We need to stop misusing Romans 13

Sarah Sanders recently made the comment that she believes "God wanted Trump to be President." Now I've already written a post about how utilizing the Bible to try and justify your support for Trump is just plain weird (you can read that post here if you want), and after this latest claim, another friend of mine jumped in the foray and also said it was wrong to attribute the Trump Presidency to "God's will." Inevitably, someone threw Romans 13:1-7 out there, that all secular leaders are still appointed by God to do his will and are his servants. So we should view him as such. (Never mind such claims were never made when Obama was President)

This passage has a ubiquitous history in the United States, having been utilized to impose harm on countless people: from A.G. Sessions citing this same text and the need to subject ourselves to the ruling authorities to justify separating children from their parents to slave holders in the 1860's and Jim Crow laws that were enforced up until 1965.  It also raises some troubling questions about why on earth. according to this interpretation, God would have appointed Hitler or Mussolini or Stalin and then insisted that Christians somehow should submit to those kinds of authorities.

It was the latter that was such a sticking point for me. Subject to the government of Nazi Germany? Do what they tell you because God appointed them as rulers over you and you shouldn't fear them because they execute the proper kind of justice? Ummm... I'm gonna go with no. That seems to be in complete contradiction to the Christian calling and the radically subversive message of Christianity that threatened not just the social order, but economic and political systems of its day.

So for most of my life, this passage has always perplexed me. On top of it not making sense in terms of certain worldly governments that were clearly evil, it seemed to be an odd thing to throw in the middle of the rest of his letter to the Romans, which has nothing to do with the relationship between Christians and the state. Plus, if understood that way, he makes a few statements that just don't jive with what we knew about Paul.

Paul & the "Authorities"
You see, Paul kept getting himself thrown into prison by the Roman authorities. So when he states, "For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God’s servant for your good," there's an inherent problem if he is talking about Rome, as Rome HAD been a terror to him, and clearly would continue to be as he would eventually lose his head in Rome at the direction of Emperor Nero.

Was Paul saying his own conduct was bad and that's why he had suffered? That being thrown in prison meant he had received the approval of the Roman authorities in some twisted fashion? Or was he just plain old every day gas lighting the people in the poor Roman church? Not to mention that his statement, if applied to Caesar and the Roman Empire, flies in the face of the ENTIRE book of Revelation, which pretty much says the exact opposite. That these Imperial forces that seek to oppress and and kill you are from the "dragon." They're beastly systems that propagate evil and drink the blood of the saints. Hence the cry from heaven:

"Come out of her, my people, so that you do not take part in her sins, and so that you do not share in her plagues; for her sins are heaped high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities." (Revelation 18:4-5)

This made zero sense.

Then I ran across an interesting book by Mark Nanos titled, “The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letters" in which Nanos argues:

"Paul addressed the Christian gentiles in Rome within the context of their association with the synagogue for the obedience of their new faith by instructing them to subordinate themselves to the institutional requirements of the synagogue, in additional to the ethical and purity halakhot that had been developed for "righteous Gentiles" worshiping in the midst of the congregation of Israel," and was not concerned at this juncture with addressing a political matter in terms of their subordination to the Empire or State, but rather to the customary rules of behavior within a synagogue (Nanos, Chapter 6). 

Given Paul's love for orderly worship expressed elsewhere in places like 1 Corinthians (which, he happened to be writing to the Romans from Corinth at the time), this seems a likely scenario. Nanos further points out the likelihood that they were worshiping within the context of a Jewish Synagogue as whenever Paul went to new communities, his first stop was always the Jewish Synagogue, for it was in the Synagogue that both Jew and Gentile believers alike had begun coming together. The Book of Acts certainly supports this notion.

