Sermon Transcript
Romans 13. Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?
Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain, for he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore, one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath, but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, For the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
Owe no one anything except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet, and any other commandment are summed up in this word: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Besides this, you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep, for salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. The night is far gone, the day is at hand.
So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy, but put on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision for the flesh to gratify its desires.
So, politics, government. Uh, we’ve been working our way through the book of Romans, and we’ve arrived at a section regarding how Christians should interact with the government. What is the purpose of government? Uh, certainly controversial in our day, highly divisive. Not just in our society but in the church.
There has actually been, uh, since 2020 what is referred to as a resorting of the American church. People leave one church and find another because of politics. 30 years ago, there was a resorting of the church around music style. Leave this church, go to that church because of the type of music. These days, um, you know, of the people who change churches, they don’t seem to really care what the music is as long as the church supports their particular political viewpoint.
You know, they pick a church like they would pick a pundit to follow. They want the church that affirms their side of the aisle and maybe more importantly denounces the other side of the aisle. It not only denounces the other side of the aisle but denounces it as strongly as they believe it should be denounced. If the church isn’t as angry as they are, they’re out of there. It’s divisive, it’s polarized.
It might be, uh, the challenge of our day. So as always, we will try to be helpful, uh, we will certainly be biblical, and because we’re biblical I imagine most of us will feel challenged in some way by the text, but we will also feel supported in different ways by the text. The Bible will have some way to correct each of us and to affirm each of us. Just as the Bible corrects every culture and affirms every culture in different ways, it does the same thing with every political approach. In our society currently, there seem to be at least 4 Christian perspectives on politics, and people can blend a little of this perspective and a little of that, so we’re not always only in one corner.
But just to give big categories of ideas in their most positive light, in one corner, some Christians believe that the government should make and enforce laws reflecting their values. They, they believe the Bible when it says how we should live, what to do, what not to do. They know from their own experience that sin hurts. Sin is always bad for everyone. It doesn’t only affect the individual, it affects the community.
So to help people live their best life, they advocate for laws to prevent things that often cause regrets, you know, like drug use, abortion, implications of gender transition, etc. They want people to steer, steer clear of those, and they think, you know, laws are the way to help. That’s one corner. In another corner, other Christians also want their values reflected in the government, but the focus is more, as they would call it, on how to protect the vulnerable. So they advocate for expanded programs for the poor, you know, SNAP benefits, after-school activities, healthcare, as well as like assistance for immigrants.
They believe the government should clothe and feed people, you know, specifically target the biblical categories of foreigner, orphan, widow through direct assistance, you know, not just creating like favorable economic conditions for them. They want the government directly involved. That’s another corner. Then in the third corner, there are Christians who believe in a minimalist government. They may share the values of either or both of the first 2 groups, but they do not believe the government is the way to implement those values in society.
They say we can’t coerce people how to live. People need, you know, freedom to choose what they’re going to do, what they’re not going to do. So the government shouldn’t get involved in anything, uh, you know, past like national security. Build some roads, but that’s it. That’s the third corner.
Then the last group, and there could be more, are Christians who separate themselves from all political involvement. They say, uh, the government will do its thing, but we’re going to do our thing. So they are not advocating for a minimalist government like the third group, because they aren’t advocating for any kind of government. They just stay out of the way. They typically avoid voting, military service, and anything.
It’s like the Mennonites today, common belief among that group. They say Jesus set up the church as an alternative kingdom that should not rely on political power. So Christians should just focus on their own holiness, our own communities, kind of peacemaking, loving our enemies, not going to be involved in the political process whatsoever. Those are the 4 main Christian approaches today. Like you could say protect from harm, or advocate for the vulnerable, minimalist government, or separatists.
4 groups. So, who’s right?
And why would Paul weigh in on this? And what in the world does this have to do with, you know, all of Romans that we’ve studied so far? Well, as hot of a topic as it is in our culture, it was a hot topic in Paul’s day as well. In the 1st century, especially before Jesus came and was crucified and resurrected. There were really 3 main perspectives as it related to the Roman government among Israelites.
