Down an Unfamiliar Road

NOTHING SMELLS WORSE THAN DEAD FAITH

I found this story posted on a website by Morgan Wheeler. Being an Army veteran, it struck deep in my heart. I hope that it inspires you to think twice before you see someone in need and don’t take the time to help because you’ve got other things to do.

Morgan said that he walked out of Walmart one day, got in his car, and began to back out. That’s when he saw a man in a wheelchair passing behind him on the way to the store. As he watched him, he noticed that the man was missing his right leg from the knee down and was wearing, what appeared to be, old, government-issued, combat boots. Morgan guessed that he was in his late sixties/early seventies and seemed to be stopping to take a break.

He had not realized that Morgan had started his car and was attempting to back out, so when he saw that Morgan was trying to leave, he waved in an apologetic manner and rolled forward three more times and took another break. Morgan pulled his car up the inches he had previously backed up, put it in Park, turned off the engine, and got out. He walked up to him and introduced himself. I asked him if he could assist him in any way. The man responded somewhat grumpily and said that he was doing just fine and was not buying much anyway.

Morgan, being as stubborn as he is, insisted and proceeded to push him and tell him a little about himself. When they got to the door, them man interrupted Morgan and said that he only needed help to the door, to which Morgan continued where he had left off before the man interrupted him.

Morgan shared with him about his farm and horses. As they went through the doors, Morgan continued to push him and talk to him. They reached the produce section and Morgan asked him to tell him a little something about himself. He reluctantly looked at Morgan and began telling him where he lived and that he just recently lost his wife. Morgan asked him if he was a veteran, to which he replied that he was – but with pain on his face, so Morgan changed the subject and asked if he had made a shopping list.

He handed Morgan a list with only four items on it: peanut butter, soup, bread, and bananas. Once they got those items, Morgan asked if he needed the essentials: milk, eggs, butter. He told him that he might not be able to make it home before they went bad. So Morgan questioned how he got to the store. He told me that he had wheeled himself from his house to the main highway, and then hitchhiked with a trucker to the parking lot. So Morgan called a taxi for him and grabbed the essentials plus a few other things and put them in the cart.

When he saw Morgan place a gallon of milk in the cart, the old Army Vet was crying. People were passing by us, looking sideways at him. Morgan knelt down and asked him what was wrong and he replied, “You’re doing way too much for an old man that you don’t even know and can’t pay you back.” Morgan told him that the family he was raised in always tried to help others, no matter what the task and that meant they never met a stranger. Morgan also told him that he deserved everything he was doing for him because he fought for his freedom and sacrificed so much. They made it to the check-out counter and Morgan paid for his groceries, even though the old man tried to talk him out of it.

When they got outside, they waited for the taxi together. He thanked Morgan over and over again and appeared to have developed a much better happier mood than when they first met. When the taxi arrived, Morgan helped him load his groceries and wheelchair into the taxi and asked the driver to take him home and help him into his house with his groceries. Morgan then reached into his wallet and took out the only cash he had – $44, which the old man reluctantly took with great gratitude. Morgan told him again, “Thank you for your service to your country,” before closing the door. Tears formed again in the old Vet’s eyes as he thanked Morgan one last time and said, “God bless you.”

Morgan returned to his car, and could not help but weep. How many people passed him by and would have continued to pass him while he struggled? How many people would be willing to give their money to ready trashy magazines or go see a filthy movie and not help a veteran pay for his groceries? Today was a truly humbling experience for Morgan, and he considered himself extremely blessed to have the capability of understanding what is truly important in this world.

To Morgan, that man was a HERO, and there are far too many who think otherwise. God bless the men and women who have fought for our right to pick our own heroes and thank God for the people who know what a hero is. A scripture verse came to Morgan’s mind as he drove home. It reads, “What good is it, my brothers and sisters if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.”¹

I know that we all feel compassion for anyone we see who has a visible physical handicap. But how many do we see who have invisible psychological handicaps? There are lots of handicaps we could choose to name. But after reading this story, I’m persuaded that there is no invisible spiritual handicap that a believer can have that is worse than “dead faith.” And while many invisible handicaps may be kept secret, dead faith is one that can be seen whenever Christians are confronted by what Morgan experienced. It may be invisible, but it is hard to keep hidden. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER THIRTEEN (Lesson X)

Albert Barnes gives a number of reasons why Christians should do what Paul says here. Since part of our duty as good citizens is not to do what the law tells us not to do. And because it is part of the Law which teaches us to love our neighbor, and to “do them no harm or injury,”¹ that does not make it an option but a duty. The interpretation of this command is to be taken with this limitation, that we should never feel compelled to pay back our neighbor for doing something wrong that would harm or injure them. This rule, together with the other principles of Christianity, would certainly go a long way in solving many of today’s problems in society.

Some of the reasons Barnes mentions are: (1) It would teach people not to take on more than they could financially handle, and this would commonly prevent the necessity of going into debt. (2) It would make them frugal, economical, and humble in their views and manner of living. (3) It would teach them to raise their families with habits of not wanting more than they need. The Bible often teaches this.² (4) Religion would produce a sober, disciplined view of the end of life, to enjoy the benefits of all that we’ve worked for. This would also eliminate the desire for expensive items and extravagances that often land people in debt.³ (5) Religion would control becoming involved in vices and unlawful desires which now prompt people to take on debts (6) It would make them honest in paying what they owe. It would make them conscientious, prompt, friends of truth, and disposed to keep their promises.⁴

Frédéric Godet concurs that believers should never go into debt over their heads. The only debt that believers are allowed to let accumulate is the debt of love they owe to God and their fellowman. In fact, being kind and loving is endless, and the more active love is the more things it finds to love. This debt the believer carries with them throughout their lifetime. But they are to avoid becoming indebted for things in this world they are unable to pay. However, when it comes to the debt of love, that is not our choice, that is the Law of Love. And by continuing to find a way to take on more debt of love, the more our obligation will grant us the joy of paying what we owe. And as Jesus and Paul are telling us, by doing so, all the laws, not just the Law of Love, are fully complied with.⁵ I’m sure if Godet were alive today he would agree that items such as a home and car are beyond what most people have saved up, so taking out a loan would be permissible.

Charles Ellicott says that many scholars compare this passage on owing no one anything with Matthew 22:39-40; Galatians 5:14; and James 2:8. It shows how thoroughly the Spirit of the Founder of Christianity descended upon His followers, that the same teaching should appear with equal prominence in such opposite epistles. The focusing, as it were, of all morality in this brief compass is one of the great gifts of Christianity to the world. No doubt, similar sayings existed before, and that by our Lord Himself was taken from the First Covenant. But by Paul’s day, it had been coated with ceremonial rules and regulations, while in other cultures moralists put it forward as a philosophical theory rather than as a practical basis of morality. In Christianity, it is taken as the force that will move the world. And it has proven to be impossible to find in the way people live and all the codes of conduct any other principle that is as plain, as powerful, and as profound as love.⁶

Charles Spurgeon said that there is nothing more abhorrent to him than being in debt. He said that being in debt would be like coming into the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London to put a 100 British Pound note that he borrowed from the bank or some fellow believer in the offering.⁷ Spurgeon said that had he done so, the words, “Owe no one anything” would have stared him in the face whenever he got into the pulpit and tried to preach. Spurgeon takes Paul’s word to mean that no one should ever go into debt. Even if a church is trying to raise money for a special project, no one should go into debt in order to give to the cause. Paying attention to the simple Word of God is far better than trying to justify it by promoting how much good it would do. Spurgeon asked his congregation never to approve borrowing money in order to enhance or renovate the Metropolitan Tabernacle so that when they came to church they could look around and see that all had been paid.⁸ Spurgeon would not be as popular today preaching to a society that lives mostly on credit.

One Jewish writer gives us his perspective on Paul’s teaching here about going into debt. He reminds us that the Temple tax was collected by synagogue ministers and paid by Gentile converts as well. This did not sit well with many new followers of Yeshua who, even though they paid the Temple tax, were not allowed, as Gentiles were, to participate in all Temple activities. Both Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus attest to this custom, with the latter criticizing such Gentiles as “people of the worst sort,” who, “renouncing their ancestral religions, would send their tribute and gifts there (to Jerusalem) in heaps.”⁹

This same writer also mentions that the term “honor” has the sense of proper moral behavior in accord with the Torah.¹⁰ Jewish catacombs have designations of “all honor” for those of higher office, namely, the interpreters of good and evil. Paul calls believers to honor those authorities with regard to their duties including Temple tax collection. Even though Paul says to pay what you owe and owe nothing to anyone except to love each other, we should also take note that “honoring your parents” included financial support¹¹.¹²

Verse 9: The Law says, “You must not commit adultery, you must not murder anyone, you must not steal, you must not want what belongs to someone else.”¹³ All these commands and all other commands are really only one rule: “Love your neighbor¹⁴ the same as you love yourself.”¹⁵

Loving our neighbor as ourselves has more often than not been misinterpreted. First of all, it is not just the person living next door. Jesus clearly shows us this in His parable of the Good Samaritan in response to the question, “Who is my neighbor?” Therefore, since the English word “neighbor” has taken on such a restricted meaning, we would be closer to the original intent by changing it to our “fellowman.” Some have also suggested that Paul was trying to say that we should plan to treat our fellowman as we would want our fellowman to treat us, but that leaves it open to a lot of different interpretations.

There may be times when someone will manipulate their fellowman just to get what they want. However, the whole purpose of treating them honorably opens the door for us to respond to our fellowman graciously, thereby giving them an example of how to treat others. It is clear that Paul is proposing that, “Love hurts nobody,” therefore, love is the way to answer the Law’s commands. Paul is quoting from Leviticus 19:16, and Jesus, to back up his teaching, therefore, for him, it is not an option. You will love and treat your fellowman with the same considerations you reserve for yourself. It doesn’t say that your fellowman must be first and foremost; neither does it say that you must forget about yourself and your family; only that your fellowman be included. You will come much closer to fulfilling the commandment to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength than you will by ignoring your obligation to your fellowman as an inconvenience or impossibility.

In Jewish writings, we find a teaching that echoes what both Jesus and Paul had to say about summing up all the commandments that were given to guide us in our conduct and attitude. While Rabbis were discussing this subject one day and in what order the Law was given to Moses, it looked as though certain Laws should be prioritized based on when they were given. But Rabbi Menasia ben Tahlifa shared what he had learned by saying: “This proves that there is no chronological order in the Torah.”¹ In other words, there is no first or last, earlier or later, in the Law. The last Law on the list has as much authority as the first. That’s why Paul could say that the unity of the Law can be expressed and fulfilled by loving your fellowman as yourself.

A lot has been said about the teaching of loving one’s fellowman as themselves. That your fellow citizens need not fear you if they know you love them. Also, that there are few if any laws that cannot be fulfilled through love. Furthermore, that the beginning and end of virtue is love. And, that love has two excellent qualities: it abstains from evil and does good. Early church scholar Pelagius feel that the whole idea of living right is summed up in the love of one’s fellowman. Unrighteousness is born when we love ourselves more than others. For one who loves their fellowman as themselves not only does them no wrong but does them a lot of good. Such a person knows how much they would desire that both aspects be done with regard to themselves.¹⁷

Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia, gives us something to consider. Every law either forbids doing wrong or doing right. Legislators pass the first kind of law in order that we should not harm one another and the second kind in order that we should help one another as far as possible. But they are all summed up in the one command that we love our fellowman as ourselves.¹⁸  I think it goes without saying, that had love been an integral part of human nature from the beginning, that what Cain did to Abel would have never taken place.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER THIRTEEN (Lesson IX)

When we take a look, Scripture itself seems to present disobedience of secular rulers as, at least in some cases, a virtue. The classic instance is Peter and John, whom Luke apparently commends for responding to the Sanhedrin’s command not to preach about Jesus with these words: “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”¹ Moreover, resistance to the Beast’s demands for worship in Revelation is evidence of loyalty to the Lord. We will explore in the next section just how we can bring Scripture into harmony on this matter of obedience to governmental authorities. But first, we need to look at both some ancient and modern issues that will help us to bridge the contexts.²

Jewish scholar David Stern explains these things from his perspective. Since Paul discussed believers’ relationships with each other and with nonbelievers earlier in this letter, Paul naturally turns to how they should relate to the chief external institution, the state.³ His advice, which can be seen as an application of Romans 12:21, corresponds closely to Judaism’s “The Law of the kingdom is Law,” and it is to be obeyed as if God had commanded it.⁴ Does this mean that believers should obey the wicked Laws of an evil government – the Nazis, the Communists, other totalitarian regimes? No! This type of rule does not represent the form of oversight that God supplies in the Scriptures.

We can also look at it in light of Peter and John’s statement of obeying God rather than men.⁵ When the will of the State and the will of God are in conflict, God must win. The early Christians refused to offer incense to statues of the Roman emperor because such idolatry would have been disobedience to God; they paid with their lives. Jews too have been martyred for the sake of keeping the Name of God holy⁶ when they refused conversion to the Roman Catholic’s form of Christianity in the Middle Ages which was incapable of communicating either its truth or its Jewishness. To have done so would have been seen as an act of idolatry. The implications of Scripture for civil disobedience in the modern sense – that is, for a moral cause, also a selfless one – deserves attention.⁷

This brings us to today and how Christians are responsible for paying their taxes and show respect to their governing authority. What aggravates and frustrates most citizens, not just Christians, is the misuse and waste of their taxes that ends up causing them to be raised. In most states, car registration fees and gasoline taxes are supposed to be used for repairing roads, streets, bridges, and transportation infrastructure. But sadly, politicians who see these taxes as the government’s money, spend them on frivolous things that do not benefit society as a whole, and they do so just to buy votes and increase their popularity to guarantee reelection. There is nothing in God’s Word that would prevent any Christian from expressing their righteous indignation about such waste of their taxes. The best expression of all can be done at the ballot box.

Verse 8: You should owe nothing to anyone, except that you will always owe love to each other. The person who loves others has done all that the Law commands.

Indebtedness has always been a problem. Even Jesus told a story of indebtedness.⁸ And Paul has just spoken of a Christian’s responsibility to be a good citizen, and that includes paying taxes. But here he uses moral commitments rather than monetary obligations to make his point. We can see this combination in the Torah that says: “You are not to exploit a hired worker who is poor and needy, whether one of your brothers or a foreigner living in your land in your town. You are to pay him his wages the day he earns them, before sunset; for he is poor and looks forward to being paid. Otherwise he will cry out against you to Adonai, and it will be your sin.”⁹

Solomon also expressed the same moral obligation when it came to being kind to those needing help: “Don’t withhold good from someone entitled to it when you have in hand the power to do it. Don’t tell your neighbor, ‘Go away! Come another time; I’ll give it to you tomorrow,’ when you have it now.”¹⁰ Jesus encapsulated this when He said: “Always treat others as you would like them to treat you; that sums up the teaching of the Torah and the writing of the Prophets.”¹¹ So Paul was on good ground when he wrote the Galatians and said: “You obey the whole Law when you do this one thing, ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’”¹² Paul is saying that it is love that makes the difference in how we treat people. That’s why he wrote the Colossians: “And to all these things, you must add love. Love holds everything and everybody together and makes all these good things perfect.”¹³

Paul’s statement that love is a debt we owe to others is also commented on by early church scholars. Chrysostom agrees that love is a debt which we owe to our brothers and sisters in Christ because of our spiritual relationship to them. If love departs from us, the whole body of Christ is torn to pieces. Therefore, love your brother, for if you can fulfill the Law by befriending him, then the benefit you receive puts you in his debt.¹⁴ And Augustine echoes the same sentiment, that Paul shows that the fulfillment of the Law is found in love, namely, in charitable giving. The Lord also says that the whole Law and prophets depend on these two principles, the love of God and the love of neighbor. So Christ who came to fulfill the Law gave us love through the Holy Spirit so that giving might accomplish what taking could not.¹⁵

In another place, Augustine is convinced that the only way of holding onto that pattern of continually being good to those around you is by love. If we love another because we are all trying to live right, we cannot help but love the way it is done, which shows us what it means to live right in order that we may be right in all we do. In fact, if we did not love the image of God we see in others, we would have no love for that person since our love for them is based on always wanting to help. But on the other hand, if we are not living right ourselves, helping others by itself is not enough for us to claim that we are living right.¹⁶ And Pelagius looks at it this way: We should never fail to repay all our debts. But there is one debt we can never pay in full and that is our debt of love. According to the parable of the Lord, who bids us show mercy to everyone without distinction, we must think of every person as our neighbor. Paul mentioned love first because he was writing to the faithful and dealing with behavior proper to righteous living.¹⁷

John Calvin is of the opinion that Paul meant to refer the principle of respecting the power of government to the Law of love so that no one would question its validity. It was another way of Paul saying that when believers are required to obey the law and those who enforce it’s because the Law of love demands it. If we really want the government to make it possible for us to enjoy living safe and sound, we should do all we can to see that the Laws and Courts continue to be respected so that those who are charged with maintaining law and order will be dealing with obedient citizens. That way, peace will be provided for everyone. Calvin then adds that we should consider what will happen if there is anarchy. Not only does it violate love, but anarchy automatically leads to total confusion¹⁸.¹⁹

Adam Clarke also shares his thoughts on this subject. Up until this point, the Apostle Paul has been showing the duty, reverence, and obedience, which all Christians, from the highest to the lowest, owe to the government, whether they are a President, Governor, Mayor, or any local official. But it is a two-way street. Both have obligations to each other. But this is only part of what they owe to the government as a God-ordained institution. When it comes to the government, each citizen owes allegiance, respect, obedience, and tribute. But when it comes to each other and those who have been appointed to carry out their governmental duties, citizens owe nothing but mutual love and respect. Therefore, the Apostle Paul says, don’t be indebted to anyone, it’s another way of saying, you owe to your fellowman nothing but mutual love, and this is what the Law of God requires, and in this the Law is fulfilled. We are not bound in obedience to them as we are to officers of the law, but for conscience sake. By having mutual respect and love for each other, it prevents everyone from doing anything that may cause their neighbor any harm or injury.²⁰

Robert Haldane likes the beautiful way Paul represents love as a debt that is never paid. It is a debt that is always due, but should never be overdue. Christians ought not only to love one another continually, but their love for each other should grow. The more they pay of this debt, the richer will they be because it is an investment. That’s why Paul urges us to love on the ground that it is fulfillment of the Law in all its precepts. The whole Law is grounded on love to God and love to our fellowman. This cannot be violated without violating the Law. For where there is love, it will lead to fulfilling all of God’s commandments. But since there is no such thing as perfect love among humans as the Law requires, that’s why Paul says we are always in debt to one another when it comes to love.²¹

Charles Hodge believes that we should all try to remain debt free, but when it comes to love, that is a debt that will always be due. Not only is this to be expected of believers, but considering the context that places it among the commands given by Jesus and now Paul, it is the best way to interpret this passage. However, Hodge notes that some Bible scholars take the Greek verb opheilō (to owe) in the indicative mood (something that should be done at one’s convenience), instead of the imperative mood (something that should be done right now), and understand the passage this way: “You should be debt free when it comes to what you owe, but when it comes to love you can never be out of debt to each other, (which includes all other duties,) for they that love one another fulfill the Law.” This gives a good sense when this verse is taken by itself; but viewed in connection with all those verses those which precede and follow this verse, the common interpretation that this is something we must do now is what Paul is really saying.²²

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER THIRTEEN (Lesson VIII)

Later, in the 1800’s, Frédéric Godet explains his impression about taxes. By that time, taxation was universally practiced in almost all countries and accepted by most citizens as a legitimate way of paying to the support the ministries and missions of the government from national defense to education, social services, etc. How all of this got started is obviously traced back to the recognition that government is needed to maintain peace, law, and order. While this is not specially referred to by Paul here in verse 5, it does flow from what has been said since verse 1. In that case, we can see how the practical idea of taxation and the proof of its necessity, can be understood by its universal acceptance by most citizens in their countries as a good and practical method to support the government. No doubt this is why Paul makes his advice for Christians to pay an imperative, not an option.¹

Douglas Moo then gives his 20th Century understanding of what Paul meant here. He focuses on the fact that Paul begins verse 6 by saying, “This is also why you pay taxes.” (The KJV has a curious rendering that reads, “For for this cause.” In other words, because the Roman believers were aware of God’s ordaining of governing authorities, they should pay taxes. The verb form Paul uses here can also be imperative – “you should pay taxes” (New Jerusalem Bible) – but the indicative is more likely since Paul is explaining why the Roman Christians act as they do. And just in case we missed it, Paul reminds us of the key theological point one more time at the end of verse 6. We must respect governmental authorities because they are God’s servants. The point is even stronger here, because of the Greek noun leitourgos, which is used in the Septuagint Version for people who served in the temple and in the Last Covenant as ministers of the Lord.² Paul could not more strongly have shown that civic leaders are, in fact, serving God’s purpose for being in authority.³

Verse 7: Give everyone what you owe them. If you owe them any kind of tax, then pay it. Show respect to those you should respect. And show honor to those you should honor.

Paul continues his narrative on advising Roman Christians to continue being responsible citizens. There are certain shortcomings, mistakes, and errors that we are all willing to be graceful in forgiving when a fellow believer faults are revealed. However, when they include acts contrary to the duties of a subject and patriot to their nation we cringe with embarrassment. Even though He was mistreated by the Herodians, and would ultimately be put to death by the Romans, Jesus still taught His disciples to be good Christians and compliant citizens.⁴ Not out of fear, but out of respect. This is what Solomon instructed his people to do: “My son, don’t get involved with revolutionaries, but fear Adonai and the king.”⁵ The Apostle Paul even encouraged employees to be dependable and follow the boss’ instructions.⁶ The Apostle Peter agreed with Paul.⁷

Early church scholars also have varying views on how to define taxes and contributions and the role they play for the church and believers. We must keep in mind that these represent the understanding among scholars from approximately 180 to 420 AD. One of the earliest church leaders, Tertullian, believed that so far as concerns the honors due to heads of state, we have a clear mandate to be subject in all obedience, according to the Apostle’s command, to all levels of government, but within the limits of Christian discipline, namely, so long as we keep ourselves free of idolatry.⁸ And shortly thereafter, Origen commented that those in authority may demand taxes on our property and revenue from our business transactions. What should we say? Jesus Christ Himself was obliged to pay taxes, not because He owed anything but so as not to cause a problem. If He who owed nothing to Caesar and who had every right to refuse to pay taxes nevertheless agreed to pay them, who are we to refuse to do so?⁹

Ambrosiaster makes the point that by giving honor to the powers that be in this world may have the effect that, if they see the humility of Christ’s servants, they may support rather than oppose the Gospel’s teaching.¹⁰ And for Chrysostom, Paul urges the people to give their government not only taxes but honor and fear as well. Fear in this context means very great honor, not the kind of fear which comes from a bad conscience.¹¹ To this Pelagius added that even charitable giving can be seen as paying our dues. Income is ours to give to those who are passing by or to those who are seated by the roadside while we pass by. Fear, as well as honor, must be given to those who are your superiors but only honor to your peers.¹² But some early church scholars disagree. Theodore thinks that the word taxes refers to property taxes, while revenue refers to sales taxes.¹³ As far as Gennadius is concerned, taxes and revenue are the same thing.¹⁴

Charles Hodge shares his thought by saying that since this is the will of God, including the charitable design of civil government, we should render to those in charge what properly belongs to them, whether a monetary contribution, reverence, or honor. The whole message seems, from the context, to have special appreciation for all those in authority, although it is not necessarily confined to those in government alone. The word “tribute” is applied properly to land and investment tax; and “custom” to the import tax levied on incoming merchandise. The words “fear,” and “honor,” are generally considered in this connection as differing only in degree. Fear expresses the reverence we have for superiors, the honor the respect we have for our peers.¹⁵

Albert Barnes, in his notes, outlines a number of principles that he finds discussed here by the Apostle Paul that are accepted as confirmed by the authority of the Bible, and are now understood: (1) That government is essential; and its necessity is recognized by God, and it is arranged by His good will for His children. God has never been the sponsor of anarchy and disorder. (2) Civil rulers are dependent on God. He has the entire control over them and can set them up or put them down when He pleases. (3) The authority of God is superior to that of civil rulers. They have no right to enact laws which interfere with His authority. (4) It is not the business of civil rulers to regulate or control religion. That is an area over which they have no jurisdiction or responsibility, except to protect it. (5) The rights of all people are to be respected. People are to be allowed to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience and to be protected in those rights, provided they do not violate the peace and order of the community. (6) Civil rulers have no right to persecute Christians or to attempt to demand conformity to their point of view by force. The conscience cannot be compelled; and when it comes to religion, every person must be free to choose.

Barnes then goes on to point out that the doctrines respecting the rights of civic leaders, and the line which is to be drawn between their powers and the rights of conscience, has been slow to be understood. The struggle has been long; thousands of persecutions have shown attempts by the government to rule the conscience and to control religion. In secular countries, it has been conceded that the civil ruler had a right to control the religion of the people because the church and state were one organization. The same thing was attempted under Christianity. But Christianity has resisted this claim and asserted the independent and original rights of conscience. In some cases, a conflict ensued, of course, and the government resorted to persecutions. This brought on years of fiery and bloody persecutions of the primitive church. The blood of the early Christians flowed in Rome like water; thousands and tens of thousands went to the stake until Christianity triumphed, and the right of religion to a free exercise was acknowledged throughout the empire.

Then Barnes concludes that we should all be thankful that this subject is now settled, and the principle is now understood. In his own land (America) there existed the happy and bright illustration of the true principle on this great subject. The rights of conscience are regarded, and the Laws peacefully obeyed. The civil ruler understands his province; Christians yield a cheerful and cordial obedience to the Laws. The church and state move on in their own spheres, united only in the purpose to make citizens happy and good. They are divided only as they relate to different missions. The one, the rights of civil society, the other, the interests of eternity. In America, every person worships God according to their own views of duty; and at the same time, here is rendered the most cordial and peaceful obedience to the Laws of the land. Thanks should be rendered without ceasing to the God of our fathers for the wondrous sequence of events that led this country to settle this issue to everyone’s satisfaction. It allows for a clear and full understanding which we now pertaining to church and the state.¹⁶

John Stott adds his thoughts. For him, Paul is saying that the responsibility of the government not only includes tax-collecting but the service of God in public life. Political parties of the Right and the Left differ over the desirable size of the state’s role in the nation’s life, and whether it should increase or decrease taxation. All agree, however, that there are some services which the state must provide, that these have to be paid for, and that this makes taxes necessary. So Christians should accept their tax liability with good grace, paying their dues in full, both national and local, direct and indirect, and also giving proper esteem to the officials who collect and apply them.¹⁷

Current Bible scholar Douglas Moo presents his findings based on context. He agrees that few passages of scripture have been studied and analyzed over the years more than Romans 13:1–7. This history of interpretation has largely been the history of attempts to avoid what the passage at first glance seems to be saying. Some take Paul’s words to mean that every person should always obey whatever any governmental authority tells that person to do, for God has appointed every authority that exists; to obey God, we must obey his appointed representatives. Yet believers in every generation have been reluctant to agree with the idea that they should obey the orders that come from evil, even demonic, rulers – German tyrant Adolf Hitler of Germany and Dictator Joseph Stalin of Russia of course, are classic modern examples.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER THIRTEEN (Lesson VII)

John Calvin sees Paul repeating himself here with some additional information. He reiterates that we should cooperate with magistrates, but our motive for cooperating is not a reaction of our flesh to the law but of our spirit. In other words, it is our duty not only as an earthly citizen to earthly rules but as a heavenly citizen to heavenly rightness. We are not here just to obey the laws of mankind, but the laws of God. Just being afraid that we will be punished because we break the law is not enough reason for being lawful. It should come from the fact that we want to maintain a clear conscience by not even thinking of breaking the law. For instance, even if an officer of the law is unarmed so that we can physically overwhelm them, it should never cross our mind to do so. This would show that we are being obedient to the law out of respect, not fear. It is not up to us to determine if we should obey the law but to respect the authority the Lord has placed in those over us.¹

Robert Haldane notes that people, in general, obey the Laws from fear of the punishment of breaking them because if there was no punishment they would break every Law that did not please them. But Christians should not fall into this category. They must respect the Laws of the countries in which they live, not because they fear getting caught and then punished, but out of respect for the authority, God has ordained in government. This is not an ulterior motive, but a higher motive for obeying the laws. Even if a believer was promised immunity by the court from punishment if they broke the law, they must not violate the Law for conscience’ sake. This should give Christians an even stronger reason for being law-abiding since they obey from a conscientious regard for the authority of God that the magistrate represents. This is the foundation of true loyalty. If in operation, it will not only ensure the obedience of the Christian to the government under which he or she is placed, but prevent them from defrauding it by smuggling, evasion of taxes, or any illegal transaction. Let the words of King David be the motto of every Christian².³

Frédéric Godet speaks from a 19th Century perspective about Paul’s admonition of obedience to the state. He points out that if a Christian’s positive response to the law was only out of fear of being punished, that would probably be enough. But it is more than that, it represents the authority of God to assert justice here on earth, that’s why a Christian must make it a matter of conscience that submission must be given to it. It is obvious that the Apostle has a much nobler idea of the state than those who have made this an institution to serve their own or their party’s interest. Paul lays down a divine principle and sees in it an essentially moral institution. This teaching was even more necessary as Christians were daily witnesses of the corruption which reigned in Rome and might have felt motivated to become involved in trying to tear it down. But it must not be forgotten that, in assigning conscience as a ground for obedience, the Apostle is at the same time outlining the limits of this obedience. For the very reason that the state governs in God’s name when it comes to ordering something contrary to God’s Law, there is nothing else to be done than to resist the contradiction between its conduct and its commission.⁴

John Stott focuses on the State’s responsibility not only for enforcing the Law but also in punishing the criminal. As he sees it, the Apostle Paul says nothing about what kind of sanctions and penalties the state may employ, but he would almost certainly have endorsed the principle of using “minimum necessary force” in order to arrest criminals and bring them to justice. He also writes that the judge does not bear the sword for nothing. Since the Greek noun machaira for “sword” has occurred earlier in this letter to indicate death,⁵ and since it was used for execution,⁶ it seems clear that Paul means it here as a symbol of the death penalty. The sword was carried habitually and symbolized the power of life and death which the one holding the sword had in their hands. God had justified this to Noah as affirming the unique value of the life of his image-bearers.⁷

The taking of another human’s life is such a heinous offense that it deserves the forfeiture of the murderer’s life. Yet this does not seem to have been mandatory, since God Himself protected Cain, the first murderer, from being killed.⁸ Because of its finality, the risk of an innocent person being executed in error, and the termination of the opportunity to respond to the Gospel, many Christians believe that at least whenever there are mitigating circumstances or any uncertainty the death penalty should be commuted to a life sentence. Yet Stott thinks that the state should retain its right to use the death penalty in order to bear witness both to its solemn God-given authority and to the unique sanctity of human life.⁹

Douglas Moo has an interesting interpretation of the intent of this verse. For him, beginning with verse 5, Paul summarizes the argument of the paragraph thus far. He reiterates the command to submit and then touches on the two reasons for submission: God ordains governing authorities (verses 1b–2), “because of possible punishment.” The authorities punish wrongdoers (verses 3–4), “because of conscience” The Greek noun syneidēsis “conscience,” usually refers to that faculty within us humans that informs us of the morality of our actions after they have taken place.¹⁰ But the word can be used more broadly, and this seems to be the case here in verse 5. The Greek noun syneidēsis refers to our consciousness of God and of His will for us. Because we understand that God has appointed secular rulers and we must submit to them.¹¹

Verse 6: And this is why you pay taxes too. Those public officials are working for God, and they give all their time attending to their duties.

Paul continues on the same theme but turns to a different subject. The Jews hated paying taxes to both the Roman government and the Jewish Temple. Most of all, they despised those Jews (like Matthew), who were in the employment by the Roman Empire to collect those taxes from their fellow Jews. But this was not the first time the Jews were forced to pay taxes to a foreign government. We read that when they were in captivity, they had to pay taxes to their captors.¹² But Ezra let King Artaxerxes know that he was not the only one.¹³ So Paul was not telling the Jews in Rome anything new. We also know that the Pharisees tried to trick Jesus on this subject.¹⁴ But our Lord’s accusers lied when they tried to use it against Him.¹⁵

When it comes to paying taxes, early church scholars were careful in their commentary. For instance, Chrysostom believes that Paul is saying here that one way we can show that we appreciate the government benefits we receive is in paying their salaries. The taxation system may seem to be burdensome and annoying, but Paul turns it into proof that rulers care for their people. Why, after all, do we pay taxes to the government? Is it not because they provide for us? We would not have paid it in the first place if we did not know that we are the ones who benefit from this government. It was for this reason that the men of old agreed that rulers should be financially supported by the people because they neglect their own affairs in order to devote themselves entirely to public service, spending all their energy in order to protect us.¹⁶ Then Pelagius also remarks that taxes can also mean taxes used to pay the priests, which were set up for them by God.¹⁷ Or this may mean that you pay taxes to rulers because as a citizen of this world you subject yourself to them willingly. Paul calls them “God’s servants,” so that people might render to them what they owe,¹⁸ so that they don’t think that Christ taught His followers to be egotistical.¹⁹

John Calvin expresses how he saw Paul’s teaching on paying taxes during the Reformer’s ministry during the 1500’s. For Calvin, Paul takes the opportunity to introduce the subject of paying taxes as a way of showing appreciation for the government in their mission to defend and safely preserve the peace for the law-abiding citizens, and to resist the mischievous attempts of lawbreakers, this they cannot do unless they are aided by sufficient backing. Taxes are then justly paid to support such necessary expenses.

But when it comes to the level of taxation, Paul did not speak about it, and Calvin doesn’t think this is the place to discuss the subject, nor does it belong to us either to dictate to the government how much they should spend on projects or social services. Yet it would be wise for government officials to remember, that whatever they receive from the people, is as it were public property, and not to be spent in the gratification of private indulgence. For we see the use for which Paul appoints these taxes which are to be paid – even that the government may be furnished with means to defend their citizens.²⁰

Then, by the late 1700’s, Adam Clarke interprets Paul’s words this way: Because civil government is ordained by God, and the officials of the state must go to considerable expense in providing for the safety and defense of the citizens, it is necessary that those on whose behalf these expenses are incurred should help defray those expenses. Therefore, nothing can be more reasonable than an impartial and moderate taxation, by which the expenses of the state may be defrayed, and the various officers, whether civil or military, who are employed for the service of the public, be adequately paid. While all of this is fair and balanced, there is no hint in what the Apostle Paul says that speaks against excessive and oppressive taxation for the support of irresponsible and unnecessary wars; paying out a pension to officials who were found to be corrupt or dishonest individuals. The taxes are to be paid for the support of those who are God‘s ministers – the necessary civil officers, from the head of state on down who spend their time of law and order and the welfare of their citizens.²¹

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER THIRTEEN (Lesson VI)

Martin Luther makes the point that even if ungodly rulers do not desire to obey God, He still directs everything in such a way that whatever good they may have in them will still end up serving God’s cause. That’s why even though the King of Babylon was an idolater, he is still called by God through the prophets as “my servant.¹”² John Calvin advises his readers that magistrates soon come to realize that they are not in authority to rule for their own interest, but for the public good. Furthermore, they are not empowered with unbridled authority but are commissioned to do only that which promotes the well-being of their subjects. In other words, they are responsible to God and to the community in the exercise of their power. For as they are deputized by God to do His business, they must one day give an account to Him. At that time, the permission God granted them to serve will be assessed as to how it benefited their subjects. After all, they are not only debtors to them but also to God.³

John Bengel points out that here in verse 4 there is what is called an “Anaphora” [repetition of the same word at the beginning of different clauses]. In this case, it is the repetition of the term “For he.” (KJV) There is a trace of Divine providence in the fact that even the wicked are appointed to govern, support what is good, and punish evil. Also, Paul uses the same words for magistracy as he uses elsewhere for the ministry of the Gospel.⁴

Adam Clarke sees the same thing. Paul is putting the character of the ruler in the strongest possible light. He is a minister of God – the office is by Divine appointment: the person who is worthy of the office will act in conformity to the will of God. Also, as the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and His ears open to their cry,⁵ consequently the ruler will be a minister of God to them for their good. Their authority is delegated to them for the defense and encouragement of those who are good, and punishment for those who are bad. They have the authorization to recommend the death penalty when the Law so requires. For they are God‘s disciplinarians, to chastise and punish those who break the law. This is what laws are for. God‘s civil ministers are never allowed to pronounce or inflict punishment according to their own minds or feelings, but according to the express declarations of the Law.⁶

Robert Haldane makes the point that twice in this verse the civil official is called “the minister of God.” First, doing what is right for law-abiding citizens, and next, to see that lawbreakers are punished. Civil officials, then, as the ministers of God, should not be obeyed reluctantly, but with common sense. They are not only ministers of God, but ministers for what is good. This is the characteristic of magistrates in all countries. In spite of all the bad things that are done by some, it was meant for the good of society. But none are more obliged to follow the law than Christians. Were the restraints of government removed, Christians would be attacked, persecuted, or destroyed in most any country. Even the mistreatment by the worst government would not be as bad as the persecution of the world if freed from the restraint of the Law.⁷

Charles Ellicott has an interesting comment on what Paul says about “using of the sword” to inflict punishment on those who deserve such a sentence. He concludes that Paul is sanctioning the death penalty here. But he also notes that Paul says nothing about putting an end to slavery. If the gradual development of Christian principles should want to include it, that would be a decision of the majority. However, the question of whether or not the death penalty should be abolished is a question for lawyers, judges, and politicians. Theologians, on the other hand, should support it one way or the other.⁸

F. F. Bruce has something to say about this function of the government in carrying out the will of God. He points back to what Paul said in Romans 12:17a and 19. The government is charged here in this verse with a function which has been explicitly forbidden to the Christian. Namely, they are not in the business of applying discipline and punishment to lawbreakers. Although some judges may be Christians, any action they take or sentence they pronounce must be based on their position as a member of the judiciary according to the laws of the state. Paul gives no express direction on how a Christian ruler or judge may reconcile their duty as a Christian to follow the Scripture and leave the infliction of punishment up to the wrath of God when their official duty is to execute God’s wrath as one of His ministers. That’s why any judge must do what is necessary according to the principles of the law given to him or her by the state.⁹ Here is an excerpt on this subject by Bible scholar A. R. Vidler:

The sanction that the Bible, here and elsewhere, gives to the forcible restraint of evil puzzles many modern Christians, because of its apparent contradiction to Christ’s way of love and His precept of non-resistance to evil. But this comes from failing to distinguish the preservation of the world from the salvation of the world. The truth is that the Bible affirms both the Law “which worketh wrath” (Rom. 4:15) and the “faith which worketh by love” (Gal. 5:6): both Christ’s strange work and His proper work.10

John Stott offers his opinion on this subject by saying that if we seek to develop a balanced Biblical understanding of the state, the state’s authority and ministry are both given to it by God and are central to its function. Moreover, in writing about the ministry of the state, Paul twice uses the very same word which he has used elsewhere of the ministers of the church, namely diakonoi (although the third time he uses leitourgoi, a term which usually meant “priests” but could mean “public servants.” We have already had an occasion to note, when considering the gifts of the Spirit, that diakonia is a generic term which can embrace a wide variety of ministries. Those who serve the state as legislators, civil servants, magistrates, police, social workers or tax-collectors are just as much “ministers of God” as those who serve the church as pastors, teachers, evangelists or administrators. But as Vider says above, one is involved in the preservation of the state and the other in the salvation of the world.

Stott then notes what are the complementary ministries of the state and its accredited representatives. “They are God’s servants to do what is good” (verse 4a) and “They are God’s servants… to bring punishment on the evildoer” (verse 4b). The same dual role is expressed in Peter’s first letter, that “governors are appointed by the head of state to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.”¹¹ Thus the state’s functions are to promote and reward the good and to restrain and punish the bad.¹²

Verse 5: So you must obey those in authority, not just because you might be punished, but because you know it is the right thing to do.

But Paul doesn’t want the brethren in Rome to fear those in power because of what may happen if they break the Law, but to have respect for them by being good citizens and doing what is right. Back in the 1960’s and 70’s when I visited our brothers and sisters in Christ behind the Iron Curtain in Europe, they told me what a horrible mistake communist leaders were making by persecuting and disenfranchising Christians because they were the most Law-abiding and loyal people in the country.

We see this illustrated so graphically when David and his men were hiding in the inner recesses of a cave that King Saul chose to go in and relieve himself. As Saul laid aside his sword, David was not only given a chance to assassinate him but was encouraged to do so by his men. But here is what happened: “David got up and secretly cut off a piece of Saul’s clothing. After this, David felt guilty in his heart because he had cut off a piece of Saul’s clothing. So he said to his men, ‘May the Lord not let me put out my hand against my leader, for he is the Lord’s chosen one.’”¹³ David was certainly being respectful of his God-appointed leader. He was willing to wait until God Himself removed Saul so that David could become king.

Paul has raised the subject here of doing things for the sake of one’s conscience. So Chrysostom asks: “What is the meaning of ‘not only because of wrath?‘” (KJV). It means not only because you resist God by not obeying the law, nor because you are bringing shame on yourself both from God and from the government, but also because the magistrate is a benefactor to you in things of the utmost importance. He was appointed by God to bring you peace and the blessings through civil institutions. States receive countless blessings through these authorities, and if they were taken away, everything would fall to pieces.¹⁴

Augustine also speaks to this subject by laying out the fact that it is helpful for us to understand that in this life here on earth, we must be subject and not offer resistance to anyone who is in a position of authority, who acting in accordance to the law may legally take something away from us. Remember, authority has been given to them over earthly things, which will one day pass away. They have no control over heavenly things, so that means they have no power or authority to take heavenly things away from us. They can take our lives, but they cannot take our souls. We are not to be subject to them when it comes to the good things that will last forever, only the needs of this age. But when they ask for cooperation we must give it to them without hesitation, not halfheartedly, but out of love. That’s why Paul says that we must be submissive to the law, not simply to keep from being punished for lawbreaking, but because our conscience tells us it’s the right thing to do.¹⁵

Norman Vincent Peale, (1898-1993) author, minister, and founder of Guidepost Magazine was a champion of the power of positive thinking. He once said, “Believe you are defeated, believe it long enough, and it is likely to become a fact.” From this we got the expanded idea that if you keep telling yourself you won’t make it, chances are you won’t. While there are volumes that have been written on this subject, let’s examine some ideas that we can consider for the moment.

First of all, worrying about what will be and indulging in feelings of futility does NOT make one more effective, nor does it improve one’s lot in the least. On the contrary, it distracts one’s focus from the path that leads to success and disperses one’s power to progress along that path.

Furthermore, feeling insecure and discouraged about your circumstances is NOT a circumstantial problem; it is an emotional problem that permits circumstantial problems to fester. Feelings of discouragement and insecurity about one’s circumstances are often habitual. They express a negative mental-emotional habit that is self-defeating and it will continue to sabotage success until it is overcome. Recognizing that it’s just a habit is a major step in gaining freedom from it.

One way out of a low or anxious emotional state is to go within, to look at how you feel and at what you think, and to STOP projecting the cause of your negative feelings, mood or attitude outside of yourself. When you project the cause of your emotional state outside of yourself you presume that your circumstances have to change before you can feel better. But the fact is that your circumstances will NOT change until you change the way that you feel.

By making up your mind to live in a state of peaceful awareness in the now INSTEAD OF indulging in discouragement or insecurity, you achieve freedom from that negative internal state and freedom to constructively think about your goals and how to achieve them.

But becoming passive is not going to finish the job. The next step is to get engaged in constructive work aimed at accomplishing your most important objective. You will find it far more satisfying and profitable to take action aimed at achieving your goal than worrying about floundering and failing. Every moment you spend NOT indulging in a negative emotional state weakens the habit of indulging in it. Every action you take for what you want to accomplish builds up a momentum of actively working in line with your goal, making it easier for you to continue working and to work with increasing intensity of focus and power.

You can always do SOMETHING to direct your life. You can always take some form and degree of action in line with what you want to accomplish. Doing anything is better than doing nothing more than fretting your time and energy away. There is nothing and no one holding you down or holding you back but a habitual attitude that tells you that you cannot achieve what you desire.

To the extent that you feel down, disappointed, insecure or defeated you do NOT have a life problem you have an attitude problem: a habitual attitude that portrays you as a victim of an insurmountable obstacle. That habitual attitude is ALL that can prevent you from succeeding. When you realize that your attitude, and not your circumstances (or other people), is your problem you are 50% free of the problem.

But there is another side to this equation. Earl Nightingale (1921-1989) an American radio speaker and author, dealing mostly with the subjects of human character development, motivation, and meaningful existence, asked all of his listeners to “Picture yourself in your mind’s eye as having already achieved this goal. See yourself doing the things you’ll be doing when you’ve reached your goal.” This is a very proactive approach in getting out of the rut of declaring yourself a failure long enough to become a failure. Again, there are many books and articles written on this subject. But here are some suggestions we’ve found that will help a person taking a step in the right direction toward success.

First of all, ask yourself: Do I automatically think positively or negatively? Getting the answer to this question will help you get the results you are looking, it will help you see if you are approaching things with a negative or positive attitude. It can also help you identify other skills that can help you improve your happiness and well-being.

Then, strengthen your memory with positive information. Did you know that you may be able to increase your positivity just by memorizing a list of positive words? That’s right! It’s because when you force your brain to use positive words frequently, you make these words (and their basic meaning) more accessible, more connected, and more easily activated in your brain. So when you go to retrieve a word or idea from your memory, positive ones can come to the top more easily.

If you’re not sure which words are positive? Psychologists have painstakingly measured thousands of words to determine how positive and negative they are. For instance, there is the Positivity Workbook Series by the Berkeley Well-being Institute, and Stopping Words that Hurt by Dr. Michael D. Sedler. Also, The Power of Positive Words at positivethesaurus.com. If you’re struggling to think positive, try this strategy first. It can help develop your brain in ways that may make the other positive thinking strategies easier to implement.

Once your brain has built strong neural networks for positive words, try to extend these networks by asking your brain to use positive information in new ways. For example, you could memorize positive words and set an alarm that reminds you to recall these words, in reverse order, an hour later. Or, you could print out these words on cards, cut them into 2 pieces, shuffle them all together and then find each card’s match. For example, if you cut the word “laughter” would be cut into “laug” and “hter.” To match the word pieces, your brain has to search through lots of positive information to find what it’s looking for. This positive memory recall task may make it easier when you try to think positive.

Are you one of those people who notices the bad stuff first? For instance, when traffic is moving too slowly, instead of calculating the time you still need to arrive on time where you’re going, you automatically think there is someone up ahead who is causing all this backup? Then you’ve most likely trained your brain to focus on the negative, and your brain has gotten really good at it. It can be really challenging to undo this training. So instead, train your brain to be even better at focusing on the positive.

Another thing to do is routinely focus on positive information and direct your attention away from the negative. Need help paying attention to the positive? Did you know that you can condition yourself for positivity? If you’ve ever taken an intro to psychology course, you’ve probably heard about the study of Pavlov’s dog. If you haven’t, then Google it. This should help you to learn how you might train your brain to think positively rather than negatively when you hear or see something that offers you that choice.

This should help you to think more positive and only think negative when you need to. Of course, thinking positive has its benefits. But thinking positive isn’t always the best response. Negative thoughts sometimes have benefits too. When we are sad or grieving, thinking negative thoughts and showing the emotions that these thoughts create helps us communicate to others that we need their support and kindness. When we are treated unfairly and we get angry, our thoughts can help motivate us to take action, make changes in our lives, and change the world. Casually pushing these negative emotions aside without seriously considering their origins can have negative consequences. So when you focus on the negative, ask yourself, is this negative emotion resulting in action that improves your life? If so, then keep it. If not, then work on changing it.

These are only samples, there is a lot more available to check out if you take the time. But, as always, we must ask ourselves, what does the Bible have to say about this? King David wanted to be positive in his thinking because he wanted God to be pleased with what he was thinking and saying.¹ One way to do that is to begin each day as being a gift from God for us to live and behave in such a way that He will be pleased. That should give us plenty of reason to be joyful for each new day.²

David’s son, Solomon, must have learned much from his father. He advises everyone that if they want to find favor with both God and man, and a reputation for good judgment and common sense, then trust the Lord to guide you, don’t just trust your own inclinations alone. In everything you do, put God first, and He will direct you and crown your efforts with success.³ Solomon said this will have an extra effect. Having a cheerful heart will be like good medicine. If you’re not feeling your best, it will help you to cheer up in facing your day positively.⁴ After all, what you say will have a great effect on how you feel. So it’s your choice to fill it with things that are negative or positive. Either way, you will be responsible for any consequences.⁵

Apparently, this wisdom was passed on to those who followed. The prophet Isaiah told the people of Israel that although they were being in danger of being invaded by a marauding army from the east, they should not forget who there were and whose they were. Did not God tell them that He would always be with them? So don’t be overcome with fear and lose hope, He has promised to help them and see that they are given a chance to win the victory.⁶

Later on, the prophet Nahum declared that when in trouble, the Lord is the best person to go to. He knows who you are and He knows those who are against you. Let Him figure it out and you are sure to come out on the winning end.⁷ So when Jesus came, He reinforced what the prophets had said. Only He pointed out more specifically what priorities a person should set. Give God first place in your life and He will help you live the way He wants you too.⁸ Of all the ones you might want to please with the way you behave and conduct yourself in life, there certainly is no one above God.

So how can this positive living be initiated and kept going? Jesus did not leave us in the dark. First He says, start looking for what you need in order to be more positive. Then once you find it, don’t stop until you are able to obtain it. And even though it may not be easy at first, insist on getting what you need and it will eventually be given to you.⁹

The Apostle Paul took this message with him as he went out to preach the power of positive thinking. He starts out by saying that no matter what happens to us, keep believing that it is for our good and that it fits into God’s plans for our lives. God knows those who really trust Him for guidance. In fact, those are the ones He chose to be His children. And once He chose us, He empowered us to think positively because we have the assurance that things between Him and us are on the right path. So, knowing that God is on our side, why should we let anyone let others discourage them with negative thinking?¹⁰

When Paul wrote the believers in Rome, he knew they were facing all kinds of discrimination and hardships because of their faith in Christ. But he told them, be happy because you have a future; don’t let the troubles of today rob you of the joys of tomorrow. Be patient, stay in contact with God and He will see you through.¹¹

Apparently, the believers in Corinth were having some difficulties of their own, so Paul wrote them and told them that the little troubles we suffer now for a short time are making us ready for the great things God is going to give us forever. We do not look at the things that can be seen. We look at the things that cannot be seen. The things that can be seen will come to an end. But the things that cannot be seen will last forever.¹² But Paul’s advice to the believers in Philippi says it all: “Do not worry. Learn to pray about everything. Give thanks to God as you ask Him for what you need. The peace of God is much greater than the human mind can understand. This peace will keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.”¹³

So why should anyone develop a mindset that will lead to failure and despair, when you can use the same faculties of mind and spirit to foster a way of thinking that leads upward and outward? If you keep looking at what’s following you, you’ll miss all the golden opportunities facing you. Turn your eyes toward the future, that’s your destiny, that’s where you want to go. As Earl Nightingale said so eloquently: “Picture yourself in your mind’s eye as having already achieved this goal. See yourself doing the things you’ll be doing when you’ve reached your goal.” – Dr. Robert R Seyda

THE POWER OF PRAYING HANDS

Back in the fifteenth century, in a tiny village near Nuremberg, lived a family with eighteen children. Eighteen! In order to keep food on the table for this crew, the father and head of the household, a goldsmith by profession, worked almost eighteen hours a day at his trade and any other paying job he could find in the neighborhood.

Despite their seemingly hopeless condition, two of the older boys, Albrecht and Albert, had a dream. They both wanted to pursue their talent for art, but they knew full well that their father would never be financially able to send either of them to Nuremberg to study at the Art Academy. After many long discussions at night in their crowded bed, the two boys finally worked out a pact. They would toss a coin. The loser would go down into the nearby mines and, with his earnings, support his brother while he attended the academy. Then, when that brother who won the toss completed his studies, in four years, he would support the other brother at the academy, either with sales of his artwork or, if necessary, also by laboring in the mines.

They tossed a coin on a Sunday morning after church. Albrecht won the toss and went off to Nuremberg. Albert went down into the dangerous mines and, for the next four years, financed his brother, whose work at the academy was almost an immediate sensation. Albrecht’s etchings, his woodcuts, and his oils were far better than those of most of his professors, and by the time he graduated, he was beginning to earn considerable fees for his commissioned works.

When the young artist returned to his village, the Durer family held a festive dinner on their lawn to celebrate Albrecht’s triumphant homecoming. After a long and memorable meal, punctuated with music and laughter, Albrecht rose from his honored position at the head of the table to drink a toast to his beloved brother for the years of sacrifice that had enabled Albrecht to fulfill his ambition. His closing words were, “And now, Albert, blessed brother of mine, now it is your turn. Now you can go to Nuremberg to pursue your dream, and I will take care of you.”

All heads turned in eager expectation to the far end of the table where Albert sat, tears streaming down his pale face, shaking his lowered head from side to side while he sobbed and repeated, over and over, “No… no… no… no.” Finally, Albert rose and wiped the tears from his cheeks. He glanced down the long table at the faces he loved, and then, holding his hands out for all to see he said softly, “No, brother. I cannot go to Nuremberg. It is too late for me. Look… Look what four years in the mines have done to my hands! The bones in every finger have been smashed at least once, and lately, I have been suffering from arthritis so badly in my right hand that I cannot even hold a glass to return your toast, much less make delicate lines on parchment or canvas with a pen or a brush. No, brother… for me it is too late.”

More than 500 years have passed. By now, Albrecht Durer’s hundreds of masterful portraits, pen and silver-point sketches, watercolors, charcoals, woodcuts, and copper engravings hang in every great museum in the world, but the odds are great that you, like most people, are familiar with only one of Albrecht Durer’s works. More than merely being familiar with it, you very well may have a reproduction hanging in your home or office, Albrecht’s Praying Hands.

Many who see this painting assume that these may represent the praying hands of Christ. Others might assume that they are the hands of an individual posing for Albrecht. The truth is, one day, to pay homage to Albert for all that he had sacrificed, Albrecht Durer painstakingly drew his brother’s abused hands with palms together and thin fingers stretched skyward. He called his powerful drawing simply “Hands,” but the entire world almost immediately opened their hearts to his great masterpiece and renamed his tribute of love “The Praying Hands.”

So the next time you see a copy of that this creation, take a second look. Remember, these are not the hands of a model, but of a brother who worked hard in the mines so his brother could go to school, but in the process lost his opportunity to go because of damage to his hands. I wonder, if heaven had an art gallery where there were multiple portraits of hands that had given so much for others that they were now unable to accomplish their owner’s dreams, would our hands be included in those masterpieces?

Those worn and damaged hands may not be worth much to some, but to others, they are worth their weight in gold. That’s why I believe that somewhere on those walls are the nail-scarred hands of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Just think of what His sacrifice has meant to you and the effect it has had on your life. I’m sure, they will be just as valuable to you as Albert’s hands were to his brother Albrecht. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER THIRTEEN (Lesson V)

Bible scholar John Stott notes that after calling for submission to the government, Paul now warns against rebellion, since rebels are not only setting themselves against what God has instituted (verse 2a) but in addition will bring judgment on themselves (verse 2b). As a consequence, it is both right and wise to live in harmony with civil law. Rulers should hold no terror for those who do right but only for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. The statement that rulers commend those who do right and punish those who do wrong is, of course, not always true, as Paul knew perfectly well. Although he had himself experienced from procurators and centurions the benefits of Roman justice, he also knew about the miscarriage of justice in the condemnation of Jesus. And if all provincial courts were fair and just, he would not have needed to appeal to Caesar. So, in depicting rulers in such a good light, as commending the right and opposing the wrong, he is stating the divine ideal, not the human reality.¹

Verse 3: People who do right don’t have to fear those who enforce the Laws. But those who do wrong must fear them. Do you want to be free from fearing them? Then simply do what is right, and they will be proud of you.

Paul had an interesting way of saying the same thing in his letter to Timothy: “For the Law was not intended for people who do what is right. It is for people who are Lawless and rebellious, who are ungodly and sinful, who consider nothing sacred and defile what is holy.”² It can be logically stated that those who place radar detectors on the dashboards of their car do so with the intent on breaking the Law. The person who is staying within the speed limit has nothing to fear. Solomon felt the need to tell people that the same principle is at work in government as well: “The king’s favor is toward a servant with good sense, but his disfavor is quickly shown to the servant who embarrasses him.”³

Paul was not inventing a new idea here. This concept was already part of Jewish thinking. For instance, we read what venerated Rabbi Judah taught that any communal leader who makes himself unduly feared by the community for purposes other than religious will never have a scholar for a son, as it says, “Therefore, if men fear him he shall not see [among his sons] any wise of heart.⁴”⁵ And Rabbi Chanina made the statement that people should pray for the integrity of their government; for were it not for the fear of its authority, a rich neighbor could get rid of their poor neighbor without any consequences.⁶ So we could say that respect and reverence for the authority and power of God does not always mean to be fearful for what He can do through the power of nature or by way of miracles and wonders, but that which He displays through those in authority that serve by His permission.

Bishop Basil reiterates what has been said previously in so far as obeying secular Law is concerned. He feels that it is proper to submit to higher authority whenever a command of God is not violated in the process.⁷ And Ambrosiaster comments on what he sees as the job of every governing authority. They have been created in order to correct behavior and prevent bad things from happening. They mirror the image of God because everyone else is under one leader.⁸

Then Augustine concludes that when doing what is right it will bring praise from God even if you get no applause from your fellow humans. But Augustine does admit, that what Paul says here could easily upset some people when they think that Christians have often suffered persecution at the hands of these authorities. They argue that these Christians were living lawful lives but not only did the authorities not praise them they punished and killed them! So the Apostle Paul’s words must be carefully examined. He does not say: “Do what is good and the authorities will praise you,” but: “Do what is good and you will have praise from God.” So whether someone in authority praises you for what you do or persecutes you, “you will have praise from God,” either when you win your freedom by your perseverance in obedience to God or when you win your crown by being persecuted for your obedience to God.⁹

And Pelagius notes that for Christians there should be no fear of authorities. It is the lawbreakers who should be afraid of the authorities, but the law-abiding have no reason to fear, for they come into glory if they are killed unjustly. So Paul wants the Romans to take his advice and they will never need to be afraid of those who enforce the law. After all, condemnation of the wicked is in itself commendation of the good¹⁰.¹¹ In other words, as Law abiding Christians we do not hide or cringe in fear of those in power because we do and say what is right according to the Law. But if for some reason, we find ourselves living under a tyrant who persecutes and even kills us because we are Christians, then we also need not be afraid because God will crown us with honor because we died for His glory.

Martin Luther made the statement that we should complement rulers who do not keep us from doing what is right.¹² Fellow reformist John Calvin agrees, saying that the Lord has designed things in this manner to provide for the tranquility of the good and restraint for the waywardness of the sinner. Calvin then advises that since this is the only remedy by which mankind can be preserved from destruction, we should certainly take notice so that we do not end up being public enemies of the human race. In fact, Calvin says that whenever a believer begins to dislike the magistrate it may be because he or she may be up to some mischief. Calvin goes on to encourage everyone to continue honoring the good God has shared with us through government but be careful not to contaminate it with any manipulative motives we may have. That’s why Paul teaches us the purpose for which magistrates are instituted by the Lord. We should not, therefore, do anything contrary so that so noble an institution becomes marred because of our noncooperation. At the same time, princes who may be prone to abusing their power by harassing the good and innocent, must not become so tyrannical that they totally eliminate anything that does not some respects assist in keeping law and order in society.¹³

As Charles Hodge sees it, verse 3 is not to be connected with the verse 2 but with the verse 1, because it assigns an additional reason for the duty listed there. Magistrates are to be obeyed, for such is the will of God that they are appointed to repress evil and promote good. There is a good reason then, that the very nature of their office should keep us from resisting them. That is, government is not an evil to be feared, except by evildoers. Since magistrates are appointed for the punishment of wrongdoing, the way to avoid being the target of their authority is not to resist it, but to do that which is good. Paul is speaking of the legitimate design of government, not of the abuse of power by wicked rulers.¹⁴

Verse 4: For those in authority are God’s servants to help you. But if you do wrong, you have reason to be afraid. For they have the power to punish, and they will use it. For they are God’s servants to take revenge on those who commit a crime.

Now Paul goes even further to state that God may use people in authority to punish those who do wrong and violate His statutes. In fact, the queen of Sheba told Solomon: “Because of Adonai’s eternal love for Isra’el, He has made you king, to administer judgment and justice fairly.”¹⁵ And King of Judah Jehoshaphat had this message for his justices: “Think about what you are doing: you are not dispensing justice by merely human standards but on behalf of Adonai; He is with you when you deliver a verdict.”¹⁶ And Lemuel, king of Massa, was told by his mother: “Speak up for those who can’t speak for themselves, for the rights of all who need an advocate. Speak up, judge righteously, defend the cause of the poor and the needy.”¹⁷ We certainly see some of this today in our own judicial and penal system.

As early church scholars continued to digest what Paul is saying here about a Christian’s responsibility to live in accordance with the Laws of the land and respect authority, they give their responses. Ambrosiaster likens these secular rulers as tutors for believers. As Ambrosiaster sees it, since God ordained that there will be a future judgment and He does not want anyone to perish, that’s why He ordained rulers in this world who, by causing people to be afraid of them, act as tutors to mankind, teaching them what to do in order to avoid future punishment.¹⁸ And Chrysostom believes that learning to live under civil rule makes virtue easier for the Christian by seeing lawbreakers punished for disobedience and seeing the law-abiding rewarded because they do what is right, thereby working together with the will of God. For this reason magistrates are called God’s servants, even when they administer punishment, for it is God’s will they are carrying out.¹⁹

Then Augustine believes that Paul is advocating that the person placed in authority is God’s servant for the believer’s good, although his intentions may be grievous.²⁰ And Constantius echoes the same thought. He too accepts the idea that the appointed ruler is God’s servant for the believer’s good. Paul shows that we must obey the authorities in those things which are right but not in things which are unlawful or which go against our faith.²¹ And Pelagius writes that authorities are concerned for your safety. They also have the responsibility to see to it that if you break the law you do not profit from it because God does not love the ungodly and despises all who plan evil deeds²².²³

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER THIRTEEN (Lesson IV)

Charles Ellicott explains his understanding of who the authorities are that Paul is speaking of. For him, Paul is evidently speaking of the magistracy in its abstract or ideal form. It is the position called magistrate.¹ He is not distinguishing between a just or unjust magistrate. In this sense, not only is the human system of society a part of the divinely-appointed order of things on earth, but it mirrors the divine attributes of God as our King, inasmuch as it is designed to reward virtue and to punish vice. It discharges the same functions that God Himself discharges, though in a lower scale and degree. In other words, the system of civil society is one of the chief and most conspicuous instruments by which God carries out His own moral government of mankind in this present existence. It may be said to be more distinctly and peculiarly derived from Him than other parts of the order of nature, inasmuch as it is the channel used to convey His moral approval or disapproval.²

Bible scholar F. F. Bruce also has some enlightening things to say. First, he notes that some scholars have raised the question of whether the “governing authorities” here are angelic powers, or human powers, or both? The general Biblical view is that secular power is influenced by “the host of heaven, in heaven” as well as by “the kings of the earth, on the earth.”³ It is true, moreover, that the plural of the Greek noun exousia (“authority”) is freely used by Paul to denote angelic powers.⁴ We may compare what he says about “the rulers (Greek noun archōn) of this age”⁵ who were responsible for crucifying “the Lord of glory.” So it appears that Paul has more than human agents in view. Yet in the present context the “authorities” are best understood as human rulers, who implement “the sword” for the punishment of wickedness and the protection of the good, who, therefore, have the right to command and receive obedience, and who are to be paid appropriate taxes and other dues, together with fitting respect and honor.

Bruce mentions that Paul’s references elsewhere to angelic powers are very far from suggesting that Christians should be subject to them in any sense. On the contrary, Christians are liberated from their jurisdiction through their union with Christ, for He is the creator and head of all those powers,⁶ and their conqueror when they set themselves in hostility to Him and His people.⁷ There is no contradiction between Paul’s principle and the argument where Christians are persuaded not sue or prosecute one another in secular Law-courts.⁸ Recognition of the civil authorities makes no difference to the fact that it is unbecoming for Christians to wash their dirty linen in public. And while civil magistrates or judges are divinely ordained, that ordination carries with it no status in the church: they are “men who count for nothing in our community of believers.⁹”¹⁰

John Stott puts what Paul says here into this context: He notes that in Romans 12 Paul has developed our four basic Christian relationships, namely to God (1–2), to ourselves (3–8), to one another (9–16) and to our enemies (17–21). In Romans 13 he develops three more – to the state (conscientious citizenship, 1–7), to the Law (loving our neighbor as its fulfillment, 8–10), and to the day of the Lord’s return (living in the “already” and the “yet to be,” 11–14).¹¹

One Jewish scholar gives us the view held by the Jewish believers in Rome at this time. He tells us that the citizens in Rome needed no reminder about their duties to the Roman government. If Paul was putting out a Jewish citizen’s notice he would not identify the government of Rome as being “ordained of God.” At the time of this writing, Nero was Emperor. He was evil and not “of God.” But from the Jewish point of view, Synagogue government was “ordained by God” to interpret righteousness for the people, for praise of those who did good, and discipline of those who did not. (Recall Yeshua’s comments in Matthew about the people obeying the religious leaders who “sat in Moses’ seat” of authority.)¹² The early Messianic community viewed the secular government as empowered by Satan, not God.¹³ The first-century Messianic view was that evil pagan governments would come to an end and thus not to be worthy of support. Paul himself speaks of such unrighteous secular authority¹⁴.¹⁵ So it must be understood that Paul was speaking of government as a “form of governing,” but not a specific form such as a Monarchy, Republic, Democracy, or Dictatorship.

Verse 2: So anyone who is against those in authority are really against something God has instituted. People who are against those in authority bring punishment on themselves.

But Paul has more to say on why it is so important for Christians to acknowledge their responsibility to be compliant to governmental authority. Since God ordained them to be leaders, if they resist their authority in enforcing the Laws is to resist God’s will and purpose. God’s message to His people through the prophet Isaiah says of them: “They look for Me day by day, and are happy to know My ways, as a nation that has done what is right and good, and has not turned away from the Law of their God.”¹⁶

Early church scholar Origen says that this is not applicable to Persecutors of the Faith. For him, Paul’s bidding does not apply in the case of authorities who persecute the faith. It only applies to those who are going about their proper business.¹⁷ Then the Bishop of Cæsarea writes that true and perfect obedience of subjects to their superiors is shown not only by their refraining from every improper action in accordance with such a ruler’s advice but also by their not doing even what is approved without his consent.¹⁸ The Bishop of Tarsus then adds that even believers who disobey the king have committed a crime and should face judgment.¹⁹

Early church preacher Chrysostom accepts what Paul is saying as a way of combating any Christian’s reputation for being a rebellious citizen. Chrysostom believes that by Paul saying this, he was more likely to convince civil governors who were unbelievers to accept the Christian faith and to persuade believers to obey them. For it was commonly rumored in those days that the Apostles were guilty of plotting sedition and revolution, claiming that all they did and said was planned subversion of the established institutions of government. However, when we see that Christ’s command is that we should obey the authorities, all rumors of this kind are shown to be false.²⁰ And Ambrosiaster says that Christians should not try sidestepping the Law. Paul was against anyone who believed that because of their own power they cannot be apprehended and so, therefore, they can play fast and loose with the Law. He shows them that this is the Law of God and that those who by some deception escape it for a time, will not escape God’s judgment.²¹

Charles Hodge explains that this passage (verses 1-2) is applicable to people living under every form of government, monarchy, socialism, or democracy, in all their various modifications. Those who are in authority are to be obeyed within their sphere, no matter how or by whom they were appointed. It is the powers that be, the de facto government, that is to be regarded as, for the time being, ordained of God. It was to Paul a matter of little importance whether the Roman emperor was appointed by the Senate, the army, or the people; whether the assumption of the imperial authority by Caesar was just or unjust, or whether his successors had a legitimate claim to the throne or not. It was his object to lay down the simple principle, that magistrates are to be obeyed. The extent of this obedience is to be determined from the nature of the case. They are to be obeyed as magistrates, in the exercise of their lawful authority. When Paul commands wives to obey their husbands,²² they are required to obey them as husbands, not as masters, nor as kings; children are to obey their parents as parents, not as sovereigns; and so in every other case. This passage, therefore, affords a very slight foundation for the doctrine of passive obedience.²³ This is the very core of law and order, be it secular or sacred.

F. F. Bruce also addresses this subject of submission to civil authority. Bruce quotes Oscar Cullmann (1902-1990), a highly respected Lutheran theologian who stated that “‘Few sayings in the New Testament have suffered as much misuse as this one.”²⁴ He thinks especially of its misuse in justifying uncritical submission by dictators of totalitarian governments by Christians. But it is plain from the immediate context here in Romans, that the state can rightly command obedience only within the limits of the purposes for which it has been divinely instituted – in particular, the state not only may but must be resisted when it demands the allegiance due to God alone. ‘The obedience which any Christian owes to the State is never absolute but, at the most, partial and contingent. It follows that the Christian lives always in a tension between two competing forces, that is, under certain circumstances disobedience to the command of the State may not only be a right but also a duty. This has been classical doctrine ever since the Apostles declared that they ought to obey God rather than men²⁵.²⁶