Romans 13

The Christian and the government

All right, well tonight we are continuing the series on the Christian and the government. This is week three. And you can go ahead and turn in your Bibles to Romans chapter 13. Hopefully you got the notes page. If not, there should be more copies at either entrance. And so week one, we kind of looked briefly at three key texts in the New Testament that give us some explicit commands about how we're to relate and respond to the government and why. Then last week we talked about some possible exceptions to that. And so you can see the list of the exceptions we talked about last time there. And I said last week that these are things that You know, I think there's some legitimacy there, but there's also a lot of ways that these can be abused or misapplied. And so we need to be really careful. And so to do that well, I think we need to go back and look more closely at Romans 13. This is the longest and sort of most extensive treatment of how we should respond to the government and why. And so we really want to try to understand this text carefully to sort of set ourselves up to consider, well, how do we apply these exceptions and when? How do we do that rightly? Is there validity to all of these? Now, ideally, we'd have the time all in one session to kind of look carefully at Romans 13 and then look at all the exceptions. Unfortunately, it's just not going to happen tonight. So tonight, we're at least going to try to get through Romans 13 to kind of understand that better. And again, that's setting up to then consider, you know, these possible exceptions. When would they apply or when might they not? How might they be misapplied? With that said, we're gonna turn to Romans chapter 13, where Paul, you know, he's in the middle of this letter to the Romans, and he begins talking about how Christians should respond to the government. And on one level, chapters one through 11, he's really focusing on theology, on the gospel. Then chapters 12 and following, he's talking about sort of how we should live in light of that. So, you know, this is one of the issues that he obviously thinks is very important, he wants to address practically. Also, you'll notice that at the end of chapter 12, he talks about vengeance and how we shouldn't try to get vengeance for ourselves. We should leave it to the wrath of God. And so, you know, you might think, well, does that mean that, you know, God has just made no provision for any sort of justice to happen until Judgment Day? Well, I think it's one of the things he's going to sort of flesh out here. Also, as he talks about how we're to live in light of the gospel, he's gonna stress that we should not be conformed to this world. Ultimately, we have a different king. We're looking forward to a future kingdom and a new age, and we have a greater hope beyond this world. And so, maybe Christians are thinking, well, does that mean, does the gospel mean that, therefore, earthly institutions are just sort of irrelevant now. Are we past that? Well, I think Paul wants to clarify no, that actually we still live in this age and so there's a very important function for government. So with that said, that context, I'm gonna read Romans 13 verses one through seven and then we're gonna walk through it together. So Paul says,

let every person be subject to the governing authorities. 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, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval. For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore, one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath, but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this, you also pay taxes. For the authorities are ministers of God attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them. Taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor. is owed.

Now, what is the main command in these verses? Be subject. Yeah, right there in verse one, let every person be subject to the governing authorities. And when he says the governing authorities, what do you think he means by that? Nero, okay, yeah, I mean, this is called Romans. He's writing to those who are in Rome, so he would mean the emperor. He would also mean the governors. You know, we read about Pontius Pilate, and you know what, there's a whole complex Roman system of government, but that's what he means, okay? And you know, he seems to be speaking generally of sort of governing authorities in general, but if anything, this means the Roman authorities, okay? And then, so he gives this command, And then he gives a why. So what reason is given? Well, for there is no authority except from God and those that exist have been instituted by God. Okay, so be subject for or because they have been instituted by God. Now, how does Paul know that the Roman authorities were instituted by God? Okay, yeah, God's sovereign. And he says, there is no authority except from God. Right? So all authority comes from God. So if there's anyone who has any authority, it's from God. Now, does the point Paul's making here depend on how good or godly the government is? No. Does, does Paul's argument depend on whether the government is operating based on the consent of the governed? Again, no. I mean, in fact, interestingly, Rome sort of started off as a republic, and then it had become an empire. So it had shifted much more to totalitarian. And yet, Paul says, those that exist have been instituted by God. So I think right from the start, I mean, we need to have a big enough view of God's sovereignty to see that he can raise up and use even fallen, broken, sinful governments and leaders. In fact, in Daniel 4, verse 17, Daniel says,

the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he wishes and sets over it the lowliest of men.

