Sermon Tone Analysis

Romans 13:2

Must Caesar Always be Obeyed?

/Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement/.[1]

| O |

ur Adult Sunday School recently finished a study of the Book of Judges.

That particular book concludes on a gloomy note.

Recall the final verse of the book.

In those days there was no king in Israel.

Everyone did what was right in his own eyes [*Judges 21:25*].

That description is of a society without government.

Paul, in our text, is teaching us that the state is God’s provision for avoiding anarchy, and it is thus good.

The *first verse* has instructed us that we must obey the governing authorities.

The next two verses provide reasons why we should obey, even while defining the role of government.

If we fail to be subject to the governing authorities, we are disobedient to God, and He will punish us [*verse two*].

However, the Apostle also cautions us that disobedience to government will lead to punishment meted out by the government itself.

Today, I wish to focus on the *second verse* of this chapter, which states, whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement.

This particular statement raises significant questions for those of us who think deeply concerning our role in the society wherein God has placed us.

Are there conditions which would negate this command?

In other words, is this teaching absolute?

Can we imagine conditions which would make rebellion against the existing authorities justified?

What if a government is tyrannical?

Suppose the state violates human rights?

Where are the limits of obedience for us as Christians?

Must Caesar always be obeyed?

Jesus Addresses Governmental Authority — Jesus addressed the issue of the authority of the state on at least two occasions.

The first of those occasions was examined in a previous message.

Jesus had been brought before Pilate, the Roman procurator of Judea.

Pilate appears agitated by the fact that the Master neither grovelled not attempted to mount a vigorous defence for Himself.

He asked if Jesus were aware of the power Pilate had to either condemn a man or to set an individual at liberty.

Our Lord replied to Pilate, You would have no authority over Me at all unless it had been given you from above [*John 19:11*].

Jesus, showing respect for the position Pilate occupied and showing respect even for the government represented, nevertheless held Pilate accountable for sin.

Jesus acknowledged that Pilate had authority, but we saw that it was a delegated authority.

Since the authority of Pilate was given by God, Pilate was responsible to God for how he used that authority.

With these words, Jesus lays the groundwork for the limits of the authority wielded by the state.

The second passage occurs in the waning days of Jesus’ life on earth.

The various religious groups were testing Him, seeking to discover any flaw in either His teaching or His character.

The Pharisees were the first to attempt to trick Jesus into stumbling over his words.

Note how the account begins.

The Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle Him in His talk.

And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians [*Matthew** 22:15, 16a*].

The Pharisees and the Herodians were bitter enemies.

The Pharisees were Jewish patriots, detesting the secularisation of society which resulted from Greek rule in the previous centuries, just as they resented the current Roman rule.

The Herodians were pragmatists.

They sought to adopt not only the social trappings of the Greeks and Romans, but they also endeavoured to introduce Greek political and cultural thought to the whole of Judean society.

Nevertheless, mutual hatred of Jesus united the two disparate groups in singular a vile plot.

Since they could not trip Him up with a theological question, they would manoeuvre Him into making a political misstep.

Tell us, then, what you think.

Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not [*Matthew 22:17*]?

The question appears foolproof, sure to succeed in trapping Jesus either as approving of the Roman occupation or in advocating succession.

If He approved of paying taxes, they could accuse Him to the people of being a collaborator and thus discredit Him.

If He disapproved of paying taxes, they could denounce Him to Roman authorities as subversive.

It seemed to them that Jesus was firmly impaled on the horns of a dilemma.

Jesus asked for a coin, and they brought Him a denarius [*Matthew** 22:19b*].

Likely holding the coin so they could easily see it, Jesus asked whose portrait and whose inscription was on the coin.

The obvious answer was quickly forthcoming, Caesar’s [*Matthew** 22:21a*].

Upon receiving this answer, Jesus responded with the now famous answer, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s [*Matthew 22:21*].

In saying this, Jesus lays the foundation for the precise teaching Paul provides in *Romans 13:7*.

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, honour to whom honour is owed.

The denarius Jesus held had Caesar’s picture imprinted on it.

We could certainly draw the conclusion that Caesar was infatuated with money since he put his picture on it.

Jesus was saying, “If Caesar wants this stuff, give it to him.

However, bear in mind that the imprint of God is on your soul and you have a responsibility to Him also.”

There was great hypocrisy in the question posed to the Master on that day, for the Herodians and the Pharisees did enjoy numerous benefits purchased with Roman taxes.

If they truly thought that all taxes were onerous and odious, they need to cease accepting the benefits.

Options for Government — We are considering issues surrounding the authority of the state and the limits of Christian compliance with the state’s authority.

Jesus’ words about taxes suggested four options to the brilliant mind of Dr. James Montgomery Boice.[2]

For the Christian, God may be sole authority, denying any role for Caesar.

Opposed to that view, Caesar alone may be the sole authority, with the authority of God denied.

God and Caesar may share authority with Caesar in the dominant position.

Or God and Caesar may share authority with God in the dominant position.

Each of these options needs to be examined in turn.

The first option is that God alone is the Christian’s authority.

During various periods of history, some Christians have adopted this view, especially when the state had become corrupt or oppressively abusive.

In the ancient church, some individuals isolated themselves in desert places.

They separated themselves from all social contacts to permit themselves to focus on God and His will.

Perhaps you think that only anchorites or eremites associated with ancient monastic orders practised such religious seclusion.

You would be wrong if that were your conclusion.

Monasticism is the practical approach of far too many evangelical Christians.

When we separate ourselves from contemporary culture, refuse to participate in the electoral process, isolate ourselves so that we have only Christian friends, or refuse to work for anyone other than a Christian employer, we are effectively monastics.

You will recall that the second option proposed by Dr. Boice was that of Caesar alone as an authority.

Certainly, the more secular members of society would qualify for this particular view.

I dare say that the majority of our parliamentarians would hold this view, and perhaps even the majority of the members of our various provincial legislative bodies as well as civic politicians.

The Jewish leadership during Christ’s trial chose this way, you will recall.

When presented with the opportunity to declare themselves for or against God, they cried out, We have no king but Caesar [*John 19:15*].

Tragically, there are professing Christians who choose this option, either through neglect or deliberately.

Of the options presented, this is without doubt the most dangerous, for there are no checks on the authority of the state.

There is nothing to restrain the power of the state.

Though the American State has checks and balances built in, the checks or balances for the Canadian State are less well defined.

The courts seem unbound by the will of Parliament, and Parliament seems often to serve essentially as a dictatorial power under the usual majority governments.

There is a check on the untrammelled power of Parliament as the people are permitted to vote from time-to-time, but it is a tenuous check, at best.

The Governor General of Canada, and the Lieutenant Governor of the various provincial legislatures, can serve to hold Parliament and the legislatures in check in an emergency, but these are likewise checks which are seldom resorted to.

I need to address this issue somewhat further, because of the danger presented.

According to the Psalmist, human rulers conspire against God, tragically with greater regularity than we might imagine [cf.

*Psalm 2:1-3*].

Should a society forsake God, the people are then at the mercy of the governors.

Each form of government has a guiding principle.

The guiding principle of monarchy is honour.

Aristocracy holds as its guiding principle, moderation.

The guiding principle of despotism is fear.

For democracy, whether republican democracy or parliamentarian democracy, the guiding principle is, of necessity, virtue or what is good.