# Romans 13 and Submission



## Heldveld (Jul 25, 2008)

> Romans 13
> Submission to the Authorities
> 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.



In verse three we are told 'rulers hold no terror for those do right'. Now peaching the gospel would be something that is right, but many today and through out history, including Paul (Acts 13:50), experience persecution for doing right. It seems obvious that rulers do not always 'commend' Christians for doing what is right. 

How are we to understand this passage?

Thanks for your insights.


----------



## Wannabee (Jul 25, 2008)

What is it to "hold terror" for something?


----------



## Heldveld (Jul 25, 2008)

> What is it to "hold terror" for something?



While my guess would be to be afraid of it as Paul's next question is "Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority?" While Matthew 10:28 tells us not to be afraid of "he who can kill the body", doesn't v4 "For he is God's servant to do you good" seem to indicate there is something more 'earthly' to this passage?


----------



## R Harris (Jul 25, 2008)

Heldveld said:


> > What is it to "hold terror" for something?
> 
> 
> 
> While my guess would be to be afraid of it as Paul's next question is "Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority?" While Matthew 10:28 tells us not to be afraid of "he who can kill the body", doesn't v4 "For he is God's servant to do you good" seem to indicate there is something more 'earthly' to this passage?



Gary, love your avatar - that is classic!

Numerous threads have already been given to the civil magistrate / Romans 13 type issues. I engaged in one a few weeks ago, and quit it due to frustration.

What frustrates me? The fact that this is called the "puritanboard," yet very few know what the Puritans/Covenanters/Huguenots/Genevans believed about civil government.

What did they believe? Again, research the threads, but they certainly did not hold that Romans 13 is teaching blind obedience to every government that comes down the pike. Actually they believed that Romans 13:1-7 is God's _design_ for civil government - and that every evil ruler is in reality a usurper of God's granted authority. Now, _how to resist_ this authority is a whole different question.

Daniel Ritchie, who in the past has been a frequent contributor to this board, has written a massive 700+ page book dealing with all aspects of the civil magistrate.

BTW, I have not seen Daniel posting recently. Anyone know where he has been?


----------



## moral necessity (Jul 25, 2008)

I think it refers to a general doing of what is right as to how one conducts himself in society. Those who are honorable and follow the rules, and do what is good for their neighbors and society will generally be commended by the authorities.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 25, 2008)

Heldveld said:


> In verse three we are told 'rulers hold no terror for those do right'. Now peaching the gospel would be something that is right, but many today and through out history, including Paul (Acts 13:50), experience persecution for doing right. It seems obvious that rulers do not always 'commend' Christians for doing what is right.
> 
> How are we to understand this passage?
> 
> Thanks for your insights.




Gary,

Excellent question! I do a sunday school every October called "Reformation and Resistance". I'll see if I can find my notes, and I'll send them to you. Included are the Dutch Declaration of Independence, the Lutheran Magdeberg Bektensis, the Puritan Justification for Taking up Arms, and the American Declaration of Independence. Each of these argues from Romans 13 to show that we must resist tyrants, while we must submit to lawful authority.

Paul says that the power is ordained *by* God. The Greek term is not "dia" as by God's agency, but "hupah", as in *directly under* God. This is why Paul's description of a lawful magistrate includes the "terror to evil" and "praise for those doing well". When a magistrate doesn't do this, he is (to borrow from Magdeberg) "the very devil himself". In fact, if you look at the bible's description of the wicked rules of the world, they are called Dragons, Serpents, Sea Monsters, etc. See, for instance, the descriptions of Egypt by the name "Rahab", which was a dangerous sea monster.

Does God tell us to submit to the devil, or to resist him? It's a pretty simple answer. Why then does John in Revelation call the Roman empire a beast, very similar to the description he gives of the devil himself? Tyrants are not ordained by God, they are Christ's enemies, and He promises to dash them to pieces with a rod of iron (Psalm 2). He has also armed lesser magistrates to resist them.

Here are some useful links:

Beza's work on the subject:
Theodore Beza - The Right of Magistrates Over Their Subjects

Dutch Declaration:
Modern History Sourcebook: The Dutch Declaration of Independence, 1581

Magdeburg:
magdeburg.html

Puritan:
decparliament.html

More could be said. Lex Rex, from the Westminster Assembly's famed Scottish delegate, Samuel Rutherford, should also be reviewed in this regard.

Godspeed,

Adam


----------



## Jon Peters (Jul 25, 2008)

Adam,

When may we resist under your view of Rom. 13, practically speaking? In other words, what specific action must a government do or fail to do that would give us the right to resist?

Thanks.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 25, 2008)

Jon Peters said:


> Adam,
> 
> When may we resist under your view of Rom. 13, practically speaking? In other words, what specific action must a government do or fail to do that would give us the right to resist?
> 
> Thanks.



