GOVERNMENT AS A DIVINE ORDINANCE
J Oliver Buswell
Romans 13:1-7
In the New Testament the most outstanding passage bearing on political theory is found in the thirteenth chapter of the epistle to the Romans. Paul here teaches, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation” (Rom 13:1-2).
We must remember here the principle that we do not have the teaching of the Scripture on any subject unless we have examined all the relevant passages. Not all the qualifications of a complex subject are to be found in any one passage. The principle that one must obey the existing government, and that it is God’s will that government shall exist, and that a lawless person is resisting what God has ordained, is perfectly obvious ceteris paribus. What Paul is talking aboutis the kind of government which fulfills the functions described in the context of the immediately following verses. He is not speaking of de facto government which is lawless in itself, breaking the laws of God and trampling upon the rights of man.
Lawless Rulers
With reference to government which commands men to act contrary to the revealed will of God, we have other Scripture. When the disciples were commanded not to proclaim nor to teach in the name of Jesus, “But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19-20). Later, under similar circumstances the disciples replied, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
Rightful Rulers
Continuing with the proper functions of government under God, Paul teaches, “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour” (Rom 13:3-7).
Many Bible students have noted that only two functions of government are here brought out: “praise” for those who do good, and “punishment” for those who do evil. The exercise of these functions is here said to be the reason for the payment of taxes and tribute.
Roman Authorities
Paul’s attitude toward the Roman government is indicated in his appealing to his Roman citizenship for protection on several occasions (Acts 16:37-40; 22:25-29) and his appealing finally to Caesar (Acts 25:10-12; 26:32). Paul thus shows by his example his appreciation of the functions of government, under God, in maintaining law and order and promoting justice.
In the pastoral epistles the Pauline attitude is further reflected, “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:1-4).
To Titus, as he preaches the Gospel, Paul writes similarly, “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work” (Tit 3:1).
Turning the Other Cheek
The words of Christ with reference to personal insults and the like (Matt 5:38-45) are thought to teach complete non-resistance, and hence to have political implications in the sense that these words are thought to forbid military service. I should suggest that this is a misunderstanding. If the apostle Paul was not flatly contradicting the teaching of Christ when he said that it is the God-given function of government to bear the sword against wicked aggression, and to bear the sword “not in vain,” then we must not construe the words of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount as teaching something beyond what they actually say, nor in such a manner as unnecessarily to create a contradiction. A slap in the face, unfair legal action to the extent of a coat or a cloak, unreasonable demand of assistance from a government authority, unreasonable neighbourly borrowing, all these are matters in which a Christian should be extremely generous. I believe we can get the most value from the Sermon on the Mount if we take it literally in its most simple and obvious meaning. It is not worthwhile for a Christian to resist or resent a slap in the face or any such personal insult or inconvenience.
There is nothing here to contradict the righteous function of government in bearing the sword effectively against wicked aggression. There is nothing in the words of Jesus to warrant an able bodied man in standing by and not offering resistance when the weak and helpless are being injured.
The Christian and the Civil Courts
There are those who argue on the basis of 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 that it is wrong for a Christian to take advantage of the protection of the civil courts in matters relating to legal property rights. Let us examine the Scriptures carefully on this point. Paul begins the discussion, “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust [unbelievers], and not before the saints?” (1 Cor 6:1). It is apparent by the words I have emphasized that Paul is not absolutely prohibiting judgment in secular courts, even before unbelievers, but he is arguing that the Christians ought to endeavour to settle their cases under the judgment of Christians, before they resort to the civil courts.
The Courts of the Church
Paul elaborates the principle of judgment within the church, “Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? (cf. Matt 19:28; Luke 22:28-30) and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers” (1 Cor 6:2-6).
These words clearly indicate the propriety of organizing church judicatories to take care of disputes between Christians which cannot be resolved by ordinary informal personal conferences. This is exactly the subject presented by Christ as recorded in Matthew 18:15-17. Here the Lord says, “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established [Deut 19:15]. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.”
Four Steps in Correcting Wrongs
Paul doubtless had in mind the steps thus outlined by Christ himself in resolving difficulties. After (1) private conference and (2) informal efforts between friends, (3) the judicatories of the church ought to be able to mediate. But there is such a thing as (4) a professing Christian stubbornly refusing to be reasoned with and continuing in a course of conduct which harms his fellow Christians. The words of Christ, “Let him be as a heathen man and a publican,” do not mean that he is to be treated with malice, but rather that he is to be excommunicated. He cannot be regarded as a communicant member of the church if he refuses to hear the judicatories of the church. He must then be treated on a secular basis.
The Fourth Step
At this point the words of Christ when He was wrongfully struck in the face (John 18:23), calmly appealing for justice, and the practice of Paul in appealing to the Roman courts for protection, should be carefully remembered. Neither Christ nor Paul forbids appeal to secular authorities if ecclesiastical authorities fail to bring about justice. Another consideration should be remembered at this point: In New Testament times the civil authorities were dominated by Rome, and the processes of law in the Roman courts were sometimes deeply involved with idolatrous practices and heathen sacrifices and divinations. The courts of civilized countries today are not thus dominated by idolatry. Bad as the civil courts were, Paul nevertheless appealed to civil justice as against corrupt ecclesiastical authorities. His appeal to Caesar was in the realm of the fourth step in the processes of justice.
Before the First Step
In the discussion of differences between brethren, Paul continues, not by contradicting what he has said about ecclesiastical courts and the settlement of problems which cannot be settled by private informal conference. What Paul has said on that score stands, and the following verses do not contradict it. Paul proceeds to develop the thought of the Christian being willing, before taking any steps for correction, to take wrong uncomplainingly. This teaching is precisely in line with the words of Jesus in regard to the turning of the other cheek. Paul says, “It is already, on the whole, a loss to you that you have cases of judgment with one another. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why do you not rather be deprived [of something]? On the contrary you are wronging and defrauding, and at that, even your brethren!”
Five Stages in All
Putting together the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 6 and the words of Christ in Matthew 18, the following five stages in Christians dealing one with another ought to be observed. The first stage involves taking no steps at all. A Christian should be willing to turn the other cheek and take a slap in the face, an inconvenience, even a definite loss of property, rather than to cause disturbance.
There are cases, however, in which one is a steward of property for his own dependents and for others, cases in which it would be wrong to allow great loss without a protest. In such cases one must (1) confer with the wrongdoer privately, then, if unsuccessful (2) take one or two other Christians into conference. Indeed, with the intricacies of modern economic and social life, there are some disputes which require the expert authority of the secular courts, or at least of secular counsel, and there are some matters which Christians may well agree to submit to the secular authorities for final decision. Such action can be taken under this second step by mutual agreement, without the offence of brother bringing suit against brother.
If the second step cannot succeed (3) the third step should be open for cases in which it may be necessary—then bring the matter before the church courts. (4) There are some cases in which stewardship of life or of property for our dependents and for others is of such importance that if the dispute cannot be settled among Christians, there must be resort to secular law as in Paul’s appeal to Caesar.
Integrity of Character
In concluding this discussion of the biblical doctrine of the state I should like to emphasize that without godly integrity of character all human political institutions will crumble. “Except the Lord build the house they labor in vain that build it; except the Lord keep the city the watchman waketh but in vain” (Ps 127:1).
All the secular values of our culture are dependent upon integrity of character. The ninth commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exod 20:16) must not only be given lip service but must be genuinely in the hearts of the majority of the people if any government is to succeed. This commandment not only forbids particular acts of falsification, but it is the ethical foundation of all mutual confidence, without which no government can be stable and enduring.
(Adapted from A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion by J O Buswell, pp402-413.)
