Romans
13 and the Right To Bear Arms
by Paul Green
by
Paul Green
Recently by Paul Green: Britain
– Land of the Defenceless Victim
For
many Christians, both on the left and the right, Romans 13 endorses
the power and presence of a police state, a government court system
and the right of governments to tax people to pay for it all.
According
to the prevailing doctrine, it is the state which has the right
to be armed in order to enforce obedience and it is Christians who
have a duty to obey – not just for reasons of practicality or prudence,
but as a moral obligation.
The
term "powers that be" – a phrase first coined by early Bible publisher
William Caxton, then used in the King James Version – is believed
to mean government, which is "ordained" or set in place by God.
Any official wielding this government power is understood to be
a servant or "minister" of God and therefore, to
resist would be to incur the wrath of God.
The
primary and fearful means of meting out such wrath is believed to
be the state bearing arms and using them not just against actual
wrongdoers, but upon anyone who disobeys instructions, regulations,
or state-created legislation. In this way, the state is ascribed
a god-like authority to establish its own moral order.
Reference
to "taxes" ("tribute" KJV) and
"customs" in verses 6-7 is believed to tie this
all together by underlining that the subject under discussion is
the state – and that taxes, tribute and customs are endorsed by
God, without limit.
Here
is one translation of the passage, from the New King James Version:
"Let
every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there
is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist
are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority
resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring
judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works,
but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what
is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's
minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he
does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an
avenger to [execute] wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore
[you] must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for
conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for
they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing.
Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes [are due],
customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor."
However,
although long overlooked or ignored, the prevailing interpretation
of this passage presents a major problem for those who say they
believe the Bible to be true…
Conflicting
Scriptures?
In
fact, if government courts, regulations and military/police state
enforcement really were the "authorities" and "powers"
referred to as God’s ministers and servants – then there would appear
to be a direct conflict within the Bible:
Because
the same Apostle Paul… in the same period of time… in the same Bible…
specifically instructed Christians to stay away from government
court systems at all costs, and described the whole system as "unrighteous".
Here
is a section of 1 Corinthians 6, from the NKJV:
"Dare
any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before
the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Do you not know that
the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged
by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you
not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that
pertain to this life? If then you have judgments concerning things
pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed
by the church to judge? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that
there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able
to judge between his brethren? But brother goes to law against
brother, and that before unbelievers! Now therefore, it is already
an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another.
Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather [let
yourselves] be cheated?"
Although
specifically addressing the early church in Corinth, at the very
beginning of 1 Corinthians it is made clear that the whole letter
is written to, "…all who in every place call on the name
of Jesus Christ our Lord". So Paul was writing to all believers,
including those of today.
But
perhaps he was referring only to relatively minor internal church
matters?
Not
so. Paul specifically referred to being "cheated" and then
even informed believers that it would be better to take a loss than
to go before a government system. His further instruction was to
appoint trustworthy persons from among themselves and to judge even
these serious matters in private court.
Why
is this passage of scripture almost completely ignored by both today's
Christian conservatives and liberals alike?
Both
stick like glue to the mantra that the state is the divinely ordained
and only conceivable means of law enforcement. But notice how the
Apostle Paul writes here that officials of the state judicial system
should be considered those "least esteemed by the church to judge."
He even goes on to say that Christians should be ashamed for making
use of such a system at all – let alone believing it to be any kind
of holy institution.
But
there is little shame. Take as an example, modern Christian music
and books: Almost all are written under the auspices of a state
granted legal copyright monopoly. That means other Christians will
attack any church through government courts, if the church does
not pay royalties for singing "their" song of praise.
If that is not the intent – then those posting copyright notices
are bearing false witness. Even Bible translations are undertaken
from the outset with the intention of attacking other believers
in court for quoting "their" translation of God's Word too much.
It
certainly looks like there is a conflict between Romans 13 and 1
Corinthians 6 – and that Christians have come down hard on the Roman
side. But that is not the only one:
Look
first at Romans 13:3, which says, "For rulers are not a terror
to good works... he is God's minister to you for good."
Then
contrast that with another passage, 1
Corinthians 2:5-6, where Paul says,
"...your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the
power of God... not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of
this age, who are coming to nothing."
The
word for "rulers" here is exactly the same in both passages
– in the Greek, "archon". Note how in the Corinthians passage
Paul specifically refers to "men" (i.e. not just dark spiritual
forces) who are "rulers of this age" as "coming to
nothing" – i.e. worthless.
