From a former student and now in seminary:
Scot,
I’m writing to you in regards to the death of Osama Bin Laden. I’ve been reflecting a lot this week on how to respond to these moments as a citizen of America, and ultimately of the Kingdom of God.The Psalms, Proverbs, and Romans 12:9-21 & Romans 13:1-7 (and more) seem to give us paradoxical responses in regards to a death like this, and to all that the death represents. I’m weary of how quickly this event becomes a case study for the Christian response towards “our enemies” when this was never a Christian decision to take out Osama. It was a country and a president deciding to seek justice as is defined by the administration in light of his job as the leader of a people. I’m also worried about my own tendency to gravitate to certain positions through singular eisegesis. All the while forgetting to pray and mourn for all the people and families who lost their lives or loved ones unjustly on 9/11 and the bloodshed that followed. Sometimes there is so much to be said that very little should be said out of reverence for God, compassion for others, and the fear of not wanting to come across as the central authoritative voice in these matters and perhaps doing an injustice to Scripture. Yet, the wisdom of God and faithful exegesis should always be valued along with the voice of God’s people. Especially as many Christians and leaders seem to lack interpreting the Scriptures through the triune nature of our Sovereign Lord, and seem to highjack the words of Jesus to an either/or paradigm that seems to be either void or incomplete in comparison to the fullness of God and Scripture. We don’t have a Nicene creedal statement on these matters. I believe the cross of Christ is never to be proclaimed through the sword and that God’s Word is clear that vengeance is ultimately his, and his alone. Therefore we should seek to forgive and love our enemies. However, we’re not a Christian nation, and Osama was more of an enemy of the West and the USA, then an enemy of the cross.
As a pastor in training I’m learning to rightly handle the word of truth. I know I will be held to greater accountability on the day of judgment. My reaction today has been to spend time in Scripture (especially Psalm 99) and continue to learn my Greek so I can handle Romans 12 and 13 and other biblical passages in the future, while seeking clarity and wisdom from others.
I imagine you’re hard at work grading papers and writing but any perspectives, wisdom, or biblical clarity that you could share is always greatly appreciated.
Thanks brother, and nice to hear from you.
There are a number of places to begin and ideas to consider.
But I have to begin with this. Jesus said, “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” Osama bin Laden was a violent man, and he breathed and threatened violence, he funded violence, and he trained some to use violence. That he met a violent end is in accord with the life he chose. Violence was the game he played, and the game eventually caught up to him. The sword cuts in both directions.
Having said that, I can’t rejoice that he was shot to death or that he or anyone else is dead; I can’t rejoice because violence does not bring peace. It unleashes cycles of more violence. We may never know, but it sure looks to me that he could have been captured alive. Of course, bin Laden alive and captured could be one of the biggest nightmares our government could imagine, but that won’t change my view that if he could have been captured alive that would have been more Christian.
Which brings me back to the original point: militaries believe the path to peace is secured by the path of defense and power. Our military is not seeking to be biblical or Christian. It has a mission to protect our interests. Osama bin Laden was a violent man who maliciously murdered innocents and diabolically developed plans of violence against the USA and Western countries. It within the rights of such countries to defend themselves and pursue their senses of justice through power and the use of violence. The words of Jesus, though, come back around: those who use the sword will die by the sword. Swords bring “peace” only to the degree that the one with power can suppress revenge. The sword can bring retributive justice, but time will only permit more violence to simmer and eventually break forth.
The question for us is how should we as Christians respond? We can grieve over deaths, we can be relieved by the removal of a violent man who was making the world violent, we can stand with those who lost loved ones in bin Laden’s wake, from 9/11 onwards into the wars in the Middle East and elsewhere, we can pray for the world and for our leaders and for ourselves and for our enemies and for other countries …
… and we can live a different way. The way of the cross. The way of reconciliation. The way of forgiveness. The way of peace.
And, I see absolutely no reason to release photos of the dead bin Laden.
Christianity is torn between legitimizing and denouncing our more barbaric sentiments of retribution.
Great post and agreed on your view on the photo. Nearly all the arguments to release the photos have to do with utility or pragmatism. I do not find them solid reasons.
The photos will not be released per President Obama (per 60 Minutes).
hi scott (and brother stephen),
as a pastor/leader of a predominantly twenty and thirty-something congregation, i’ve been encouraged to see so many decry the celebrations that have taken place since osama’s death, while maintaining a sensitivity toward those who have been directly affected by osama’s actions. it’s been beautiful to see.
i get excited when i have students who are training to be navy seals in my congregation asking – “how would jesus respond?” – and then entering into some community discernment about their very vocational trajectory!!!!!… thats something to celebrate.
consider this post, one of hope. hope that even the most patriotic and war-validating peope among us can begin to wrap their head around Jesus’ call to enemy-love.
