Pacifism and Romans 13
Regarding my pacifism post, a friend quite rightly called my attention to Romans 13. What does Romans 13 have to say about war and pacifism? You can find the text here, and I will respond as best I can.
For a proper interpretation of this text--and, for that matter, of any text--we must start by closely examining the context. What is Paul addressing here? Why does he write? As we will see, these questions are of the utmost importance in deciphering this passage.
So who was Paul writing to? Paul says in Romans 1:7 that he is writing to "all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his servants." He is writing to the Christian church in Rome. When Paul writes to a church, he typically advises them about topics relevant to the church at hand. He does this in 1 Corinthians, where he repeatedly exhorts the Corinthian church away from their sexual immorality. Likewise, Galatians is written to address the Judaizers, who had been demanding that all the new Christians in Galatia circumcise themselves. So when Paul makes an ethical exhortation, it is designed to address some issue within that particular church.
So why did Paul feel the need to exhort the Roman Christians to submit to the government? The answer involves a wide cast of players, including the Roman Jews and Christians, as well as the emperor, Claudius. In the first century, there was still a strong connection between Jews and Christians. They often worshipped in the same temples, and the Romans had trouble telling the two apart. Paul himself frequently used the synogogues as a home base for evangelism. Many Christians were former Jews and maintained their Jewish commitments.
With the missionary movement in full swing, the Romans began to view the Jews, as well as the Christians, with concern. Respect for the Roman gods was crucial for order in Rome, and the Roman aristocracy became suspicious of these religious upstarts. In a dire move, the Roman emperor, Claudius, expelled the Jews from Rome (see Romans 18:2). He later allowed them to return, but he imposed the rule that Jews could no longer move into Rome in unrestricted numbers.
So relations between Jews and Romans were particularly tense. Add to that the Jews' unrest over the Roman rule of Israel, and the political cauldron in Rome was boiling over. The dissent spilled over into the Christian community, which consisted of many recent converts from Judaism. So what was this band of Christians to do in the face of a government that simply didn't like them?
According to Paul, submit. Paul's argument goes as follows: authority is set up by God, and authority does not exist without God's approval. When someone resists the authority of the government, they face punishment, for the government "does not bear the sword in vain." Paul uses as an example taxes, which one must pay or incur punishment.
I argue that this section is primarily an extension of Paul's "all things to all people" philosophy. He seeks to avoid political entanglement in order to win people to Christ. This was a successful strategy for Paul, who maintained generally good relationships with local magistrates and enjoyed the protection of the Roman empire. So what of the "submission"?
The word "submit" here, in Greek, means to place one's self under the authority of another. That means that on all manners morally neutral, one must place himself or herself under the authority of the state. Orders that are wrong, however, must not be obeyed. Paul was exhorting the Jewish Christians not to attempt to overthrow the state. That doesn't mean that Paul felt that every order the state issued had binding ethical authority from God. Thus Paul established obedience to the government as the preferred state, but obedience to God remained the first priority. So if God deems war wrong, then the state has no power to annul that.
What of the state "[bearing] the sword?" I have heard this interpreted that the state has the right to go to war, as long as that war is in accordance with just war theory. I don't think that makes sense in the context of Paul's argument. In Paul's argument he is laying out a clear cause-effect chain. If you are disobedient, then recognize that the government bears the sword, and you are under its punishment. Paul's statement here smacks more of a recognition of reality than of divine approval.
In conclusion, I argue that Paul here is encouraging the Jewish Christians--and, by extension--all Christians of all ages--not to cause undue trouble in their government. I do not think that he is making any statement about war or the government's authority to participate in a war. This passage does present a very real catch-22 for our modern times, however, in that we are not ruled by an emperor or a despotic dictator; we are ruled by ourselves. Submission is still the course of the day, but we have the right to overthrow the government every four years. A biblical definition of proper behavior for a Christian in a democracy is very difficult to come up with, simply because there were no democracies in the times of the New Testament. The only democracy that existed at any point during which the Bible was written was the Greek democracy, and the Israelites had no contact with it. So that is another issue, and one that I do not have time, space, or thought to deal with here.
