Submission to Authorities

Thoughts on Romans 13:1-7

This chapter, specifically this portion of scripture is highly controversial. I was involved in the Libertarian “movement” that attempted to reinterpret this passage to justify their own purposes, specifically, not to pay taxes – simply because those in “authority” were not legitimate authorities. They were placed in positions of authority by illegal or unconstitutional means. Because of this, it is justifiable and morally right (so they say) to not only resist the governing authorities, but to outright rebel by refusing to pay taxes. But this is the same group that would legalize prostitution and drugs without taking a second thought about whether such practices are morally right or wrong. So there is little doubt in my mind, that whatever they say regarding the truths found in scripture, I take with a grain of salt. For scripture is used to serve their own selfish bent rather than intent to bend their will to the principles found therein. I care very little what non-believers think they know about scripture – the truth is that they stand in total ignorance because they do not know the Spirit of God. With this being said, I had written previously on this topic. I have found three papers I have written with titles such as: Thoughts on Civil Government written August of 2007; Christian Rights and Balance in Christian Living written in June of 2006 and Autobiography of My Life written in October of 2006. Several emails were written on the topic during this time as well because I, personally, struggled to make sense of Romans 13. One such email was to the Patriot Pastor Garrett Lear who said to me that there are answers to my questions – but he didn’t offer any. He offered nothing simply because there are no answers that would faithfully exegete Romans 13. I still believe that my essays on this subject treat this subject adequately. For instance I say in my Autobiography this: “So I would have to agree that what the scriptures emphasize in Romans 13 is obedience to government irregardless of whether or not they adhere to any set of rules, because all government is established by God and serves God’s purposes for the time in which they exist.” I also say shortly thereafter: “I am reminded that when Paul wrote these words in Romans, the empire was totalitarian in form. Yet we see Paul saying to submit and Peter in his letter to submit to all authority. We see the clear priority when it came to the Gospel presentation: Do not get mixed up with things that do not matter; become all things to everyone, so that someone might be saved; make every effort to live in peace with all men as much as it depends on you; and obey the government which God has established. I do not read anywhere a condition attached to these words like, “only if the government obeys the law as it is written.” Or, “obey if it is only a particular type of government that you like.” Nonsense!” I make this point in Christian Rights and Balance: “I need to submit to the governing authorities if what they ask of me does not hinder my worship of my Lord.” With my essay on Thoughts on Civil Government, I make this observation: “If government reflects the heart condition of the People, i.e. the more authoritarian regime the more immoral and godless the People, then a godly remnant would do good naturally – not needing the regulation imposed on his more uncivilized neighbor. But by the time the regulation is necessary and in place, the former Republic will have long been dead as it is today.” These two final quotes do not specifically address Romans 13. But they do speak to what Romans 13 does not say. Roman 13 does not say I should disobey if my taxes are raised without my consent or by arbitrary passage of law. Romans 13 does not say I should disobey if the form of government changes because most of the people need regulation. So what does Romans 13 say? It says simply in the first verse, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.” It does not qualify or define what is meant by “authorities” except to say what human government does as ordained by God. In other words, when Paul is explaining “authorities”, he is also explaining the proper function of human government for the subjugation of evil. It is interesting to note that this comes on the heels of chapter 12 verses 9 – 21. It follows purposefully. Why? Paul is not worried whether or not the governing authority is governing rightly so much as we, as Christians, are properly representing our Lord in the words and behavior we show. Jesus was crucified unjustly, yet he did not defend himself but let the will of God shine forth in his body. Now look at the second verse. We really need not go any further in defending our responsibility to obey regardless of whether or not we even have proper representation. Verse 2 simply states, “For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed…” If the powers that be are powers merely because they seized the throne unjustly, the fact is they wield enough power to command obedience. But in using scripture to justify disobedience we must find ourselves skipping over this portion of scripture. There is two ways to look at it. Either we mire ourselves down in words and meanings and definitions that only serve as justification for not obeying the governing authorities (by doing this we only prove to share in being just as arbitrary as those whom we accuse as being arbitrary in passing laws!) or we say that God is really not sovereign at all (which is ironic especially since the founders believed that God was sovereign over all his creation) because tyrannical officers short-circuit God’s will and justice by sabotaging due process, or some other such thing. Never could we ever entertain the thought that God has willed this evil thing to be! God forbid! This is not to say that we should protect ourselves against such things, but remember that God used evil nations to punish his people for their sin in times past. Why should we not think He wouldn’t do it again in ways we least expect him too?

There is something that must be kept in mind from chapter 12 that must be considered when Romans 13 is properly considered. I discussed it in Christian Rights and Balance in Christian Living. I said, “So the question out of necessity must be in the understanding of the factors above, how can a man live in the freedom that was once understood from a societal position as well as government to presently when the State has turned this understanding on its head? Is it right for one man to remove any vestige of State control if possible, in order to be free in the Constitutional sense once more? Can he benefit a society that now believes Constitutional mandates to be wrong? Suppose that man decides to take his findings to the public in order to benefit society? This is good, but what effect would there be when he’s labeled dissident. There wouldn’t be any good effect, save to a very small segment of society that believes as he believes. His witness would be very small indeed when all his neighbors also believe him to be wrong.” Paul discussed what he calls, ‘disputable matters’. This is an example of such unless and only if, government attempts to prevent us from worshiping Christ. No law could be passed that would prevent any true Christian from worshiping the Lord in the way he has been commanded. For my next blog I will continue to expound further on Romans 13 dispelling libertarian lies (as a matter of course) from the true meaning Paul intends.

-Joe