Welcome back to the Fourth Way podcast. We are going to continue discussing rebuttals to Christian Nonviolence. And in this episode, we are going to look at what is probably the most common rebuttal that I I hear to Christian Nonviolence, and that is the passage of Romans 13. And a lot of Christians are going to say, okay, even if I grant that Jesus taught non violence, and even if I'm gonna say that Jesus' life is prescriptive for us, in that we live non violently, Romans 13 gives us a very clear exception to this. And in Romans 13, it it essentially says that the state is given the right by god to use violence.

You know, whether that's capital punishments or, armies or whatever it is that you wanna say. The state has the right granted by God to wield the sword, and that's a good thing. And so as a Christian, if I am in the army, if I'm a police officer, if I become president and I'm the commander in chief, or if I want to vote for the commander in chief, then all of those things are legitimate, based on Romans 13. And many Christians can even go farther and say, well, at least in places like the United States, if somebody enters my home and my life is in danger, and I'm just an ordinary citizen, I have the right to bear arms against somebody seeking my harm or the harm of others. And in that sense, I'm in the capacity of the state who extends its right to bear arms to me.

So I, an average citizen, can wield violence, bear arms against somebody else in in that regard. And that all fits with Romans 13, according to the common reading. Now, I, of course, don't really buy into that common reading, and I'm gonna break it down in a number of different points for you in this episode. Hopefully you'll be able to hear me out and think critically about these things, and push back where I might be wrong, and hear me out where I might not be. So, first point, I want to talk a little bit about the historical problems with this reading of Romans 13.

I'm not gonna spend a lot of time on this because we did a whole episode, episode 3, which focused on the early church and talking about what what the teachings were, what some of the ecumenical documents were, and that sort of thing. So if you wanna kind of recap, you can go back and take a look at that. But, you know, if if we take the common reading of Romans 13, which gives the state the sword, and we we put that up against what we see in the early church, that reading just doesn't fit with what we see. Now, the early church viewed the army as problematic. We see that in the ecumenical document at the Council of Nicaea 325.

We see it in other broader church documents. We see it in a lot of the church fathers who talk about even capital punishment being problematic, being a soldier as problematic. We see that in, discussions by some of the early church fathers talking about not wearing the colors of of government officials, of of high government office, and we see it in examples of soldiers who were leaving the army because they just couldn't do the bidding of the Roman government. They couldn't do violence in the name of of a kingdom of anybody, because that's not what the kingdom was. And so our our modern understanding of Romans 13 just doesn't fit with what we see the historical understanding as in the first few centuries after Christ.

Again, I don't want to to beat a dead horse here. You can go go ahead and dig deeper into the historical problems if you would like to. But, very clearly, the modern interpretation does not fit what we see in the early Church. The second problem that I have with the modern interpretation of Romans 13 is an exegetical problem. And this is a problem where it seems like we're imposing something on the text rather than really listening to it and drawing out from it.

And I think the problem comes, can be kind of summarized in in what one of my favorite favorite apologists says, and he says, Never read a Bible verse. And it's Greg Koukl who says that. He says, Never read a Bible verse. And what he means by that is, it's it's very easy to read 1 verse or a small section of verses and pull some idea out of it that is not within the context of of the broader scope of what's being said. And Romans 13, when you take it to mean that that God approves of the government, you've got some really big exegetical problems.

And I just don't think that you're taking a look at the broader view of what Paul is saying in Romans. As as you really think about this, I want you to go back and I want you to read Romans, but instead of starting in chapter 13, and, I want you to start in chapter 12. And then don't stop with the passage on government, but I want you to continue past verse, the verse 10, I believe, and and look beyond, or verses 8 through 10, which follow the government passage. So you're gonna see, starting in in chapter 12, that Paul tells Christians we're to be living sacrifices. We're supposed to be patient in affliction.

We're supposed to bless those who persecute us. We're supposed to bless and not curse. We're supposed to live in harmony with one another. We're not to repay evil for evil. We're to do our part to live at peace.

We're not to take revenge. We're to leave vengeance up to God. We're to feed our enemy if he's hungry. We're to give our enemy a drink if he's thirsty. We're not to overcome evil with evil, but evil with good.