Again, I welcome questions, comments, and criticisms, as I am still refining my ideas on war.
Thanks!
For a proper interpretation of this text--and, for that matter, of any text--we must start by closely examining the context. What is Paul addressing here? Why does he write? As we will see, these questions are of the utmost importance in deciphering this passage.
So who was Paul writing to? Paul says in Romans 1:7 that he is writing to "all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his servants." He is writing to the Christian church in Rome. When Paul writes to a church, he typically advises them about topics relevant to the church at hand. He does this in 1 Corinthians, where he repeatedly exhorts the Corinthian church away from their sexual immorality. Likewise, Galatians is written to address the Judaizers, who had been demanding that all the new Christians in Galatia circumcise themselves. So when Paul makes an ethical exhortation, it is designed to address some issue within that particular church.
So why did Paul feel the need to exhort the Roman Christians to submit to the government? The answer involves a wide cast of players, including the Roman Jews and Christians, as well as the emperor, Claudius. In the first century, there was still a strong connection between Jews and Christians. They often worshipped in the same temples, and the Romans had trouble telling the two apart. Paul himself frequently used the synogogues as a home base for evangelism. Many Christians were former Jews and maintained their Jewish commitments.
With the missionary movement in full swing, the Romans began to view the Jews, as well as the Christians, with concern. Respect for the Roman gods was crucial for order in Rome, and the Roman aristocracy became suspicious of these religious upstarts. In a dire move, the Roman emperor, Claudius, expelled the Jews from Rome (see Romans 18:2). He later allowed them to return, but he imposed the rule that Jews could no longer move into Rome in unrestricted numbers.
So relations between Jews and Romans were particularly tense. Add to that the Jews' unrest over the Roman rule of Israel, and the political cauldron in Rome was boiling over. The dissent spilled over into the Christian community, which consisted of many recent converts from Judaism. So what was this band of Christians to do in the face of a government that simply didn't like them?
According to Paul, submit. Paul's argument goes as follows: authority is set up by God, and authority does not exist without God's approval. When someone resists the authority of the government, they face punishment, for the government "does not bear the sword in vain." Paul uses as an example taxes, which one must pay or incur punishment.
I argue that this section is primarily an extension of Paul's "all things to all people" philosophy. He seeks to avoid political entanglement in order to win people to Christ. This was a successful strategy for Paul, who maintained generally good relationships with local magistrates and enjoyed the protection of the Roman empire. So what of the "submission"?
The word "submit" here, in Greek, means to place one's self under the authority of another. That means that on all manners morally neutral, one must place himself or herself under the authority of the state. Orders that are wrong, however, must not be obeyed. Paul was exhorting the Jewish Christians not to attempt to overthrow the state. That doesn't mean that Paul felt that every order the state issued had binding ethical authority from God. Thus Paul established obedience to the government as the preferred state, but obedience to God remained the first priority. So if God deems war wrong, then the state has no power to annul that.
What of the state "[bearing] the sword?" I have heard this interpreted that the state has the right to go to war, as long as that war is in accordance with just war theory. I don't think that makes sense in the context of Paul's argument. In Paul's argument he is laying out a clear cause-effect chain. If you are disobedient, then recognize that the government bears the sword, and you are under its punishment. Paul's statement here smacks more of a recognition of reality than of divine approval.
In conclusion, I argue that Paul here is encouraging the Jewish Christians--and, by extension--all Christians of all ages--not to cause undue trouble in their government. I do not think that he is making any statement about war or the government's authority to participate in a war. This passage does present a very real catch-22 for our modern times, however, in that we are not ruled by an emperor or a despotic dictator; we are ruled by ourselves. Submission is still the course of the day, but we have the right to overthrow the government every four years. A biblical definition of proper behavior for a Christian in a democracy is very difficult to come up with, simply because there were no democracies in the times of the New Testament. The only democracy that existed at any point during which the Bible was written was the Greek democracy, and the Israelites had no contact with it. So that is another issue, and one that I do not have time, space, or thought to deal with here.
Again, I welcome questions, comments, and criticisms, as I am still refining my ideas on war.
Thanks!
posted by Tim Dees at 11:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home