-andrew mook (brother of the now famous s.m.)
http://sanctuaryri.org
I totally agree with you about the photos.
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities.
God has given the sword to governmental leaders, and along with the responsibility of “executing wrath” on those who practice evil. Paul calls them God’s ministers and avengers. Vengeance belongs to God, but apparently He delegates that avenging work in some instances.
I would say that this is one of those instances.
Well said and I agree with your understanding of Scripture. I have a quibble with your statement about the military operation, “…it sure looks to me that he could have been captured alive.”
While there was a slight possibility that OBL *could* have been taken alive and the SEALs were apparently not under orders to execute him, the military nature of the mission, the violent creed lived by OBL and his soldiers, the speed of the assault, the darkness, the understandable preference of soldiers to kill rather than be killed, and the “fog of war” all conspired against OBL in those split seconds when some American soldier had to read the situation and decide whether to shoot or hold fire.
I don’t envy young men who have to make such decisions, and I’m pretty sure we are unable to second-guess them from this comfortable distance.
From my blog…
The Death of Osama Bin Laden
My wife and I were surfing the channels one last time last night before going to bed, when we caught the news that Osama Bin Laden had been killed by U.S. Special Forces in Pakistan. I was immediately gripped by the same surreal feeling I had on Tuesday September 11, 2001 as I watched the second commercial jet slam into the World Trade Center.
I have to admit that I am very conflicted. I am pleased that a man who seemed to take pleasure in bringing about the destruction of other people’s lives has been stopped, and yet I wonder if his death will serve to intensify the very acts of terror we are fighting so hard to eliminate.
I am hopeful that Bin Laden’s death will bring some closure and a sense of justice to those who lost loved ones in the attacks he planned, and yet I am uneasy at the extent to which many are seeing this event as an act of vengeance.
I am grateful to the men and women of our military for tirelessly seeking to combat terror in our world, and yet I question whether or not our presence in the Middle East for another hundred years would stop radical Islamists from re-establishing a reign of fear and violence within 10 minutes of our withdrawal.
I hope and pray that this development will significantly damage the morale, and impair the ability of terror networks to plan and execute their acts of twisted hate.
I do believe Bin Laden was a danger to humanity as long as he continued to draw breath. He demonstrated an aggressive disregard for life that had to be stopped. I’m just not sure if it’s appropriate to throw a party over it.
I’m processing this whole thing through a solemn sense of reflection. I remember 9/11, I remember the faces of brave men and women charging into a crumbling building in an attempt to save a life. I remember the bravery of my friend who lost his leg because of a roadside bomb. I remember our church being filled to capacity as we cried out to God alongside every denomination in town for the victims and their families. I remember a hurting nation realizing how much God’s grace has been shed on us. I recall the unity and generosity of thousands of Americans donating blood, money, time, and effort as we put aside personal aspirations and political agendas to stand as one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I remember seeing the best of humanity rise from the worst of evil intentions. Now that’s something to celebrate…
http://www.kevinglenn.podbean.com/
Agree with your balanced reflection. But I always think it’s speculation to say violence in the defense of peace against aggression or in securing Justice always leads to more violence, or new cycles of violence. That ‘truism’ has more than a few exceptions to it in the history of nations, tribes, and individuals. It’s speculation, that one could argue either way, to think that the world would have been better off (less violence) if the sword had not been used. Perhaps the magistrate’s use of sword kept a greater evil from appearing as a consequence and more people getting hurt. And Lots of folks who have used the sword in defense of neighbor did not then die by the sword.
# 6 Jeff Doles – Written from a man thrice (maybe more) jailed for acting against said authority.
This verse is not an excuse for government sanctioned violence but an appeal to Christians to keep a low profile. If Paul showed conviction of anything by how he lived it was that the earthly authorities were not God. Yet, he submitted to them and did not react in kind with violence, even to his own death.
I thought it was very interesting / wonderful to see all the posts on facebook from Christians cautioning against celebration. It seemed to form a wave as the initial joy turned to reflection for many.
Very nice post!
Excellent post, Scot!
JoeyS #10,
Paul tells Christian to be submissive to governing authorities because those authorities do have a proper function. Part of that function is to wield the sword against those who work evil. In that capacity, they are ministers of God and God’s avengers, who “execute wrath.” If they execute wrath against those who do good, then they are operating outside the bounds of their God-given authority.
Paul does not tell Christians to “keep a low profile,” but to do good. “For rulers are not a terror to good works. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.” (v. 3).
Paul does not denigrate proper use of the sword by governing authorities (to be a terror to evil and execute wrath on those who do evil). He affirms it.
Jan DeWitt #9,
I would disagree… for me, the difference is often between short term & long term affects…
In the short term, you might be correct, there are historical examples of violence that bring a ‘peace’ for the moment. I would argue however, as Scot’s quote from Jesus says, if we use the sword that will eventually come back around…
Yes, violence may bring a short term ‘peace’ for the moment, and non-violence short term hostility. But in the long run each has consequences beyond our immediate control, so unleashing the forces of non-violence is much preferable to unleashing forces of violence.