So, some Israelites, as you know, hoped for a Messiah who would liberate Israel from Roman occupation, become king in the pattern of David, establish Israel as a world power, implement and enforce all the laws of the Old Testament. So, they wanted to overthrow the Roman government. Caesar shouldn’t be in charge, our belief system should be in charge. Let’s kick Caesar out. They thought that’s what the Messiah was going to do when he came.
So, they were closer to the first 2 groups from our culture. They wanted the government to reflect their values. That was one group. Other Israelites in the first century were separatists in relation to the government. Let’s live off the grid.
We’ll establish our own communities. We’ll stay out of the big picture. Then the third group were called the Herodians. And they supported the Roman government, just conformed to all Rome’s wishes. You go along to get along.
Those were the 3 groups: overthrow, separate, conform. But then along came Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah. But he didn’t take over the government like the first group wanted. At the same time, he didn’t completely separate from the government like the second group wanted. And we certainly can’t say he conformed.
He carved out a new way to relate to government. As one example, you may remember the account of some leaders come to Jesus and they ask, should we pay taxes? Should we pay taxes, Jesus? And if Jesus said they shouldn’t pay taxes, then it would indicate that he was maybe about to start a rebellion to overthrow Rome. In fact, this had just happened shortly before Jesus, about 25 years before Jesus.
There was another man who claimed to be Messiah. His name was Judas the Galilean, and the first thing that guy did was tell everyone not to pay taxes because he was starting a revolution. Rome promptly squashed him. So now about, you know, 25, 30 years later, who’s— here’s Jesus. Jesus is also claiming to be the Messiah.
And they ask him, are you here like that other guy was to start a rebellion? Are you here to overthrow the government? Should we pay taxes? So Jesus takes a coin and he asks them, hey, whose inscription is on this coin? And they say, well, Caesar’s, you know, dead center, there’s his picture.
And Jesus says, well then pay to Caesar what’s his. It’s his money, like he printed it, it has his picture, literally it’s his money. Give him what belongs to him. So at that point, um, you know, Jesus reveals he did not come to overthrow or separate from the government. You know, since paying taxes, he’s connected to the government in some ways, and he’s submissive to the government in some ways.
I imagine his listeners probably thought, oh, he’s not an overthrow or a separate guy, he must be a conformist. He’s a go-along-to-get-alonger. He’ll bend the knee to Rome like no matter what. But Jesus isn’t finished because after he says, give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, he adds, give to God what is God’s, meaning not everything belongs to Caesar. There are some things Caesar can demand that we do not go along with.
Caesar does not have jurisdiction over our entire lives. There is an authority higher than him. And this is a bit of a tip of the hat to where we’re going today, but Jesus introduces a pretty revolutionary concept for his time, which was the government does not own you. It does not have ultimate authority.
There is an authority higher than the government. That was, that was pretty revolutionary because in those days there was nothing the state could not ask of you. What the state said went. And if you resisted what the state said, it meant you were going to overthrow the state, and if you succeeded in overthrowing the state, then you would establish a new one that could again ask anything of anyone. The idea that the state could have some power over you but not ultimate power over you, that was a new concept.
So by the time Paul was writing, people were still working out what that meant. What does it actually mean to give to Caesar what is his but to give to God what is his? How do we live according to that? They needed some guidance. So Paul steps into this topic.
He gives some directives. And surprisingly, he doesn’t only give directives for how Christians live in a governmental system. Paul also gives some directives to the government. That’s surprising because the emperor wasn’t a Christian. Caesar would not have cared what Paul had to say.
Paul had zero leverage or voice to get the government to do anything. He didn’t have a vote, he didn’t have a say like we do, and yet he paints a picture of what government should be. Now, he paints a picture with pretty broad strokes. We would love for him to be more specific. He isn’t, so not all of our questions will be neatly addressed, but he does give some general principles, and those can help us.
So, as we look at this passage today, we will see the government’s responsibility to society, the Christian responsibility to government and society, and then why we have that responsibility, the government’s responsibility to society, the Christian responsibility to government and society, and then, and then why, why should we do that, which will relate back to all of Romans that we’ve talked about so far. So first, the government’s responsibility is to punish wrongdoing and promote goodness.
As much as we may be frustrated with the government at times, and first-century Christians had much greater reasons to be frustrated with their government than we have. You know, at some points Christians were fed to the lions in the Colosseum. That’s pretty bad. But as bad as government can be, society still needs one. If government falls and society transitions into anarchy and chaos with no one in charge, that would be far worse.
