Interpretation of Romans 13 (governing authorities)

[Joel]

What does Romans 13 tell us about governing authorities? I propose to analyze it logically. And I request comments, correction, and assistance, where I go astray. Start with the first verse:

Romans 13:1 "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God."

The first sentence seems to follow from definition. What is the definition of authority but one to whom you are to be in subjection?

The last (third) statement there can be equivalently written as:
P1b) If X is an authority, then X is established by God.

And every statement is logically equivalent to its contrapositive:
P1b) If X is not established by God, then X is not an authority.

And that latter form is just what the second statement in Romans 13:1 says.

2 "Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves."

The first statement follows from verse 1. If X is an authority established by God and one must submit to an authority, then it is established by God that you must submit.

Now these first two verses don't tell us who is and is not a governing authority. Someone might think that some particular existing entity is a governing authority, or that any entity that claims to be a governing authority and wields force is a governing authority. Or that entities are governing authorities only insofar as they do justice. But any such conclusion would require an additional premise. It is not found in Romans 13:1. Fortunately the following verses give us some help in identifying who is and is not a governing authority. Let's continue.

3 "For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;"

The first sentence can be rephrased as:
P3a) If X is a ruler, X is not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil.

And it is logically equivalent to its contrapositive:
P3a) If X is a cause of fear for good behavior (or is not for evil), then X is not a ruler.

From the context it seems that "ruler" is to be taken synonymously with "governing authority" in previous verses.

The latter part of the verse tells us:
P3b) If you do good, and X is a ruler, then you will have praise from X.
Which is logically equivalent to its contrapositive:
P3b) If you do not have praise from X, then either you did not do good, or X is not a ruler.

4 "for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil."

P4a) If X is a ruler, then X is a minister of God to you for good.
Logically equivalent to its contrapositive:
P4a) If X is not a minister of God to you for good, then X is not a ruler.

P4b) If X is a ruler, then X brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
Logically equivalent to its contrapositive:
P4b) If X does not bring wrath on the one who practices evil, then X is not a ruler.

We see in verses 3 and 4 some ways to know that some entity is not a ruler. A ruler only punishes evil and praises good and ministers for good.

5 "Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake."

"Therefore" indicates that it is meant to logically follow from what was just said--that a ruler praises the good and brings wrath on evil. It follows from verses 3 and 4 that to subject one's self to a ruler is the same as to do good and to refrain from doing evil. Thus a ruler's commands always duplicate a pre-existing law of good and evil. Therefore to obey the ruler's commands is to obey what conscience already dictated. We are to obey a ruler's commands not just as a malum prohibitum, to avoid punishment, but because they prohibit that which is already malum in se.

It also follows from this that a ruler's commands never add anything beyond the pre-existing law. A ruler never invents new laws of his own making, but only enforces the pre-existing law. No law has authority besides God's law (As we saw in verses 1 and 2: "For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God")

6 "For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing."

Let's take the latter part of the verse first. It tells us:
P6b) If X is a ruler, then X is a servant of God, and X is devoting himself to praising good and punishing evil.
Which is logically equivalent to its contrapositive:
P6b) If X is not a servant of God, or X is not devoting himself to praising good and punishing evil, then X is not a ruler.

Which is in the same vein as verses 3-4.

In the first part of the verse, "you pay" seems to be present active indicative (plural), not imperative. It presupposes that the audience is already paying tax. Thus, Paul is not giving instruction/command, but making a further argument (Note also the first "For...".), by asking the audience to consider the reason why they already are paying taxes.: e.g. Don't you already pay taxes because you want the ruler to stop thieves, murderers, etc?

The ruler is "devoting himself" to this, perhaps as a butcher or baker devotes themselves to their own occupation. You pay a baker because you want his delicious cake. (E.g. "This is why you pay money to Bob the baker, because Bob devotes himself to baking delicious cakes." would not imply a command to buy cake.) You similarly likely want to pay a person who is a full-time punisher of injustice because you want to be protected from injustice. So it not a command, but an argument supporting his conclusion that a ruler stops such injustice and praises the good.