In the aftermath of Sunday’s annoucement, I wrote the following:
There have been some interesting (Facebook) posts and points of view concerning the death of Osama Bin Laden today. After spending time in the Word this morning researching this issue I think we need to be prayerful and careful in our use of Scripture to form a hermeneutic for today one way or another, either for or against a sense of joy at the demise of what was truly a wicked man.
There are Biblical examples such as the Feast of Purim that was a celebration of deliverance from the evil Haman in the Book of Esther, that was mentioned by some in arguing for expression of joy. There are also verses such as Ezekiel 33:11, which certainly informs us that God takes no joy in the death of the wicked as He does not wish for any to perish, not even the wicked, apart from repentance. This was used as an argument against. But then again we can contrast this with verses such as Proverbs 11:10 that speaks of jubilation when the wicked are vanquished.
It should be understood that God allowed 10 years of extend mercy for Osama to repent and turn from his wickedness. He didn’t. So what should our response be Biblically? The Bible simply leaves this then as a gray area, apparently. How then as Christ followers should we respond to the news of Osama bin Ladin’s death? May I suggest that we heed Paul’s advise in 1 Thessalonians 5:8. “But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet.” Therefore, a response may be as follows:
Soberly, we understand that we are all sinners saved by grace and that God’s grace is the only separation between Osama or any wicked person and ourselves, a grace for which none of us are worthy.
By faith, we realize that God allowed this evil for a reason, and by faith we must believe that God will bring glory for Himself out of this evil. We can rejoice in that fact.
With love, we say to Muslims who understand the evil of this man, and there are many, that we seek friendship and understanding. That is the place to begin to build bridges of love for the sharing of the Gospel.
With hope, we pray for the salvation of all Muslims, including the radical elements, that they would come to know the love of God. That would then be great cause for celebration.
.
The more I read about Osama’s upbringing and life, the more I am convinced that he lived and died as he wanted: bent on seeking revenge, proving himself to a world that doubted him for so long and ultimately dying for his cause. How I wish he would have found (as we all desperately need) the identity and peace that comes from Jesus and seeking his kingdom.
#6,
See this appendix to “Jesus For President” by Shane Claiborne for a better explanation of Romans 13 than is commonly given.
http://www.jesusforpresident.org/download/Web_Appendix_3.pdf
# 13 Jeff I believe that in Timothy Paul does encourage Christ followers to “keep the peace with all people” so that they won’t get charges against them – a very common happening in the early church. In Jeremiah 2:1-5 we’re told that even the State’s justice is perverted in light of God. Paul was not oblivious to this.
Nothing in Paul’s writings tell us that bad choices made by governing authorities are not God’s choices, only that if somebody is in authority they were established by God to whom all authority is subject. Sadaam Huessein was a governing authority, do you want to make the case that he was doing God’s work? It would be easier if Paul had told us that when governments do things we agree with it is God’s work but when they do things we disagree with we get to kill them.
I really am not trying to be snarky here, but you’ve misunderstood Paul if you think that this passage means that Christians should support violence done by the government. Violence is not the way of the Christ follower as it was not the way of Christ.
As far as I know we literally have no examples of first century Christians participating in or praising violence, state sanctioned or otherwise and a strong case can be made against any Christians doing so for the first three hundred years.
Good thoughts…my thoughts on the same subject here: http://www.jonathanholcomb.com
Great link, JeffT, as soon as I saw it I turned around and grabbed my copy of Jesus for President to look it up!
I like Claiborne. I really do. I don’t think I’d ever use him as a valid source for biblical interpretation though. It seems to me that to interpret Romans 13 as anything but Paul stating that God uses government to wield the sword is terribly eisegetic.
JoeyS #18
I may disagree with you about Romans 13, but I don’t think I have misunderstood it. I have taken it in its context and said basically what it says. Please read carefully what I say here as well as in earlier posts, because I think I have already answered your objections.
God has ordained governing authorities, and those authorities may be carrying swords. Paul does not repudiate them or denigrate them in any way. Quite the opposite, he says here that they are God’s ministers and avengers. As such, they have a function to be a terror to evil and to execute wrath on those who do evil. However, if they become a terror to good works and execute wrath on those who do good, then they are transgressing their God-ordained authority.
This is not about praising or celebrating violence. It is merely recognizing that God has given some authority for the sword in regard to evil and those who do evil. It is a good thing that we have a national defense as well as local police to keep evil people from harming others. Sometimes it requires the use of violence. Violence is not to be praised, but protecting citizens from the harm that can come from evil people doing evil deeds is something to be glad and thankful for.
