Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. There fore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.Romans 13:1-8 (NAS)
Introduction
Authority is one of the bases of human relations and human action. Whether we like it or not, we all submit to authority at given times. When we are kids, we submit to the authority of our parents. We learn from our teachers (sometimes voluntary, other times not so), we listen to what people have to say and submit our mind to theirs if we deem them worthy. We all also submit generally to some form of State. There are two very different forms of authority in this regard then, there is the voluntary authority, and coercive authority. This stance address both aspects and how I think that Romans 13 fits into this.
Stance Summary
To be frank, either Paul is talking about submitting to all authority; as the English translation seems to imply, or he isn't. Most Christians I know go with the latter explanation. That Paul isn't saying to submit to ALL authority, but only where that authority doesn't go past God's commandments. Considering the amount of time Paul spent in jail he obviously didn't think he had to submit all the time, every time.
That is not however, what Paul says in Romans 13. It blatantly says to be in subjection to the authorities. Something seems to be wrong then with the generic interpretation; how can we be in total subjection to the authorities and still fulfill God's commandments that go against what the authorities say? I think it's simple, we are to be in subjection to those authorities that meet the "from God" profile given by Paul. "For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.". If the authority that be isn't of God, then it isn't a true and righteous authority. "For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil", "Do what is good and you will have praise from the same" & "But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing".
How are we to then judge good behavior and Godly authority? God's commandments are a good place to start. Also, see the Primary Foundational Principle1 listed below as my personal starting point.
Personal Actions Based on Stance
Expansion
Interpretation
An modern example about how a strict, English interpretation of Romans 13 seems to be wrong would be the Nuremberg trials; soldiers had to be punished for their crimes against people despite just following orders. They were submitting too much to the Nazi government, they willingly violated God's commandments (in this particular case the judges weren't worried about God's commandments, just country laws). To think otherwise implies that if your governing authority commanded you to murder someone, you should do it; despite this going against God's commandments. I do not know of any Christians who think that a Nazi, who murdered Jews in cold blood should not stand for his crimes just because he was submitting to authority.
Why can we so loosely interpret what Paul says?
The question remains then, why can we so loosely interpret what Paul says? We have to because otherwise it doesn't theologically and morally match up with what we know of the rest of the scripture. So either there is a contradiction, or Romans 13 is misunderstood, or the rest of the bible that discusses morality is misunderstood. I believe that the Bible is the word of God and thus Romans 13 isn't a contradiction. Nor do I think that the rest of the Bible is misunderstood in this particular sense, so Romans 13 itself seems to be misunderstood.
If it is misunderstood, how?
I think there a couple different things here. Firstly, as it is written in the NASB, it can be interpreted as written above that only the authority that can be seen as from God is the true authority, and that only the true authority should be submitted to. Similar to how Christ said that you will know the true prophets by the fruit they bear. You will know the true authorities by the fruit they bear. That authorities fruit may be viewed differently by different people. As Paul talks about in 1st Corinthians 82, people can sin against their conscience as not all people have the same knowledge of what is good and proper. In this chapter Paul talks about people who understand that meat sacrificed to idols is okay to eat, and others having "a weak conscience" think that they shouldn't eat it. We are then asked to not let our liberty be a stumbling block to others, so that in our knowledge we don't encourage someone else to sin against their conscience.
Liberty, Exousia, and Authority
Interesting thing here, the greek work for Authority (Gr exousia3) that is used throughout Romans 13, is the exact same word used here in 1st Corinthians 8:9
But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. (NASB)Can't find the term authority? It's the term liberty. Let me switch the words for easier reading.
But take care that this authority of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. (NASB, modified)What does authority mean here? It means liberty. It means personal responsibility. The power of choice. Which is in fact the primary definition of exousia even though it is generally translated as authority in the Bible. Read some of these4 references to exousia in Luke for further, interesting readings.
Because of this unique definition of exousia (both Aristotle and Plato used it to mean the power of choice, or free will) I will also contend that in addition to submitting to the governing authorities except where it conflicts with God's commands, that this section of scripture may also mean (either exclusively or in addition to) that the true governing authority (or Higher Power as some versions translate) is really God's Higher Liberty. The free will that God has given each of us. Allow me to transpose how this section of scripture might read with a liberty mindset.
We are to submit our liberty to God's Higher Liberty, for there is no true liberty apart from God. Resist God's gift of liberty or free will to people and you resist God's ordinances, and those who do oppose will receive condemnation. We were not given liberty so that we can be a force for evil, but to be a force for good. For those we submit to are not to be forces of evil, but forces of good. Do you want to have no fear of freedom of choice? Then do what is good, and good will be done to you. Do what is evil and beware, you will reap the consequences for your actions.... (pay taxes, love thy neighbor, and so forth)Disclaimer, I do not mean to re-translate the scripture here, I in now way studied every original greek word, and use to write this. I wrote it simply to help get across the liberty message that may be available in Romans 13.
Closing
I take all of this to basically mean, obey the government on this earth, unless you have the knowledge and understanding that states otherwise. I do not, and can not encourage someone to go against what their conscience tells them. I do not want my liberty to be a stumbling block, and I do not want to cause someone to sin against their conscience. Does that mean we should be content with the limited knowledge we have and not seek to be free? 1st Corinthians 7:21 says "Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that."5 The term Free here literally means to be become a free man, a different word than exousia, the freedom of choice. So we should all strive to continue our understanding of God's Law and God's Higher Authority, but nor should we worry about continuing as slaves. Most of us, specifically people residing in a Western countries, more specifically America and Britian, we are at best serfs, at worst slaves. "If you are able also to become free, rather do that."5
Sources
- Primary Foundational Principle - Link
- 1st Corinthians Ch8 NASB - Link
- Strong's Dictionary - exousia G1849
- Luke's use of exousia - Link
- 1st Corinthians Ch7 NASB - Link
Suggested Reading
No comments:
Post a Comment