--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Romans 13 in Context
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By David Alan Black
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Covenant News ~ January 10, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recently I received the following email from a DBO reader. It raises some very pertinent questions about the Christian’s relation to the state, and especially about the meaning of Romans 13.


Dear professor Black,

Your essays are fascinating and they resonate with my own opinions.

I am a Christian of the Reformed Baptist persuasion. I hold to the Scriptures alone, Lord willing to the best of my ability.

I have been struggling with some theological issues concerning the relationship between church and state for a long time now.

I hear some people saying that this nation was founded on Christian principles. I hear others saying that that is not true.

Could you answer a question or two for me?

How can I prove from the Bible that liberty of the sort spoken of by many patriotic Americans, including Thomas Jefferson (who was no Christian!) is a God-given right?

And if it can be shown from the Scriptures, then what forms the essence of this freedom?

If, as Dabney says, “Government is not the creator but the creature of human society,” isn’t he denying its God-given authority? If government is not the master, but a servant, “of, by, and for the people,” how am I to understand Paul's meaning in Romans 13?

When does government become illegitimate in God’s eyes? Christ submitted to death on a cross. He paid taxes. And yet, clearly governments sin against God, to the detriment of men. Is there an illegitimacy of government in God’s eyes that rests on something other than preventing personal obedience to the 10 commandments out of conscience to God?

Perhaps you could recommend some good books on the relationship between church and state. I have found only Martyn Lloyd-Jones commentary on Romans 13 to be helpful so far.

Regards and may the Lord bless,

Mark S.


Here is a brief response:

Dear Mark:

I agree with you that there is a great deal of confusion about the Christian’s attitude toward the state. According to the limited insight God has given me, permit me to say a few things in response to your excellent questions.

I believe we may dismiss from the outset any thought of a servile, uncritical attitude toward the state. I stress this because so many Christians today believe they are to give unquestioning obedience to the state. Such an attitude is based on a faulty misinterpretation of Romans 13:1: “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God” (please read vv. 2-7 also). Statists are accustomed to appeal to this text as if it supported an unconditional and uncritical subjection to any and every demand of the state. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The immediate context shows that Paul’s point is something quite different. He is at pains to show that the state performs properly what is forbidden to the individual Christian: it takes vengeance on the one who does evil (see verse 4). Christians, on the contrary, must never repay evil for evil (12:17), and therefore they are not to oppose this legitimate function of the state but are to submit to it. God alone may take vengeance, and it is the “sword” of the state that he uses for this purpose. Essentially, Paul is teaching the same thing that Jesus taught: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” Jesus assumes that the existence of the state is willed of God – even the existence of the pagan Roman Empire. But the disciple of Jesus is not allowed to give to the state what is God’s. Whenever the state makes an illegitimate claim to what is God’s it has transgressed its limits; and the Christian will not render to the state what is unjustly required of him.

The state is often confused with the kingdom of God. Indeed, many Christians are guilty of this false association. The state is a temporary institution (see 13:11). It will pass away, whereas the kingdom is eternal. Therefore, as long as the present age exists, Christians need not oppose the institution of the state as such. Rather they are to give the state what it needs to exist (e.g., taxes) and submit to its right to bear the sword. This is the plain meaning of Romans 13.

Keep in mind that while the state is “ordained” of God, it is not by nature a divine institution nor are its principles equally valid to those pertaining to the kingdom. Elsewhere Paul uses the term “rulers of this world” (1 Cor. 2:8) to refer to earthly political leaders. The state in which they rule is willed by God and hence Christians have to affirm the state as an institution. But, as Paul says in another passage, Christians are not to allow their controversies to be judged by the state because Christians themselves will one day sit in judgment over the very powers that now stand invisible behind the state (see 1 Cor. 6:1 ff.). So there is no question of Christians obeying the state at any point where it demands what is God’s. For Paul at least, this meant that no Christian could say “Caesar is Lord” or “Let Jesus be accursed,” even though such confessions might be demanded by the Roman state. The state that deifies or absolutizes itself has freed itself from its proper constraints as the servant of God and has, in fact, become satanic.

Inasmuch as the state remains within its proper limits, the Christian will acknowledge it as the servant of God. But inasmuch as the state transgresses its limits, it is to be considered the instrument of Satan. But even when the state functions properly as God’s servant, the genuine state for the Christian – his politeuma (the Greek word Paul uses in Phil. 3:20) – is in heaven. (On the concept of our Christian citizenship, please see my essay, The Christian as Citizen.)

And so the Christian gladly acknowledges the place of the state in God’s earthly economy, but he also knows the state’s place within the divine order. For that reason he will see his task regarding the state as one of watching to see that at no point does the state fall away from the divine order.

Thus I am forced to conclude that, far from teaching that the state is to be accepted uncritically in all that it does, Paul’s discussion in Romans 13 serves as a warning against the state exceeding its limits. How this works itself out in daily life is, of course, another topic and one I hope to address in a book that I am currently writing entitled Unleashing the Church.

Thank you again for writing, and my very best wishes and warmest regards,

Dave

http://www.covenantnews.com/daveblack050110.htm

emphasis mine

In regards to reducing abortion numbers. I seem to recall maybe a decade back, that women on welfare were offered $500 to use Norplant (a birth control implant which lasts for 5 years). This was in (I think) a large midwest city. Anyway, one of the civil rights groups threw a fit and they had to back off the offer.

Does anyone here recall this happening?

It would be nice to offer this to women who use abortion as birth control.



Aside to MEDC: this is not directed at you but at the whole group participating in this discussion.

I have never heard of such a thing but I do know that there is something they use in mares that have terrible heat cycles. It is some sort of implant that controls their heats for a number of months (not sure exactly how long but definitely not as long as 5 years). I can't say for sure but it must affect their fertility as well. There are drugs you can give mares in their feed for the same purpose, and these are actually quite dangerous for women to handle as they will effectively stop menstruation and supposedly sterilize them at least for a period of time. (disclaimer: this is all anecdotal I've never had a mare so I could be completely off base)

I do like the idea of long-acting BC, though I think 5 years might be unreasonable to expect someone to willingly take. Lives can change drastically in that time. Six months to a year would be better. That way if you've done it, then life changes in a way that you are ready and now want to get pregnant, you can. Though this could be my 40+ year old brain talking here as taking a 5 year BC today would have the same effect as a hysterectomy (though I don't plan to have more children I shudder at the thought of never being able to). Of course, long acting or short term, no BC system is 100% perfect (and obviously an implant-type thing would do nothing to protect against STDs, but that's not the topic here anyway)

The norplant (or any other brand) can also be surgically removed. I think they usually put it under the skin in the arm...as far as I know, it's a simple procedure. The five year thing is how long it takes to diminish its effectiveness.

Just how many "rape babies" have you tried to adopt?

***edit***

Do you think they are referred to as "RAPE BABIES" after they are born? Does this mean you are concerned about their welfare?

I'd happily adopt 5...sign me up.

I would take one too if it meant avoiding his/her slaughter and unceremonious dumping in the dempsty dumpster. You betcha!

Um.... It's my understanding that there's a waiting list to adopt newborns of any race. I don't think the adoption agencies or the birth certificates have a line stating whether or not the infant is the result of a forced encounter.

It isn't the infant's fault. It isn't the mother's fault either, and therein lies *my* dilemma. I'm not trying to convince anyone else of anything, I'm just sayin.

But I think there are people waiting to adopt those babies.

About Norplant:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E0CE4DB1339F934A25751C1A964958260

There's also IUD's which are effective for a lot longer and easily removed when the woman WANTS to get pregnant.

That's easy to say.

How many have you tried to adopt?

Are you on the waiting list?

I think it's ironic that someone who spouted off for a long time about how anti-American liberals are would have the United States join the most barbaric parts of the Middle and Far East as countries that punish rape victims.

Me too. It breaks my heart reading those accounts of discarded babies, toddlers starved (in the news yesterday), children tortured...

I would take in a kitten that was abandoned. You bet I'd take in a human baby if it was the only way to save it from abuse, torture and death.

IMHO RU486 is better than being starved to death when you are 4 years old.

Then you might wanna hop to it. There are plenty of orphans out there.

What I think is ironic is someone who imagines he has any credibility to express "concern" about the best interest of a child when he has just advocated its brutal slaughter and disposal in the dempster dumpster. :RollieEyes:

Sorry, but you forfeited any credibility when you supported abortion. Your "concern" is fake and you know it.

You completely failed to respond to my post. An Ad Hominem attack once again.

Anything to get out of explaining why you advocate the punishment of rape victims, I suppose.

Do you object to the killing of 5 year olds?

Logic is not your friend, is it, Krazy? Sorry I went right over your head.

you're kidding right? Krazy, the only person on these boards I have seen edited for personal attacks more than me...is you.

What have you done to help children or the underprivileged?

Why bother with rhetorical questions? Just make your insane case already.

Logic is not your friend, is it, Krazy? Sorry I went right over your head. [/quote]

And there's another ad hominem attack...you still haven't begun to address the fact that you advocate the punishment of rape victims.