Note : Politics is very important.
It can shape your education.
It can shape your future education.
It can shape your economy.
It can move you on and level up your status.
What Does the Bible Say About Politics? (25 Bible Verses)
Politics can be a divisive topic, but have you ever wondered what the Bible says about it?
The scriptures offer guidance on leadership, governance, and how believers should engage with political issues.
Let’s explore the biblical perspective on politics and what it means for us today.
What Does the Bible Say About Politics
1 Timothy 2:1-2
“I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.”
This verse reminds us to pray for our political leaders and those in authority. It emphasizes the importance of living peaceful lives and seeking godliness and holiness in all aspects of our lives, including how we engage with politics.
Prayer is a powerful tool that can bring about positive change and influence the decisions and actions of our political leaders. It is a call to be actively involved in seeking the well-being and welfare of our society through our prayers for those in positions of power.
Psalm 22:28
“For kingship belongs to the Lord, and he rules over the nations.”
This verse reminds us that ultimately, God is sovereign, and He is the one who rules over all nations and governments. It reminds us that no matter what political dynamics may exist, God is the ultimate authority, and His plans and purposes will prevail.
As believers, we can find comfort and security in knowing that God is in control, even in the midst of political uncertainties. It encourages us to place our trust not in human leaders or governments but in the unchanging power and sovereignty of God.
Romans 13:1
“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.”
This verse reminds us of the importance of submitting to the governing authorities. It teaches us that all authority comes from God and that those in positions of leadership have been placed there by His divine appointment.
While we may not always agree with the decisions or actions of our political leaders, this verse calls us to respect and submit to their authority, knowing that God is ultimately in control and will hold them accountable for their actions.
(Scroll down for further study on Romans 13:1-17 .)
Proverbs 29:2
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
This verse highlights the impact of righteous leadership on the well-being and joy of a nation. It emphasizes the importance of having leaders who uphold righteousness and justice, as their influence can bring about positive change and blessings to the people they govern.
Conversely, when leaders act wickedly and unjustly, the people suffer and groan. This verse serves as a reminder to pray for leaders who will govern with wisdom, righteousness, and integrity, seeking the welfare of the people they serve.
Matthew 22:21
“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
This verse provides guidance on the relationship between our faith , (heavenly) and our obligations to human governments (earthly). It teaches us to recognize that while we are called to submit to earthly authorities, we must also prioritize our devotion and allegiance to God. " Let Thy Will be done earth, as in heaven "
While we participate in political processes and fulfill our civic duties, we must never compromise our loyalty to God and His principles. This verse reminds us to maintain a balance between our citizenship in the kingdom of God and our responsibilities as citizens of earthly nations.
Proverbs 21:1
“The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will.”
This verse highlights the power of God to influence the hearts and decisions of political leaders. It demonstrates that even though leaders may hold significant power, their hearts and actions are ultimately under the control of God.
As believers, we can take comfort in knowing that God can work through the hearts of leaders to accomplish His purposes. We are reminded to pray for leaders to have wisdom, discernment, and a heart inclined towards justice and righteousness.
Psalm 146:3-4
“Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who can not save. When their spirit departs, they return to the ground; on that very day, their plans come to nothing.”
This verse serves as a cautionary reminder not to place our ultimate trust and hope in human leaders. It reminds us that no matter how powerful or influential they may be, they are still mortal beings whose plans and influence will ultimately come to nothing.
Instead, we are called to put our trust in God, who is unchanging and faithful. While it is important to participate in the political process and seek leaders who align with godly principles, our ultimate hope and trust should be in God alone.
Acts 5:29
“But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men.'”
This verse demonstrates the tension that can arise between obedience to God and obedience to earthly authorities. It reminds us that there may be times when we are faced with decisions where obeying God’s commands may conflict with the directives of human leaders.
As believers, we are called to prioritize our obedience to God above all else. While we should strive to honor and respect the authorities, there may be instances when we need to take a stand for our faith and obey God’s commands, even if it means facing opposition or persecution.
Proverbs 14:34
“Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.”
This verse emphasizes the importance of righteousness in the governance of a nation. It teaches us that when leaders uphold righteousness, it brings honor and blessings to the people and elevates the nation.
Conversely, when sin and corruption prevail in leadership, it brings shame and reproach to the nation. This verse encourages us to pray for leaders who will govern with integrity, justice, and righteousness, as it ultimately impacts the well-being and reputation of the entire nation.
Mark 12:17
“Jesus said to them, ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.'” And they marveled at him.
Similar to Matthew 22:21, this verse emphasizes the importance of honoring our earthly obligations while remaining faithful to God. It makes it clear that we have responsibilities towards both our earthly authorities and God.
By paying our taxes and fulfilling our civic duties, we demonstrate our commitment to contributing positively to society. At the same time, we are reminded to give to God the reverence, worship, and devotion that are rightfully His.
1 Peter 2:13-14
“Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.”
This verse reinforces the call to submit to human authorities for the sake of the Lord. It highlights the importance of respecting and honoring those in positions of leadership, recognizing that they have been appointed to enforce justice and maintain order.
Even when we may disagree with certain policies or actions, this verse encourages us to show a spirit of submission and respect towards our governing authorities, trusting that God is ultimately in control and will guide their decisions according to His purposes.
Jeremiah 29:7
“But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.”
This verse speaks to the importance of actively seeking the well-being of the society we are a part of. It encourages us to engage in politics with a mindset of contributing positively to the welfare of our cities and nations.
As believers, we are called to pray for the prosperity, peace, and welfare of our communities, seeking to make a positive impact and be a force for good. By engaging in politics in this way, we can be agents of change and promote God’s kingdom values in our society.
Proverbs 11:14
“For lack of guidance, a nation falls, but victory is won through many advisers.”
This verse emphasizes the importance of seeking wise counsel and guidance in the governance of a nation. It teaches us that when leaders surround themselves with experienced and wise advisers, it increases their chances of making informed decisions that lead to positive outcomes.
As citizens, we can play a role in supporting leaders who surround themselves with godly counsel and provide wise advice. It is a reminder to pray for leaders to have discernment and wisdom in seeking and heeding good counsel for the benefit of their nation.
Daniel 2:21
“He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding.”
This verse affirms that God is the ultimate authority in the rise and fall of political leaders. It reminds us that it is God who determines the times and seasons and has the power to appoint and remove kings and rulers.
As believers, this verse encourages us to trust in God’s sovereignty, even in times of political uncertainty. It is a reminder to pray for leaders to be granted wisdom and understanding as they navigate the complexities of governing, knowing that their positions of leadership are ultimately under God’s control.
Proverbs 16:12
“It is an abomination to kings to do evil, for the throne is established by righteousness.”
This verse emphasizes the importance of righteousness and justice in the governance of a nation. It teaches us that leaders who engage in evil and corruption not only bring disgrace upon themselves but also undermine the stability and legitimacy of their rule.
As believers, we are called to pray for leaders who will govern with integrity, upholding the principles of righteousness and justice. This verse reminds us of the powerful impact that righteous leadership can have on a society’s well-being.
Proverbs 29:4
“By justice, a king builds up the land, but he who exacts gifts tears it down.”
This verse highlights the importance of justice in the governance of a nation. It teaches us that leaders who uphold justice and fairness build up their land and contribute to its growth and prosperity.
Conversely, leaders who engage in corruption and accept bribes undermine the stability and progress of their nation. This verse serves as a reminder to pray for leaders who will prioritize justice and fairness, knowing that it is essential for the wellbeing and development of a nation.
Proverbs 25:5
“Take away the wicked from the presence of the king, and his throne will be established in righteousness.”
This verse underscores the need for leaders to surround themselves with wise and righteous advisers. It teaches us that removing wicked and corrupt influences from positions of power contributes to the establishment of a righteous and just rule.
As believers, we can pray for leaders to have discernment in choosing their advisors and for God to bring about the removal of those with corrupt intentions. This verse reminds us of the impact that wise counsel can have on the establishment of righteous governance.
Proverbs 28:2
“When a land transgresses, it has many rulers, but with a man of understanding and knowledge, its stability will long continue.”
This verse highlights the importance of leaders who possess understanding and knowledge in the governance of a nation. It teaches us that when leaders lack wisdom and insight, a nation becomes unstable with frequent changes in rulership.
As believers, we can pray for leaders who have a heart for understanding and seek knowledge to govern wisely. This verse reminds us of the significance of leaders who prioritize learning and make informed decisions that contribute to the long-term stability and prosperity of their nation.
Psalm 75:7
“But it is God who executes judgment, putting down one and lifting up another.”
This verse affirms God’s role as the ultimate judge in the affairs of nations. It reminds us that it is God who determines the rise and fall of leaders and has the power to remove and exalt them according to His divine purposes.
As believers, this verse encourages us to trust in God’s sovereignty and justice, knowing that He will ultimately hold leaders accountable for their actions. It is a reminder to pray for leaders to govern with integrity and align their decisions with God’s will.
2 Chronicles 7:14
“If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”
This verse speaks to the power of repentance, prayer, and seeking God’s face in bringing about healing and restoration to a nation. It teaches us that when God’s people humble themselves and turn from sin, He is faithful to hear their prayers and bring healing to their land.
As believers, we have a responsibility to actively engage in prayer and intercession for our nations, seeking God’s forgiveness, mercy, and guidance. This verse reminds us of the transformative power of prayer in the context of politics and national wellbeing.
Proverbs 20:28
“Steadfast love and faithfulness preserve the king, and by steadfast love, his throne is upheld.”
This verse emphasizes the importance of leaders who govern with steadfast love and faithfulness. It teaches us that leaders who prioritize love, compassion, and faithfulness in their rule are more likely to enjoy stability and the loyalty of their subjects.
As believers, we can pray for leaders to have hearts of love and faithfulness, recognizing that such qualities contribute to the preservation and effective leadership of a nation. This verse reminds us of the power of love and faithfulness in the realm of politics.
Isaiah 9:6-7
“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.”
This Messianic prophecy speaks of the future reign of Jesus Christ as the ultimate ruler and the establishment of His government characterized by justice, righteousness, and peace. It offers hope for a future where perfect governance will prevail under the leadership of the Prince of Peace.
As believers, this verse encourages us to look forward to the ultimate fulfillment of God’s promises through Jesus Christ. It reminds us that while earthly politics may fall short, there is a future hope in Christ’s eternal and perfect reign.
Christians might better understand how it is that God would have us relate to those whom he, in is his sovereignty, has placed over us.
An Overview of the Study
The study will examine Paul's teaching on the Christian's relation to the civil authorities as outlined in Romans 13:1-7 and then compare that with 1 Peter 2:13-17. First, the study will survey the problem of the textual authenticity of the passage. Second, a translation and outline will be given followed by a brief look at the historical context of the letter and the social make-up of the church in Rome. Third, the bulk of the study will be taken up with an in-depth exegesis of the passage. Fourth, and final, certain similarities and differences between Paul and Peter will be delineated.
A Commentary on Romans 13
Romans 13:1-7: An Interpolation?
Virtually every serious commentary on the book of Romans has had to wrestle with the integrity of the last two chapters of the work, especially chapter 16. But, this is not the only place in the epistle where Pauline authenticity has been questioned. There are those, who for several different reasons, reject 13:1-7 as truly from the hand of Paul. One such interpreter who has advanced some of the strongest arguments in favor of Romans 13:1-7 as an interpolation (i.e., a later insertion into the text) is James Kallas.
Kallas gives two general and three specific reasons for concluding that Romans 13:1-7 is an interpolation. In terms of the general observations, he says that it is likely that Romans 13:1-7 is an interpolation because ,
1) it is well known that the ending of the epistle has been altered radically and
2) nowhere else does Paul speak about the Christian's relationship to the civil authorities.
In response, first, concerning the ending of Romans, it must be said that while there is continuing discussion about the authenticity of chapter 16 and parts of chapter 15, it is not a forgone conclusion that they are indeed spurious. Gamble has demonstrated that there is convincing evidence leading to the conviction that Romans 16 formed the original ending to the document. Even if Gamble's conclusion is rejected, it is questionable to assert that a pericope (i.e. paragraph) deep within the paraenetic section of 12:1-15:13 is somehow an interpolation due to the questionable nature of chapter 16—an epistolary ending. The problem with chapter 16 cannot be assumed to have occurred in 13:1-7.5 Second, the fact that Paul nowhere else speaks about governing authorities is an argument from silence based in part upon the doubtful authorship of the Pastorals. Even if the authorship of the Pastorals is questioned, it remains an argument from silence. We cannot forbid Paul to speak about something that he has hitherto, for whatever reasons, not mentioned. Paul's letters are occasional documents and the fact that he mentions something only once can more properly be explained as due to the occasion of that particular case. He mentions the Lord's supper only once (1 Cor 11:17-34). Does this mean that we should on that basis question its authenticity? Further, the universal offer (e.g. 1:16 and pantiV tw/' pisteuvonti) of the gospel to all people as outlined in the book of Romans clearly indicates its worldwide agenda. This, then, leads to the inevitable question of the relation of Christians to the state or governing authorities. The question of the Christian's relationship to the state is a discussion well suited to the book of Romans.
Kallas also raises three specific arguments against the Pauline authorship of Romans 13:1-7. His first two specific points include the idea that the passage is tightly constructed without logical connection to the previous section, and as such it not only stands in isolation, but also interrupts the flow of the argument in the context.
The third argument Kallas raises suggests that Romans 13:1-7 "contradicts basic Pauline ideas and basic Pauline forms of expression." The first two objections can be responded to simply by seeing the logical connection that exists between both what immediately precedes and that which follows (i.e. the relation of 12:14-21 to 13:1-7 and 13:1-7 to 13:8-14). It seems that Paul's focus on "good" and "evil" in 12:17, 21 and the Christian's responsibility to be at peace with all people (12:18) provide sufficient basis for seeing a logical connection to 13:l-7—even though no grammatical connection is explicitly made through the use of gavr or diaV tou'to or some other Pauline connector. The idea of "clearing all debts" from 13:8 provides a nice flow out of the passage as well, whose end in verse 7 focuses on such issues. We will consider broader connections in the exegesis of the passage.
Kallas's third objection, concerning the lack of Pauline eschatology, and the use of ejxouvsiai" to refer to civil authorities (Romans 13:1), amounts to no real difficulty. Once again this will be demonstrated in the exegesis. Suffice it to say here that nowhere in the passage does Paul contradict an eschatological concept he elsewhere explicates. The fact that he may not emphasize eschatological ideas is no grounds for asserting a contradiction. Also, our understanding of Paul's use of language is at best descriptive, not prescriptive, and one cannot safely dismiss an author's consistency if he chooses to use the same term in different ways. Kallas has not proved his point of contradiction and thereby supported interpolation. We may proceed with the confidence that this passage is truly from the hand of Paul. The fact that it might represent or stem from earlier Christian tradition will be taken up further in the exegesis.
An Exegesis of Romans 13:1-7
A Translation and Outline of the Passage
Textual Problems
13:1—The words Pa'sa yuchV ejxousivai" uJperecouvsai" uJpotassevsqw in the NA26 are replaced in one papyrus manuscript and certain Western witnesses (p46 D* F G it; Irenaeuslat and Ambrosiaster) with pavsai" ejxousivai" uJperecouvsai" uJpotavssesqe. The external evidence is decidedly in favor of the NA26 reading. Internally, pa`sa yuchv most easily gives rise to the other reading—the latter probably an attempt to avoid the Hebraic idiom involved in the presence of pa`sa yuchV.
13:1-4—There are a number of minor revisions in the text which do not affect the sense much and the fact of their presence need only be mentioned in passing.
13:5—The NA26 text reads ajnavgkh uJpotavssesqai, but p46 D F G it; Irenaeuslat Ambrosiaster leave out the ajnavgkh and read uJpotavssesqe. The overall witness for the NA26 reading is solid, including a A B Y. As Metzger comments, the changes appear to be an attempt to "simplify the construction." Dunn also suggests the possibility that the omission is due to an attempt to avoid "the implication of an impersonal cosmic necessity which dioV ajnavgkh may have suggested." In any case the manuscript evidence and the fact that ajnavgkh uJpotavssesqai is the more difficult reading all support its originality. That it is not too difficult (i.e. so difficult as to be virtually impossible) and awkward is demonstrated by the presence of ajnavgkh in Matthew 18:7 and Hebrews 9:16, 23.
Some have attempted to suggest that because Romans 13:1-7 is not found in Marcion's edition of the New Testament, it is therefore spurious. Actually, as F. F. Bruce points out, this is based primarily on "the ground that Tertullian, in his running commentary on Marcion's Pauline edition (Against Marcion v. 14.11-14), makes no reference to Romans 13:1-7. But there was probably no reason why he should refer to it." The only reasonable conclusion is that there is no good manuscript evidence for questioning the authenticity of Romans 13:1-7. (See above under "Romans 13:1-7: An Interpolation?")
A Translation
13:1 Let every person be submissive to the governing authorities
13:2 For (gavr) there is no authority except [that which is given] by God and those who are appointed by God.
13:3 Consequently (w{ste) the one who resists authority, opposes the institution of God, and those who do so will receive judgment on themselves.
13:4 For (gavr) rulers are not a fear to good work, but to evil [work] Do you want to not fear the authority? Do good and you will have praise from it.
13:4 For (gavr) it is God's servant to do you good, but if you do evil, then fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain (eijkh`/). For (gavr) it is God's servant, an avenger to bring wrath on the one who practices evil.
13:5 Wherefore (dioV) it is necessary to submit, not only because of wrath, but also because of conscience.
13:6 For this reason (diaV tou`to gavr) you pay taxes, for (gavr) [those in authority] are God's servants who persist in this very thing.
13:7 Give back to all people what is owed; taxes to whom taxes are due; revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due and honor to whom honor is due.
An Exegetical Sentence Outline
Subject/Complement: The reason the Roman Christians should submit to the governing authorities and give them their proper due is because the authorities have been appointed by God (as attested by conscience) and will praise those who do good and inflict punishment (i.e. wrath) on those who do evil.
I. The reason Paul commands the Roman Christians to submit to the authorities is because civil authority is God's institution and as such will punish wrongdoers and praise those who do good (13:1-5).
A. Paul commands the Roman Christians to submit to civil authority because God has appointed that authority (1-2a).
B. Paul commands the Roman Christians to submit to civil authority because the civil authorities will punish those who resist them (2b-3a) and praise and do good to them that obey (2b-4).
C. Paul commands the Roman Christians to submit to civil authority because of the punitive action of the state (i.e. wrath) and also because of conscience (5).
II. The way in which Paul enjoins submission to civil authorities who give themselves to collecting taxes is by giving back to them whatever is owed, whether taxes, dues, respect or honor (13: 6, 7).
A. The reason the Roman Christians pay taxes is because God has appointed the state to receive taxes and they persist in collecting them (6).
B. The way the Roman Christians are to demonstrate submission to civil authorities is by giving back to each authority what is owed, whether taxes, revenue, respect or honor (7).
The Historical Setting of the Passage
The Readership
There has been an ongoing discussion in scholarly circles with regards to the composition of the church in Rome. The letter was probably written to the church at Rome in the late winter/early spring of A. D. 57 so we can safely say that there were some Jews back in the city after being expelled due to the edict of Claudius in A. D. 49. Some of those Jews would undoubtedly have been Christians and were expelled for embroiling themselves in a dispute with other Jews over Jesus (cf. Acts 18:2). At this point Christians and Jews were considered to be basically one and the same group—at least as far as the state was concerned. During the middle to later years of the reign of Nero, Christians and Jews began to be distinguished as two separate groups. But the question remains as to composition of the church in Rome. Was the church composed of Gentiles? Jews? Or a mixture of the two? If so, did any group predominate?
The old Tübingen school, based on the Jewish element in chapters 9-11, postulated a solely Jewish church in Rome. Others have followed in a similar vein for various reasons including the assumption that the letter reads better if understood to refer to a Jewish Christian audience alone. Paul does refer to Abraham as propavtora hJmw`n which some have concluded indicates that the readers were primarily Jewish. As Harrison says, such an argument is "robbed of any great force" by Paul's reference to Israel as oiJ patevre" uJmw`n in 1 Corinthians 10:1 where the readership is primarily Gentile.
Many interpreters argue for a primarily Gentile audience. Paul's reference to the audience as Gentiles among whom he has received grace and apostleship to call them to the obedience of faith (1:5, 12-14; 15:16); his reference in 6:19 to ajkaqarsiva/ and ajnomiva/ as well as the fact that he says that he explicitly addresses them as Gentiles (11:13) and says that they have received mercy due to Jewish unbelief—all this seems to indicate a Gentile audience. This has led to another, probably more accurate, theory.
Romans appears to be addressed to a mixed audience of Jewish and Gentile Christians. Due to the emphasis on the Gentiles, as indicated above, as well as Paul's personal call to the Gentile mission (15:16), it would appear that the Gentiles were in the majority. Perhaps this is, in part, due to the edict of Claudius wherein many Jewish Christians had been expelled, but not Gentile Christians. When the Jewish Christians returned (A. D. 54, 55?) the Gentiles were in the majority and in positions of leadership in the church.
What was the church in Rome like in A. D. 57? From the lack of a reference to the church at Rome (i.e. meaning the entire church as a whole) in the book of Romans, combined with the fact that many different groups appear to be mentioned in Romans 16 (cf. 16: 5, 10b, 11), it seems rather safe to conclude at this point, that there was no central organization per se, or a central place of worship. Perhaps there were several house churches (cf. 16:5).
The Political Setting
As has already been mentioned, the letter to the Romans was written in A. D. 57. Nero was in power, but in the early part of his reign (A. D. 54-68). There appears to be no indication that at this time he was a tyrant and brutal ruler. The Jews had been expelled in A. D. 49, but that was under Claudius and things appeared to be different in A. D. 57. There was a problem with "tax protests" under Nero in A. D. 58, but this does not appear to be relevant at the time of the writing of Romans. Therefore, we may assume that political conditions were fairly stable and that the Christian church which was undoubtedly born in the synagogues at Rome enjoyed the status of religio licita as they were still largely seen to be within Judaism's fold.
Marcus Borg suggests the possibility that Jewish nationalism had reached violent levels in Rome and for that reason the Jews were expelled and that such a situation forms the background to Romans 13:1-7. This appears to be cautious speculation. The expulsion occurred some eight years prior and there doesn't appear to be any concrete evidence to demonstrate that such was the case in A. D. 57. Ksemann suggests another possibility for the background to the passage. He claims that certain Christian enthusiasts had thrown off all restraint in the light of their heavenly calling and regarded "earthly authorities with indifference or contempt. This may be true, but it is difficult to defend from within or outside of the passage. Indeed the use of the indicative "you pay taxes" (v. 6) would tend to indicate that there was at least some degree of submission to the state already in the church. There have also been other suggestions concerning the background of the passage. It would appear, however, that we simply cannot be as precise as Borg or Ksemann suggest. We know that Paul exhorts the Romans in right conduct toward the state, but it is very difficult to say for sure what prompted such a discussion.
The Literary Setting of the Pericope and Its Relation to the Argument of the Book
This issue has already been touched upon above as concerns the interpolation of Romans 13:1-7. There we saw that the pericope, while somewhat abrupt in that there are no explicit connectors, nonetheless continues the thought-line in the immediate setting of 12:9-21 and 13:8ff. There is the continual influence of Jewish wisdom from 12:9-21 and the use of similar language in 12:9-21 and 13:1-7. The passage relates well to 12:1-2, the major turning point in the focus of the letter (i.e. from the indicative to the imperative) where the Christian is urged on the basis of God's mercy to offer himself as a living sacrifice. This wholehearted submission of the Christian is expressed through a commitment to live righteously in an ever expanding series of relationships—including living in accordance with the government God has established. We must also consider the whole argument of Romans. Without entering into the rather great debate as to the purpose of the letter, we can see that there is a new defining line for the people of God—faith in Christ Jesus (3:21-24; 10:12). The Law, as it was so often used by the Jews to mark themselves out as God's people (cf. 3:2), has been replaced by Christ and one's attachment to him as the new defining line regarding the constitution of the people of God (10:4). As such, the Christian's relation to the state must be redefined, not as an opponent to be overcome necessarily, but as an ally as far as God's current program is concerned and as stewards to do good to those who obey. With this overarching theme in Romans, the civil injunctions in chapter 13 mesh quite well.
The Exegesis Proper
The passage breaks down into three basic units consisting of the command to submit to authorities (13:1a), the rationale, including theological as well as practical considerations for such an injunction (13:1b-5), and certain matters of practical consideration covered by the command (13:6-7).
The Command to Submit to Authorities (13:1a)
13:1a Pa'sa yuchV ejxousivai" uJperecouvsai" uJpotassevsqw. "Let every person be submissive to the governing authorities."
Pa'sa yuchv—literally means "every soul." It occurs in one other place in Romans with the same meaning as 13:1 (cf. 2:9). The expression has a Semitic background and is essentially a metonymy for the "person" as a living being. It occurs in Leviticus 7:27; 23:29; Acts 2:43; 3:23 and 1 Clement 64, among other places. In Leviticus 23:29-30 the Hebrew text has vp#n lk* which the LXX translates as pa'sa yuchv. Clearly this refers to the "person" to whom God was stipulating the regulations for the Passover. The references in Acts 2:43, 3:23; 7:14 and 27:37 also refer to the "person as a whole," not just the inner man. 1 Clement 64 reads, "May the all-seeing God. . . grant to every soul that has called upon his magnificent and holy name . . . ." Here Clement uses yuchv to refer to the person as a whole, and with pa'sa to refer to "every" person—the context being the delimiting factor in the "every." In summary, pa'sa yuchv focuses on the person as a whole (obliquely conveying the idea that man has a soul) and may yield overtures of creation—the fact that man was created a living being (cf. 1 Cor. 15:45 and Gen 2:7). Having shown that the phrase is a Semitism, such an emphasis must not predominate though, for it is used as the subject of a predominantly Hellenistic term, namely, uJpotavssw.
ejxousivai" uJperecouvsai"—"governing authorities." The term ejxousivai" is the plural form of ejxousiva and refers not to the principle of authority as such (cf. ouj gavr e[stin ejxousiva further in the same verse), nor to the domain in which a certain authority is carried out (cf. Luke 4:6; 22:53; 23:7; Eph 2:2). Instead, it refers to the rulers themselves who are charged with exercising such rulership (cf. Luke 7:8; 19:17, esp. 20:20). Thus it refers to an official power or authority invested in certain individuals (cf. Luke 12:11 and the reference to the taV" ajrcaV" kaiV taV" ejxousiva" which probably refers to Roman authorities). In describing the rule of life for the Essene community Josephus says that a potential initiate "will show fidelity to all men, and especially to those in authority, because no one obtains the government without God's assistance" (War 2.140).
