Ep 261: The Christology of Romans and Romans 13

In this episode I explore the Christology of Romans and explain how it must condition our reading of Romans 13:1-7. I discuss how many interpreters correctly read Romans 13 within the context of Romans 12 but fail to account for the wider context of Romans, Paul’s other letters, or his historical context. I argue that the high Christology of Romans, in which Paul unequivocally proclaims Jesus as the promised Davidic Messiah who, by virtue of his death, resurrection, and ascension, currently rules over all creation, must condition our reading of Romans 13. I examine five passages, including Romans 1:1-5, 15:7-12, 16:25-27, 8:31-34, and 10:9, in which Paul makes sweeping claims about the universal, objective, and historical lordship of Jesus, and how his gospel results in faithfulness and obedience to him as king. There is no legitimate reading or Romans 13 that does not account for that high, royal Christology and I offer a reflection on how it helps us to better contextualize Romans 13. 

Media Referenced:

Government as God’s Servant: https://libertarianchristians.com/episode/ep-243-government-is-gods-servant-romans-13-isaiah-10-and-jeremiah-25/

Revisiting Romans 13: https://libertarianchristians.com/episode/ep-210-revisiting-romans-13/

1 Cor. 2:6-8: https://libertarianchristians.com/episode/ep-257-the-rulers-of-this-age-are-passing-away-1-corinthians-26-8/

Ascension in Ephesians: https://libertarianchristians.com/episode/ep-248-far-above-all-rule-and-authority-ephesians-115-23/

Matthew Bates: https://libertarianchristians.com/episode/the-gospel-and-allegiance-to-king-jesus-with-matthew-bates/

Teresa Morgan: https://libertarianchristians.com/episode/ep-164-atonement-trust-and-reconciliation-with-teresa-morgan/

The Protestant Libertarian Podcast is a project of the Libertarian Christian Institute and a part of the Christians For Liberty Network. The Libertarian Christian Institute can be found at www.libertarianchristians.com.

Questions, comments, suggestions? Please reach out to me at theprotestantlibertarian@gmail.com.  You can also follow the podcast on Twitter: @prolibertypod, and YouTube, @ProLibertyPod, where you will get shorts and other exclusive video content. For more about the show, you can go to theprotestantlibertarianpodcast.com. If you like the show and want to support it, you can! Go to libertarianchristians.com, where you can donate to LCI and buy The Protestant Libertarian Podcast Merch! Also, please consider giving me a star rating and leaving me a review, it really helps expand the show’s profile! Thanks!

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

This is the Protestant Libertarian Podcast, a project of the Libertarian Christian Institute and part of the Christians for Liberty Network. I really hope that you guys enjoy today's show. All right, guys, welcome to another episode of the Protestant Libertarian Podcast. I am a little sunburned. It is the spring and the sun has come out. And since I'm a ginger, despite the fact that there is more gray in my hair on a daily basis, I do still burn really easy. So I'm sorry for the sunburn if you're watching on YouTube. But for everyone else, you just get to hear my voice, which has not been affected by the change in the weather, except that apparently I have something in my throat. But whatever, we're good. We're off to a great start today. Um, so we're going to be talking about Romans today. And in particular, we're going to be talking about the Christology of Romans and how, of course, this is a Libertarian Christian Institute podcast, after all, that relates to Romans 13. And so I have some thoughts on that that I would like to share that came up in the research for my book. And I think that it would be very helpful to talk about this today. I want to start off by discussing a recent podcast that I listened to. It's a podcast that I listen to on a semi-regular basis, and they have different biblical scholars and theologians and pastors come on the show and talk about various biblical issues, usually related to a book that they have written or something along those lines. And, you know, like most biblical studies podcasts, the hosts are oftentimes reflexively left-leaning, even though they might not acknowledge that. And there was one point where they were having this conversation in the show, and it turned to Romans 13. And the interviewer was congratulating the author who was on the show for reading Romans 13 in the context of Romans 12. Now, granted, this is after they had spent 20 or 30 minutes talking about how capitalism leads to racism. And if we want to end racism, then we have to challenge capitalist assumptions. You know, the typical kind of left-wing, um, just reflexive response to free market economics, right? Uh, and it's unfortunate because a lot of people that are in this world are very, very intelligent, but they have just never studied any of these issues before. So they don't really understand how these political and economic concepts work. So I can't even really be upset with them. And they are very intelligent people, and they made some points that I agree with, but I just I hate the, you know, capitalism is racism when you can't even define capitalism, or in my opinion, really even define racism that well. But, anyways, they the conversation turned to Romans chapter 13 because the book obviously dealt with political issues. And as I said before, she congratulated her guest for interpreting Romans 13 within the context of Romans 12. And she made the point that her doctoral supervisor or someone who had taught her would be proud of him for interpreting Romans 13 in light of Romans 12. Now, she's right about that. We do have to interpret Romans 13, 1 through 7, in light of what Paul says in Romans 12. But for a lot of people, that's where the context of Paul's statement in Romans 13 ends. Read it in the context of Romans 12, and that's good enough. And I'm going to suggest that anyone who wants to take Romans 13 seriously needs to go much, much further than simply Romans 12. Not that Romans 12 doesn't matter, it very much does, and I'm sure I'll record an episode on that one day where we break down how Romans 12 impacts our interpretation of Romans 13, but it is way bigger than simply this one uh chapter before Romans 13. And in fact, in my book, it's when I get to the part of my book where I interpret the New Testament, which is the majority of my book, it's like 400 pages of the book is dedicated to New Hundred or to New Testament interpretation. I go in canonical order with the exception of Romans. For Paul, I start in 1 Corinthians, I work through all of his letters to Philemon, and then I have an entire independent chapter on Romans because I wanted to make sure that I set Romans 13 in the context of the rest of Paul's letters and thinking. And then even in my chapter on Romans, it's