Timothy L. Decker

With the quality control of church history, interpreters who boldly tout such a presentation of novel interpretations usually come up short on their delivery. No, I am not seeking to offer a "revolutionary" reading to Romans 13 that no one has ever thought of. Rather, I am offering as a backdrop to Romans 13 the concept of what I will refer to as "private revolution" or insurrection. "Private" in the sense that it is not under the authority of a proper magistrate in a public office and serving as a "public person." I believe and will seek to demonstrate that this subject was on the minds of many within (and almost certainly the Jews without) the church at Rome. Read that way, Paul's admonition to submit to the governing authority in Rom 13:1, 5 takes on a negative hue against sedition and insurrection rather than a positive assertion about near unquestioned obedience to the magistrate. In fact, if Paul's point of application was to dissuade a private revolutionary spirit, then that also leads to a secondary understanding of his teaching on the civil magistrate and the role of government. That is, if Paul was calling those Christians in Rome not to engage in a private revolt against the governing authorities, then he was also by extension and implication teaching them that government and the civil magistrate is a legitimate sphere of authority. Or to say it more directly, he is arguing the God-ordained reality of the civil magistrate. Only after those two primary purposes are settled can one understand a tertiary purpose of Rom 13-the extent to which Christians are to submit to that civil sphere. It is important that this order is treated rightly, starting with what is primary, then secondary, and only after that emphasizing what is tertiary. It seems, however, and so much of the recent events in 2020-2022 have demonstrated, that many pastors and Christians hear Rom 13 as if the third level purpose is the primary one. In short, Rom 13 has been abused.

تسجيل حساب جديد