The term uJperecouvsai" is also used to refer to rulers. In Wisdom of Solomon 6:5 the text reads "because severe judgment falls on those in high places" where kings and rulers (cf. 6:1, 2) are clearly the referent for those in high places. Consider also 2 Maccabees 3:11 and the relation of wealth to positions of power and Philo, De Agricultura, 121, for its use to refer to a superior athlete.
The term ejxousivai" therefore had a wide a extensive usage in and around the time of the New Testament in reference to human rulers and combined with uJperecouvsai" serves to refer to the highest rulers (e.g. governing authorities) over people. We now turn our attention to certain questions concerning differing interpretations of ejxousivai" and uJperecouvsai". We will begin with uJperecouvsai".
Porter argues that the emphasis in the term uJperecouvsai" is not particularly superiority in rank, but qualitative superiority as well (i.e. justness). He cites several instances from Greco-Roman and Pauline literature where the term is used to refer to a qualitative difference. He says, "adopting the qualitative sense, Paul in Rom 13:1 is commanding obedience not just to any superior authorities or to those who occupy a superior position, but to authorities who are superior in some sense qualitatively or, specifically in this case, according to their justness." This interpretation is probably not correct. First, Porter uses this particular interpretation (i.e. the state's superior quality of justness) to influence the answer he gives to the question of obedience to the state. But, Paul says that obedience to the state is motivated by fear, praise and inner sense, i.e. conscience—not one's state greater "justness" as opposed to another. Second, there is nothing in Romans 13:1-7 that tends to favor a qualitative reading of the participle. Therefore, it seems that Paul's readers would have taken the term simply to refer to authorities who preside over them, since as has been shown, this was the normal use of the term in a context of a discussion about political rulers. We now turn our attention to the referent for the term ejxousivai".
The question that has arisen in the interpretation of ejxousivai" is, "Does the term refer only to human rulers in Romans 13 or to human rulers plus angelic rulers as well? Oscar Cullmann represents several scholars since the turn of this century who argue for a double referent—that ejxousivai" refers both to human rulers as well as to angelic authorities controlling (cf. Cullmann's term "instruments") them. The following discussion will be a consideration of his arguments.
Cullmann argues that the "authorities" in Romans 13 are indeed human rulers, but they are controlled by angelic powers. He says that "only when this conception is found there does the entire section become really clear; only then does it fall into harmony with the entire outlook of Paul." There is "abundant" evidence, he adds, in the book of Daniel, The Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach, Enoch, the Talmud and Midrash for such a conclusion. Thus there is a straight line of continuous thought in Judaism on the issue running from the post-exilic period right up to and well beyond the time of the New Testament. He says that in 1 Cor 2:8, "Paul manifestly means both the invisible "'princes of the world,' who are often mentioned as such, and their actual human instruments, Herod and Pilate." He argues that 1 Cor 6:3 is unintelligible unless such a view be maintained. Cullmann criticizes G. Kittel who attempted to overturn the idea by citing ordinary Greek usage as not supporting such a double referent. Cullmann responded to this problem by claiming that ordinary Greek usage knows nothing of the late Jewish idea of angelic powers over state rulers. In other words, Paul is distinctly influenced by the Jewish idea. Further, this idea is found among the Gnostics in their interpretation of Romans 13:1 (cf. Ireneaus, Against Heresies, 5. 24. 1).
Personally, I think that angelic authorities are involved in the affairs of people and governments (cf. Dan 10:21). But, for several reasons, I do not think that is in Paul's mind in Rom 13:1-7.
First, Cullmann's reading of 1 Cor 2:8 and 6:3 is by no means "manifestly clear" as to the involvement of both angels and rulers.
Second, the reference to ejxousivai" in the plural provides no solid ground for concluding that it refers to angels as well as men, and the fact that it is not immediately joined to ajrchv as it is in Ephesians 1:21; 3:10 (cf. 6:12 also) further weakens Cullmann's thesis.
Third, despite Cullmann's arguments to the contrary, subjection to spiritual authorities does detract from the centrality of Christ and in no other place in the New Testament is such a command issued. In fact, the opposite is enjoined on Christians (cf. Eph 6:12).
Fourth, nowhere is it asserted that Christ's death and resurrection has accomplished subjugation of fallen angels to the point of conscripting them toward a positive role in his service. This does not appear to be in the New Testament and if one holds to a mostly futuristic view of Rev 13, then the fallen angelic authorities will at some future time rebel against Christ by political means.
Fifth, it is difficult to understand angels in verse 6 in the context of paying taxes.
Sixth, as Ernst Ksemann has pointed out, in Romans 13 "the terminology we encounter has its origin in the vocabulary of the of secular government in the Hellenistic world," not in Judaism with its view of angelic rulers. For these and other reasons, many commentators have rejected the idea of a double referent in Romans 13.
So it can be said, according to the context in Romans 13 and Pauline usage elsewhere, that the authorities (i.e. ejxousivai") spoken of in Romans 13:1 refer solely to human rulers. Since the term lacks the article52 and is plural, it probably refers to anyone in a governing position acting on behalf of and with the authority of the Roman government (cf. 1 Pet 2:14).
uJpotassevsqw—The verb is a 3rd person, singular, present middle imperative. Immediately one is confronted with the change from the second person singular in 12:19-21 to the third person singular in 13:1. Why this abrupt shift? We have dealt with Romans 13:1-7 and its asyndetic nature, but we have not probed the reason for the switch to the third person in 13:1. First, we observe that this shift in person does not continue through the entire unit. It persists until 13:3b where Paul returns to the second person singular (qevlei"/poivei/e{xei"). Therefore the switch to the third person singular covers the actual command to submission and the rationale wherein all authority comes from God (vv.1-3b). 1 Peter 2:13 reads uJpotavghte pavsh/ ajnqrwpivnh/ ktivsei diaV toVn kuvrion. Peter admonishes obedience to the authorities using the aorist, second person plural. Perhaps the change to the third person singular in Paul indicates that the command is really for all people, saved or not, whereas the commands in 12:19-21 for example are really only possible for Christians—those who have been recipients of the mercy of God. It is clear in 13:1 that Paul has Roman Christians in view, but it may be that the imperative is true for all people without exception, thus the use of the third person with Pa'sa yuchv. It is difficult to know whether Peter, writing from Rome, borrows from Paul or whether both are original or both go back to a tradition developed early in the church to deal with conflicts with the governing authorities. If they both go back to an earlier tradition, such as that found in Mark 12:13-17, then perhaps that tradition got lifted to the level of a universal principle that we see highlighted by the use of the third person rather than the second. If indeed Paul is working with a tradition that was well known in Rome, that would account for the lack of a connecting particle (i.e. joining 13:1-7 to 12:21) as he simply allowed the tradition to stand as is. It must also be remembered that at times paraenetic material is often without tight argumentation (Rom 12:9-21; 1 Thes 5:16-22).
Another question remains concerning the term uJpotassevsqw. What kind of submission is Paul talking about? The term is used 18 times in Paul and 20 other times in the New Testament. In the book of Romans he uses the term in conjunction with savrx and its inability to submit to the law of God (8:7) and the subjection of the creation to futility by God (8:20) as well as Israel's failure to submit to God's righteousness, instead creating their own. It also occurs twice in our passage, namely, verses 1 and 5. Paul uses the term to refer to submission of all things to Christ in the process of redemption (1 Cor 15:27, 28; Eph 1:22; Phil. 3:21; Heb 2:5, 8; 1 Peter 3:22) and in relationships in the church. Prophets are to be in submission one to another so that peace and order may be maintained (1 Cor 14:32). This is also true of women's roles in the church (14:34) and husband/wife relations as well. The wife is to submit to her husband as to the Lord (Eph 5:24; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1, 5; and Ps. Callisth., 1. 22. 4). Slaves are to be subject to their masters (Titus 2:9; 1 Peter 2:18), men and women to their spiritual leaders ( 1 Cor 16:16; 1 Peter 5:5) and of course submission to God himself is enjoined (Heb 12:9; James 4:7). The idea of submission to political authorities is seen in Titus 3:1 and 1 Peter 2:13-17. Finally, as far as NT usage is concerned, Luke uses it to refer to Jesus' submission to his parents after the Temple incident (Luke 2:51) and the fact that the demons had to submit to the disciples Jesus had sent out on a mission (10:17, 20). Its use in the New Testament, then, basically yields the idea of humble, informed submission to another in the light of God's will and redemptive work. That submission happens in all relationships in life.
