Interpretation of Romans 13 (governing authorities)

[Abigail]

How can there be a "bad government", if a 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.

There is no authority except from God so rulers are given authority to see that the people under them do what God wants and if they don't then the ruler punishes them because they have authorityto do this. Now an evil ruler is one who is usurping God's authority by getting people to do his own will rather than God's. People are subject to their rulers not only because of wrath but also conscience (v.5) so ideally the subject doesn't do the will of the ruler because he is fearful of punishment but because he agrees inwardly with what is being asked because both he and the ruler submit to God. However an evil ruler will cause a conflict of conscience because although he has authority to rule he is abusing that authority because he is not imposing what he is expected to but something of his own authority. So I think we can refuse to follow such a leaders order in that case. We are still subject to him in that we bear the punishment he gives. I don't think we could try and remove him as that would mean we were refusing to be subject to him. God authorizes removal though I think we can ask Him to remove or change evil rulers.

[Joel]

we cannot hope to submit to governing authorities if we cannot identify governing authorities.

The duly elected governing authorities are rather obvious, IMO.

I don't see that in the text. You seem to be bringing in a premise from the outside.

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

I don't see that in the text. Unless you are just saying that we must be just in our trade/commerce/etc.

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.

Which is an odd conclusion, given the supposition he was making in that paragraph:

"if we suppose that believers in Christ are not subject to secular 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,...there would be a case against them worthy of death"

That doesn't seem like that follows. How does not being subject to X imply that it is obligatory (even to death) to submit to X? Suppose similarly that One Bad Pig is not subject to Joel. Therefore there is a case against One Bad Pig worthy of death? If Joel turns his weapons against One Bad Pig (because One Bad Pig is not subject to Joel), it is done deservedly? And Joel would be justified and One Bod Pig would be guilty? Origen's reasoning there makes no sense.

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.

Do you agree that not all claims to governing authority are true?
If no, then I claim to be a governing authority over you, and insist that you send me $100 in taxes immediately.
If yes, then there is a question regarding which claims are true and which are not.

And the question does not have an immediately obvious answer. What is it that makes such a claim true? Is it having royal blood/genes? Or are men by nature equal in jurisdiction? If the latter, then what decisions/actions by men can alter/abolish this natural equality so as to establish rule/subjection? Conquest/force? A majority deciding to rule over a minority (majoritarianism)? These are forms of might-makes-right, and seem inconsistent with Romans 13. Given a set of people initially equal (i.e. without a human ruler) how does a ruler (inequality) arise among them without injustice, apart from unanimous consent. And even the case of unanimous consent might be doubted: Does God rubber-stamp (and establish) whatever a group of humans unanimously happen to agree to? Is there scriptural basis for that?

In my OP, I tried to derive an answer to the question from Romans 13, which seems to say that governing authority is equivalent to enforcing justice.

[mikewhitney]

You said about 13:1

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

The context points to the Roman authorities. They exist and are an authority. Therefore they were established by God.

The problem in Rome being discussed here was the refusal of these Christians to pay taxes to Caesar.

If this is not the context, what are you imagining that Paul is trying to fix among these Christians?

[Joel]

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

Not if, as the general thrust of the chapter is, as it seems to be, telling people to be good: don't murder, don't steal. Which is the same thing as to obey governing authorities. I'm suggesting that the point of the governing authorities passage, in the middle of telling people to be good (prior to and after bringing up governing authorities), is as an additional argument and spur towards being good.

Paul was not giving a method to define a legitimate government.

Perhaps, but he does make repeated, strong statements about governing authorities. How do you deal with these statements in your suggested interpretations?

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.

That is a possibility.

[Joel]

There is no authority except from God so rulers are given authority to see that the people under them do what God wants and if they don't then the ruler punishes them because they have authorityto do this. Now an evil ruler is one who is usurping God's authority by getting people to do his own will rather than God's.

Sure, but the ruler, in doing the latter, is acting outside his authority. Yes? He doesn't have the authority to usurp God's authority (by definition of "usurp"). In that action, he is not acting in his capacity, role, or authority as ruler. It is not he as a ruler that does it, but he as a human acting unjustly.

People are subject to their rulers not only because of wrath but also conscience (v.5) so ideally the subject doesn't do the will of the ruler because he is fearful of punishment but because he agrees inwardly with what is being asked because both he and the ruler submit to God.

Paul doesn't say "ideally". Paul says that's the way it is.

However an evil ruler will cause a conflict of conscience because although he has authority to rule he is abusing that authority because he is not imposing what he is expected to but something of his own authority.

There is no "his own" authority contrary to his authority from God. There is no authority except from God. Therefore his abusing his authority from God (i.e. imposing something other than what he has the authority to impose), is to act without/outside authority, yes?

[Joel]

The context points to the Roman authorities. They exist and are an authority. Therefore they were established by God.

That would be an additional premise derived from the context of the epistle's audience. And may be a matter of debate.

How then do you deal with the later verses that would say, For Nero who commits atrocities against Christians is not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of Nero? Do what is good and you will have praise from Nero; for Nero is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for Nero does not bear the sword for nothing; for Nero is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil....for Nero is a servant of God, devoting himself to this very thing? How do you deal with that, if not as I have done in the OP?

The problem in Rome being discussed here was the refusal of these Christians to pay taxes to Caesar.

How do you know that was a problem in the church at Rome? Paul doesn't say that. Paul says (in indicative) that they do pay the taxes.

If this is not the context, what are you imagining that Paul is trying to fix among these Christians?

From latter chapter 12 through chapter 13 he is telling them to avoid evil and do good. Be at peace, obey justice, obey the law of love. Lay aside the deeds of darkness. Behave properly as in the day. It doesn't sound like they are refusing to pay taxes. Rather, Paul seem to suggest they are behaving immorally (according to God's law) and getting punished for it (by the governing authorities). And they should stop doing that.

[mikewhitney]

Not if, as the general thrust of the chapter is, as it seems to be, telling people to be good: don't murder, don't steal. Which is the same thing as to obey governing authorities. I'm suggesting that the point of the governing authorities passage, in the middle of telling people to be good (prior to and after bringing up governing authorities), is as an additional argument and spur towards being good.


Perhaps, but he does make repeated, strong statements about governing authorities. How do you deal with these statements in your suggested interpretations?


That is a possibility.

What I have noticed is that the Christians, as addressed by Paul, were getting self-indulged, belligerent and judgmental. We see this more explicitly in Rom 14. Thus in 12:1-2 Paul told them to serve God by becoming a servant to each other. Then Paul was giving them proper ways to serve one another. He then went to speak of the correct behaviors and attitudes needed to replace their bad behavior. This behavior is also inferred to be their behavior toward the tax collectors or other rulers in their section of town. I rely on a mirror reading which finds that Paul was responding to actual problems.

Basically for the whole letter I have found a stream of issues that Paul saw as problematic behavior and attitudes of these Roman Christians.

[mikewhitney]

That would be an additional premise derived from the context of the epistle's audience. And may be a matter of debate.

It is a reasonable premise that there were government authorities around them. I guess the debate would be whether Paul was addressing a problem in Rome or just giving principles for life, as a Christian. My thesis for the whole letter is that Paul was first addressing the improper attitude of the Roman gentile believers toward Jews. Then in Rom12-15, Paul was addressing behavior problems among these gentile believers.

How then do you deal with the later verses that would say, For Nero who commits atrocities against Christians is not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of Nero? Do what is good and you will have praise from Nero; for Nero is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for Nero does not bear the sword for nothing; for Nero is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil....for Nero is a servant of God, devoting himself to this very thing? How do you deal with that, if not as I have done in the OP?.

I don't think Paul was addressing problems that hadn't happened yet. As I have mentioned, the problem was the attitude of these Roman Christians against the governing authorities around them -- especially the tax collectors.

The use of the indicative mood probably was used simply to state the basic rule "you pay taxes." It was not necessarily saying "you have been paying and you continue to pay"

And you question about there being a problem in Rome ... I can only say, for sake of brevity, that Paul had approached the whole letter in a fashion that was as non-confrontational as possible. This is a technique I have seen also in Gal 2:15-21 concerning a rebuke of Peter.

[Truthseeker]

mikewhitney shows that we should check the context of Romans 13. At least look at Chapter 12. I will do so tomorrow.

[mikewhitney]

Rom 12-13 context and continuity

I have my overview of Romans at http://biblereexamined.com/RomansQuick.htm
and an outline at http://biblereexamined.com/RomansQuick.htm
Here is part of the outline at 12


V. Additional Issues of Behavior of Roman Believers (12 to 14)
___A.Lack of Serving One Another (12:1-16)
___B.Problem of treatment of enemies (12:17-21, 13:1-6)
______i.Have good behavior among evil men (12:17-21)
______ii. Have good behavior with government (13:1-7)
___C. Problem of maintaining love in the evils of the day (13 :8- 14)
______i. Love (13:8-10)
______ii. Darkness of the days (13:11-14)
___D. Stop judging each other for self-pride (14:1-18)

As seen here, I find a series of attitudinal/functional problems being addressed regarding the Roman Christians.

I noticed that it is far from explicit concerning the issue about non-payment of taxes. However, there are pieces from the letter that I combine (in my head, at least) to come to this conclusion. Partly 2:19 suggests that the Roman Christians were trying to avenge wrongs done to them, which likely consisted of persecution by the governing authorities -- or maybe harassment and bullying. The Christians then may have been avoiding the tax collector, which resulted in more harassment. I see Paul's injection of a discussion on taxes seems only to be needed in response to a problem of nonpayment by these Christians -- otherwise Paul could have skipped the irritating discussion of taxes here -- which would make the text more acceptable to the Romans. Since, how could the additional discussion on taxes make the audience more acceptable of Paul's point about governing authorities being necessary?
Furthermore, Paul goes on to say "owe no one" which lends further credence to the idea that the Roman Christians were still owing Caesar his taxes.

[Joel]

I have my overview of Romans at http://biblereexamined.com/RomansQuick.htm
and an outline at http://biblereexamined.com/RomansQuick.htm
Here is part of the outline at 12


V. Additional Issues of Behavior of Roman Believers (12 to 14)
___A.Lack of Serving One Another (12:1-16)
___B.Problem of treatment of enemies (12:17-21, 13:1-6)
______i.Have good behavior among evil men (12:17-21)
______ii. Have good behavior with government (13:1-7)
___C. Problem of maintaining love in the evils of the day (13 :8- 14)
______i. Love (13:8-10)
______ii. Darkness of the days (13:11-14)
___D. Stop judging each other for self-pride (14:1-18)

As seen here, I find a series of attitudinal/functional problems being addressed regarding the Roman Christians.

I noticed that it is far from explicit concerning the issue about non-payment of taxes. However, there are pieces from the letter that I combine (in my head, at least) to come to this conclusion. Partly 2:19 suggests that the Roman Christians were trying to avenge wrongs done to them, which likely consisted of persecution by the governing authorities -- or maybe harassment and bullying. The Christians then may have been avoiding the tax collector, which resulted in more harassment. I see Paul's injection of a discussion on taxes seems only to be needed in response to a problem of nonpayment by these Christians -- otherwise Paul could have skipped the irritating discussion of taxes here -- which would make the text more acceptable to the Romans. Since, how could the additional discussion on taxes make the audience more acceptable of Paul's point about governing authorities being necessary?
Furthermore, Paul goes on to say "owe no one" which lends further credence to the idea that the Roman Christians were still owing Caesar his taxes.

There isn't so much of a discussion on taxes as two mentions of taxes, in passing. The first is used in a supporting argument. If mention of taxes is irritating and would make the text less acceptable to the Romans, as you suggest, then why would he refer to taxes in a supporting argument? Thus that could be taken as evidence that its mention made the text more acceptable. (Which I referred to in my OP.)

I also mentioned before that I don't see a big break between verse 7 and 8 like you show in your outline. It seems continuous: obey the law (that's all that governing authorities enforce), followed by more details about what the law is: the law of justice, which is in turn subsumed in the law of love. "he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law."

As for "Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law," as I mentioned in the OP, it's not clear whether that means not accruing debt in the first place or not delaying payment on existing debts. But the language here makes it seem like it's the former. Loving one's neighbor is fulfillment of the law. It is sufficient. The implication then is that 'owing something other than love to someone' would be an unnecessary additional moral requirement. On the contrary, avoid it.

Also I don't think you've said yet how you deal with verses like 3 and 4.

[mikewhitney]

There isn't so much of a discussion on taxes as two mentions of taxes, in passing. The first is used in a supporting argument. If mention of taxes is irritating and would make the text less acceptable to the Romans, as you suggest, then why would he refer to taxes in a supporting argument? Thus that could be taken as evidence that its mention made the text more acceptable. (Which I referred to in my OP.)

I was trying to show that the only reason to mention taxes is if there was a problem that the Roman church members were avoiding taxes. This was his main point. (Sorry if it is not explicit in the outline. I didn't reach that level within Rom 13. This also is an old outline which could use many refinements.)

My observation is that each major issue addressed by Paul in Romans is addressed in an indirect manner. This is why commentators have missed the gist of his argument and missed the nature of the problems being addressed. In my proposal, Paul was aware of the gentile followers' disdain for Jews. The letter would hardly have been accepted by the Roman gentiles if Paul had not been very careful in his approach -- this is something which arises mostly in the discussion of Rom 1-2.

In the outline on my website, I highlight certain phrases so as to indicate that this was the main issue addressed by Paul. What is unusual is that these issues are usually found in a minor position in the outline. It is in the fashion that I have found continuity in the letter and was able to form the outline I did.
More specific to Rom 13 on the tax issue ... Paul added humor by speaking tax collector "attending continually upon this very thing"(KJV). This point seems to highlight that the tax collectors are always getting into people's business -- which is a negative element. (The humor is present through emphasis of the blatant excessive intrusion of these guys into the affairs of the citizens -- "yes of course the tax guy is here again. haha".)
Of course I have already stated the other reasons which make it apparent there is a problem of the Christians not paying taxes.