about 40 pages long, I don't get to Romans 13 until like page 25 or 26, because I want to make sure that I set Romans 13 within the wider context of Romans. What is it that Paul is trying to do throughout the letter? And then also what is Paul doing in his immediate rhetorical context? So we do talk about Romans 12, which you absolutely have to do, and they were right to bring that up. But the context within which we must understand Romans 13 is so much wider than simply trying to read it within the context of a handful of passages that surround it. And I want to make that point over and over and over and over and over again until everyone gets it. We can't understand Romans 13 unless we set it within the larger context of Paul's cultural background, social background, political background, historical context, like all of these things come into play when we are interpreting Romans 13. And not only that, we have to incorporate what Paul has said in his other letters and how Paul thinks about issues that are unrelated directly to politics, unrelated directly to government, because without Paul, without trying to understand Paul as a holistic thinker, we're never going to be able to understand what Paul says in Romans 12. And one of or in Romans 13, rather, and one of the points that I've made on this show, like repeatedly, and I will put a link to some several of the episodes that I've released on specific biblical passages in Paul over the last couple months, is that Paul really does believe that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah, that for Paul, this is one of his foundational pillars of thought. He is a first century Jew after all. He had messianic expectations. He was waiting for the kingdom of God, or he was awaiting the kingdom of God. He was hoping for the restoration of Israel. And he believes very, very clearly that all of that has happened in and through Jesus. Just a couple of weeks ago, I did an episode on 1 Corinthians 2, 6 through 8, where Paul says the rulers of this age are passing away. And one of the points that I made is if you look at 1 Corinthians chapter 1, Paul repeatedly refers to Jesus as the Lord Jesus Christ. And for Paul, this is an objective, historical messianic category that Paul really sincerely truly believes that Jesus is the long-promised son of David. In 2 Samuel 7 in the Old Testament, God promised David that one of his descendants would establish a kingdom and that that kingdom would last forever. And Paul believes, as a Jew, that that promise has been fulfilled in Jesus. And we cannot read Romans 13 outside of that context. And in fact, what's really interesting and often overlooked in conversations about Romans 13 is the very high Christology that Paul has in Romans itself, right? So this isn't just something we're getting from Philippians or Ephesians or Colossians, clearly places where Paul uh explicates his high Christology. I would add 1 Corinthians to that, although it's not an it's not a primary issue that Paul addresses. It's the subtext for a lot of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians, but it's very clear from Paul's other letters that he believes Jesus is the Messiah. And he says this repeatedly in Romans at very strategic points in his letter. And that is often left out of this conversation. And so I want to go through that today. How does the Christology of Paul's letter to Rome impact the way that we read Romans 13? Because I think that it absolutely must. Now, before we get into that, I do have a slideshow today, another one of my black and white specials that I'm going to read through. But it does, maybe it helps if you're watching on YouTube. It's nice to have the text in front of you while I read through them. I think that's probably beneficial, at least for some people. But we need to understand what Paul is trying to do in Romans. And fortunately for Paul, in Romans chapter 1 and Romans chapter 15, he makes his intentions known. Paul has never been to the church in Rome before. So he is making contact with the church in Rome, trying to establish a relationship with them. Since the majority of Romans deals with the issue of the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the church, there's a very good possibility that that is at least a potential issue that Paul is worried might break out in the Roman church that could be actually affecting them in the present, which is why Paul writes Romans, or maybe he's just worried that the Jews and the Gentiles and the church at Rome may not get along in the future. And he wants to avoid a Galatians or an Ephesians type situation. And so he writes Romans for that. Paul also wants to journey to the Western Mediterranean. He has a goal, which he outlines in Romans 15 of eventually going to Spain. And he hopes to use Rome as a kind of a base of operations for his Spanish mission. He's going to travel to the Western Mediterranean. He is going to use Rome as like his way station. So he wants to introduce himself to the believers that are at Rome. And then another part or aspect of this letter that Paul discusses is that he is traveling around the Mediterranean, working on a collection for the Christians in Jerusalem that are suffering through a severe famine and are in extreme poverty. And so Paul hopes that he can get the Roman Christians in on this collection for the believers in Jerusalem. So Paul is doing all of these things with Romans. And since it's kind of an introductory letter, Paul is able to lay out to a larger extent than he does in his other letters some of the major aspects of his theological thinking, at least as it relates to the issue of Jews and Gentiles, which really does dominate the entirety of Paul's letter to the Romans. If there is something that Romans is about more than anything else, it is about how Jews and Gentiles ought to relate to one another. And we can't abstract any theology from Romans without setting it within the parameters of that context. And there are several interpreters that make the point, and I think very rightly so, that there are a lot of elements of Pauline thought that are very important to Pauline thought that aren't actually found in Romans. And I think we need to take that into consideration. Within traditional Protestantism, we've almost kind of made Romans a part of a canon within a canon. And I understand that for Martin Luther, his reading of Romans 1, 16 through 17 triggered the Reformation. And my my own uh my own man, my main man, John Wesley, he was very much impacted and uh you know, motivated to go and serve God in a greater capacity by reading Luther's commentary on Romans 1, right? So Romans is obviously very important, and a lot of Protestant debates circle around what Paul says at certain in certain places in Romans, and really pretty much everything in Romans is hotly contested. But at the end of the day, these are the issues that Paul is actually trying to deal with historically, and we can't try to extrapolate any sort of timeless theological principles from Romans, including a timeless theological principle of government from Romans 13, 1 through 7, without setting it with without setting it in the context of the objectives that Paul has for writing this letter. There is a function for Romans, and everything that Paul says in Romans is intentionally working to address Paul's function. It's like intentionally contributing to his function and his Christology is one aspect of that. Now, again, Paul is talking about broadly the relationship between Jews and Gentiles, and so Paul has to, within that framework, appeal to the Jewish Messiah, Jesus, who is the reason why, the mechanism by which Gentiles are able to be grafted into the family of Abraham, as Paul says in Romans 11. And this is really the big point of Romans 3 and 4, that you know, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, but are justified freely as a gift through the redemption, which is in Christ Jesus. That's Romans 3, 23, and 24. And then all of Romans 4, Paul talks about how Gentiles are now a part of the family of Abraham, that Gentiles have been brought in through the sacrifice made by Christ. Those that have faith in Christ, faith in the Messiah, are those that are a part of Abraham's family. And there are three places in Romans very strategically where contributing to Paul's overall goal in Romans, Paul alludes to, well, not just alludes to, Paul explicates this extremely high Christology. So got my slideshow up here if you're watching on YouTube. We're going to look at these three passages and how they fit into Paul's logic. And again, keeping in mind as I'm reading through this that Romans 13 cannot be understood without reference to Paul's Christological affirmations in Romans. In other words, what Paul says in Romans 13 cannot contradict what he says about the messianic lordship of Jesus in other places in the letter to the Romans. So let's take a look at this. The very first one is in the first five verses of Romans. So this is Romans 1, 1 through 5, where Paul explains the content of his gospel. Now, this is going to be a point where they I might lose some reformed listeners, but I prayed, or I pray and I do, I pray. I hope that you'll stick with me even though you might not agree. But I think that there are a lot of people, particularly in the Reformed tradition, that have confused justification by faith with the gospel. The reality is, and this is what Paul says in Romans 1, 16 through 17, justification by faith and salvation are both results of the gospel. In other words, Paul proclaims the gospel. People believe in Paul's gospel, and because of that, they are justified and then saved. So justification and salvation are consequences of the proclamation of the gospel, but they are not the gospel itself. The gospel itself is a message about Jesus. And before I even read the first five verses of Romans, where Paul explicitly says what the content of his gospel is, if you look at Romans 1 9, this is what Paul says for God, whom I serve in my spirit and the preaching of the gospel of his son is my witness as to how unceasingly I mention make mention of you. So again, Paul says here in Romans 1 9 that his gospel is the gospel of God's Son, Jesus. It's not the gospel that explains justification by faith or the gospel that explains the mechanics of salvation. Those things are a very important intrinsic result of the gospel. And I do not want to deny that. I don't want to deny the importance of justification or salvation for Christian theology. But if we are going to be accurate and try to think Paul's thoughts after him, we cannot conflate the gospel with either justification by faith or salvation, because both of those are the consequences of the gospel being proclaimed. Like Paul says, going back to Romans 1, 16 and 17, for I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to all who have faith, right? So God saves people when they put their faith in the gospel. And justification plays a very important role in that process. But even for Paul, justification and sanctification are still two separate concepts. And neither of them are the gospel. The gospel is about Jesus, the Messiah, but the preaching of the gospel results in faith, which results in justification and then salvation. So that's how all of those hold together. And so again, if you're reformed and you're not with me on that right now, you're like, I think he's he's he's off on that. Please listen to what I'm gonna say about the Christology. You don't have to agree with me on those distinctions, but I do think it's important, especially if we are trying to analyze Romans 13 in the context of Paul's letter to the Romans. So here's what Paul says in Romans 1, 1 through 5. He does not know most of the people at Rome. You read Romans 16, he knows some of them, but he's never been to Rome himself, and he's introducing himself, and so he's introducing the core of his message. So this is at the heart of what Paul proclaims about Jesus. And this is what he says right off the bat in his longest letter. Paul, a bondservant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures concerning his son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who is declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of Holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for his name's sake. So notice that in this passage, right at the beginning, he calls, Paul says in the first verse, he calls Jesus Christ Jesus, Messiah Jesus. Remember that Christos is not a dead term for Paul, it means anointed one. And it in this context, it means the Messiah. And then even the term gospel itself comes from Isaiah. The word gospel, you get Ewangelion, is a term that denotes in Isaiah the restoration of Israel, God's long-promised return to redeem and restore his people. And he says in verse two that Jesus Christ and the gospel of God were promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures. These are not just a handful of proof texts that Paul is going to appeal to as a justification for his theology, but the entire narrative arc of the Jewish scriptures points towards Jesus. And then in verse three, it concerns his son. This is Psalm 2, language of sonship in 2 Samuel 7, 12 and 13, I think. Um, this is the language of sonship, which has to do with the status of the king, Jesus' status as a king. If you look at Psalm 2, the Son of God in Psalm 2 is a messianic kingly figure who rules over creation on God's behalf. And in case you're wondering whether or not that is historically correct, what does Paul say in the very next clause? Who is born a descendant of David according to the flesh? Remember God's promises to David in the Old Testament, they're all over the prophets. 