#13 Jeff,
I think that is a very literal reading of that text. In my opinion, Paul is being subversive here, his experience is clearly one of the government punishing those who do right.
Especially read in context, Paul takes away from their authority, and gives it to God. What Paul really wants his readers to understand is that #1 God is our authority, and #2 We should overcome evil with good.
Thanks for the link, Jeff T #6. Since it is a 7 page PDF, I will not try to interact with it all in this brief comment section. But if there is something particular you would like to draw my attention to, I would be happy to address it. I think I have offered a pretty good understanding of that passage in Romans 13. I don’t know if it is the commonly presented one, but it is the one that presented itself to me in the text, and the one, of all I’ve seen, that makes the most sense to me.
Jeff T # 17, that is.
Justin W #23,
Whatever Paul’s experience or observation about whether the governing authorities punish those who do right, I think he is laying out the proper function of those authorities and proper use of the sword. It is for the terror of evil, not good works. It is to execute wrath on those who do evil, not on those who do good. Since they have a God-ordained authority (which makes God’s authority primary and their authority only proper when it is derived from Him), Christians therefore ought to do good.
And indeed, he tells Christians to overcome evil with good. But that does not mean that governing authorities, along with their swords, are not God-ordained. I take Paul at his word when he calls them God’s ministers and avengers.
I once preached a sermon on grace and I used as the opening story the circus around the execution of Carla Faye Tucker, who murdered a couple using a pick axe. She converted to Christianity 12 years before her execution. Many evangelicals begged for her pardon (because she became a Christian–which made me wonder if they would have done the same if she became a devout buddhist). They held candlelight vigils while across from them people dressed in grim reaper outfits and held up signs saying “Axe and you shall receive”. One group wept the other group partied.
I said then that I could accept the execution because it was the role of government and the execution of justice. (I could have as easily accepted her pardon). My point was there is little grace found in our world. I mentioned as a side note that while I could accept that justice was served, I could not rejoice in it, because as the Jewish saying goes: “When you take a life, you destroy a universe.”
A retired Texas police officer told me after the sermon, “I believe the death penalty is something warranted by governments. However, no one should ever take pleasure in its use. The taking of a life is a hard and horrible thing, even when justified.”
I think Miroslav Volf said in his book Exclusion and Embrace something along the lines of that while violence may be necessary to take down a violent and brutal dictator who would seek to destroy thousands, one should not hide behind the cross to do so or claim to be following the way of the man of peace. (That is probably a terrible paraphrase…I don’t have my copy in front of me!).
Thanks for a great post.
Has anyone prayed for Osama bin Laden?
What about being sensitive towards the victims of America’s actions? Osama Bin Laden was a very violent man who is responsible for a lot of deaths, but the United States military has killed far more innocent people than Osama Bin Laden has. As of last count, 100,000 innocent Iraqis have died due to our invasion; over 100,000 iraqi’s (mostly children) died as a result of our sanctions. If terrorism is defined as targeting innocent civilians to induce fear so they go along with your agenda, then America is just as guilty of terrorism as Al Qaeda.
While the coverage of these events was overblown, how many America’s were appalled by the few Palestinian’s dancing in the streets when America was attacked? How can we be appalled at such behavior, and yet excuse celebration over the death of Bin Laden? I can’t help but think about Christ’s definition of a hypocrite when I see the celebration of Bin Laden’s death, and the selective attacks on the targetting of innocent civilians. I wish my fellow American Christian’s would stop worshiping the flag long enough to condemn our nation when it does the exact same things we condemn everyone else for.
Dura #28,
I prayed for Osama many times over the years, that he would repent and turn to Jesus so he could know the peace of God.
Jeff D,
Pages 1-3 are mostly about the Romans 13 passage, the rest of the PDF goes into other related matters.
#21,
Why is Claiborne not a “valid” interpretor of the Scriptures? Doesn’t the fact that he actually lives out the deep meat of Scripture, specifically Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels, warrant that He might have something important to bring to the table? He is very fair, very well read, and very tactful in bringing opposing views to the discussion.
I have not had time today to read all the responses, but I think what Scot says here captures the ambivalence that Christianity brings:
Jeff T # 31,
Thanks. Is there anything in particular you would like me to note or respond to?
I’ve already addressed, a few times here, that there is a rightful use of this God-ordained authority as well as a wrongful use of it. So, Hitler and Saddam and all the other tyrants Claiborne names (and many more could be named besides), in being a terror to good works instead of evil, and in executing wrath on those who do good instead of those who do evil, have seriously and egregiously abused the sword. They have done evil instead of good. But that their improper use does not disprove the proper use Paul describes in Romans 13.
@ Jeff, #30
Me too.
Jeff Doles, I thank you for your spirit here. I appreciate that you are patiently answering these questions even when they seem a bit snarky.