And that's what we see in in chapter 12. And then, we get our passage on Romans 13, talking about government and and their use of the sword. And then immediately following, we see Paul say that we are we have this continued debt of love towards one another, that we're to love our neighbor, and that love does no harm to a neighbor. And so, what you see is Romans 13, the part about government, is sandwiched between all of these things where where Paul is saying that we're to love, we're to lay down our lives, we're to to give to our enemies, we're not to take vengeance, we're to leave vengeance to God. We've got this principle of love, and all of that surrounds this passage on the government doing violence to people.

And you have to figure out what how does that make sense for Paul to to tell these Christians all these ways to lay down their lives, and then to say, but you know what? Tell you what. You can go kill people in this instance. And I think there's a better way to make sense of this, because when we when we look at the passage around government, everything that we see there is antithetical to what what Paul is just telling Christians to do. The government brings terror, causes fear, bears the sword, they're agents of wrath, and they bring punishment.

Those are are all antithetical to the the very things that Paul is is surrounding this passage with, telling Christians not to do. And and you'll notice if you if you read in chapter 12, that there's a a significant language shift, not only in in terms of ideas of of what a Christian's like, but also in in the way that Paul addresses these groups. So in chapter 12, we see that most of what Paul is saying is is directed at this this you or you understood language. So he's talking to believers. But when he gets to the section about government, all of a sudden he switches to they.

He switches to this language of not you, but but them, this other group of individuals. And then, right after the passage on government, he goes right back to this you understood language, this this language talking directly to Christians. And, it seems then, based on not only the ideologies that we see in chapter 12 and 13, but also the way that we see the language shift, that what Paul is doing is he's saying, Look, you guys are Christians, and this is the way that you're to live. But, we know that there are some problems with government. This is probably around the time that, Nero is persecuting Christians.

And so Paul's just saying, look, I know that you don't have control over the government. I know that the governments might seem evil, that that things might seem out of control, but this is the way that you're supposed to live your life, And, just remember that God is in control of the government. God's in control of them. But you, you love, you lay down your life, you sacrifice, you feed your enemies. The government will bear the sword, and God is sovereign over that.

So, in this sense, Paul's, discussion here of government isn't a prescription for what Christians should do in government, or this idea that Christians should seek government, but rather it's this, it's just this this comfort to Christians that they can live a sacrificial life and leave everything else in in God's hands. It's not their responsibility to bear the sword, that vengeance is God's. Now, I know at at this point, some people might be thinking, well, that's just a crazy interpretation. Like, that's that's just a very convenient way to look at things. I mean, I think the ideological shift and the language shift is pretty strong, and I think looking at a broader context paints a much different picture.

Nevertheless, I think I can even do better than that. Because for the third point, rather than just the mere exegesis of this this passage, of Romans 12 and 13, if you take a look at the the broader biblical coherence, you see a a much broader theme of of how God views governments, and and how, governments are treated throughout the Bible. And, one of the the biggest misconceptions, I think, comes in in this word that we find in Romans 13, which is often translated as minister. So, governments are a minister or a servant of God. And so people think, well, that's that's a good thing.

Right? They're a minister of God. They're a servant of God. That's like God's stamp of approval on governments. He likes that.

Right? But that's not at all what we see elsewhere in the Bible. Daniel 4 17 talks about how God is sovereign over governments, and He uses the lowliest people as rulers. There's not this high view of of who is in government and who participates in it, and who God uses. It's not this holy group of people, it's lowly people, often power hungry people, who are are evil, and God is sovereign over them.

And we we see examples of this, like in in Jeremiah 27, the the passage that the chapter is largely about Nebuchadnezzar, and it calls Nebuchadnezzar this evil Babylonian ruler, it calls him a servant of God. But, Nebuchadnezzar was was an evil and wicked servant, yet God expected people to submit to this servant. And and we see it again in Jeremiah 43:10, where Nebuchadnezzar, again, is called God's servant. And he's called God's servant because he accomplishes God's will. But then, in in Jeremiah 43, we see that then Nebuchadnezzar is thrown to the side, and he's he's judged.

So even though Nebuchadnezzar is, Nebuchadnezzar is wicked, he does evil, vile, terrible things, God is sovereign over him, and calls him his servant because God is guiding his heart like a river, as Proverbs says. And, God accomplishes His will, and God will have Nebuchadnezzar judged. And even through all this, he expects people to submit to his rule. But this idea of servant or minister is not a positive thing. It's not meant to put a stamp on God's high view of government, but rather it puts a stamp on God's high, high not view of sovereignty, but His ability to maintain sovereignty over governments and over wicked people.