"After Paul and Silas had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom..." - Acts 17:1-2

 "Every sabbath he would argue in the synagogue and would try to convince Jews and Greeks." - Acts 18:4

Now granted, Paul never went to visit the Roman church, and how the Roman church even began is a topic of heated debate, so none of us know EXACTLY what the circumstances in the Roman church were. However, there was a large presence of Jews--as many as five synagogues were believed to have been present in Rome. In fact, Priscilla and Aquila were from Rome and had fled to Corinth after being expelled from the Eternal City by Emperor Claudius. By the penning of Romans, Paul was sending them back to Rome (most likely the group mentioned in Romans 16 was the group that would be delivering the letter to the Roman church community). The church was therefore likely started by the Roman Jews present on the Day of Pentecost who then took the message back to their Jewish communities in Rome. Because despite the fact that the Gentiles were receptive to the Gospel, thus stunning the Jerusalem Council, it was still at this point a distinctly Jewish movement. A point Paul makes earlier in Romans:

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." - Romans 1:16

If they were persecuted and kicked out of the Synagogue, that was one thing - and that happened quite frequently. But if they were not kicked out, continuing to meet and work together within the Synagogue structure was preferable. Just like the Jerusalem Christians continued to meet at the Temple, even though the Temple clearly was not filled solely with Christian Jews.

What was happening in the Roman church, specifically, was a rift had developed not between the unbelievers and Christians, but between Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles. The Gentiles were ready to break from the Jewish origins of their faith and go off and do their own thing...most likely because the Jewish community was insisting on certain Jewish rules. Which, we all know, there were some rules that Paul did not see the need to continue to impose, such as circumcision. However, Paul was a stickler for good order and, of course, for there being no room for pagan practices and beliefs in worship.

Additionally, in Romans 9-11, Paul has just spent an inordinate amount of time talking about his hope that the unbelieving Jews will come to faith eventually. That God has not abandoned his beloved people, as the Gentiles were apparently claiming.

All Israel
Now, to be clear, Paul is not arguing for two different tracks of salvation in Romans 9-11, as many have argued, because the means of salvation remains the same: faith, and faith alone. To suggest otherwise negates his entire preceding argument leading up to chapter 9. While some have indeed stumbled, Paul reminds us that Jews were still the cornerstone upon which Christianity was built, that the first disciples and earliest converts were all Jewish. After all, Paul himself was an Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin. As he quotes in Romans 10:12, “Everyone who calls on the Lord shall be saved.” Thus the comment regarding “on account of the patriarchs” is highlighting for the Gentiles that God has not abandoned or written his people off. He loves them and desires them to come to faith as much as he desires anyone to come to faith.

It is through this profound mystery (also mentioned in Ephesians 3 and Colossians 2) that Gentiles have become “fellow heirs” through Christ. God therefore is saving Jew and Gentile not by two different methods of salvation, but in the way that he promised throughout all of the Old Testament. The Messiah of the Gentiles was first, and foremost, the Messiah promised to “Israel.” Any Jew can still be grafted back in as though they had never been cut off.

Paul's "so all Israel will be saved" is something of a translational issue. The word “so” (kai outws) is usually translated and understood as a temporal “when” all Israel will be saved. Yet, this term also means “in this way,” denoting the manner through which God is saving “all Israel”—through a hardening on a part of the unbelieving Jews so that Gentiles may be brought in, and it is "in this way" that “all Israel”—both Jew and Gentile— will be saved, because both are heirs through faith.Yet, Paul also points out “God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy.” Therefore, ultimately, issues of salvation lie not in our hands or our understandings, but in God’s.

Subject to Governing Authorities
So that brings us to what is going on by the time we get to Chapter 13. In Chapter 12, Paul urges them to present themselves as living sacrifices after he has gone on this lengthy discourse, directed primarily at the Gentile Christians, about how the Jews are still central to God's saving work, therefore Gentiles need to respect that and not boast about their own salvation. He also implores them to respect the fact that the body of Christ is filled with a variety of different gifts, and outdo one another in showing love and affection for each other. Do good, bless your persecutors and shower them with love.

He is addressing issues that are, arguably, generally treated as independent concerns regarding how to live properly as Christians. Nanos' argument, however, is that even Chapter 12 is still continuing to address the Gentile Christians, more so than the Jewish Christians, and is an extension of how Gentiles are to live out this new lifestyle that is still deeply Jewish rather than breaking away and forming something completely devoid of the Jewish structures of worship and living. That the "stumbling" Jews whom they regard as "enemies" are still to be loved, even in the face of evil. These are who he refers to as "weak in the faith" who do not yet recognize Jesus is their Christ nor the legitimacy of the Gentile claim that they are equal participants in the promised blessings without having to become Jews themselves. To live in the Gentile manner would only serve to alienate the non-believing Jews, and that is antithetical to Paul's hopes and desires for all Jews to recognize Christ as THEIR messiah.

And then there's the pivot: obey the governing authorities.

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due."

It's a rather jarring shift in topic, but with the talk of taxes and the use of the sword not being born in vain, this would seem to our ears like he must be talking about the Roman government, because as twenty-first century Christians, we don't exactly have a ruling authority in the church that imposes any of those things.

The Jewish leadership, however, did. Paul actually talks about how he had to subject himself to the synagogue authorities:

"Five times I have received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one." -2 Corinthians 11:24  

The "sword" was likely not a literal "sword," but the metaphorical reference of the disciplinary function of the synagogue rulers. To have not adopted the proper behavior within the synagogue community would have resulted not only in discipline from the synagogue authorities, but their "wrath" as well, especially if they were still trying to impose certain pagan practices and were trying to justify not sending their Temple tax to Jerusalem.

This was a voluntary tax and something they either chose to send or not send. It was not compulsory like the Roman taxes. In the Evangelical Lutheran Church, we might equate it with how our churches send a portion of their budget to their local synods. Early Christian communities continued to pay the Temple tax to maintain a smooth relationship with their Jewish neighbors. (Neil J. McEleney, "Matthew 17:24-27—Who Paid the Temple Tax? A Lesson in the Avoidance of Scandal," The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Vol. 38, No. 2 (April 1976), p. 178)

Given the context of the preceding chapters of Romans, where Paul is trying to reconcile these two groups, telling the Gentiles that they need to be subject to the "ruling authorities" of the Jewish Synagogue and pay the Temple tax, which clearly Gentiles would have not felt the need to do since the Temple wasn't "their" Temple, this seems to be in keeping with Paul's desire to reconcile the Jews and Gentiles in order to kept the peace. (See Chapter 12)  In fact by doing so they would help win the respect of the Jews as "righteous Gentiles" thereby holding up those stumbling until they finally are able to see and believe in Christ.

This seems consistent with how Paul claimed in 1 Corinthians 9 that he became all things to all people for the sake of the gospel. Did they "need" to do it as a rule that God made? No. But if it helped others hear the gospel, then by all means. Subject yourself to those authorities and those taxes. Likewise do not seek vengeance upon those you are trying to win over, even if they have done you wrong, as that would have been counter-productive in Paul's view to the spread of the gospel.

The Gentiles likely had begun to question the disciplinary role of the synagogue and its authority over Gentile Christians as it was something strange and foreign to them.

The possibility also exists that "the sword" reference is utilized to be a reference to the "Word of God," as Paul has frequently utilized that imagery. These authorities were, in fact, interpreters of the Torah and would have been responsible for the application of the law. These leaders would have been "servants of God" who interpreted Torah, administered discipline and "God's wrath" on those who compromised the monotheistic tenets of the faith, and would have been dedicated to the collection, safekeeping and distribution of the Temple tax for Jerusalem.

After all, Paul then almost immediately launches into his clearly metaphorical "put on the armor of light" imagery. The "works/deeds of darkness" were a reference behavior associated with idolatry, bolstering the likelihood the issue of what was being "punished" was not the breaking of Roman law, but pagan polytheistic practices that most Gentiles would have been participating in prior to their conversion. If the "authorities" were cracking down on them... well, we all know how well any of us react to people telling us not to do things we don't see a problem with.

Furthermore, it is unlikely that these Roman Christians who lived in the same city as the Emperor needed to be reminded that they were subject to those secular authorities. Roman Christians were hardly in a position to launch any sort of resistance group at the time in terms of defying Caesar. They knew already what that would result in as by this time Nero was in charge. Given his father, Claudius, had been the one to expel all the Jews from Rome for a period of time, Nero had no love of Jews or Christians. They were, in fact, rather powerless when it came to the Roman authorities, so Paul ordering them to willingly submit to those powers by claiming God had appointed them seems... out of place and almost abusive.