In
plain words, and if the meaning is confined to the government overlords
of this age, then Paul – writing under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit – is teaching anarchy, a word which simply means, "without
rulers".
But
that is still not all, because concerning the end of the age, Paul
also writes (1
Cor. 15:24-25):
"Then
[comes] the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father,
when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For
He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet."
In
this scripture, "rule" and "authority"
are again exactly the same Greek words used in Romans 13. But here,
far from being described as "ministers" of God,
"all" kings, governments and rulers of this age
are described as being the "enemies" of Christ
(i.e. there are no good ones).
Romans
13 Revisited
If
there is a conflict between Romans 13 and these scriptures; then
it is a conflict in the minds of Christians, not in the holy written
word of God. Because the real subject of the Romans 13 passage is
not difficult to understand at all – simply by looking at the key
subject word, "authorities" or in the KJV, "powers".
Here is the first verse again (NKJV):
"Let
every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there
is no authority except from God, and the authorities
that exist are appointed by God."
But
does the word "authorities" here really mean "government"
as modern translations and interpretations claim?
It
is a simple matter to find out, just by looking up its usage elsewhere
in the scriptures. This can be done in a few clicks at any online
Bible site (e.g. bible.cc or blueletterbible.org). Here are some
other uses of exactly the same Greek word (exousia -underlined):
"Has
not the potter power over the clay..." (Romans 9:21)
"take heed lest this liberty of yours..." (1 Cor 8:9)
"I abuse not my power in the Gospel..." (1 Cor 9:18)
"they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle"
(Heb 13:10)
"after it was sold, was it not in your own power"
(Acts 5:4)
"a man... left his house and gave authority to his servants"
(Mark 13:35)
"to turn from... the power of Satan to God" (Acts
26:18)
We
can easily see that the word is a very general word for all kinds
of authority, good or bad. The more specific Greek words for kings/emperors
(basileus)
and governors/officials (hegemon)
of the state are not used at all in the passage.
Since
one use of the term is for the "power" of Satan, the meaning
therefore is clearly concerned only with practical reality and not
moral legitimacy. Obviously, as Paul would never endorse the "power
of Satan" he would want to limit his use of the term only to
legitimate forms of authority. Look again at the second part of
verse one:
"…For
there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that
exist are appointed by God."
The
commonly held belief about this seems to be that, where any government
exists and calls itself an authority, then it must be because God
put it there. This is not only absurd but is never actually believed
anyway – exceptions always being found for tyrants like Hitler and
Stalin. Violent Christian nationalists also manage to find convenient
exceptions whenever required in order to justify invading or bombing
the "divinely ordained" governments and people of other countries.
In
reality, there is a much clearer meaning and through making use
of the same online Bible resources, here is a perfectly accurate
translation/amplification – but which in this case, is also consistent
with the rest of scripture:
"…For
no authority is real (exists) unless it is from God, but those
authorities that are real (do exist) are set in place by God"
The
second half of verse one is simply restricting the meaning of "authorities"
to real, pre-existent God-given authority, not just rubber stamping
any evil person or system that claims authority by force or threat.
This places the rest of Romans 13 in an entirely new light.
What
then are some of the real authorities that exist because they have
been set in place by God? Here are some specific realms of authority
– categorised by using the same Greek word from Romans 13:1 as found
in other passages:
Personal
liberty or self government: "take heed lest this liberty
of yours..." 1 Corinthians 8:9
Private property rights: "Has not the potter power over
the clay..." Romans 9:21
Financial rights: "after it was sold, was it not in your own
power" Acts 5:4
Household/employer rights: "a man... left his house and gave
authority to his servants" Mark 13:35
Church leadership: "I abuse not my power in the Gospel..."
1 Corinthians 9:18
In
summary, Romans 13 is about respecting the legitimate overseeing
rights and jurisdiction of others and about honouring our obligations
to them as we interact in daily life.
Taxes
However,
some will doubtless notice that verses 6-7 refers specifically to
taxes.
But
in fact, they do not – my own understanding has recently changed
on that very point. Here are those verses once more, from the translators
of the New King James Version:
"For
because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers
attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to
all their due: taxes to whom taxes [are due], customs to whom
customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor."
The
word translated as "taxes" (NKJV) or "tribute" (KJV)
is in reality, a much more general word for bearing a burden or
liability of payment. Certainly a tax is both a burden and liability,
but payment cannot rightly be translated as "tax" without specific
additional information. There are in fact other more specific Greek
words for taxes and tribute – "kensos" for example.