We see something similar in Isaiah 10 with Assyria. Assyria is a tool of God. They're not directly called a servant or minister, but they're called the rod of God's anger and the club of His wrath. God says that, I send him. And in this way, Assyria is doing God's bidding, in a sense.

And then they're judged for the evil that they that they do, because they're not doing this in submission to God, they're doing it out of their own wicked, vile hearts. But because God is sovereign, He's able to use them like a tool to accomplish what He wants to accomplish. We see somewhat similar concepts. We see in Luke 4, that Satan has authority over kingdoms. He he offers authority to Jesus, if Jesus would just bow to him.

And Jesus refuses because that's not how he takes authority. He's not going to bow to Satan. And so, even though Satan has authority, that's not a good thing. In Acts 2, we see that that, once again, we have God's sovereignty and human rulers on the scene. It talks about how wicked men put Jesus to death.

Wicked men like like Pilate. And, we know that Pilate was an authority, and Pilate, did something evil. Yet at the same time, Acts 2 clearly shows us that God was sovereign over that action. And I think when you take a a broader look at the Bible, how it uses the the term minister or servant, and how how rulers are often viewed, I think it's hard to look at Romans 13 and see that really what Paul is saying is a positive thing about governments there. That just doesn't seem like that's what the the biblical view of government tends to be.

Especially if you you understand Israel's history, and how God never wanted a king to rule over Israel, but God has always wanted to be the king. There's a a great section in the book, The Old Testament Case for Nonviolence, which I think really highlights, or gives a comprehensive look at this this idea of of kingship and government as a concession by God, and how it's not really his ideal, and how he takes that back in Jesus Christ. So I'm gonna read an extended quote from that here to kind of give you a a an overarching view of of the history of government and God's view of that. Since creation, God has always wanted his followers to be distinct from all other earthly organizations. Initially, he formed them into the uniquely theocratic, demilitarized, morally advanced nation of Israel.

Unfortunately, they couldn't maintain their distinctiveness for long. They got tired of being different and asked God for a king such as all other nations have. In their sin, they wanted a typical earthly kingdom led by a typical warrior king. God interpreted their request as a rejection of his leadership and warned that a king would exploit them for his own purposes, particularly his own militaristic ones. Nonetheless, they persisted, reiterating their request to have a king so they could be like all other nations with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.

So God, fully aware that nationalism did not coincide with his will and would only get his people into trouble, accommodated them. But when the Messiah arrived, he would have none of it. Jesus didn't gather God's followers to take back territory, militarily or otherwise. Instead, he repeatedly declined to adopt the agenda of Jewish nationalism. He unequivocally rejected typical kin kingship, declining the devil's offer of control over all the kingdoms of the world, refusing to use his supernatural powers for political gain, running from a crowd that wanted to enthrone him, waiting to announce his messiahship until he could redefine it to exclude nationalism, choosing to ride on a donkey instead of a war horse during his inauguration parade, and eventually declaring himself king of all people in all nations, not just Israel.

Likewise, he shunned all political power and commanded his followers to do the same, instructing them not to lord it over others, sending them into the world as sheep among wolves, not as a well organized army or political brigade, scattering them across the globe as foreigners, exiles, and sojourners whose primary citizenship is in heaven, and ordering them to put their swords away instead of defend him, let alone a nation, while also definitively proclaiming to the Romans that his followers do not fight. The Jewish nationalists were right to be afraid. In doing all this, rejecting national kingship, issuing political power, including Gentiles, etcetera, Jesus denationalized God's followers. He turned them from a nation into the church, from a typical earthly kingdom into the transnational, inter ethnic, nongovernmental, nonviolent, geographically dispersed organization we call the universal church. He revoked God's earlier nationalistic concession and declared statehood to be inappropriate for his followers.

In In short, he revealed God's institutional ideal to be the nationless body of Christ. That's good news. Jesus freed us from the concerns and constraints of maintaining an earthly nation because God's interests are no longer tethered to any particular nation's interests. Obedience to him no longer involves political power struggles. Instead, doing his will today requires transcending such nationalistic entanglements.

