The point has been made, with increasing frequency, that far too many church leaders are pointing to Romans 13 as justification for submitting to the state and not using their church buildings for collective worship, while giving far too little attention to Revelation 13, where the state is identified with the Beast. If they gave the latter more attention they would perhaps be reaching different conclusions and (in some eyes) ending the collusion.
There is, of course, no debate that both these passages are legitimate parts of scripture. They don't represent the totality of scriptural teaching on this whole area but they make for a helpful juxtaposition of essential points. So what does it mean to hold them both together? How should apocalyptic be meshed with the didactic?
This is, first and foremost, a hermeneutical question. Which is probably a topic better left in other hands. But I would like to make one observation: It is one thing to suggest that those who insist on highlighting Romans 13 have somehow forgotten Revelation 13, but it's a racing certainty that Paul hadn't. Would he have seen the Empire as the beast that John would later write of in Rev. 13? Without a doubt he would.
So Romans 13 was written with an understanding that the governing authorities are beastly in their true identity. And yet, still, Paul writes what he writes. We can't get away with thinking the essence of Revelation 13 is lacking from the apostle's thought as he pens Romans 13.
The same is also true of Peter as he writes 1 Peter 2. He was keenly aware of the true nature of the state - after all, he saw its grisly machinery up close at Calvary. But I'm guessing less is said about church leaders making too much of that and ignoring Rev 13 because it lacks the neat rhetorical flourish. (For the record, I'm all for rhetorical flourish, but its usefulness has limits.)
Just for good measure, the very same thing is true of our Lord Jesus and his teachings regarding the state and the response to it by Christians and churches. If anyone knew apocalyptic, it was Jesus. He added to the canon his own striking statements and portrayals. And he also spoke plainly about giving the emperor his due, being ready to go the extra mile when compelled to do so, turning the other cheek when struck and offering your tunic when your cloak is taken from you.
We might indeed be guilty of overplaying one at the expense of the other but the Bible isn't.
The issue is how do we mesh them in faithful interpretation? I'm eager to be helped with that.
