RENDER UNTO GOD

What Romans 13 Does NOT Mean

"An unjust law is no law at all" - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

In 2011 I was early into my very happy tenure as the Rector of Saint Benedict’s Anglican Church in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. That church sits between two major universities, Duke University in Durham, and the University of North Carolina (UNC) in the old town or city limits of Chapel Hill. Technically, the address of the church is within the city limits of Chapel Hill due to annexation of what had been, long ago, farmland with country roads. As a result, there were some annoying extra costs and ordinances that we had to abide by. This became a problem upon the discovery of a dead tree on our property. According to a city ordinance we were required to file a request (and pay a fee to do so) for permission in order to cut it down. And, while we awaited a reply, which could come as a denial for permission, who knows what might have happened? It was a tall tree. Might it fall on our church building thus creating damage or injury or death? Might it fall in another direction and land on a neighbor’s house, as houses were within range, or upon an innocent person taking the family dog for a walk near the church? In such a case the city would not share our liability, but even more importantly, by what right could we stand by and risk injury or death to our neighbors? In such a case we had no difficulty in deciding that “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself (Leviticus 19:18)” constitutes a higher moral priority than “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers (Romans 13:1),” and “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s (Matthew 22:21).” So, we had it cut down as quickly and as safely as possible. And that was the correct decision in the eyes of God, I have no doubt.

We all know the famous quotation:

Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him [Jesus] in his talk. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way. (Matthew 22:15-22)

In a recent article on Substack, Mark Ramm wrote:

When Jesus held up the coin and asked whose image was on it, the trap his interrogators had set required him to answer in a way that endorsed either the imperial extraction or the rebellion. He answered with a second clause that was bigger than the trap. The coin is Caesar’s. The human is not. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and render unto God every person who is made in God’s image. 1

How many times have you heard the passage from Matthew 22 used to serve the interests of the state and of those in power? As an American I can see how it may be understood to fit the significance of the date, April 15. In the movie Seargent York, it is used in the scene in which Gary Cooper, Bible in hand, reads those words and decides that he must choose the demands of his country’s government over his own religious conviction that a Christian is required to be a pacifist and a Conscientious Objector to Arms. Whether or not the real Seargent York came to that decision during World War I as simply as Gary Cooper did in the movie, I cannot say.

This is not a pacifist article by the way. My father never questioned the need to fight against the German army when his time came during World War II. He enlisted and put his life on the line because the danger was real, not only to his own country, but to mankind. My father was an exceptionally gentle soul, and it was not an easy thing to spend a long time in combat especially as the machine gunner in his unit. But after the war, he never questioned why he had been there, unlike many veterans in the current generation of solders. The suicide rate among veterans of our recent wars in this century is very high, up to twenty-two a day at the present time. I believe that World War II was one of the very few examples of what can be called a “Just War.” Most wars are nothing of the sort. And not everything the allies did was just, such as the firebombing of Dresden. But the overall war seems to me to have been a just war, mostly because the allies were given no choice about it. To give in on either front, I would argue, would have been morally indefensible. Still, I cannot imagine that a decision as momentous as the decision by Seargent York during the first World War, in real life, came so easily, and so quickly.

What Mark Ramm has drawn out (as in exegesis) from the words of Jesus is something I have preached for years: The emphasis is on the second half of what He said: “…and unto God the things that are God’s.” What is the image and superscription on your neighbor, including a foreigner who may be opposing you on the battlefield? In Mark Ramm’s article he dwelt on the countless millions of human beings subjected to the evils of colonialism and slavery because of the sermon, as he put it, of “the Master’s chaplain.” The Church in Rome had, by the sixteenth century, allowed itself to be corrupted by the European powers into allowing western kings to be become emperors over many native peoples who were deemed worthy only to be enslaved, a far cry from the command of Jesus to “Make disciples among all nations.” (Matthew 28:19)

The Higher Powers

“The higher powers” is how the King James Bible phrases what the Revised Standard Version calls “The governing authorities.” So, I will use that translation for a passage of scripture that is abused every bit as often as the passage we looked at above.