Very practical question.

First, I would want to state that I see different spheres having different thresholds for when resistance is appropriate, and what courses they may lawfully take. The family, for instance, has been entrusted with the care, education, and nurturing of children. When some other sphere seeks to usurp the family's role, the household has a right to resist. I don't think the family is given the "power of the sword", but I do believe that they should take all lawful measures to avoid or resist. Steps that I would recommend, in certain instances, would be avoiding birth certificates and SSNs for children, refusing to register them with the state (as if the state were custodian), and other such things. 

As for the lower magistrate, he may resist with the power of the sword should a higher magistrate seek to impose anything contrary to God's law. The magistrate is God's deacon, and therefore must do God's bidding:

"The powers that be are ordained of God to protect the good and punish the bad (Romans 13), but if they start to persecute the good, they are no longer ordained of God. There are to be sure degrees of tyranny and if a magistrate makes unjust war upon his subjects contrary to his plighted oath, they may resist, though they are not commanded to do so by God. But if a ruler is so demented as to attack God, then he is the very devil who employs mighty potentates in Church and State. When, for example, a prince or an emperor tampers with marriage against the dictates of natural law, then in the name of natural law and Scripture he may be resisted."

From the Magdeburg Confession

I tend to agree with this, in that once God's definition of good and evil are set aside, there is a duty to resist. Not at every drop of a hat, but with patient pleading, and seeking redress. This would be a form of resistance as well. The most extreme form being taking up the sword.

John Ponet argues that the case of Eglon proves that killing a tyrant is lawful(A Short Treatise on Political Power), and I tend to agree, but consider it a last-measure. Such as was done to Charles 1 by Parliament.

So a direct answer would be that a tyrant may be resisted when he calls good evil and evil good. Then he is a "dragon" rather than a deacon of God.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## JohnGill (Jul 25, 2008)

From what I've learned of the passage, Christians are required to obey those laws of the government which are in harmony with the principles of the laws of God revealed in scripture. Another good book on the subject is Lex Rex by Samuel Rutherford which is available throughout online.

If a government decides it is a crime to preach from the pulpit against homosexuality and bestiality, then a Christian pastor must decide either to ignore this law and obey God or obey the state which thinks it is God. 

In Acts 5 we see how this is to be worked out.

Here is what the high priest said:

Act 5:27, 28 And when they had brought them, they set [them] before the council: and the high priest asked them, Saying, *Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.*

When it comes to the reason for disobeying the government the Bible gives the example of Peter and the apostles:

Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

And later in the chapter:

Act 5:40-42 And to him (Gamaliel) they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten [them], they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. *And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.*

But if the state is obeying God as it should and commands the death penalty for homosexuality and bestiality, then any "Christian" pastor who preaches against it is in the wrong.

As to "not a terror to good works, but to evil", a Christian would seek to obey God's laws out of gratitude to what Christ has done for him. (HC LD 31-52) Under a government operating according to the principles of God's laws, no Christian would have anything to fear. If any evil did befall him, he could appeal to the vengeance of God, which is the magistrate. But if he did commit a crime he would have that of which to fear, " the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil," which is the civil magistrate. (Psalm 2:9-12)


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 25, 2008)

R Harris said:


> What frustrates me? The fact that this is called the "puritanboard," yet very few know what the Puritans/Covenanters/Huguenots/Genevans believed about civil government.



Amen! I strongly encourage readers to acquaint themselves with the Reformed confessions on this subject as well as other similar resources below:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f33/reformed-confessions-catechisms-civil-magistrate-collated-6132/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f33/bibliography-civil-magistrate-6446/



Christusregnat said:


> Here are some useful links:
> 
> Beza's work on the subject:
> Theodore Beza - The Right of Magistrates Over Their Subjects
> ...



Very good, Adam, well said. BTW, it is worth noting that July 26 is the anniversary of the Dutch Declaration of Independence (1581). Here are a few similar resources that I have posted on the Puritan Board before:

http://www.puritanboard.com/local_links.php?catid=20&linkid=382

http://www.puritanboard.com/local_links.php?catid=20&linkid=379

http://www.puritanboard.com/local_links.php?catid=20&linkid=484

http://www.puritanboard.com/local_links.php?catid=20&linkid=373

http://www.puritanboard.com/local_links.php?catid=20&linkid=375

http://www.puritanboard.com/local_links.php?catid=20&linkid=374


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 28, 2008)

Moving back to an NT Epistles. 

NB.Thou shalt not devolve into a discussion of the American Revolution, or it will go back to P&G. 

And yes; Daniel is suspended. If you "need" to know more PM an Administrator.


----------