The term is found in literature outside the New Testament as well. Josephus uses it in relation to the submission of Israel to foreign powers, i.e. Rome (War, 2.433; 4.175). It is also seen as a commendable attitude in The Letter of Aristeas, 257 where the text refers to a person who has a willing desire to submit to others. The king asks the question, "How can one find welcome abroad among strangers?" The answer given includes the idea of "appearing inferior rather than superior to those among whom one is a stranger." Here again we see that humility is at the core of the idea inherent in uJpotavssw.
The term is employed in the LXX about 30 times. Two instances of the verb in the middle voice are of note: 2 Maccabees 9:12 and 13:23. In 9:12 the writer relays the story of how Antiochus IV eventually submitted to God after God had smitten him with a wasting disease. In 13:23 the text says, "he [Antiochus] was dismayed, called in the Jews, yielded and swore to observe all their rights." From these two examples we can see that humility is involved in a process of submitting oneself to a higher authority—ultimately a voluntary submission in the light of the power of the higher authority.
From this evidence it is clear that the term has the idea of curbing one's will to the will of another; in this respect, a higher authority. In only one instance in the New Testament does it carry the idea of "forced submission," i.e. compulsion (Luke 10:17, 20). But there are other observations that can be made as well. The term as used in the New Testament has the constant reminder that there is a divine "order" at work, wherein God values societal order and is seeking in the context of redemption to bring such a result out of the chaos of sin in human relations. Thus even Jesus had to submit to his earthly parents and his work on earth was carried out according to God's design and order (Luke 2:51). He will someday, according to God's order, turn over the kingdom to the Father and he himself will be subject to God (1 Cor 15:28). Insofar as this order and submission is inherent in the Trinity and its inner relations, so it must occur in the redeemed community—in worship, in family relations and in all other relations—as ones who have received the mercies and Spirit of One True God. If the Son has to submit, we must all submit to whatever authority God the Father has appointed (cf. 1 Cor 11:12 in context).
The choice of the term uJpotavssw is interesting in the light of other terms Paul could have chosen—stronger terms which are rendered "obedience." They include peiqarcei`n, peivqesqai and uJpakouein. This probably indicates that Paul does not have in mind slavish, uncritical obedience to the state, but that there are various points at which the Roman Christians could not, and indeed must not, submit to the authorities. This particular aspect of the issue is not taken up, however, as it was his purpose to stress submission.
What Paul wants then, according to Romans 13:1 is willing, intelligent submission to the authorities, out of humility, because one is conscience of God's appointing and working through them. Underlying Paul's injunction is the understanding that the government is doing what God has appointed it for—that it knows between right and wrong (13:3) and carries out its role of maintaining harmony among the citizens.
A few other things must be said about submission to governmental authorities. Paul is not putting his carte blanche on all government actions per se, but is instead upholding the principle (13:1b) of "government and order" as an end towards responsible, peaceful living in a fallen world. When a government fulfills its functions of maintaining peace, and generally protects the welfare of its people, both against those from within and without who would threaten these things, then it is carrying out the end to which it was appointed. It must be obeyed even if some things are tough—e. g. paying high taxes. But, when it crosses these boundaries and becomes an instrument for evil, violating the explicit will of God as outlined in Scripture, then it must not be followed (i.e. obeyed) at that point. When the explicit will of God conflicted with certain authorities, Peter said we must obey God, not men (Acts 5:29). Paul accused the governing authorities of carrying out sentence without proper jurisprudence and he demanded certain actions be taken to remedy the situation (Acts 16:37). If the spreading of the gospel is unwelcome by one's own state, then the Christian must suffer the consequences, but nevertheless continue to obey God. There does not appear to be the possibility in Romans 13:1-7 that a Christian could take up arms against the state.
If indeed the problem in Romans 13 is strife between Christians and the state over the payment of taxes, then Paul says, "Give back to the state the taxes you owe" (v. 6, 7). But someone might say, "The state uses tax money for immoral purposes." Paul does not address these kinds of issues here. His assumption is that the government in power (even Rome with its erroneous religious views, etc.) is better than the evil that would result from anarchy. People must learn to live in a posture of submission. This goes back to creation and God's ordering of the world, especially of those in the church. In the end, one will always find oneself under the punitive authority of the state. Even Peter and Paul, as far as tradition is concerned, were killed by Roman authorities. So, if we do not follow the state in all its ideology and demands, we will end up being judged by them should they disagree with our Christian convictions.
The Rationale for Submission (13:1b-5)
A Theological Basis (13:1b-2a)
13:1b ouj gaVr e[stin ejxousiva eij mhV uJpoV qeou', aiJ deV ousai uJpoV qeou' tetagmevnai eijsivn. " For (gavr) there is no authority except [that which is given] by God and those who are appointed by God."
The gaVr indicates that what follows is the rationale for the command given in 13:1a. Paul says that every man should subject himself to the governing authorities because God is the originator and "establisher" of that authority. The twice repeated uJpoV qeou' clearly indicates the emphasis is on divine ordering, and the exclusion of any authority apart from (eij mhV) God furthers the idea of his sovereign control and ordering of the affairs of men. Later on Paul will talk about other motivations for civil obedience—fear, praise and conscience—but for now he wants his readers to know that governmental authority and those who carry it out are from God.
The question arises, does the term ejxousiva refer to specific authorities? Or, does it refer to the principle of authority itself? If we say that Paul is simply referring to the principle of authority and rulership we anchor the theology more closely with the nature of God—one who is ordered within himself. This observation definitely follows from the text, but it may not be the explicit denotation for ejxousiva here. The use of uJpoV and the elliptical nature of the clause, suggest the provision of a transitive verb of some kind, perhaps ejdwvqh (i.e. given), or possibly uJpov has the force of ajpov. If this is true, then Paul is likely talking about rulers as "individuals given"—as concrete expressions of God's authority. Second, the last clause in the verse is joined by way of parataxis (dev) to the clause preceding. This would tend to further the idea that what we have in the last clause is support for those individuals mentioned as ejxousiva.
The term tetagmevnai is in paraphrastic construction with eijsivn. The construction tends to emphasize the present aspect of the appointment and tetagmevnai continues the language of order and submission that pervades Romans 13:1-7. Such language includes: uJpotassevsqw/ uJpotavssesqai, ajntitassovmeno", diataghv and ajnqevsthken. Tetagmevnai is a perfect middle from tavssw which means "to determine," or "to appoint;" the same meaning it carried in non-biblical Greek. The term is used in the New Testament eight times. It can mean simply "to point out, choose or indicate," as in the case of Jesus choosing the mountain where he wanted to meet his disciples (Matt 28:16); the church at Antioch choosing or designating Paul and Barnabas to the special task of going to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:2); Paul's choosing a day to meet the Jewish leaders in Rome (Acts 28:23); and with no necessary negative inferences, the household of Stephanus choosing themselves to serve the saints (1 Cor 16:15). The term is also used theologically with God as the subject and the one who "appoints" people to eternal life (Acts 13:48) and the one who had already "chosen" or "marked out" a plan for the Apostle Paul's life (Acts 22:10). It is used one other time in Luke 7:8. In this passage the centurion recognizes something of Jesus' authority, knowing that he can heal just by "saying the word." The theological use of the term as well as its use in Luke 7:8 is instructive for it sets out some parameters which we may bring into the situation in Romans 13 in order to help us further understand the nature and boundaries of civic appointment. We will discuss this in a moment, but it is necessary to address first from whence Paul is deriving his idea of governmental authority. The background of the passage has had a bearing on this question in the history of discussion of this text.
It seems fairly clear that Paul is deriving his idea of the authorities being appointed by God, not directly from the gospel or early church tradition per se, but instead from the OT and his Jewish background, perhaps as a Diaspora Jew. The books of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel make abundant reference to such ideas which form the background to Paul's thinking here in Romans 13. In highlighted fashion, Isaiah 45:1-7 says:
1 Thus says the Lord to Cyrus His anointed, Whom I have taken by the right hand, To subdue nations before him, And to loose the loins of kings; To open doors before him so that gates will not be shut:
2 I will go before you and make the rough places smooth; I will shatter the doors of bronze, and cut through the iron bars.
3 And I will give you the treasures of darkness, And hidden wealth of secret places, In order that you may know that it is I, The Lord, the God of Israel, who calls you by your name.
4 For the sake of Jacob My servant, And Israel my chosen one, I have also called you by your name; I have given you a title of honor Though you have not known Me.
5 I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me;
6That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the Lord and there is no other,
7The One who forming light and creating darkness, Causing well being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.
Isaiah clearly says that God is the one who will raise up and appoint Cyrus to the task of serving him, in order that YHWH's purposes with Israel might be served—that Israel would realize that there is only one true God and He is YHWH. We note in this passage that Isaiah is speaking proleptically and thus there is an eschatology inherent in God's dealings with nations as he raises up leaders and peoples according to his grand purposes.
