The Two Ethics Doctrine of Romans 13

Eric Andersen Eric Andersen 6 Comments

Share

Some wonder how citizens of a nation with such a rich history of higher law – “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” – could find themselves in positions of neither being able to worship on Sunday nor labor on Monday. Such a position arises from a little known doctrine called “Two Ethics.” Christ, you see, proclaimed one ethic for us and another for our neighbor, “the elected official.”

Romans 13:1
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities…”

“Governing authorities” is no longer defined as higher law from I AM or as an ordained institution submitted to His higher law. A “governing authority” is being defined as an individual, a depraved one at that. Through the magic of majority vote, a.k.a. ‘mob rule’, our depraved neighbor on Tuesday with but breath in his nostrils becomes our elected official on Wednesday. See Rousseau’s General Will.

For these ‘special’ individuals, God’s Ministering Servants, the term “good” is
redefined. ‘Good’ is no longer associated with just or higher law originating from I AM. This may explain why pastors stay out of “politics.” For them the absence of a transcendent ethic means the absence of a standard by which to differentiate that which is ‘good’ from that which is ‘evil’. Conservatism and Progressivism suddenly become coherent. “Politics” is no longer that part of ethics having to do with the science of government.

POLITICS, noun The science of government; that part of ethics which consists in the regulation and government of a nation or state … and the protection of its citizens in their rights, with the preservation and improvement of their morals…
-Noah Webster, 1828

The doctrine of Two Ethics enables our neighbor, created in the image of God, to rise above higher law with a nod to the Divine Right of Kings. No longer constrained by what is just our electeds can claim three times what we tithe to Christ. They can close our houses of worship on Sunday and places of labor on Monday all while receiving glory and honor from their constituencies.

The Two Ethics doctrine removes jurisdictional boundaries that heretofore formed the basis of jurisprudence. This is why the believer whose first citizenship is in heaven can pledge allegiance to a state rejecting his godly values. “Patriotism” is no longer fidelity to our founding values. It has been redefined as loyalty to country. When a believer now pledges allegiance he is honoring God’s “anointed.” We are being taught that our depraved neighbor, the moment he’s elected, no longer falls under the definition of “every person” in Romans 13:1.

In the Bible the head of family government and church government only receive honor when their leadership is not in conflict with God’s word. Why an exception for civil government?

Ideas have consequences. “Rulers are not a terror to good conduct…”, Romans 13:3.

This is what God was alluding to in 1 Samuel 8 when God’s covenant people, Israel, rejected higher law from I AM.

Share

Comments 6

  1. Sounds like the 2 Kingdom theology pushed by Westminster Seminary.
    Bad ju-ju!

  2. Well thought out and well written. I’ve often wondered how or why my Christian Brothers and Sisters condone tyranny and after falling into line pat themselves on the back as if it was a virtue. Thank you Eric Andersen.

  3. So when Moses delivered the message “Do Not Steal”, where was the footnote “unless a bunch of your neighbors vote for a guy who does it for them”?

  4. Post
    Author

    Thanks for your comments. If I can get a few people thinking that would be a “win”. Can the state steal? Wonderful question. Gets us back to the point. Does God have two ethics??

  5. I have long struggled with Romans 13.

    But I’m reading Eric Andersen as saying he doesn’t agree with Jesus’ “two ethics”.

    I was hoping instead for why Romans 13 doesn’t really mean what it sounds like.

  6. Post
    Author

    WC
    Many struggle with Romans 13. I have struggled with it as well. I believe Christ has one ethic – for all men.

    I’m happy to clarify and am guessing at your question.

    My initial response is that most read Romans 13:1 as addressing the civil magistrate. I do not. I hold that the civil magistrate is included in “Let every person”. The authority is not the individual magistrate. It is higher law or the institution of government when submitted to such.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.