7 "Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."

"Render to each what is due" was the standard formula of justice among the ancients, including Plato and Cicero. In Latin: Suum quique tribuere. Paul, being familiar with Greeco-Roman philosophy would have been aware of this. And Jesus too used the same formula: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Render unto God what is God's." And this is naturally related to the preceding discussion of persons who are engaged in the full time job of enforcing a pre-existing law of God. The commonly understood purpose of a government was to enforce justice.

8 "Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law."

Most references to the Romans chapter 13 discussion of governing authorities stop with verse 7. But the following verses seem to be part of the same discussion. "Owing" in verse 8 follows right after verse 7's rendering what is due.

"Owe nothing", could refer either/both to paying debts as soon as you can, and to not take on debt in the first place. In context of verse 7, it may imply that it is better to not owe taxes/custom/etc. in the first place.

9 "For this, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.""

Murder, theft, adultery, etc. are particular examples of injustice, pointing back to the purpose of government.

10 "Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

We saw that that true rulers do not invent new law, but enforce the already-existing law. Verses 7-10 help us see what the law is. It is the law of justice. Which is found in the law of love. Love entails doing no wrong to a neighbor. Doing wrong to a neighbor is injustice. Thus love entails refraining from that which true rulers punish. Love is the fulfillment of the law, and also means you avoid punishment by rulers, and gain their praise.

Further commentary:

I make the empirical observation that there has never been a man-made government (king, democracy, etc) which satisfied Paul's conditions for an authority/ruler. And it would at first seem that we can find obvious examples to directly contradict Paul's statements that a ruler only punishes evil and praises good.

So there are three possibilities: Either Paul was wrong (and apparently out of his mind), or Paul did not literally mean what he wrote here, or Nero is not a governing authority when committing injustices. The latter possibility could mean either that Nero is not a governing authority at all, or that Nero is only sometimes acting as a governing authority. The latter seems to make the most sense, as human authority always seems to be limited. For example, if the U.S. President told you to bow before him, he would clearly be speaking outside his authority as President. It would be a command without authority, not a command from an authority. We also see limits to authority in Biblical examples doing right by disobeying a 'ruler', e.g. Acts 5:29 "But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than men.'"

This also is consistent with what was said above about authorities only enforcing the pre-existing law of justice. The reasonable conclusion is that that is the extent of governing authority. Anything beyond it is outside that authority, thus without authority.

[Raphael]

(for now....busy but will comment when I have time)

[seanD]

Other option: Paul is writing close to the decade (if not in the decade) of the 66-70 CE war, and is using hyperbole to squash any idea of taking part in a revolt against the Roman Empire.

[Faber]

Several of the men in my Sunday School class are quick to criticize President Obama or some of the congressmen. I am quick to correct them on this. Any issues I have with the current president will wait until the next president takes office. 1 Peter 2:17, "Fear God. Honour the King." I can give several other verses.

Maybe I can best give the example of David and his high regard for Saul as God's anointed, despite Saul's wickedness and attempts to kill David. Or Daniel's respect for ungodly kings of Babylon and Persia.

The disciples stated, "We must obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29) But that wasn't until after the discussed the issue with the Sanhedrin, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge." (Acts 4:19)

Civil disobedience can be justified only as a last resort, after alternate outcomes fail to be agreed on. And we must be willing to pay the price. Remember how Daniel and his friends offered an alternative that would be agreeable to the king.

I have seen too many cases where Christians have been defiant against local governments who restrict their religious freedoms, but not requiring them to violate the Scriptures. Like when Christians want to hold a church service in a residential area, where there is no off-street parking, when it would become a nuisance to the neighborhood. It was a violation of the local zoning ordinance.

We don't have any religious rights, other than the right to be called children of God (John 1:12). That includes the right to violate ordinances of men unless there is a clear requirement to violate Scripture.

Give me nine more months, and I'll feel free to talk about Obama. Until then, he is the man God chose to be president over this country. Like it or not.