It means engaging in transnational disciple making, not nation building. God doesn't want us to make America into a Christian nation. He wants us to be the church. One important caveat. Although Jesus denationalized God's followers, he didn't depoliticize them.

The church isn't an apolitical entity. It's an alternative political entity. In fact, the Greek word for church, ekklesia, is a political word, not a religious one. Historically, it meant the political assembly of citizens of an ancient Greek state. Yoder translated it as a town hall gathering or assembly where people come together to make decisions and to do business.

The church deals with the same issues as all traditional political communities just in a nontraditional way. It is absolutely political. It just does politics differently, lovingly. That extended quote highlights just about everything I I would wanna say. This idea that God has always been king and has always wanted to be king and has not wanted to give that over to anybody else.

This idea that kingship and and a political entity other than God, is a concession. It is not something that is viewed as good. It's something that God warned about and said would be a bad thing. When you look at the, the guidelines for kings in Exodus, I believe it is, and you see all of the things that these kings are supposed to do, some some of which revolve around not building up military, military power. And, you see what what kings actually end up doing with the power.

When you see this idea of God continually telling the Israelites that I will go before you, I will fight for you, yet these these kings, building up, build up their military might or seek allegiances with pagan nations and, just compromise all over the place instead of relying on God and trusting in Him to fight for them, You just don't get a good taste for politics in your mouth even even with, those individuals who might seem like good leaders in Israel, end up causing some some very major problems. And then when you couple that with with, Jesus, who certainly made political statements in what he did, and, even some of his titles are extremely political. The way he went about things was political. The institutions he, attacked, he did so in political ways and attacked political institutions. The terminology used for, not only not only Jesus, not only his titles, but also the church.

Everything just revolves around politics. The church is an alternative politics. And I I think when you look at Romans 13, out of context of of Romans 12 and and the part that follows, the the section on government in Romans 13, I think you really miss miss out on the larger context of not only Romans itself, but the larger context of the New Testament. You know, you throw 1st Peter, especially 1st Peter in there, and the gospels and all their talk about the kingdom. And and then you even add to that the Old Testament and the way that it viewed politics and kingship and, other than God, you just you just really have a problem taking this set of 7 verses and trying to make that a prescription, for politics or, this this description of how a Christian can beautifully engage in politics.

That's just not the vision that you really get when it comes to how the how God views politics and, the alternative politics of of the Messiah and of the church. And if you if you are going to be able to remember that there is this kingdom distinction, that Jesus Christ brought the kingdom, that He ascended to the right hand of the throne of God, and He sits there now, and He reigns in power now, you you recognize that that this idea of kingship or being ruled by somebody else isn't something that God wanted. He was very angry with Israel when they imposed the king, but he allowed it. And then you understand that, well, Jesus Christ took that kingship back, and as Peter tells us, we are now aliens, like, who who are under the rule of God directly right now, God rules us, not the nations, then it is just so hard to look at Romans 13 as a positive assertion of of how we should try to take power and wield the sword as part of the government. We not only see glimpses of this in the Old Testament, but we do see some other glimpses of this in in the New Testament.

And I talked before in previous podcasts about Jesus referring to, His kingdom not being of this world. Peter is very clear about us being strangers and aliens, and and Peter has just fantastic language that that you can go and and, look up. I wrote a little bit about it on on my Romans 13th section section that I'll link below, and Peter's use of Psalm 34, and Psalm 30 four's language of of, God being the protector and defender, and and all that. It's just wonderful. But we also get some glimpses from from Paul about his view on on government.

And Paul, I believe it's in 1st Corinthians 6, he talks about, you know, why would you go to outside of the church to handle your business? Like, why would you do that? Why would you go before, I forget the exact word that he uses, not secular, but, he he just talks about not going before, unrighteous. That's it. He talks about not going before the the unrighteous.

Like, why would you go outside of the church and go before this unrighteous government, these unrighteous judges? That's just not what what Christians do. We are in the kingdom. We're gonna judge angels. Like, we handle this this in house because we are distinct in our rule.

And I I really understand that people have a a difficult time with with this distinction and feeling like it it is sort of a retreat. And I I really understand that. And, hopefully, in the next episode, I'll I'll try to hash that out and show why that's not really the case. But we we do also get glimpses of this, already not yet mindset that that I think can kind of help us to to at least push through here at this this moment so I can provide you with with some further explanation. Paul and and Peter specifically talk about this idea of slaves and masters.

