Welcome to part two of this series looking at a Biblical theology of government and certain applications to our current cultural moment. For links to the other installments, see the list below.
- Principle #1 – Civil Governments have a Legitimate Authority
- Principle #2 – Civil Governments have a Limited Authority
- Principle #3 – Theocracy is Inescapable
- Principles Applied
In today’s episode, we are looking at the second principle regarding the limited authority of civil governments.
Principle #2 – Civil Governments have a Limited Authority
As I begin to make the case for this second principle, it should be obvious that the foundations for this have already been laid. Since God alone is sovereign, no civil government can be. Moreover, the legitimacy of their authority is a derived legitimacy. It does not find root in itself or in any man, rather, their authority and jurisdiction come from God alone. This is why Paul says that those who resist the governing authorities will incur judgment, because the government is God’s servant. Resistance to God-ordained authority is resistance to God.
Since civil governments are limited in their authority, we should be careful to observe what those limits are. Now, at this point, the careful reader will have noted that up to this point I have been speaking about “civil government” as opposed to using the common term “government”. This is intentional. It is intentional because as we look at the Biblical witness, we see that civil government is not the only form of god-ordained and legitimate government. In fact, we see three governments ordained by God and given their own sphere of legitimate authority, namely, the church, the family, and the state.
These other governments of church and family do not owe their existence to the state, nor do they derive their internal sphere of law from the state. The state does not have authority to determine the laws of church membership, or the right to determine who should be hired to fill a pastoring role. Likewise, the state has no right to determine the norms and responsibilities of family life. The structure of father-led homes does not exist because of the state nor does it exist by permission of the state. The internal sphere of law, its structures and norms are determined by God and decidedly not by the state.
When the state seeks to interfere with these governments, it goes beyond its God-given jurisdiction and makes itself a rebellious and disobedient servant. The Chinese Communist Party will be held liable for the blood of the 300 million children it spilled with its One Child Policy. It was entirely wicked for them to interfere with the government of the family in this way and when they did so, they were not exercising legitimate authority.
So, what does it look like for civil government to exercise legitimate authority in their assigned sphere? At this point we must return to Romans 13 and consider the passage in more detail.
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. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 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, 4 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. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 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.
Now, one of the key interpretive questions here is whether we should take Paul’s words about governing authorities as “descriptive” or “normative”. These make up the two schools of thought regarding the interpretation of the passage. The former maintains that Paul is giving an inspired description of the actual government and what God accomplishes through them, while the latter asserts that Paul is describing what proper government is.
With respect to the “descriptive” interpretation, it should be noted that this perspective has been found to produce highly suspect conclusions in the past. Some being willing to assert that all governments have divine approval and absolute rights over every area of life. Moreover, this school of interpretation fails to adequately deal with the value-laden substantives in the text. When governing authorities are said to be something, the descriptions provided offer a summary of what the office ought to be rather than a description of what every governing authority is.
If we say that a professor is an “intellectual” that does not mean that by virtue of holding the office of professor one automatically becomes an intellectual. In the same way, just because gospel “ministers” are described as not handling the word of God in a deceitful way (2 Corinthians 4:1-2), this does not mean that every person ordained as a “minister” in a “Christian church” is above deceit in his handling of the scriptures. Bahnsen is helpful again on this point.
Thus it is very important to note that in Romans 13:3 Paul is dealing with “rulers” (plural) as a class, not as separate individuals. What is true of the class or category of rulership, namely, that it should be a fear only to evil-doers, does not mean that specific rulers have not sinned in becoming a fear to those (e.g., Christians) who do the good. The fact that Paul uses value-laden substantives and category descriptions in Romans 13 should indicate to us that he is at least describing what government’s proper function is and not rendering an affirmative moral judgment on any particular ruler or political policy.[1]
With these considerations in mind, the normative approach seems far more likely. Consider the way Paul talks about these authorities and ask whether these can be descriptive of all governments. Paul says that they are “not a terror to good conduct, but to bad”. Surely, we can all think of countless examples of governing authorities doing the exact opposite, can we not? Who was Stalin a terror to when he was viciously persecuting Christians and ordinary workers? Was he a terror to bad conduct or to good? The answer is obvious. Paul says, “do what is good, and you will receive his approval”. Do Christians in New Zealand have the approval of their government when they do the good work of promoting the Biblical ethic as it pertains to gender and sexuality. No! “He is God’s servant for your good”. Is it right to say that governments are ministering to God for the good of the church in places like North Korea?
We could go on, but the point is clear. The description of governing authorities is surely normative of what is expected of the office rather than descriptive of the actual office holders.
Civil governments are limited vertically because their authority is derivative. By virtue of receiving their authority from God they are limited in the ability to create authority for themselves. Secondly, there is also a horizontal limitation to their authority because God has given legitimate authority to other offices in society (e.g. elder and father). The clearest example of horizontal limits would be the fact that the Australian government has no legitimate authority to tax or punish me as a New Zealand citizen. This horizontal limit is easy to see because we can look at the lines on a map and see the limits. But I want to maintain that since God has given real authority to pastors and fathers, for example, the government does not have a moral duty or responsibility to usurp these prerogatives.
Concluding principle two then, we see that governing authorities are clearly limited in their authority and jurisdiction to those areas wherein God has given them the right and responsibility to act. These areas include punishing evildoers and approving of the good. They also have a legitimate right to collect taxes in order to fulfil this role. See verses 6-7.
[1] Bahnsen, Greg. Theonomy in Christian Ethics (p. 370). Covenant Media Press.