Most scholars think that Paul wrote the Roman letter from Corinth. An educated guess is that it was written in the year 57 a.d., although there is always some discussion about such dates. The emperor was probably Nero.
Previously while in Corinth, Paul had made friends with a couple named Aquila and Priscilla. They were Jews who had been living in Rome, but had been forced to leave when Emperor Claudius expelled all of the Jews from Rome. According to the historian Suetonius, the Jews were kicked out because of “their continual tumults instigated by Chrestus.” Chrestus could be a misspelling of Christ; some scholars think there were Jewish-Christian riots in Rome which led the Roman government to act against the Jews.
Not that the Romans lacked for reasons to act against the Jews. The Jewish people never fully accepted the Roman occupation of their land, especially given the worship of other gods that the Romans often brought with them. Within two decades of the writing of this letter, the Romans will have decided that “enough is enough” and will have destroyed Jerusalem and the Jewish resistance.
Nero, of course, within a decade would launch the first large-scale persecution of Christians, action taken merely to deflect blame from himself for the Great Fire of Rome in 64 a.d. Tradition tells us that Paul himself lost his life during Nero’s anti-Christian campaign.
Such was the political background of Romans 13. The call to avoid conflict with the government was a prudent one.
“The call to avoid conflict with the government was a prudent one.”
Tim, are you saying the same holds true today. considering the politics of today.? Even Jesus didn’t try to conquer the world by force.
Tim: You have provided us with a background begging for an observation,
but you have eluded from writing your position. Are you looking for ours or don’t you have one?
Laymond—I’m not drawing conclusions yet. I agree, though, with your comment about Jesus not trying to conquer the world by force.
H.B.—I’m planning on doing several more posts on Romans 13. I’d really welcome input as I work through this passage.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Given what we know about the historical background that necessitated Paul writing Romans and considering then what Paul teaches about submission to government, it begs the moral/ethical question of to what extent, if any, can Christians participate in political demonstrations? There is the one extreme such as the American Revolutionary War which I believe is a clear violation of scripture. But what about the opposite extreme where Christians engage in a peaceful sit-in and or march that does not disrupt the flow of life for others, does not resort to inflamatory rhetoric, does not violate the law of the land, and does not associate itself with demonstration groups engaging in disruptive, inflamatory, and unlawful practices?
The later is a tough question that I began to ask when I lived in served as a preacher in Ithaca, NY where every week (and sometimes every day) there is some group protesting something. And while I don’t recall any protesting group disturbing the peace with violence or other unlawful practices, there were some who relied on some very uncivil rhetoric to make their point. One thing that might help answer the question of when, if ever, should Christians demonstrate is to ask what is the demonstration fighting for? I fight it very difficult to conclude that the Apostle Paul would have fought for anything other than the Gospel. So should our business be occupied by anything other than the gospel? For example (and this happened in Ithaca), there are demonstraters protesting the American invasion of Iraq and for argument sake, let’s assume their opposition to the war in Iraq is right. Does this mean a Christian should join their demonstration? Or does their issue, no matter how right it is on principle, have anything to do with the Gospel?
Grace and peace,
Rex
Rex, do you think, “you shall not kill, and love your enemy”, have anything to do with the gospel. I believe a christian should hold a peaceful demonstration every day, demonstrate to others how a follower of Christ should live, I don’t think we should keep quite when we see a wrong happening, but like Oklahoma threatening to form a militia to fight the federal government, that only results in being called “wing nuts”.
Laymond,
With all due respect, you completely missed the point I was making. Of course, I believe that Christians should love even their enemies and not kill them. That is why I believe it is ethically wrong for Christains to participate in and support warfare. I also believe that the Christian life is lived as a peaceful demonstration. What was calling into question was Christians participating in secular organized demonstrations that have something other than the gospel as their goal (i.e., secular politics).
I don’t think we should keep quiet when we see wrong being done either. The question is not whether we should keep quiet or become vocal, the question is how we should become vocal. Keep in mind that the Christians Paul was writing in the city of Rome saw plenty of wrong and experienced plenty of wrong done to them that was sanctioned by culture and government. Yet Paul taught against resistance and instead taught them to repay injustice with love.
And for the record, I am not settled that it is ever wrong to particpate in a peaceful demonstration. I am merely thinking outloud as I/we try to work through a very difficult ethical issue.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Rex,
In the “Christianity and Culture” class I’m teaching this afternoon, we are going to talk about civil disobedience and political activism. Wish I could fly you in to share your thoughts!
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Ha..ha..I only live a few miles from the airport :-).
All I have to say is: If you are going to be politically active, don’t dare bring the Name of Jesus into it. It muddies the Gospel message and immediately turns at least half of your audience against you before the Gospel is even mentioned. Mixing the two kingdoms is a destruction to true witnessing and turns one’s Jesus into whatever historical political ideal they want Him to be (feminist, liberal, conservative, communist, libertarian, whatever); thus only using Him to advance some personal worldly cause. He then becomes a means to a selfish end.
