The Radical Message of Romans 13
1 Let everyone be subject to Hitler, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against Hitler is rebelling against who God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of Hitler? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For Hitler is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. Hitler is God’s servant, agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to him, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
It seems strange to read Romans 13:1-7 like this, but this is exactly how the majority of churches in Nazi Germany
Adolf Hitler
applied it. Hitler is God’s servant. Therefore, we should not resist but submit ourselves to what he is doing. When Hitler came into power, Romans 13. When his Gestapo began to take your Jewish neighbors away, Romans 13. When his army invaded Poland, Romans 13. Hitler wisely embraced Romans 13 to give him unquestioned power by the majority of German Christians. Not many Christians spoke up because, let’s be frank, as long as you were on Hitler’s side you were on the winning side. Romans 13 gives Hitler a lot of lead-way to do as he pleases. I mean, Paul would tell the German Christians to be subject to the governing authorities, wouldn’t he? The pro-Nazi churches were just following Scripture, right?
Some Christians spoke up against Hitler. Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Karl Barth to name two. They were part of a much smaller group of German Christians, who spread anti-Nazi propaganda, and rejected the German government’s attempts to “Nazify” the churches in Germany. In response to this, they headed up a movement called the “Confessing Church” and signed the Barmen Declaration, which was a document directly speaking out against Nazi Germany. Were they in this way disobeying Scripture?
Nazi Germany was one of the greatest evils in all of history, and yet much of the German church sided with this evil because they believed they were following Scripture. It is easy to sit back in our chairs and condemn the pro-Nazi churches, but we would be wise to learn from history, instead of repeating it. If we are honest, the Church continues to adopt certain political leaders without realizing the danger of it.
There are multiple mistakes one can make when coming to Romans 13. First, we forget that Christians were being persecuted at the time. It seems incredibly odd to suggest that Paul is happy with the government and is insisting Christians just “suck it up.” Living in America, the lone superpower in the world, we often fail to see this point. Paul was being persecuted. He was not part of the superpower (i.e., Rome) but he was one of the oppressed. So what is he doing? Second, we fail to see that Romans 13 is a discussion about the relationship between civil authorities and their own citizens. Paul nowhere offers a policy between two nations.
Third, we fail to read this in light of the whole story of Romans and other areas of the New Testament. At his trial before his crucifixion, Jesus tells Pilate in John 19, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above” (v. 11). In the book of Acts, Paul calls out the governing authorities multiple times such as in Acts 16, 23, and 26. And, even if we read Romans 13 in light of Romans 1, we will remember that Jesus is the Son of God and Lord, and both of these terms were first designated to Caesar; but Paul applies them in a subversive way to Jesus.
However, probably the worst mistake we make is separating Romans 12 and Romans 13. This is partially not our fault. The chapter breaks and verses were not in Paul’s original letters. They were added later for convenience, but this “convenience” between Romans 12 and Romans 13 has been a terrible mistake. If you start reading Romans 13 without Romans 12:9 and following, you are headed for disaster.
Contrary to what many would suggest, Paul’s asking his readers to be radicals. But not radicals in the sense of crazy hippies or something like that, and not in the sense of rebels. Many 1st century Jews were accustomed to rebels, particularly violent ones–such as the Maccabean revolts and the failed revolt in AD 70. Paul is not asking for rebels. He is asking for radicals.
Where are the radicals?
We are talking about radicals who are “not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (12:21). Notice how Paul says in verse 3, “For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad”? Overcome evil with good, and the rulers will have nothing against you. Do evil and the rulers will bring down the sword just like they will do in AD 70. Radicals are counterintuitive. Instead of seeking vengeance when wronged, they allow God to do his work (v. 19). Instead of responding to persecution and oppression with violence, they live peaceably with all (v. 18). If you are rebels and resist the governing authorities like many in Palestine have tried, you will incur judgment (i.e., 13:2). If you are the type of radical who does counterintuitive good, then be subject to the governing authorities.
Where are the radicals?
Being subject to the governing authorities requires discernment. As we see even with Paul himself (cf. Acts 16, 23, 26), there are times to be radical enough to call “sin, sin” and “injustice, injustice.” We need radicals who will be subject to the governing authorities but call them out when they too are not following Romans 12:9ff. Paul does not begin a completely new thought in Romans 13 but is continuing what he said right before in Romans 12. There are times to pay taxes and be subject and there are times to call out against injustice, sin, and evil. If we don’t hold both side-by-side, we will be like the majority of Christians in Nazi Germany who accepted everything Hitler did. “On June 17, 1940…when the fall of France made everyone around him jump up to give the Nazi salute, Dietrich Bonhoeffer did likewise, saying, ‘We shall have to run risks for very different things now, but not for that salute!’”[1] There are times to resist and times to salute. Paul is making a similar point, “Don’t make a scene. We are carrying a very controversial message and have to run risks for very different things now, and we aren’t running the risk for things like taxes, honor, and respect.” In this way, radicals must be “wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” So I ask again…
Where are the radicals?