2 Samuel 7 is the key text here for this. A descendant of David will one day rule over all of creation and he will establish an everlasting kingdom. Paul is saying that has happened through Jesus. He's declared the Son of God. There's that sonship language by the power of the resurrection of the dead. The resurrection has begun. There's eschatology, there's fulfillment, there's the end, the completion of the Old Testament story, according to the spirit of holiness, and then Jesus Christ our Lord, clearly denoting Jesus' messianic lordship. So right out of the bat, right out of the bat, right out of the gate, right off the bat, don't want to mix my metaphors here, Paul is unambiguously saying that Jesus is the long-promised Davidic Messiah who now rules over all creation. And Paul, as I've said on every single episode, Paul does not believe that this is a metaphor or a spiritual reality. He believes that this is an objective historical fact. And that as he was sitting down and dictating Romans to a scribe, Paul believed that Jesus was sitting at the right hand of the Father as Messiah ruling over all creation then. And there's no way that we can interpret Romans 13 without reference to Romans 1, 1 through 5, because this frames all of Paul's letter. Jesus is the long-promised Messiah, the fulfillment of Israel's scriptures, the Son of God, the Son of David. Full stop. Then what's crazy is that not only does Paul begin the body of his letter with this affirmation, he also ends the body of his letter in Romans 15 with another grand affirmation of Paul's like high Christology. So this is Romans 15, 5 through 12, as he's wrapping up his uh letter. Again, remembering that one of the primary motivations for writing Romans is to forestall any conflict between Jews and Gentiles. And so he's tying those themes together. And Paul says this starting in Romans 15, verses verse 5. Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus. There that is again, Christ Jesus, messianic, so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our, first Corinthians 1 again, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ. Not a dead metaphor, it refers to Jesus' messianic status. Verse 7, therefore accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God. For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision, the Jews, on behalf of the truth of God, to confirm the promises given to the fathers, and for the Gentiles to glorify God for his mercy, as it is written. There's Katina of Old Testament passages. Rejoice, O Gentiles, with this people. Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and let all the peoples rejoice him. And here's the knockdown drag out. Romans 15, 12. Uh, this is a quotation of Isaiah 11:10. And again, Isaiah says, There shall come the root of Jesse, father of David, and he who arises to rule over the Gentiles, the Ethnase, the nations, in him the nations shall hope. So see what Paul is doing here. All right, going back to that this sounds very similar to Romans 1, 1 through 5, because Paul's making the exact same point. Uh, Paul is the confirmation of the promises that God gave to the fathers, and the Gentiles, the nations, glorify the God of Israel through Israel's Messiah, who now rules over all creation. Paul believes, Romans 15, 12, which is a quotation of Isaiah 11:10, that Jesus is the root of Jesse. He is the promised descendant of David who is ruling over all the nations, and that the Gentiles must only place their hope in him. And in fact, through Paul's proclamation of the gospel, the Gentiles are placing their hope in the Messiah. This is why the church at Rome is a mixed Jew and Gentile church. It's not just the ethnic descendants of Abraham. It's those, as Paul says in Romans 4, who have the same faith as Father Abraham. These are the children of Abraham. The Gentiles now worship Israel's God through the power of Israel's promised Messiah, who has come, passed through death, has been raised from the dead, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father by virtue of his ascension and session. And don't worry, we'll get to the ascension. And soon. Paul always presupposes that when he talks about the Christology of Jesus, but we'll get there. So Paul begins and ends the body of his letter with an affirmation of the universal lordship of Jesus Christ, that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah who rules over all creation. And again, going back to these left-wing podcasters who think that capitalism is racism without defining capitalism or racism adequately, I just want to ask them, okay, it's great that you've interpreted Romans 13 in the context of Romans chapter 12, but does your interpretation of Romans 13 include Romans 1 and Romans 15? And I'm going to say that for most American Christians, especially progressives and conservatives who believe in the power of the centralized authoritarian state, I'm going to go ahead and say that they don't actually believe that. And they haven't actually read Romans 13, 1 through 7 in the context of Paul's Christology. This isn't the last time that he makes a sweeping statement about Christology, though. Romans 16 is mostly greetings to the church in Rome. Again, that's how we know that there are some people in Rome who Paul is already friends with. So he greets several people in Rome. And at the very end of this, he offers a doxology. These are the closing lines of his letter to the Romans. And this is what he says. This is sorry, Romans 16, 25 through 27. Now to him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the scriptures of the prophet, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to the obedience of faith, to the only wise God through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen. So these are all of the themes that Paul discusses in Romans 1 and Romans 15. Jesus is the Christ, He's the Messiah, He's the revelation of the mystery, the manifestation of the promises made in the scriptures by the prophets, according to the commandment of the one eternal God. The nations have now become obedient to Israel's Messiah through Jesus Christ, the Messiah, who will have glory forever and ever. Amen. There is no greater statement of Christology in Romans outside of this passage and then Romans 1 and Romans 15, right? Paul is operating flying at full cylinder. This is what he absolutely wants. Oh, sorry about that. This is what he absolutely wants to communicate to his audience. So again, Jesus is the long-promised Messiah. And I can't say this enough. American Christians almost unanimously think this is a metaphor. Western Christians almost unanimously think that this is a metaphor. This is why we have progressive Christianity. This is why we have Christian nationalism. This is why we have Christian Christendom and Two Kingdoms theology. It's because the church lost sight of the fact that there is no other king except for Jesus, and there never can be another king except for Jesus. This is already a fiat accompli. This is a done deal. The promises have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who rules over all creation forever and ever. Amen. And Christians that do not accept that will never be able to understand Romans 13, which is why so many Americans fall into the conservative or the progressive camp. It just doesn't work biblically if you believe that the Bible is the ultimate source of authority as I do, because I'm a good Protestant. All right. Another clear, unambiguous statement from Paul that he believes in the ascension of Jesus. And this is just so great. I love this, all right? So Romans 8, 31 through 34, concluding the the it's it's really Romans 8 is kind of like a transitional passage. Uh Paul has a long sustained argument about the relationship between Jews and Gentiles and sin and justification and salvation and all of that that runs from Romans 1 through 8. And so Romans 8 is kind of like the culmination of that, but then it also prepares us for Paul's very intense and oftentimes misunderstood discussion about the incorporation of Israel into these promises in Romans 9 through 11. Uh so Romans 8 is transitional, but here's what here's what Romans says. Uh this is or what Paul says is Romans 8, 31 through 34. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, us being the united community of Jew and Gentile, the family of Abraham defined by faith in the Davidic Messiah, who is against us? He did not spare his own son, God didn't, but delivered him over for us all. How will he not also with him freely give us all things? So there's your substitutionary atonement right there. Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies, who is the one who condemns. There's ecclesiology. Christ Jesus is he who died. Yes, rather, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. So again, again, again, again, we have another bold statement of the ascension. And notice for Paul in Western theology, we love separating out these different theological categories: justification, salvation, Christology, ecclesiology, eschatology, ascension. And all of these are rushing together in Paul's mind right here. And what's at the center of all of this, it's not us and our individual salvation, as important as that is. What's at the center of this entire narrative worldview is the Messiah, the son of David, who was crucified, raised from the dead by the power of God, and now sits at God's right hand, ruling over all creation, with us, those who believe in him, those who put our faith in him, as the ones who are a part of his kingdom, who are a part of his family. And then Romans 10, 9. This is kind of like the climax of Romans 9 through 11. If you read it, it's like a giant kiasm. Paul begins with the question of, you know, why is it that so many Israelites seem to be, so many ethnic Israelites seem to be abandoning the message of Jesus and then ends with this crazy affirmation that in the end all Israel will be saved. And there's a lot that goes on in that. But but a large part of what Paul is working towards in Romans 9 through 11 is the identity of the church. How can you tell if someone is a part of the family of God? All right. And this is really the climax of that. Romans 10, 9. He says that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. So I highlighted Jesus as Lord and I highlighted believe in, uh, and I highlighted believe in this passage because these are both two extremely important concepts and they're connected. So the confession that Jesus is Lord is intrinsic to our faith, right? This is what matters more than anything else. Like this is the foundation, not more than anything else, but this is foundational for the Christian confession. And what's really disappointing about Romans 10 9, it's not anything Paul says, this is brilliant, but the way that we've received it in the modern world, we talk all the time about how Jesus is Lord. There was that whole social media meme, you know, the Christ is king to make the Zionist mad, which I know I'm fine with making the Zionists mad, and I'm also fine with saying Christ is king. But when Paul says in Romans 10 9 that Jesus is Lord, he means that in the same way that he means it in Romans 1, in Romans 8, in Romans 15, and in Romans 16. He means that Jesus is the Lord, not a Lord that competes with Donald Trump or modern liberal democracy or the centralized authoritarian state or nationalism or globalism. None of that. Jesus is Lord over all of it, and everything else is irrelevant by comparison. That's what that's what Paul actually means. And that is the foundational Christian affirmation. Why so many of us have forgotten that, I have theories as to why, we're not going to get into that on the show today, but this is essential. And then Paul is going to say, and if you believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Now, the Greek term for belief, the noun is pistis or pistis, the verb is pisteo or pisteo. Um, you know, and I'm sorry, those of you guys that are really good at Greek, pistuo, pisto, that's it. Yes, pistes is the noun. Pistuo is the verb. There we go, man. All right, I'm sounding, I'm sounding better already. Um, and this is intrinsic to Paul's understanding of what is going on when people encounter the gospel. So I want to talk about a couple of these points here before we get into how this impacts our reading of Romans 13, which, oh, look, I have a slide for that. All right, so the first point that I want to make is that central to this idea of faith is obedience in Romans. And in fact, in every single passage that I quoted above, I guess not the Romans 15 one, but it's just a couple of verses down from what Paul says in Romans 15, 12, Paul explicitly links obedience to faith. So let me read you Romans 15, 18, which I didn't put up on the screen, but it says, For I will not presume to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me, resulting in the obedience of the Gentiles by word and deed. And so the Gentiles, they hear the gospel, and because they put their faith in the gospel, they obey God. Here's what Paul says at the very beginning of Romans. I'll read it again. This is Romans 1, 1 through 5. Paul says, Through whom we have received the apostles, grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for his name's sake. And then you go to Romans 16, 26. Um, here's what Paul says, but now is manifested and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandments of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith. So in all of the these contexts, in all three of these verses, the Gentiles who have put their faith in the Davidic Messiah, their piste in the Davidic Messiah, are now obedient to him through faith. Now, for Paul, obedience and faith are not the exact same context, but faith necessarily results in obedience. So being obedient to Jesus as King is a necessary corollary of this piece, of this faith. Now, we've talked about piece several times on the show before, and I have a very long section of my book about this term and how it functions in antiquity. And there has been a lot of great work done by scholars like Teresa Morgan and Matthew Bates on this issue. And I've had both of them on my show before. Nij Gupta is another one who has an excellent book called Paul and the Language of Faith, uh, or something along those lines. And I'll try to put links to those episodes that I did in the show notes so you can go back and listen to them, or you can hold out and buy my book, or maybe I'll just record an episode on this later on. But this has been very controversial for some reform thinkers, and I'm not really sure why. Um, well, actually, I am really sure why, because it does challenge certain confessional assumptions. Um, but basically, this term piece means something like faithfulness, right? Piste is uh an active uh verb. Like it's something that a piece is something that you do. It's not just a state of mind, it's something that you do. And so piece can be translated as fidelity or faithfulness or loyalty. These are all very appropriate ways of translating the Greek term piste or pistuo into the verb pistuo into English. And so sometimes in English translations, and the NASB alternates between faith and belief, um, and faith and belief are both, but they're both fine. Um, but really the best way to conceptualize pisteis is faithfulness. So it's not just a it's not just like an intellectual assent to a certain set of doctrinal propositions, right? Faith is not just something, piste is not just something that you do in your brain that has no bearing to the outside world. It's more like faithfulness. And we all would recognize anyone that's married would understand that there's a difference between believing that your wife exists, which is a prerequisite for marriage, right? Like you have to believe that your wife is a real person for you to marry that person, and then faithfulness, right? Where you're actively loving her, you're exclusive to her, you're loyal to her. And the Greek word piste is more related to the latter category, right? That it's it's more about the kind of this kind of ongoing loyalty to a person. You're faithful to them, not just believing that they exist. Now, that is a that is a prerequisite, and so that's built into the idea that, okay, if you're gonna be faithfully obedient to Jesus, you have to believe in the gospel first. So you do have there is like that cognitive aspect of piece that's going on, but it's a lot bigger than that. And for Paul, faith means faithfulness. And so this is intrinsically tied into obedience. So if you're gonna be faithful to Jesus the Messiah, then you are going to obey him and you're gonna obey him alone. And this ties into, of course, the gospel, which is the message about Jesus the Messiah. This is central to Paul's understanding of the gospel. Again, you can cross-reference what Paul says in Romans 1, 1 through 5 by going to 1 Corinthians 15, 1 through 5, or 2 Timothy 2, 8, where Paul makes the exact same point. At the heart or the center of Paul's gospel is the Messiah. When people put their faith or faithfulness in him, this necessarily results in obedience. And I really do believe that this is a part of the, this is a part of the historical way that we can square what is not really that much of a circle between what Paul says about justification by faith and what James says about justification by works in James chapter two. Now, the the the obvious and easy answer to that question, which I'm not sure why this eludes so many people, is that James is literally talking about good works, like he's talking about faithful obedience, whereas Paul is talking about the works of the Jewish law. So the context of those two conversations on the face of it are totally different. But then once you realize that faith is like faithfulness and faith does require active obedience, then really there's not that much of a discrepancy. So I don't see any disjunction between James II and what Paul says. This is more of a sidebar, but I think it's important. Now, Matthew Bates, and this has been very controversial to some in reform circles, but Matthew Bates has argued that at least in the context of passages like Romans chapter one, that faith should be translated as allegiance. Now, why does Matthew Bates think that faith should be translated as allegiance? Well, allegiance is an English term that denotes loyalty to a political leader, right? Allegiance has political resonances in English. And so if Paul is making the affirmation in his gospel that Jesus is king over all creation, and we are putting our faith in that gospel, which leads to faithfulness and obedience, well, then a really great English concept would be allegiance, because that that perfectly exemplifies both the political overtones of the gospel, that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah who currently rules over all creation, and then also that element of faithfulness to that person, that you are going to be loyal to him alone. And so Bates is Bates has argued that faith, at least in some context in Romans, could quite rightly be translated as allegiance. And I completely agree with that. And for anyone that's listening to this that might object to that assertion, all that I would say is that there are no words in English that perfectly capture the essence of words in any other language. There's always a semantic overlap between words in different languages, and then there are areas where words diverge, right? So there is no good term in English that adequately captures all of the various ways in which piste language is understood in Greek. So I think that Bates is being quite historically accurate by saying that at least within the context of Romans chapter one, faith could be translated, pistis could be translated as allegiance. And that would make perfect sense in English of the concept that Paul is getting at in Greek. Now, I know, again, for some people that really base their entire life on 16th century confessions, that scrambles a lot of the language. But again, if you are a Protestant and you believe in the authority of scripture and you want to understand Romans 13 in the context of Paul's wider thought and his rhetoric to Romans, rhetoric in Romans, and if you believe that the Christology of Romans has a bearing on how we understand the rest of Romans, then like we should be able to at least entertain this idea as a possibility. And we shouldn't be so committed to our creeds and confessions that are not even like the Nicene Creed or the Apostles' Creeds, the ones that I think we all agree on as Christians, but these later reformational creeds, that we can't even be open to trying to understand what Paul was saying, especially when Paul says, again, going back to Romans 10, 9, if