RIGHTFUL RULE: ROMANS 13 FOR THE PHILIPPINES TODAY

Introduction

On August 21, 1983, Sunday afternoon, as he stepped from the plane at the

Manila International Airport, Benigno Ninoy Aquino was shot dead. His assassination

triggered a chain of events that culminated in The EDSA Revolution of February 1986.

On September 5, 1983, Diliman Bible Church in Quezon City issued A Call to

Repentance, a 400 word letter addressed to the evangelical community and the Filipino

nation. The letter reviewed a litany of Philippine realities: widespread poverty, rampant

graft and corruption in government, a suppressed press, unfair elections, a subservient

parliament, and a Supreme Court losing its credibility. The letter insisted that, In a

participatory democracy, the right to rule is vested on those who have been freely chosen

by the people. The letter was sent to 200 local churches and Christian organizations. We

received a positive response from five local churches, expressing agreement with our

statement. We later learned that many more wanted to write back but their leadership was

divided between those who wanted to endorse, and those who hesitated.

A Baptist congregation responded that they did not agree with our document.

They wrote, Read Romans 13! At about the same time, a Roman Catholic layman,

writing to a newspaper, chided Jaime Cardinal Sin for being critical of the Marcos

government. Read Romans 13! he said, rebuking a prince of his church.

Some years ago, Oscar Cullman, referring particularly to verse two of Romans 13,

wrote: Few sayings in the New Testament have suffered as much misuse as this one!1

He particularly cited its misuse in justifying uncritical submission to the dictates of

1
The State in the New Testament. New York: Scribners, 1956. 55ff
 2

totalitarian governments. So what does Romans 13 actually say? What did it mean for the

saints in Rome? What does it mean for Filipino Christians today? Before answering these

questions, a brief summary of Diliman Bible Churchs actions are in order.

Diliman Bible Church and the EDSA Revolution

When, after Ninoy Aquinos assassination in 1983, the Diliman Bible Church

(DBC) published their Call to Repentance, it was a small congregation of about 300

people. The writer of this paper was its pastor. DBC provided a spiritual home for the

inter-varsity students at the nearby University of the Philippines campus. During the

Martial Law years I was part of an inter-varsity study group that produced papers

responding to the situation, though we never published our studies.

In preparation for the snap elections of February 7, 1986, DBC was heavily

involved in the National Citizens Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL). Two

deacons and I regularly attended training sessions for NAMFREL volunteers. The only

Protestants to attend, we nevertheless felt welcomed by the various Roman Catholic

participants. DBC coordinated NAMFREL volunteers in the 61 precincts near the church,

representing some 25,000 voters. We personally witnessed many incidents of electoral

fraud, and so, after the election, published another letter, called A Christian Response to

the February 7 Election, in which we judged the election to be fraudulent.

The decision to join the EDSA barricades was taken at noon, right after the

Sunday morning worship service on February 23. About 100 of the 200 worshippers at

the English service stayed for the meeting. We needed to act quickly because on Saturday

evening Defense Secretary Juan Ponce Enrile and Deputy Chief of Staff Lieut. General

Fidel Ramos announced that they were quitting the Marcos government, saying that
 3

Marcos did not win the February 7 election. Since their announcement, the two men had

since been holed up in Camp AguinaldoHQ for both the defense ministry and the

armed forcesbut had only a few hundred soldiers to defend them. A call went out

through Radio Veritasthe Roman Catholic stationfor an army of civilians to ring the

camp and serve as buffer between the Enrile/Ramos soldiers and the Marcos forces that

were sure to come. We had to act quickly.

At the meeting, the church council agreed that the civilian buffer would be the

most effective means for preventing a shooting war from breaking out. The council

appropriated money for food for the barricaders, and people quickly signed up for shifts.

We reported to the outpost set up by KONFESKonsiyensia ng Febrero Siete (the

Conscience of February 7)a new group formed from the NAMFREL volunteers we

coordinated, and people associated with the Institute for Studies in Asian Church and

Culture (ISACC). I was appointed Commander-in-Chief, meaning that I was to decide

whether we should stay in case of an attack (KONFES stay! ) or make a break for it

(KONFES go!). I accepted reluctantly, remembering my wifes words when I left

home: You are responsible for the lives of the church people you bring along . . . We

stayed for three days and three nights at the barricades.

Many evangelicals were in a quandary when they heard the appeal of Jaime

Cardinal Sin. Could they respond to a cardinals plea? Would not participation in the

barricades be equivalent to armed rebellion against the Marcos government? Would that

not be disobeying Romans 13? Wouldnt it be better to pray in our homes and churches?

Many evangelicals stayed away from the barricades.