The
word translated "taxes" here, is the Greek word "phoros".
It only appears in two other passages of the Bible, so its meaning
must also be derived from the ordinary use of the word.
One
common public usage was during the Delian League of Greek city states,
where it was not a tax, but a voluntary contribution of dues toward
common defence. Later, when Athens became more powerful it was turned
into a compulsory tribute, however the word "phoros" stuck
as it served political PR purposes. One historical
article confirms this: "The
change can be seen in the transmutation of the word phoros' meaning.
Originally it meant 'contribution', but as the Delian League changed
into the Athenian Empire, it came to mean 'tribute.'"
Governments
dominate the public record, and have done so by force throughout
much of history. However, the public record still shows that the
word "phoros" was used for private rent. Even one proponent
of the prevailing doctrine (see
page 20) admits: "The noun
phoros… means literally ‘that which is brought in by way of payment’
(Liddell-Scott, page 1951). It has a broad sense of ‘payment’ which
is owed for whatever reason. This sense is found in the papyri,
which have examples of bill for the ‘payment’ of rent on property
(Moulton-Milligan, page 674)." Another secular historian
writes, "Phoros and ekphorion were… the most common words
in Greek for rents paid by tenants to their landlords, but the semantic
range was hardly limited to this legal context." (Morton,
page 165)
The
word phoros is used about tax in one Gospel account of the
well known "render unto Caesar" teaching. But in the other
two accounts of the same event; the word "kensos" is used.
Since Jesus actually spoke Aramaic, the translation of meaning into
Greek is in the one case (Luke
20:22) rendered "liability/payment
(phoros) to Caesar" and in the other two (Mark
12:14, Matt
22:17) "Caesar's tax (kensos)".
Both are accurate, because where "phoros" is used, the meaning
is clear as Caesar is also mentioned. (More on this particular passage
can be found in the article, "Rights,
Liberties and Romans 13").
The
word "phoros" then, is a general word for a liability or
payment, whether private rent, voluntary membership dues, or a compulsory
tribute. The word refers to the reality of a burden not to its moral
legitimacy and so in these verses, Paul is instructing Christians
to honour their liabilities to all, where properly due.
Likewise,
the word "customs" as translated in some versions of the
Bible, is also inaccurate and easily confirmed to be so.
The
Greek word here is "telos"
(click for details) and means any kind of conclusion or settlement
– of a bill, agreement or any other obligation. Of course, customs
officers do demand a settlement and the word can be used for that.
But it is even translated multiple times in the New Testament as
simply, "the end".
There
are many obligations and settlements in life toward those in rightful
charge of businesses or property. There is no reason to presume
that Romans 13:6-7 refers to taxes and customs.
Much
of the reasoning on this in Bible commentaries and dictionaries
is circular, party due to tradition, and because the word phoros
is little used elsewhere in the Bible. Romans 13 has long been presumed
to be about government; phoros and telos are therefore
presumed to mean payments and settlements only to the government;
which is presumed to confirm the initial presumption that Romans
13 is about government...
In
reality, God through Paul the Apostle is instructing Christians
to settle their economic and moral obligations to all who render
us a service, and to show regard for their rights – be it an agreement,
lease, rent, debt, settlement of a bill, or invoice at the conclusion
of a transaction.
Moreover,
only this meaning makes any sense when the context of the verses
which follow are taken into account, such as "Owe no man anything,
but to love one another."
Bearing
Arms
For
some, it may take a while to reprogram the mind when reading the
passage. But once these simple basics are known, Romans 13 proves
to be one of the strongest scriptures upholding the right to armed
defence of person or property. The key verse here being:
"But
if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain;
for he is God's minister, an avenger to [execute] wrath on him who
practices evil."
Of
course, government officials who try to lord it over us, seek to
give themselves a veneer of legitimacy by staking a claim to words
like "minister" or "public servant". But the real subjects here
are those who serve as leaders and proprietors in daily life. For
example, the same Greek word for "ministers" is
used in John 2:9 to refer to "…the servants which
drew the water…"
Those
who do business or perform other duties and responsibilities under
their jurisdiction or proprietorship are supplying a service to
others: A father is God's minister to his family, a church leader
is a minister to his congregation, a businessman or employee operates
in service of others and "ministers" to their needs in the marketplace.
As
we saw earlier, Paul condemned the governmental rulers and authorities
of this age as "enemies" of Christ and "coming
to nothing" – but it is also important to note that there
are voluntary, legitimate, "non-kleptocratic", non-governmental
public authorities and rulers. In fact, many uses of the term "ruler"
(Greek- archon) in the New Testament are in reference to
these leaders. In a natural family based society these are the elders,
heads of family groups, church leaders, employers, and especially
the Judges who resolve disputes others cannot.
Judges
of this kind have no governmental power of their own, and in both
the Old and New Testaments they are upheld as representatives of
the pre-existent natural laws already set in place by Heaven – not
arbitrary lawmakers unto themselves and not tools of politics or
the state.
Judges,
owners, managers, and leaders of all kinds therefore, are in service
to others for their good – but woe betide anyone who tries to do
harm within their domain of service: Not only does Romans 13 directly
ascribe to owners, proprietors, or leaders the right to bear a sword
and use it against wrongdoers, but this right is confirmed by multiple
other New and Old Testament examples and teachings:
- Jesus
own teaching includes the example of a householder who "fully
armed, guards his house and his goods are at peace". (Luke
11:21)
- Likewise,
believers are admonished by illustration to "put on the whole
armour of God... that you may be able to stand in the evil day..."
(Ephesians 6:13)
- Jesus
illustrated teaching shows that landowners are right to defend
and recover their property by force from murderous thieves: "Therefore
what will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and
destroy those vinedressers" (Luke 20:15-16)
- The
disciples were specifically told, "he who has no sword let
him sell his garment and buy one" (Luke 22:36). The word used
was machaira – the short Roman close combat weapon.
- Abraham
led his armed household, and even defeated neighbouring kings.
- Hebrews
11:27 commends Moses, who "defended and avenged him who was
oppressed, and struck down the Egyptian" (Acts 7:24) forcing
him to flee Egypt.
- Israel
were always armed except under tyrants when, "…there was no
blacksmith to be found throughout all the land of Israel, for
the Philistines said, "Lest the Hebrews make swords or spears."
(1 Samuel 13:9)
Some
of these examples certainly illustrate greater spiritual truth –
but how could a false earthly principle illustrate a greater heavenly
truth?
Trust
in God – Not a Weapon
However,
just before his crucifixion, Jesus did instruct the disciple Peter
to put away his sword, and amongst other reasons, he said "for
all who take the sword will die by the sword". Clearly, it would
not be consistent with the above passages to interpret this as a
condemnation of defending an innocent person under threat.
The
Old Testament says, "whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall
his blood be shed." In this regard, Jesus may have been referring
not to Peter, but to the end of the Pharisees and soldiers of the
Chief Priests to whom he had just said "are you come against
me as a robber with swords and clubs?" The prophesied destruction
of Jerusalem came some 37 years later.
In
any case, Peter’s action in taking to the sword was certainly inappropriate:
A sword may be a tool of daily life preservation but Peter's response
was presumptive and foolish. He had been trained to have faith and
should have turned to God, not to a practically useless sword –
and he could have been killed for it.
The
force against them was overwhelming and the need was for a miracle,
not for a last stand of totally inadequate physical force. Jesus
affirmed this by telling Peter that he could have called a host
of angels if such force was required. Furthermore, Peter's action
– although well meaning – was not only foolhardy but also stood
against the plan of God for the Christ to be crucified for us all.
Peter was rebuked for this also.
Some
Old Testament incidents relate how that when Israel went to battle
against overwhelming force, if they did not turn to and seek God
first, they were slaughtered. At other times, when they did look
to and trust in God, their enemies even fought amongst and killed
themselves. However, more usually, weapons were still needed – if
only a sling, as in the case of David against Goliath.
Trust
in God – Bear a Weapon
It
is true that God can and will protect all who look to him in accordance
with wonderful scriptures like Psalm
91. Yet, it was also God who in the
beginning established human dominion on the earth.
God
does not lightly undermine his own Word. The first chapters of the
Bible reveal that we have been made sovereign individuals in the
image and likeness of God to exercise that dominion on this earth.
God as the ultimate Owner stands ready to help us – but will never
undermine that which we have been assigned.
Following
an earlier special mission, the instruction of Jesus to make provision
for life's risks by carrying a weapon is consistent with this:
"When
I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack
anything?" So they said, "Nothing." Then He said to them, "But
now, he who has a money bag, let him take [it], and likewise a
knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and
buy one… So they said, "Lord, look, here [are] two swords." And
He said to them, "It is enough."
Note
that Jesus also told believers to carry a purse and spare provisions.