And it's it's kind of hard for us to to think about Paul and Peter not saying, masters, get rid of your slaves right now. Like, that's just wicked. That's evil. But but they don't do that. In fact, they actually tell slaves to submit to their masters.

And and in our in our modern understanding, that that makes no sense. But what what Paul and Peter were saying is not that slaves are really lesser or that, slavery is really just, but what they were saying is that, look, slaves, it doesn't matter what social position you're in right now. In Christ, you are 100% the image of God, valuable human. And so, they could say, submit. It's the position you find yourself in right now.

Submit. Do do what your society expects you to do. Bear up under injustice like your savior did, even though you know that your identity means that you shouldn't have to deal with this. That's not the way that you should be treated. And that's why, at the same time, they could tell masters, hey.

Look. You better be treating your slave like your brother. And if you're treating your slave like your brother, you wonder how long can you really have that slave. And, he's he's gonna become a brother. He's not gonna be a slave.

And, if you're treating him the way that that you're supposed to. And there's kind of this already not yet. It's like your your image as a slave is already 100% valuable in Christ. But that doesn't mean that you're going to experience that from other people in this world right now. And, you might have to have this patient, expectant hope for the future when Christ restores all things and makes things right.

But until then, you bear up under, the not yet, and you wait. Wives are called to do the same thing to to husbands who are are unbelievers and not great to them. And that is unjust, and that is that is terrible. And in their culture, a big part of what that probably meant, I don't I don't understand all the ramifications, but I know that there was a lot of sexual promiscuity. And so wives who who are Christians, who know that their husbands should be faithful to them, and and know that their their marriage is to be a picture of Christ and the church, and of holiness and faithfulness, they're supposed to bear up under what's what's going on, this injustice, committed by by their husbands.

And that's terrible, and that's they shouldn't have to do that. And one day, that will be made right, and they won't have to face injustice. But just as Christ bore up, stood up under injustice, so spouses are called to do the same. And we also see the same thing in in Romans. Okay.

The the government has the sword. Just like in Roman culture, the husbands had the rights over wives. And just like in Roman culture, the masters had rights over slaves. Okay. So so the government bears the sword, but citizens of the kingdom, even though they might experience the sword from an unjust ruler, and and even though that sword shouldn't exist because we should be at peace and and there shouldn't be injustice, we might need to bear up under the sword.

And it might make our self sacrifice difficult, might make all those things listed in Romans 12 and 13 difficult. But, nevertheless, we are called to submit even in injustice and and stand up under persecution, just as Jesus Christ did. So if we if we understand this this much larger theme that goes all throughout the Bible, both Old and New Testament, which views rulers, authorities of not just governments, but, other societal relationships, like master, slave, husband, wife. When we see the way that authorities are are viewed, and when we see that coupled with this concept of of god's sovereignty and of already not yet, it's not hard to see how Romans 13, especially when when read, in context of Romans 12 and the verses following the governmental passages, it's very easy to see how how this passage isn't really about prescribing for Christians what we should do to try to seek governmental power, but it's trying to show us how we can live faithfully as Christians and bear up even under injustice, just like in all these other societal relationships that we've heard the same message from. Because God is sovereign, and we can we can have faith in that, and we can be live in hopeful expectation.

And that's a a good and beautiful thing. And I think this is especially powerful coming from what we talked about in the last episode of of Revelation. I mean, the book of Revelation is essentially what we just talked about right here so far, Romans 12 to 13. That's exactly what Revelation is about. Revelation shows us this wicked, evil government, this regime, and it calls Christians to faithfulness and to bear up under persecution and difficulty, and trust in the sovereignty of God, and live faithfully without compromise.

That's revelation right there, And we get a glimpse of it in, Romans 12 and 13. Alright. Let's, let's move on to the 4th point here. That would be contextual evidence. Like I already said, Romans 13 was probably written, when the government, the Roman government, was antagonistic to Christians.

Quite possibly under, under Emperor Nero himself, who is not very friendly to Christians. And even if it wasn't under Nero, Rome was an extremely unjust power who who slaughtered and abused a lot of people. The way that they they took land, just what they what they did to Israel alone in, in the century, leading up to Romans 13 and during this time, I mean, they were just crucifying people, taking people's land. They were doing some terrible, terrible things. Rome was not a nice power.

