Random thoughts on Romans 12-13 with no pretence of cohesiveness…
Romans chapter 13 is often quoted by those who uphold “just war theory”
in debates with those who argue for a pacifist position. Pacifists tend
to dismiss this passage too easily and militarists often employ it too
broadly. I’d like to revisit this difficult passage with a view to
reassessing its many layers of context.
First, the passage in question reads as follows:
1Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For
there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are
established by God. 2Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed
the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive
condemnation upon themselves. 3For rulers are not a cause of fear for
good behaviour, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority?
Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4for 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 (E)avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
5Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of
wrath, but also) for conscience’ sake.
1. Immediate biblical context: Romans 12-13 — Private versus public retribution
First, I do not believe that Romans 12 and 13 should be read as
separate chapters so easily. Romans chapter twelve certainly emphasizes
a call to love our enemies and a rejection of personal vengeance.
Romans thirteen acknowledges God-ordained public penal retribution. But
we should not too readily ignore 12:17-21 as a challenge to everyone,
personal and public; private and political. It says:
17Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the
sight of all men. 18If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at
peace with all men. 19Never 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. 20”BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM,
AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP
BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD." 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome
evil with good.
The call to overcome evil with good and to love one’s enemies is God’s
design for all mankind and should be promoted at every tier of
civilization as WHAT GOD WANTS. Other religious movements are far ahead
of the evangelical church on this, calling governments to exercise love
and peace while we have cheered on military solutions as a holy mandate.
2. Immediate biblical context part 2: Romans 13 – Civil order versus militarism
The acknowledgement of the sword of government in the context of Romans
13 is a recognition of the state’s obligation to maintain order and
defend its citizens against criminal activity. It is not promoting
militaristic ambition in the least. Here, I think it is fair to draw a
distinction between police responsibility and military domination. In
the case of Rome, the police and the army were one and the same. Paul
says that when the state uses force to punish someone for real criminal
behaviour, it is acting as a servant of the Lord.
Questions I would have which Paul does not seek to address here are:
(a.) What are the limitations of the states claim to bear God’s sword?
If such authority is unlimited, then Hitler did nothing wrong and no
one should have resisted him.
(b.) If limitations exist, what criteria for determine those
limitations? Maybe Paul tells us: when they are doing good, punishing
evil, and keeping order.
(c.) What are the criteria for resisting evil when the authorities
themselves are evil? Again, perhaps Paul tells us: we resist, not with
vengeance, but with kindness.
3. Paul’s historical context: The enigma of Paul
It is remarkable that Paul could have written these verses. For one, he
spent over half his missionary career in jail. When it came to sharing
the message of Jesus, he regularly did not submit to the authorities,
whether religious, civic, or federal. But, we might argue, this was
limited to the disobedience of sharing the gospel. Yes. And what is
more gospel than LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, do good to, pray for, and bless
those who use and abuse you? Indeed, on this basis, many early
Christians were imprisoned. They resisted the authority of the empire
and refused to join the army. So in these verses, I am noting that
Paul’s command here holds certain inherent limitations which he and his
followers recognized.
4. Paul’s historical context part 2: The enigma of Nero
Also amazing here is Paul’s endorsement of political authorities as
God’s servants of wrath to do good. He is speaking here in the context
of emperors like NERO, a lunatic who was absolutely no better than
Saddam or Hitler. Paul’s advice? Don’t resist them. Obey them. Submit
to them. They are God’s ministers! Wow. What is that about? Especially
when of all people, Nero did NOT do good to his citizens or uphold
justice. He was a vicious, violent psychopath who crucified many
innocent people.
