Interpretation of Romans 13 (governing authorities)

[Joel]

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.

Yes, like we were saying, some of his actions may be within that authority, and some of his actions may be without that authority.

We are all under God's authority but only rulers have been given authority to rule.

How do we tell which humans are which, apart from divine revelation? It seems it would be easy to lie, claiming falsely that God has given you authority to rule others.

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

So why wouldn't they be expected to interpret Romans 13 as being subtly subversive, as I did in the OP? (That rulers have no authority except to enforce justice.)

And if they already had the belief that no taxes were due to Caesar, then when Paul says "Render...tax to whom tax is due", the logical conclusion is that that amount due is zero. Surely they would be expected to reason that because everything is God's (and no king but Jesus) everything is due to God.

[mikewhitney]

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.


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.

Actually we may not have agreement. My point is that they weren't paying taxes and this was causing trouble upon themselves. If you want to identify that as the moral problem, maybe we do agree. Beyond that Paul was telling the Christians to treat each other nicely and to serve one another.

And regarding Nero ... right it was prior to any burning of Christians.

Anything unjust before that time was just par for the course (as far as first century issues are being discussed). With Pharaoh, we can say that God had a plan and then executed that plan -- and it doesn't mean that all people were treated well under that government.

I think Paul was presenting a general rule about governments being a "terror" to those who behave badly. In a sense the burning of Christians was for their 'bad' behavior.

I'm not finding anything to persuade me away from what I have already understood on Romans 13. But if you want to see the feedback for your incremental arguments, I can probably respond back for a little while longer. You are coming out with some pretty good points in seeking to make your case.

[Truthseeker]

I'm now wondering if Paul wanted Christians to go on the nonviolent resistance road, a la Gandhi; ML King, Jr.; anti-Vietnam War protesters; and others.

[Raphael]

I'm now wondering if Paul wanted Christians to go on the nonviolent resistance road, a la Gandhi; ML King, Jr.; anti-Vietnam War protesters; and others.

I don't see Paul advocating any type of resistance. Both Paul and Peter tell us to be subject to the government and to not resist it and to honour the leaders.

Scripture Verse: Romans 13:1-2 ESV

[1] Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. [2] Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

© Copyright Original Source

Scripture Verse: Titus 3:1-2 ESV

[1] Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, [2] to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people.

© Copyright Original Source

Scripture Verse: 1 Peter 2:13-17 ESV

[13] Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, [14] or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. [15] For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. [16] Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. [17] Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

© Copyright Original Source

[Joel]

I don't see Paul advocating any type of resistance. Both Paul and Peter tell us to be subject to the government and to not resist it and to honour the leaders.

Scripture Verse: Romans 13:1-2 ESV

[1] Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. [2] Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

© Copyright Original Source

Scripture Verse: Titus 3:1-2 ESV

[1] Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, [2] to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people.

© Copyright Original Source

Scripture Verse: 1 Peter 2:13-17 ESV

[13] Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, [14] or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. [15] For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. [16] Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. [17] Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

© Copyright Original Source

Some would argue that they are teaching total pacifism. The end of Romans 12 says vengeance is God's alone. The immediately following verses in 1 Peter seem to say that we should submit to injustice in general, including to slave masters, and "if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God." Submission to everyone. Always turning the other cheek.

[Abigail]

Yes, like we were saying, some of his actions may be within that authority, and some of his actions may be without that authority.


How do we tell which humans are which, apart from divine revelation? It seems it would be easy to lie, claiming falsely that God has given you authority to rule others.

So why wouldn't they be expected to interpret Romans 13 as being subtly subversive, as I did in the OP? (That rulers have no authority except to enforce justice.)

And if they already had the belief that no taxes were due to Caesar, then when Paul says "Render...tax to whom tax is due", the logical conclusion is that that amount due is zero. Surely they would be expected to reason that because everything is God's (and no king but Jesus) everything is due to God.

Ok I think I understand where you are coming from: that when Paul uses "authorities" in this passage he is talking about THE AUTHORITIES which God has ordained - these being summarized as worship no one but God and love thy neighbour as thyself.

[Abigail]

Yes, like we were saying, some of his actions may be within that authority, and some of his actions may be without

How do we tell which humans are which, apart from divine revelation? It seems it would be easy to lie, claiming falsely that God has given you authority to rule others.


So why wouldn't they be expected to interpret Romans 13 as being subtly subversive, as I did in the OP? (That rulers have no authority except to enforce justice.)

And if they already had the belief that no taxes were due to Caesar, then when Paul says "Render...tax to whom tax is due", the logical conclusion is that that amount due is zero. Surely they would be expected to reason that because everything is God's (and no king but Jesus) everything is due to God.

(...continued as my last post lost half its contents)

When the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus in Matthew 22:15-22 and they asked Him about taxes he referred them to the head on the coin asking whose head it was and then said they should render to Caesar what was his and to God what was His. The implication was surely that taxes were due Caesar (his head his property) and worship was due God. Emperor worship went on in those times.

Paul views the Kingdom of God (body of believers ) as clearly separate from world as can be seen in 1 Corinthians 5, though at the same time he was aware that the church was in the world. And he says that it is God who judges those in the world. In Romans 13 in verses 3-5 Paul could be talking about authorities who govern the church and then in verse 6 when he says "This is why you also pay taxes...." he starts to include worldly authorities as these are in effect God's servants there too though not quite the same as those governing the church (Caesar was arguably God's servant in bringing about the environment into which Christ was to be born into and which enabled the Gospel to spread as it did) As Christians we do still benefit from the secular communities we live in if they are well governed. A stable environment where there is order and where people can get justice is one which will be beneficial for Christians and payment of taxes shows goodwill towards those in the community and could even enable a say in community matters.

[Truthseeker]

When the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus in Matthew 22:15-22 and they asked Him about taxes he referred them to the head on the coin asking whose head it was and then said they should render to Caesar what was his and to God what was His. The implication was surely that taxes were due Caesar (his head his property) and worship was due God.

The last sentence can be interpreted as saying that the heavy taxation that the Roman Empire imposed on the Levant is due Caesar.

Paul views the Kingdom of God (body of believers ) as clearly separate from world as can be seen in 1 Corinthians 5, though at the same time he was aware that the church was in the world. And he says that it is God who judges those in the world. In Romans 13 in verses 3-5 Paul could be talking about authorities who govern the church and then in verse 6 when he says "This is why you also pay taxes...." he starts to include worldly authorities as these are in effect God's servants there too though not quite the same as those governing the church (Caesar was arguably God's servant in bringing about the environment into which Christ was to be born into and which enabled the Gospel to spread as it did) As Christians we do still benefit from the secular communities we live in if they are well governed. A stable environment where there is order and where people can get justice is one which will be beneficial for Christians and payment of taxes shows goodwill towards those in the community and could even enable a say in community matters.

Two possibilities. 1) The reason the community is orderly and stable is because the government did keep things orderly and stable. 2) If a government loses the support of its subjects, it's going to be in big trouble trying to keep order and stability. There have been many revolutions that succeeded. So, why not infer that every community or society is good only as long as its people are good?

[One Bad Pig]

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

I'm talking about TODAY. Our authorities are no less obvious today than they were then. You're attempting to redefine authority in order to justify disobedience. What you're doing to scripture in an attempt to justify your position is, bluntly, no better than, e.g., what the Jehovah's Witnesses do. You need to re-think your approach to scripture.

[Obsidian]

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.

Romans 13 is written in present tense, and I think it is entirely possible that he has the Roman Empire in mind specifically, as opposed to all governments throughout history. And at that time, the Roman Empire was basically protecting the church. Also, I think that other passages, such as 2 Thessalonians 2:7, imply that it was actually the Roman Empire which was preventing the rise of an even worse evil.

Some would argue that they are teaching total pacifism. The end of Romans 12 says vengeance is God's alone.

If you look up the Old Testament passage that it is quoting (Deuteronomy 32:35), and also consider that it comes from a book which advocates stoning, then no, it is clearly not teaching total pacifism.

[Truthseeker]

Romans 13 is written in present tense, and I think it is entirely possible that he has the Roman Empire in mind specifically, as opposed to all governments throughout history. And at that time, the Roman Empire was basically protecting the church. Also, I think that other passages, such as 2 Thessalonians 2:7, imply that it was actually the Roman Empire which was preventing the rise of an even worse evil.

I think you should review "imperative mood." Indeed the last sentence is in that mood. That it may appear to be in the present tense--that is not relevant.

[Abigail]

Another way one could look at these passages is by taking a cue from the OT. When God brought His people into the promised land they were to be faithful to Him and this would ensure their continued blessing and prosperity there. If they were to become unfaithful, arrogant and self-assured there, then He would punish them and this would be in the form of bringing kings of Assyria and Babylon with their armies against them.
So in this way these non promised-land rulers were God ordained servants who provided a terror to evil doers (v.4). Not because these rulers were implementing just and right laws, they many times weren't, but because their purpose was as an implement of punishment by God for the Jews bad behaviour. In Babylon the Jews just had to get on with it and obey the rulers where they could rendering taxes etc and taking punishment when they couldn't eg Daniel in the lions den. To rise up in battle against their vanquishers while in Babylon would have gone against God's ultimate authority since they were there for punishment. They had to wait for God to set them free and bring them rejoicing back to Jerusalem when their time of punishment was ended.

When Paul wrote the Jews were very much bridling against Roman occupation and yet arguably God had brought these occupiers in because of unfaithfulness and so they should take their punishment and get on with it. Where is Roman Empire today? Gone because it was just ordained for a time. As Christians we are physically still under captivity and though the KoG exists in this world these leaders are not a terror to good works because if they require us to do good then we can perform and if we don't and are punished we deserve it. If they require us to do evil and we refuse they can only kill this old body and we know a new one will be given at the resurrection. They are only a terror for evil. One day we will pysically be brought to the New Jerusalem and we await that ultimate release.

[Obsidian]

You're making the passage mean the opposite of what it seems to say. You are saying that governments are supposed to be a terror to those who do good.

[Abigail]

You're making the passage mean the opposite of what it seems to say. You are saying that governments are supposed to be a terror to those who do good.

How am I saying that? I think you have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was trying to draw parallels between what Paul and others were saying and what was said to Jews during captivity in Babylon (Jeremiah 29). In other words they were to live as best they could under the conditions they found themselves until such time as God brought them back to Jerusalem and as Christians we do the same until such time as we are brought to the New Jerusalem. I assume you are thinking that Christians were/are not under punishment like the Jews were in Babylon, however the fact that our physical bodies still die shows that in some sense we are still under punishment conditions although we have turned back to God (a similar state to repentant Jews in Babylon) and are awaiting the time when he brings us to the New Jerusalem. We are in this world but not of this world as we are awaiting going back to Eden as it were.

[Obsidian]

The passage clearly says that government is supposed to terrorize those who are doing evil in the present, not terrorize the Jews from the distant past.