Jeremiah 21:7, 10 and 27:5-7 also declare God's sovereign, punitive purposes as he works through the Babylonian nation and King Nebuchadnezzar to bring judgment upon his people Israel. Jeremiah is very conscious of God's sovereign control of people on the earth and the Jews knew what it was like to live under foreign domination. Though the church has a different commission than did Israel, the analogy carries over in that God's people in the world have always had to determine how they would relate to the worldly structures. In the same way as Jeremiah was able to discern the workings of God through the pagan nations, so Paul is able here in Romans 13 to borrow on that precedent and declare that all authority on earth ultimately comes from God. There is an eschatology in Jeremiah that concerns the nations' dealings with Israel in that God is using them to bring about a purified people. He is using Babylon to bring about a nation obedient to him which will then fulfill his eschatological purposes promised in Genesis 12:1-3 and 2 Samuel 7:12-16 (cf. Matt 1:1).
Perhaps no prophet makes it more clear that God is in control of human affairs and places leaders in positions of authority for the carrying out of his purposes than does Daniel (cf. Dan 2:21, 37, 38; 4:17, 25, 32; 5:21). In 4:17 Daniel says, "The decision is announced by messengers, the holy ones declare the verdict, so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of men." These kingdoms are set over the lowliest of men, that is, for their government. But again, there is an eschatological outlook on these kingdoms for they are only forerunners to the great climactic kingdom which God himself will set up in the end (2:44).
The fact that God is the one who sets up governments and establishes authority is seen not only in the Old Testament, but also in Jewish intertestamental materials as well. Sirach 10:4 says that "the government of the earth is in the hand of the Lord, and over it He will raise up the right leader for the time" (cf. 17:17). In the middle of a discussion about the Essenes and their duties, Josephus says that an Essene should obey the ruling authorities "because no one obtains the government without God's assistance" (War 2. 140). The author of the Letter of Aristeas says that a person can avoid envy by realizing that "God assigns glory and greatness of wealth to kings, each and every one, and that no king is independent. All of them wish to share his glory, but they cannot—it is a gift of God." The same emphasis is seen in intertestamental apocalyptic materials. 1 Enoch 46:5 says that the apocalyptic Son of Man can dispose of kings who do not glorify and obey him, the One who is "the source of their kingship" (cf. also 2 Apocalypse of Baruch 82:9).
Both Dunn and Cranfield agree that Paul is here pulling on his heritage, both in the OT and as a first century Jew. Dunn, however, argues further from the OT and Jewish intertestamental materials that not only has Paul derived the idea that God has ordained the state, but that the OT and Jewish sources indicate that the state must function within its God-given ordering (cf. tetagmevnai) or design. If the state does not function according to its proper authority, but exceeds such limits by calling for "greater submission than God has ordered, [it] will come under the judgment of God." According to Dunn, this balancing of the truth of governmental authority is implied in Paul's discussion of the state here in Romans 13—that is, insofar as it is explicated in the OT and Jewish sources Paul relied upon. But, says Dunn, it has simply not been Paul's ambition to spell it out here. Porter takes issue with Dunn's approach. The OT and Jewish sources may lay behind the passage, but as Porter says, such a reconstruction of a wisdom tradition "is unnecessary to introduce into the discussion." Instead Porter argues that the limits on the authority of the government are to be found in the text itself wherein Paul refers to the ejxousivai" uJperecouvsai". These, he states, are a reference to "just" authorities. When the authorities are not being "just" then they have not been appointed by God or are at the least going outside their divine ordering. This interpretation rests on the qualitative use of uJperecouvsai" which we rejected above. Since the term is used simply to refer to "governing" authorities, it is difficult to believe that the Roman church would have understood it in a qualitative sense at all. It simply refers to those who are rulers, in a political sense. A better approach to defending the nature and boundaries of governmental authority from the text would be to recognize that the term tetagmevnai implies "delegated authority;" an authority which was bestowed by a holy God who cherishes order in society. One may also refer to the terms diavkono" (v. 4) and leitourgoiv (v. 6) to see that the authorities are servants and they, too, have a Master to whom they will give an account. This, then, is enough to demonstrate that Paul was conscious of the state's responsibility as well as the Christian's. The background materials, contrary to Porter, are important in this case for they give us a feel for ideology influencing the Apostle Paul.
13:2a w{ste oJ ajntitassovmeno" th'/ ejxousiva/ th'/ tou' qeou' diatagh'/ ajnqevsthken. "Consequently (w{ste) the one who resists authority, opposes the institution of God,"
The term w{ste introduces an inference deduced from the preceding argument, namely, that God is the one who has established governments and their rulers with the result that anyone who resists government, de facto opposes the institution of God himself.
The substantival participle oJ ajntitassovmeno" comes from the verb ajntitavssw which is used only five times in the New Testament and here in Romans 13 forms the antithesis to the verb uJpotavssw used in verse 1. Luke uses it to refer to the Jews who opposed and abused Paul during his ministry in Corinth (cf. Acts 18:6). James uses the term twice in 4:6 and 5:6. In 5:6, though the opposition spoken of was only hypothetical to show the injustice of the rich oppressors, it carries with it here the note of strong, determined opposition, sufficient to warrant decisive action on the part of the opposed. In James 4:6 (i.e. the other time he uses it) as in 1 Peter 5:5, the term is quoted from Proverbs 3:34 in the LXX (see also 1 Clement 30:2; Ignatius to the Ephesians 5:3). Here it is remarked that "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." Again, the opposition spoken of would qualify as "determined resistance" in an attempt to frustrate—only here in a good sense since God is the author of the opposition. Thus its usage in the NT carries the idea, not of mild resistance against someone or something, but a conscious determination to resist or oppose the will or action of another. When God is not the subject it is always used in a negative sense and the resistance is actually something disapproved of by God, or men, or both.
Josephus uses the term when referring to the Jews who opposed Caius Caesar when he wanted to set up his statues in the Temple, destroy those who resisted and take captive the rest of the nation (War 2. 184-85). Josephus says, "while all the nations in subjection to them [Rome] had placed the images of Caesar in their several cities, among the rest of their gods,—for them alone [i.e. the Jews] to oppose it was almost like revolters, and was injurious to Caesar" (War 2. 194). The Jews got together in large numbers in this instance to oppose what their rulers were doing, hence ajntitavssw has the same sense as in the NT—a strong determination to resist something, in this case, Caesar's decree.
The term is used in 1 Kings 11:34 in the LXX to render the Hebrew Wntva which itself has the idea of "to place" or "put" [him]. God "resisted" Solomon and eventually gave the kingdom to someone other than Solomon's sons (11:35). Another occurrence of the word is found in Hosea 1:6. Here the MT says that God will not show love to the House of Israel with the result that He would forgive their sin. The LXX renders God's refusal to forgive Israel by the language of opposition—"I will no longer show mercy to Israel, but will surely oppose her" (my translation). These are strong words showing God's commitment to resist Israel in her adultery. Thus the term is used in the negative sense in the OT and Jewish literature as well.
The idea that Paul has in mind is opposition to governing authorities on issues that should not result in Christian opposition. The source of the opposition is probably arrogance and pride since the term came to be associated with Proverbs 3:34. We notice also that the opposition rendered by certain individuals in the NT (where God is not doing the opposing), is always against God's chosen individuals and therefore ultimately against Him. This is the case in Acts 18 with the Jews' who opposed Paul. It is also the case in Romans 13 wherein Paul will not tolerate those in the church to resist those in government (cf. th'/ ejxousiva.
The term diataghv means "ordinance, direction or instruction" and continues Paul's heavy emphasis on the language of submission. But inherent in the term in Romans 13 is the idea of God's order and structuring (i.e. design) of human society. It is used 2 Esdras 4:11 (LXX) to refer to a "copy" of the letter certain men had sent to King Artaxerxes. It is also used once in the Apostolic Fathers in 1 Clement 20:3. Clement says, "The sun and the moon and the choirs of stars circle in harmony within the courses assigned to them, according to his direction, without any deviation at all." Thus the cosmos maintains its order by virtue of the directions of the Creator. Stephen (i.e., Luke in Acts 7:53) uses the term in the sense of the instruction rendered by the angels who acted as mediators during the giving of the Mosaic Law (cf. Gal. 3:19). Concerning angels as instructors and mediators of the Mosaic Law, Josephus maintains a similar idea (Ant. 15. 136). Thus Paul refers to the governing authorities as ruling according to a divine order and God's express will concerning the management of societal affairs. Morris says the term diataghv refers to a "divine institution." This is definitely the sense in Romans 13.
Paul says that the one who resists governmental authorities opposes (ajnqevsthken) the order or structure which comes from God. The term ajnqevsthken is used 14 times in the New Testament, eight of which are found in Paul (Rom 9:19, 13:2; Gal 2:11; Eph 6:13; 2 Tim 3:8, 4:15)83 where it clearly refers to strongly "opposing" someone or something. Why the shift from ajntitavssw to ajnqivsthmi? Most commentators who address the issue claim that it was for stylistic purposes and that the terms carry the same basic meaning.84 But, as Dunn points out, its usage in the LXX is illuminating since it constantly denotes a rather useless resistance against an obviously superior power (Lev. 26:37; Deut 7:24; 9:2; Josh 1:5, etc.), including resistance against God which is futile at best (Job 9:19; Ps. 76:7; Jer. 49:19; Wisdom of Solomon 11:21 and cf. 12:12 with Rom 9). Thus there was probably a conscious shift for Paul as he attempted to hint at the utter folly of opposing what God has instituted. Porter argues that the shift in verb was to indicate a more determined resistance to God's order in government than ajntitavssw could achieve.85 He bases this distinction on Pauline usage, but Paul uses ajntitavssw only once, i.e., here in Romans 13. Therefore such a comparison is unfounded. While the result is perhaps true, it is best derived from OT usage as Dunn has shown.
A Practical Basis (13:2b-5)
13:2b oiJ deV ajnqesthkovte" eJautoi'" krivma lhvmyontai86 "and those who do so will receive judgment on themselves."
Paul says that those who "set themselves to oppose" (ajnqesthkovte") the divine institution of government will receive krivma. What does the term krivma denote? Does it refer to divine wrath? Now? At the last judgment? Or does it refer to some punitive action of the state? The term is used 48 times in the NT, six times in Romans alone (2:2, 3; 3:8; 5:16; 11:33; 13:2). It can refer to a person's judgment or estimation of another (Matt 7:2); to God's temporal judgment of sin (Rom 2:2, 3; 1 Cor. 11:29, 34); to God's eternal judgment (Mk 12:40; Acts 24:25; Heb 6:2; 2 Pet 2:3; Jude 4) or to a political sentence handed out by the state or ruling authorities (Luke 23:40; 24:40; 1 Cor 6:7). Since Paul's focus is on the state in Romans 13 it seems best to understand this judgment here as a temporal judgment handed out by the state to the offending party. This interpretation fits the use of the term and allows for the force of the gavr in 13:3 and the following explanation that rulers hold no terror for those who do good. But, it must be said that while Paul's focus is on the state and the judgment it will render, we must remember that it has been appointed by God and is his servant to mete out punishment when necessary (13:4). Therefore, although the term krivma refers to a sentence handed out by the state, the state is nonetheless acting on behalf of God. When acting within its God-given sphere, the state rules for God and He is the ultimate reason for necessary punitive action. Dunn sees the judgment as divine and eschatological, the result of a program of deliberate opposition to God's instituted authority. This may well be the result of such a course of action, for opposing what God institutes will always incur judgment on "the final day," but if the gavr of verse 3 be allowed to go with verse 2, then the judgment is God's but mediated through the state. This appears to be Paul's emphasis. C. K. Barrett says, and I believe accurately, that "when resistance is offered to the state divine judgment comes into operation at once by means of the state's own judicial procedures."
13:3a oiJ gaVr a[rconte" oujk eijsiVn fovbo" tw'/ ajgaqw'/ e[rgw/ ajllaV tw'/ kakw'/. " For (gavr) rulers are not a fear to good work, but to evil [work]"
The term gavr is an explanatory conjunction and should go with the idea of judgment in verse 2 and not the command in verse 1 so that what follows is an explanation of the means of the execution of judgment, by the state. The oiJ a[rconte" could refer to angelic beings (Eph 2:2), but due to its parallel with ejxousivai" in verse 1 and the reference here to punishing the good (cf. mavcairan in v. 4) it seems almost certain that it refers to the Roman rulers (Matt 20:25; John 7:26; 12:42; Acts 3:17; 1 Cor 2:6-8; Ps Sol 17:36; Jos. Ant. 20. 11). The plural use of a[rconte" demonstrates that "the Apostle [sic] is speaking quite generally."
The expression tw'/ ajgaqw'/ e[rgw refers to any good work or deeds done within the confines of the law enforced and upheld by the state. This is clear from the following verse wherein Paul talks about "doing good" (i.e. verse 4). The expression tw'/ kakw' refers to the opposite of tw'/ ajgaqw'/ e[rgw and has the idea of any deeds or actions which oppose the state and its laws. These expressions have the broadest reference and scope.
Dunn say, "Once again the ajgaqov"/kavko" antithesis signals that Paul is expressing himself in terms which would gain the widest approbation from men and women of good will . . . whatever the abuses perpetrated on the system by corrupt rulers, this statement of principle would be widely accepted. . .That good citizenship may be particularly in view is suggested by the following clauses, but in societies where religious performance and piety were part of good citizenship that indicates an already broad reference.
The question that has arisen here concerns the idea that Paul has apparently taken no account of unjust authorities. Many commentators see the problem and Cranfield surfaces three possible explanations. First, says Cranfield, there is the possibility that Paul is speaking out of his good experiences with the Roman government and has forgotten or neglected the fact that Rome could do and had done evil. That this is the explanation is severely weakened by the fact that Paul had been treated unjustly by the Roman authorities (Acts 16:22, 37; 2 Cor 11:25) and it was ultimately those authorities that he understood to be the ones who crucified Christ (1 Cor 2:8). Second, Paul, though fully conscious of the possibility that the government might commit evil, is here only speaking of its true and natural duty as a magistrate under God and appointed by him. Third, Paul is saying that consciously or unconsciously, in one way or another, the government will praise the good work and punish the evil. Cranfield argues for the third possibility based in large measure on the "absoluteness" of the promise.
He says, The promise of v. 3 is absolute: the Christian, in so far as he is obeying the gospel, may be sure that the power will honour him. It may indeed intend to punish him, but its intended punishment will then turn out to be praise. It may take his life, but in so doing it will confer a crown of glory. On the other hand, if he does evil, it must needs punish him.
I find it difficult to see Cranfield's rationale for the acceptance of this third option. Paul does not appear to be talking abstractly, or about such accidental benefits to the saint as death and a crown of glory, but is simply saying that those in authority will punish the wrong and praise what is good. The second explanation for the passage seems best as Paul is arguing for the role of the state in the light of the diatagh/` of God. He is here assuming as a norm a positive and just role for the state.
13:3b qevlei" deV mhV fobei'sqai thVn ejxousivan toV ajgaqoVn poivei, kaiV e{xei" e[painon ejx aujth'" " Do you want to not fear the authority? Do good and you will have praise from it."
Apostle Paul has commanded that all people are to be subject to the governing authorities and this because God is the originator of that authority. To resist authority is therefore to resist God (1-2a). Those who do so will receive the state's discipline (2b-3a). Now, Paul gives a positive reason for submission to the state, namely, praise. Those who obey will have praise from the state and need not live in fear of it (13:3b).
The term qevlei" introduces either a question, independent statement or a conditional statement. Though the difference between these possibilities is fairly negligible, perhaps it is best to take it as a conditional statement: "If you do not want to fear the authority, then do good, and you will have praise from it." In this case qevlei" forms the protasis¹ with the imperative poivei² forming the apodosis³.
¹protasis /prŏt′ə-sĭs/
(noun)
1. The dependent clause of a conditional sentence, as if it rains in The game will be canceled if it rains.
2. The first part of an ancient Greek or Roman drama, in which the characters and subject are introduced.
3. A proposition; a maxim.
²
³
The use of the second person singular appears to have the force of diatribe style and lifts the discussion to a very personal level with the readers. As Porter aptly says, "the use of the second person in the diatribe style creates a personal address in the midst of the larger sweeping statements about governmental authority. The result is a direct and impressive forcefulness to Paul's rhetoric."
Is Paul saying that the state will, no matter what, recognize in a public way, such individuals who do good? Is this the meaning of e[painon? Barrett suggests the possibility that "statues and inscriptions" were bestowed on those who made a notable contribution to society. Hendricksen, while recognizing this possibility, understands the idea of e[painon to be the government forming "a favorable opinion of that well-behaved person, and will, whether only in "its heart" or even by means of an openly expressed commendation, approve of him." This view most likely reflects what actually happened in most cases and, therefore, fits Paul's general approach here.
13:4 qeou' gaVr diavkono" ejstin soiV eij" toV ajgaqovn. ejaVn deV toV kakoVn poih'/", fobou' ouj gaVr eijkh'/ thVn mavcairan forei' qeou' gaVr diavkono" ejstin e[kdiko" eij" ojrghVn tw'/ toV kakoVn pravssonti. " For (gavr) it is God's servant to do you good, but if you do evil, then fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain (eijkh`/). For (gavr) it is God's servant, an avenger to bring wrath on the one who practices evil."
The particle gavr has an explanatory force related to the idea of e[painon in verse 3b. Thus, the Apostle is saying that the reason one will have praise if they do good is because the ruling authorities are God's servants to do that obedient person good, i.e., praise them. The verse as a whole, however, outlines two purposes for the state as God's servant. It is to reward the good and punish the evil.