How do you handle any seeming discrepancy between 12:19, where Christians are told to never exercise vengeance, and Romans 13:1-7?
I’m with Yoder who says, “certainly it is a most likely interpretation that the “vengeance” or “wrath” that is recognized as being within providential control is the same as that which Christians are told not to exercise.”
He also affirms that the text in Romans “makes no affirmative moral judgment on the existence of a particular government and says nothing particular about who happens to be Caesar or what is policies happen to be.”
That is where I struggle with what you have said here:
“As such, they have a function to be a terror to evil and to execute wrath on those who do evil. However, if they become a terror to good works and execute wrath on those who do good, then they are transgressing their God-ordained authority.”
The text doesn’t delineate between righteous and unrighteous but taken at face value says that ruling authorities, no matter moral standing, are appointed by God. This includes Hitler (not as the norm but as the logical extreme). I realize you don’t want to say that but how does the line of reasoning not lead to this extreme and what in the text indicates this moral delineation?
Yoder asks, “Who is to judge how bad a government can be and still be good?”
That question resonates with me.
And here is where he lands:
“In the social context of the Jewish Christians in Rome, the whole point of the passage was to take out of their minds any concept of rebellion against or even emotional rejection of this corrupt pagan government. There is no definition of the theoretical “proper state,” by contrast with which some other, “real” state would stand condemned to be overthrown.”
This is what I, and I think Justin W, was trying to get at earlier. The text is not intended to make Christians turn a blind eye to a governments use of violence for justice, but to speak into how Christians behave in regards to government. Isolated the text reads exactly as you have indicated but taken in the larger context of Romans it has to mean something different.
The call here in Roman’s is directed at the Christians to combat any notion that Christians should rise up against the persecution they were facing with violence. This is not a free ticket for governments to do what they want as if it were the will of God rather than actions taken in their own sovereign interest.
Jeff D.
Not in particular. Shane says what I would say, only more clearly and powerfully. I am in agreement with him — We follow Jesus, who said Love God and Love your Neighbor. And if that lands us into trouble with whatever nation (group of people who hold similar goals, interests, ideals) we happen to live in, so be it. Our allegiance is Christ alone. We change lives through the Gospel, not laws or a set of national ideals/values. I think the ultimate question in all of this: how is it loving to kill a man? I see Jesus as the ultimate example of love. As cliche as it sounds, what would Jesus do? Would he shoot Osama, or take his bullet for him? Well, he already did the latter in a real sense on the cross. I personally have a very high view of God’s love, and that would reflect in my interpretation above as well as for posting Claiborne’s link.
Love Wins. Hate destroys.
That’s my take on this topic anyway.
JoeyS #36,
In Romans 12:19, Paul quotes the word of that says, “‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord.”
In 13:4, he says of rulers who are a terror to evil, that they are God’s ministers and avengers to execute wrath on those who do evil. The underlying Greek words for “vengeance” and “avenger” are different forms of the same basic word.
I don’t expect that there ever was a government that was altogether righteous and good in its use of authority, but that does not mean that none ever used the sword properly to execute the vengeance of God on those who do evil.
Inasmuch as such tyrants and evil rulers as Hitler, Stalin, etc, reward evil and punish good, and execute wrath on those who do good instead of on those who do evil, they do not exercise authority or the sword justly but wickedly.
Vengeance does belong to the Lord and we are not to take it upon ourselves. But as I noted earlier, God apparently does, in some instances, delegate the working out of His vengeance. Inasmuch as Paul refers to the kind of ruler I described above as God’s minister and avenger, it appears to me that God sometimes uses such rules to carry out His vengeance and recompense.
I agree that Paul is not telling Christians to turn a blind eye to evil, but is telling us how to behave in regard to government. And I agree that Paul does not give rulers a free ticket to do what they want. But I also see here that Paul is describing the proper function of government in regard to the sword. Because God has ordained this function (as God’s ministers and avengers), and because vengeance is something for the Lord to handle (whether by direct cosmic action or delegated to other agents), Christians are not to take it upon themselves to take vengeance for themselves.
I have not taken this passage in isolation but in the context of Romans, even of Romans 12:17ff, as I discuss above.
Here’s Boyd’s take:
http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/christians-social-issues/christians-politics/why-do-you-have-such-a-pessimistic-view-of-government/
“Romans 12:17-13:6. People often cite Romans 13:1-6 to argue that God is involved in governments and Christians thus have a duty to support them — even serving in the military, if necessary. Two things need to be said about this.
First, Paul says God “establishes” governments. The Greek here can simply imply that God uses governments as he finds them. In this case, Paul says, he uses them to punish wrong doers. But this doesn’t mean God approves of them. Throughout the Bible, God uses governments he clearly doesn’t approve of (e.g. Assyria in Isa. 10).