So God is the one who is sovereignly in control. God is the one who institutes governing authorities. And that means that honoring them and submitting to them is not, we shouldn't do that just because we agree with them. It's not just because we voted for them. It's not because we like them, but because God appointed them. You know, sometimes people will say things like, well, Joe Biden, he's not my president. I didn't vote for him. Donald Trump, he's not my president. I didn't vote for him. That really should not be us, right? We should say, whether it's Joe Biden or Donald Trump, well, that is my president because There is no authority except from God and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. So therefore, what happens if we don't submit? And notice the opposite of submit here would be resist. So what happens then? Okay, good, yep. Okay, now in the text it says specifically, we will incur judgment, right? Therefore, whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. Now, whose judgment do you think he's talking about there? Yep. Okay. Okay, yeah, and then he was also just talking about how we're resisting what God has appointed. So I think, chiefly, he means God's judgment, right? We resist what God has appointed, therefore we incur God's judgment. Now, I think in verses three and four, he is going to show part of the way that God's judgment is exercised and expressed is through the hand of the state. Those are not, like, totally separate. I think chiefly here he has God's judgment in view. Well then we come down to verse three, and this brings us to another four, so another reason. And as reflected in the diagram in your notes, I think this is a second reason backing up the command in verse one to be subject. Okay, so if verse two is primarily about God's judgment, Well, then I think this is now, he's sort of shifting folks to talk about the reality of the judgment or the sword of the state. And he's saying, four, rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Okay, so be subject because they're instituted by God and be subject because God, as he's gonna talk about, they're God's deacons, God has sent them to punish evil and praise good. They're not here to be a terror to good conduct, but to bad. They're serving a good purpose. Now, was the Roman government actually doing this? Were they a terror to bad conduct and not to good? Okay. Yeah, I mean, clearly there are exceptions. You know, Rome crucified Jesus. Paul got, you know, wrongly imprisoned in Philippi for like rescuing a demon-possessed girl. But I think what Paul's clearly saying here is yes, I mean, he's not, he doesn't say submit to them when they're doing this or if they're doing this. I mean, he's just asserting for this is what they are. Right, four rulers are actually, like he's just speaking about they are, they're not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. You know, I listened to one sermon by someone preaching through this, and basically, you know, his argument was, you know, Rome, we know Rome was not doing this, and therefore Paul's not talking about Rome. But you go back and read the text, and it's like, but Paul's writing to Rome, and he's saying submit, I mean, I don't think there's a way around that. You know, and the striking thing is that he is going to characterize this government that is far from perfect as accomplishing something good. It's being a terror to bad conduct and not to good. And I think that should challenge us to sort of think about, you know, what's the first thing that comes into our minds when, you know, we think about the government? Do we just instantly think, you know, they're just, in our way, they're just opposing us, they're sort of, you know, this terror to good conduct. Or do we have the perspective like in 1 Timothy 2 where we're thankful for the government? And I think this text should challenge us with what is our perspective? You know, yes, there's exceptions. You know, I don't think Paul is trying to say that absolutely in every case the government's perfectly doing this. But he's characterizing the government that way. And that is going to be pretty significant as we start thinking about sort of exceptions and how to apply them. I think we'll come back to that. Yes? No, because I think in the first couple verses there, when he says there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. I mean, the striking thing is it's really an argument from God's sovereignty, not from, okay, we can look at the way that the government came to power. Because the reality through history is there's all sorts of immoral ways that power was accrued. Yeah, so I think that's part of what's striking about Paul's argument here. So yeah, good question. So therefore, Paul continues, so if this is the purpose and what the government, they're not a terror to good conduct but to bad, therefore, if we do what's good, well, we'll receive his approval. We won't have to be afraid of them or terrified by them. We might even be positively commended. Maybe, Paul has in mind here, one commentator said that the Romans would sometimes publish inscriptions of the names of public benefactors, so some way of approving of good. But then he says that this is because, for he is God's servant for your good. The word servant there is the same as the word deacon. This ruler is functioning as God's deacon, which is striking because these are, you know, pagan rulers. They don't even recognize that Yahweh's God, and yet Paul says, but they're God's deacons for our good. Now, what do you think that