The term diavkono" is used 44 times in the New Testament and is joined here to qeou' which is placed first in the clause for emphasis. The state with its representatives, as Paul has so clearly outlined in 13:1-2 is God's servant. As Morris says, "The ruler is God's servant, no less. And servant reminds us that he is no more; he is not God even if some rulers had a very exalted view of themselves and their functions." Nowhere else does Paul or any other NT writer refer to the state as the qeou' diavkono". But the term does appear to have been used this way in and around the time of the NT108 and instances of such usage can be seen in the LXX (Esther 1:10; 2:2; 6:3109) as well. It is probably from these sources that Paul derives his language of the state as God's servant.
Two of the more important questions that have arisen in the interpretation of this clause concern the meaning of soiV and toV ajgaqovn. The pronoun soiV is most likely a dative of advantage. But to whom does it refer? Cranfield (cf. also M. Borg) argues (contra Barrett) that it parallels (by contrast) tw'/ toV kakoVn pravssonti and relates to the second person singular subject of the poivei in the preceding verse. This means that it is not a general reference to Christians in Rome as Dunn asserts, but refers particularly to "the one who does good." Cranfield would seem to be correct in his interpretation. The continuing of the second person from 13:3b and the parallel with tw'/ toV kakoVn pravssonti bear this out. Taken as simply a general reference to the readership in Rome would seem to downplay these obvious connections.
What, then, is the meaning of toV ajgaqovn? Does this refer to the government treating its citizens well resulting in personal prosperity, or, the government working for the common good? Or, does it have a more spiritual denotation as in 8:8? That is, does the state play a role in furthering God's eschatological purposes in salvation? Or, finally, does it refer to the government creating the conditions for people to live a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness (1 Tim. 2:2)?
The term diavkono" does bring to the text a theological nuance and so the possibility does exist, as Cranfield points out, that here we have the idea of the state furthering God's purposes in salvation. The problem with this view appears to be the kind of ministry the state is to fulfill. Romans 13:1-7 gives no indication that it is some kind of salvific role. This is to read too much soteriology into diavkono" in Romans 13. There is no doubt that a sovereign God working out his purpose of salvation will use the state to those ends, but this is not made explicit here. It would seem that the other solutions proposed for the problem are not that far apart. Providing for the common good and maintaining order are related to each other. But, the government is not a welfare organization in Paul's mind and so the best solution would appear to be that the government is to maintain civil order. This seems to be the emphasis of the following clause wherein Paul says that the state will punish those who do evil. And, as Hendricksen points out, this coheres well with Paul's teaching in 1 Timothy 2:2.
After relating the positive function of the authorities, Paul goes on to indicate how they will deal with those who do evil (cf. the mild adversative dev). Continuing the diatribe style he says that "if you do evil, then fear, for it [i. e., the state] does not bear the sword in vain." The term ejaVn sets up a third class conditional statement, with the apodosis found in the imperative fobou'. In this context toV kakoVn refers to anything that is opposite to toV ajgaqovn and therefore renders society a dangerous place in which to live and undermines societal order. A person who causes such things, according to Paul, ought to fear because of the punitive function of the state.
Concerning the punitive role of the state, two further issues must be looked at in the interpretation of this verse. What is the meaning of thVn mavcairan forei' in verse 4b and what does ojrghVn in verse 4c signify? The connector gavr (v. 4b) is explanatory and introduces the reason why the person who does evil should fear, namely, because the state does not carry (forei') the sword for nothing. Therefore, the term mavcairan (i. e. sword) is a symbol which refers to judicial action carried out by the state against a person who has in some way opposed the state. The question that has often come up in the discussion of this term is whether or not it refers to such extreme action as capital punishment.
C. K. Barrett argues that the reference is to the state's right of capital punishment. Referring to mavcairan he says, "This last expression recalls the technical term ius gladii, by which was meant the authority (possessed by all higher magistrates) of inflicting sentence of death." But, as A. N. Sherwin-White has pointed out, the comparison of ius gladii with the thought of general governing will not stand. Ius gladii referred to the right of a provincial governor to maintain military discipline among the Roman soldiers under his command without being hampered by the provisions of laws of provocatio." There is not a sufficient analogy in Romans 13 to ius gladii to base capital punishment on such a comparison.
Though the parallel to the ius gladii will not stand, this does not mean that the sword does not represent capital punishment. The "sword" is used in the NT on many occasions to refer to the authorities' right to take life if it is deemed that one has committed an offense worthy of such punishment (cf. Matt 26:52; Luke 21:24; Acts 12:2; 16:27; Heb 11:34, 37; Rev 13:10). The sense here in Romans is precisely that, though Paul would include the magistrate's punitive authority in much less serious matters as well. Murray has correctly said:
The sword which the magistrate carries as the most significant part of his equipment is not merely the sign of his authority but of his right to wield it in the infliction of that which a sword does. It would not be necessary to suppose that the wielding of a sword contemplates the infliction of the death penalty exclusively. It can be wielded to execute punishment that falls short of death. But to exclude the right of the death penalty when the nature of the crime calls for such is totally contrary to that which the sword signifies and executes. We need appeal to no more than New Testament usage to establish this reference.
The fact that Paul says that the state does not "bear the sword in vain, i.e., to no purpose" (eijkh') seems to further strengthen the fact that the state's authority over wrongdoers reaches to the point of capital punishment.
Insofar as the state does this, it is the servant of God (qeou' diavkono") as an agent (e[kdiko") of wrath (ojrghVn) on the one who practices evil (tw'/ toV kakoVn pravssonti). The gavr (v. 4c) is again introducing the reason why the person doing evil ought to fear, name ly, because the state is God's servant; an a venger in the carrying out of divine wrath on the wrongdoer. The term e[kdiko" can be used in three distinct senses. First, it can refer to one who places himself outside the law by committing an offense against it.129 Second, it can refer to a "legal officer" but this usage tends to be somewhat earlier than the New Testament.130 The third sense appears to be closest to what we have in Romans 13. By assimilation to ejkdikavzw (a Hellenistic development away from its root ejkdikevw) the term came to mean not one who is outside the law (i.e., a criminal), but one who decides a legal process, i.e., an "avenger."131 This is certainly the meaning in its only other Pauline use in 1 Thessalonians 4:6. In this text Paul is stating that the Lord is an "avenger" (e[kdiko") against those who wrong their brothers in matters of sexual purity, that is, the Lord is the one who will punish those who commit this evil.132 The term is also used in this way in Jewish materials as well. In referring to a well brought up son who can take issue with his father's enemies, Sirach 30:6 says that "He [i.e. the father] has left behind him an avenger against his enemies, and one to repay the kindness of his friends" (italics mine). Josephus (War 5. 377), when he was exhorting the Jews not to fight against Titus, asked them this question, "And when was it that God, who is the Creator of the Jewish people, did not avenge them when they had been injured" (italics mine)? In summary, the term as it is used here and in other places in the literature speaks of the active pursuit of those who do evil.
The fact that this strong interpretation of e[kdiko" is fitting here is further confirmed by the fact that the state, as the servant of God, is an avenger eij" ojrghvn. We now look at the second major interpretive difficulty in the latter part of verse 4—the meaning of the term ojrghvn. Paul has referred to the final day of judgment (ojrghv) in Romans 2:5 and 5:9 and has also spoken of another, present expression of God's wrath ejpiV pa`san ajsevbeian kaiV ajdikivan ajnqrwvpwn in 1:18 (cf. also 9:18). In this passage God gives men and women over to their sin thus fitting them even more for the final day of wrath. But in 13:4 the question arises as to whether it is divine wrath or simply the wrath of the state. J.C. O'Neill says that "the word wrath means not God's wrath but simply fear of the punishment able to be meted out by the ruler." He argues that the word God is not repeated and if one inserts it, it renders the entire argument tautologous.
tautologous
adjective
1. Repeating the same thing in different words; tautological.
2. Similar: tautological
O'Neill understands the idea of conscience (v. 5) to refer to God and therefore Paul would be saying that "the state is an avenger for God's wrath and we should submit because of God" (i.e., conscience). But this reading of the passage has at least two weaknesses. First, it is built on an either/or choice which, given the data (e.g. the fact that the state is established by God), is not entirely adequate. Second, conscience should not be identified that closely with God. Most commentators take it as referring to God's wrath meted out in punitive action by means of the state. With this I agree (cf. also 12:19). Paul clearly says that the state is God's servant. O'Neill seems to have disregarded this point. Finally, there may be some merit in the idea suggested by both Barrett and Ziesler that the wrath executed by the state prefigures that which will come against all lawlessness in the end. Since the apostle has spoken of this eschatological wrath already in Romans (e.g., 5:9), perhaps this forms part of the rationale for the apostle's use of the term here. He has been desirous of linking the state to God throughout the passage.
13:5 dioV ajnavgkh uJpotavssesqai, ouj movnon diaV thVn ojrghVn ajllaV kaiV diaV thVn suneivdhsin. "Wherefore (dioV) it is necessary to submit, not only because of wrath, but also because of conscience."