Paul is basically telling the readers, “Stay low. You don’t want to make things worse on us, Christians, than it already is.” So, do things like live in harmony with one another, do not repay evil with evil, live peaceably with all; and pay taxes? Like Jesus said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and God what is God’s.” Give Caesar his filthy money, but God wants radicals, Romans 12 radicals. Be a radical, who when faced with persecution, pays respect. When faced with the edge of a sword, pays taxes. When after being flogged, gives honor. These are radicals; radicals of love. It reminds me of what Martin Luther King, Jr., said to his opponents,
[T]hrow us in jail and we will still love you. Threaten our children and bomb our homes and our churches and as difficult as it is, we will still love you. Send your hooded perpetrators of violence into our communities at the midnight hours and drag us out on some wayside road and beat us and leave us half-dead, and as difficult as that is, we will still love you. But be assured that we will wear you down by our capacity to suffer and one day we will win our freedom. We will not only win freedom for ourselves, we will so appeal to your heart and your conscience that we will win you in the process and our victory will be a double victory. [2]
Dr. King is only following in lines of his Lord. Jesus reminded his followers, when someone hits you, turn the other cheek and allow them to hit you again. When a Roman soldier insults you by asking you to carry his equipment for a mile, carry it two. When you are mocked even in your moments of death, forgive those who are mocking you. Jesus teaches this because the Church is the alternative to the world. It is different. They are the ekklesia, the “called out” ones.
Where are the radicals? Where are the radicals of love and good deeds? Where are the radicals who pay taxes, give honor and respect? Where are the radicals who seek peace in a violent world? Where are these radicals?
I submit that if we hold Romans 13 alongside Romans 12 we will understand what it is like to be the alternative to the world. We will wear our opponents down with our love. We will be subject to the governing authorities, but we will also call out their injustice. We will stand up against violence and be people of peace. We will not allow the Church to support the Hilter’s of the world. We are called to be radicals, and, as radicals, be “wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” We will show respect to our employers when everyone else speaks poorly of her. We will forgive the person at work who climbed up our back to the top. We will live peaceably with our annoying neighbors. We will not take part in gossip about “what that girl is wearing.” We do not cheat on our taxes We will “not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good.”
Where are the radicals?
+++++++
[1] Eberhard Bethge’s Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography, p. 681; quoted in John D. Crossan & Jonathan L. Reed’s In Search of Paul: How Jesus’s Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom (2004), p. 394.
[2] http://www.wmich.edu/library/archives/mlk/excerpts.html
You wrote concerning Paul “he was not part of the superpower (i.e., Rome) but he was one of the oppressed.” I think there is some truth to this, but what complicates things is that Paul was also a citizen of the empire. He was not an occupied person completely, but had received the rights of citizenship within the Roman empire.
While I don’t think this harms your argument, I think it complicates our view of Paul’s relationship with empire.
@Thomas, perhaps I should have fleshed that thought out more. I meant that Paul was not in the position of one of the “elite” but was one of the oppressed. The Empire oppressed Paul even if he was a citizen of it. However, as you said, I don’t think this contradicts what I said. I does pose the question, how does one properly critique the empire even though he or she is its citizen? I think it’s similar to what Shane Claiborne says as I paraphrase, I am proud to be an American. When America helps the poor, I am proud to be American. When it feeds the hungry, I am proud to be American.
[...] But, if you would like to know how I would interpret Romans 13, I spoke about Romans 13 last May so here’s my answer… [...]
This chapter is one of the most clear and explicit in all the Bible. Reading chapter 12 does not, as you argue, change chapter 13’s meaning whatsoever. It means what it says, and only via Houdini-like contortions can you make it mean something different. I will argue with anyone: that passage is morally reprehensible. It goes to show that almost all Christians are more moral than the religion they follow, and certainly more moral than Yahweh of the Old Testament.
If Paul had meant what Christian apologists want him to have meant, he could easily have written that. Nero was as evil as Hitler, we just don’t have the video. I agree that Paul wanted his followers to lie low; otherwise they all would’ve gone to the lions. If he needed to tell them this in code, that’s understandable. God did not have to allow it in the Bible to confuse German Christians 1,900 years later.
@wordscolliding,
As a Christian, my morality reflects God as revealed through Jesus Christ. With that being said, I believe the Nazi reading of Romans 13 was a dramatic perversion of the passage’s intent. No matter what you follow (e.g., political party, religion, philosophy of life) someone somewhere can pervert it to mean something other than what was originally intended. It does not mean that the source is corrupt but the source’s interpreter. Romans 12 is the God I serve (as well as Romans 13). I cannot help that Romans 13 was perverted by others. The only thing I can do is point out that reading Romans 13 the way the Nazis did is not taking in consideration a morality reflected in the life of Jesus Christ, who blesses the peacemaker, not the violent dictator.
So….would it be right to say that there was ”no good German” in Nazi Germany because they did allow Hitler to brainwash them? I mean, surely there were SOME true Christians who wept over the sin of their country, but had not the means to resist? I agree with your article, by the way. But I love Germany, and I was told recently that there is ”was not a good German”. (of course we know all men are not ”good”, but that was not the issue. I think the person who said that was implying that there were no true Christians during pre-Nazi and Nazi Germany!
@Marjorie,
I am not sure I would say there was “no good German” in Nazi Germany. I am sure there were. However, most of the German church was on Hitler’s side, which is my concern.
Thanks! I realized I had never thoroughly studied the sad fact that most of the German church was indeed on Hitler’s side….thanks for your article which cleared up some stuff!