a population of love and order
“Accordingly a warning will not be out of place, a warning to those who are at the moment deeply involved in the controversy and also, very particularly, to those who may expect something sensational to be said about it. Should this book come into the hands of such persons, they ought not to begin with the Thirteenth Chapter. Those who do not understand the book as a whole will understand least of all what we now have to say.” (Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 476)
On March 21, 1933, during a ceremony honoring the rise in power of the Nazi regime, an evangelical leader of the day and self-described anti-Semite, Otto Dibelius, invoked a teaching on Romans, based on teachings from Luther, to instruct Christian approval of and participation with what he determined to be the required harsh actions of the state to rid the nation of its problems. The display on that day in Potsdam, the church blessing of the Nazi regime, was described by Dibelius as being a moving homage of love and thanksgiving; and, he was not a lone representative for the event. Pastors prayed their thanks to God for blessing the nation with the sovereign hand of Hitler while petitioning Christ’s protection over the Furher and his reign. Before the ceremony in Potsdam, churches across Germany had already proudly displayed the Nazi swastika and insisted on leading congregants further into the socialists’ Weltanschauung. And, all of this stemmed from a Hitler-approved (which is also to say a “Christian and Bible hating Marxist atheist approved”) interpretation of just a few verses from the thirteenth chapter of Romans.
Also in 1933, Karl Barth released the fourth edition of his commentary, The Epistle to the Romans, that was originally published in 1921. Within his work, Barth warned of the temptation to cite or interpret Romans 13 without full understanding of the letter as a whole; Paul’s message was important, but, out of context, Barth’s urgent instructions implied that dangerous exposition of the passage would yield catastrophe for the Church.
Today, historically informed and cautious, the Church must read Paul’s letter with, heaviness, responsibility, and care. With a proper understanding, the infamous passage, in addition to being a timely message against lawlessness, can be rightly read as placed in the middle of a discussion of genuine love.
“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 whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” (Romans 13:1-2)
These few verses have been the subject matter of much debate and controversy, and, yet, are rarely presented within the larger context of Paul’s letter to the Romans. Simply noted, honest exposition requires recognition of the verses immediately surrounding the passage in question; the entire focus of the conversation is love and his instructions on governmental interactions exists within this framework (Love —> Government —> Love): the statement that “love must be genuine” (Romans 12:9) leads us eventually to the instructions that we are to “be subject to governing authorities” (Romans 13:1) only to conclude with the truth that “love is the fulfilling of the law” (Romans 13:10). Furthermore, this entire section of Paul’s correspondence still falls under the umbrella of the evangelistic appeal of chapters eleven and twelve. Our understanding and interpretation of being subject to governing authorities must exist within the Christian duty to love each other with familial affection while loving our neighbors for the purpose of presenting sacrificial lives of evangelistic testimony. Then, in consideration of the atrocities of history, recent or otherwise, this small passage may be best described as an enduring call to love through it all.
In considering the passage at hand directly, the intentionality of the instructions must be taken seriously; Paul was not known for wasting words or speaking frivolously—to honor the sanctity of Scripture, we must also assume that he meant what he said. To that end, Bonhoeffer considered the matter thoroughly. While published in 1955, Bonhoeffer likely wrote his book, Ethics, sometime between 1940 and 1943 while living in Berlin. His conclusion was that government did indeed have divine authority over earthly matters as an angelic power. He stated:
“Government is divinely ordained authority to exercise worldly dominion by divine right. Government is deputyship for God on earth. It can only be understood from above. Government does not proceed from society, but it orders society from above. If it is exegetically correct to regard it as an angelic power, this would serve only to define its position between God and the world.” (Bonhoeffer, Ethics, 327)
While it may have been difficult for Bonhoeffer to commit to such a simple acceptance of the text (while also conspiring to assassinate the dictator), his consignation of this basic interpretation has been repeated by many rebels. In 1938, in his commentary aptly named Romans, Newell recognized an inherent need for the divine rule of law over all people with the people of God being adamant ambassadors against society’s prevailing lawlessness. Moreover, this stance against societal and cultural permissiveness was rooted in love. He wrote:
“Now since God’s saints know that lawlessness and violence, lust and covetousness, are characteristic of the last days, and know from Daniel’s prophetic interpretation of the Great Image Nebuchadnezzar saw, that we must be nearing the time of the end of the age, how peculiarly needful that we all lay to heart these instructions concerning magistrates!” (Newell, Romans, 483)
Moreover, Newell’s position on the matter did not create an exception for disliked political powers or policies. He understood, particularly within his own time, that the excuse to exhibit lawlessness was easily swayed by political winds, and, such a waywardness, was not grounded in the examples of Scripture. Since the book of Daniel has already been referenced, it is worth adding to Newell’s argument that Daniel and his companions faithfully served Babylon and even consented to being educated in all the ways and wisdoms of the enemy empire. Law and order persevered even amongst the captive and enslaved exiles allowing their lives to be a living testimony eventually leading both Nebuchadnezzar and Darius to belief in the God of Heaven. Again, Newell wrote:
“Magistrates are put in place, set up, ordained, of God. Never mind if they are bad ones, the word still stands, ‘There is no power but of God.’ Remember your Savior suffered under Pontius Pilate, one of the worst Roman governors Judea ever had; and Paul under Nero, the worst Roman Emperor. And neither our Lord nor His Apostle denied or reviled the ‘authority!’” (Newell, Romans, 483)
It is interesting to note one particular caveat made by Newell specifically regarding subjection to ruling authorities for the prevention of lawlessness. After recognizing the intention for ordained governments, he quickly identified certain political leanings as not being divinely legitimate because their pursued purposes do not align with Scriptural truth or the ordained design to prevent lawlessness; after defining sin as lawlessness and emphasizing that the anti-Christ will be known as the lawless one, Newell directly addressed the criminal intentions of the Marxist Weltanschauung. Newell stated:
“Perhaps the most glaring of all instances of last-days lawlessness, is the tolerance of Red Communism. We do not now speak of Russia; but of the fact that Communistic doctrines (which openly declare war upon all Divinely appointed order) are held,—even by professing Christians! in England, the United States, Canada, and all over the world.” (Newell, Romans, 482)
And, as though the point was not clear, he even added:
“If, instead of ‘godliness with contentment,’ earthiness and covetousness seize your heart, you are really setting in on Lenin’s and Stalin’s path—which ends in hell! and makes a land a bloody horror meanwhile.” (Newell, Romans, 483)
It must be noted, again, however, that Daniel and his companions served faithfully under the reign of bloodthirsty Babylonian kings who considered themselves gods—in their service for the empire they were blameless; moreover, Paul wrote to the church in Rome at the beginning of Emperor Nero’s ascension to the throne. Furthermore, the historical consideration that Paul’s epistle to the Romans was written approximately eight years before the onslaught of tyranny and persecution that would be known as Nero’s Reign of Terror does not negate the message. Rather, it only makes the instructions a prophetic counseling; Nero would eventually wield the sword against the innocent, feeding them to the lions as entertainment for the Roman mob, and, yet, the innocence of the martyrs would become a testimony of faith that very quickly overtook the paganism of Rome. In the same way, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were, contrary to a Heavenly justice, thrown into the furnace with their faithfulness contributing to the redemption of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 3); and, Daniel’s sentencing to the lion’s den produced a testimony of praise from the lips of Darius, the pagan king formerly faithful to the gods of Babylon (Daniel 6). With all of this well understood by the Apostle Paul, he wrote that our obedient subjection was for the sake of conscience as well as to avoid the wrath of God.
“For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one 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. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.” (Romans 13:3-5)
Paul even added in his correspondence with Rome that such an ordained authority is rightly paid for by inhabitants under the rulers’ authority. While taxes are a contentious topic today, the conversation was perhaps even more so for the first century church. Throughout the Gospel narratives, tax collectors were well understood as being the worst of sinners, and, yet, according to Paul, their collection, honest or otherwise, was to be considered fair payment for the ordained maintenance of governmental ministry.
“For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.” (Romans 13:6-7)
Having said all of this, there still stands the obvious truth that the Church can by no means follow the counseling of Dibelius by condoning and participating in the so-described required harsh actions of the Nazi state. To this specific reality, Newell wrote that the only justification for rebellion was within the realm of spiritual matters; and, such an interpretation proves to be aligned with the example of the fiery furnace in which the three were faithful in all matters of state but, as a matter of spiritual conscience, refused to bow to the golden image and thereby violate the commandments of God. The same display is evident through the story of Daniel and the lion’s den. Newell wrote:
“It is only in spiritual matters—‘things that are God’s’— that ‘to obey God rather than men’ is our path. The things pertaining to God are those that concern our obedience to our confession of the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ,—that is, all matters of our Christian conscience. Caesar has no right to touch my conscience. If I yield to him there, I am a traitor to the truth. We should emulate the old martyrs here, and even those suffering for the truth under Caesar’s wickedness in our own day: for instance; under pagan Hitlerism in Germany, or atheist communism is Russia, where, often, the most noble witnesses of Christ are found. But, as to our persons and our property and our lives, that is, as regards earthly things, we are subject to the powers that God has put in place or ordained; and should not ‘withstand’ them. Those who so withstand, will bring on themselves guilt and Divine chastening. The Christian, above all men, should be in quiet subjection to constituted authority.” (Newell, Romans, 484)
Bonhoeffer, likewise, argued that subjection to constituted authority existed only within the limits of the governments ordination. In direct contrast to Dibelius, Bonhoeffer’s position stood opposed to the government’s corruption and manipulation of Church doctrine as a matter of personal and divine conscience. He specifically argued that ruling authorities can violate their commission and, in such cases, must be resisted.
