under. The term
implies an intentional effort. It is similar to what Paul commands believers in
Philippians 2: to have the same mind as Christ Jesus, namely a mind of humility
considering others better (Phil 2:5). These instructions do not mean that one
certainly is less than another person but that Christians are to act as if that
is the case, as Jesus did in his earthly ministry; no greater example of
humility may be found except that of Christ Jesus. To be subject to the
authorities then is to consider the governing bodies God ordained to be higher
in rank.
Understanding that being subject to the authorities is an explicit instruction given to God’s people, Romans 13 must be interpreted. Are Paul’s instructions part of a blanket command to blindly obey the governing authorities, or is the scope narrower? To answer this question, there are four primary elements to consider. I will examine these elements here and then determine the scope of Romans 13.
An Individual
Basis Rather Than over the Church
Paul begins his instructions in Romans 13 with, “Let every person…” (Rom 13:1), i.e. the Apostle is directing individuals rather than a group of people, although the letter was certainly written to a group of Christians. Christians (individually) are surely called to be subject to the governing authorities; yet, even Romans 13 is seemingly directed toward individuals rather than the church as a whole. Furthermore, as John MacArthur recently contended, the Bible nowhere grants the government authority over the church. In fact, the three institutions presented in the Bible are the government, the family, and the church; in Scripture, they seem to be separate from one another so that one does not control the other. When a government or executive issues a decree or order, individuals should comply assuming it is not unethical, immoral, or against the commands of God;[1] yet, employing such orders is the responsibility of individuals to comply rather than the church. When considering the scope of Romans 13, one’s hermeneutic must include the fact that the portion of Paul’s letter is addressed specifically to individuals in the church rather than the entire body. A church’s civil disobedience, in times in injustice, then is right. Determining when, nonetheless, is a matter of seeking the Holy Spirit’s guidance.
Romans 13 Assumes
Just Laws
In the scope of Romans 13, Paul
obviously contends for a government which executes justice; yet, one might
question what should be done in the case of unjust laws. Certainly, degrees of
unjust laws subsist. Nonetheless, Romans 13 is not an overarching grant for the
government to decree anything desired; nor, is it a requirement for Christians
to blindly abide by such laws of injustice.[2] A
recent example is the closure of public worship gatherings in local churches by
many state and municipal governments. Christians hold the responsibility to
determine whether such a decree is just or unjust.[3] Edicts
which violate the commands of God should surely be considered unjust and offer
believers the opportunity to stand and fight for the cause of the Lord.
I tend to err on the side of freedom when determining what is just and unjust.
There are surely blatantly obvious injustices, e.g. murder, racism, etc.;
nevertheless, there are also issues which are not as clear, e.g. forsaking the
assembling for public worship, wearing masks, etc. (to use recent examples).
The US Constitution was constructed with individual liberty in mind and,
further, individual liberty based upon the liberty God affords; thus, it is
based with Judeo-Christian principles at its foundation. My personal criteria
for justice then leans toward decrees that do not violate individual liberty,
not only those that include slightly inconvenient practices, i.e. to suggest
that inconvenience does not constitute a violation of individual liberty is
false, for the loss of freedom occurs slowly rather than rapidly.
While many in modern society, including professing Christians, would suggest futility in the practice of civil disobedience by the church, it is good and right to stand for the causes of the Lord and to even cause divisiveness (between the church and society) on such issues. Believers should remember the call to holiness or being set apart, i.e. a catering to society on issues which violate the commands of God is not only unnecessary but also wrong. Under just laws, Romans 13 commands Christians to be subject to the governing authorities; yet, under unjust laws, Christians have the responsibility to defy orders and civilly disobey, for governing authorities hold no power except form God (Rom 13:1).
