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.
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.
Comment