you confess with confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and then peace these, believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. I think it's really important. Again, the major point of all of this is that Paul presupposes that Jesus is king. And if you go back, I'm I promise you, I'm not going to run through the litany of Old Testament texts again, but I will do some of them. It's Jeremiah 31 and 33, it's Ezekiel 34 through 37, it's Isaiah 9 through 11. Um, like if you look at the prophets, they all believed that when God made good on his promise to David from 2 Samuel 7 that one of his descendants would one day rule over all creation and have an everlasting kingdom. Paul really does believe, he really sincerely believes that that has happened in and through the work of Jesus, who is Israel's Messiah. Not a metaphor, not a spiritual reality, not something that happens in our heart or somewhere out there, but a real, objective, tangible reality. Jesus is currently sitting on the throne, ruling over all creation. So that is the Christology of Romans. And I am going to argue that yes, Romans 13 has to be interpreted within the context of Romans 12. That's a great starting point, but it's a terrible ending point because you're never going to be able to understand what Paul says unless you understand Paul's Christology. And that's something that is intrinsic to Paul's letter to Rome. So I'm going to, I'm going to throw up Romans 1 through uh Romans 13, 1 through 7. Read it real quick. And then I'm just going to pull this down. We're going to discuss what this means. I'm going to talk about Jeremiah 29, 7, which is important. And then we're going to go from there and get you out of here real soon. Oh, so I'm going to take a drink of water. All right, delicious. And here we go, Romans 13, 1 through 7. So I want you, as I'm reading through this passage, I want you to keep in mind everything that we've said about Paul's Christology, including faithfulness, obedience, and the gospel in Romans, right? So Paul, unambiguous, Jesus is king, Jesus is Lord over all. What do we do with that? So this is what Paul says Romans 13, 1 through 7. Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authorities oppose the ordinances of God, and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword for nothing, for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing, render to all what is due them, tax to whom tax is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. Now, in an episode I did a few weeks ago that I will certainly link in the show notes, let me bring this down here. There we go. That I will certainly link in the show notes. We already talked about what it means for the government to be the servants of God. And we took a look at Isaiah chapter 10 and Jeremiah 25, where the prophets talk about how the king of Assyria and the king of Babylon, the Assyrian and Babylonian empires, are God's servant because they execute God's judgment on Israel for being unfaithful to the covenant. But then what does God do as soon as he is done using them? He absolutely destroys them. And then when Paul says that governments are servants of God, he's tapping into this Old Testament theme that God is sovereign over the rulers of the earth and he will use them and abuse them to accomplish his purposes for redemption and creation. And the moment that a pagan leader is not needed anymore, God will overthrow that pagan leader for their wicked arrogance. And so even a statement such as the governing authorities are instituted by God, they're ordained by God, and that they're servants of God to execute his wrath. Well, if you read this in the context of the Old Testament, I swear that so many American Christians just don't understand the Old Testament, which is why they have a hard time like wrapping their head around what Paul is doing in passages like Romans 13. But if you look at this in its Old Testament context, it isn't saying anything other than God is already sovereign over all of them and they will all go to ruin one day. It doesn't compromise the unique lordship of God. It doesn't compromise his rule over all creation in any way. It's just a way of saying that we live in a sinful and broken world, and God will use sinful and broken political leaders to advance his purposes. That's all that Paul is doing there. And so if we take a look at what Paul says in Romans chapter 13 and think about this through the lens of Christology, is Paul really going back on what he says in Romans 1 and Romans 8 and Romans 15 and Romans 16 and then Romans 9, too, that Jesus is Lord? Of course he's not. This is the theological context within which we have to understand Romans chapter 13. This is not a somehow compromise of Jesus' messianic identity. Paul really does believe that Jesus is the Messiah who is ascended and who now rules over all creation, and that his ascended status is a non-negotiable, non transferable status. These rulers that have been ordained by God, these rulers are not on the same level as Jesus, and they have no eternal value. They are not going to last forever. And in fact, there's probably even for those of us who have read the Old Testament and read Romans 13 in light of the context of. Second temple Judaism, there's probably even a little bit of a hint in Romans chapter 13 that this is the ultimate fate. And in fact, that's exactly what I suggest in my earlier episode and in my book, too, that when Paul says that the governing authorities are God's servants, what he means is God is going to use them until they're no longer necessary, and then it's going to be a very bad day for them, which precisely is what we get in the book of Revelation, right? So when Paul writes Romans 13, he is not saying, ah, well, you know, Jesus is just the Lord of your heart, and we need pagan political authorities to rule over all creation down here forever. He's not making the move that Christian nationalists or progressive Christians make, where you have to have a centralized authoritarian state to impose subjective preferences on society. This isn't some sort of justification or validation for a two kingdoms theology that Christ rules in here and up there, but he doesn't rule down here. None of that is going on in the text. Paul is saying that Jesus is the Messiah. We have to deal with the reality of worldly powers, and this is the best way to do it. And in reality, I think that what contextual, if you want to pick a verse out of Romans chapter 12 that really contextualizes it, it's verse 18. And this is, if possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. That this is the goal of Christian discipleship. Just like Jesus witnessed to the reality of God's grace and God's mercy by willingly accepting death on a cross for the sake of a world that had rejected him. Christians are supposed to emulate that. And we're supposed to show the kind