However, Diliman Bible Church did not hesitate to join. We had no intention of

toppling the Marcos government by force of arms. Our reason for joining was

straightforward: by providing a civilian buffer between the Enrile/Ramos forces and the

Marcos soldiers, a shooting war could be prevented. We knew our lives were at risk if the

Marcos forces decided to attack. We believed in the safety of numbers but our faith was

really in God. We were clearly unarmed, and brought only Bibles and hymnbooks! As it

turned out, the civilian barricade was so large (at least a million people by Sunday

afternoon February 23) that Marcos finally had to flee. A non-violent revolution

toppled his 20-year regime! But were DBCs actions in line with Romans 13?

Romans 13 for the Philippines Today

Romans 13:1-7 contains four vital principles for understanding the Christians

relationship to the state. First, the concepts of power and authority, though related, are not

synonymous. Second, Christians submit to authority because it is God-given. Third, the

authority of rulers is limited. And fourth, rulers are given authority for a purpose.

One. Power and authority are related but not synonymous

The Bible distinguishes between power and authority. Dunamis, translated

power, is the Greek root for the English dynamite. Exousia, translated authority, is

from the verb exesti, meaning lawful. Power is might, the force of an army, or the

strength of an Arnold Schwarzenegger. Authority is power rightfully held and lawfully

exercised, as that of a parent over a child, or a just judge over a criminal. Authority is

might that is right.2 Exousia is also used to describe the authority of the dragon and the

2
Authority, The New Bible Dictionary. Ed. J. D. Douglas. Leicester: IVP, 1982. 111f,
113
 5

beast in Revelation 13, but this shows Satan as a usurper whose power is still under

Gods control.

Two. We submit to authority because it is God-given

We submit to rulers because we recognize that their authority comes from God.

We submit to God by submitting to rulers. We cannot rebel against rulers for that is to

rebel against God. Furthermore, a subtle distinction can be made between submission and

obedience. To obey is to do what one is told while submission is to rank oneself under

another. Attitude is important. We willingly submit to rulers in recognition of their God-

given authority over us. It is for the Lords sake that we submit (1 Peter 2:13).

Three. The authority of rulers is limited

Rulers do not have absolute authority. When Jesus was asked the tricky question

about paying taxes to the imperialistic Roman government, he replied, Give to Caesar

what is Caesars and to God what is Gods (Mark 12:17). Give back, or render is

what is meant; it is Caesars due for providing order and justice. Jesus words likely mean

that while Caesar is entitled to taxes (and Romans 13: 1-7 concludes with the necessity of

paying taxes!), only God deserves absolute loyalty!

The implication here is that when Caesar claims allegiance that rightfully belongs

only to God, the Christian has no choice but to say no. When rulers give orders

contrary to Gods law, Christians must say, with the apostles who were prohibited from

doing evangelism, We must obey God rather than men! (Acts 5:29). The refusal to

obey laws contrary to Gods command is also illustrated by the Hebrew midwives, who

refused to commit infanticide (Exodus 1), and by Daniel and his friends who refused to

worship idols (Daniel 3).

Four. Rulers are given authority for a purpose

Rulers exist to promote good and restrain evil. In fulfilling this divine design,

rulers function as Gods servants. They are called deacons (diakonos) twice in verse 4,

and leitourgos in verse 6. Leitourgos was used of those in cultic religious service but in

this context means public servant. The tax collector is a public servant in Gods

employ! Although Caesar was not be aware of being Gods servant, this biblical model

for rulers is already taught in the Old Testament, where Assyria is called Gods servant in

Isaiah 10: 5-11, and Cyrus is in Isaiah 45:1.

The divine design is very important to understand. According to Romans 13, God

delegates his authority to human rulers (verses 1 and 2) for the purpose of promoting

good and restraining evil (verses 3 and 4). The two parts of this single paragraph must not

be separated. The delegation of divine authority must not be understood apart from the

divine purpose for which it is given.++++++++++++++++++++++

Can rulers lose their right to rule?

If this understanding of Romans 13 is correct, rulers who abuse their authority are

subject to Gods judgment and may also lose their moral right to rule. Rulers who reverse

the divine design by promoting evil and restraining good frustrate Gods purpose for

human government and so lose their right to rule.

This is a difficult judgment to make, and some Christians simply refuse to make

it. They argue that all governments are Gods provision, and, as Judges 21:25 implies,

anarchy is not Gods will for human society. A de facto government is also the de jure

government as a matter of course. They admit that government exists to promote both

order and justice (equivalent to restraining evil and promoting good in Romans 13) but
 7

believe that order is prerequisite and therefore prior to justice. Therefore, they argue,

anarchy is the great evil, while unjust government is better than no government.

