Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 3
At Keith’s house, Romans 13 is repeatedly used to answer Jesus’ enemy-love teaching; what interpretation of authority, obedience, and discipleship is being assumed when Romans 13 becomes the trump card over Matthew 5 and John 18—and what are the costs of that move?
Another way to ask: What view of authority and obedience is behind using Romans 13 to override Jesus’ teaching to love enemies (Matthew 5, John 18)? What do we lose when we do that?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
When Romans 13 becomes the trump card, the assumed interpretation is that obedience to the state (including war and draft compliance) defines Christian duty more than obedience to Jesus’ direct commands. The cost is that Jesus’ teachings get “explained away,” and discipleship shifts from kingdom-shaped obedience to state-shaped loyalty.
- The elderly brethren man “turn[ed] back to the teachings of Jesus,” insisting, “We can’t compromise on the teachings of Christ.”
- Keith’s group repeatedly answered with Romans 13: “we need to submit to our governing authorities… If there’s a draft… we need to obey, and we need to go to war.”
- They used patriotic reasoning: “you have all this religious freedom… Somebody paid for it.”
- Elam later links this pattern to a broader habit of bypassing Jesus: Augustine taught turning the cheek is “not… bodily action, but an inward disposition,” which Elam calls “totally explaining away Jesus’ teachings.”
- Elam highlights Jesus’ kingdom distinction (John 18:36): “If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight.”