The Need for Good Libertarian Exegesis

Lawrence Ludlow is Wrong about Romans 13

I recently listened to Episode 277 of the Bob Murphy Show in which Murphy interviews Lawrence Ludlow on his interpretation of Romans 13. I strongly disagree with his interpretation, but before I get to the critique, let me add a few prefatory comments:

1. I regularly listen to and enjoy the Bob Murphy Show.

2. I understand that Bob does not necessarily agree with his guests and often allows them to advance positions contrary to his own for the purpose of increased understanding on all sides.

3. Lawrence seems like a really nice guy who I’d love to get a beer with.

4. Lawrence did make some good broader biblical-theological points about other passages, e.g. 1 Samuel 8.

5. I am not sure of Lawrence’s overarching political philosophy.

However, when it came to actually exegeting the text I was left thinking, “If this is what libertarians have to offer, no wonder Christian biblical scholars have by and large been unpersuaded of our interpretations.”

We need to do better - which is why I started my series on Romans 13.

Exegetical Fallacies:

1. Lawrence constantly relies on Latin to interpret the Greek. The Latin Vulgate can shed some light on the meaning of Greek words, but it is by no means determinative of them.

2. He claims that πᾶσα ψυχὴ implies Paul is speaking submission to spiritual authorities, not secular ones. (~30min)

   1. What Lawrence misses is that πᾶσα ψυχὴ is a Hebraism, which is often used in the LXX generically to mean “every person,” and has no special referent to the “spiritual” nature of the person, cf. Leviticus which speaks of πᾶσα ψυχὴ as able to eat blood (7:27, 17:12), eat what dies of itself (17:15), fast (23:29). Moreover, it is used in conjunction with the adjective “living” to refer to animals in Gen. 1:21, 9:10, 12, 15, 16. Furthermore, Paul uses the phrase generically in Rom. 2:9, and every other time it is used in the NT, the translation “every person” fits the context just fine.

3. Sword almost always means “word of God” in the NT. (~41min)

   1. Paul only uses the word three times, once when he explicitly identifies it as the μάχαιραν τοῦ πνεύματος (Eph. 6:17), once when it refers to physical danger, probably from the state (Rom. 8:35), and this text. So, by itself, Paul’s usage is inconclusive, but it is significant that the one time he does use it to refer to the word of God, he does so very explicitly.

   2. In the rest of the NT, it is overwhelmingly used simply to mean, “sword” and only once connected to the word of God (Heb. 4:12), but even then it is used in its ordinary sense and the word is compared to it metaphorically.

   3. The fact that medieval scribes drew Paul with a sword is interesting, but largely irrelevant to the meaning of μάχαιραν in Romans 13:4.

4. He claims that φορος in 13:6-7 does not refer to taxes but rather to contributions, and cites use of different word in Matt. 22:17 and Mark 12:14. (~45min)

   1. To Lawrence’s credit, he does mention that Luke uses φορος in his parallel account of the “Give unto Caesar” passage.

   2. What is lacking is any sort of lexical study showing the semantic domain of this word, nor citation of any other source that uses it to refer to ecclesiastical contributions. φορος is used many times in the LXX and in the vast majority of them it refers to some form of tribute or tax paid to a state. For a study that does this, see “Binding Obligations in Romans 13:7: A Semantic Field and Social Context” by Thomas Coleman.

5. He claims that the now standard view of Romans 13 stems from a post-Constantine, post-legalization situation. (~15min)

   1. That is a plausible hypothesis, but no evidence is given for it. Constantine converted to Christianity in 312 AD and so, at the very least, Lawrence should be able to show that pre-312, the church understood Romans 13 more alone his lines. However, as the following quotes will show, there is a strong tradition going all the way back to the apostolic period which identified the secular, Roman authorities as those whom Paul addressed in Romans 13:1-7. The following quote show either an explicit or implicit allusion to Romans 13 and an identification of the “higher powers” as secular authorities.

   2. Clement of Rome (~95 AD)

      1. 1 Clement 61:1-2: To our rulers and governors on the earth — to them Thou, Lord, gavest the power of the kingdom by Thy glorious and ineffable might, to the end that we may know the glory and honor given to them by Thee and be subject to them, in nought resisting Thy will; to them, Lord, give health, peace, concord, stability, that they may exercise the authority given to them without offense.

   3. Martyrdom of Polycarp (~160 AD)

      1. 10:2: The proconsul replied, "Persuade the people." But Polycarp said, "To thee I have thought it right to offer an account [of my faith]; for we are taught to give all due honor (which entails no injury upon ourselves) to the powers and authorities which are ordained of God. But as for these, I do not deem them worthy of receiving any account from me."

   4. Irenaeus of Lyons (~180 AD)

      1. Against Heresies V.24.3: As, then, “the powers that be are ordained of God,” it is clear that the devil lied when he said, “These are delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will, I give them.” For by the law of the same Being as calls men into existence are kings also appointed, adapted for those men who are at the time placed under their government. Some of these [rulers] are given for the correction and the benefit of their subjects, and for the preservation of justice; but others, for the purposes of fear and punishment and rebuke: others, as [the subjects] deserve it, are for deception, disgrace, and pride; while the just judgment of God, as I have observed already, passes equally upon all.

   5. Tertullian (~208-220 AD)

      1. On Idolatry, ch. 15: Therefore, as to what relates to the honours due to kings or emperors, we have a prescript sufficient, that it behooves us to be in all obedience, according to the apostle's precept, subject to magistrates, and princes, and powers; but within the limits of discipline, so long as we keep ourselves separate from idolatry.

      2. Scorpiace, ch 14: No doubt the apostle admonishes the Romans to be subject to all power, because there is no power but of God, and because (the ruler) does not carry the sword without reason, and is the servant of God, nay also, says he, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil. For he had also previously spoken thus: For rulers are not a terror to a good work, but to an evil. Will you then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and you shall have praise of it. Therefore he is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid. Thus he bids you be subject to the powers, not on an opportunity occurring for his avoiding martyrdom, but when he is making an appeal in behalf of a good life, under the view also of their being as it were assistants bestowed upon righteousness, as it were handmaids of the divine court of justice, which even here pronounces sentence beforehand upon the guilty. Then he goes on also to show how he wishes you to be subject to the powers, bidding you pay tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, Romans 13:6 that is, the things which are Cæsar's to Cæsar, and the things which are God's to God; but man is the property of God alone. Peter, no doubt, had likewise said that the king indeed must be honoured, yet so that the king be honoured only when he keeps to his own sphere, when he is far from assuming divine honours; because both father and mother will be loved along with God, not put on an equality with Him. Besides, one will not be permitted to love even life more than God.

   6. Origen (~200-235 AD)

      1. Commentary on Romans, IX.25.2: the Apostle lays down precepts for [the soul] and tells it to be subjected to the authorities of the world; for the Lord also said that those who have the inscription of Caesar within themselves should render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. Peter and John used to have nothing to render to Caesar; for Peter says, “Gold and silver I do not have.” He who does not have this has nothing to render to Caesar nor, therefore, what he should subject to the higher authorities. But he who has money or possessions or any worldly preoccupations should listen up: “Let every soul be subject to the higher authorities.”

      2. Against Celsus, VIII.65: But while we do nothing which is contrary to the law and word of God, we are not so mad as to stir up against us the wrath of kings and princes, which will bring upon us sufferings and tortures, or even death. For we read: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resists the power, resists the ordinance of God.

I could go on, but I hope this is sufficient to make my point: Libertarian Christians, we need to to better. This is not the sort of careful, close exegesis that does justice to the text and will convince Christian scholars.