I think we need to ask, not just "what is Paul saying?", but also,
"What is Paul doing?" Very much in line with Luke’s purposes in the
book of Acts, Paul may be pursuing two immediate political goals:
a. Both Paul and Luke went to great pains to convince the Romans that
the Christian’s were not a threat to the state–that the conflicts that
arose around him in every city were a religious issue. He wants to
assure the government that Christianity is a faith movement, not a
political uprising.
b. Paul warning the Christians in Rome not to join the violent radical
movements who were sick of Roman oppression. In other words, in Romans
12-13, the Romans are BOTH the enemies on whom they must not seek
vengeance AND the government that they should attempt to stay at peace
with–as far as possible. He is NOT writing a letter of endorsement for
the Empire or a recruitment tract for patriotic militarism. He IS
trying to do anything possible to prevent a bloodbath, either against
OR by the Christians in Rome.
5. The context of Christ’s instructions for all believers: I think we
must read Paul through Jesus, not visa versa. Christ is our final
authority at the end of the day and he addresses these issues to the
Governor Pontius Pilate.
John 19:10: So Pilate said to Him, "You do not speak to me? Do you not
know that I have authority to release you, and I have authority to
crucify You?"
11Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over me, unless it had
been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered me to you
has the greater sin."
12As a result of this Pilate made efforts to release Him, but the Jews cried out saying,
"If you release this man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king opposes Caesar."
In this context, we might ask what Jesus is doing and also what the author John is doing.
In Jesus case, he is simultaneously acknowledging Pilate’s God-given
authority as a political leader BUT NOT justifying his actions in that
role. In other words, YES, God alone gives you the right to bear the
sword (for this was a case of civil law and order as in Rom. 13), BUT
your use of the sword is still a sin. What you use (a cross, a cluster
bomb), how you use it (unjustly, oppressively, invasively), and on whom
you use it (the innocent, the weak) make you indictable even with your
God-badge of government on. Jesus reminds the governor that He serves a
higher authority—a reminder directed at us by John when he pens it.
Given that John wrote this gospel during the time of another oppressive
dictator-megalomaniac, the Jews’ cry in verse 12 is prophetic and true.
If Jesus is your King, you will find yourself in opposition to Caesar.
John is reminding the reader of this reality. This is not very Pauline,
but it is extremely Johannine.
Jesus provides even more context in Matthew’s gospel:
Matt 26:52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for
all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53Do you think I cannot
call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than
twelve legions of angels?
Others disagree, but I take Jesus’ words here as a direct command to
all who would be his disciples, and the first 300 years of church
history tell us that this is exactly how his disciples and their
disciples and so on understood it.
Yes, the government has the right to bear the sword. But if Matt. 26:52
is meant for more than Peter, as the church initially taught, then the
Christian does not. The Christian, according to Romans 13:12, bears the
armour of light and if they need armies, Jesus says the Father can and
will dispose legions of angels. When he does not, we can be sure that
it is a time to endure hardship, persecution, and the cross. There is
carnal warfare with carnal weapons and spiritual warfare with spiritual
weapons. The government uses the former to maintain law and order. The
church uses the latter to bring down strongholds.
This does not answer the question, "What if you are a Christian in the
military?" If the early church was wrong, and Christians can be in the
military, then perhaps it was because they give proper heed to the
argument from silence In John the Baptist’s and Jesus’ interactions
with soldiers. Neither Jesus nor John called them to abandon the
military. They were congratulated for their faith and told to act
justly in their roles. I can buy this and I can name good examples of
Christian soldiers and policemen who serve justly and I think
peaceably. Perhaps the issue in the early church was NOT military
service, but the emperor worship implicit in it. But given Jesus’
teachings on nonviolence, it is hard for me to conceive of someone who
takes seriously Jesus’ Way of Peace deploying weapons of mass
destruction for any nation. On the other hand, the domestic police who
are enforcing law and order have many options when dealing with a
variety of situations, and almost never need to resort to violence.
When they do so within the parameters of the law, perhaps Romans 13
grants accommodating grace from God.