So even if Christians aren't aren't facing the the harsh persecution under Nero, for Paul to be talking positively about a government, which was Rome at the time, just doesn't make any sense, because Rome was extremely wicked. And, and that's just discussing the, the violent aspects of of Rome. That's not getting into the extortion, the heavy taxes, the idolatry, and all of that other stuff that was going on. In summary then, the early church didn't read Romans 13 like us, and neither did soldiers in the army in the first few centuries, those whose lives hinged on the specific interpretation of Romans 13. I mean, soldiers were willing to leave the army and, and face death.

And you'd think that if their lives were on the line, and a reasonable interpretation of Romans 13 says to submit to government, they'd have no problem staying in the army. Yet, we don't see that. The army has not talked about positively at all, that I I know of in the first few centuries of, of Christendom, or of Christianity. If you dig beyond the historical content and you get into to reading the Bible, and you you read it holistically, you recognize that, evil regimes were declared god servants and were subsequent subsequently judged for their service. God has always reigned.

He's always sovereign, and he doesn't want competition. He hated the idea of of a king when Israel asked for it. And now, in the New Testament, Jesus has established his reign officially as king. He's taken that back. And, while he might allow governments to function, and he might be sovereign over them, He is the king and our only master.

And when we look at at Romans specifically, we can go all the way back to Romans 10, and and we see that Romans 10 declares God's faithfulness. In chapter 11, we see a specific faithfulness, to to, those in exile. In chapter 12, we're asked to live as sacrifices to God in light of His faithfulness to us in in even the most dire of circumstances. And in chapter 13, Paul declares that even the authorities who likely seemed unjust and out of control and and extremely powerful are actually under God's sovereign hand. And in in light of God's sovereignty and and what he calls us to, we must continue to live in love because our hopeful expectation will soon be actually realized in Christ when he returns.

When you look at Romans that way, it is just beautiful. It's not, Romans 13 is not just this little detour that Paul takes, this this little exception that, that mixes all of the the stuff that he just told Christians to do. It it isn't this, you know, set of 6 or 7 verses that you can find to pull out to negate the life that Christ lived and the teachings that he he gave. It's not this trump card. It's this, this beautiful depiction of God's sovereignty and His request for us to remain faithful even in difficult circumstances, that we see all throughout the bible.

And that's what we see here in Romans 13. We'll we'll end there for as as far as my assertions of of what I think Romans 13 actually says. And I want to end then kind of pushing back on the common view of Romans 13. So instead of instead of giving you an alternate possibility, an alternate reading for what makes the most sense of all of the evidence, I wanna kind of undercut the common reading of Romans 13 by discussing some things that I think are really problematic for the common view. So in the modern view of Romans 13, when when you read Romans 13, there are no parameters or caveats.

And we see throughout the Bible wicked, empires like Assyria and Babylon deemed God's servants. And Nebuchadnezzar specifically, actually, God says, you know, everybody better, follow Him, or else there are gonna be problems for those people. So, on the modern reading then, what government isn't of God and worthy of submission? And, what government isn't unassailable by Christians? Like, how can there be any governmental any rebellion against the government?

Because we see the most depraved empires like Babylon, under god's sovereign control and called god's servant. Yet, yeah, at least in the states, we we approve of the American Revolution, and that that was far different than than Babylon. You know, we we talk about wanting to overthrow countries like North Korea, where Iran, and how wicked they are. And I agree, they're they're absolutely wicked. But, I really struggle with with how you can read Romans 13, which gives approval for governments.

No parameters. No caveats. Read consistently with, with the way other evil regimes have been viewed. Understanding how evil the Roman Empire was. I I I just really struggle with how that doesn't give all governments a free pass, if you're a Christian living in that country, especially.

I just yeah. That doesn't seem to make any sense. Another question I have, and and I brought this up in in one of the previous episodes, I think episode 4, where I kind of pushed back a little bit on on just war. But, if if I'm a soldier in one country, and I'm a Christian, and there's another soldier soldier in another country, and they're a Christian, and we both have let's say they're not completely evil regimes like North Korea, but kind of, you know, very, very muddy waters. And we both go to war for our countries.