The main thing for your argument is to consider the following:
I think on your part you need to show the continuity with Rom 12. What is the unifying theme? What preserves a sense of direction across Rom 12-14?

I also mentioned before that I don't see a big break between verse 7 and 8 like you show in your outline. It seems continuous: obey the law (that's all that governing authorities enforce), followed by more details about what the law is: the law of justice, which is in turn subsumed in the law of love. "he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law."

As for "Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law," as I mentioned in the OP, it's not clear whether that means not accruing debt in the first place or not delaying payment on existing debts. But the language here makes it seem like it's the former. Loving one's neighbor is fulfillment of the law. It is sufficient. The implication then is that 'owing something other than love to someone' would be an unnecessary additional moral requirement. On the contrary, avoid it.

Verse 8 appears to have a Janus role (i.e. facing both directions) -- closing the first 7 verses and introducing the conclusion to Rom 12-13. Paul was finishing the admonition to pay taxes by conveying the idea that a tax is something owed to someone. But then he uses the same concept of 'owing' to transition to the topic of love and then the topic of the law. You seem to basically recognize this last point.

As I see it, the only real reasons Paul spoke about "owning no one" was to first emphasize their problem of not paying taxes and secondly to transition to the conclusion about love. There was no other concern raised about people not paying their debts.

Also I don't think you've said yet how you deal with verses like 3 and 4.

I said that this was not written in response to Nero. Paul may have wished he had approached Rom 13:1-8 differently if he anticipated such issue.

[Abigail]

Sure, but the ruler, in doing the latter, is acting outside his authority. Yes? He doesn't have the authority to usurp God's authority (by definition of "usurp"). In that action, he is not acting in his capacity, role, or authority as ruler. It is not he as a ruler that does it, but he as a human acting unjustly.


Paul doesn't say "ideally". Paul says that's the way it is.


There is no "his own" authority contrary to his authority from God. There is no authority except from God. Therefore his abusing his authority from God (i.e. imposing something other than what he has the authority to impose), is to act without/outside authority, yes?

Yes but regardless of how the ruler acts he has been given authority over the people he rules. This is separate from his actions as ruler. He has been appointed ruler and he either rules as a good shepherd ir a worthless one. We are all under God's authority but only rulers have been given authority to rule.

William Barclay in his commentary on Romans says the Jews were notoriously rebellious. The Zealots were convinced there was no King but God and had issues with paying tax to Caesar and that this is the type of thing Paul had in mind and which he wanted to dissociate from. The Roman state offered people protection (Paul appealed to Rome to hear his legal case) and it afforded a stable environment which was advantageous to preaching the Gospel, however as Christianity had its roots in the Jews and, though a Roman citizen, Paul was Jewish, he could hardly be publishing letters talking about how people should act under evil rulers blah blah and not incur Caesar's wrath. It is there IMO in verse 5 but subversively. We are in the world not of the world.

[mikewhitney]

Yes but regardless of how the ruler acts he has been given authority over the people he rules. This is separate from his actions as ruler. He has been appointed ruler and he either rules as a good shepherd ir a worthless one. We are all under God's authority but only rulers have been given authority to rule.

William Barclay in his commentary on Romans says the Jews were notoriously rebellious. The Zealots were convinced there was no King but God and had issues with paying tax to Caesar and that this is the type of thing Paul had in mind and which he wanted to dissociate from. The Roman state offered people protection (Paul appealed to Rome to hear his legal case) and it afforded a stable environment which was advantageous to preaching the Gospel, however as Christianity had its roots in the Jews and, though a Roman citizen, Paul was Jewish, he could hardly be publishing letters talking about how people should act under evil rulers blah blah and not incur Caesar's wrath. It is there IMO in verse 5 but subversively. We are in the world not of the world.

Joel,
I would add to this that there was the need for the Christians to be distinct from the Jews during the time of the Jewish uprisings of the first century. This would be a possible motivator for Paul to make sure the Christians in Rome were not found to have a bad attitude toward the Roman government.

[Joel]

The main thing for your argument is to consider the following:
I think on your part you need to show the continuity with Rom 12. What is the unifying theme? What preserves a sense of direction across Rom 12-14?

Like I was saying (and we both seem to agree), Paul, throughout these chapters, is telling them to be moral and refrain from immorality. Evidently the Romans had a problem with their moral behavior.

Also I don't think you've said yet how you deal with verses like 3 and 4.

I said that this was not written in response to Nero. Paul may have wished he had approached Rom 13:1-8 differently if he anticipated such issue.

Nero was emperor at the likely time of writing of the epistle, yes? (Possibly Claudius?) I gather you mean it was written prior to Nero burning Christians.

The Roman empire was believed to have never done anything unjust up to the time of the epistle? What about Pharaoh? Or Philistine kings? Surely Paul was aware of actions of rulers past and present, that would seem to contradict what he says about rulers.