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 he who 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 him 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; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 13:1-10)

In August 2017, following escalating tensions between the U.S. and North Korea, the TV evangelist Robert Jeffress made the following statement in defense of President Donald Trump’s threat of “fire and fury”:

“God has given President Trump authority to take out Kim Jong-Un. ... It gives the government the authority to do whatever, whether it’s assassination, capital punishment, or evil punishment to quell the actions of evildoers.” [1, 2]

That is a perfect example of the manner in which this passage by Saint Paul is partly quoted, so partly as to be appallingly out of context. According to that interpretation - if it can even be dignified with the word “interpretation” - The Apostle wrote an apologetic for raw power and the use of force, even to use “evil punishment,” which incites the imagination. For the present I will ignore the obvious partisanship of singling out the president he favored by name; that is, did not Barak Obama have the same authority? During his eight years I often condemned the seeming carelessness with which the United States killed many innocent non-combatants with drone strikes, with numbers that grew high beyond any reasonable justification. The very term “Collateral Damage” is a demonic euphemism, a product, no doubt, from “the Tongue of Mordor.” Let us call it what it is: Killing civilians, non-combatants, men, women, and children.

In the closing months of last year, and the opening months of this year, I have also condemned the mass murder of Venezuelans on the high seas by the order of the current administration. Even if some of the boats were carrying illegal drugs, the only acceptable manner in which to stop them would have been by waiting until they were in our own waters and intercepting them by the Coast Guard. If any of those boats had actually tried to smuggle drugs into the United States, the Coast Guard would have had no trouble enforcing the law. As it is, many of the boats that were targeted and destroyed, along with all hands-onboard, were powered by an outboard motor that could never have reached the United States at all. Even if that were not the case, is it right to kill a hundred innocent people in order to stop one or two evildoers? Well, it really does not matter according to preachers like Jeffress. God has given Trump the power to decide who lives and who dies because he has “authority.” That’s what the Bible says!

Except for the problem that it is not at all “what the Bible says.” Paul did not dictate his epistles to be interpreted as a collection of verses. He dictated whole sentences in whole paragraphs in whole passages, that is, according to how we print translations of his letters today. Yes, he did say to be subject to the governing authorities, and even to pay tribute and taxes, much to the disappointment of Libertarians and “Sovereign Citizens.” It is painfully obvious that taxation is not “theft,” but the price of living in a society instead of in the wild. But in what kind of a society were those ancient Roman Christians living? It was not an officially Christian kingdom, such as England in the days when the American colonies sought independence. It was not a Constitutional Republic either, enjoying the reciprocal protection of democracy and the rule of law. No. It was cold-blooded pagan empire in which no one had any real protection from the powerful. Even most of the Ceasars were assassinated because no one was safe in such a power-based empire. Many of the ancient Christians were enslaved, which is the real and only reason why Saint Paul commanded slaves to obey their masters. After all, the Church of Jesus Christ was an unofficial movement with a message of peace and salvation to all people, not the army of Spartacus that existed only for a moment before they all perished by the sword or the cross. The Church was not, and is not, of this cosmos, but is instead the agent of a Kingdom peopled with many new creations in Christ. (II Corinthians 5:17)

Indeed, within a few years, during the reign of Nero beginning in 65 AD and lasting until 313 AD, to be a Christian at all would be to commit a capital crime. Already Christians were suffering persecutions in various places here and there, especially Paul himself and his fellow apostles. The emperor in Rome was a tyrant who received worship as a god, and the local magistrate answered ultimately to him. Paul was not commanding the Christians in Rome to be loyal to the state, and certainly never to obey the state in anything that contradicted the commandments of God. He knew, as a repentant convert who had himself persecuted the Church, when the situation called believers “to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)

So, what was Paul really saying in Romans 13?

Let us look again at the concluding words of the passage in question: To put it simply, the meaning of the passage is that even pagan magistrates were God’s servants when the laws that they enforced were laws consistent with the Divine law, to love thy neighbor as thyself. Right now, at this dark time, the United States is oppressed by the rich and powerful. Contrary to our Constitution and everything honorable and right, we have, in effect, two laws. One law is official, and in theory it applies to everybody. The other law is unofficial, and in practice it does not apply to the rich and powerful. We have a man in the presidency who cannot be touched by the law even while he keeps buried the dirt in the Epstein Files. Along with him we have a Secretary of Defense (who calls himself “Secretary of War”) who cannot be touched by the law as long as they he enjoys the protection that comes with the exercise of raw power, and who, for now, will not have to answer for all the murders they have committed on the High Seas. The federal agents who murdered Renee Good and Alex Pretti, and their criminal colleagues who hold innocent people in detention under harsh and illegal conditions, also enjoy unjust and temporary protection. And, indeed, I hope and pray that the times will change.