Let's even say we're drafted, make it a lot clearer. So our governments tell us that we need to to serve them in war, and we go to war, and we try to kill each other. Who's who's moral and who's immoral in that situation? Me serving the United States, trying to kill somebody, kill a fellow Christian, or the person from the other country trying to kill me? Are we both moral trying to kill each other?

You're gonna tell me that that we are both moral trying to go out there and blow the other one's brains out. That that doesn't make sense to me. That, you know, especially for from my conservative and evangelical upbringing, this this idea of objective morality doesn't make any sense of both of us serving our country and being moral, trying to blow each other's brains out. And maybe you're you're kind of an American idealist who thinks that that, you know, well, we would never go to a country, war against another country who wasn't evil, even though I strongly disagree with that. Okay.

Take it back to to other wars, European wars, where you've got supposedly Christian nations and and Christian soldiers trying to kill each other. It just doesn't make any sense of objective morality to say that because I'm serving my government, that it legitimizes me going out there and trying to kill another Christian. Anybody, really, but especially another Christian, it just doesn't make sense. Alright. Here's a third question.

At least in my circles, most conservatives that I know don't trust the government with money and power, and I completely understand that. I I don't either. But I'll tell you something that makes even less sense to me than entrusting the government with with money and power, and that's entrusting the government with the lives of people. Like, the ability to choose to kill somebody. And so, it it doesn't make any sense for me, especially if I if I'm going to say that we don't live in a theocracy, and many of our leaders aren't Christians, it doesn't make sense to me that I am so willing to entrust the power of life and death into the hands of the government.

But I don't wanna entrust tax dollars for universal health care to help other people. So I I trust them with I don't trust them with with money, but I trust them with the lives of people, especially foreign people. Right? Like, immigrants? Okay.

Well, that doesn't matter. That doesn't affect me or the people I know. Or, you know, Iraq. I don't know any Iraqis, and, I mean, I probably never will. Like, so, okay.

We can go do what we want there. But that just doesn't make sense to me, That, especially particularly for conservatives, that we don't trust the government with money, but we trust them with the power of life and death. And that doesn't seem like something we should want to be in anybody's hands but God's, and why Paul probably says that we're to leave vengeance in God's hands. And, that's the way we should want it to be, and when our government goes and kills people, it seems like we should probably be mourning and weeping, not condoning, and at the same time recognizing that God is in control over that, but not wanting to take any part in that. And I just don't understand kind of the the, the seeming double standard there to to to value and protect our money more than we value and protect the right of of life, particularly the lives of other people.

Okay. Here's, this one's kind of more interesting than it is, undercutting like some of the other ones were. It doesn't disprove, or or create, like, this huge conundrum, but it's more of a practical application to Romans 13. So if if you think that governments are valuable, governments are sanctioned by God, that ministers and servants really means these positive things, and you can't really make distinctions between, say, the United States and, Great Britain or France or or whatever else, then doesn't that kind of limit you in in what you can do as a Christian in terms of of government? So for instance, it seems like it would prevent clandestine operations, where you, or or, operations where you use propaganda to try to get citizens to go against their country.

It doesn't seem like you would want to undermine the the government in the eyes of other people. You you you shouldn't want to incite rebellion, because rebellion is wicked. Rebellion is evil, because the government are God's servants. So how does that limit the types of things that you do, in terms of of how you deal with other nations if you do go into the government? It seems like a a reading of Romans 13 that's highly positive would would severely limit what you can do.

Which, again, doesn't make the reading wrong, it's just something interesting to think about. Alright, here is, one of what I think is probably the the biggest problems I have. It's a little bit hard to to flesh out here on, on just a little bit of time we have left, but I'll I'll I'll give it a shot. And I think the problem is that there's there's a sacred secular problem with the modern modern view of Romans 13. Or maybe a different way to put it would be there's this there's this problem between viewing Romans 13 as being prescriptive versus descriptive or or permissive.

So, for example, if if Romans 13 uses the word servant or minister here to kind of denote that governments are these sacred actors, these these sacred, individuals or groups who have authority to do things that only God can do. Right? In Romans 12, it just said, leave vengeance to God. But if you're gonna say, no. No.

