Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently caused a bit of a
stir by citing Romans 13 in a speech on immigration enforcement. Ever since,
every Tom, Dick, and Harry seems to be a biblical scholar with the firm opinion
that General Sessions got Romans 13 wrong. As someone who has thought and
written about Romans 13 for decades, I thought I might add my amateur critique
of General Sessions’ exegesis.
Here’s what he said:
Here’s what he said:
If you violate the law, you subject yourself to prosecution. I
would cite you to the Apostle Paul in his clear and wise command in Romans 13
to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for
His purposes. Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent
and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing that
protects the weak and protects the lawful.
First General Sessions clearly is right that Paul’s
statement in Romans 13:1 is a command backed by Paul’s apostolic authority,
which he cites at the very beginning of his letter to the Church at Rome.
However, I have to quibble with the General a little. Paul’s command to “every
soul” (and that includes animals, by the way) is not to “obey.” He commands
them to submit. It is possible to obey without submitting, and it is possible
to submit without obeying. Usually the two go hand-in-hand, so I don’t want to
be too hard on General Sessions for this mistake.
A more fundamental error is that General Sessions relates Paul’s command to “the government.” Paul does mention rulers later on in the passage, but Romans 13 never mentions “government,” as such, and Paul’s command is to submit to “powers.” Again, I can’t really blame General Sessions for getting this wrong. Pretty much all modern English translations of the Bible translate the object of the obligation of submission as something like “governing authorities.” Imho, that’s a horrible translation. As usual, the King James pretty much gets it right – “higher powers.” I think the word “superiors” works quite well. Rulers are one example of this. Bosses at work are another. This list could be quite long. Paul went out of his way when setting up this command not to limit it to political rulers but rather to extend the obligation of submission to all superiors.
General Sessions then gives his understanding of the reason for the obligation of submission: “because God has ordained the government for His purposes.” The problem, here again, is that Paul isn’t talking about government. He’s talking about “the powers that be.” Romans 13 is not a tract on government. It is a tract on God’s sovereign rule over all “powers.” God puts all powers in place for His purposes. Therefore, we can safely submit to those powers.
General Sessions then proceeds to describe what he thinks is God’s purpose for government: “Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing that protects the weak and protects the lawful.” Now I happen to agree with both of those sentences, but that is not what the Apostle Paul is talking about in Romans 13. In fact, those hallmarks of our government did not necessarily characterize the governments in place to which Paul was commanding submission. Paul’s point was not “you should obey government because government is good.” Paul’s point was “You can safely submit to your superiors because God is sovereign, has those superiors on a leash, and will use those superiors for your good.”
I recently submitted my grades for the spring, so I am in a grading mood, and I would have to give General Sessions’ exegesis a C-. Honestly, it’s not significantly worse than what I’ve heard all my life, but if you’re going to cite Romans 13 in a political speech, you probably should be a little more careful.
A more fundamental error is that General Sessions relates Paul’s command to “the government.” Paul does mention rulers later on in the passage, but Romans 13 never mentions “government,” as such, and Paul’s command is to submit to “powers.” Again, I can’t really blame General Sessions for getting this wrong. Pretty much all modern English translations of the Bible translate the object of the obligation of submission as something like “governing authorities.” Imho, that’s a horrible translation. As usual, the King James pretty much gets it right – “higher powers.” I think the word “superiors” works quite well. Rulers are one example of this. Bosses at work are another. This list could be quite long. Paul went out of his way when setting up this command not to limit it to political rulers but rather to extend the obligation of submission to all superiors.
General Sessions then gives his understanding of the reason for the obligation of submission: “because God has ordained the government for His purposes.” The problem, here again, is that Paul isn’t talking about government. He’s talking about “the powers that be.” Romans 13 is not a tract on government. It is a tract on God’s sovereign rule over all “powers.” God puts all powers in place for His purposes. Therefore, we can safely submit to those powers.
General Sessions then proceeds to describe what he thinks is God’s purpose for government: “Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing that protects the weak and protects the lawful.” Now I happen to agree with both of those sentences, but that is not what the Apostle Paul is talking about in Romans 13. In fact, those hallmarks of our government did not necessarily characterize the governments in place to which Paul was commanding submission. Paul’s point was not “you should obey government because government is good.” Paul’s point was “You can safely submit to your superiors because God is sovereign, has those superiors on a leash, and will use those superiors for your good.”
I recently submitted my grades for the spring, so I am in a grading mood, and I would have to give General Sessions’ exegesis a C-. Honestly, it’s not significantly worse than what I’ve heard all my life, but if you’re going to cite Romans 13 in a political speech, you probably should be a little more careful.