[Joel]

Several of the men in my Sunday School class are quick to criticize President Obama or some of the congressmen. I am quick to correct them on this. Any issues I have with the current president will wait until the next president takes office. 1 Peter 2:17, "Fear God. Honour the King." I can give several other verses.

Maybe I can best give the example of David and his high regard for Saul as God's anointed, despite Saul's wickedness and attempts to kill David. Or Daniel's respect for ungodly kings of Babylon and Persia.

The disciples stated, "We must obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29) But that wasn't until after the discussed the issue with the Sanhedrin, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge." (Acts 4:19)

Civil disobedience can be justified only as a last resort, after alternate outcomes fail to be agreed on. And we must be willing to pay the price. Remember how Daniel and his friends offered an alternative that would be agreeable to the king.

I have seen too many cases where Christians have been defiant against local governments who restrict their religious freedoms, but not requiring them to violate the Scriptures. Like when Christians want to hold a church service in a residential area, where there is no off-street parking, when it would become a nuisance to the neighborhood. It was a violation of the local zoning ordinance.

We don't have any religious rights, other than the right to be called children of God (John 1:12). That includes the right to violate ordinances of men unless there is a clear requirement to violate Scripture.

Give me nine more months, and I'll feel free to talk about Obama. Until then, he is the man God chose to be president over this country. Like it or not.

So, how do you interpret the words of Romans 13? Or where did I err?


We can also consider 1 Peter 2:13-17 as you suggest.

13 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority,
14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.
15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.
16 Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God.
17 Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.
18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable.
19 For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly.
20 For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.

Again we see that the governing authorities are ones who are devoted to "the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right." And submitting is equivalent to "doing right". Like Paul, implying that government authorities only enforce God's existing law of justice.

Honor the king along with honoring "all people". Does that mean never point out any injustice, because that would be dishonoring the culprit? And who is the "king" in a republic? The "people"?
Now Peter does seem to go beyond Paul in urging submission also to even slave masters, unreasonable ones, and to injustice. But that clearly does not imply that the slave master or anyone else doing injustice is therefore not doing injustice. Needing to turn the other cheek, does not mean the assailant isn't committing injustice.

As for Acts chapter 4, they weren't 'discussing' it with the council. The council commanded them to cease speaking to anyone in the name of Jesus (v. 17), and Peter and John answered that they were going to continue speaking out, regardless. The quote you quoted seems like sarcasm, implying that the council thinks they are greater than God. The quote is "19 But Peter and John answered and said to them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; 20 for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.""

I'm not so much considering when it is okay to engage in civil disobedience as much as considering what we can understand regarding what it is moral or immoral for a government to do. This question is relevant to us in a democracy, because if something is immoral for a government to do, it is also immoral to vote for it or otherwise support it as "the people".

[Joel]

Other option: Paul is writing close to the decade (if not in the decade) of the 66-70 CE war, and is using hyperbole to squash any idea of taking part in a revolt against the Roman Empire.

That would fall under the possibility I mentioned that "Paul did not literally mean what he wrote here." But then it's more difficult to understand it as a literal universal principle as people often seem to try to take it. And Paul could have made that point in words without the subtly subversive literal meaning.


Was there perhaps an issue of Christians saying that they should not submit to civil government for punishment for wrongdoing, and instead should submit only to God and the Church? Paul isn't assuming they aren't doing evil deserving of punishment. The main instruction in the chapter is his telling them to not murder, steal, etc. And later on in the chapter, "Therefore let us lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts." It seem like the point is: stop doing evil and getting punished for it. Peter seems to say the same in his parallel passage (in 1 Peter 2), "For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience?"

[Faber]

So, how do you interpret the words of Romans 13? Or where did I err?


We can also consider 1 Peter 2:13-17 as you suggest.

13 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority,
14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.
15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.
16 Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God.
17 Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.
18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable.
19 For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly.
20 For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.

Again we see that the governing authorities are ones who are devoted to "the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right." And submitting is equivalent to "doing right". Like Paul, implying that government authorities only enforce God's existing law of justice.

