Cathar Church, General Conference: Online Publications: Discourse on Romans 13:1-7

"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, he who resists will incur judgement. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him 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; he is the servant of GOD to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject not only to avoid GOD's wrath, but also for conscience' sake."

In this leaflet we are focusing primarily on the use of Romans 13:1-7 to give an absolute and 'divine' authority to the State.

The misuse of this famous text is not limited to the present day. Throughout the history of Christianity unjust regimes have tried to legitimise an position of blind obedience and absolute servility towards the state by quoting this text. In fact, as soon as good Christians, out of loyalty to the gospel of Jesus, offer resistance to a State's unjust claim, the representatives of the State or their collaborationist theological advisers are accustomed to appeal to this saying of Paul, as if good Christians are here commended to endorse and thus abet all the crimes of a unjust State.

But what then is the meaning of Romans 13:1-7 and why is the use made of it by 'State Theology' unjustifiable from the biblical point of view?

'State Theology' assumes that in this text Paul is presenting us with the absolute and definitive Christian doctrine about the State, in other words an absolute and universal principle that is equally valid for all times and in all places and circumstances. The falseness of this assumption has been pointed out by numerous biblical scholars (see for example, E. Kasemann, Commentary on Romans [1980]).

What had been overlooked here is one of the most fundamental of all principles of biblical interpretation: every text must be interpreted in its context.

This does not reduce its inspiration nor its infallibility. To abstract a text from its context and to interpret it in the abstract is to distort and reduce the meaning of GOD's Word. It is to play 'cut and paste' with the Holy Scriptures.

Moreover, the context here is not only the chapters and verse that precede and succeed this particular text nor is it even limited to the total context of the Bible. The context includes also the circumstances in which Paul's statement was made. Paul was writing to a particular Christian community in Rome, a community that had its own particular problems in relation to the State at that time and in those circumstances. That is part of the context of our text.

Many writers have drawn attention to the fact that in the Old Testament the GOD of goodness does not demand obedience to oppressive rulers. Examples can be given ranging from Pharaoh to Pilate and through into Apostolic times. The Jews and later the Christians did not believe that their imperial overlords, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Greeks or the Romans, had some kind of divine right to rule them and oppress them. These empires were the beasts described in the Book of Daniel and the Book of revelation. GOD allowed them to rule for a while but He did not approve of what they did.. It was not GOD's will. His will was the freedom and liberation of Israel. Romans 13:1-7 cannot be contradicting this or it would be contradicting GOD's expressed will. The New Testament, as the inspired and infallible writing that it is, cannot express a direction contrary to that of GOD.

Most revealing is the circumstances of the Roman Christians to whom Paul was writing. They were not revolutionaries. They were not trying to overthrow the State. They were not calling for a change of government. They were what has been called 'antinomians' or 'enthusiasts,' and their belief was that Christians, and only Christians, were freed from obeying any State at all, any government or political authority at all, because Jesus alone was their Lord and King. This is of course heretical, and Paul is compelled to point out to these Christians that before the Second Coming of Christ there will always be some kind of secular government and that good Christians are not freed from subjection to some kind of political authority.

Paul is simply not addressing the issue of a just or unjust State or the need to change one government for another. He is simply establishing the fact that there will be some kind of secular authority and that good Christians as such are not freed from subjection to secular laws and authorities. He does not say anything at all about what they should do when the State becomes unjust and oppressive, That is another question.

Consequently, those who try to find answers to the very difficult questions and problems of our time in the text of Romans 13:1-7 are doing a great disservice to Paul. The use that 'State Theology' makes of this text tells us more about the political options of those Constantinian Christians who construct and uphold this policy than it does about the meaning of GOD's Word in this text. As one biblical scholar puts it: "The primary concern is to justify the interests of the State, and the text is pressed into its service without respect for the context and the intention of Paul."

If we wish to search the New Testament for guidance in a situation where the State that is supposed to be 'the servant of GOD" (Romans 13:16) betrays that calling and begins to serve Satan instead, then we can study chapter 13 of the Book of Revelation. Here the Roman State becomes the servant of the dragon and takes on the appearance of a horrible beast. Its days are numbered because GOD will not permit His unfaithful servant to reign forever.