I won’t bother grading the many (other) amateur critics of
General Sessions’ exegesis, but I do want to look at one critic who should know
what he is talking about. Here’s what Dr. Russell Moore said:
Romans 13 does not mean that any law that the government
passes or carries out is a good law or a just law. Romans 13 simply means that
the governing authorities are put in place for a reason, and the reason the
Apostle Paul says there in Romans 13 is to commend that which is good and to punish
that which is evil. It is hard for me to imagine that children clinging to
their parents in a very, very difficult time could be classified as evil. I
think I understand what the attorney general is trying to say which is that we
have a rule of law and we ought to observe that rule of law. I agree with that.
Dr. Moore’s first sentence stating that “Romans 13 does not
mean that any law that the government passes or carries out is a good law or a
just law” clearly is correct. Of course, General Sessions never suggested
otherwise. And yet, Paul commanded all “souls” to submit to their superiors,
never mentioning whether those superiors where good or just. In fact, most, at
the time, were not. Dr. Moore goes on to say that “Romans 13 simply means that
the governing authorities are put in place for a reason.” Well, Romans 13 means
a lot more than that. But so far, Dr. Moore appears to agree with General
Sessions. Dr. Moore then describes that reason: “to commend that which is good
and to punish that which is evil.”
Having established what he sees as “the purpose for government” (something Romans 13 does not directly address), Dr. Moore then goes on to critique President Trump’s immigration policy because “It is hard for me to imagine that children clinging to their parents in a very, very difficult time could be classified as evil.” There is plenty wrong with what Dr. Moore is saying now. His argument essentially is that Romans 13 provides a yardstick by which we can measure the obligation of submission. When a superior fails the essential purpose of government, then the obligation of submission evaporates. But Romans 13 never sets out an imperative norm for government. Rather, it sets out an indicative description that God uses all superiors, including rulers, to praise evil and to punish good, at least in some sense. By taking it upon himself to pass judgment on whether the administration’s immigration policy lives up to the non-existent Romans 13 standard, Dr. Moore has enthroned himself. God can and does use bad superiors to accomplish good purposes. The Bible and history are full of examples. The Christian’s obligation is to submit, even when he can’t obey for reasons of morality.
Dr. Moore then closes by agreeing with General Sessions' fundamental point about the rule of law, which is a good point, but has nothing to do with Romans 13.
Overall, I have to give Dr. Moore a D+. Basically, his exegesis is the same as General Sessions’ and suffers from the same defects. But Dr. Moore adds the additional defect of gutting Paul’s essential teaching by twisting it into something it was never intended to be, a measuring stick by which the believer can determine whether he owes an obligation of submission to superiors.
I have written much more on Romans 13 in an article that surveys historical commentaries on the passage and a few historical political disputes (the American Revolution, the Third Reich, and Apartheid South Africa) in which Romans 13 was deployed on both sides of the political argument. Here is the way I concluded that article: “I see the approach of many Christians from the Middle Ages forward, who have used Romans 13 either to justify or to condemn particular governing regimes (a practice that continues to this day) to be almost entirely beside Paul’s point. In this, I think my view is consonant with that of the non-resistant Anabaptists and with the Lutherans, particularly including Dietrich Bonhoeffer.”
Having established what he sees as “the purpose for government” (something Romans 13 does not directly address), Dr. Moore then goes on to critique President Trump’s immigration policy because “It is hard for me to imagine that children clinging to their parents in a very, very difficult time could be classified as evil.” There is plenty wrong with what Dr. Moore is saying now. His argument essentially is that Romans 13 provides a yardstick by which we can measure the obligation of submission. When a superior fails the essential purpose of government, then the obligation of submission evaporates. But Romans 13 never sets out an imperative norm for government. Rather, it sets out an indicative description that God uses all superiors, including rulers, to praise evil and to punish good, at least in some sense. By taking it upon himself to pass judgment on whether the administration’s immigration policy lives up to the non-existent Romans 13 standard, Dr. Moore has enthroned himself. God can and does use bad superiors to accomplish good purposes. The Bible and history are full of examples. The Christian’s obligation is to submit, even when he can’t obey for reasons of morality.
Dr. Moore then closes by agreeing with General Sessions' fundamental point about the rule of law, which is a good point, but has nothing to do with Romans 13.
Overall, I have to give Dr. Moore a D+. Basically, his exegesis is the same as General Sessions’ and suffers from the same defects. But Dr. Moore adds the additional defect of gutting Paul’s essential teaching by twisting it into something it was never intended to be, a measuring stick by which the believer can determine whether he owes an obligation of submission to superiors.
I have written much more on Romans 13 in an article that surveys historical commentaries on the passage and a few historical political disputes (the American Revolution, the Third Reich, and Apartheid South Africa) in which Romans 13 was deployed on both sides of the political argument. Here is the way I concluded that article: “I see the approach of many Christians from the Middle Ages forward, who have used Romans 13 either to justify or to condemn particular governing regimes (a practice that continues to this day) to be almost entirely beside Paul’s point. In this, I think my view is consonant with that of the non-resistant Anabaptists and with the Lutherans, particularly including Dietrich Bonhoeffer.”
No comments:
Post a Comment