As stated earlier, Paul was not blind to the evils inflicted by the Romans, so his statement that "those authorities that exist have been instituted by God,"  becomes highly troublesome if it's referring to Rome. Were some evil powers used by God to punish Israel? Yes. God tells the prophet Habakkuk he is raising up the evil Babylonians to come in and conquer Judah for her iniquities. But that's a far cry from claiming Babylonian leaders were God-ordained. Not to mention, the Christians have hardly had time to become corrupt to the point that God is going to utilize an evil empire to discipline them. Plus, ordering Christians to participate in any way with the evils of those empires by going along with their practices seems out of step with every other calling of the Christian church in relationship to those powers and forces. (Again, Revelation's call to "come out" and not participate in such things.)

The governing authority over the synagogue, on the other hand, absolutely would have been viewed by Paul as being instituted by God.

Conclusion
Ultimately, it comes down to looking at the overarching message and point of Romans and reconciling the statements of 13:1-7 with the overall tensions of redefining faith in Christ in relationship to Israel, the Law, and the "stumbling" of non-Christian Jews who were considered by the Roman church to be "enemies" of the gospel.

The entire letter is one of an internal relationship between not just Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians, but non-Christian Jews as well. It is not a letter that is concerned with the relationship between the church and the state. It is a letter that is concerned with the eschatological vision and consummation in which both Jew and Gentile are brought together to worship the God of Israel, and the Gentile Christians needed a reminder in 13:1-7 that the existing religious authorities were there to serve God's people in the execution of the responsibilities to maintain order, behave properly, collect taxes, and generally attend to the administrative matters of the community for the sake of peace and harmony so that the gospel would become known to others.

And that was always Paul's goal: to spread the gospel.

Don't use the Bible to justify your support of Trump. Just don't.

I haven't posted on my blog for nearly a year. It's certainly not because I haven't had anything to say, but because, well, in a position like mine, I have to be very careful at times in what I say and how I say it. So I admit, it's been easier to say nothing in the public venue.

Of late, however, I've been asked to give my opinion as a pastor/Biblical scholar on some of the issues that currently surround this weird modern Americanized melding of religion and politics. In particular, the white Evangelical theology that a) embraces Trump as being somehow appointed or ordained by God to fulfill some purpose, especially in terms of the "end times," or b) utilizing some of the sketchier characters in the Bible to justify why Trump is such a terrible human being, and that it's OK to support a terrible human being when he accomplishes your goals.

The latest was someone decided to use Samson as an example of God appointing a pretty terrible guy to be a judge that brings down the Philistine Temple of the god Dagon. (You can read the whole article here if you want)  Trump is apparently like Samson.

Ummm. Yeah. There are so many problems with this it's hard to know where to start, but I'll try.

OK, let's start with - if you want to support Trump - fine. Support Trump for whatever reasons you feel you should do that. But for the love of everything holy, leave God out of this! (The second commandment is "do not use the Lord's name in vain," which means do not attribute things to God that are not of God. Making these assertions seems to fit into that category if you ask me.)

The second thing that must be emphasized is that God's work within a theocracy like Ancient Israel is in no way related to 21st Century America! God made covenants and appointed particular people for particular reasons that were all for, at least in the Christian mind, an ultimate goal: Jesus. The incarnation. The promise of the Word made flesh. All of Israelite history culminated and was fulfilled in this event... an event that then stormed past the borders of Israel and has ceased to claim any sort of national identity ever since (except by despots who twisted and utilized Christianity as a state religion as a means of control over its citizens).  There is zero, zilch, nada in the Bible that supports God wanting to protect and preserve America as some "special" divinely ordained nation. God is the God of all nations, not just America. Sorry, Jerry Falwell, Jr. God hasn't made a single prophetic promise about the United States.

Thus drawing those parallels is not only the worst form of religious and cultural appropriation out there, but it's just plain weird. The US is not ancient Israel. Period. We are not the New Jerusalem. We are not the Promised Land. There is no 'manifest destiny' regarding the US. End of story. There is only the call for us to behave as Christ has commanded us to as Christians wherever we live in the world. To love our neighbor and our enemies, strive for justice, etc. etc. Many of us as Christian Americans do desire that the country we live in reflect those values as we embrace the poor and the marginalized and treat all people with dignity and respect. We believe we have not just a religious but a civic duty to care for the most vulnerable among us.