Second, Romans 13:1-6 must be read in conjunction with the verses that immediately precede it (Rom. 12:17-21). In these passages Paul tells Kingdom people they are to love and serve their enemies and never exact vengeance on them. Rather, we are to leave all judgment to God. Then, beginning in Romans 13, Paul tells us one of the ways God exacts vengeance on people: he uses governments. So God uses governments, as he finds them, to do the very thing he has just forbidden Kingdom people to do. The passage thus shows not that Christians have a responsibility to participate in government, but that we have an obligation not to participate when it does things we as Kingdom people are forbidden to do (like using violence against wrongdoers).”
# 38 Jeff Doles,
One last question (well asked again): Where in the text do we see this delineation between proper execution of justice as opposed to wicked execution?
This is my hang-up. It isn’t there. This text, used the way you are suggesting, does not give us cause to see one governing authority as good and one as bad. Instead it gives credence to all authorities no matter their moral standing. This is why I can’t interpret the text the same way that you are. If this text is not indicating that all authorities use the sword to execute God’s justice then it must be understood differently altogether. In my anabaptist leanings I see this as a way for Paul to discourage violent uprisings. This seems to fit squarely with both Revelation 13′s understanding of “the state” and with Paul’s own interaction with authorities.
Jeff T #37,
God says, as Paul notes, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” What God says, He will do. If He says He will repay, then He will repay, and the repay in view here is vengeance. The wrath of God will be executed on evil and on those who do it, if they have not repented. Love Wins is a snappy bumper sticker. I believe I have a very high view of God’s love. And, indeed, the love of God does win ~ for those who repent and look to Him and do what is good. It wins because will take care of evil, eliminate it and set things right.
There is a judgment day coming in which we will see what Jesus does to evil and those who cling to it. In the meantime, we see instances where evil is judged and the wrath of God is executed on those who do evil. I think what happened to Osama bin Laden is one of those instances. Jesus went to the cross for Osama, but preferred to continue in his evil instead of embracing salvation and peace with God in Jesus. Now he has paid a price for that, a judgment has been rendered and wrath has been executed on one who was doing evil.
JoeyS #40,
The delineation between the proper, authorized execution of justice and wicked, authorized execution is inherent in the text. Inasmuch as Paul describes the rulers God ordains as “not a terror to good works, but to evil,” we see that the proper, authorized function of rulers is to be a terror to evil. Conversely, then, a wicked, unauthorized use would be terrorizing good works and those who do them. Again, inasmuch as Paul says that they are God’s ministers and avengers to execute wrath on those who practice evil, then that is a proper, authorized use of the sword. Conversely, then, a wicked, unauthorized used of the sword would be to execute wrath on those who do good.
So the delineation of proper execution of justice is clearly described, and improper execution is inferred as being the opposite of what is proper.
Kenny #39,
In regard to Boyd’s first point, it can just as well mean that God ordains them, not just as He finds them, but to a proper function and rightful use. If it were just as God finds them, then they may or may not be a terror to good works. But what Paul is talking about is rulers who are NOT a terror to good works, but to evil. So I think that it is not just as God finds them, but that God ordains a proper function for rulers and even for the sword.
In regard to Boyd’s second point, see my post #39. Vengeance belongs to the Lord, and He is free to use any agent He wishes to in exacting that vengeance. In Romans 13:4, Paul points to one of the agents God uses — a ruler who bears the sword to execute wrath on those who do evil.
#42,
Here is what the text says…
The NASB translates this much differently than the version you quoted earlier so I’ll post it:
Romans 13:1-4
“Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.”
Authorities that exist are arranged by God – put into order by God.
“Appointed” is a misleading translation as it implies something other than what Paul is saying. “Arranged” is a stronger word, IMO.
Romans 13:3 “For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority?”
This was written to Christians so we can assume that the Bin Laden’s of the world were not the intended audience. With that in mind, Paul’s purpose here is to discourage rebellion (probably a specific thread of rebellion that he had received word of). Nothing in this text gives us the right to delineate between one authority or another – it simply says that if there is a governing authority then it is an arrangement that was put in place by God. If that ruler or authority happens to be evil, are we to then say that their evil practices are the hand of God at work? No. Because the text is not here to give us a lesson on how to support governments. In fact, the governing authority he was referring to was evil. And his advice to Christians in the face of an evil government was that they are not rebel in violence or they will be squashed. Rather, like Paul, they were to do good even if that meant that said governing authority would arrest them (as Paul’s death exemplifies).
As much as we might want to project on to the text a framework that allows some governments to be “good” and some to be “bad” it isn’t there. It simply describes them all the same way which means that unless we are willing to see Huessein’s actions as exercising the hand of God then we should be very careful to see Obama’s actions in this light. The text is about something else and when read in light of Paul’s overall theme here it becomes more and more clear.
I appreciate the tone and content of this conversation. Thanks for patterning such a humble dialogue for us.