Honor the king along with honoring "all people". Does that mean never point out any injustice, because that would be dishonoring the culprit? And who is the "king" in a republic? The "people"?
Now Peter does seem to go beyond Paul in urging submission also to even slave masters, unreasonable ones, and to injustice. But that clearly does not imply that the slave master or anyone else doing injustice is therefore not doing injustice. Needing to turn the other cheek, does not mean the assailant isn't committing injustice.

As for Acts chapter 4, they weren't 'discussing' it with the council. The council commanded them to cease speaking to anyone in the name of Jesus (v. 17), and Peter and John answered that they were going to continue speaking out, regardless. The quote you quoted seems like sarcasm, implying that the council thinks they are greater than God. The quote is "19 But Peter and John answered and said to them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; 20 for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.""

I'm not so much considering when it is okay to engage in civil disobedience as much as considering what we can understand regarding what it is moral or immoral for a government to do. This question is relevant to us in a democracy, because if something is immoral for a government to do, it is also immoral to vote for it or otherwise support it as "the people".

Back to my Sunday School class: The argument had been brought up that the Constitution, not the president, is the final authority, and that when the president passed an executive order that is in contradiction with the constitution, are we free to disregard the president? The same applies to the courts, especially the Supreme Court, which blatantly disregards the constitution in many of its decisions. Which do we follow? My take on 1 Peter 2 and Romans 13 is that we follow the president or the courts. Unless they instruct me to violate a clear principle in the Scriptures. Some may strongly disagree with that.

A problem I have is with situation like nazi Germany, or communist governemts such as North Korea or Red China (as opposed to Nationalist China), or arab nations such as Saudi Arabia or Iran. How can they possibly be included in Paul's description, "For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil"? They themselves are pure evil. What do I say? Was Paul mistaken? In such a situation I'm not so sure I disagree with you.

But outside of those extreme situations, I personally need to apply the principles of David. Samuel anointed him king. He knew that God had rejected Saul from being king. Saul was a madman who sought to kill david. And David had the opportunity to kill Saul. But we read,

"It came about afterward that David's conscience bothered him because he had cut off the edge of Saul's robe. So he said to his men, 'Far be it from me because of the LORD that I should do this thing to my lord, the LORD'S anointed, to stretch out my hand against him, since he is the LORD'S anointed.'" (1 Samuel 24:5-6, NASB)

Imagine that! David conscience bothered him. And later, David had another opportunity to kill Saul.

"But David said to Abishai, "Do not destroy him, for who can stretch out his hand against the LORD'S anointed and be without guilt?" David also said, "As the LORD lives, surely the LORD will strike him, or his day will come that he dies, or he will go down into battle and perish. "The LORD forbid that I should stretch out my hand against the LORD'S anointed." (1 Samuel 26:9-11, NASB)

As long as we're not under a nazi, communist or Islamist government, I think Christians need to consider the seriousness of rebelling against any government, no matter how unfair or unjust. All too often, I hear of Christians demanding their religious freedoms when they have no Scriptural basis for violating the laws of government.

Some of the cases I briefly mentioned, and the specific dates or locations fail me: In one situation there was a church building in a sparsely populated neighborhood with plenty of parking in the street. They congregation either left or closed up. It later was bought by a business, but they eventually moved out. The neighborhood became more developed and the local town changed zoning to residential only, or small business. Another congregation bought the building and wanted to start holding church services. The township told them no. There was no available on-site parking, and it would be a nuisance to the neighborhood. Do they have the right to violate the ordinance?

Another situation was when the owner of a car dealership wanted to allow a group of Christians to hold services on Sunday morning in the showroom. It was in violation of the ordinance.

There are many examples. A school telling a student he can't wear a shirt with a Christian logo or carry a Bible in the classroom. An employer telling a worker he can't witness to a co-worker while on the job.

Unfortunately, I feel that when Christians go to court against their employers, or the school, or against the township, they are actually bringing disgrace to the name of Christ. Whether the government is acting morally or immorally, we need to obey as much as Scripturally possible. But I wouldn't vote for an immoral person.

[One Bad Pig]

Joel, your interpretation has a sort of logic, but it seems to stem from your Libertarian presuppositions.

Here is commentary by Origen, who lived under some rather tyrranical authorities (his father was martyred, and eventually so was he):

Source: Origen Commentary on Romans

13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities.

The Apostle is laying down precepts for believers and he wants us to preserve rest and peace in this present life, so far as it depends on us. And indeed, if we are such that, having been united with the Lord, we are one spirit with him, we are said to be subject to the Lord.... the Apostle lays down precepts for the soul and tells it to be subjected to the authorities of the world; for the Lord also said that those who have the inscription of Caesar within themselves should render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's.... He who has money or possessions or any worldly preoccupations should listen up: "Let every soul be subject to the higher authorities.

For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

Perhaps someone will say: What then? Is even that authority that persecutes God's servants, attacks the faith, and subverts religion, from God? To this we shall briefly respond. There is no one who does not know that even sight is a gift from God to us, as well as hearing and the ability to think. Well then, though we have these things from God, it nevertheless is within our authority to make use of our vision either for good things or evil tings. In a similar way we use our hearing, the movement of our hands, and the reflection of thought; and in this the judgment of God is just, because we misuse these things that he has given for good use, for impious and wicked service. So then, all authority has also been given by God "to punish those who are evil but to praise those who are good"; just as the same Apostle says what follows. But the judgment of God will be just in respect to those who govern the authority they have received in accordance with their own impieties and not in accordance with God's laws. This is why he says:

2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God,

. Here he is not speaking about those authorites that instigate persecutions against the faith; for in such cases one must say, "It is necessary to obey God rather than man." Instead he is speaking about general authorities, which

3 are not a terror to good works, but to evil.

Surely the one who resists them procures condemnation for himself for the quality of his own deeds.
Paul troubles me by these words, that he calls the secular authority and the worldly judgment a minister of God; and he does this not merely one time, but he even repeats it a second and a third time. I would like to endeavor to ascertain the sense in which a worldly judge is a minister of God. [Here Origen quotes the outcome of the Council in Acts 15]. In these precepts, then, in which he says that no further burden is to be imposed upon the Gentile believers except that they should abstain from what is sacrificed to idols and from blood and from strangled things and from fornication, neither murder is prohibited nor adultery nor theft nor homosexuality nor other crimes that are punished by divine and human laws. But if that which he mentioned above alone has to be observed by Christians, it will appear that he has given them license in respect to those other crimes. But observe the ordinance of the Holy Spirit; for indeed since the other crimes are avenged by secular laws and since it was deemed superfluous now to prohibit these things by divine law, since they are adequately punished by human law, he decrees only those things concerning which no human law had spoken about but which seemed to be in agreement with the religion. From this it is clear that the worldly judge fulfills the greatest part of God's law. For all the crimes that God wants to be punished, he has willed that they be punished not through the priests and leaders of the churches, but through the worldly judge. And aware of this, Paul righly names him a minister of God and an avenger of the one who does what is evil... By these things Paul sets the rule for the Church of God not to oppose secular rulers and authorities. Through the quietness and tranquility of life it should practice the work of righteousness and piety. For instance, if we suppose that believers in Christ are not subject to secuar authorities, that they do not have to pay taxes, that they are not required to pay out revenues, and that they owe no one fear or honor, would not the weapons of leaders and rulers deservedly turn against them? Would such Christians not make them justified persecutors, but themselves guilty? For they would have already seemed to be attacked not because of their faith, but because of rebelliousness. To be sure there would be a case against them worthy of death, but it would be a death unworthy of merit.

Providing for these things, then, Paul says through his immense wisdom,

7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. 8 Owe no one anything except to love one another.