means? Jason? Okay. Good. Yep. Yeah. Okay. So I think, you know, basically what it's saying is that they are to promote good by making laws and then enforcing them. They're promoters of good. They're deacons for good. So insofar as the laws they're making are corresponding to God's moral standards, God's law, like don't kill people, don't steal, they are deacons for our good, right? So I don't think this means they're deacons for our good in the sense of, you know, like, when they persecute us for preaching the gospel, you know, God uses trials for good. I don't think that's what this is saying. But I do think it's saying, you know, if I'm tempted to retaliate against my neighbor, but then I think twice and think, but I might face legal repercussions, so I'm not gonna do that. Well, in that way, the government has been God's deacon to me for good because it prevented me from doing something, you know, evil that I otherwise might have done. So we should be thankful for that sort of purpose of the government. On the other hand, Paul says, but if you do wrong, be afraid for he does not bear the sword in vain. Now, what do you think this sword is, Rob? Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I think ultimately we have to define good in terms of what's good in God's sight. Right? Yes. Yeah, I don't think Paul's really dealing with here, well what happens when they're commanding something and what God's commanding is like opposed to that. So that's something we need to come back to. Yep. Yes. Yes. So I think he's assuming that to a very large degree, the kind of things the government is making laws about and enforcing are things that are going to sort of correspond to God's will and God's law. Yeah. Good. Yeah, I think so. Okay, so then he says that he bears the sword not in vain. What do you think he means by the sword? Jason? Okay. Yeah, so on one level, I mean, Romans literally use swords to cut people's heads off, right? But I think more generally, the sword represents their authority to enforce justice. So in the same way scripture talks about the church having the authority of the keys, right, we can preach the gospel, we can recognize who a true believer is, well, the state has the authority of the sword, a coercive power to coerce people to obey something. Okay, so he says, he doesn't bear the sword in vain, but is, for he is a servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer, okay? So he is carrying out wrath through the exercise of the sword. Well, then he says in verse five, therefore, one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath, but also for the sake of conscience. So this is sort of the summary, I think this is a summary of his argument he's just made. So the command from the beginning, be subject, is restated, and then the rationale is summarized. This is to avoid wrath and for conscience sake. Now what do you think he means by for conscience sake? How does that come into the argument? Yep. Yeah, good. Yeah, in fact, the word gods in God's wrath, the God is not there. That's a pretty significant interpretation by the ESV, whereas pretty much every other English translation just says wrath. So it's a little more ambiguous, which actually I think kind of helps because the point is don't just submit to avoid punishment. Don't just submit so the state doesn't come after you. Don't even just submit because you don't want God to punish you, but submit for conscience sake, submit because you recognize that it's right. You recognize that God has actually instituted the state for a good purpose, and therefore, you should submit. We should feel a sense of conscientious obligation. is that if authority is just in this way, we should also be able to use the law to get justice. If you're wrong by somebody, yes, we should forgive them. But pursuing illegal actions or just having authorities involved in a situation, I think there's provisions for that. Yeah, so certainly like as a Christian, if someone robs me, I'm always called to forgive in the sense of from the heart, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong to like seek, report it to the police and say, yeah, I would like to press charges because I think that person should be held accountable. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, good. All right, I'm sorry. In the interest of time, let me just tie this together at the end. So then verse six, for because of this you also pay taxes. So now I think, I'm interpreting this as a second command. And why should we pay taxes? Well, for reason the authorities are ministers of God attending to this very thing. Well, what thing? Well, I think probably, especially means a praising good Punishing evil. So we should pay taxes. And then verse seven is, in one sense, the conclusion where he kind of gives this summary application. But I diagrammed it there in the chart as an inference, or therefore, because I think a key inference Paul's drawing here is that taxes are owed. They're God's ministers attending to this very thing, so we should pay them taxes. This kind of cuts against the mantra taxation is theft. Biblically, well, they're owed. Now, that doesn't mean taxes can't be sort of unreasonably high. That doesn't mean the government can't abuse that. I think Paul's emphasizing here that we should view like proper taxes as something that's owed. Like we should recognize God has instituted governing authorities for this good purpose and be ready to render to them what taxes so that they can fulfill that. So pay to all what's owed, echoing Jesus' own words,