Regarding comment #37, I do not find the question about Jesus shooting or saving Bin Laden to be helpful. Jesus came to earth for a very particular reason, to seek and save the lost, and ultimately to die and rise again. The Scriptures provide a picture of him coming again for judgment. Even in his journey to the cross he said many things which we may and do find uncomfortable in our sanitary, urban culture. His rhetoric, at least, is far more at ease with violence than we are.
My point is simply that Christ did not come to do all good work but a paticular good work. Even as we _must_ imitate Christ in all we do there is much that will confront us where Christ’s actions do not provide a direct precedent (except his constant submission to the Father). We are going to do greater/more? things than he.
This point extends to the life of the first century Church. The epistles were all written to people who were in an overwhelming minority. It would make little sense for Paul to write to a desperate Church “and when the day comes that you will be the majority this is how you shall adminsiter justice.” There are enough troubles for the writers. So while we may “have no examples of first century Christians participating in or praising violence, state sanctioned or otherwise” (from Comment #18), this does not translate into an obvious conclusion that Christians should never use violence.
I am not arguing that we should rejoice in the fall of our enemies. I am not even arguing that the “War on terror” is/was justifie. I am trying to argue that how the Church engages society should not to be limited to duplicating the actions of Christ’s particular mission 2000 years ago.
thank you for your time
in peace
If someone kills my child,… I will celebrate the guilty verdict,.. nod in approval when they execute him/her,… pray for that person all through the investigation and trial,… and walk my days in forgiveness and mercy,…Doing such fulfills every scripture and negates none… Only doves are attacking hawks,… Ire and disharmony issue forth from that confused condemnation,…
JoeyS #44,
If Paul’s description of rulers not being ordained as a terror to good, but to evil, and being God’s ministers and avengers to bring wrath on those who do evil is not about the proper function of rulers and the sword, then it is totally unnecessary in this passage, as you interpret it. I think your interpretation really does not take it into account, and because of that, it appears to me that you are the one who is projecting something that isn’t there. OTOH, I have taken that description into account and showed how it makes a clear distinction and how it fits in context, especially of Romans 12:17ff.
But we knew when we started that we disagree. So, nothing new there.
Peace be with you.
Jeff (@38) and others, for the record I have a deep Mennonite family history and whether it’s in my genes or I have truly made a conscious decision, I side with a ‘Yoderian’ view of Romans 13 (and all of its context). Prior to reading this thread, I had just read Tim Grimsrud’s “Romans 13 supports pacifism”. I highly recommend it.
http://thinkingpacifism.net/2011/05/01/romans-13-supports-pacifism/
That said, it appears as if talk so far about ‘goverment’ ignores the fact that governments are populated with decision-making people. If we, as followers of Christ, are denied the option of vengeance (God’s prerogative) and yet the governing authorities may be legitimate agents of God’s vengeance (not so sure about this), does this deny the Christian any role at all as a participant in governing authority? Or does the real option exist that governing authorities can, in fact, be ‘redeemed’ and govern according to the context surrounding Romans 13 (overcoming evil with good / leaving vengeance to God)?
Barry #47,
I don’t think it has been forgotten that government is made up of decision-making people. Nor has it been forgotten that Christians can and do take up certain roles government. Paul is not advocating that governments be abolished, that taxes be abolished, or that Christians should never be a part of government. He does describe certain functions of gov’t that are proper (i.e., being a “terror” to evil; executing wrath on those who do evi). He also mentions the appropriateness of gov’t collecting taxes for those purposes (v. 6-7).
Now, suppose a Christian is in gov’t (as indeed many are). Is it okay for him to collect taxes for himself? No. Taxes are not supposed to be about personal enrichment — they are for the support of proper gov’t functions.
Likewise, in regard to the sword, Christians in gov’t, which bears the sword for certain proper functions as Paul has described, are not to bear it for settling their own little scores — that would be evil, and outside the boundaries of what Paul talks about here — but only for certain proper functions as Paul has described. IOW, it is never supposed to be for personal vengeance. Any personal taking of vengeance falls outside the authority God has ordained.
So, a Christian who is in gov’t, on the police force (who carry guns), or in the armed services, are never to use their position in gov’t or in the service for his own personal benefit, but only as God-ordained gov’t function — whether that be the collection of taxes or bearing the sword to stop evildoers.
So, personal vengeance is out. But the God-ordained function of rulers as “God’s ministers” (Paul calls them that twice in this passage) and avengers. Vengeance belongs to God, and He has ordained gov’t (which is supposed to be impartial) to exact it in some instances.
