To what extent are Christians told to submit to governing authorities? What exceptions exist, and how do we know? Kaitlyn Schiess joins me on What in the Word? to discuss Romans 13:1–7.
Follow the show on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and more.
Romans 13
Is It Wrong to Want Vengeance (Romans 12:14–21)? | Exegetical, Theological, & Practical Reflections
In Romans 12:19, Paul says we are not to avenge (enact punitive justice) ourselves. However, the reason we do this is not because as Christians we think vengeance itself is wrong. To the contrary! Again, justice, by definition, is just (good). (In fact, used with the a- prefix, this root is used to form the word “unrighteousness” in Roman 1:18 and elsewhere.) Rather, the reason we ought not enact vengeance for ourselves is that it doesn’t belong to us. God alone is judge, not us (Rom 12:19, citing Deut 32:35; see also Rom 14 where Paul, under different circumstances but in proximate context, emphasizes that God alone is judge).
In fact, the logic of Paul’s instruction here seems to be, you don’t need to enact vengeance, not because vengeance itself is bad and you are wrong to want it to happen, but precisely because you know it will happen. You don’t need to do it, because God will (Rom 12:19). In other words, the foundation for Paul’s commands throughout Romans 12:14-21—to bless in response to curse, not to repay evil with evil, to overcome evil with good, etc.—is this fact that we can trust that God will punish evil, so we don’t have to (in fact, we shouldn’t, since it’s not our prerogative). So likewise, Peter says that Jesus didn’t return reviling or threats (1 Peter 1:21-23), but “continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly” (v.23). Again, it’s not the absence of vengeance, but believing in its guarantee—God will “judge justly”—that enables his people to leave vengeance to God.
Nonetheless, this doesn’t mean we are indifferent to vengeance in this life or that it should never happen. To the contrary! As Paul continues in Rom 13:1-7, he describes the state as a “deacon” (often translated “servant” or “minister”) of God. In what sense? It is “an avenger [same root as “avenge” and “vengeance” in 12:19] who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Rom 13:4, ESV emphasis added). In other words, vengeance is God’s (12:19). But God also authorizes human means, like certain institutions in this life, to deliver that justice and protect victims—even here and now, at least to some degree (I like the word “provisional” here: provisional justice, as opposed to eschatological and ultimate justice).
I think the proximity in Paul’s use of ἐκδίκησις and ἐκδικέω (in Rom 12:19 and Rom 13:4) then is intentional. Remember, chapter divisions aren’t original, and unfortunately here that big “13” can make us feel a stronger shift in topic than is likely the case.
Continue readingThe Church’s Exercise of the Keys of the Kingdom: What Sort of Authority Does the Church Have?
God has created various institutions within creation. To each one he gives particular domains of authority (e.g., parents/fathers over the home, elders the church, the government the state, etc.), and particular ways of enforcing their authority fitting to their particular type of authority.
In other words, not all institutions exercise or enforce their authority the same way. For instance, God has authorized the state to wield the sword (Rom 13). In other words, the state can coerce its citizens by threat of material punishment. The church however is a voluntary society. It doesn’t coerce; rather it persuades. People willingly believe and join, submitting to Christ’s rule.
But Christ did not leave the church without a means of exercising and enforcing its authority. Whereas he gave the state the “sword,” he gave the church the “keys of the kingdom” by which to state who is in and who is out of Christ’s kingdom (see Mt 16:18-19; 18:15-20; Jn 20:23).
The church is like an embassy of heaven that issues passports declaring who belongs to Jesus. Word (teaching, preaching) and sacrament (baptism, Lord’s Supper) are the means by which the church positively exercises this authority, persuading people to believe and obey (Word) and then marking off those who do (sacrament). And church discipline is the way the church negatively exercises this authority—declaring that one in fact is not a citizen of Christ’s kingdom.
But the church can’t make anyone believe and obey. The church doesn’t possess that sort of authority. We can only persuade (Word). And when persuasion fails and someone is unrepentant, which is characteristic of an unbeliever, we declare them so (church discipline). That’s the only authority we have; more importantly, the only authority Christ has given us, and so we dare not overstep those bounds.
Questions for a Christian Analysis of Civil Disobedience
What is civil disobedience?
Civil disobedience is the intentional breach of legal duty. It is breaking the law. Those who engage in such disobedience lack the legal right to do so, i.e., their behavior is illegal, not legal. However, this sort of disobedience is to be distinguished from mere defiance, rebellion, or criminality. It is disobedience on the grounds of some claimed moral justification or duty.
One expression of civil disobedience is [a] the refusal to comply with and obey a law based on conscience — it is thought that to obey the law is to do evil, thus justifying (or even demanding) disobedience. The perceived evil may be “sin of commission” (being commanded to do wrong) or “sin of omission” (being commanded to refrain from good).
Kirk E. Miller 