But none of that gives anyone of us the right to steal, kill, and destroy our neighbor, nor even to covet what is rightly his. Even in the Soviet Union there was law enforcement against rape, robbery, and murder despite the harsh reality that those laws were not enforced equally, certainly not against officials in the Party. In ancient Rome, the Caesars and other powerful men abused slaves, held gladiatorial games of death, worshiped false gods, and in time persecuted the Church without mercy. Christians were not called to take part in such evil nor to cheer it on because the Caesar and his servants were “the governing authorities.” It is simply this: Neither were the Christians called to stir up violence or become criminals who prey on their neighbors. When the magistrates did, in time, command them to offer incense to Caesar as a god, many refused and died as martyrs. At that point the magistrate was not acting as God’s servant, and in that moment he did bear the sword in vain. Had we allowed that tree on the property of Saint Benedict’s to fall on a neighbor, we would have obeyed men rather than God. Yes, there comes a time when a righteous person must technically break the law, as we did by cutting down a potentially dangerous tree. But such decisions are not to be made lightly, neither arbitrarily. The issue is the commandment “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” because “love does no wrong to one’s neighbor.” Had we been discovered and fined for cutting down a tree (on our own property) contrary to a city ordinance, we would have paid the fine; a small price considering the possible alternatives.

The Mark of the Beast

You must render unto God the things that are God’s. You yourself are the image, the icon, of God. Among the things you must never render unto Caesar is your conscience. What is the Mark of the Beast in that enigmatic Book of Revelation?

Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom: let him who has understanding reckon the number of the beast, for it is a human number, its number is six hundred and sixty-six. (Revelation 13:16-18)

At the time that Revelation was composed, Nero Caesar had been long dead. But he remained a person of large symbolic importance, the Caesar who had ordered that every Christian was to be prosecuted for the crime of honoring Jesus as the Lord, and for many to be persecuted to the death for committing this crime. Six-hundred and sixty-six is the numeric value of the name Nero Caesar. That is what is meant, according to many of the best scholars, by “This calls for wisdom. Let him who has understanding reckon the number of the beast, for it is a human number.” I see no reason to project this into some specific future called “the end times.” Throughout history many have sacrificed their consciences to the authority or to the state, a kind of tyranny and evil of which Nero Caesar is a symbol. The conscience is a gift from God, but it can be killed or even perverted. I saw a documentary in which members of the Ku Klux Klan were holding a hate rally, and among them were their own children wearing the white robes and hoods. Do such innocent lambs have a chance? Will not their consciences be corrupted into believing that hate, as long as one hates the right people, is somehow virtuous? Let us pray for them. The Affirmation of Saint Louis2 calls on Christians to form their consciences according to the word of God.

Throughout history many have chosen the mark of the beast. This includes, for example, every Belgian colonial who cut off the hands and feet of native people, every member of the Seventh Calvary who murdered the elderly, women, and children of Native Americans in the great genocide of the west, everyone who took part in the slave trade, every obedient German who took part in the killing of European Jews, etc. “I was just obeying orders” is the mantra of those with that damnable mark. It includes those who obeyed the orders from Pete Hegseth to kill, and even to “double tap,” people in Venezuelan boats on nothing more than flimsy suspicion.

Even so, with many evil men exercising power, neither you nor I have any right to violate manmade laws, no matter where or when, when those laws are consistent with “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” If you choose to break even those manmade laws, the local authority is God’s servant who does not bear the sword in vain. That much honor and obedience to those in authority is perfectly reasonable, it is necessary for a peaceful life, and that is exactly what Saint Paul was telling the Roman Christians; that and no more than that.

1. The Pope Finished the Sentence, from the Substack The Second Sermon, Transparency Cascade Press, by Mark Ramm.

2. The Affirmation of Saint Louis (1977) is the founding document of the Continuing Anglican movement, and is in the constitution of such churches as the Anglican Catholic Church, the Anglican Province in America, and the Anglican Province of Christ the King.