of king that Jesus is and the kind of kingdom that he has inaugurated through the way that we live, which means that we sometimes have to learn to get along with political leaders that we don't like and that we know are not going to be in existence forever. Paul is essentially in Romans 13 taking violent rebellion off of the table. And again, there's another prophetic Old Testament Jewish precedent for this, and this is Jeremiah 29:7, where the exiles of Judea are station in Babylon. And Jeremiah, God, through Jeremiah, encourages the exiles to seek the welfare of the Babylonian cities, to build homes, to get along, to have families, to get along with their neighbors. And then just a few verses later, um, Paul or uh Jeremiah talks about how these pagans are going to be undone. The Babylonian Empire will come to ruin, and Jeremiah 31 and 33, the Davidic Messiah will rule over all creation. And then you go to the very end of Jeremiah. And in Jeremiah 50 and 51, the prophet vividly describes the destruction of Babylon. So what is it? Do we seek the welfare of the city or do we pray for its destruction? And I would say both. And I would say that that is the historical context within which Paul would be thinking about Romans 13. Romans 13 is just the Jeremiah 29:7 of the New Testament. It is not a legitimation or affirmation of secular powers. And in the modern world where at least citizens nominally have the ability to exercise some sort of authority and control over their political leaders, I think it's perfectly appropriate for us as Christians to advocate for a government that is more or less non-existent. It's okay for us to say that we do not need arbitrary authority. We do not need coercive violence. We do not need politicians running or managing society on our behalf. We can leave all of that behind. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2, 6 through 8, the rulers of this world are passing away. And Paul is not abrogating that or qualifying it or compromising that in Romans 13, which is set in the larger Christological context of Christ's universal lordship over his people, which is the family of Abraham. The problem is we have to deal with evil pagan governments. And if we want to be at peace with all men, we have to submit and also acknowledge that sometimes these governments do what God asked them to do before being discarded by him for good because they have no enduring eternal value. And that's what's going on in Romans chapter 13 when you set it in the context of Paul's wider thought and more specifically his messianic Christology. We cannot read Romans 13 outside of the context of Paul's radically high Christology, this Christology that stipulates that Jesus is the Son of David, the one who was promised in the Old Testament, the fulfillment of the promises to Israel, and the one who, through his death, resurrection, and ascension now rules over all creation. And until he returns, Christians have to learn to get along with their neighbors by being at peace with all men. And that's the point. And that's how we can better understand Romans 13 in a Christological context. And this goes back to the heart of my critique of that podcast episode is that both of the people in that podcast were essentially saying that we need to give an authoritarian state control over the economy in order to bring about a more just and less racist society, and that Romans 13 shouldn't be an obstacle to achieving their political goals. And I'm going to say that Romans 13 shouldn't be a part of their equation at all, right? It's that's not even what's going on in Romans chapter 13. And we have to keep that in mind if we want to make good critical decisions about what Paul is saying in Romans. So we've been going for close to an hour, and I think that that is a great place for us to wrap up today. As always, thank you guys so much for listening to another episode of the Protestant Libertarian Podcast. I know based on the download numbers and the people that come to the Libertarian Christian Institute, that you guys never get enough commentary on Romans 13. So I'm happy to have another episode where we deal with another issue in Romans. And I got a lot more I want to say about that, about the political context of Romans. The next one I'll probably do is on the ecclesiology of Romans, which I think is just as important for understanding Romans 13. But we didn't obviously address that uh in detail on the show today because this was talking about Jesus as the Messiah and what Paul really believes and how that cannot be compromised or challenged or taken away by what Paul says in Romans 13, 1 through 7. So I hope you enjoyed this. As always, if you like the show, please go support me at YouTube. That is at Pro LibertyPod at YouTube. I need as much help as I can get. I'm finally recording in 1080 for the first time ever. Uh but I stuff is strike against my channel, and I need as much help building that up as possible. Again, I'm not trying to get rich and famous. I don't want to be a part of the influencer class. We're just trying to get these ideas out there to the world and maybe make the world a more peaceful place. Whatever we can do to help that, please. Uh it does make a big difference to go over, say some nice things about my channel, share it with people, and subscribe to the channel over on YouTube. Follow me on Twitter. That helps too, at Pro Liberty Pod. You can check me out there. Um, and please donate to the Libertarian Christian Institute. I feel like we do a lot of great work. Uh, you can go and do that at libertarian Christians.com slash shop uh by buying merch from our store, or you can just click the donate button on the top right of the home page and give us some money, whether you want to be an annual or an annual or a monthly donator, donor, donator, not donator, donor, or if you want to give a one-time donation, every little bit helps. Um, again, thank you guys so much for even listening to the show, downloading, tuning in. Please give me your reviews on iTunes or uh Spotify or wherever you get your podcast. Five stars and review if you think I I deserve it. That really helps. So I'm gonna stop rambling about the show. Thank you guys for everything you've done. I love all of you, and I will see you guys next Tuesday. Have a great day. Thank you for listening to another episode of the Protestant Libertarian Podcast. If you have any questions or comments, please reach out to me at theprotestantlibertarian at gmail.com. You can also find me on Twitter. You can follow me at the handle at Pro Liberty Pod. Again, that is at Pro Liberty Pod. And you can also visit me at the Protestant Libertarian Podcast.com. At the Protestant Libertarian Podcast.com, you can also support the Christians for Liberty Network and the Libertarian Christian Institute. Thank you guys so much for listening to this episode, and we will see you next Tuesday.