So the key point clearly is one of making proper preparation and
not that it is necessarily an immediate sin to step outside without
a wallet, extra provisions, or a weapon.
However,
there will be a penalty both for ourselves, our families, our neighbours
and our communities if we do not take heed. In particular, for those
who bow the knee to the state and surrender their God-given sovereignty
and dominion, in the vain idolatrous hope that the state will protect
them from all evil. The hypocrisy of some who say we should disarm
and just "trust God" is that few also advocate disarming the government.
In reality, they are placing their trust not in God, but in the
state.
But
there is no true King but Christ, and no protector of our liberties
and rights except the one from whom they came. His instruction is
to obtain a sword and Romans 13 amplifies this, making clear what
the sword is to be used for and when.
The
summary therefore as underlined by Romans 13 is to trust in God
and wherever prudent (the greater risk may be anti-weapon laws)
to carry an appropriate close combat weapon.
"Good
Gun Samaritans"
One
common approach of gun-rights advocates today is to recite statistics,
then offer a clenched fist, "my guns, my rights" self-interest argument.
This can be very commendable: The truth must be highlighted, and
self interest which is not at the expense of others is right, because
we can only show love to others as we love ourselves.
However,
some do take a purely selfish approach. Some sound like they would
actually enjoy blowing a burglar away, straight to hell. Many of
the same, while defending their own rights, also support the killing
of innocents in overseas wars due to a perceived self-defence interest.
Others have actually talked of killing the children of US Senators
who vote to take away guns. Probably these were agent provocateurs
– state sponsored forum trolls – but of greater concern is that
this was openly admired as a show of strength by some in the broader
"liberty movement".
This
is not the spirit of true liberty, it is selfishness. Selfishness
inherently disregards the liberty of others and their lives. In
fact, a selfish so-called "libertarian" may well decide they can
receive maximum liberty for themselves by collaborating with the
statist society around them. One former head of the Federal Reserve
System springs to mind, but he is hardly the only example…
Another
related point is that upholding the right and duty to bear arms
is a battle for hearts as well as minds – but harsh and violent
words send a negative message to the undecided, even when technically
correct.
The
story of the "Good Samaritan" is familiar to most people. But here
is a question: What would the Good Samaritan have done, had he come
to the scene perhaps a few minutes earlier, just before the victim
was set about by robbers?
The
answer to that presents another focus for the message of personal
rights and self-defence:
First:
a message of concern for the untold numbers of defenceless victims,
who are made defenceless by gun control laws or choose to be so
due to propaganda.
Second:
a message of genuine compassion for others – that we will not just
"pass by on the other side." As armed "Good Samaritans"
we can come to the assistance of others and in doing so have true
faith in God – not just a weapon – for protection and victory.
Conclusion:
The
message for Christians is that Romans 13 does not authorize the
slaughter and violence of the state, but rather condemns the state
as a chief violator of those rights Romans 13 upholds – including
the right to bear arms.
This
may mean difficult choices: It could mean persecution – no longer
can subservience and fear be dressed up as holiness. Speaking out
could mean losing a comfortable church leadership position or loss
of esteem in a circle of fellowship. Criticism of the state or its
activities may even result in imprisonment, like John the Baptist
and some in the early church.
However,
Jesus’ restraint of Peter’s haste with his sword demonstrates that
the cause of the Gospel and of liberty is normally best served by
those who are alive and outside of a jail cell. Tyranny, although
against the will of God, can exist due to the free will of those
around us. Sometimes people support that which enslaves them and
believe those who flaunt unjust rules to be wrongdoers –and will
not listen to their message. Even when some do listen, change takes
time and so the wisdom of a choice to physically resist tyranny
depends very much on the time, the place and the people.
This
perceived public image is cited in 1
Peter 2:12-17 by the Apostle Peter
as one reason for his later instruction that, in addition to proper
morality and honesty, "for the Lord’s sake" it
is prudent to comply with "every ordinance of man…"
Another reason mentioned, is so our opponents will have no way
to ensnare us. It is also right to pray for earthly rulers, as our
enemies, that evil plans may be thwarted and that instead we "may
lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness" (1Ti
2).
But
at the same time, we are exhorted to live "as free"
people, fearing only God, honouring the true King, and teaching
the Kingdom of God – not propaganda for the governments of this
age, which are "coming to nothing".
April
6, 2013
Paul
Green [send him mail] provides
internet and communications privacy services worldwide.
Copyright
© 2013 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
The
Best of Paul Green
|