Romans 13 and the Limits of
submission to the Church or Stateby
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.
Considering the Romans 13
text:
“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. It is
true that no one rules without God’s
providential control. It is also true that
even a corrupt government is better than
complete anarchy.
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 the
development of 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 more excellent
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? In
chapter three, Daniel and his friends chose
God over the Babylonian tyrants. 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.
Nevertheless, based upon one section of
Scripture in Romans 13, the State is elevated
above the Church, and the Church is to submit
without question. This could be described as
the superiority of the State over the Church
doctrine. If this is true, what happened to
the crown rights of the Lord Jesus Christ?
Examples from history:
In Scotland, John Knox challenged
the civil authorities’ who were 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,” from the
Independence Institute:
“In the American
colonies, the hotbed of revolution was New
England, where the people were mainly
Congregationalists--descendants of the
Calvinist English Puritans. The Presbyterians,
a Calvinist sect, which originated in
Scotland, were spread all of the colonies, and
the network of Presbyterian ministers provided
links among them. The Congregationalist and
Presbyterian ministers played an indispensible
role in inciting the American Revolution.
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 that the
individual possesses recognized by the State.
From the Library of
Congress:
“[The] Magna
Carta exercised a strong influence both on the
United States Constitution and on the
constitutions of the various states. However,
its influence was shaped by what
eighteenth-century Americans believed Magna
Carta to signify. Magna Carta was widely held
to be the people’s reassertion of rights
against an oppressive ruler, a legacy that
captured American distrust of concentrated
political power. In part because of this
tradition, most of the state constitutions
included declarations of rights intended to
guarantee individual citizens a list of
protections and immunities from the state
government. The United States also adopted the
Bill of Rights, in part, due to this political
conviction.”
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 a 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 anunprecedented 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 unelected 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.
In Colorado, for example, Pot shops were
deemed essential, and Church services were
not. Pot shops remained open, and Church
services were canceled.
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 yearly virus or flue at the same
rate as others in society?
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. 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
interpreted 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. As will be seen, there are other
Scriptural considerations that limit the
divine right of Kings’ interpretation of
Romans 13. In light of the totality of
Scripture, the believer is not required such
absolute submission to the State, and neither
is the Church.
Francis Schaeffer: A
Christian Manifesto; Chapter 7: The
Limits of Civil Obedience
Thinking
to the bottom line:
1.
What is the final relationship to the state on
the part of anyone whose base is the existence
of God? Those in our present material-energy,
chance oriented generation have no reason to
obey the state except that the state has the
guns and has the patronage.
2.
Has God set up an authority in the state that
is autonomous from Himself?
God
has ordained the state as a delegated
authority; it is not autonomous. Romans
13:1-4; 1 Peter 2:13-17 [Comment: Sovereignty
(ultimate authority) is an inescapable
concept. Autonomy is the view that man is
either above the law or lives apart from it.]
Historical
examples of civil disobedience by
Christians:
1.
William Tyndale, the English translator of the
Bible, was condemned as a heretic, tried and
executed in 1536.
2.
John Bunyan, a Nonconformist clergyman who was
arrested for preaching without a license and
failing to attend the Church of England, wrote
Pilgrim's Progress in his jail cell.
In
almost every place where the Reformation had
success, there was some form of civil
disobedience or armed rebellion:
1.
Spanish Netherlands: Battle of Leyden, 1574
[The Dutch led by William the Silent won their
independence as the United States of the
Netherlands].
2.
Sweden: Gustavus Vasa broke Sweden off from
Denmark and established the Lutheran church in
1527.
3.
Denmark: The Protestant party of the nobility
overthrew the Catholic dynasty in 1536.
4.
Germany: Martin Luther was protected by the
Duke of Saxony against the political and
military power of Charles V, the Holy Roman
Emperor. The Peace of Augsburg of 1555
established the ruler's religion in the German
states. The Counter-Reformation led to the
Thirty Years War. The Peace of Westphalia
(1648) ratified the Peace of Augsburg.
5.
Switzerland: Cantons established Protestantism
by vote of the community.
6.
Scotland: John Knox openly defied the
authorities by holding services on weekdays to
refute what the priests preached on Sundays.
His Admonition to England (1554) developed a
theology of resistance to tyranny. He upheld
the right and duty of the common people to
resist if state officials ruled contrary to
the Bible. [“Resistance to tyrants is
obedience to God”](1)
Also:
The notes in the 1559 Geneva
Bible said Kings were not to be obeyed if they
violated God’s law.
For example, the margin
notes for Daniel 6:22 imply that the King’s
commands are to be disobeyed if they
conflict with the law of God:
“For he [Daniel]
disobeyed the king’s wicked commandment in
order to obey God, and so he did no injury to
the king, who ought to command nothing by
which God would be dishonored.” (2)
If the State, by its actions,
declares itself God, is submission (Romans
13:1-7) still required? If so, would not
submission be breaking the commandment against
worshiping false gods?