Now, as far as looking at how God utilized bad people to do good things, ok, there's some merit to that. Yeah, Moses and Paul and David - all killers. Killers that share one thing in common - they are changed by God's redemptive power. Not even Evangelicals at this point are claiming Trump is changing his ways or that he is a redemptive figure of some sort. No, instead, they are searching the Bible for bad characters who stay bad characters, but God uses them anyway.

So let's take a closer look at the examples people are using, such as the Samson one listed above. How does that story ACTUALLY go? The "hero" here winds up having his eyes gouged out and in prison because he was an arrogant, horny idiot. He pulls down the Temple of Dagon in a last gasp effort of revenge, killing himself in the process. That's who you want to compare Trump to in order to justify supporting him and his behavior? Think about that for a minute. Things do not end well for Samson. At all. Trump may very well pull down the pillars of American government and society, but, like Samson, he'll take himself out in the process.

It also completely ignores what the overarching point of the Book of Judges is in the first place. It's a commentary on what NOT TO DO! It illustrates the break-down of the rule of law when people begin to utilize violence not for mere issues of national security, but for personal vendettas and vengeance. Cue Samson. Samson was a reflection of his society. It had become so corrupt and so degraded, that Samson was apparently the best that God had to choose from. That's kind of a sad rebuke on your society, not something to be celebrated. And, things only get worse from there. By the end of Judges, the Israelites descend into a state of civil war where they nearly wipe out one of their own tribes following the rape and murder of a woman whose body parts were sent by her husband to all the tribes in order to wage that war.

These are not stories we want to emulate. Just saying. They're stories that offer up stark warnings regarding bad behavior... not excuses or justification for bad behavior. (Side note... the book of Ruth on the other hand is a story about a despised FOREIGN WOMAN who is more faithful and righteous than the Israelites, who will become the great-grandmother of King David. Once again highlights the Bible's regard for the "outsider," or the "righteous foreigner.")

Another popular one is people claiming Trump is like King Cyrus of Persia. They state that Cyrus was a "pagan king" who was a bad guy but still allowed the Jews to return to Judea so he ultimately was doing God's will. Well, first of all, Cyrus was not a pagan. He was a Zoroastrian and therefore a monotheist. Cyrus the Great also respected all the customs, religions and cultures that were under his control. Not something Trump is too keen on doing. Cyrus the Great is also well recognized for his achievements in human rights, politics, and military strategy. (*Ahem.*) Cyrus really was a pretty decent guy all things considered, given the brutality of the era. Another one of those "righteous foreigners." The analogy thus falls apart on multiple levels.

As for leaders God appoints... yeah let's look at how that turns out. In 1 Kings, God says he's going to rip the bulk of the Kingdom away from Solomon's son, Rehoboam, and give it to Jeroboam. Jeroboam then goes on to build golden calves and upsets God to the point he declares that he will utterly annihilate Jeroboam's family so there will be no more descendants. Likewise, he does the same with a few of Jeroboam's successors, including King Ahab's family. These horrible Kings eventually lead to God allowing the Assyrian army to come in and destroy the northern kingdom utterly and completely.

This is really who you want to say Trump is like? One of these bad kings that God appointed, but then turned on and utterly destroyed? Um. Ok.

In terms of Trump playing some sort of role in the "end times," good grief, I don't have enough time or room to explain all the fallacies in that argument, other than to say if he is playing some role in their little non-Biblical dispensationalist script (that for the record, I do NOT ascribe to)... I highly suspect it's not the part they think he's playing.  Because you know what ushers in the "second coming of Jesus" or the rapture according to their theology? The rise of the anti-christ on the world stage. Think about that. They support him... because he's doing all the things the anti-Christ is supposed to do.

Wait, what?

You heard me right. There aren't enough face-palms in the world for this.

Again - you want to support Trump because you like tax cuts for the rich, you want a border wall, etc., then by all means - support Trump. Just leave the Bible - and God - out of it.