13 Reasons to Read Lloyd-Jones on Romans 13

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981), or ‘the Doctor’ of Westminster Chapel, was known for the clarity of his thought, the thoroughness of his exposition of Scripture, and the living vitality of his application of the Bible to the lives of his hearers. His treatment of Romans 13:1-7 exemplifies these qualities. To commend this teaching, which is found in the thirteenth volume of his Romans series, ‘Living in Two Kingdoms’, here are thirteen reasons to read Lloyd-Jones on Romans 13:

(1/13): Because Romans 13:1–7 is one of the few places in Scripture where there is sustained, direct teaching on the state and the Christian’s relationship to it.

As Lloyd-Jones says, ‘This is a subject that is not dealt with frequently in the Scriptures and that is what makes this passage a kind of locus classicus [‘classic place’] with regard to this matter.’ (p. 31).¹All page references are to D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Romans: Exposition of Chapter 13: Living in Two Kingdoms (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2003.)

(2/13): Because every generation of Christians needs clear and balanced teaching on issues of church and state.

Lloyd-Jones was at pains to counter the idea that becoming a Christian was a matter of adopting a ‘purely spiritual’ life that was uninterested in the affairs of the world that God had made. ‘As Christians’, he said, we ‘must not contract out of the world.’ (p. 34). That means, among other things, considering the state and our relationship to it.

(3/13): Because our generation in particular needs clear and balanced teaching on issues of church and state.

Christians in the West live at a time and in a place where high dependence on the state (for everything, it seems—health, wealth, security, education, and self-validation) coincides with very little reflection on the state’s true God-given purpose. We urgently need the counsel of God on this question, and Lloyd-Jones helps us to understand it. He is a sure guide through bumpy terrain that must nevertheless be traversed.

(4/13): Because Lloyd-Jones understood the world in which we live, and yet is not our contemporary.

When Lloyd-Jones died, Queen Elizabeth II was on the throne, Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, Ronald Reagan was US President, Phil Collins was in the music charts, and Ian Botham captained the English cricket team. In other words, it wasn’t that long ago. Lloyd-Jones speaks to us as one who knows the complexities and frustrations of the modern, globalizing world.

That said, while he lived recently, the Doctor cannot be considered a contemporary. Culture has changed exceedingly rapidly since he preached the sermons on which this book is based. And that is a strength, in this case, because his distance from us enables us to see, for one thing, that the essential points he makes have not changed and, for another, that some of his applications need to be adjusted or extended as we work them out in a different context.

(5/13): Because Lloyd-Jones was historically informed.

These sermons contain a wonderful if somewhat truncated history of the ‘church and state’ debate as it has rumbled on through church history. Lloyd-Jones was a keen historian, and his passion for engagement with the past shines through. But his interest was not merely academic; he insisted that we need the testimony of history if we are to live faithfully today:

‘We have the advantage of being able to look back and see the rival views and the interplay between them, and it behoves us to make full use of this opportunity. So you are now going to have a bit more history. That is not an apology, it is an apologia, or defence!’ (p. 94).

When the Doctor prescribes some history, it is always best to follow his instructions! And it must be said that Lloyd-Jones, in his historical survey,  strikes a careful balance, appreciating the efforts of men in the past whose circumstances were often complicated and pressured. Where necessary, he robustly disagrees with those who departed from the pattern of Scripture.

(6/13): Because Lloyd-Jones is insistent that Scripture should be our authority in all things and he is persistent in his pursuit of the true meaning of the text.

Lloyd-Jones does not rush to application. He insists that before we work out the teaching of Romans 13:1-7, we must understand its essential meaning and its connection to the flow of the epistle. He is clear: ‘true theology should always be based upon a careful and accurate exegesis and exposition and understanding of the Scriptures.’ It is just such exegesis and exposition that we are treated to in the Doctor’s teaching here.

(7/13): Because Lloyd-Jones was not afraid to make challenging applications.

The whole point of the Doctor’s exposition was to promote obedience to the Apostle’s teaching in Romans 13:1-7. Indeed, the Doctor claims that it is because this passage ‘deals more extensively with some of the practical problems faced by Christians in their relationship to the state than any other portion of Scripture’ that ‘it is of very great importance.’ (page 48)

Lloyd-Jones brought out these applications in various ways, sometimes by teaching great principles (see points 10 and 11 below) and sometimes by making very specific applications. An example of the latter is the way in which he taught the propriety of state-administered capital punishment in cases of murder. Lloyd-Jones knew that the question of capital punishment isn’t a fine ethical point to be discussed by academics: it is a matter of grasping what the Scriptures teach about the duty of the state. ‘The state,’ he says, ‘has the power to take life…granted to it by God’ (p. 60). He notes accordingly that, ‘Capital punishment is designed to maintain and to emphasize and to establish the sanctity of life. It has no vindictive quality in it at all…There is nothing that should so teach us the sacredness and the sanctity of life as the carrying out of capital punishment.’ (p. 61).