@Dura Mater – #28 — In the past, I have prayed for the terrorists’ hearts to be softened and changed… On the morning of the announcement of OBL’s death, I prayed with my children for his family, from the perspective of there being people who loved him and will grieve his absence. Was there any shred of humanity in this “monster?” He was a husband, father, brother, etc., also. He was still a child of God. I felt/feel the same sorrow for those killed on 9/11, and the loved ones left grieving. Death is ugly and not a thing I can celebrate in triumph, even that of my/our enemies…
It seems to be an idea that the Lord taking vengeance upon those who were killing and murdering the first century saints should not be celebrated. Many misconstrue the language of 2 Th 1 thinking Paul is speaking to a future day 1000’s of years in the future but instead he is reminding the early saints that those who are killing them will get theirs in due time. We know that this indeed happened in the first century when the Romans were used as the tool of vengeance upon the older brother who had been murdering the younger. Their system of life and temple worship was forever impacted and their ability to perpetrate injustice upon the Christ followers was brought to an end. Today the tool of the Lord has also brought justice and vengeance upon those who commit evil. The first century saints were told to look forward to this day as it was in the hand of the Lord and he would provide the instrument of vengeance and not them. Not unlike our looking forward to this day that has just transpired this week.
2Th 1:6-9 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; (7) And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, (8) In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: (9) Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
Also should I remind that the first convert of the Gentiles was a Roman Centurion who very likely raised sons and grandsons that would have been part of God’s tools of retribution years later? Nowhere are we told that Cornelius was told to leave his life of military service for a foreign power.
Normbv, an argument can’t be made from silence. This is a standard principle in interpreting history (Garraghan, Gilbert J., A Guide to Historical Method). Cornelius can’t be used to confirm or deny anything, as I could just as easily point out that “nowhere are we told” that Cornelius is not expected to leave his life of military service. It is a fallacious argument from either angle.
But all records that we do have of Christians who were in the military in the first two-three centuries have the same ending. They were killed for their faith when they converted or when their faith was discovered. Not one record do we have of a person who continues in a life of military service once they become followers of Jesus.
Take Marinus of Caesarea, for instance. Marinus held his Christian faith secretively until he was asked to make a sacrifice for the emperor. When he refused, he was given the chance to change his mind. After meditating on scripture, however, he submitted himself to the Roman government to be executed. They may also point to Julius the Veterin, who served for nearly three decades in the Roman military. Of course, when Julius was converted he was tried and beheaded. The reality is that when we look at those Christians who also served in the Roman military, we see a series of people who were killed for their faith because being a Christian was a direct assault on the priorities of the empire. Later in history we see Ivan the Terrrible who when baptized into the faith was fully emerged with the exception of his right arm which he used to wield his sword because even he recognized the discrepancy of following Jesus and violence.
Back in the day – the 70′s – there was a poster you’d occasionally see that said “A small proposal for world peace – let the Christians of the world quit killing each other.” This throws the issue in sharp relief I think. What is our highest allegiance? In my view the huge tragedy of our Civil War was Christians butchering Christians because “caesar” told them to do so. All the while with Christian chaplains on both sides preaching sermons and salvation.
I have Christian friends and family who serve in the U.S. military. Whether the decision to enlist is right or wrong, they must be ready to face a Marinus or Julius decision (re Joey 52).
Susan #50, This may wrongly get of subject a bit, but I have been wondering about the statement of who are Children of God for a little while now. You state that “he was still a child of God.” Is there a place in the N.T. where you could point me to that shows that he would fit under the heading Child of God? Thanks so much.
@54
Seems like semantics to me. How about just “eikon of God.”
just found this:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/05/973317/-Breaking:-White-House-Releases-Pictures-Confirming-OBLs-death
The best expression of the mixture of grief and relief I felt was put by a former Navy Seal commander who was only a kilometre away from Bin Laden when he slipped through the net at Tora Bora.
On Sunday night his wife saw he had teared up:
“Tears of pain or tears of joy?” she asked.
“Yes,” I said.
Scot
On a slight tangent I find it ironic that while Osama was a leader of a terrorist organisation, the US government killed him. Yet, in stark contrast, Gerry Adams/Martin McGuiness have been welcomed with open arms to the White House. I guess the acts of violence by the IRA don’t hit as close to home in the USA.
There’s a price for peace, it appears to involve dialogue…
I don’t buy Jeff Doles reasoning, because the Romans passage seems to be directed at intra-national issues of order and justice, not inter-national. The killing of Obama was not an internal issue of justice for America, but an extra-territorial assertion of power, where another sovereign nation (raised by God) was invaded and a man outside of America’s jurisdiction was killed (Osama had not even been tried in absentia by the international court).
It also seems to me that without direct revelation we cannot tell when God is enacting vengeance directly, or letting the evil reap its own fruit. And that is another issue I have with Jeff Dole’s statement that “God apparently does, in some instances, delegate the working out of His vengeance.” When can we know that this is taking or has taken place such that we should support our government because it is (apparently) carrying out the vengeance of God?
John I.
Osama bin Laden, I meant to type Osama not Obama. Curse my fingers and keyboard.