Versión de HTML Básico
498
George W. Knight III
of God, not an opponent of God, or one that disobeys or fails to recognize
His commands.
Yes, the state must serve as a police force, and therefore it must also fight,
do battle, make war when needed against evil. When a mob is destroying a
city with Molotov cocktails, burning, and shooting, we recognize the right of
policemen to shoot to kill, if necessary, in order to save lives. And when the
state or policemen or soldiers are doing so, we as Christians are called on to
support them in every way, with money and with service as a policeman or
soldier ourselves, if called to do so, just as the aforementioned Christian sol
diers did (Rom. 13:6, 7).
Paul says to us Christians that since the state is a minister (servant) of
God, “it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also
for conscience’ sake” (v. 5). Further, we are not to resist the God-ordained
powers because to do so is to withstand the ordinance of God (w. 1 and 2).
These verses, which call for subjection, are much needed in our day. The
forces of rebellion and revolution are opposing not only men but God.
Finally, we need to remember that Paul writes these words not about a nice
so-called Christian nation but about heathen and militant Rome.
So we see that God gives to the state the power of the sword, the right to
wage war against evil, and calls on Christians to honor and support this
authority and activity. This much is clear. Christians should not miss this
clear teaching nor be misled by the misuse of other passages.
Within these two chapters we see an important distinction made. It is
highlighted by the fact that the individual Christian is not to avenge himself
(Rom. 12:19) and the state as a minister of God is called on to be an avenger
for wrath to him that does evil (Rom 13:4). Here we see that the Lord’s
teaching on turning the other cheek is not to be applied to the state in its rela
tion with evildoers. And any attempt to do so is to fly in the face of Christ’s
apostle and the teaching Christ has given him.
But where does this leave the individual Christian? Here also the account
of Romans 12 and 13 is helpful in the realistic qualification it gives to indi
vidual Christian conduct. The command is indeed “be at peace with all
men” (Rom. 12:18). But the qualification is also there: “If it be possible, as
much as in you lies . . . ” or, as the
n iv
translates it, “If it is possible as far as
it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.” Peace is the keynote, even
as it was in the capturing of the promised land (cf. Deut. 20:10, 11). But it
is the keynote with a recognition that it is not always possible.
This qualification of Paul puts Jesus’ hyperbolic and principal statement
in its larger context: “Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smites you
on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man would go to
law with you, and take away your coat, let him have your cloak also” (Matt.
5:39, 40). May a Christian be stripped of his clothing just because someone
has learned that by a literal application of this verse he can get anything he