Somehow it appears that the thought that Christians should not take pleasure in the killing of a fellow human being is controversial. Indeed, it seems that many Christians are eager to draw lines in the sand between “us” and “them,” between those of us who are “good” and those of them who are “evil.” This is an interesting thought in light of scripture which plainly teaches over and over again, though never more directly than in Romans 3:23, that we are all sinners. Were we to draw such a line in the sand between those of us who are “good” and those who are “evil” we would all be on the side marked “evil.” You and I would stand shoulder to shoulder with Adolph Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, Martin Luther King Jr., and Mother Teresa. We may fight amongst ourselves over who is more evil, but that fight cannot move us across the line into “good.”
Recently on my Facebook page and in other threads of discussion across the internet I have seen Romans 13:3-4 used as a proof that we Americans are the good guys doing the good thing and therefore we can dance in the streets, play our vuvuzelas, and chant “USA! USA! USA!” in triumph over the killing of Osama Bin Laden. I find this particular selection of scripture curious, but then I find any use of scripture to justify violence and killing curious. (That’s not to say that I disagree with the killing of Bin Laden necessarily, but more on that later.) So let’s take a look at the passage in context and see if it works the way its proponents want to use it. Romans 13:3-4 says:
“For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer.”
Taken on its own, it could almost be Toby Keith lyrics… which should be the first red flag that the context might be important. Let’s start by backing up a bit to what Paul said just seven verses before he wrote this. Take a look at Romans 12:17-21:
“Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ No, ‘if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
Right before the passage that is being used to say that America was the good guy in an act of vengeance, Paul says “never avenge yourselves.” And right before the passage being used to say that we are justified in placing a proverbial “boot in yer ass,” Paul says “do not repay anyone evil for evil.” I think we can safely say that Paul does not then, just two verses later, completely contradict himself.
So what is Paul saying? First, let’s remember to whom he is speaking. He is addressing the Christian community in Rome. At that time they were a subset of Judaism and generally regarded as the lowest members of society. It wouldn’t be too many years later before the emperor at the time, Nero, would look for a convenient scapegoat for a fire he was most likely responsible for setting, and he found the Christians. This set off the first major persecution whereby Christians were set ablaze in the Coliseum and tossed to the lions.
Which leads to the second point: Rome isn’t exactly a friend to Christians. So is Paul saying that Roman authority was a good thing? Not exactly. Chapter 13 is part of a larger discussion on how the Christian community is supposed to get along and thrive in the shadow of the empire. Paul’s instructions here are to help the Christians not attract any further undo attention to themselves so that their work spreading the gospel could continue. N.T. Wright says this about the passage, “Paul is anxious, precisely because he believes that Jesus is the true Lord of the world, that his followers should not pick unnecessary quarrels with the lesser lords. They are indeed a revolutionary community, but if they go for the normal type of violent revolution they will will just be playing the empire back at its own game. They will almost certainly lose, and, much worse, the gospel itself will lose with them.” Rather than advocate for anarchy and a might-makes-right world, Paul is saying here that order and governance of society are God-ordained.
But further than this, rather than merely isolate this passage to 13:3-4, (as must be done if it is to be twisted into some kind of defense of a triumphing strong-armed government), let’s also look at verses 1-2. They read:
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”
These verses obviously support what is said above about an ordered and governed society being God’s design. It does not, notably, say that particular governments are extensions of God’s authority. Rather it says that governmental authority is God’s institution. And more to the point, for anyone who might be tempted to think that this places government on a rather high pedestal, to a world in which government was universally some form of monarchical autocracy, the idea that government was subject to the authority of God would have been seen as a demotion. The Caesars following Caligula, (which included Claudius, under whom Paul’s ministry was active, and Nero, who was emperor at the time of this writing), were all worshiped as gods on Earth during their lives. To be told that they were under any authority would have been an affront, not a glorious promotion. We would be wise to read it the same way – not that our government is good and must take action to smite the evildoer, but that it is under authority and should act like it.
It is also worth noting that since Paul was speaking about a form of government that was autocratic and ours is democratic, we might expect some nuanced differences. I would argue that our government is even more accountable to the standards of authority and moral behavior since it is elected by us to be led by those among us. But that’s not the major thrust of the passage.
When taken as a whole, from earlier instructions about how to live a Christian life in the capitol of the empire beginning in chapter 12 through the first part of chapter 15, we can see that the isolated verses of 13:3-4 do not constitute any kind of blanket divine approval on the acts of government. Nor do they imply that acts of government in the name of justice are always good and are therefore to be celebrated. Truthfully, they do not speak to government at all but rather to the governed. And they fall right in line with the earlier instructions in chapter 12 to abstain from seeking vengeance and to bless our enemies.
But back to what I said earlier about this not necessarily meaning that I disagree with the killing of Bin Laden, I don’t know how I could possibly be any clearer. I believe that killing Bin Laden was the just and necessary thing to do. But ends do not justify means. Simply because the result of his death may be good if fewer people in the future die as a result of his words or actions, that does not make the act of killing him a good act. Killing is not a good act. Nor is his killing justice in the sense of vengeance since we as Christians are told time and again not to take vengeance. It is not Christian justice. But when allowing him to live would be a worse act, then the just thing to do is to kill him. This is a case of a choice between “bad” and “worse.” Just because we are forced to do “bad,” and it is better by comparison than “worse,” does not mean that we can call a “bad” act a “good” one any more than we could jump from our side of the line dividing “evil” and “good” from my example before. True, in this instance, as referenced in Romans, the government was God’s servant for our good. It did not do a good act, but the results will be for our good. But before we go marching up and down the streets celebrating that government, we should also remember the 100,000+ Iraqis, 8,000+ Afghani civilians, and 6,000+ American soldiers that died due to orders from that same government. Such a reality must prevent us from citing Romans 13:3-4 entirely out of context in order to paint the American government and its actions as wholly “good.”
Yes, the church should not a “boot in your ass” mentality, nor should Christians. We should grieve that bin Laden did not repent and is suffering justly the penalty of his sins. We should tremble that God is holy and just and but for the grace and mercy of God, there go we.
However, it is the purview of the state to bear the sword to execute justice, both to arrest and punish evil from within through courts of law and prisons and to arrest military and terroristic threats from without by the use of military force to thwart such evil.
Don’t confuse the two kingdoms here. The state is divinely licensed to bear the sword, the church is not. But it is “good” when the state does its job and punishes wickedness that is a grave threat to the safety and security of all.
Such is the case with the bin Laden raid. It was good. It was a gracious of God to, in his common grace, the special forces, the intelligence community, and an elected president who would authorize lethal force in the name of the people of the United States and for their protection.
This authority is ultimately divinely granted, and is good and beneficial for all.
I’m not at all confusing two kingdoms. You are correct in saying that it is the state’s responsibility to execute justice, but your proclamation of its work as “good” is puzzling. By what definition is the act of killing “good?” The results may be good in that we are safer, but that does not make the act of killing “good.” This is an important distinction. A Christian can never, ever, under any circumstances, proclaim that the act of taking a life is “good” regardless of the results that follow.
As I’ve said many times, this is not to say that the taking of a life is not sometimes necessary, but “necessary” does not equate to “good.” Sometimes “bad” is necessary to prevent “worse,” but we cannot call it “good” simply because it is better by comparison. That line of thinking will lead us to proclaim that the government of the United States is “good” when it is plainly obvious that it is not. That does not make our government “evil” either. But we must recognize that the divine institution is “ordered government,” not “the government of the United States of America.” Our government is capable of actions that are both good and evil for a multitude of reasons.
Means do not justify ends. According to our government, everything that we’ve done in the so-called “war on terror” has been in response to 9/11. That includes our actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, many of them civilians. We cannot allow ourselves to believe that everything that we’ve done over the past decade is “good” simply because we finally killed Bin Laden.
It’s “good” but tragic at the same time. Tragic because in a fallen world we must have police, courts, and militaries to restrain evil. Good in the sense that God has ordained and blessed with divine authority the use of civil government to restrain evil.
And also because Paul, writing under divine inspiration by the Holy Spirit says it is good:
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. [Rom. 13:3-5]
In some sense, it was God executing his wrath on bin Laden through the divinely appointed agency of the state. True, God’s wrath is not through with bin Laden, nor with anyone else justly executed by the sword borne by the state. But that doesn’t erase the goodness of the act.
To say that government justly exercising its proper authority to restrain evil is not good is to insult what God has ordained.
True, the ultimate good and ultimate justice of Christ’s kingdom hasn’t come yet. And that’s an ultimate justice and ultimate peace I long for and suspect you do as well. But that will be an infinitely more terrible and horrendous day for all outside of Christ.
I don’t rejoice in the damnation of anyone. It is a terrible thing. But I do rejoice that God is perfectly holy, perfectly just, perfectly loving, and perfectly merciful, and that all those attributes meet in Christ on the cross, bearing the curse of sin and death for all who are in Him.
So let’s agree to pray for the souls of Islamists everywhere, to pray for their conversion, that they escape the eternal wrath that is to come. But if and when they face temporal justice, let’s not pretend it’s not objectively speaking a good thing, a God-ordained thing, for the state to wield its sword in service of justice.
Thanks for that. I have been talking to my sons for the last couple of days (I live in Winchester, VA where I was sure they’d be getting a lot of the “USA rocks! Sucks to you, Osama!” crap at school.) I’ve told them “As followers of Jesus, we don’t rejoice in anyone’s death.” I hope this sinks in. I’m not a fan of the “America first” brand of Christianity that our nation seems to breed. I’m going to have them read this post.
Ken, I’m going to have to disagree with your interpretation of that passage in Romans. While I think we agree on some points here, if you’ll read that passage carefully, you’ll note that nowhere does Paul say that the actions of the state are good in and of themselves. The results of the actions may be for our good, but that does not make their actions good.
You were quite right when you said that it was tragic. Something may be both tragic and necessary for justice, but that does not make the act good. Good may come of it, but Christians cannot call the killing of another human being “good.”
I think the passage is pretty clear that a civil government acting in such a way to punish wrongdoers is exacting God’s wrath upon them. That doesn’t mean government is purely good and it certainly doesn’t mean government isn’t staffed with sinners. Neither is the church. My point is that God has deemed it good and right to vest power in the state for the punishment of evil, for the execution of temporal justice, and this is good and fitting. It is right.
As for finding true, pure goodness in the death of anyone, I can agree with one important exception: I think the central conceit of our faith is we rejoice in the death and triumphant resurrection of our Lord.
His death in our place has brought us life, and He was perfectly innocent of any sin and also of any actual legitimate grievance against the Roman state (and indeed against Jewish religious authorities as He wasn’t blaspheming by virtue of truly being God).
The death of Christ is good because by it Jesus took our place and bore the wrath of God we deserve. It is good because it didn’t end there and God raised Him from the dead. It is good because it is the basis for worship around the throne of God.
Unfortunately bin Laden never repented and accepted this grace available to him, so far as we know. Maybe at the last moments of his life he did. Anything is possible with God. But it’s safe to say he was a vessel of destruction and will glorify God by being the recipient of God’s holy wrath against his sin.
Praise God that in Christ we are made vessels of mercy by grace alone!
Heather, I’m pleased to contribute something useful to the discussion. I’m not a fan of nationalistic Christianity either, and I pray for your success with your sons!