Jesus lived and preached at a time when there were many wrongs done by the governing authorities (Rome). Yet He NOT ONCE addressed how Rome needed to change as a governing authority. Oh what a scene He could have made when with Pilate in front of the crowds! But that was not His purpose. His purpose was not of this world. His purpose was to bring peace to people even when they are facing injustice and persecution (in fact, God has ordained the Gospel to spread by those very means!). A peace that surpasses all understanding. A peace with God that the flesh cannot obtain or experience outside of Him.
The fanciful Utopian ideal many are propagating in these days is such a distortion of what the Kingdom of God is. It is politically motivated and nothing more.
When will we stop thinking so much of this world (the same world Jesus made a point NOT to pray for in John 17 – see v.9) that hates God and more of what the Gospel is so that those in the world (all of us) turn to God and live for Him and His purposes in Christ instead of the desires of the flesh (political or otherwise)?
When will we stop looking to governing authorities to bring what only the Church has been given the keys to bring?
Jr.,
Good to see you back here. Any ways…I think your right about trying to mix two kingdoms…the question is what kingdom have Christians been called to be about the business of? But I also believe Jesus’ message was very political just a subversive politic and I think Pilate had a good idea of what he was asking Jesus when he asked him if he was the “king of the Jews” which is why Jesus did not give a strait forward asnwer. That means that Pilate understood well what the political expedient move was…go ahead and have Jesus crucified, for left alive he is too much of a threat.
Grace and peace.
Rex
This is as thick as Potato soup. When we look back and look at what was facing Paul, it is obvious the task at hand was to spread the gospel of salvation to the gentiles. He wasn’t about to do anything but the will of the risen Christ. His mission was simple and to the point. Ours in present day is much different. Working within the system we have does give us a different set of problems. As Americans living in a Christian society prompts, what I call a civil responsibility. Working within the system allows systematic change. Working outside the system labels right wing Christians as someone put it wingnuts. Paul of course was working within an occupied territory or enemy territory as some may see it. Things were different then and as I see them, now in a democracy that allows freedoms of expression, speech and religion, I don’t see many parallels.
Why would our mission be any different? Our society would like to convince us that it is Christian so that we can feel that we somehow are serving Christ by serving a kingdom of this world. But it’s as much a distraction from our mission today as it was for Paul.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim, you are right most of the reasons people have a problem with government has nothing to do with religious rights or religion in any way.
Lets take the current protest across the country called “The Tea Party” they started by hiding behind religious rights, and then went to constitutional rights, but it is all about taxes, the tax cuts for rich people are about to come to an end, they started with religion to get as many people of faith behind their movement, then they gathered all the anti-government people they could by saying ” your constitutional rights are being trampled on” .
Look at who is leading this movement and stoking the fires of malcontent. No it is not the uneducated, poor, it is highly educated rich people who are trying to head off the resending of their tax cuts. People like Dick Army, Sarah Palin, and the president of the Massey mines, where all those people were killed. And a majority of those in the crowd are those who would be considered wealthy. If we take the time to look into the reasons behind the excuses in Rome, I bet greed is a determining factor there also. No they are not serving Christ by marching, or sitting in against the government, they have self serving reasons. They use religion, and civil rights as a tool to further their own greed.
Yes Tim, your right, there is a certain comparison if you look at the mission field in areas of the world where Christianity is not dominant.
But we live in a Christian country, in my opinion, isn’t that what your thought is? I mean, you teach at a Christian university. Your life is driven by religion. Since I am in insurance, mine is money. I mean to say that is my vocation. You see emphasis is placed by us in many areas
and how it effects our lives all very differently. I don’t look at this as serious as many others. I am not driven to wear my religion on my sleeve. The intent of my life is to share the good news to anyone asking for answers. Its not to broadcast it to every soul.
No, nations can’t be Christian. Nations live to serve themselves, not Christ.
I’ve done a few posts on that, should you care to look at them:
http://www.timothyarcher.com/kitchen/?cat=487
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
My concern is how far we are to go in peaceful submission. Look how Hitler herded the people into the gas chambers. Are we too, to simply go like sheep into the FEMA camps when we refuse to take the mark of the beast? And if we are to submit to authority then how can we refuse the mark God says we can not take? The way I see it is that equal force and common sense in the situation is the only thing that can really answer in our heart of hearts what is meant to be at the point of decision. They come to take me away to the FEMA camps….I’m doing everything I can to resist.
Linda,
I think we do well to consider the example of the early church. Who had the greater, lasting impact on history: men like Polycarp who bravely faced death, refusing to resist, or men like ___, who have been forgotten because they chose the world’s path, fleeing martyrdom or fighting back? Revelation was written to tell the church what to do in just such a circumstance. And what was the message? Get out there and kick some Roman butt? No. It was “be faithful even to the point of death.”
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer