Romans 12-16

 Romans 12-16

From the Catacombs of Domtilla
3rd Century

 Today we’re talking about the last chapters of Romans, 12-16

Paul is wrapping things up here.

To be honest with you in this sermon, I’m mainly focusing on chapters

12 and 13, because I think that’s the most important part,

and I really think that the last three chapters are pretty easy to understand

with all the background we’ve covered.

 

Just a little refresher on the first 11 chapters of the letter:  

                                                                                                                                      

Romans was written from Paul to the church in Rome

that was part Jewish Christians, and part Gentile Christians.

 

Chapter 1-4

Paul said that belonging in Christ’s community was based on faith,

not on heritage or birthright, class or race.

 

Then, in Chapter 5-8

Paul says that this new family is freed from sin

to live like Jesus did and to change the world

and usher in the kingdom of God on earth.

 

Then in Chapter 9-11

Paul asks the question: what about the Israelites that don’t believe?

So has God rejected Isreal? By no means.

 

And now we’re here at the last four chapters.

Chapter 16 is greetings to all the people

who’ve helped him along the way,

so there’s really just three chapters.

I told people that these last chapters would be like a cake walk.

But I was just fooling myself.

Of course they aren’t. Paul doesn’t let us go so easily.

 

There’s a really problematic part in chapter 13

that’s been used and abused throughout the years.

And I really haven’t found a very satisfying explanation of it.

So I needed to deal with that today.

 

Before we get to it, here’s an outline of these last chapters:

 

12-13 how to live like a Christian                                                                                      

14 don’t pass judgement on your brothers and sisters.

Don’t judge people because of what they eat or don’t eat.

15 The gospel is for both Jews and gentiles

Paul outlines his plans for his ministry in Spain

Paul asks for money to further his mission

16 Greet everyone there.

Don’t give into those who want to create dissensions

Timothy says hi.

 

 

The end of Paul’s letter is really where the rubber meets the road.

This is where all the practical stuff is.

This is the meat of Paul’s plea to everyone:

Live a different life.

 

Remember, in chapters 5-8 Paul was telling this new family

that the way they lived would overcome the sin of the world,

this is why he was so intent on keeping this community together.

He believed that their actions would make a difference in the world.

These chapters are the basis of that difference.

How to live this new life in Christ.

 

Unfortunately, this message comes 12 chapters in.

I said, Most Lutherans stop at chapter 3

and the rest is so chock full of confusing stuff,

that we’re kind of worn down by the time we get to this important part.

Which is unfortunate.

There is actually a book called “Reading Romans Backwards”

which makes this point.

 

So, as I said, I’m focusing on chapters 12 and 13 right now.

 

How to live as a Christian life.

In these chapters, Paul is outlining a “lived theology of peace”

He talks about how to live with God, with our community,

with those outside our community, and how to interact with the government.

 

And that’s where we get to the problematic part.
Romans 13: 1-7 We’re going to jump to that right away.

 

13:1                                                                                                                                            

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.

 

It goes on.

² Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. ³ 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, ⁴ for it is God’s agent for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority^[a] does not bear the sword in vain! It is the agent of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. ⁵ Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. ⁶ For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s agents, busy with this very thing. ⁷ Pay to all what is due them: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

 

As we’ve seen before in this letter, this problematic partly for the way Paul says it,

and it’s also for the way it’s been used over the years.

This passage has been taken out of the context of the letter and used so often

to defend the actions of whoever is in power, (usually tyrants and dictators)

and to defend whatever ways they choose to wield that power.

And not only to defend their actions, but to tell everyone that those actions are ordained by God .

And to tell any Christian or anyone else, who is upset about it to just sit down and shut up.

 

It’s been used over and over again through the years.

·        It’s been used to try and stop the Americans for fighting for independence from Britan.

·        It’s been used to defend Slavery, which was the law of the land.

·        It was used to defend the Nazi government in Germany

·        It was used to defend segregation in America

·        It’s been used to defend Apartheid

·        It’s been used to justify brutal immigration laws and practices of our current administration,

like separating parents from children at the border.

·        It was just used to justify the killing of protestors Renee Good and Alex Petit by ICE in Minneapolis just last year.

 

It’s funny, people never seem to refer to this when the government is doing something

that’s actually helps people, only when they’re defending brutality and oppression.

 

So Is this what Paul meant? Was this Paul’s intent?                              

Did Paul mean that we should blindly follow the authorities?

Did Paul mean that governments are always right?
Did Paul mean that Christians are to follow the law now matter what?

Did Paul mean that obedience to the law is the same as obedience to God?

Did Paul mean that officials who carry out punishments are always justified?

 

I can say confidently, “of course not” to all those things.                          

But that’s what people who use this passage to defend the government

are trying to say.

 

People can’t possibly believe that Paul is defending all the actions of the state he’s living in.

It goes against everything Paul’s done and other things that Paul has written.

He does have to be careful with his words because it could

jeopardize himself, but more importantly, the church in Rome he’s talking to.

 

Remember, Paul is part of an oppressed minority writing to an oppressed

minority who are living in an Empire that was based on domination

and further oppressing oppressed people.

 

And we always have to remind everyone that Paul was arrested three times in the book of Acts,

and his last imprisonment reportedly ended up with him being beheaded by the government in Rome.

 

And, more importantly, Paul worshipped Jesus

who was arrested by the religious and Roman authorities

and put to death on a cross by those authorities.

 

Paul and all Jesus followers knew that the authorities were not always right

just because they have risen to the status of authority.

 

Remember context is everything and quoting this outside of the context Paul is in

and outside the church’s situation in the context of the Roman Empire is not true to the intent.

And also quoting Romans 13 outside of Romans 12 is not genuine to its meaning either.

 

Remember I said, Romans 12 and 13 Paul is outlining

a lived theology of Christian peace

which he believes will usher in God’s kingdom on earth.

 

So let’s go back to Chapter 12, It’s starts:

 

12:1-2                                                                                                                                         

I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, on the basis of God’s mercy, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your reasonable act of worship. ² Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of the mind, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect.

 

Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of the mind. Christians do things different.

 

12:9-21                                                           

⁹ Let love be genuine; hate what is evil; hold fast to what is good; ¹⁰ love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor. 

¹¹ Do not lag in zeal; be ardent in spirit; serve the Lord. ¹² Rejoice in hope; be patient in affliction; persevere in prayer. ¹³ Contribute to the needs of the saints;

 

Paul is telling the community how we should act towards those in our community

have love towards one another. Jews and Gentiles holding one another in mutual affection.

 

Then he moves onto how the community interacts with those outside

 

¹⁴ Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them.           

¹⁵ Rejoice with those who rejoice; weep with those who weep.

 ¹⁶ Live in harmony with one another;

do not be arrogant, but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are. 

 

Remember that arrogance was the way of the Roman Empire.

Arrogance born of luxury.

The rich were arrogant to the poor.

The rich lauded it over the poor and felt they deserved their lot in life

and they held anyone of lower status in contempt.

The free people lauded it over the slaves, on and on.

 

Paul then gets quite radical for the times and place he’s in:     

 

¹⁷ Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. 

¹⁸ If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 

¹⁹ 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.” 

²⁰ Instead, “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.” 

²¹ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

This is a lovely summary of the Sermon on the Mount isn’t it?

Jesus said, “Love your enemy, and pray for those who persecute you.”

Amazingly, Paul never had the gospel documents because they hadn’t been written down yet.

But Jesus words are obviously part of the Church’s culture.

And Paul is reflecting this back to the church.

 

The standard value systems of the times they lived in was to

to only give to someone if you could get something in return.

The standard reaction to an aggression was to respond with aggression.

This is not just for the Empire, but for all of society at the time.

To get revenge or destroy your enemies was the only honorable way.

Tit for tat, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

But Paul says to let God take care of any punishment or revenge.

 

And then Paul says that you should even feed your enemies,

which is a direct quote from Proverbs 25:

If your enemies are hungry, give them bread to eat,
    and if they are thirsty, give them water to drink,
²² for you will heap coals of fire on their heads,

 

Which actually means being nice to your enemies will actually make them mad.   

And how does that make someone look if you’re feeding them

and they’re mad at it.