...Whoever is still of the world and is mindful of the things that are of the world and seeks the things of the flesh is necessarily subject to the ministers of the world; but he is subjected because of the wrath that he has stored up as a treasure for himself from sins. And it is for this reason it seems to me that he says, "Therefore it is necessary to be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience." Inthe conscience too a person is subjected, since he as something in him that will be accused by conscience. Therefore, we pay certain taxes to them, as long as we still live according to the flesh and think on things that belong to the flesh. For if we till the Lord's vineyard and cultivate the true vine, whi is Christ, within us, we do not pay taxes from that vineyard to the ministers of the world, but we return fruits in time to the Lord himself. (Here, Origen is speaking of spiritual fruit.) ...Moreover, what he says, "Pay to all what is due them; tax to whom tax is due; revenue to whom revenue is due," seems to me to be distinct from what he goes on to say in what follows, "fear to whom fear is due; honor to whom honor is due," even regarding those ministers for whom we have said above taxes and revenue are pertinent. For they exact from us taxes from our land and revenues from our business. And why am I sayin, "from us"? Tax was exacted even from our Lord Jesus Christ when he was in the flesh; it was on that account that he claims to pay, not in that he is obligated to, but lest he cause them to stumble. But if he who had nothing in himself that belinged to Caesar and in whom there was nothing of his own possession that the ruler of this world, on arrival, found, though he was free, nevertheless pays tax - for he even went to death in order that he would be "free among the dead" - how much more necessary is it for us to pay out these taxes of the flesh and to pay revenues for our business through diverse trials to the spirits exacting them from us, but only if we do business with the pearls of the kingdom of heaven?

But we ought to refer "fear and honor" more to him who says through the prophet, "Do you not call me Lord and Father? And if I am Lord, where is my fear? And if I am Father, where is my honor?" (Mal. 1:6)

And briefly returning to this ultimate definition of such a great good, he says,

10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

© Copyright Original Source

(Please excuse any typos.) This is not dissimilar, IMO, to Peter's admonition that we should subject ourselves to the authorities, and there is no merit inherent in punishment for having done wrong (which you mention above).

See also, e.g., the commentary by John Chrysostom, who was writing under a Christian emperor.

[seanD]

That would fall under the possibility I mentioned that "Paul did not literally mean what he wrote here." But then it's more difficult to understand it as a literal universal principle as people often seem to try to take it. And Paul could have made that point in words without the subtly subversive literal meaning.


Was there perhaps an issue of Christians saying that they should not submit to civil government for punishment for wrongdoing, and instead should submit only to God and the Church? Paul isn't assuming they aren't doing evil deserving of punishment. The main instruction in the chapter is his telling them to not murder, steal, etc. And later on in the chapter, "Therefore let us lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts." It seem like the point is: stop doing evil and getting punished for it. Peter seems to say the same in his parallel passage (in 1 Peter 2), "For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience?"

It's possible that the situation required the way Paul addressed it. Jews and/or Jewish proselytes whom he was addressing felt obligated to help their Jewish brethren, or being convinced to do so, to stand against Roman tyranny. The situation was critical enough that required the type of spiritual hyperbole Paul used to get them to stand down yet cloaked in a way as to not set off alarm bells to any Roman official that might have gotten hold of the letter.

[Raphael]

Joel, your interpretation has a sort of logic, but it seems to stem from your Libertarian presuppositions.

Here is commentary by Origen, who lived under some rather tyrranical authorities (his father was martyred, and eventually so was he):

Source: Origen Commentary on Romans

[snip]

© Copyright Original Source

(Please excuse any typos.) This is not dissimilar, IMO, to Peter's admonition that we should subject ourselves to the authorities, and there is no merit inherent in punishment for having done wrong (which you mention above).

See also, e.g., the commentary by John Chrysostom, who was writing under a Christian emperor.

The ESV Study Bible pretty much agrees Origen.

I posted this in the other thread:




http://www.esvbible.org/resources/es...rticle-ethics/

Source: ESV Study Bible article on Ethics

Civil Government
God Established Civil GovernmentChristian Influence on GovernmentsWhen Obedience to Government Is WrongIs Revolution or a War of Independence Ever Right?
Methods of Selecting Leaders for Government

© Copyright Original Source

[Abigail]

When the laws of our governments do not go against scripture then we are rightfully punished if we go against them. If the laws of our governments go against scripture and we refuse to follow them and are punished then I think this is where Matthew 5:10 is applicable and we are being tried and revealed as children of God (a very good thing ). I think we have to pray and rely on God to remove bad governments and not just act with our own accord. Our real. Kingdom is a spiritual one and we know who our King is

[Joel]

Source: Origen Commentary on Romans

Here he is not speaking about those authorites that instigate persecutions against the faith; for in such cases one must say, "It is necessary to obey God rather than man." Instead he is speaking about general authorities, which "3 are not a terror to good works, but to evil."
Surely the one who resists them procures condemnation for himself for the quality of his own deeds.