Hermeneutics Must
Be Mindful of Cultural Differences
Cultural differences between modern Western society and the society of Romans 13 should be considered in the scope of Paul’s letter. Not only is the era vastly different, so also is the type of government to which the Apostle refers. The US, for example, is a Republic, which was non-existent in the time of Romans 13. Moreover, Paul’s idea of government in the chapter centers around a federal-style government, whereas US ideas include federal, state, and municipal. The concept of municipal police is absent from Romans 13. In biblical Roman society, the government’s role includes execution of the law rather than mere enforcement of the law. An example of this is the following: when a police officer stops a driver for speeding, he or she often makes a decision to issue a citation. The citation, however, is not the execution of the law but the enforcement; the execution of the law comes in the judgment. While many use Romans 13 to justify police actions, the concept of local (state or national) police does not exist in Romans 13, and modern police roles are limited to enforcement rather than execution of sentencing requirements. This is not to say that Romans 13 may not be applied to police; it should, however, be considered in the scope of the chapter. The people to whom Paul writes abided in a vastly disparate culture and society; further, governing authorities held a greater ability to execute justice, i.e. their role was one of execution rather than mere enforcement.
Degrees of Law
Apply
A common usage of Romans 13 is that
of applying it to every instance of breaking the law. Speeding, for example, is
a common hypothetical situation discussed when referring to Romans 13. The idea
is usually that if one speeds, he or she is sinning because they are, in fact,
breaking the law of the land. Varying degrees of law, however, should be
considered when examining the scope of Romans 13. There surely exists a
threefold division of the law in Scripture: the moral law, the ceremonial law,
and the civil law. Jewish culture would (rightly) consider breaking any part of
this threefold division sinful in the eyes of the Lord, i.e. breaking the law
is breaking the law no matter which part is broken.[4] One
might wonder why certain Old Testament laws do not seem to apply in modern
society. The threefold division of the law is an excellent explanation. God’s
moral law is certainly transcendent through time because it is related to his
character, whereas the ceremonial and civil laws might change over time
depending on circumstances.
Furthermore, laws hold varying degrees. God’s moral law is surely the most vital and nonnegotiable. Thus, breaking a civil law should not be considered inherently evil as is breaking the moral law. It is certainly possible (and common) for a civil law to have nothing to do with godliness. This is not to say that civil laws are always unjust, although many are; there are, nonetheless, vast differences in breaking God’s moral law and a manmade civil law. In relation (specifically) to speeding, for example, I suggest that speeding is not evil as murder is, although the two are often equated when using Romans 13 to justify corrupt governmental authority actions. Moreover, disobedience (especially) to the civil law does not negate subjection to authority, for even when one breaks the law, he or she is still subject to authority and may face the consequences of disobedience. When determining the scope of Romans 13, however, the degree of law must be considered.
To Use Romans 13 as a Blanket Argument for Blindly Honoring the Request of the State Is Both Lazy and Idolatry
Christians should certainly be
mindful of Romans 13 and heed the instructions of the Apostle Paul; yet, to use
the chapter as a blanket argument for blindly honoring the request of the government
and its authorities is both lazy and idolatry. To truly do justice, love mercy,
and walk humbly with God (Mic 6:8) is to honor God first and then honor
governmental authorities within the parameters of justice. The US celebration
of Independence Day occurred last month. Many churches chose to display
nationalistic items and center their supposed services of worship around the
event. Many are offended by those who refuse to pledge allegiance to the
American flag. I do not believe that the Pledge of Allegiance in itself, is
wrong nor that celebrating American freedom is wrong. Early Christians,
however, would likely be baffled and angry at the thought that Western
Christians would dare bow or give allegiance to the state, especially in the
context of Christian worship. We must be careful that patriotism does not
become severe nationalism and, therefore, idolatry. Romans 13 certainly applies
to modern life. Its scope, nevertheless, should be considered before using it
as a blanket passage to support injustice.
[1] It
is my opinion that many of the broad-sweeping executive orders issued during
the global pandemic we now face are against the commands of God, e.g. churches
neglecting to meet together for worship.
[2] I
openly admit that the line between just and unjust laws may be blurry and
interpretive at best. In most cases, it is clear; yet, there are surely times
when people must determine, for themselves, what constitutes a just or an
unjust law and, furthermore, pick which issues upon which to act.
[3] I
personally take this as a blatantly (and likely intentionally in many cases)
unjust decree.
[4] I
argue that Christ came to fulfill the law rather than abolish it (Matt 5:17) so
the law no longer applies. Rather, obedience to the law continues in that
Christians, from an overflow of holiness, conform to God’s transcendent
character rather than a set of rules.
