How Do Christians Understand & Apply Romans 13 – A Controversial Scripture.

Romans 13 and the Limits of submission to the Church or State                   by Jack Kettler

The following essay will touch on the issue of submission to the State or Church. It will be argued that there are limits to submission to both entities in the created order. Are the Church co-equal in God’s created order? Is the State above the Church or visa versa?

In Scripture, there are commands to submit to the State, (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14), and Church (Matthew 18:15–17; 1 Timothy 5:19; Hebrews 13:17).

Are these commands absolute?

Starting with the Church:

In Hebrews, 13:17 says, “Obey your leaders and submit to them…” Church membership vows show the seriousness of this.

For example, in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) membership vow number five says:

“Do you submit yourself to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?”

The Marks of a True Church:

·         The gospel is preached

·         The sacraments are administered biblically

·         Church discipline practiced

If the Church fails in these three, Church members must follow the process outlined in Matthew 18:15-17 to resolve disputes. If the Church’s is unfaithful to the above bullet points, members are freed from their vows and can conclude that the said Church is no longer the Church, and may depart.

On a much larger scale, this is what happened in the Protestant Reformation. Therefore, it must be admitted that there are limits to submission to a Church. The Church may cease to be the Church because of apostasy. For example, there is the Church of Thyatira that tolerated apostasy in Revelation 2:18-29.

Now to consider the State:

Principally, Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14 are the key texts that require submission to State authority.

“1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.” (Romans 13:1-7)

God ordains the State like the Church, and submission is required. Does this section in Romans 13 require Christians to submit to totalitarian Nazi-like governments? If so, does this mean Christians must turn their Jewish neighbors over to the authorities? If the passage teaches this, it seems to end up in contradiction to other passages like “Love Your Neighbor as Yourself” (Mark 12:31). Turning a neighbor over to psychotic Nazi Gestapo killers is not loving them. If a representative of the State rapes or murders someone, are these same representatives immune from prosecution?

In Romans 13:7 of the text, it says “all their dues…” Is the word “due” a subtle qualifier? Were Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot “due” honor? These named leaders came into power via revolution, and political subterfuge.

Is this section of Romans a complete treatise on civil government? Does this passage allow for the development of democratic forms of government influenced by the whole orb of biblical teaching and mechanisms that hold representatives of the State accountable and liable to prosecution for crimes committed by them? Does theology stop at this point in redemptive history? This question is not about an open canon. It is about the application of Scripture-based upon a greater knowledge of the whole of Scripture.

In verse 4 of Romans 13, the duties of the State are seen, namely “to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Verse 6 says, “…for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.”

Marks of the God-ordained State:

·         God’s ministers are ordained and not a terror to good works.

·         Continual executing wrath against evildoers.

·         Because of fear of God’s ministers, evil is deterred.

Evil must be defined biblically, or the word evil is arbitrary has no meaning. In the present-day, are representatives of a State a terror to good works or not? Is the State continually attending to executing wrath against evildoers? Is evil dissuaded or encouraged by these rulers. Have State representatives become a terror to good works? If Romans 13:1-7 teach unlimited submission to the State, this is a perfect proof text for the divine right of Kings.

What if the State stops executing wrath against evildoers and turns its guns on the Church becoming a terror to Christ’s Church, verse 3? Verses four and six spell out specific duties of government ministers. It must be concluded that Roman 13:1-7 does not require unlimited to the State any more than to the Church. The bullet points of the State’s responsibility are qualifiers like those that the Church has.

State power is not unlimited any more than Church power is:

Can the State fail like a Church?  If so, does this free a citizen from a pledge of unlimited submission? If the State can fail like an apostate Church, a citizen, and more importantly, a true Church of Christ must have recourse to address or ignore a Statist decree when the State is no longer fulfilling its duty as a punisher of evildoers. If a Statist decree is based upon a provable lie, must a Christian submit? If living under a monarchy, waiting for the next election will not work.

There are tensions and potential conflicts between Romans 13:1-7 and Acts 5:29. As asked previously, is Romans 13:1-7 absolute and a treatise on Church, State, and the individual’s relations with the State? Do these texts from Daniel and Acts contradict Roman 13? If not, then there is biblical precedent for rejecting the unlimited submission view to the State.

In the Old Testament, there was the prophet, priest, and king. These offices were combined and fulfilled in the person of Lord Jesus Christ. God’s governing power was separated in the Old Testament. In the New Testament revelation, the Church of Christ is given far more prominence than the State. Yet, based upon one section of Scripture in Romans 13, the State is elevated above the Church, and the Church is to submit without question.

Examples from history:

In Scotland, John Knox challenged the civil authorities’ influenced by the corrupt Church of his day by holding services on weekdays to counter what the Romanist priests spoke about on Sundays. His rebuke to England in (1554) led to the development in theology known as resistance to tyrants. He defended the right and duty of the common people to resist if State officials ruled contrary to Scripture. Knox even said, “Resistance to tyranny is a duty to God.” It seems that Knox is in conflict with Romans 13 if an unlimited view of submission to the government is taken. If there are limits on the application to Romans 13, then Knox was justified. If not, then Knox is wrong and must be judged as misinterpreting Scripture.

The Calvinist Connection by David Kopel”

To understand why they were so comfortable with revolution, it helps to look at the origins of Calvinist resistance theory, from its tentative beginnings with Calvin himself, to its full development a few decades later.

Born in 1509, John Calvin was a small child in France when the Reformation began. By 1541, he had been invited to take permanent refuge in Geneva, which provided a safe haven for the rest of his life. Geneva was a walled city, and constantly threatened by the Catholic Duke of Savoy and others. Pacifism was never a realistic option for Calvin, or any of the Swiss Protestants.

Calvin always believed that governments should be chosen by the people. He described the Hebrews as extremely foolish for jettisoning their free government and replacing it with a hereditary monarchy. He also came to believe that kings and princes were bound to their people by covenant, such as those that one sees in the Old Testament.

In Calvin’s view, which was based on Romans 13, the governmental duties of “inferior magistrates” (government officials, such as mayor or governors, in an intermediate level between the king and the people) required them to protect the people against oppression from above. Calvinism readily adopted the Lutheran theory of resistance by such magistrates.

In a commentary on the Book of Daniel, Calvin observed that contemporary monarchs pretend to reign “by the grace of God,” but the pretense was “a mere cheat” so that they could “reign without control.” He believed that “Earthly princes depose themselves while they rise up against God,” so ‘it behooves us to spit upon their heads than to obey them.’”

 See the link below for Kopel’s complete essay.

 Is Calvin, when saying, “…it behooves us to spit upon their heads than to obey them” in violation of Romans 13? Calvin must be understood in the context of this saying his doctrine of the civil magistrates and separation of powers of the magistrates. Calvin’s view of the separation of powers is also seen in his view of the Church government, which likewise separates Church power.

 The Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, theologically, are historical examples of God-given rights to the individual.

 From the Library of Congress:

 Despite this development in the area of civil rights, according to some and their interpretation of Romans 13, the Magna Carta, American War for Independence, and the Bill of Rights never should have happened or only did so in violation of Romans 13.

 “Sphere Sovereignty” a solution:

 Sphere sovereignty (Dutch: souvereiniteit in eigen kring), also known as differentiated responsibility, is the concept that each sphere (or sector) of life has its own distinct responsibilities and authority or competence, and stands equal to other spheres of life. – Wikipedia

 Is Abraham Kuyper’s “Sphere Sovereignty,” which involves separate sphere for the Church, State, Family, and Work Biblical? If so, can “sphere sovereignty,” resolve the conflict between present-day God-ordained institutions?

 Present-day Church/State relations:    

 Currently, there is a purported virus pandemic. In the United States, some individual states have locked down Churches from holding worship services and placed stringent rules to be followed subject to threats of fines and imprisonment.

 Under the guise of the pandemic, the State has moved against the Church in an unprecedented way in some of these United States to restrict the Church from its activities, including weddings, funerals, communion services, and baptisms. In some States, congregants are urged to wear masks and not get to close to each other. Unknown faceless health experts limit the number of congregants permitted to attend Church.

 If John Calvin’s view of differing levels and separation of powers in the magistrates is right, Christians can dispute a lower magistrate by appealing to a higher power. In States that have overreached into Church affairs, legal action should be taken against the State. The application of these alleged pandemic rules vary from State to State, are inconsistent and discriminatory.

 Are there limits on the local State and Federal State?

 Can a State tax the Church? Does Romans 13:1-7 sanction a tax by the State upon the Church? Can a State ban particular food like pork from a Church dinner under the guise of good health or not offending Muslims? Can a State prohibit congregants from carrying concealed firearms to Church? Can a State forbid the Church to teach that homosexuality is a sin? Can a State require congregants to dress in clown costumes at Church because people wearing clown costumes have not contracted a virus at the same rate as others in society?

 In conclusion:

 Romans 13:1-7 is not an end-all debate treatise on the power of the State. The passage allows for doctrinal impute from other Scriptures, especially as States influenced by Christianity emerged in history. This means that the doctrine of accountability or liability applies to the State as well as the Church. Both the State and the Church can fail.

 There is not unlimited immunity for either sphere. A priest who molests a child can be prosecuted, as well as a civil magistrate who commits the same crime, can also be. The examples of John Knox and John Calvin cannot be ignored. If Knox was justified in his description of Queen Mary as a monstrous woman tyrant, it could be concluded that a civil magistrate may also be.

 Romans 13:1-7 cannot be exegeted in isolation, it must be qualified in some sense. The Exegesis of Romans 13:1-7 must not be apart from the totality of Scripture. If it is, then obey the Roman emperor Nero and Adolph Hitler and their likes at all times. In light of the totality of Scripture the believer is not required such submission.

 “We must obey God rather than men!” (Acts 5:29)

 “To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)