Paul troubles me by these words, that he calls the secular authority and the worldly judgment a minister of God; and he does this not merely one time, but he even repeats it a second and a third time. I would like to endeavor to ascertain the sense in which a worldly judge is a minister of God. [Here Origen quotes the outcome of the Council in Acts 15]. In these precepts, then, in which he says that no further burden is to be imposed upon the Gentile believers except that they should abstain from what is sacrificed to idols and from blood and from strangled things and from fornication, neither murder is prohibited nor adultery nor theft nor homosexuality nor other crimes that are punished by divine and human laws. But if that which he mentioned above alone has to be observed by Christians, it will appear that he has given them license in respect to those other crimes. But observe the ordinance of the Holy Spirit; for indeed since the other crimes are avenged by secular laws and since it was deemed superfluous now to prohibit these things by divine law, since they are adequately punished by human law, he decrees only those things concerning which no human law had spoken about but which seemed to be in agreement with the religion. From this it is clear that the worldly judge fulfills the greatest part of God's law. For all the crimes that God wants to be punished, he has willed that they be punished not through the priests and leaders of the churches, but through the worldly judge. And aware of this, Paul righly names him a minister of God and an avenger of the one who does what is evil...

© Copyright Original Source

Does this not agree with the core of what I said? It seems he is saying the same thing: that it is authority to enforce God's law (of justice: murder, theft, etc.). Origin says there that Paul is not talking about all "authorities". Paul is talking about those which "are not a terror to good works, but to evil."


In the rest, he's talking about the instruction to submit, while my first priority is to see what we can learn about the justice/injustice of governments. Both because it is required in a republic to tell us how to vote, and because we cannot hope to submit to governing authorities if we cannot identify governing authorities.

There seems to be the argument there that we are to submit for practical reasons, like avoiding making the church look like a worldly thing by getting entangled in worldly battles instead of being punished only because of the faith. That may be good teaching, but I don't see it in the text. Origin also says it is inherently bad ("worthy of death"). I don't see how that follows from the text. He also seems to make an argument that we should submit because we shouldn't care about worldly things like our material possessions or even lives. That argument would also indicate that we should submit to anyone, implying a total pacifism. Which is another possible way to go (but then we'd still need to be extreme libertarians). On the other hand, if these are argument pertaining only to governing authorities, then they are dependent on first being able to identify governing authorities.

I'm not sure what it means to "have the inscription of Caesar within themselves". That doesn't sound like something I'd want in me.

[Joel]

When the laws of our governments do not go against scripture then we are rightfully punished if we go against them. If the laws of our governments go against scripture and we refuse to follow them and are punished then I think this is where Matthew 5:10 is applicable and we are being tried and revealed as children of God (a very good thing ). I think we have to pray and rely on God to remove bad governments and not just act with our own accord. Our real. Kingdom is a spiritual one and we know who our King is

How can there be a "bad government", if all governing authority only punishes evil, praises good, is a minister of God for our good, etc.? We see in the text that if X is not a minister of God to you for good, then X is not a governing authority.

[One Bad Pig]

Does this not agree with the core of what I said? It seems he is saying the same thing: that it is authority to enforce God's law (of justice: murder, theft, etc.). Origin says there that Paul is not talking about all "authorities". Paul is talking about those which "are not a terror to good works, but to evil."


In the rest, he's talking about the instruction to submit, while my first priority is to see what we can learn about the justice/injustice of governments. Both because it is required in a republic to tell us how to vote, and because we cannot hope to submit to governing authorities if we cannot identify governing authorities.

The duly elected governing authorities are rather obvious, IMO.

There seems to be the argument there that we are to submit for practical reasons, like avoiding making the church look like a worldly thing by getting entangled in worldly battles instead of being punished only because of the faith. That may be good teaching, but I don't see it in the text.

We are to submit because we engage in trade/commerce/providing for our bodily needs, and government exists in part to regulate that.

Origin also says it is inherently bad ("worthy of death"). I don't see how that follows from the text.

The death penalty was rather more prevalent in his day. He is agreeing that those who rebel against the government by refusing to pay taxes are worthy of punishment.

He also seems to make an argument that we should submit because we shouldn't care about worldly things like our material possessions or even lives. That argument would also indicate that we should submit to anyone, implying a total pacifism. Which is another possible way to go (but then we'd still need to be extreme libertarians).

I have no idea how you're getting that idea. We are not to submit to doing something contrary to the faith, e.g. sacrificing to idols.

On the other hand, if these are argument pertaining only to governing authorities, then they are dependent on first being able to identify governing authorities.

Again, this is generally not difficult. I have no idea why you seem to think that it is.

I'm not sure what it means to "have the inscription of Caesar within themselves". That doesn't sound like something I'd want in me.

I'm not sure either. He may be referring to citizenship.

[mikewhitney]

What does Romans 13 tell us about governing authorities? I propose to analyze it logically. And I request comments, correction, and assistance, where I go astray. Start with the first verse:

Romans 13:1 "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God."

The first sentence seems to follow from definition. What is the definition of authority but one to whom you are to be in subjection?

The last (third) statement there can be equivalently written as:
P1b) If X is an authority, then X is established by God.

And every statement is logically equivalent to its contrapositive:
P1b) If X is not established by God, then X is not an authority.

And that latter form is just what the second statement in Romans 13:1 says.

2 "Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves."

The first statement follows from verse 1. If X is an authority established by God and one must submit to an authority, then it is established by God that you must submit.

Now these first two verses don't tell us who is and is not a governing authority. Someone might think that some particular existing entity is a governing authority, or that any entity that claims to be a governing authority and wields force is a governing authority. Or that entities are governing authorities only insofar as they do justice. But any such conclusion would require an additional premise. It is not found in Romans 13:1. Fortunately the following verses give us some help in identifying who is and is not a governing authority. Let's continue.
...

You analysis (which I only quote for partially) would seem to make void the very thing Paul was admonishing his audience about.

Paul was not giving a method to define a legitimate government. Instead, Paul was telling the audience to behave nicely toward the governing authorities ( i.e. those with whom the Roman gentile church members came in contact with) so that these church members would not be harmed by the government.

I think that within the timing of the letter, Paul would be concerned about judgment coming over the land and that, in this judgment time, those who were in apparent opposition to the government would likely be killed. So the Romans Epistle was, at minimal, making an argument that would minimize basis for the government to kill Christians in Rome. (i.e., where Christians would be seen by the government as disobedient in more areas than just avoiding worship of the gods.)

Furthermore, Rom 13 seems to reflect some specific aspects of Jewish history wherein the Jews were exiled under foreign governments due to their falling away from God. Thus it was their bad behavior which made them subject to these governments. This subjugation was within the wisdom of God.

In Isa 10:5-7 we see that Assyria was empowered to be a judge over Israel (-- pretty sure it was Israel here). But the Assyrian ruler was far too aggressive and took glory on himself ( continuing to v19) so God would punish the fruit of the proud heart of the Assyrian king. In this passage we see that God setup the Assyrian nation (and subsequent ones which would be named in Daniel) and then had a punishment for those nations for going too far. God has a balance in all this.

I think we must first focus on the meaning in the original context. And we can't do this by nullifying the significance of the text for the first century audience.

For application today, you have to be careful not to assume there is a definition of legitimate government in the epistle. It may be that the text only applies to the first century context. Also then it should be noted that Paul was not likely interested in addressing the various exceptions to this obedience to governments , for example what we find in the book of Daniel. We are to have a heart for the downtrodden. There also may be political actions that are needed for us to take. Just some thoughts.