There is some merit in this argument against anarchy. However, to conclude that

every government must be Gods provision seems illogical. This argument interprets

13:1-2 apart from verses 3-4. It overlooks the purpose for which God delegates his

authority to human rulers, namely the promotion of good and restraint of evil. To simply

accept a ruler who oppresses, or deceives, or is unjust, because that ruler is Gods

provision, is illogical. God might tolerate such a ruler, for a while. But God does not

install rulers to do evil! That would make God a partner in wickedness. Since God

delegates his authority to rulers so that they may promote good and restrain evil, one

cannot also say God also installs certain rulers to do exactly the opposite.

Five grades of government

It may help to clarify what our attitude should be towards our human rulers if we

grade them on a scale from one to five.

1.00 is perfect government of the type that will characterize Jesus reign when he

establishes his kingdom in its fullness.

2.00 is just government. Such government is characterized by full participatory

democracy so that the best people are elected to public office. The welfare of all people is

promoted, and wicked people are effectively restrained.

3.00 is competent government. However selected, the rulers are not the best of

those available. Still, public welfare is effectively promoted and evildoers are restrained.

Even mediocre government may be competent, perhaps meriting a grade of 3.5.

4.00 is corrupt government. Rulers assume public office primarily for private

gain.

5.00 is wicked government. Rulers have reversed the divine design; they promote

wickedness and restrain good. Unjust and oppressive means are used to retain power.

Historically, Filipino Christians have been hesitant to grade Ferdinand Marcos.

He was a clever propagandist who knew how to use the media. During the early years of

Martial Rule, he cleared the streets of garbage and collected 500,000 illegal guns. He was

friendly to evangelicals and imposed no restrictions on purely evangelistic activities. He

rolled out the red carpet for Billy Graham in 1977, and Jerry Falwell in 1985. Christians

who now give Marcos a grade of 5.00 came to their conclusion only slowly and in light

of mounting evidence.3

What about Roman rule?

Some Christians note that Neros reign was wicked but Paul does not tell the

Roman Christians to reject Nero. In their estimation, this suggests that Christians today

ought not seek the overthrow of unjust regimes either. We may respond to this assertion

in one of three ways. First, was admitting that Roman rule was wicked but it still existed

to promote good and restrain evil. This is unlikely for it would make Paul a liar or an

ostrich! Second, Pauls own experience of Roman justice was actually good. He was

certainly proud of his Roman citizenship and made use of it (Acts 16:37; 22:25ff.). His

appeal to the Roman emperor for his trial (Acts 25:11) illustrated his implicit confidence

that he would receive better justice from Rome than in Palestine. Furthermore, when he

wrote the letter to the Romansmany scholars say in AD 57Nero had been emperor

3
See Jovito Salongas Presidential Plunder: The Quest for the Marcos Ill-Gotten
Wealth. Quezon City: UP, 2000.
 9

for only a few years. The Neronian persecution and the full realization of the depth of

Neros injustice was yet to come. Third, Paul was probably not making any judgment on

the quality of Roman rule at all in Romans 13. He was only explaining Gods design for

human government in general.

Replacing wicked rulers

Suppose our rulers are wicked. How should they be they replaced? May

Christians oppose such rulers? May they join others in a just revolution? Was Dietrich

Bonhoeffer right in joining the plot to kill Hitler? Romans 13 does not deal with these

situations. The biblical perspective as a whole is clear, however. Believers are to entrust

themselves to God. God enthrones kings and deposes them (Daniel 2:21, Jeremiah

27:1ff.). Even wicked peoples and rulers are under Gods sovereign rule and may be used

by him in judgment of others, including his own people (Isaiah 10 and 45). Jesus

certainly rejected the Zealot option of revolutionary violence (John 18: 36, Matt.

26:52ff.).

Reformed doctrine has upheld this view. Passive disobedience to unjust law is one

thing; it is even mandatory when the rulers command is contrary to Gods law (Exodus

1, Daniel 3, Acts 5). Armed resistance against an unjust ruler is something else. Vernon

Grounds quotes John Calvin as writing: Better that all the children of God in France

should perish than that the gospel be dishonored by the blood of resistance.4 Luther is

described as one who always sided with those who condemn rebellion against those who

cause it.5

4
Revolution and the Christian Faith. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1971. 136
5
Paul Ramsey, War and the Christian Conscience. Durham: Duke UP, 1961. 119, 120
 10

Roman Christians and Filipino believers

The evangelicals at the barricades had grappled with Romans 13 for many years.

They agreed with the Lausanne Covenant in understanding their Christian duty as

including both evangelism and socio-political involvement. Though slow in appreciating

what was happening to their nation, the murder of Ninoy Aquino in 1983 roused them

from their stupor. They came to the conclusion, like C.E.B. Cranfield6 that their political

duty as Christians was more than prayer and obedience. They thought Romans 13 needed

to be interpreted faithfully in its original context and that it should be interpreted for the

present situation.

The new element in our time is participatory democracy. Lincolns dictum of

government by the people, of the people, and for the people is everywhere embraced.

Even the East Germans used to call their state a Democratic Republicin spite of the

Berlin Wall! Democracy is also perfectly consistent with the biblical doctrine of man.7 If

we are equal in dignity and worth before the Creator, then no one has a right to enslave a

fellow human or to impose rule on another. Dictatorship, slavery, and apartheid are all

wrong for essentially the same reason: they all trample upon humans made in the image

of God.

Does the Bible require democracy? No. Christians can live under any form of

human government. However, democracy seems best suited to the biblical understanding

of humanity. In the words of Reinhold Niebuhr, Mans capacity for justice makes

6
Romans. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979. 663.
7
John Bennet, Christians and the State. New York: Scribners, 1958. 146-162
 11

democracy possible, but mans inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.8

Participatory democracy is a historical development that should be welcomed with

gratitude. Our political duty would be simpler if we were first-century Christians, but

today we have the privilege of participating in the choice of our rulers. Political choices

we make are now part of what it means for us to be salt of the earth and light of the world

(Matthew 5: 13-16). The modern conviction is that sovereignty resides in the people and

authority comes from them. It would be more biblical to say that authority comes from

God, and he delegates some to rulers who are chosen by the people.

Two tests of legitimacy

This all suggests that there are two tests of legitimacy. The first is conformity to

divine design. If rulers promote good and restrain evil they have God-given authority to

rule. Such rulers do not have to do their job perfectly to be legitimate. However, when a

regime becomes so bad that it reverses the divine design, it loses moral authority to rule.

The second test of legitimacy is whether or not a government has been freely chosen by

the people. The corollary is that rulers may be peacefully replaced when the people

decide that they are incompetent or insincere in promoting the public welfare.

This is why the ballot is precious, a sacred trust. Elections must be free and fair.

Those who subvert elections, frustrate them, and install themselves in power by force or

fraud are usurpers and have no right to rule. We must be clear that we are deciding

something very important when we vote. Who should we honor as rulers? To whom

should we submit? Who gets our taxes? Who has the right to wield the sword in

punishment of evildoers? We are deciding who are our rightful rulers.

8
The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness: A Vindication of Democracy and
a Critique of Its Traditional Defense. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1944. xiii.
 12

Who has the right to rule? The Roman Christians had half an answer. Today,

however, we have two clear criteria to go by. On the basis of these criteria, the

evangelicals who joined the barricades believed Marcos had no right to rule. He cheated

in the February 7 election. If there was doubt about the outcome in the canvassing of the

ballots at the Batasang Pambansa (Parliament)followed as it was by the hasty

proclamation of Marcos as winnerthe massive throngs that overflowed at EDSA settled

the issue. Marcos lost the election and no longer had a mandate to rule. The people spoke.

Future Edsas?

Can millions of people gathering in EDSA overturn the official count of

COMELEC, and the judgment of the CBCP and NAMFREL? Possibly, but it has not

happened, and it seems unlikely to. The original February 1986 EDSA Revolution seems

like a sui generis. It was a miracle! To attempt to manipulate people into repeating the

phenomenon seems sacrilegious.

Conclusion

The Christians duty is not only to be subject to his or her human rulers---obeying

the laws of the land, including paying the right taxes faithfullybut also to do everything

possible to help rulers fulfill their God-given duty to promote good and restrain evil. In a

democracy, we are not subjects but citizens; participants, not spectators. How much may

we expect from human rulers? A minimum of social order and law, to patch and darn as

best we can, as Luther said? Or, should we try to establish the lordship of Christ over all

of society, as Calvin seems to have attempted in Geneva? Charles Villavicencio implies

something in between when he suggests that we should read Luther and Calvin together.9

9
Between Christ and Caesar. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. 45
 13

In a pluralistic society, with Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, secularists, animists,

and others living together, the Christian role was described by the Lord Jesus. You are

the salt of the earth . . . You are the light of the world . . . (Matthew 5: 13-16). Even if

true Christians are in a minority, they should be a major influence for good in their

society. In the words of Elton Trueblood, if they live up to their calling, they can become

the overwhelming minority!

Dr. Isabelo F. Magalit