“If there is no final place for
civil disobedience, then the government has
been made autonomous, and as such, it has been
put in the place of the living God.” - Francis
A. Schaeffer
The Ninth Commandment:
How is law broken? Those who
conceal the truth or openly lie, who formulate
a conspiracy, or who spin the truth violate
this commandment.
The Westminster larger
catechism:
Q. 145. What are the sins
forbidden in the ninth commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the
ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the
truth, and the good name of our neighbours, as
well as our own,[864] especially
in public judicature;[865]giving
false evidence,[866] suborning
false witnesses,[867] wittingly
appearing and pleading for an evil cause,
outfacing and overbearing the truth;[868] passing
unjust sentence,[869] calling
evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked
according to the work of the righteous, and
the righteous according to the work of the
wicked;[870]forgery,[871] concealing
the truth, undue silence in a just cause,[872] and
holding our peace when iniquity calleth for
either a reproof from ourselves,[873] or
complaint to others;[874] speaking
the truth unseasonably,[875] or
maliciously to a wrong end,[876] or
perverting it to a wrong meaning,[877] or
in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the
prejudice of truth or justice;[878] speaking
untruth,[879] lying,[880] slandering,[881] backbiting,[882] detracting,
tale bearing,[883] whispering,[884] scoffing,[885] reviling,[886]rash,[887] harsh,[888] and
partial censuring;[889] misconstructing
intentions,
words, and actions;[890] flattering,[891] vain-glorious
boasting;[892] thinking
or speaking too highly or too meanly of
ourselves or others;[893] denying
the gifts and graces of God;[894] aggravating
smaller faults;[895] hiding,
excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called
to a free confession;[896] unnecessary
discovering of infirmities;[897] raising
false rumors,[898]receiving and
countenancing evil reports,[899] and
stopping our ears against just defense;[900] evil
suspicion;[901] envying
or grieving at the deserved credit of any,[902] endeavoring
or desiring to impair it,[903] rejoicing
in their disgrace and infamy;[904]scornful
contempt,[905] fond
admiration;[906] breach
of lawful promises;[907] neglecting
such things as are of good report,[908] and
practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not
hindering what we can in others, such things
as procure an ill name.[909]
Believing a lie is a sin. God
says, “I hate and detest falsehood.” (Psalm
119:163) The catechism speaks of “receiving
and countenancing evil reports.” Receiving or
believing a lie is a violation of the
commandment and applies to both theological
and political lies.
Theological and Political
lies:
Teaching the Arian or Polytheism
doctrines, which are lies, is sin. Believing
these lies is sinful also. Politicians
routinely speak lies when advocating the
redistributing income from one group of
citizens to another or promoting sexual
deviancy in government indoctrination centers,
i.e., public schools.
Not only is it a sin to teach and
speak political lies, but it is also a sin to
believe political heresies under the ninth
commandment. Lies are lies. Teaching and
believing lies are breaking the commandment.
The ninth commandment has both a positive and
a negative aspect to it.
“Thou shall not lie,” the ninth
commandment and “We must obey God rather than
men!” (Acts 5:29)
This means when wicked rulers
commanded believers to violate God’s law,
believers must follow God and are free from
unlimited submission. In addition, with the
Bible in their hand, believers can call
political leaders to repentance.
In
conclusion:
Theological
lies and political lies are both lies.
The elders of the Church must protect the
flock from lies from arising within the
Church, and State. Exposing theological lies
can be technical. The same is true
with political lies like stealing from your
neighbors or the advocacy of baby
killing, i.e., abortion. The standard for
exposing lies are the Scriptures.
Therefore, Church leaders, just
as well as Political leaders, are not due
unlimited submission.
If this is not true, then be the
first on your block to turn in your Jewish or
other politically incorrect neighbors. Stop
homeschooling your children. Turn them over to
the State for indoctrination into abominable
sexual practices. Be sure to line up your
children to get the latest vaccines derived
from aborted fetal stem cell lines along with
a good combination of toxic metals. If
absolute submission were what must be
followed, many of our fellow citizens would
still be slaves according to race.
“To God, only wise, be glory
through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans
16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.”
(Galatians 3:28-29)
Notes:
1.Francis Schaeffer: Vol. 5, A
Christian Manifesto; Chapter 7: The Limits of
Civil Obedience, (Westchester, Illinois,
Crossway Books), pp. 467-474.
2.Vishal
Mangalwadi, The Book
That Made Your World: How the Bible Created
the Soul of Western Civilization,
(Nashville, TN, Thomas Nelson), 156.
Mr. Kettler has previously
published articles in the Chalcedon
Report and Contra
Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the
Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is
the author of the book defending the Reformed
Faith against attacks, titled: The
Religion That Started in a Hat.
Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
For more study:
Romans 13: Reading an Abused Text
of Scripture Rightly
https://www.joshuapsteele.com/romans-13/
The Biblical Doctrine of
Government by R. J. Rushdoony
https://chalcedon.edu/magazine/the-biblical-doctrine-of-government
The Calvinist Connection by Dave
Kopel
http://davekopel.org/Religion/Calvinism.htm