“If government violates or exceeds its commission at any point, for example by making itself master over the belief of the congregation, then at this point, indeed, obedience is to be refused, for conscience’ sake, for the Lord’s sake.” (Bonhoeffer, Ethics, 338)
Barth made the similar point in his commentary. He argued that earthly affairs, which include both church and state, were housed within earthly realms with God forever and eternally existing outside and separate as holy and transcendent; revival, therefore, was the act of subtracting all earthly affairs until only God remained. With this foundation, Barth argued for the existence of limitations for the ruling authorities that were, as with all earthly matters, subject to divine justice and destructive judgment.
“All human consciousness, all human principles and axioms and orthodoxies and -isms, all principality and power and dominion, are AS SUCH subjected to the destructive judgement of God. Let every man be in subjection means, therefore, that every man should consider the falsity of all human reckoning as such.” (Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 483, emphasis original)
Prior to exile, Barth made no quarrel in questioning the legitimacy of the Nazi regime as a ruling authority or properly constructed government; his exile resulted in the refusal to declare unquestioning allegiance to Hitler. In the years after his exile, Barth became an outspoken opponent to the Nazi influence; unfortunately, despite his clear understanding of the evils of Hitler’s Weltanschauung, Barth later became an advocate for the other forms of Marxist -isms with communism being most notably promoted from his platform. If the earliest guidance of Barth is to be agreed upon, then the failures of his later life must serve as a warning that if matters of conscience are not continually examined (and intellectual idleness is permitted) we are likely to fall into other—tailored and presentable—demonic snares.
The works of Newell, Barth, and Bonhoeffer all assume within their interpretations and commentaries an Augustinian two world, City of God and City of Man, understanding recognizing limits in both authority and subjection. But, what is never precisely determined in such an approach is the defined boundary between the two: if the dimensions are indeed separate, what matters of conscience constitute spiritual and earthly affairs? Should taxes be paid to fund the ministry of ruling authorities if such treasures are used to facilitate the maniacal intentions of Auschwitz or contribute internationally to Planned Parenthood’s genocide of the unborn through the evils of abortion? Are there, in fact, earthly matters of which the law of heaven is unconcerned and one’s Christian conscience may be absolved? In the United States, some abolitionists worked tirelessly within the system to advocate for the freedoms and rights of the enslaved while others paid the ultimate price by taking up arms and shedding their blood to end the evils of slavery. How can the Christian “rescue the weak and the needy [and] deliver them from the hand of the wicked” (Psalm 82:4) while remaining subject to the ruling authorities fervently devoted to the destruction of the vulnerable (as seen in the Soviet starvation of Ukraine, The Turkish genocide of Armenians, or the South African injustices against Afrikaners)? Today, especially within a representative republic (in which all actions of state are done so in the name of those represented), the church must continually consider the matter of subjection and conscience if Paul’s original intent is to be well served.
Again, in our deliberate pursuit of divine understanding, we must remember that this passage of Scripture is written with the love of neighbor commandment inscribed upon its heart; “love must be genuine” leads to “be subject to governing authorities” and concludes with “love is the fulfilling of the law”; subjection, even in the literary sense, exists within the framework of genuine and divine love. How we choose to live within society, subjected or rebellious, is, undeniably, a testimony for or against the Gospel; and, it is a significant matter deeply intertwined with the commandment to love. Dibelius, supposedly, eventually became an outspoken opponent of the Third Reich; regardless, if true, the lasting impact of his earlier actions should stand as a lesson to the Church to start well. Likewise, (in matters of state, conscience, and love), the life of Barth should be lesson to the importance of finishing well.
Through it all, what is clear through Paul’s writing is that we are called to obediently be in subjection to ruling authorities as a people of law and order, love and gospel, to serve as a testimony for the redemption of all.
References
Barth, Karl. The Epistle to the Romans, trans. Edwyn C Hoskyns, Oxford University Press, 1980.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Ethics. New York: Macmillan, 1955.
Gailus, M. (2017). 1933 As A Protestant Experience and the “Day of Potsdam”. Contemporary Church History Quarterly. Volume 23 Number 1/2 (June 2017). translated by Kyle Jantzen. https://contemporarychurchhistory.org/2017/06/public-lecture-1933-as-a-protestant-experience-and-the-day-of-potsdam/#_ftn2
Newell, William R. Romans: Verse By Verse. Chicago: Moody, 1952.