Sunday School Notes: Romans 13:2-3

² Such that the one resisting the authority is opposing the ordinance of God, and those who oppose will receive judgment on themselves. ³ For rulers are not [a cause for] fear for good work but for bad. So if you don’t want to be afraid of the authority, do good, and you will have praise from them.

In verse 1, Paul established that every person is to be subject to the ruling authorities, that there is ultimately no higher authority than God, and that those authorities that exist are there, not merely because God allows them to be there, but because He ordains that they exist. Just as with Pharaoh, God raises up authority, and gives every authority the power it has, in order to accomplish His purpose in the world. The correct Christian response to such authority is not to rebel against it, but to submit to it.

Paul goes on to draw the logical conclusion of this: if you are opposing God’s appointed authority, you are opposing the very ordinance of God. You are, in essence, saying God was wrong to put that person, or that government, in power. To rebel against an authority is to rebel against God’s wisdom and to question God’s justice and goodness–in essence, it’s tantamount to rebellion against God. And that will not go unpunished.

A lot of questions come to mind with passages like this, some of which we started discussing last time. What if the ruling authority is not beneficent? What if it’s a Hitler, a Taliban, a Kim Jong-un, or a Saddam Hussein? It’s hard to accept the idea that these people rule with the authority of God, and that they should have the obedience and submission of the people they are ruling–and often oppressing. Are we to say these leaders shouldn’t be opposed, even if they abuse the authority God has granted to them? And what if the “good” you are doing is not recognized by the governing authorities? Even in Western democracies there are ideas and practices that have the legal protection of the government that Christians oppose. Is this saying Christians need to keep quiet and submit respectfully?

Last time, I drew a distinction–which I believe has biblical support–between obedience and submission. Obedience would mean doing everything the authority asks without question. Submission means recognizing and respecting the power given to the ruling authority by God, but where the authority comes into conflict with God or conscience (that is, conscience as it is convicted by the Spirit of God), then the Christian can respectfully disobey. Submission is then expressed by accepting whatever punishment the authority wishes to exact upon the Christian for his or her disobedience, remembering that the authority has the power of the sword (v. 4)–which is also God-given. This is not to say that God endorses every rule or judgment of the authority, but that rulers have a God-given right to rule and punish. We fall under the judgment of God for disobeying; but the ruling authority will also be judged by God for every abuse of its power. The judgment against the disobedient may be in the form of “the sword” as the ruler exercises judgment. Or it may be “eschatological”–that is, something reserved for the End Times, the final judgment. Likewise with God’s judgment on unjust rulers–He may bring a nation against them (e.g., Israel and the Assyrians, or Judah and Babylon), or use some other means to bring them to account now, or He may wait until Christ’s return. Either way, ultimate justice will be done. (Side note: this is, at heart, the message of Revelation, I think.)

What is the correct response of Christians to unjust government? Is it ever right for Christians to try to bring down a government? Think of the attempt by some within Germany to assassinate Hitler, or the recent uprisings in the Middle East. Some might even point to the colonial rebellion that brought about the United States of America. In Western democracies, we are blessed with systems of government that allow for legal challenges to the governing authorities by means of the ballot box. Every so often, we have the power to vote and, as a nation, give sanction to, or oppose those that rule. If sufficient people object to the current government, it steps down, and the preferred government takes its place. Of course, as our societies wander further away from the Lord, the governments chosen by the people are less likely to be God-honoring, and Christians will increasingly have to object to rules enacted by these governments. Nevertheless, there is, by God’s grace, opportunity within these systems for Christians to influence thinking and policy, and use legitimate means for promoting the cause of Christ.

This is not the case, however, in too many other countries, where dissenting opinion is oppressed, and authorities rule by dictatorship, without election–or by elections that are rigged. It’s worth noting, I think, that for the whole time the church was under persecution–up until Constantine became Emperor and declared Christianity a legal religion (313 AD)–not once was there a popular uprising of Christians against the Romans. Christians continued to meet, to copy the Scriptures, to preach, and to face the Arena, the crucifix, the stake, or the axe, without complaint. Although it can’t be historically substantiated, it’s possible one of the things that moved Constantine to convert–or at least to recognize Christianity–was the attitude of the Christians. That they respected the authorities, but clearly loved God more, and were prepared to suffer whatever punishment the government deemed appropriate for their civil disobedience, when government legislation conflicted with biblical mandate and God-given conviction. It’s not without precedent for a ruler’s heart to be turned (by God, of course) after witnessing such dedication. Nebuchadnezzer’s reaction to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego’s punishment in the furnace, for example, or Darius’ decree following Daniel’s submission to the lion’s den. Granted, these men were supernaturally protected in the midst of their trials, but it was the glorification of God in the midst of this that was compelling. And God is equally glorified in the life-giving submission of the martyr. So it seems that Paul, and the rest of Scripture, is on the side of a sort of non-aggressive, submissive rebellion. But is there a place for active rebellion against an evil government? This is not a question we really covered this week, so I’m going to leave it open for now. Perhaps we’ll talk about it again in weeks to come. Feel free to offer suggestions in the comments as to how a Christian could support biblically (bearing in mind all that Paul says in Romans 13) an active, aggressive, rebellion against one’s governing authorities.

In verse 3, Paul makes the point that those who do good have nothing to fear from the governing authorities. The NASB presents the idea as a question: “Do you want to have no fear of authority?” But the Greek could easily be a conditional statement: “If you don’t want to fear the authority…” Most of the time, ruling authorities have no problem with people who refrain from murder, theft, fraud, and other activities commonly seen to be harmful to society. The fact that these are God-given rules, sown into our hearts from creation, is irrelevant to them. But there are other God-given rules they don’t regard with the same attitude (e.g., idolatry, keeping the Lord’s Day, adultery, etc.), though in many societies these are not prohibited. The point is that for the Christian, doing good (recognizing that by “good” we mean good as God defines it) will not harm the Christian, and, indeed, might win the Christian favor from the ruling authorities. It seems there was a practice among the Romans to maintain and display a list of city “benefactors”–those recognized for doing public good that benefits the citizens. I think Paul would actively encourage Christians to get on that list. Not to seek the praise of men, however, but for the testimony of the grace of God in their lives that could come with that kind of recognition (see 1 Peter 2:12). God is honored when we do good, and, as Peter puts it, it is God’s will that “by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men” (1 Peter 2:15).

But if the authorities don’t recognize the good you do as good (e.g., preaching the gospel), that doesn’t mean you stop. If the authorities have no problem with it–they just don’t encourage it–then you can still be a “good citizen” while obeying the Lord. If, however, this good work is punished by the government, then our Scriptural response is to continue to honor God, and to suffer the consequences. Again, Peter addresses this: “If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler; but if [anyone suffers] as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name” (1 Peter 4:14-16 NASB). I would, therefore, take Paul’s words in Romans 13:3 to be a general principle which, for the most part, holds true. I don’t think Paul was ignorant of the fact that government is not always friendly toward those who obey God’s standard of good. But I think Paul’s main purpose here is to undermine any ideas that Christians are free to rebel against their God-appointed rulers.

We’ll begin with verse 4 next time.