It’s actually, you know, that’s basically the plot of the final Christopher Nolan Batman film, Dark Knight Rises. There was this group that wanted to bring down the system, and there were people so frustrated with the system that they wanted it brought down. But then when everything started to collapse, they realized, oh, now there’s terror on every street. As much as we didn’t like the system before, it’s better than no system. So the government has a role, and specifically Paul says 2.
Roles: punish wrongdoing and promote goodness or flourishing, we might say. Punish wrongdoing is pretty overt in the passage. Verse 4, the government doesn’t bear the sword for nothing. Verse 5, the government is an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. So the government must enforce consequences for immorality.
If the government doesn’t consequences, you know, for theft, for example, then people loot, and then that’s a system collapse, right? So there must be consequences for immorality, and it’s the government’s job to do it. Now, there are degrees of consequences. Bearing the sword does not mean everyone who ever does anything wrong must be executed, right? That’s not what sword means.
There’s many ways the government can enforce enforce morality. There’s fines, sanctions, removal of privileges, your license is revoked. They can seize stolen property. They can set up civil courts where victims seek damages, and then those rulings are enforced. In so many ways, the government bears the sword.
It is not only the prison system. Many levers the government has to enforce morality, but that’s one of the government’s jobs. So the Christians that want the government to create laws that reflect their morality, they have a point. That’s what laws do. You know, some of us may push back and say, well, you know, such and such a group can’t enforce their morality on everyone else.
But that’s what laws are. They are someone’s values enforced on everyone. Every law reflects somebody’s idea of what society should be. I mean, all— even traffic laws. Have you thought about this?
We might not, you know, immediately realize it, but there’s a value statement behind traffic laws. You’ll realize that if you go to a country that doesn’t really have traffic laws. You know, you can smash into someone and drive away. There is no agreed-upon order of what’s supposed to happen at an intersection. If you can force your way through, force your way through, right?
We don’t do that here. Why?
Because we value each other’s property. We believe we have a responsibility to one another. We take turns at lights. We pay for damages if it’s our fault. Those are values.
So our laws enforce those values. Not all countries have those values, so they don’t have those laws, right? All laws reflect somebody’s values, somebody’s morality. So some Christians say, why not ours? We think our view is best, just like everybody else does, right?
I mean, everybody thinks their conception of what society should be is the best conception of society. So some Christians say, why can’t we have a voice? We want laws that reflect our values. And they have a point. Now the big question is, should every one of our values be a law?
Or which of our values should be laws? And which of our values should be left to people’s choice? Paul doesn’t say sorry, which means we can debate about it, right? For example, the first commandment, commandment number 1 on the stone tablets, that’d be pretty important, right? Worship the true God only.
That is a central Christian value. Can’t get any more central than that. Should it be a law, or should people have freedom to choose who they worship? Maybe people should be punished if they worship somebody other than Jesus. We say, well, you can’t control what people do in their minds.
Fine, maybe we should make it illegal to build any religious buildings or places of worship that aren’t Christian ones. Should we do that? Most Christians would say no. Most Christians would say the first commandment should not be a law, even though it’s clearly sin and even though people get hurt if they worship someone else. Most Christians will say the first commandment should not be a law, but then at the same time they advocate for other Christian values to be law.
Great. How do you sort all that out?
When should the government use its sword and when should it let people decide for themselves? I mean, we assume the government can’t lock down everything, you know, so the people who say the government should be hands-off They have a point, but it can’t be completely hands-off. Government needs to lock some things down, but which things? And why those and not others? Paul doesn’t say.
As obvious as we might think it is until we talk to somebody else who has a different point of view, Paul doesn’t say, which means we can debate about it. Charitably with each other. The great thing about our system is we can vote for what we want. Oh, use that privilege. That’s one role of government, is punish wrongdoing.
But government also promotes the good, which is not as overtly stated in the passage, but it is there. Verse 3, those who do God— do what is good receive approval approval from the government. You know, approval indicates some positive action taken toward us. And then verse 4, Paul says the government is God’s servant for our good. And if there’s a servant working for our good, I mean, that means more than just stopping us from what we shouldn’t do.
