Romans 13: Part 1, Dispensational Disconnect?

Romans 13:1-7 

1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers: for there is no power but of God: and the powers that be, are ordained of God. 2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist, shall receive to themselves condemnation. 3. For Magistrates are not to be feared for good works, but for evil. Wilt thou then be without fear of the power? Do well: so shalt thou have praise of the same. 4. For he is the minister of God for thy wealth: but if thou do evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword for naught: for he is the minister of God to take vengeance on him that doeth evil. 5. Wherefore ye must be subject, not because of wrath only, but also for conscience sake. 6. For, for this cause pay also tribute: for they are God’s ministers, applying themselves for the same thing. 7. Give to all men therefore their duty: tribute, to whom ye owe tribute: custom, to whom ye owe custom: fear, to whom fear: honor, to whom ye owe honor.        [1599 Geneva Bible]

Over the centuries the first seven verses of Romans 13 has been read often to the political advantage of kings and tyrants across the globe. Actually, it is the first two verses that are so attractive to them. Once the text starts discussing that, ‘Magistrates are not to be feared for good works’ the Divine Rights of Kings position becomes more difficult to maintain. Hence, the real hard-core defenders of unlimited state power will stop their application at the end of verse two. But instead of jumping in to construct arguments around the application of various parts of this passage I believe it is wiser to first step backwards not forward.

I am not unique in believing that the Old Testament and New Testament are in fact one book. This is the way that New Testament writers treated them as should we. So, it distresses me that Christian scholars in need of a proof text for their beliefs on the sovereignty of civil government and its powers, run straight to Romans 13:1-2 as if the text were disconnected from the rest of the Book. I am not referring to just the rest of the book of Romans but to the entire book of the Bible. They treat Romans 13 as if God never had anything to say about the proper scope or limits of civil government prior to this sort of ‘miracle passage’ that in their minds descends the whole doctrine on the church in a single lump.

Yet, when studying any other portion of Scripture our own rules of interpretation (actually, Scripture’s i.e. God’s, own rules) inform us that Scripture interprets Scripture, the Old Testament informs New Testament interpretation, and that we never interpret any text divorced from all others. So, the mystery is why Bible commentators like to act as if Romans 13 ought to be understood only in its own light and not in the light of the entire revelation God has given. What is it about this passage or doctrine that demands the dumping of our most treasured interpretive principles? Why are we compelled to surrender so much of our library of liberty to settle the entire question in a single direction? What is it that drives such poorly referenced interpretation?

I am not certain that we can blame dispensational theology for this particular problem. It likely is a contributing factor in our time but the Divine Right kings cut Romans 13 loose from the larger text long before the dispensationalists did. No, I believe we have broader issues of laziness and sin that have allowed the uninvestigated acceptance of civil government sovereignty ideas to rule our thinking.

In Part 2 of this little series I will marshal some OT references I believe help put the Romans 13 passage in proper context.

For Christian Culture,

Don Schanzenbach

Related Articles

Romans 13: No Contraditions

Romans 13: Part 2, Meaning of “Minister”

Romans 13: Part 3, Paying What You Owe

Romans 13: Part 4, Trading Liberty for Chains