 

Which I think is key, this whole thought about loving your enemies

flows into the next  thought about the government,

but because it shows up in our bibles as a new chapter, Chapter 13 so it seems divided.

(You all know that the letter did not include chapters and verses

and they were first added to the bible in like the 13^th century, right?)

 

So Paul ends chapter 12 by saying,                                    

“Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

 

At the time the only way that people responded to unjust laws and

governments was through violence. The only voice that people had

was through armed insurrections and through murder

(remember I told you emperors did not die natural deaths),

in order to maintain power, the Roman Empire cut down

armed insurrection quickly and violently.

Another way was through not paying taxes.
But then people had to basically go into hiding.

 

So Paul makes a progression of love from friends to strangers and then to enemies,

to overcoming evil with good, and in that, he talks about he government.

 

As I said, Paul can’t overtly criticize the government.

So he is probably being a little covert in his criticism here.

AND if you don’t take this part about the government out of

context like so many people who have defended the bad behavior of the government,

then it’s quite easy to see the subtext that’s being talked about.

 

Paul wants the Community of Christians to distinguish themselves

from the armed insurrectionists that were the only example

of any kind of response to the injustice in the world.

Christians should not use violence, they shouldn’t hide,

but neither would they just cave in.

They would overcome evil with good.

Walter Wink, the 20the century theologian in his analysis of the Sermon on the Mount,

and Jesus form of resistance called it the Third Way.

Not passivity, not violence.

Not fight, not flight.

But creative Non-violent resistance.

“Not being overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

 

Modern 20^th century non-violent resistance which was

brought to life by Mahatma Ghandi in India,

and then Martin Luther King in the US, and Nelson Mandela in South Africa

were all inspired by the teachings of Jesus.

 

But maybe it’s easiest to see what Paul was talking

about through those modern examples.

Here’s what Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in

In his letter to a Birmingham Jail                                          

 

One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

 

Who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community

 

Breaking an unjust law, and then bearing the unjust penalty, arouses the conscience of the community about the injustice.  This is showing the highest respect for the law.

 

Here’s how it played out in the civil Rights movement:

 

In 1963, the city of Birmingham instituted an  injunction forbidding people from participating in or encouraging mass street parades without a permit as required by city ordinance. The city would not give any black people a permit. The law was a blatant constraint of free speech and the first amendment.

 

The Southern Christian Leadership Conference decided to consciously to break that law, they gathered peacefully without arms or violence. Young black students marching peacefully to City Hall to talk to the Mayor and white civic authorities. The authorities stopped them with force, dogs, and fire hoses.  The brutality of the Birmingham authorities was obvious AND it was televised on the national news A lot.

 

These events and the news coverage and the realization of how brutal things were

in the south for black people, directly led the federal government to

begin the process of drafting the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Respecting the reality of the law, aroused the conscience of the community.

 

Incidentally, this ordinance was still on the books in Birmingham in 1967.

Martin Luther King peacefully marched there in defiance of the unjust law again

and that resulted in his being jailed in Birmingham then

and writing the letter from the Birmingham jail.

 

Here is another example of how this played out in real life.               
Jesus was a man who preached love and abundance and the coming of God.

He healed and preached, he was not violent and didn’t incite violence.

He was a good person. actually more than just good.

He was God’s son.

And still he was arrested by the authorities because he broke some arbitrary, unjust laws.

But mostly because he made them afraid they were going to lose their power.

Jesus freely and openly allowed himself to be subjected to their unjust laws

and he was crucified, hung on a cross. He incurred the judgement of the authorities.

He willingly accepted the penalty of imprisonment and death,

and that unjust death aroused the conscience of the community.

Through this sacrifice, we have seen and continue to see,

how brutally unjust the Empire, and the religion that cooperates with it is.

Their laws put to death the son of God.

 

Evil was not overcome with violence, evil was overcome with good.

Creative, sacrificial non-violent resistance.

So keeping all that in mind, let’s look at Romans 13 again: 

 

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.

First off, this would be radical in itself at the time.

The Empire was equated with divinity. The Emperor was divine.

This line says that neither of those were ultimately in control, Yahweh, God was.         

 

² Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

This is just true, resistance will incur judgement.          

