Predictably enough, I see that Rom 13:1-7 is being quoted in connection with Obama’s election. I, of course, have no objection to relating Holy Writ to current events. However, it’s lazy to fall back on rote prooftexting. At the risk of stating the obvious (again!), to properly apply Scripture to our own situation, two elementary conditions need to be met:
i) You must first ascertain the meaning of the passage in its original setting.
ii) You must then isolate and identify the analogies and disanalogies between the original setting and our own circumstances.
Rom 13 tends to be silly putty in the hands of those who quote it. It magically shapes itself to fit the prefabricating contours of whatever statecraft the speaker happens to espouse. As on scholar notes, “the interpretation of this pericope has swung from abject subservience to political authorities as virtually divine to critical submission on the basis of their advancement of justice. The endless stream of studies has been marked by advocacy of various appraisals of the role of government shaped by denominational traditions and modern ethical considerations,” R. Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Fortress Press 2007), 785.
Jewett goes on to register a key qualification in Paul’s argument:
“The form of the final lines in this pericope is compressed, succinct, and correlative. In each of four examples, governmental obligations are paid to those who qualify. Helmut Merklein aptly refers to the ‘conditionality’ of this formulation. Instead of absolute subservience, obligations are to be met if they prove legitimate. The formulation leaves space for assessments of appropriateness made by the community,” ibid. 802.
“’Respect’ in this sense is the acknowledgement of legitimate jurisdiction…In contrast, τιμη ('honor') is a matter not of acknowledging jurisdiction but of recognizing superior status and good performance…Honor was earned by ‘virtue, kingship, public service,’ according to Plutarch…” ibid. 802-03.
I actually quoted Rom. 13 on my blog a couple weeks ago. Speaking for myself, I was mostly thinking of the implications for the civil government's responsibilities toward God than for the Christian's toward the state.
ReplyDeleteWhat qualifies as a "legitimate" government? Thanks.
ReplyDeleteTo build on delivered's point ... how did the Roman Empire with its propensity to kill Christians for their Christianity fit that definition?
ReplyDeleteTITUS SAID:
ReplyDelete“I actually quoted Rom. 13 on my blog a couple weeks ago. Speaking for myself, I was mostly thinking of the implications for the civil government's responsibilities toward God than for the Christian's toward the state.”
My post wasn’t directed at anything you wrote. Bloggers like Justin Taylor were the oblique target. (Which is not a general criticism of Taylor’s blog. Just in this instance.)
DELIVERED SAID:
“What qualifies as a ‘legitimate’ government? Thanks.”
At a minimum, if it protects the free expression of the creation mandates (i.e. marriage, labor, dominion, Sabbath [Gen 1-2]).
The electorate can also agree to extend the natural mandate of gov’t to other things, although that can’t properly contradict the creation mandates.
MJTILLEY SAID:
“To build on delivered's point ... how did the Roman Empire with its propensity to kill Christians for their Christianity fit that definition?”
You’re filtering Rom 13 through the lens of the Neronian persecution and subsequent persecutions. That was not in view at the time Paul penned Romans. Romans was written around AD 57, while the Neronian persecution occurred around AD 64. It’s anachronistic to retroactively apply the Neronian persecution to the scope of Rom 13.
Indeed, NT scholars often use the persecutions Nero and Diocletian as a benchmark to date certain NT documents based on their attitude towards the Roman regime.
You wrote, "At a minimum, if it protects the free expression of the creation mandates (i.e. marriage, labor, dominion, Sabbath [Gen 1-2])."
ReplyDeleteCan you provide some examples of what you believe to be illegitimate governments, and why specifically you believe them to be illegitimate? Thanks again.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI know you weren't directing your post toward anything I wrote, simply commenting on the coincidence & the apparent gap in my thinking about the passage versus the thinking of many others.
It is certainly evident that Rom. 13 is fundamentally addressing the Christian's duty toward the civil government, and this is always a necessary corrective. But I have always been fascinated by the appellation which Paul gives to the civil magistrate: "minister of God."
Many today think that the civil government has no specific duties toward God (I see this in some so-called "Two Kingdom" theologies), but it would seem that Paul thought quite differently.
DELIVERED SAID:
ReplyDelete“Can you provide some examples of what you believe to be illegitimate governments, and why specifically you believe them to be illegitimate? Thanks again.”
If in one way or another they violate the free expression of the creation mandates. If they have laws that infringe on a family life—as God ordained it. If they overtax laborers. If they infringe on the liberty to worship the true God.
TITUS SAID:
“Many today think that the civil government has no specific duties toward God (I see this in some so-called ‘Two Kingdom’ theologies), but it would seem that Paul thought quite differently.”
Yes, the civil magistrate has a duty to punish wrongdoers. That’s a moral category with a religious foundation. So it ultimately goes back to the law of God.