It means, you know, servants positively, you know, facilitate your flourishing somehow. So, the people who advocate for government programs to improve society, they have a point. Whether it be education, healthcare, financial safety nets, they have a point.
But what programs? How should they be implemented? Paul doesn’t say. Maybe we have mandatory community service hours for everyone. We don’t get paid, but we’re required to work in our community to make it better for X number of hours a year.
Maybe we have guaranteed minimum income for everyone. Maybe we have guaranteed healthcare. Maybe we get a tax break if we donate to a nonprofit. I mean, that sounds like at least a way the government could approve of those who do what is good— give you a tax break for doing good. But Paul doesn’t say how government should serve our good, which again means we could debate about it.
Charitably with each other, just vote for what we think is best. But the government has a role. It has a role to punish wrongdoing and promote good. It needs to do more than just national security. That’s its responsibility.
So, second, the Christian responsibility to government and society is submit, but not fully. Love without constraint while keeping moral integrity. That’s a bunch of words, so we’ll go slowly. First, submit to the government. Following the same framework that Jesus laid out, you know, Caesar has some authority but not ultimate, that same framework Paul begins by saying we do submit to Caesar.
Verse 1, submit to the government. Verse 6, pay our taxes. Give to Caesar what is his. We even pay our taxes when we disagree with how the government spends the money. Think about the government in Paul’s day.
Tax money purchased the wood that crucified Jesus.
Tax money paid the soldiers who crucified him. Tax money paid the court officials that sentenced many Christians to death. And Paul says, pay your taxes.
So, we submit, we comply, but there is a limit because the government doesn’t have our ultimate allegiance. We also give to God what is His. There are things the government can tell us to do that we say, no.
If we have to disobey God in order to obey the state, then we tell the state, No. We say no respectfully, and then we embrace whatever consequences there are for saying no. Thus, we are still submitting, but we say no. That’s a common thread throughout Scripture. You know, in the Old Testament, Daniel was under this law that said you must only pray to the king.
And Daniel said, well, I’m going to pray to God. So he did. He prayed to God, and then he was thrown into a den of lions. Which he accepted as the consequence. If he had been in a system that had an appeal process, maybe he would have appealed, but he wasn’t.
So he just said, if this is what I get for following God, then this is what I get. Then in the New Testament, Peter and company are arrested for talking about Jesus, and they were explicitly told, do not teach in that name. And Peter replies, Acts 5:29, we must obey God rather than men. As a result, they’re flogged. But after getting flogged, they rejoice that they were counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the name of Jesus.
See this pattern? I’m going to do what the state says unless it conflicts with what God says. In that case, I follow God, but I embrace the consequences the state gives me for doing so, thus I am still submitting to the state. That’s a nuanced position. We don’t blindly follow what the state says, but neither do we mutiny.
We submit, but not fully. Paul gets this position across in 2 ways in the passage. Verse 5, he says, we submit for the sake of conscience, or according to conscience. We submit conscientiously. So, if it violates what we know God wants us to do, violates our conscience, then we side with God.
Honor God above the state, which is the second way Paul gets the idea across. Verse 7, pay to all that is owed to them, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. You know, it’s an echo of what Jesus said about Caesar, you know, give to Caesar what is his, honor to whom honor is owed. Paul means there’s an honor that Caesar isn’t owed. Caesar gets some honor, Even if he’s not being honorable, but he doesn’t get ultimate honor, ultimate allegiance.
Right, we submit, but not fully. Now, love without restraint. Even though we don’t submit fully, we love fully. We invest, we serve, we love our neighbor, Paul says. Be fully involved in their lives.
Don’t hold back. Love fully. But again, there’s a caveat. Don’t be so involved with them that you become them. It says, cast off the deeds of darkness.
Don’t participate in drunkenness, sexual immorality, quarreling, jealousy, etc. So, back to the original 4 groups in our culture, you know, the separatists who want to isolate themselves partly to focus on their own holiness are correct that they care about their own moral integrity. And it’s easier to do the right thing if you’re only around people who do the right thing. But Paul says, while it’s good to cast off the deeds of darkness, it is not good to pull away from others. He says remain connected to people even though our behaviors are separate from theirs.