No. Governments are sacred actors who have permission to bear the sword, to do this thing that God was explicitly given permission to do, the only one able to do in Romans 12. But, no, the government can be the hand of God permissively, or or prescriptively. And if they're a minister of God in this approving sense, then in in what way can seeking a theocracy be avoided? So if think of it this way.

If if God is saying, hey. Look. Governments are my ministers. I want them to bear the sword for me, because I want them to establish order and and bring justice. That's their job for me.

Then, if I get a bunch of Christians in government, and God has given me the sword, and I believe in objective morality, and I believe in the revelation of God, and and he has made clear what his law is. He's laid out a lot of things in the Old Testament for what He thinks the the penalty should be for for certain crimes, for a lot of of moral laws. And I can distinguish between the ceremonial law and the moral law. So I'm not gonna, as a government official, I'm not gonna pass judgment on somebody for not sacrificing or for not keeping a certain feast. But a child disobeying their parents, can I stone them?

Why not? God showed me that He kinda likes that in the Old Testament. Or, somebody caught in adultery, can we stone them? I mean, it seems like we probably should because God made that clear that that's part of His law. And now, in the New Testament, He prescribes that as part of the government, that I carry out justice.

And God's shown me what his justice is, what just punishments are. So not only does that mean that I should seek to make the same laws If adultery was wrong in the Old Testament, and it wasn't a ceremonial law, and morality is objective, then adultery is still wrong. If God punished it violently in the Old Testament, I mean, it seems like I at least have the ability to to punish it violently in the New Testament, or or to in this era, post New Testament. And, in fact, it seems like maybe I should do that if God's granting me the sword, and I've I've seen how God views this particular sin in the past. Then maybe I should use the sword in that manner, as the government, not the church.

So viewing a minister of God or a servant of God in this way in Romans 13 really brings lots of problems up for for people who want to argue that we don't live in a theocracy. Well, maybe we don't live in a theocracy where God tells us to go and and slaughter civilians in other countries. But as far as making the the United States a theocracy, if the government has the sword of God, and they're to make laws and bring justice and and meet out punishment, I fail to see I fail to see how we wouldn't want to live as a theocracy, how how God's prescription for us to run government doesn't make us seek a theocracy. I fail to fail to see that. I think there's there's a huge inconsistency that we see, especially in in the religious right, where they act like we're not an theocracy and that we shouldn't seek that, but then they want to use Romans 13 in a prescriptive manner, and that's just inconsistent.

That doesn't make sense. But on the other hand, if you don't acknowledge that Romans 13 views the government as a a sacred actor, then that means that they view them as a a secular actor. And if the government's a secular actor, then in what way can a Christian who is just called to feed enemies, not return evil and leave vengeance up to God, in Romans 12, in what way can they, as a secular actor, carry out the role of God in bringing vengeance and doing violence to enemies? If it's not a sacred role, if it's not something that that God gives and desires, if it's not a a prescription for us, then it seems more like it's a it's a description of what governments tend to do. And if it's a description, and and God's not rescinding all of the things that he said in Romans 12 for what Christians are supposed to do, then he's not negating the things that he told Christians to do in chapter 12.

He's just saying, look. This is what governments are going to do. So submit to him, and trust me in it, and be faithful. So it seems like either way you read it is gonna be a problem for the common understanding of of Romans 13, justifying violence that Christians seek to do against evildoers. So, in in summary, it seems like the common reading of Romans 13 doesn't go far enough in either direction.

Either it refuses to pull the Christian out of a vile institution of government, or it refuses to call a sacred institution to full use for God and objective morality. Now, I I know a lot of people are probably thinking at this point, well, that's kinda harsh on government, and it seems like you really don't like the government at all. And that has been a struggle for me as I've I've been thinking through the implications of of nonviolence. And, I'm not a 100% sure where I stand on, actions in government and and whatnot. But in the next episode, I am hoping to flesh that out a little bit and hopefully come to a conclusion for myself, at least help you to see what some of the implications of all of this might be and what that might look like.

Because, throwing government under the bus to our modern ears, most of us who are political idolaters and who think that power comes through through government, Throwing off the power of government seems just absolutely crazy. And I understand that, because it it does sound crazy. But, hopefully, I can kinda give you a vision for that in the next episode of what that might look like and why it actually might be more powerful to circumvent the government and live in the kingdom. So that's all for now. So peace, because I'm a pacifist, and I say it, and I mean it.