 ³ 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, ⁴ for it is God’s agent for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority^[a] does not bear the sword in vain!

 

These are of a good government. Good rulers should NOT be a terror to good conduct and let bad go.

 

·        But of course, the rulers in Birmingham were a terror to good people.

·        But of course, the religious and civil authorities who crucified Jesus were a terror to good people.

·        Of course, the Roman Empire who had exiled all the Jews from Rome were a terror to good people.

·        Of course, a separating migrant children from their parents and putting them in detention centers is a terror to good people.

 

Paul doesn’t say acquiesce to the law even if it’s unjust .

Paul is describing a good government.

Everyone of those people listening: the oppressed, exiled, the over-taxed, those kidnapped from their

own country and put into slavery, the sexually assaulted, those with friends and loved ones who were killed by the Empire, would have known this was NOT a description of their government.

 

In this description, Paul is appealing to the higher moral law of God, who he said is in control.

Paul is not saying that every authority is naturally just and good and reflects God’s righteousness.

Someone would have to be seriously blind to the world to think that –then or now.

 

Paul is saying that we are subject to authorities, like it or not ,

And since they are given their authority by God, they should reflect that.

And we should respect their authority enough to hold them to that.

 

Those that do not reflect the righteousness of God are not from God.

They are NOT God’s agents for good.

 

But we still respect them – and we still love them.

Not as friends, but in that difficult agape way.

We still see them as humans, flawed and misguided and despotic as they are.

This is the hardest and most difficult test of our lived theology of Christian peace.

We are to love the just and the unjust alike.

So what do we do, when we see the violations and injustice?

The response Paul is asking for is not just laying down and being a doormat.

It’s not running away and checking out and going into hiding.

But it’s not more violence.

We cannot become the monster that we fear.

The Christians method when faced with injustice is more love.

Love of each other, love of the oppressed, and even love of those who persecute.

                                                                                                                       

⁸ Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 

 

Can we love our way into a new being?

Love that overthrows the old way of being?

Love that undermines the old Imperial order of things.

 

Not some puppies and kittens love.
But love that honors everyone, even our enemies.

Love like that confronts and undermines the status quo .

Can we love the government enough to hold it to its moral imperative and obligation.

This love sometimes actually feels like violence to those who support the status quo.

 

Love like that can turn the world upside down.

That’s what Paul was working for in this whole letter.

 

In the end of Chapter 13,

Paul says this

¹¹ Besides this, you know what time it is, how it is already the moment for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we became believers; ¹² the night is far gone; the day is near. Let us then throw off^[b] the works of darkness and put on the armor of light;

 

A lot of people think that Paul was telling them that the end-times were going to happen.

That Jesus would return and we would be saved from this world and its unjust governments.

That Paul has basically given up on the world and is telling everyone it’s going to end any way.

Martin Luther King actually said that about this.

But I think that’s kind of reading into it to discount the difficult passage.

 

I think what Paul is saying that the transfer from the sinful age

to the kingdom of God would take place.

The age of Adam to the age of Jesus that he talked about in Chapter 5 was coming.

He was anticipating revolution caused the many actions of love and peace

that the Christian community were living out and Paul outlined.  And he wasn’t wrong.

 

Paul wrote his letter to the Romans around the year 57 AD.

Just a few years later, in 64 AD, a massive fire swept through Rome destroying ¾ of it.

The emperor, Nero, may or may not have had the fire started in some shops in order to use the land

it was on to build a new palace, although historians still debate whether that was true.

 

What isn’t in debate is that Nero needed someone to blame, and he chose the Christians.

 

At that point, Christians were still a small but growing movement.

Nero accused them of causing the fire,

and many were arrested, tortured, and executed.

Ancient sources describe horrific deaths,

and while the exact numbers are impossible to know,

it was one of the first major persecutions of Christians.

which would go in waves, mostly locally in Rome,

for the next 200 years.

 

Part of the reason they were treated with suspicion was because, like the Jews,

they refused to participate in the religious life of the Empire.

 

And the other major reason that was identified was their radical inclusivity.