If the Christian feels a call to military service, we should pause and
ask, who is making that call? If we say it is Jesus, this calls for an
extremely high standard of Christian behaviour in an age where most of
our military means are unjust and where failure to obey even unjust
commands is punished severely. E.g. those who believed the invasion of
Iraq was unjust (both in motive and means) and refused to go are
ridiculed and persecuted and arrested. When such is the case, should
Christians be joining such a system? When the military training itself
purposely dehumanizes both the recruit and the enemy, should we even be
entering such a boot camp?
e.g. 1
Retired U.S. Lt. Col. David Grossman, noted researcher in "killology",
writes that contemporary U.S. military training is schooling in
“brutalization … designed to break down your existing mores and norms
and to accept a new set of values that embrace destruction, violence,
and death as a way of life. In the end, you are desensitized to
violence and accept it as a normal and essential survival skill in your
brutal new world".
e.g. 2
US senators in the televised hearings charged
that the American guards in Abu Ghraib were in fact following R2I
("Resistance to Interrogation") military interrogation techniques.
6. The context of the whole New Testament: Romans 13 stands as an
important piece of the puzzle in our relationship with the government,
but it is also counter-balanced by other passages. As the Chinese
government has noticed, the book of Revelation is a subversive work
that is extremely anti-empire. The spiritual warfare of Revelation is
pitted against WHATEVER empire is currently demanding allegiance
(whether it is Babylon, Rome, the USSR, or the USA). "Jesus is Lord" is
a politico-spiritual slogan that intentionally resists the Roman’s
claim that "Caesar was Lord." So again, while John may have
acknowledged the right of nations to employ police and even standing
armies for the purpose of defence, he treated the desire to dominate
other nations into conformity and enforce global peace militarily as an
empirical act in direct competition with Christ’s claim to lordship
over His people. When states become empires, they demand a loyalty that
Christ does not allow the Christian, at least in the book of
Revelation.
7. International Police action: When nations or groups of nations
determine to be world-police, taking out other regimes and replacing
them with new systems, the book of Revelation again waves big flags.
However, let us suppose that God were to ordain even that under the
rubric of defending the oppressed and overthrowing the oppressor. After
all, God raised up unholy Babylon to destroy Jerusalem and take them
into captivity. He raised up pagan Cyrus as a servant of international
wrath..
HOWEVER, if God has now called the USA to use it’s responsibility as a
superpower to police rogue nations, I would at least expect the White
House to act In Romans 13 submission to international laws as well. A
policeman acting outside the law is not a policeman, but a vigilante or
a despot. Policemen must be authorized by a ruling authority. A
national policeman (like America) needs to be authorized by it’s ruling
authority (these days, the UN, which however ineffective or slow or
gutless, still claims authority by virtue of American membership on
it’s security council) and an international court that prosecutes war
crimes committed by its various policemen (these days, the War Crimes
group at the Hague).
I would wonder why a Christian president was NOT willing to apply
Romans 13 by submitting to the authorities with which the American
government aligns itself. By (a.) pressing ahead with the Iraq war when
the UN said it was illegal, and (b.) withdrawing from the war crimes
court for fear of having American soldiers indicted, and (c.) refusing
to enter international treaties banning creation, stockpiling, and
deployment of the ultra-brutal cluster bomb, would it not be fair to
critique America’s own roguishness? Can a Christian soldier serve in a
war that the UN calls illegal? Or serve in a military that refuses to
submit to the authorities that allegedly God has placed over them? Or
drop bombs that we know will scatter landmines over territories
occupied by civilian children?
Epilogue
Romans 13 indeed grants that the government has a God-given right to
bear the sword for the purpose of maintaining a just society. Paul
acknowledges the use of force to defend what is good and to bring
criminals to justice. However, we might acknowledge that in the context
of Romans, the New Testament, and first century politics, Christ’s own
call to nonviolence pre-empts us from reading into Paul a blanket
endorsement of the Empire’s authority or approval of militarism. In
fact, Romans 13 is an excellent example of a Christian peacemaker,
wisely sowing seeds of peace that provide a way through the minefield
of violence in an era of volatile Emperor and vengeful resistance
movements. The path that he takes us through is the path of the Prince
of Peace, overcoming evil with goodness, love, and a submissive heart.
In all of this, Paul is not contradicting the call to love one’s
enemies, but employing it faithfully during a boiling point in
political history.