First-century Christians were among their neighbors.
They didn’t form their own communities to get away from everyone else. They shared their possessions with everyone they knew. They did whatever they could to make life better for those around them. But at the same time, they looked entirely different from those around them. There’s a letter that has survived from the 2nd century.
We don’t know who wrote it, but it was written to a man named Diognetus. And the author, whoever it is, he’s describing to Diognetus what Christians are like. Maybe Diognetus has never seen Christians, so he’s describing this group. This is somewhere around the year 150 to 200 AD, and we have this letter that was written to Diognetus, and it says, they dwell in— Christians dwell in their own countries. He means they don’t form their own country.
They’re citizens of every country. So, they dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. So, they’re present among everyone, but they’re also distinct from everyone. As citizens, they share all things with others and yet endure all things as if foreigners. They marry, as do all others.
They beget children, but they do not destroy their offspring. So, infanticide and abortion were common practices of the day. Christians did not do it. They have a common table but not a common bed. They would invite anyone to dinner— poor, foreigners, widows, strangers, everybody.
Everybody came to dinner, but they didn’t participate in the promiscuity of the day. Their bed was for their one spouse. That’s it. So share their table but not their bed. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven.
They obey the prescribed laws and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men and are persecuted by all. They are poor, yet make many rich. They are in lack of all things and yet abound in all. They are dishonored, and yet in their dishonor are glorified.
They are evil spoken of and yet are justified. They are reviled and they bless. When they are insulted, they repay the insult honor. They do good yet are punished as evildoers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened to life.
They are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, persecuted by the Greeks, yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred. That’s a 2nd century description of Christians, something like 150 to 200. What did they do? They submitted to the government, but not fully, because they are punished for things. They loved without restraint while maintaining their moral integrity.
Those are the Christian obligations to government and society. Now, why? Why all this effort? Why all the sacrifice? Why not separate from everyone and just wait for the day when Jesus comes back and redeems everything?
Why do we engage at all? And if we engage, why do we engage like this? Why don’t we take a different approach? Why don’t we try to dunk on our enemies? Why don’t we try to crush the other side of the culture war?
Why this posture of being present but sacrificial, submissive but also with a spine of steel?
Why do we do it like that?
It’s how Jesus won.
Jesus stepped into a broken political system, much more broken than ours, and Jesus did not withdraw from that world, but neither did he try to conquer that world through political force. He refused to be crowned king. He submitted to the government. He paid taxes. He honored authority, but at the same time, he didn’t mind his own business.
He confronted sins, sins on the left and sins on the right. He never compromised holiness in order to gain influence with one group, and yet he had massive influence. Jesus demonstrated exactly what faithful citizenship looks like under imperfect governments. It’s faithful to God, servant of the people, respectful of earthly authorities. But the way that he really won was by laying down all his power, completely surrendering himself, giving up everything.
For who? His enemies.
Jesus didn’t win his enemies by crushing them, but by being crushed for them. The very government that Paul says bears the sword used the sword against Jesus, And Jesus let it happen because on the cross, rather than casting us away from our sin, Jesus was cast away in our place. We want to squash our enemies, but Jesus was squashed for his enemies.
If we want to win people, that’s how to do it. We can’t have a crown before we have a cross.
We can’t have victory over others without sacrificing for them first. That’s how Jesus won. We will not win others another way. You know, we say we worship a guy who died for his enemies, so how can we say we follow him if we want to crush our enemies?
Christians, we should be more concerned with serving than winning. We should be more concerned with loving our enemies than overpowering them. That’s how Jesus won.
We will not win another way. There is not another way to win.
Crushing the other side is not a victory, at least not a Christian victory. Serving the other side is.
Let’s pray. Father, thank you for Jesus who did not come to crush his enemies but instead died to elevate us. Thank you that we have been elevated even though we deserved exactly the opposite, Lord. May his sacrifice on our behalf sink into our hearts such that we live in our world as he did. Sacrificial giving of himself, never compromising on truth, always willing to elevate others at personal cost to himself.
Lord, may we model that in all of our conversations and all of our interactions, especially in the charged conversations that we have in our culture today. We pray those things in his name. Amen.
Amen. Let’s stand and sing of the one whom we are to put all our hope in.