One historian summarized it this way:

Early Christians were told to love others, even enemies, and Christians of all classes and sorts called each other 'brother' and 'sister.' This was perceived by opponents of Christianity as a disruptive and, most significantly, a competitive menace to the traditional class and gender-based order of Roman society.

 

They were crossing the rigid social boundaries that defined Roman life.

To many Romans, that wasn't simply unusual—it was dangerous.

 

The  Christian movement wasn't a threat to Rome because it had a strong army or a new kind of weapon.

It was threatening Rome because it imagined a different kind of inclusive society.

 

A Roman philosopher, a critic of Christianity in the second century complained:

"How can people not be in every way impious and atheistic

who have abandoned the customs of our ancestors

through which every nation and city is sustained?...

What else are they than fighters against the gods?"

 

(I have had all those things said about me on Facebook by other Christians.)

 

Using just the love of each other, strangers, and enemies,

it felt like Christians were undermining the very foundations of civilization.

For the next two centuries, persecution came in waves.

It was usually local and sporadic, it wasn’t constant across the empire,

but Christians always lived with the

possibility that their faith could cost them everything.

 

The most intense persecution came under Emperor Diocletian,    

beginning in 303 AD.                   

He wanted to destroy of Christianity.

Churches were demolished. Christian writings were burned.

Many believers were imprisoned or executed.

This is the period that has given us the stories of

of Christian martyrs facing wild animals in the arenas.

A lot of Christians renounced their faith and worshipped the emperor to save their lives.

Some went into hiding.

Others chose to remain faithful, even at the cost of public execution.

 

But the persecution didn’t succeed in destroying Christianity.

It had spread far enough, into so many areas of the Roman

Empire that it couldn’t be destroyed.

 

But the other reason it wasn’t destroyed is that

this public persecution actually hurt the reputation of the Roman Empire,

and it gained sympathy for the Christians.

The Christians’ witness became stronger.

Just like those events with the fire hoses in the civil rights movement turned the tide

in the US, one could argue that the persecution of Christians turned the tide for them

and the Roman Empire itself.

 

The persecution under Diocletian lasted from 303 to 311 CE.

When it ended, Christianity was legalized under Emperor Galerius in 311.

 

And then in 313, (see how quick this is all happening)

 the Emperor Constantine embraced Christianity.        

Lots of Christians celebrate this as a great triumph.

But I'm not convinced it was a good thing.

 

The Empire recognized the passion Christianity inspired,

but it misunderstood its purpose and mission.

Constantine even marched into battle beneath                                                                                        

Christian symbols and credited Christ for military victories.

 

By the end of the fourth century, Christianity had become the empire's official religion.

Conversion was encouraged through political pressure rather than genuine faith,

some pagan practices were absorbed into Christian life,

but overt pagan worship was outlawed and

Jewish religious practice increasingly faced legal restrictions.

 

No. No. No.

  

As we've seen throughout Romans,                                                                                            

Paul understood that the true power of the gospel was never

found in armies, emperors, or political influence.

The Roman Empire never really grasped what Christianity was meant to be.

 

It was a movement of radical love and forgiveness.

 

A community where Jews and Gentiles, slave and free, women and men

found a new identity together. A people who resisted the empire's culture of domination,

not by seizing power, but by serving one another, and the community.

 

In the Holy Roman Empire, Jesus became less the crucified savior who called people

to love their enemies, and more a divine patron who guaranteed victory for the empire.

Faith became entangled with coercion.

The church became an arm of the state. They tried to legislate faith and salvation.

The language of heaven and hell was wielded as

instruments of control rather than invitations into God's transforming grace.

 

The church gradually exchanged the subversive way of Jesus 

for the security of imperial power.

And sixteen centuries later, we're still living with the consequences.

 

But somehow Romans remains.         

Despite its misuse, despite the ways Paul's words have been

twisted or reduced to caricatures, this letter still speaks to us.

 

It calls the church to become a community marked by

diversity, service and reconciliation,

rather than division, exclusion and fear.

 

It reminds us that the gospel is not about winning power.

It’s about a lived theology of peace.

It is about becoming a people whose lives bear witness to the love of Christ.

 

That was Paul's vision for the church in Rome.

And maybe, two thousand years later,

it is still God's vision for the church today.