(8/13): Because Lloyd-Jones didn’t ‘do politics’ in the pulpit.

The question of whether pastors should ‘preach politics’ is being asked by many at the present time. The answer depends, of course, on what is meant by ‘preach politics.’ What Lloyd-Jones certainly did not do was to transform the pulpit into his personal soap-box. He didn’t vent, or cajole, or harangue. He was a servant of the Word (Christ) and of the word (the Bible). He aimed to teach no more and no less than what the whole counsel of God set forth. And in that noble aim we see his wisdom and true greatness as a servant of God and man.

(9/13): Because Lloyd-Jones didn’t ‘do pietism’ in the pulpit.

We must not assume that because Lloyd-Jones was not overtly political in the pulpit, that therefore he was a preacher or practitioner of ‘pietism’, defined as a strictly individual and devotional mode of Christianity which avoids public application. Lloyd-Jones knew that devotion was both public and private, and that the Christian is called to live out his faith in all of life. He taught individuals their duty. He also boldly set forth the duties of the state before the face of God.

(10/13): Because Lloyd-Jones taught godly subjection to the ‘powers that be.’

The default position of the Christian is godly submission to the ‘higher powers’ as they are ‘ministers of God’ (Rom. 13:6), even when those invested with the state’s power do not love God or follow Christ the King (as, more often than not, they do not). This is a challenging doctrine for Christians who suffer, Christians who care about the state of the world, and Christians outraged by evil. We are to pursue godly subjection. Here’s how the Doctor puts it:

‘We are not to look at them [‘the powers that be’] in and of themselves, but are to realize what they are and what has given them their being and their position. As Christian people, we are to honour them, respect them, put ourselves under them, as it were, and submit ourselves unto them.’ (p. 22).

This is challenging, indeed, and calls for grace.

(11/13): Because Lloyd-Jones taught a clear basis for godly resistance to tyranny.

Intriguingly, Lloyd-Jones did not teach that we ought to ‘obey’ the state. Or at least, he did not hold that this was Paul’s teaching in Romans 13. We are to be subject to the ‘powers that be’, yes, but not to yield them unqualified obedience. For ‘the powers’ are not the ultimate authority – that alone belongs to God. And just as Lloyd-Jones clearly teaches Christian subjection to the state, so also he teaches the limits of Christian subjection:

‘We are to be subject to the higher powers until they in any way come between us and our loyalty to God Himself and His commandments to us.’ (p. 53)

(12/13): Because Lloyd-Jones warned us to be ready to suffer.

One consequence of our godly resistance to the tyranny of the state may be serious suffering, even death. Lloyd-Jones notes of the early Christians:

‘…they were confronted with the choice – either they said, ‘Caesar is Lord,’ or else they were put to death. And they were very ready indeed to die rather than make that statement. At that point they rightly refused to be subject to the powers that be. They disobeyed them and were ready to suffer the consequences of their disobedience.’ (p. 53)

Lloyd-Jones is mindful that the faithfulness to God implicit in godly resistance to the state may cost some of his hearers their lives. Indeed, this is yet one more reason for being clear on these things:

‘For our own sake, and for the sake of our brethren who are struggling with these issues, perhaps even at the risk of losing their very lives, it behoves us to have clear ideas as to the teaching of the great Apostle.’ (p. 15)

(13/13): Because Lloyd-Jones preached on the state with a heavenly perspective.

He puts the whole matter this way:

‘We are to remember that as Christians our relationship to the state is, at its very best, only temporary. This is our position: ‘Our conversation’ – citizenship – ‘is in heaven’ [Phil. 3:20]. Now I have warned you not to misinterpret that and say, ‘Therefore I’ve nothing to do with the state.’ That is wrong. Nevertheless, it is our fundamental position that the place we belong to is heaven. That is our capital city. We are strangers here.’

And that, surely—the knowledge that we are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s—is what will sustain us through our pilgrim days. It will help us to offer godly subjection to the state when we can, and godly resistance to the state only when we must.

Striking a faithful balance today

Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ teaching on Romans 13:1-7, found in the thirteenth volume of his series on Romans, is a sparkling example of grounded but passionate biblical exposition. Moreover, Lloyd-Jones teaches us on a topic that we can no longer avoid. Faced with a society which swings between the idolization of the state on the one hand and the utter denunciation of its operations on the other, Christians must evince a different attitude. We must recognize the God-ordained purpose of the state, the God-bestowed authority of the state, and the God-appointed limits of the state. Dr Lloyd-Jones can help us strike the balance faithfully.

Joshua Kellard is Communications Manager at the Banner of Truth Trust.

Get your copy: