Paul and Civil
Obedience in Romans 13:1-7
By: Greg Herrick Th.M.,
Ph.D.
Introduction
The Purpose of the Study
We live in a generation in which public opinion of
those in political leadership is probably at an all time low. There
are a number of reasons for this, including what appears to many as
a "crisis in character." In any event, this is, generally speaking,
the situation. The purpose of this study is to focus on what Paul
had to say about authorities in Romans 13 in order that we
Christians might better understand how it is that God would have us
relate to those whom he, in is his sovereignty, has placed over us.
An Overview of the Study
The study will examine Paul's teaching on the
Christian's relation to the civil authorities as outlined in Romans
13:1-7 and then compare that with 1 Peter 2:13-17. First, the study
will survey the problem of the textual authenticity of the passage.
Second, a translation and outline will be given followed by a brief
look at the historical context of the letter and the social make-up
of the church in Rome. Third, the bulk of the study will be taken up
with an in-depth exegesis of the passage. Fourth, and final, certain
similarities and differences between Paul and Peter will be
delineated.
A Commentary on Romans 13
Romans 13:1-7: An Interpolation?
Virtually every serious commentary on the book of
Romans has had to wrestle with the integrity of the last two
chapters of the work, especially chapter 16.1
But, this is not the only place in the epistle where Pauline
authenticity has been questioned. There are those, who for several
different reasons, reject 13:1-7 as truly from the hand of
Paul.2
One such interpreter who has advanced some of the strongest
arguments in favor of Romans 13:1-7 as an interpolation (i.e., a
later insertion into the text) is James Kallas.3
Kallas gives two general and three specific
reasons for concluding that Romans 13:1-7 is an interpolation. In
terms of the general observations, he says that it is likely that
Romans 13:1-7 is an interpolation because 1) it is well known that
the ending of the epistle has been altered radically and 2) nowhere
else does Paul speak about the Christian's relationship to the civil
authorities. In response, first, concerning the ending of Romans, it
must be said that while there is continuing discussion about the
authenticity of chapter 16 and parts of chapter 15, it is not a
forgone conclusion that they are indeed spurious. Gamble has
demonstrated that there is convincing evidence leading to the
conviction that Romans 16 formed the original ending to the
document.4
Even if Gamble's conclusion is rejected, it is questionable to
assert that a pericope (i.e. paragraph) deep within the paraenetic
section of 12:1-15:13 is somehow an interpolation due to the
questionable nature of chapter 16—an epistolary ending. The problem
with chapter 16 cannot be assumed to have occurred in 13:1-7.5
Second, the fact that Paul nowhere else speaks about governing
authorities is an argument from silence based in part upon the
doubtful authorship of the Pastorals.6
Even if the authorship of the Pastorals is questioned, it remains an
argument from silence. We cannot forbid Paul to speak about
something that he has hitherto, for whatever reasons, not mentioned.
Paul's letters are occasional documents and the fact that he
mentions something only once can more properly be explained as due
to the occasion of that particular case. He mentions the Lord's
supper only once (1 Cor 11:17-34). Does this mean that we should on
that basis question its authenticity? Further, the universal offer
(e.g. 1:16 and pantiV tw/' pisteuvonti) of
the gospel to all people as outlined in the book of Romans clearly
indicates its worldwide agenda. This, then, leads to the inevitable
question of the relation of Christians to the state or governing
authorities.7
The question of the Christian's relationship to the state is a
discussion well suited to the book of Romans.
Kallas also raises three specific arguments
against the Pauline authorship of Romans 13:1-7. His first two
specific points include the idea that the passage is tightly
constructed without logical connection to the previous section, and
as such it not only stands in isolation, but also
interrupts the flow of the argument in the context. The third
argument Kallas raises suggests that Romans 13:1-7 "contradicts
basic Pauline ideas and basic Pauline forms of expression."8
The first two objections can be responded to simply by seeing the
logical connection that exists between both what immediately
precedes and that which follows (i.e. the relation of 12:14-21 to
13:1-7 and 13:1-7 to 13:8-14). It seems that Paul's focus on "good"
and "evil" in 12:17, 21 and the Christian's responsibility to be at
peace with all people (12:18) provide sufficient basis for
seeing a logical connection to 13:l-7—even though no grammatical
connection is explicitly made through the use of gavr or diaV tou'to or
some other Pauline connector. The idea of "clearing all debts" from
13:8 provides a nice flow out of the passage as well, whose end in
verse 7 focuses on such issues. We will consider broader connections
in the exegesis of the passage.
Kallas's third objection, concerning the lack of
Pauline eschatology, and the use of ejxouvsiai" to refer to civil authorities (Rom
13:1), amounts to no real difficulty. Once
again this will be demonstrated in the exegesis. Suffice it to say
here that nowhere in the passage does Paul contradict an
eschatological concept he elsewhere explicates. The fact that he may
not emphasize eschatological ideas is no grounds for asserting a
contradiction. Also, our understanding of Paul's use of language is
at best descriptive, not prescriptive, and one cannot safely dismiss
an author's consistency if he chooses to use the same term in
different ways.9
Kallas has not proved his point of contradiction and thereby
supported interpolation. We may proceed with the confidence that
this passage is truly from the hand of Paul. The fact that it might
represent or stem from earlier Christian tradition will be taken up
further in the exegesis.10
An Exegesis of Romans 13:1-7
A Translation and Outline of the Passage
13:1—The words Pa'sa yuchV
ejxousivai" uJperecouvsai" uJpotassevsqw in the NA26
are replaced in one papyrus manuscript and certain Western
witnesses (p46 D* F G it; Irenaeuslat and
Ambrosiaster) with pavsai" ejxousivai"
uJperecouvsai" uJpotavssesqe. The external evidence is
decidedly in favor of the NA26 reading. Internally, pa`sa yuchv most easily gives rise to the other
reading—the latter probably an attempt to avoid the Hebraic idiom
involved in the presence of pa`sa
yuchV.11
13:1-4—There are a number of minor revisions in
the text which do not affect the sense much and the fact of their
presence need only be mentioned in passing.12
13:5—The NA26 text reads ajnavgkh uJpotavssesqai, but p46 D F G
it; Irenaeuslat Ambrosiaster leave out the ajnavgkh and read uJpotavssesqe. The overall witness for the
NA26 reading is solid, including a
A B Y. As Metzger comments, the
changes appear to be an attempt to "simplify the
construction."13
Dunn also suggests the possibility that the omission is due to an
attempt to avoid "the implication of an impersonal cosmic necessity
which dioV ajnavgkh may have
suggested."14
In any case the manuscript evidence and the fact that ajnavgkh uJpotavssesqai is the more difficult
reading all support its originality. That it is not too
difficult (i.e. so difficult as to be virtually impossible) and
awkward is demonstrated by the presence of ajnavgkh
in Matthew 18:7 and Hebrews 9:16, 23.
Some have attempted to suggest that because Romans
13:1-7 is not found in Marcion's edition of the New Testament, it is
therefore spurious. Actually, as F. F. Bruce points out, this is
based primarily on "the ground that Tertullian, in his running
commentary on Marcion's Pauline edition (Against Marcion v.
14.11-14), makes no reference to Romans 13:1-7. But there was
probably no reason why he should refer to it."15
The only reasonable conclusion is that there is no good manuscript
evidence for questioning the authenticity of Romans 13:1-7. (See
above under "Romans 13:1-7: An Interpolation?")
13:1 Let every person be submissive to the
governing authorities
13:2 For (gavr)
there is no authority except [that which is given] by God and those
who are appointed by God.
13:3 Consequently (w{ste) the one who resists authority, opposes the
institution of God, and those who do so will receive judgment on
themselves.
13:4 For (gavr)
rulers are not a fear to good work, but to evil [work] Do you want
to not fear the authority? Do good and you will have praise from
it.
13:4 For (gavr) it
is God's servant to do you good, but if you do evil, then fear, for
it does not bear the sword in vain (eijkh`/). For (gavr) it is
God's servant, an avenger to bring wrath on the one who practices
evil.
13:5 Wherefore (dioV) it is necessary to submit, not only because
of wrath, but also because of conscience.
13:6 For this reason (diaV
tou`to gavr) you pay taxes, for (gavr) [those in authority] are God's servants who
persist in this very thing.
13:7 Give back to all people what is owed;
taxes to whom taxes are due; revenue to whom revenue is due, respect
to whom respect is due and honor to whom honor is due.
An Exegetical Sentence Outline
Subject/Complement: The reason the Roman
Christians should submit to the governing authorities and give them
their proper due is because the authorities have been appointed by
God (as attested by conscience) and will praise those who do good
and inflict punishment (i.e. wrath) on those who do evil.16
I. The reason Paul commands the Roman Christians
to submit to the authorities is because civil authority is God's
institution and as such will punish wrongdoers and praise those
who do good (13:1-5).
A. Paul commands the Roman Christians to
submit to civil authority because God has appointed that
authority (1-2a).
B. Paul commands the Roman Christians to
submit to civil authority because the civil authorities will
punish those who resist them (2b-3a) and praise and do good to
them that obey (2b-4).
C. Paul commands the Roman Christians to
submit to civil authority because of the punitive action of the
state (i.e. wrath) and also because of conscience
(5).
II. The way in which Paul enjoins submission to
civil authorities who give themselves to collecting taxes is by
giving back to them whatever is owed, whether taxes, dues, respect
or honor (13: 6, 7).
A. The reason the Roman Christians pay
taxes is because God has appointed the state to receive taxes
and they persist in collecting them (6).
B. The way the Roman Christians are to
demonstrate submission to civil authorities is by giving back to
each authority what is owed, whether taxes, revenue, respect or
honor (7).
The Historical Setting of the Passage
There has been an ongoing discussion in scholarly
circles with regards to the composition of the church in Rome. The
letter was probably written to the church at Rome in the late
winter/early spring of A. D. 57 so we can safely say that there were
some Jews back in the city after being expelled due to the edict of
Claudius in A. D. 49.17
Some of those Jews would undoubtedly have been Christians and were
expelled for embroiling themselves in a dispute with other Jews over
Jesus (cf. Acts 18:2).18
At this point Christians and Jews were considered to be basically
one and the same group—at least as far as the state was
concerned.19
During the middle to later years of the reign of Nero, Christians
and Jews began to be distinguished as two separate groups.20
But the question remains as to composition of the church in Rome.
Was the church composed of Gentiles? Jews? Or a mixture of the two?
If so, did any group predominate?
The old Tübingen school, based on the Jewish
element in chapters 9-11, postulated a solely Jewish church in Rome.
Others have followed in a similar vein for various reasons including
the assumption that the letter reads better if understood to refer
to a Jewish Christian audience alone.21
Paul does refer to Abraham as propavtora
hJmw`n which some have concluded indicates that the readers
were primarily Jewish. As Harrison says, such an argument is "robbed
of any great force" by Paul's reference to Israel as oiJ patevre" uJmw`n in 1 Corinthians 10:1 where
the readership is primarily Gentile.22
Many interpreters argue for a primarily Gentile
audience.23
Paul's reference to the audience as Gentiles among whom he has
received grace and apostleship to call them to the obedience of
faith (1:5, 12-14; 15:16); his reference in 6:19 to ajkaqarsiva/ and ajnomiva/
as well as the fact that he says that he explicitly addresses
them as Gentiles (11:13) and says that they have received
mercy due to Jewish unbelief—all this seems to indicate a Gentile
audience. This has led to another, probably more accurate,
theory.
Romans appears to be addressed to a mixed audience
of Jewish and Gentile Christians. Due to the emphasis on the
Gentiles, as indicated above, as well as Paul's personal call to the
Gentile mission (15:16), it would appear that the Gentiles were in
the majority. Perhaps this is, in part, due to the edict of Claudius
wherein many Jewish Christians had been expelled, but not Gentile
Christians. When the Jewish Christians returned (A. D. 54, 55?) the
Gentiles were in the majority and in positions of leadership in the
church.24
What was the church in Rome like in A. D. 57? From
the lack of a reference to the church at Rome (i.e.
meaning the entire church as a whole) in the book of Romans,
combined with the fact that many different groups appear to be
mentioned in Romans 16 (cf. 16: 5, 10b, 11), it seems rather safe to
conclude at this point, that there was no central organization
per se, or a central place of worship. Perhaps there were
several house churches (cf. 16:5).
As has already been mentioned, the letter to the
Romans was written in A. D. 57. Nero was in power, but in the early
part of his reign (A. D. 54-68). There appears to be no indication
that at this time he was a tyrant and brutal ruler.25
The Jews had been expelled in A. D. 49, but that was under Claudius
and things appeared to be different in A. D. 57. There was a problem
with "tax protests" under Nero in A. D. 58,26
but this does not appear to be relevant at the time of the writing
of Romans. Therefore, we may assume that political conditions were
fairly stable and that the Christian church which was undoubtedly
born in the synagogues at Rome27
enjoyed the status of religio licita as they were still
largely seen to be within Judaism's fold.
Marcus Borg suggests the possibility that Jewish
nationalism had reached violent levels in Rome and for that reason
the Jews were expelled28
and that such a situation forms the background to Romans 13:1-7.
This appears to be cautious speculation. The expulsion occurred some
eight years prior and there doesn't appear to be any concrete
evidence to demonstrate that such was the case in A. D. 57. Käsemann
suggests another possibility for the background to the passage. He
claims that certain Christian enthusiasts had thrown off all
restraint in the light of their heavenly calling and regarded
"earthly authorities with indifference or contempt.29
This may be true, but it is difficult to defend from within or
outside of the passage. Indeed the use of the indicative "you pay
taxes" (v. 6) would tend to indicate that there was at least some
degree of submission to the state already in the church.30
There have also been other suggestions concerning the background of
the passage. It would appear, however, that we simply cannot be as
precise as Borg or Käsemann suggest. We know that Paul exhorts the
Romans in right conduct toward the state, but it is very difficult
to say for sure what prompted such a discussion.
The Literary Setting of the Pericope
and Its Relation to
the Argument of the Book
This issue has already been touched upon above as
concerns the interpolation of Romans 13:1-7. There we saw that the
pericope, while somewhat abrupt in that there are no explicit
connectors,31
nonetheless continues the thought-line in the immediate setting of
12:9-21 and 13:8ff. There is the continual influence of Jewish
wisdom from 12:9-21 and the use of similar language in 12:9-21 and
13:1-7.32
The passage relates well to 12:1-2, the major turning point in the
focus of the letter (i.e. from the indicative to the imperative)
where the Christian is urged on the basis of God's mercy to offer
himself as a living sacrifice. This wholehearted submission of the
Christian is expressed through a commitment to live righteously in
an ever expanding series of relationships—including living in
accordance with the government God has established.33
We must also consider the whole argument of Romans. Without entering
into the rather great debate as to the purpose of the letter,34
we can see that there is a new defining line for the people of
God—faith in Christ Jesus (3:21-24; 10:12).35
The Law, as it was so often used by the Jews to mark themselves out
as God's people (cf. 3:2), has been replaced by Christ and one's
attachment to him as the new defining line regarding the
constitution of the people of God (10:4). As such, the Christian's
relation to the state must be redefined, not as an opponent to be
overcome necessarily, but as an ally as far as God's current program
is concerned and as stewards to do good to those who obey. With this
overarching theme in Romans, the civil injunctions in chapter 13
mesh quite well.
The passage breaks down into three basic units
consisting of the command to submit to authorities (13:1a), the
rationale, including theological as well as practical considerations
for such an injunction (13:1b-5), and certain matters of practical
consideration covered by the command (13:6-7).
The Command to Submit to Authorities
(13:1a)
13:1a Pa'sa yuchV ejxousivai"
uJperecouvsai" uJpotassevsqw. "Let every person be
submissive to the governing authorities."
Pa'sa
yuchv—literally means "every soul." It occurs in one
other place in Romans with the same meaning as 13:1 (cf.
2:9).36
The expression has a Semitic background and is essentially a
metonymy for the "person" as a living being. It occurs in Leviticus
7:27; 23:29; Acts 2:43; 3:23 and 1 Clement 64, among other places.
In Leviticus 23:29-30 the Hebrew text has vp#n lk*
which the LXX translates as pa'sa
yuchv. Clearly this refers to the "person" to whom God was
stipulating the regulations for the Passover. The references in Acts
2:43, 3:23; 7:14 and 27:37 also refer to the "person as a whole,"
not just the inner man. 1 Clement 64 reads, "May the all-seeing God.
. . grant to every soul that has called upon his magnificent
and holy name . . . ." Here Clement uses yuchv to refer to the person as a whole, and with
pa'sa to refer to "every" person—the context
being the delimiting factor in the "every." In summary, pa'sa yuchv focuses on the person as a whole
(obliquely conveying the idea that man has a soul) and may yield
overtures of creation—the fact that man was created a living being
(cf. 1 Cor. 15:45 and Gen 2:7).37
Having shown that the phrase is a Semitism, such an emphasis must
not predominate though, for it is used as the subject of a
predominantly Hellenistic term, namely, uJpotavssw.38
ejxousivai"
uJperecouvsai"—"governing authorities." The term ejxousivai" is the plural form of ejxousiva and refers not to the principle
of authority as such (cf. ouj gavr e[stin
ejxousiva further in the same verse), nor to the
domain in which a certain authority is carried out (cf. Luke
4:6; 22:53; 23:7; Eph 2:2). Instead, it refers to the rulers
themselves who are charged with exercising such rulership (cf.
Luke 7:8; 19:17, esp. 20:20). Thus it refers to an official power or
authority invested in certain individuals (cf. Luke 12:11 and the
reference to the taV" ajrcaV" kaiV taV" ejxousiva"
which probably refers to Roman authorities).39 In describing the rule of life for the Essene
community Josephus says that a potential initiate "will show
fidelity to all men, and especially to those in authority,
because no one obtains the government without God's assistance"
(War 2.140).
The term uJperecouvsai"40
is also used to refer to rulers. In Wisdom of Solomon
6:5 the text reads "because severe judgment falls on those in
high places" where kings and rulers (cf. 6:1, 2) are clearly the
referent for those in high places. Consider also 2 Maccabees
3:11 and the relation of wealth to positions of power and Philo,
De Agricultura, 121, for its use to refer to a superior
athlete.
The term ejxousivai"
therefore had a wide a extensive usage in and around the time
of the New Testament in reference to human rulers and combined with
uJperecouvsai" serves to refer to the
highest rulers (e.g. governing authorities) over people. We now turn
our attention to certain questions concerning differing
interpretations of ejxousivai" and uJperecouvsai". We will begin with uJperecouvsai".
Porter argues that the emphasis in the term uJperecouvsai" is not particularly superiority in
rank, but qualitative superiority as well (i.e. justness). He cites
several instances from Greco-Roman and Pauline literature where the
term is used to refer to a qualitative difference. He says,
"adopting the qualitative sense, Paul in Rom 13:1 is commanding
obedience not just to any superior authorities or to those who
occupy a superior position, but to authorities who are superior in
some sense qualitatively or, specifically in this case, according
to their justness."41
This interpretation is probably not correct. First, Porter uses this
particular interpretation (i.e. the state's superior quality of
justness) to influence the answer he gives to the question of
obedience to the state. But, Paul says that obedience to the state
is motivated by fear, praise and inner sense, i.e. conscience—not
one's state greater "justness" as opposed to another. Second, there
is nothing in Romans 13:1-7 that tends to favor a qualitative
reading of the participle. Therefore, it seems that Paul's readers
would have taken the term simply to refer to authorities who preside
over them, since as has been shown, this was the normal use of the
term in a context of a discussion about political rulers. We
now turn our attention to the referent for the term ejxousivai".
The question that has arisen in the interpretation
of ejxousivai" is, "Does the term refer only
to human rulers in Romans 13 or to human rulers plus angelic rulers
as well? Oscar Cullmann represents several scholars since the turn
of this century who argue for a double referent—that ejxousivai" refers both to human rulers as well as
to angelic authorities controlling (cf. Cullmann's term
"instruments") them.42
The following discussion will be a consideration of his arguments.
Cullmann argues that the "authorities" in Romans
13 are indeed human rulers, but they are controlled by angelic
powers. He says that "only when this conception is found there does
the entire section become really clear; only then does it fall into
harmony with the entire outlook of Paul."43
There is "abundant" evidence, he adds, in the book of Daniel, The
Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach, Enoch, the Talmud
and Midrash for such a conclusion. Thus there is a straight
line of continuous thought in Judaism on the issue running from the
post-exilic44
period right up to and well beyond the time of the New Testament. He
says that in 1 Cor 2:8, "Paul manifestly means both the
invisible "'princes of the world,' who are often mentioned as such,
and their actual human instruments, Herod and Pilate."45
He argues that 1 Cor 6:3 is unintelligible unless such a view be
maintained.46
Cullmann criticizes G. Kittel who attempted to overturn the idea by
citing ordinary Greek usage as not supporting such a double
referent. Cullmann responded to this problem by claiming that
ordinary Greek usage knows nothing of the late Jewish idea of
angelic powers over state rulers. In other words, Paul is distinctly
influenced by the Jewish idea. Further, this idea is found among the
Gnostics in their interpretation of Romans 13:1 (cf. Ireneaus,
Against Heresies, 5. 24. 1).
Personally, I think that angelic authorities are
involved in the affairs of people and governments (cf. Dan 10:21).
But, for several reasons, I do not think that is in Paul's mind in
Rom 13:1-7. First, Cullmann's reading of 1 Cor 2:8 and 6:3 is by no
means "manifestly clear" as to the involvement of both angels and
rulers.47
Second, the reference to ejxousivai" in the
plural provides no solid ground for concluding that it refers to
angels as well as men, and the fact that it is not immediately
joined to ajrchv as it is in Ephesians 1:21;
3:10 (cf. 6:12 also) further weakens Cullmann's thesis. Third,
despite Cullmann's arguments to the contrary, subjection to
spiritual authorities does detract from the centrality of
Christ and in no other place in the New Testament is such a command
issued. In fact, the opposite is enjoined on Christians (cf. Eph
6:12). Fourth, nowhere is it asserted that Christ's death and
resurrection has accomplished subjugation of fallen angels to the
point of conscripting them toward a positive role in his service.
This does not appear to be in the New Testament and if one holds to
a mostly futuristic view of Rev 13, then the fallen angelic
authorities will at some future time rebel against Christ by
political means.48
Fifth, it is difficult to understand angels in verse 6 in the
context of paying taxes.49
Sixth, as Ernst Käsemann has pointed out, in Romans 13 "the
terminology we encounter has its origin in the vocabulary of the of
secular government in the Hellenistic world," not in Judaism with
its view of angelic rulers.50
For these and other reasons, many commentators have rejected the
idea of a double referent in Romans 13.51
So it can be said, according to the context in
Romans 13 and Pauline usage elsewhere, that the authorities (i.e.
ejxousivai") spoken
of in Romans 13:1 refer solely to human rulers. Since the term lacks
the article52
and is plural, it probably refers to anyone in a governing position
acting on behalf of and with the authority of the Roman government
(cf. 1 Pet 2:14).53
uJpotassevsqw—The
verb is a 3rd person, singular, present middle
imperative. Immediately one is confronted with the change from the
second person singular in 12:19-21 to the third person singular in
13:1. Why this abrupt shift? We have dealt with Romans 13:1-7 and
its asyndetic nature, but we have not probed the reason for the
switch to the third person in 13:1. First, we observe that this
shift in person does not continue through the entire unit. It
persists until 13:3b where Paul returns to the second person
singular (qevlei"/poivei/e{xei"). Therefore
the switch to the third person singular covers the actual command to
submission and the rationale wherein all authority comes from God
(vv.1-3b). 1 Peter 2:13 reads uJpotavghte pavsh/
ajnqrwpivnh/ ktivsei diaV toVn kuvrion. Peter admonishes
obedience to the authorities using the aorist, second person plural.
Perhaps the change to the third person singular in Paul indicates
that the command is really for all people, saved or not, whereas the
commands in 12:19-21 for example are really only possible for
Christians—those who have been recipients of the mercy of God. It is
clear in 13:1 that Paul has Roman Christians in view, but it may be
that the imperative is true for all people without exception, thus
the use of the third person with Pa'sa
yuchv.54
It is difficult to know whether Peter, writing from Rome, borrows
from Paul or whether both are original or both go back to a
tradition developed early in the church to deal with conflicts with
the governing authorities.55
If they both go back to an earlier tradition, such as that found in
Mark 12:13-17, then perhaps that tradition got lifted to the level
of a universal principle that we see highlighted by the use of the
third person rather than the second. If indeed Paul is working with
a tradition that was well known in Rome, that would account for the
lack of a connecting particle (i.e. joining 13:1-7 to 12:21) as he
simply allowed the tradition to stand as is. It must also be
remembered that at times paraenetic material is often without tight
argumentation (Rom 12:9-21; 1 Thes 5:16-22).56
Another question remains concerning the term uJpotassevsqw. What kind of submission is Paul
talking about? The term is used 18 times in Paul and 20 other times
in the New Testament. In the book of Romans he uses the term in
conjunction with savrx and its inability to
submit to the law of God (8:7) and the subjection of
the creation to futility by God (8:20)57
as well as Israel's failure to submit to God's righteousness,
instead creating their own. It also occurs twice in our passage,
namely, verses 1 and 5. Paul uses the term to refer to submission
of all things to Christ in the process of redemption (1 Cor
15:27, 28; Eph 1:22; Phil. 3:21; Heb 2:5, 8; 1 Peter 3:22) and in
relationships in the church. Prophets are to be in submission
one to another so that peace and order may be maintained (1 Cor
14:32). This is also true of women's roles in the church (14:34) and
husband/wife relations as well. The wife is to submit to her husband
as to the Lord (Eph 5:24; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1, 5; and
Ps. Callisth., 1. 22. 4).58
Slaves are to be subject to their masters (Titus 2:9; 1 Peter 2:18),
men and women to their spiritual leaders ( 1 Cor 16:16; 1 Peter 5:5)
and of course submission to God himself is enjoined (Heb
12:9; James 4:7). The idea of submission to political
authorities is seen in Titus 3:1 and 1 Peter 2:13-17. Finally, as
far as NT usage is concerned, Luke uses it to refer to Jesus'
submission to his parents after the Temple incident (Luke
2:51) and the fact that the demons had to submit to the
disciples Jesus had sent out on a mission (10:17, 20). Its use in
the New Testament, then, basically yields the idea of humble,
informed submission to another in the light of God's will and
redemptive work. That submission happens in all relationships
in life.
The term is found in literature outside the New
Testament as well. Josephus uses it in relation to the
submission of Israel to foreign powers, i.e. Rome
(War, 2.433; 4.175). It is also seen as a commendable
attitude in The Letter of Aristeas, 257 where the text refers
to a person who has a willing desire to submit to others. The king
asks the question, "How can one find welcome abroad among
strangers?" The answer given includes the idea of "appearing
inferior rather than superior to those among whom one is a
stranger." Here again we see that humility is at the core of the
idea inherent in uJpotavssw.
The term is employed in the LXX about 30 times.
Two instances of the verb in the middle voice are of note: 2
Maccabees 9:12 and 13:23. In 9:12 the writer relays the story of how
Antiochus IV eventually submitted to God after God had
smitten him with a wasting disease. In 13:23 the text says, "he
[Antiochus] was dismayed, called in the Jews, yielded and
swore to observe all their rights." From these two examples we can
see that humility is involved in a process of submitting oneself to
a higher authority—ultimately a voluntary submission in the
light of the power of the higher authority.
From this evidence it is clear that the term has
the idea of curbing one's will to the will of another; in this
respect, a higher authority. In only one instance in the New
Testament does it carry the idea of "forced submission," i.e.
compulsion (Luke 10:17, 20). But there are other observations that
can be made as well. The term as used in the New Testament has the
constant reminder that there is a divine "order" at work, wherein
God values societal order and is seeking in the context of
redemption to bring such a result out of the chaos of sin in human
relations. Thus even Jesus had to submit to his earthly parents and
his work on earth was carried out according to God's design and
order (Luke 2:51). He will someday, according to God's order, turn
over the kingdom to the Father and he himself will be subject to God
(1 Cor 15:28). Insofar as this order and submission is inherent in
the Trinity and its inner relations, so it must occur in the
redeemed community—in worship, in family relations and in all other
relations—as ones who have received the mercies and Spirit of the
Trinity. If the Son has to submit, we must all submit to whatever
authority God the Father has appointed (cf. 1 Cor 11:12 in context).
The choice of the term uJpotavssw
is interesting in the light of other terms Paul could have
chosen—stronger terms which are rendered "obedience." They include
peiqarcei`n, peivqesqai
and uJpakouein.59
This probably indicates that Paul does not have in mind slavish,
uncritical obedience to the state, but that there are various points
at which the Roman Christians could not, and indeed must not, submit
to the authorities.60
This particular aspect of the issue is not taken up, however, as
it was his purpose to stress submission.
What Paul wants then, according to Romans 13:1 is
willing, intelligent submission to the authorities, out of humility,
because one is conscience of God's appointing and working through
them.61
Underlying Paul's injunction is the understanding that the
government is doing what God has appointed it for—that it knows
between right and wrong (13:3) and carries out its role of
maintaining harmony among the citizens.
A few other things must be said about submission
to governmental authorities. Paul is not putting his carte
blanche on all government actions per se, but is instead
upholding the principle (13:1b) of "government and order" as
an end towards responsible, peaceful living in a fallen world. When
a government fulfills its functions of maintaining peace, and
generally protects the welfare of its people, both against those
from within and without who would threaten these things, then it is
carrying out the end to which it was appointed. It must be obeyed
even if some things are tough—e. g. paying high taxes. But, when it
crosses these boundaries and becomes an instrument for evil,
violating the explicit will of God as outlined in Scripture, then it
must not be followed (i.e. obeyed) at that point.62
When the explicit will of God conflicted with certain authorities,
Peter said we must obey God, not men (Acts 5:29). Paul accused the
governing authorities of carrying out sentence without proper
jurisprudence and he demanded certain actions be taken to remedy the
situation (Acts 16:37).63
If the spreading of the gospel is unwelcome by one's own state, then
the Christian must suffer the consequences, but nevertheless
continue to obey God. There does not appear to be the possibility in
Romans 13:1-7 that a Christian could take up arms against the state.
If indeed the problem in Romans 13 is strife
between Christians and the state over the payment of taxes, then
Paul says, "Give back to the state the taxes you owe" (v. 6, 7). But
someone might say, "The state uses tax money for immoral purposes."
Paul does not address these kinds of issues here. His assumption is
that the government in power (even Rome with its erroneous religious
views, etc.) is better than the evil that would result from
anarchy.64people
must learn to live in a posture of submission. This goes back to
creation and God's ordering of the world, especially of those in the
church. In the end, one will always find oneself under the punitive
authority of the state. Even Peter and Paul, as far as tradition is
concerned, were killed by Roman authorities. So, if we do not follow
the state in all its ideology and demands, we will end up being
judged by them should they disagree with our Christian
convictions.65
The Rationale for Submission (13:1b-5)
A Theological Basis (13:1b-2a)
13:1b ouj gaVr e[stin
ejxousiva eij mhV uJpoV qeou', aiJ deV ousai uJpoV qeou' tetagmevnai
eijsivn. " For (gavr) there is no
authority except [that which is given] by God and those who are
appointed by God."
The gaVr indicates
that what follows is the rationale for the command given in 13:1a.
Paul says that every man should subject himself to the governing
authorities because God is the originator and "establisher"
of that authority. The twice repeated uJpoV
qeou' clearly indicates the emphasis is on divine ordering,
and the exclusion of any authority apart from (eij mhV) God furthers the idea of his
sovereign control and ordering of the affairs of men. Later on Paul
will talk about other motivations for civil obedience—fear, praise
and conscience—but for now he wants his readers to know that
governmental authority and those who carry it out are from God.
The question arises, does the term ejxousiva refer to specific authorities?
Or, does it refer to the principle of authority itself? If we say
that Paul is simply referring to the principle of authority and
rulership we anchor the theology more closely with the nature of
God—one who is ordered within himself and the Trinity. This
observation definitely follows from the text, but it may not be the
explicit denotation for ejxousiva here. The
use of uJpoV and the elliptical nature of
the clause, suggest the provision of a
transitive verb of some kind, perhaps ejdwvqh
(i.e. given), or possibly uJpov has
the force of ajpov.66
If this is true, then Paul is likely talking about rulers as
"individuals given"—as concrete expressions of God's authority.
Second, the last clause in the verse is joined by way of parataxis
(dev) to the clause
preceding. This would tend to further the idea that what we have in
the last clause is support for those individuals mentioned as ejxousiva.
The term tetagmevnai is in paraphrastic construction
with eijsivn. The construction tends
to emphasize the present aspect of the appointment and tetagmevnai continues the language of order and
submission that pervades Romans 13:1-7.67
Such language includes: uJpotassevsqw/ uJpotavssesqai, ajntitassovmeno", diataghv
and ajnqevsthken. Tetagmevnai is a perfect middle from tavssw which means "to determine," or "to
appoint;" the same meaning it carried in non-biblical Greek.68
The term is used in the New Testament eight times. It can mean
simply "to point out, choose or indicate," as in the case of Jesus
choosing the mountain where he wanted to meet his disciples (Matt
28:16); the church at Antioch choosing or designating Paul and
Barnabas to the special task of going to the Jerusalem Council (Acts
15:2); Paul's choosing a day to meet the Jewish leaders in Rome
(Acts 28:23); and with no necessary negative inferences, the
household of Stephanus choosing themselves to serve the saints (1
Cor 16:15). The term is also used theologically with God as the
subject and the one who "appoints" people to eternal life (Acts
13:48) and the one who had already "chosen" or "marked out" a plan
for the Apostle Paul's life (Acts 22:10). It is used one other time
in Luke 7:8. In this passage the centurion recognizes something of
Jesus' authority, knowing that he can heal just by "saying the
word." The theological use of the term as well as its use in Luke
7:8 is instructive for it sets out some parameters which we may
bring into the situation in Romans 13 in order to help us further
understand the nature and boundaries of civic appointment. We will
discuss this in a moment, but it is necessary to address first from
whence Paul is deriving his idea of governmental authority. The
background of the passage has had a bearing on this question in the
history of discussion of this text.
It seems fairly clear that Paul is deriving his
idea of the authorities being appointed by God, not directly from
the gospel or early church tradition per se, but instead from
the OT and his Jewish background, perhaps as a Diaspora Jew.69
The books of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel make abundant reference to
such ideas which form the background to Paul's thinking here in
Romans 13. In highlighted fashion, Isaiah 45:1-7 says:
1Thus says the Lord to Cyrus His
anointed, Whom I have taken by the right hand, To subdue
nations before him, And to loose the loins of kings; To
open doors before him so that gates will not be shut:
2I will go before you and make the rough places smooth; I
will shatter the doors of bronze, and cut through the iron bars.
3And I will give you the treasures of darkness, And
hidden wealth of secret places, In order that you may know
that it is I, The Lord, the God of Israel, who calls you by your
name. 4For the sake of Jacob My servant, And
Israel my chosen one, I have also called you by your name; I
have given you a title of honor Though you have not known Me.
5I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there
is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me;
6That men may know from
the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides
Me. I am the Lord and there is no other, 7The One who
forming light and creating darkness, Causing well being and creating
calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.
Isaiah clearly says that God is the one who will
raise up and appoint Cyrus to the task of serving him, in order that
YHWH's purposes with Israel might be served—that Israel would
realize that there is only one true God and He is YHWH. We note in
this passage that Isaiah is speaking proleptically and thus there is
an eschatology inherent in God's dealings with nations as he raises
up leaders and peoples according to his grand purposes.70
Jeremiah 21:7, 10 and 27:5-7 also declare God's
sovereign, punitive purposes as he works through the Babylonian
nation and King Nebuchadnezzar to bring judgment upon his people
Israel. Jeremiah is very conscious of God's sovereign control of
people on the earth and the Jews knew what it was like to live under
foreign domination. Though the church has a different commission
than did Israel, the analogy carries over in that God's people in
the world have always had to determine how they would relate to the
worldly structures. In the same way as Jeremiah was able to discern
the workings of God through the pagan nations, so Paul is able here
in Romans 13 to borrow on that precedent and declare that all
authority on earth ultimately comes from God. There is an
eschatology in Jeremiah that concerns the nations' dealings with
Israel in that God is using them to bring about a purified
people. He is using Babylon to bring about a nation obedient to him
which will then fulfill his eschatological purposes promised in
Genesis 12:1-3 and 2 Samuel 7:12-16 (cf. Matt 1:1).
Perhaps no prophet makes it more clear that God is
in control of human affairs and places leaders in positions of
authority for the carrying out of his purposes than does Daniel (cf.
Dan 2:21, 37, 38; 4:17, 25, 32; 5:21). In 4:17 Daniel says,
"The decision is announced by messengers, the holy ones
declare the verdict, so that the living may know that the Most High
is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he
wishes and sets over them the lowliest of men." These kingdoms are
set over the lowliest of men, that is, for their government. But
again, there is an eschatological outlook on these kingdoms for they
are only forerunners to the great climactic kingdom which God
himself will set up in the end (2:44).71
The fact that God is the one who sets up
governments and establishes authority is seen not only in the Old
Testament, but also in Jewish intertestamental materials as well.
Sirach 10:4 says that "the government of the earth is in the hand of
the Lord, and over it He will raise up the right leader for the
time" (cf. 17:17). In the middle of a discussion about the Essenes
and their duties, Josephus says that an Essene should obey the
ruling authorities "because no one obtains the government without
God's assistance" (War 2. 140). The author of the Letter
of Aristeas says that a person can avoid envy by realizing that
"God assigns glory and greatness of wealth to kings, each and every
one, and that no king is independent. All of them wish to share his
glory, but they cannot—it is a gift of God." The same emphasis is
seen in intertestamental apocalyptic materials. 1 Enoch 46:5
says that the apocalyptic Son of Man can dispose of kings who do not
glorify and obey him, the One who is "the source of their kingship"
(cf. also 2 Apocalypse of Baruch 82:9).72
Both Dunn and Cranfield agree that Paul is here
pulling on his heritage, both in the OT and as a first century
Jew.73
Dunn, however, argues further from the OT and Jewish
intertestamental materials that not only has Paul derived the idea
that God has ordained the state, but that the OT and Jewish sources
indicate that the state must function within its God-given ordering
(cf. tetagmevnai) or design. If the state
does not function according to its proper authority, but exceeds
such limits by calling for "greater submission than God has ordered,
[it] will come under the judgment of God."74
According to Dunn, this balancing of the truth of governmental
authority is implied in Paul's discussion of the state here in
Romans 13—that is, insofar as it is explicated in the OT and Jewish
sources Paul relied upon. But, says Dunn, it has simply not been
Paul's ambition to spell it out here. Porter takes issue with Dunn's
approach. The OT and Jewish sources may lay behind the passage, but
as Porter says, such a reconstruction of a wisdom tradition "is
unnecessary to introduce into the discussion." Instead Porter argues
that the limits on the authority of the government are to be found
in the text itself wherein Paul refers to the ejxousivai" uJperecouvsai".75
These, he states, are a reference to "just" authorities. When the
authorities are not being "just" then they have not been appointed
by God or are at the least going outside their divine ordering. This
interpretation rests on the qualitative use of uJperecouvsai" which we rejected above. Since the
term is used simply to refer to "governing" authorities, it is
difficult to believe that the Roman church would have understood it
in a qualitative sense at all. It simply refers to those who are
rulers, in a political sense. A better approach to defending the
nature and boundaries of governmental authority from the text would
be to recognize that the term tetagmevnai
implies "delegated authority;" an authority which was
bestowed by a holy God who cherishes order in society. One may also
refer to the terms diavkono" (v. 4) and
leitourgoiv (v. 6) to see that the
authorities are servants and they, too, have a Master to whom they
will give an account. This, then, is enough to demonstrate that Paul
was conscious of the state's responsibility as well as the
Christian's. The background materials, contrary to Porter, are
important in this case for they give us a feel for ideology
influencing the Apostle Paul.
13:2a w{ste oJ
ajntitassovmeno" th'/ ejxousiva/ th'/ tou' qeou' diatagh'/
ajnqevsthken. "Consequently (w{ste) the one who resists authority, opposes the
institution of God,"
The term w{ste76
introduces an inference deduced from the preceding argument, namely,
that God is the one who has established governments and their rulers
with the result that anyone who resists government, de facto
opposes the institution of God himself.
The substantival participle oJ
ajntitassovmeno" comes from the verb ajntitavssw which is used only five times in the
New Testament and here in Romans 13 forms the antithesis to the verb
uJpotavssw used in verse 1. Luke uses it to
refer to the Jews who opposed and abused Paul during his ministry in
Corinth (cf. Acts 18:6). James uses the term twice in 4:6 and 5:6.
In 5:6, though the opposition spoken of was only hypothetical to
show the injustice of the rich oppressors, it carries with it here
the note of strong, determined opposition, sufficient to warrant
decisive action on the part of the opposed. In James 4:6 (i.e. the
other time he uses it) as in 1 Peter 5:5, the term is quoted from
Proverbs 3:34 in the LXX (see also 1 Clement 30:2; Ignatius to the
Ephesians 5:3). Here it is remarked that "God opposes the proud, but
gives grace to the humble." Again, the opposition spoken of would
qualify as "determined resistance" in an attempt to frustrate—only
here in a good sense since God is the author of the opposition. Thus
its usage in the NT carries the idea, not of mild resistance against
someone or something, but a conscious determination to resist or
oppose the will or action of another. When God is not the subject it
is always used in a negative sense and the resistance is actually
something disapproved of by God, or men, or both.
Josephus uses the term when referring to the Jews
who opposed Caius Caesar when he wanted to set up his statues
in the Temple, destroy those who resisted and take captive the rest
of the nation (War 2. 184-85). Josephus says, "while all the
nations in subjection to them [Rome] had placed the images of Caesar
in their several cities, among the rest of their gods,—for them
alone [i.e. the Jews] to oppose it was almost like revolters,
and was injurious to Caesar" (War 2. 194). The Jews got
together in large numbers in this instance to oppose what their
rulers were doing, hence ajntitavssw has the
same sense as in the NT—a strong determination to resist something,
in this case, Caesar's decree.
The term is used in 1 Kings 11:34 in the LXX to
render the Hebrew Wntva which itself has the idea of "to
place" or "put" [him]. God "resisted" Solomon and eventually gave
the kingdom to someone other than Solomon's sons (11:35).77
Another occurrence of the word is found in Hosea 1:6. Here the MT
says that God will not show love to the House of Israel with the
result that He would forgive their sin. The LXX renders God's
refusal to forgive Israel by the language of opposition—"I will no
longer show mercy to Israel, but will surely oppose her" (my
translation). These are strong words showing God's commitment to
resist Israel in her adultery.78
Thus the term is used in the negative sense in the OT and Jewish
literature as well.
The idea that Paul has in mind is opposition to
governing authorities on issues that should not result in Christian
opposition. The source of the opposition is probably arrogance and
pride since the term came to be associated with Proverbs 3:34. We
notice also that the opposition rendered by certain individuals in
the NT (where God is not doing the opposing), is always against
God's chosen individuals and therefore ultimately against Him. This
is the case in Acts 18 with the Jews' who opposed Paul. It is also
the case in Romans 13 wherein Paul will not tolerate those in the
church to resist those in government (cf. th'/
ejxousivaˆ.
The term diataghv
means "ordinance, direction or instruction"79
and continues Paul's heavy emphasis on the language of submission.
But inherent in the term in Romans 13 is the idea of God's order and
structuring (i.e. design) of human society.80
It is used 2 Esdras 4:11 (LXX) to refer to a "copy" of the letter
certain men had sent to King Artaxerxes. It is also used once in the
Apostolic Fathers in 1 Clement 20:3. Clement says, "The sun and the
moon and the choirs of stars circle in harmony within the courses
assigned to them, according to his direction, without any
deviation at all." Thus the cosmos maintains its order by virtue of
the directions of the Creator. Stephen (i.e., Luke in Acts
7:53) uses the term in the sense of the instruction rendered
by the angels who acted as mediators during the giving of the Mosaic
Law (cf. Gal. 3:19). Concerning angels as instructors and mediators
of the Mosaic Law, Josephus maintains a similar idea (Ant.
15. 136). Thus Paul refers to the governing authorities as
ruling according to a divine order and God's express will concerning
the management of societal affairs. Morris says the term diataghv refers to a "divine institution."81
This is definitely the sense in Romans 13.82
Paul says that the one who resists governmental
authorities opposes (ajnqevsthken) the order or
structure which comes from God. The term ajnqevsthken is used 14 times in the New
Testament, eight of which are found in Paul (Rom 9:19, 13:2; Gal
2:11; Eph 6:13; 2 Tim 3:8, 4:15)83
where it clearly refers to strongly "opposing" someone or something.
Why the shift from ajntitavssw to ajnqivsthmi? Most commentators who address the
issue claim that it was for stylistic purposes and that the terms
carry the same basic meaning.84
But, as Dunn points out, its usage in the LXX is illuminating since
it constantly denotes a rather useless resistance against an
obviously superior power (Lev. 26:37; Deut 7:24; 9:2; Josh 1:5,
etc.), including resistance against God which is futile at best (Job
9:19; Ps. 76:7; Jer. 49:19; Wisdom of Solomon 11:21 and cf.
12:12 with Rom 9). Thus there was probably a conscious shift for
Paul as he attempted to hint at the utter folly of opposing
what God has instituted. Porter argues that the shift in verb was to
indicate a more determined resistance to God's order in government
than ajntitavssw could achieve.85
He bases this distinction on Pauline usage, but Paul uses ajntitavssw only once, i.e., here in Romans 13.
Therefore such a comparison is unfounded. While the result is
perhaps true, it is best derived from OT usage as Dunn has
shown.
A Practical Basis (13:2b-5)
13:2b oiJ deV
ajnqesthkovte" eJautoi'" krivma lhvmyontai86
"and those who do so will receive judgment on
themselves."
Paul says that those who "set themselves to
oppose" (ajnqesthkovte")87
the divine institution of government will receive krivma. What does the term krivma denote? Does it refer to divine wrath? Now?
At the last judgment? Or does it refer to some punitive action of
the state? The term is used 48 times in the NT, six times in Romans
alone (2:2, 3; 3:8; 5:16; 11:33; 13:2). It can refer to a person's
judgment or estimation of another (Matt 7:2); to God's temporal
judgment of sin (Rom 2:2, 3; 1 Cor. 11:29, 34); to God's eternal
judgment (Mk 12:40; Acts 24:25; Heb 6:2; 2 Pet 2:3; Jude 4) or to a
political sentence handed out by the state or ruling authorities
(Luke 23:40; 24:40; 1 Cor 6:7). Since Paul's focus is on the state
in Romans 13 it seems best to understand this judgment here as a
temporal judgment handed out by the state to the offending party.
This interpretation fits the use of the term and allows for the
force of the gavr in 13:3 and the following
explanation that rulers hold no terror for those who do good. But,
it must be said that while Paul's focus is on the state and the
judgment it will render, we must remember that it has been appointed
by God and is his servant to mete out punishment when
necessary (13:4).88
Therefore, although the term krivma refers
to a sentence handed out by the state, the state is nonetheless
acting on behalf of God. When acting within its God-given sphere,
the state rules for God and He is the ultimate reason for necessary
punitive action. Dunn sees the judgment as divine and
eschatological, the result of a program of deliberate opposition to
God's instituted authority. This may well be the result of
such a course of action, for opposing what God institutes will
always incur judgment on "the final day," but if the gavr of verse 3 be allowed to go with verse 2,
then the judgment is God's but mediated through the state. This
appears to be Paul's emphasis.89
C. K. Barrett says, and I believe accurately, that "when resistance
is offered to the state divine judgment comes into operation at once
by means of the state's own judicial procedures."90
13:3a oiJ gaVr a[rconte" oujk
eijsiVn fovbo" tw'/ ajgaqw'/ e[rgw/ ajllaV tw'/ kakw'/. " For
(gavr) rulers are not a fear to good work,
but to evil [work]"
The term gavr is an
explanatory conjunction and should go with the idea of judgment in
verse 2 and not the command in verse 1 so that what follows is an
explanation of the means of the execution of judgment, by the
state.91
The oiJ a[rconte" could refer to
angelic beings (Eph 2:2), but due to its parallel with ejxousivai" in verse 1 and the reference here to
punishing the good (cf. mavcairan in v. 4)
it seems almost certain that it refers to the Roman rulers (Matt
20:25; John 7:26; 12:42; Acts 3:17; 1 Cor 2:6-8; Ps Sol 17:36; Jos.
Ant. 20. 11).92
The plural use of a[rconte" demonstrates
that "the Apostle [sic] is speaking quite generally."93
The expression tw'/ ajgaqw'/
e[rgw refers to any good work or deeds done within
the confines of the law enforced and upheld by the state.94
This is clear from the following verse wherein Paul talks about
"doing good" (i.e. verse 4). The expression tw'/
kakw' refers to the opposite of tw'/
ajgaqw'/ e[rgw and has the idea of any deeds or actions which
oppose the state and its laws. These expressions have the broadest
reference and scope. Dunn says,
Once again the ajgaqov"/kavko" antithesis
signals that Paul is expressing himself in terms which would gain
the widest approbation from men and women of good will . . .
whatever the abuses perpetrated on the system by corrupt rulers,
this statement of principle would be widely accepted. . .That good
citizenship may be particularly in view is suggested by the
following clauses, but in societies where religious performance and
piety were part of good citizenship that indicates an already broad
reference.95
The question that has arisen here concerns the
idea that Paul has apparently taken no account of unjust
authorities.96
Many commentators see the problem97
and Cranfield surfaces three possible explanations. First, says
Cranfield, there is the possibility that Paul is speaking out of his
good experiences with the Roman government and has forgotten or
neglected the fact that Rome could do and had done evil. That this
is the explanation is severely weakened by the fact that Paul had
been treated unjustly by the Roman authorities (Acts 16:22, 37; 2
Cor 11:25) and it was ultimately those authorities that he
understood to be the ones who crucified Christ (1 Cor 2:8). Second,
Paul, though fully conscious of the possibility that the government
might commit evil, is here only speaking of its true and natural
duty as a magistrate under God and appointed by him. Third, Paul is
saying that consciously or unconsciously, in one way or another, the
government will praise the good work and punish the evil. Cranfield
argues for the third possibility based in large measure on the
"absoluteness" of the promise. He says,
The promise of v. 3 is absolute: the Christian, in
so far as he is obeying the gospel, may be sure that the power will
honour him. It may indeed intend to punish him, but its intended
punishment will then turn out to be praise. It may take his life,
but in so doing it will confer a crown of glory. On the other hand,
if he does evil, it must needs punish him.
I find it difficult to see Cranfield's rationale
for the acceptance of this third option. Paul does not appear to be
talking abstractly, or about such accidental benefits to the saint
as death and a crown of glory, but is simply saying that those in
authority will punish the wrong and praise what is good. The second
explanation for the passage seems best as Paul is arguing for the
role of the state in the light of the diatagh/`
of God. He is here assuming as a norm a positive and just
role for the state.98
13:3b qevlei" deV mhV fobei'sqai
thVn ejxousivan· toV ajgaqoVn poivei, kaiV e{xei" e[painon ejx
aujth'"" Do you want to not fear the authority? Do good and
you will have praise from it."
Paul has commanded that all people are to be
subject to the governing authorities and this because God is the
originator of that authority. To resist authority is therefore to
resist God (1-2a). Those who do so will receive the state's
discipline (2b-3a). Now, Paul gives a positive reason for submission
to the state, namely, praise. Those who obey will have praise from
the state and need not live in fear of it (13:3b).
The term qevlei"
introduces either a question, independent statement or a
conditional statement. Though the difference between these
possibilities is fairly negligible, perhaps it is best to take it as
a conditional statement: "If you do not want to fear the authority,
then do good, and you will have praise from it." In this case qevlei" forms the protasis with the
imperative poivei forming the
apodosis.99
The use of the second person singular appears to
have the force of diatribe style and lifts the discussion to a very
personal level with the readers.100
As Porter aptly says, "the use of the second person in the diatribe
style creates a personal address in the midst of the larger sweeping
statements about governmental authority. The result is a direct and
impressive forcefulness to Paul's rhetoric."101
Is Paul saying that the state will, no matter
what, recognize in a public way, such individuals who do
good?102
Is this the meaning of e[painon? Barrett
suggests the possibility that "statues and inscriptions" were
bestowed on those who made a notable contribution to society.103
Hendricksen, while recognizing this possibility, understands the
idea of e[painon to be the government
forming "a favorable opinion of that well-behaved person, and will,
whether only in "its heart" or even by means of an openly expressed
commendation, approve of him."104
This view most likely reflects what actually happened in most cases
and, therefore, fits Paul's general approach here.
13:4 qeou' gaVr diavkono" ejstin
soiV eij" toV ajgaqovn. ejaVn deV toV kakoVn poih'/", fobou'· ouj
gaVr eijkh'/ thVn mavcairan forei'· qeou' gaVr diavkono" ejstin
e[kdiko" eij" ojrghVn tw'/ toV kakoVn pravssonti. " For
(gavr) it is God's servant to do you good,
but if you do evil, then fear, for it does not bear the sword in
vain (eijkh`/). For (gavr) it is God's servant, an avenger to bring
wrath on the one who practices evil."
The particle gavr
has an explanatory force related to the idea of e[painon in verse 3b. Thus, the Apostle is saying
that the reason one will have praise if they do good is because the
ruling authorities are God's servants to do that obedient person
good, i.e., praise them. The verse as a whole, however, outlines two
purposes for the state as God's servant. It is to reward the good
and punish the evil.
The term diavkono"
is used 44 times in the New Testament and is joined here
to qeou' which is placed first in the
clause for emphasis.105
The state with its representatives, as Paul has so clearly outlined
in 13:1-2 is God's servant. As Morris says, "The ruler is
God's servant, no less. And servant reminds us that he is no
more; he is not God even if some rulers had a very exalted view of
themselves and their functions."106
Nowhere else does Paul or any other NT writer refer to the state as
the qeou' diavkono".107
But the term does appear to have been used this way in and around
the time of the NT108
and instances of such usage can be seen in the LXX (Esther 1:10;
2:2; 6:3109)
as well. It is probably from these sources that Paul derives his
language of the state as God's servant.
Two of the more important questions that have
arisen in the interpretation of this clause concern the meaning of
soiV and toV
ajgaqovn. The pronoun soiV is
most likely a dative of advantage.110
But to whom does it refer? Cranfield (cf. also M. Borg)111
argues (contra Barrett)112
that it parallels (by contrast) tw'/ toV kakoVn
pravssonti and relates to the second person singular subject
of the poivei in the preceding verse.113
This means that it is not a general reference to Christians in Rome
as Dunn asserts,114
but refers particularly to "the one who does good." Cranfield would
seem to be correct in his interpretation. The continuing of the
second person from 13:3b and the parallel with tw'/
toV kakoVn pravssonti bear this out. Taken as simply a
general reference to the readership in Rome would seem to downplay
these obvious connections.
What, then, is the meaning of toV
ajgaqovn? Does this refer to the government treating its
citizens well resulting in personal prosperity, or, the government
working for the common good?115
Or, does it have a more spiritual denotation as in 8:8? That is,
does the state play a role in furthering God's eschatological
purposes in salvation?116
Or, finally, does it refer to the government creating the conditions
for people to live a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness (1
Tim. 2:2)?117
The term diavkono" does
bring to the text a theological nuance and so the possibility does
exist, as Cranfield points out, that here we have the idea of the
state furthering God's purposes in salvation. The problem with this
view appears to be the kind of ministry the state is to
fulfill. Romans 13:1-7 gives no indication that it is some kind of
salvific role. This is to read too much soteriology into
diavkono" in Romans 13. There is no
doubt that a sovereign God working out his purpose of salvation will
use the state to those ends, but this is not made explicit here. It
would seem that the other solutions proposed for the problem are not
that far apart. Providing for the common good and maintaining order
are related to each other. But, the government is not a welfare
organization in Paul's mind and so the best solution would appear to
be that the government is to maintain civil order. This seems to be
the emphasis of the following clause wherein Paul says that the
state will punish those who do evil. And, as Hendricksen points out,
this coheres well with Paul's teaching in 1 Timothy 2:2.118
After relating the positive function of the
authorities, Paul goes on to indicate how they will deal with those
who do evil (cf. the mild adversative dev).
Continuing the diatribe style he says that "if you do evil, then
fear, for it [i. e., the state] does not bear the sword in
vain." The term ejaVn sets up a third class conditional
statement,119
with the apodosis found in the imperative
fobou'. In this context toV
kakoVn refers to anything that is opposite to toV ajgaqovn and therefore renders society a
dangerous place in which to live and undermines societal order. A
person who causes such things, according to Paul, ought to fear
because of the punitive function of the state.
Concerning the punitive role of the state, two
further issues must be looked at in the interpretation of this
verse. What is the meaning of thVn mavcairan
forei' in verse 4b and what does ojrghVn in verse 4c signify? The connector
gavr (v. 4b) is explanatory and introduces
the reason why the person who does evil should fear, namely, because
the state does not carry (forei')120 the sword for nothing. Therefore, the term
mavcairan (i. e. sword) is a symbol121
which refers to judicial action carried out by the state against a
person who has in some way opposed the
state.122
The question that has often come up in the discussion of this term
is whether or not it refers to such extreme action as capital
punishment.
C. K. Barrett argues that the reference is to the
state's right of capital punishment. Referring to mavcairan he says, "This last expression recalls
the technical term ius gladii, by which was meant the
authority (possessed by all higher magistrates) of inflicting
sentence of death."123
But, as A. N. Sherwin-White has pointed out, the comparison of
ius gladii with the thought of general governing will not
stand. Ius gladii referred to the right of a provincial
governor to maintain military discipline among the Roman soldiers
under his command without being hampered by the provisions of laws
of provocatio."124
There is not a sufficient analogy in Romans 13 to ius gladii
to base capital punishment on such a comparison.125
Though the parallel to the ius gladii will
not stand, this does not mean that the sword does not represent
capital punishment. The "sword" is used in the NT on many occasions
to refer to the authorities' right to take life if it is deemed that
one has committed an offense worthy of such punishment (cf. Matt
26:52; Luke 21:24; Acts 12:2; 16:27; Heb 11:34, 37; Rev
13:10).126
The sense here in Romans is precisely that, though Paul would
include the magistrate's punitive authority in much less serious
matters as well. Murray has correctly said:
The sword which the magistrate carries as the most
significant part of his equipment is not merely the sign of his
authority but of his right to wield it in the infliction of that
which a sword does. It would not be necessary to suppose that the
wielding of a sword contemplates the infliction of the death penalty
exclusively. It can be wielded to execute punishment that falls
short of death. But to exclude the right of the death penalty when
the nature of the crime calls for such is totally contrary to that
which the sword signifies and executes. We need appeal to no more
than New Testament usage to establish this reference.127
The fact that Paul says that the state does not
"bear the sword in vain, i.e., to no purpose" (eijkh') seems to
further strengthen the fact that the state's authority over
wrongdoers reaches to the point of capital punishment.128
Insofar as the state does this, it is the servant
of God (qeou' diavkono")
as an agent (e[kdiko") of wrath (ojrghVn) on
the one who practices evil (tw'/ toV kakoVn
pravssonti). The gavr (v. 4c)
is again introducing the reason why the person doing evil ought to
fear, namely, because the state is God's servant; an avenger in the
carrying out of divine wrath on the wrongdoer. The term e[kdiko" can be used in three distinct senses.
First, it can refer to one who places himself outside the law by
committing an offense against it.129
Second, it can refer to a "legal officer" but this usage tends to be
somewhat earlier than the New Testament.130
The third sense appears to be closest to what we have in Romans 13.
By assimilation to ejkdikavzw (a Hellenistic
development away from its root ejkdikevw) the term came
to mean not one who is outside the law (i.e., a criminal), but one
who decides a legal process, i.e., an "avenger."131
This is certainly the meaning in its only other Pauline use in 1
Thessalonians 4:6. In this text Paul is stating that the Lord is an
"avenger" (e[kdiko")
against those who wrong their brothers in matters of sexual
purity, that is, the Lord is the one who will punish those
who commit this evil.132
The term is also used in this way in Jewish materials as well. In
referring to a well brought up son who can take issue with his
father's enemies, Sirach 30:6 says that "He [i.e. the father]
has left behind him an avenger against his enemies, and one
to repay the kindness of his friends" (italics mine). Josephus
(War 5. 377), when he was exhorting the Jews not to fight
against Titus, asked them this question, "And when was it that God,
who is the Creator of the Jewish people, did not avenge them
when they had been injured" (italics mine)?133
In summary, the term as it is used here and in other places in the
literature speaks of the active pursuit of those who do evil.
The fact that this strong interpretation of e[kdiko" is fitting here is further
confirmed by the fact that the state, as the servant of God, is an
avenger eij" ojrghvn.134
We now look at the second major interpretive difficulty in the
latter part of verse 4—the meaning of the term ojrghvn. Paul has referred to the final day of
judgment (ojrghv) in Romans 2:5 and 5:9 and
has also spoken of another, present expression of God's wrath ejpiV pa`san ajsevbeian kaiV ajdikivan ajnqrwvpwn
in 1:18 (cf. also 9:18). In this passage God gives men and
women over to their sin thus fitting them even more for the final
day of wrath. But in 13:4 the question arises as to whether it is
divine wrath or simply the wrath of the state. J.C. O'Neill says
that "the word wrath means not God's wrath but simply fear of the
punishment able to be meted out by the ruler."135
He argues that the word God is not repeated and if one inserts it,
it renders the entire argument tautologous. O'Neill understands the
idea of conscience (v. 5) to refer to God and therefore Paul would
be saying that "the state is an avenger for God's wrath and we
should submit because of God" (i.e., conscience). But this reading
of the passage has at least two weaknesses. First, it is built on an
either/or choice which, given the data (e.g. the fact that the state
is established by God), is not entirely adequate. Second, conscience
should not be identified that closely with God. Most commentators
take it as referring to God's wrath meted out in punitive action by
means of the state.136
With this I agree (cf. also 12:19). Paul clearly says that the state
is God's servant. O'Neill seems to have disregarded this point.
Finally, there may be some merit in the idea suggested by both
Barrett and Ziesler that the wrath executed by the state prefigures
that which will come against all lawlessness in the end. Since the
apostle has spoken of this eschatological wrath already in Romans
(e.g., 5:9), perhaps this forms part of the rationale for the
apostle's use of the term here.137
He has been desirous of linking the state to God throughout the
passage.
13:5 dioV ajnavgkh
uJpotavssesqai, ouj movnon diaV thVn ojrghVn ajllaV kaiV diaV thVn
suneivdhsin. "Wherefore (dioV) it
is necessary to submit, not only because of wrath, but also because
of conscience."
The term dioV138draws
out a conclusion based upon the preceding argument in 13:1-4. In
verse 5, Paul summarizes what he has argued by saying that
submission to the authorities is grounded in their punitive
capabilities and in a man's conscience. That this verse does indeed
form a summary of verses 1-4 will be demonstrated in the following
exegesis.
The reference to submission (uJpotavssesqai) once again takes us back to
the imperative in verse 1. The term ajnavgkh needs further definition. In Greek
literature and thinking it was understood to be the force that
"defies all knowledge, which controls all things and which
conditions reality."139
It lost this sense, however, with the increasing amount of
rationalization in Greek thought and became instead the rational
concept of an imminent necessity. Later in Hellenism, ajnavgkh was associated with certain deities and
surfaced as a personified concept once again. It was also understood
in a dualistic world to be that which constrains and opposes the
spirit. There are many ajnavgkai which arise
from the ajnavgkh, according to Aristotle,
and these must be controlled as they are hindrances to the
soul.140
The term is also used in the LXX (2 Macc 15:2),
Josephus (Ant. 3.223; War 5. 568), the Epistle of
Aristeas, Philo (De Aeternitate Mundi 21; 52), and the
Didache 12:2 to refer to the idea of "necessity"141
but in no way does it carry the idea of a personified force of some
kind.
jAnagkhv is used in the NT
approximately 18 times.142
It can refer to a present moral crisis (1 Cor 7:26), to negative
coercion (1 Cor 7:37; 2 Cor 9:7; Phlm 14) or positive compulsion as
in the case of Paul's need to preach the gospel (1 Cor 9:16). It is
also used to denote the idea of distress which results from divine
judgment (Luke 21:23), from unjust persecution (1 Thess 3:7) or
simply from the hardships which arise in the course of the apostolic
mission (2 Cor 6:4; 12:10). And in certain texts it conveys the idea
of logical necessity; as in the case of the New Covenant superseding
the Old (Heb 7:12, 27; 9:16, 23). Thus, there emerges from this
survey the two basic ideas stated above. The term is used in the NT
to refer to either a "necessity" or a "distress or calamity."
Perhaps the best parallel usage to that in Romans 13 (which is
clearly a reference to "necessity") is Matthew 18:7 where Jesus says
that "things (skavndalon)
that cause people to sin must (ajnagkhv) come. Here Jesus
is conscious of living in a fallen world, where just as blue is
to sky, so temptations are to people in a fallen world. If you
have one, you de facto have the other. The rule is intrinsic
to the state of affairs. So it is in Romans 13. Paul is not saying
that there is an impersonal law that governs the world that requires
that all submit to governmental leaders, but through the use of
ajnagvkh he is elevating the idea of order
as essential to the nature of the way in which the world is to run
as God would have it. God will certainly always punish the
wrongdoer. This is the way it is and always will be.143
The possibility of incurring wrath is not the only
reason the Apostle enjoins lawful living, but also because of
suneivdhsin.
In regard to this term, two important questions surface: 1)
what is the meaning of the term? and 2) how does it contribute to
the preceding argument? The term itself occurs 30 times in the New
Testament in Acts (2x), Romans (3x; 2:15; 9:1 and 13:5), 1 and 2
Corinthians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews and 1 Peter. Paul uses
it 22 times.144
In a study done in the mid-fifties, C. A. Pierce concluded that the
Pauline use of suneivdhsin always refers to
knowledge one possesses about oneself in the light of acts committed
in the past. It is knowledge that is mostly always painful as it is
concerned with bad acts from which the suneivdhsi" produces guilt. In this sense argues
Pierce, Paul stands in the tradition of Classical and Hellenistic
writers.145
But both Christian Maurer and Margaret Thrall have shown that such
an emphasis on past acts alone, and personal knowledge, as in Greek
literature, is not accurate in terms of Pauline usage.146
In our passage most commentators see the term as a reference to
prospective acts which weakens Pierce's argument.147
That future acts are in view is made quite clear when one considers
the fact that Paul uses the present tense to urge continuous
(obviously future from the standpoint of the readers) submission to
the authorities (vv.1, 5). Suneivdhsin,
then, refers to the conscience and in this context refers to
knowledge a Christian possesses of God as the ultimate author of the
state's authority. To then go and deliberately break the laws of the
state would be to incur a pang of conscience.148
Therefore suneivdhsi"
refers to the conscience in a Christian and provides direction for
life in relation to the state. Its contribution to the argument has
been carefully demonstrated by Stein. He has shown that Paul has not
introduced a new argument here by his reference to conscience, since
he does not develop it at length. What we have in verse 5, argues
Stein, is a summary by way of chiasm, of verses 1-4.149
In verses 1-4, Paul has exhorted believers to submit to the state
for two reasons: 1) God has established the state and 2) the
state will punish wrongdoers. In verse 5, Paul says obedience is
necessary because of wrath (i.e. the state will punish wrongdoers)
and conscience (God has established the state).150
The chiasm looks like this:
Now that Paul has clearly reasoned out the
Christian's relation to the state in the first five verses, in
verses 6 and 7 he is going to outline practical areas of submission
taken in by the command.
The Example of Submission (13:6, 7)
13:6 diaV tou'to gaVr kaiV
fovrou" telei'te·leitourgoiV gaVr qeou' eijsin eij" aujtoV tou'to
proskarterou'nte". "For this reason (diaV
tou`to gavr) you pay taxes, for (gavr) [those in authority] are God's servants who
persist in this very thing."
The expression diaV tou'to
looks backward, not to conscience alone,151
but to the entire argument Paul has been making regarding the origin
and function of the state.152
The gaVr is explanatory indicating
that Paul is here laying out a case (i.e., the payment of taxes)
that demonstrates that the rulers are from God and deserve
obedience. This is obvious he says, because fovrou" telei'te. The Roman Christians paid
taxes and this is an indication that the state has been appointed by
God. As Fitzmyer says, "Paul takes it for granted that the
Christians of Rome have been paying taxes."153
The term fovrou" means "taxes" or "tribute"
(land or poll tax, but in either case, a direct tax)154
and the presence of the gavr renders almost
certain that telei`te is to be taken as an
indicative not an imperative.155
Stein indicates that there are 22 other instances in which gavr occurs with adverbial kaiv
and none of the following verbs are in the imperative.156
The second gavr is
explanatory and indicates that Paul is going on to give a reason for
the collection of taxes. Taxes are collected by the authorities
because they are leitourgoiV. . . qeou' eijsin.
The term leitourgoiv means
"servants," but appears to always have a sacral connotation. It is
used to refer to angels as God's servants (Philo, De Virtutibus
Prima Pars 74; Heb 1:7; 1 Clement 36:3), to priests (1 Clement
41:2), including the Great High Priest (Heb 8:2); to the prophets (1
Clement 8:1) and here in Romans Paul refers to himself as such in
15:16. The use of the term continues the emphasis on the state's
relation to God, an emphasis we saw in verses 1-4 and especially in
the term diavkono". The state is closely
connected to God via God's appointment and thus her authority is
delegated, not absolute. It is not going too far to claim for the
state, then, a sacred function in the outworking of God's plan. The
state is to promote peaceful living and punish evildoers.157
The expression eij" aujtoV
tou'to proskarterou'nte" has caused interpreters some
difficulty. The participle proskarterou'nte"
has the idea of "adhering to" or "persisting in"
something.158
It usually takes the dative direct object, but here it is followed
by the accusative.159
Thus the authorities give themselves persistently and persist
eij" aujtoV tou'to. To what does
eij" aujtoV tou'to refer? The nearest
antecedent for the phrase would refer to the collection of taxes
paid by the those living in Rome.160
Barrett,161
on the other hand, suggests that the reference is to the
government's promotion of the good and punishment of the evil as
outlined in verses 1-4. Stein suggests that the antecedent is to the
fact that the state has been appointed to be ministers of God. He
bases this interpretation on the fact that the two references in
this verse to tou`to are identical and both
refer to the argument of verses 1-4.162
As Cranfield indicates, it is not easy to choose between these
options. Perhaps the best one is the payment of taxes. It is the
nearest and therefore most reasonable antecedent, all other things
being equal. In this case, Paul is saying that the state is a
minister of God committed to the process of collecting taxes.163
13:7 ajpovdote pa'sin taV"
ojfeilav", tw'/ toVn fovron toVn fovron, tw'/ toV tevlo" toV tevlo",
tw'/ toVn fovbon toVn fovbon, tw'/ thVn timhVn thVn timhvn. "
Give back to all people what is owed; taxes to whom taxes are due;
revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due and
honor to whom honor is due."
In conclusion Paul gives a broad, sweeping
principle that directs the Christians in Rome to give back
(ajpovdote)164
whatever they owe (taV" ojfeilav").165 Pa'sin refers not to all people per se, but
as the following kinds of debt make clear, (i.e., tax,
tribute, respect, honor), it refers to all those "in authority." The
Christians are to give back to the authorities fovron (direct taxes),166
tevlo" (custom duties or indirect
taxation),167
fovbon (respect)168
and timhvn (honor).169
Cranfield argues that the term fovbon refers
to the fear of God based on a parallel with 1 Peter 2:17 and the use
of fobei`sqai and fovbo"
in the NT, but this does not appear to fit very well in the
context of Romans 13. He does not seem to have sufficiently overcome
his own objections to the view, namely, that pa'sin
becomes very awkward if God is in view and indeed Paul has
been quite a bit less than clear.170
Some have further observed that fovbon
may indicate a higher form of respect than timhVn and may refer to those higher up in
government.171
As Stein has indicated, this may be difficult to maintain.172
In any case, the point Paul is making is simply that there is an
outward submission to authorities (paying taxes) and an inward
attitude (fear and respect) concomitant with that outward
expression.
Some have seen in this text a reference to the
tradition found in Mark 12:17 and parallels. Two facts seem to
support such a conclusion. First, the term ajpovdote in Romans 13:7 recalls that same term
spoken by Jesus in Mark 12:17: "TaV Kaisaro"
ajpovdote Kaivsari. Second, the reference to taV" ojfeilav" recalls a similar expression in
Mark 12:17: kaiV taV tou` qeou`.
There is also the observation that the indicative mood in 13:6
presupposes that the Christian community to whom Paul was writing
knew that it was their responsibility to pay taxes. Where did they
get this knowledge? Perhaps from the tradition of this dominical
saying of Jesus, a saying which was also recorded by Mark. Peter
appears to have picked up on this tradition also (cf. 1 Peter
2:17).173
In summarizing these verses Barrett says:
Honour and respect are due to earthly rulers not
because they are powerful and influential men, but because
they have been appointed by God. It follows that to treat them with
less than their due of honour is to dishonour God; and honour
without its practical corollary of the due payment of taxes for the
maintenance of the authority would be a mockery.174
Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17:
A
Brief Comparison
The point of this section of the paper is to
briefly overview some of the similarities and differences between
the civil instructions recorded by Paul and Peter in an attempt to
understand the traditions employed by both writers.
Similarities
Structural Similarities
The Asyndetic Nature of the Passages
Both Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 stand
grammatically unconnected to their immediately preceding contexts.
This may indicate that they were both pulling on a well known
tradition that needed no special introduction.
The Overall Structure of the Passages
First, both writers issue the command exhorting
believers to a certain posture before civil authority. Second, they
proceed to relate the command to God or Christ—thus they relate it
to the Christians' faith. Third, most of the remainder of the
material is concerned with giving the rationale in each of the two
situations for the command. In this regard, while Paul is longer
both argue for the retributive function of the state as well as its
role in promoting the good by praising it. Fourth, both writers end
with universal appeals describing the kind of posture Christians are
to maintain before all people.
Linguistic Similarities
The Use of uJpotassevsqw/ujpotavghte
Both authors employ the verb uJpotavssw as the controlling idea in terms of the
Christian's relationship to the state. Paul uses the present
imperative, while Peter uses the aorist imperative. The result
however, is virtually the same. As indicated in the commentary, the
undefined action inherent in the aorist is further defined as
ongoing by the use of the participle ajgaqopoiou'nta". Thus both writers are setting
out what they believe to be the norm in this area. The use of this
term as opposed to some other suggests that they may be following a
certain common tradition. Although Paul wrote some eight years
earlier there does not appear to be direct literary dependence on
Peter's part.
The Use of uJperecouvsai" and
uJperevconti
The use of uJperevcw once
again suggests a common tradition from which these writers are
drawing. They both render to Caesar and his governors the highest
possible human court. Their Christianity has not caused them to
dismiss worldly structures as unimportant and of no consequence in
the lives of believers. In fact, both Peter and Paul argue that from
the foundation of their Christianity Christians are to recognize
world leaders and governmental authorities.
Eij" ejkdivkhsin and e[kdiko"
Paul and Peter both lived under and witnessed the
penal authority of the Roman government. That they both refer to the
government and its retributive justice with the same language of
"revenge" or "avenger" would seem to point to a common understanding
and tradition.
The Use of ajgaqopoiw`n/poivei ajgaqovn and
e[painon
Once again, both Paul and Peter use similar
language, albeit not identical, to refer to the Christian's behavior
in the world and before the state. The Christians are to do good and
the result is, under normal conditions, that they will have praise
from the authorities.
The Injunctions in Romans 13:7 and 1 Peter
2:17
The injunctions in both Romans 13:7 and 1 Peter
2:17 are universal in their appeal. Both writers use the term "all"
(pavnta" in Paul and pavsin
in Peter) as the object of the first verb of the commands.
Peter issues four commands which eventually end in the last command
to honor all men. Paul states one command and then follows it up
with a fourfold list of "things owed." He ends the list focusing on
honor. To be sure, there are differences that will be discussed
below, but the place of this verse at the end of the passages as
well as its similar structure, seem to indicate a common tradition
between Peter and Paul.
It is a matter of no little debate concerning the
role of Christology in these passages. Often times in this
discussion, the broader literary and historical contexts of the
writers are forgotten. The point I want to make here is that both
Paul and Peter, insofar as Romans and 1 Peter are concerned,
demonstrate quite clearly that they have similar theologies
regarding salvation and Christian living. Both of them are therefore
writing from a similar soteriological context and perspective. This
is important when trying to assess the relative weight to be placed
upon differences in these texts. Differences do not have to be taken
as incompatibilities, unless of course there is genuinely a material
contradiction.
Differences
Paul saw the need to communicate almost twice as
much material on the subject of the state than did Peter. This, of
course, is not a serious difference, but one that raises the
question as to the nature of the extra material, as well as the
redaction question and the nature of the original tradition. The
former question will be looked at below, but the latter will have to
await further study.
The Historical Context for Application
It is difficult to ascertain the exact context in
which Paul is applying this tradition. Perhaps it has to do with
taxes, but this is in no way a certainty. The best that can be said
is that his audience is in Rome and Paul had no doubts that
Christians and the state would soon have dealings; especially in the
capital city. For this reason he instructs the church on the
relationship they must maintain with the state.
Peter on the other hand, is dealing with false
accusations arising from the populace and directed at Christians
(2:11, 12). He appears to take Christian tradition on church-state
relations and applies it to the Christians so that the state will
not entertain the accusations and decide to persecute the Church.
That is, the Christians are to silence the slander by doing good and
in this way the state will not be provoked to disciplinary measures
(cf. 2:15).
Paul's Theology of the Divine Origin of the State
Paul maintains a solid commitment to originating
all civil authority in God's appointment (13:1-2). Peter does not
explicate such ideas as clearly. But, with the presence of ktivsei (1 Pet 2:13), it
is possible to see traces of this idea. For Peter, because the
authorities are created human beings, they owe their origin to the
Creator God . Paul goes much further than Peter does in expanding on
these ideas. He refers to the state as the diavkono" and leitourgoiv
of God. This is absent in Peter. On the other hand, Peter urges
submission to the state, based in part on the theology of the
Christian's freedom (cf. 1:18; 2:16).
The Ultimate Jurisdiction of the State
Both Paul and Peter materially agree on this as
pointed out above. But Paul goes much further than Peter does. He
talks about the power of the state to legitimately determine life
and death. For Paul the state does not bear the sword for nothing,
and, as such, acts as God's avenger for the meting out of
punishment. Perhaps such an idea is inherent in ejkdivkhsin in 1 Peter 2:14, but it is not spelled
out as clearly as in Paul.
Preliminary Conclusions
There are a fair number of further similarities
and differences that were not mentioned as they seem to be
relatively minor to the task at hand. The similarities that are
mentioned, however, are enough to demonstrate that while there does
not appear to be literary dependence (though such a possibility is
open on chronological/historical considerations), both Paul and
Peter appear to be drawing on a similar Christian tradition. The
differences in emphases concerning the rationale for the command to
submit can probably be accounted for on the basis of the different
historical situations to which each was writing. The overall
structure of the passages is similar and both emphatically maintain
that the Christian's relation to the state is to be one of
submission. This is an important fact. Thus, both Paul and Peter
agree in large measure on the origin (i.e., in God), nature (i.e.
rulers invested with authority) and function (i.e. to punish and to
praise) of the state and certainly on the Christian's relationship
to it (i.e., submission).
Given the strength of the similarities it would
seem that Paul and Peter are drawing on a common stock of paraenetic
material for their instruction, but the differences appear to rule
out any direct literary dependence, i.e., Peter using Romans as a
direct source. The origin of this material appears to be found in
the LXX and Jesus' teaching in the Synoptic tradition (cf. Mark
13:13-17). Questions concerning the Christians' relationship to the
authorities was addressed in the early church (cf. Acts 4, 7,
19:23ff, 25, 26, 28) and ultimately the traditional material we find
in Peter and Paul seems to have been molded as catechetical material
in the Hellenistic context of the mission to the Gentiles.
Selected Bibliography
Books
Achtemeier, Paul. Romans. Interpretation.
Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1985.
Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the Epistle to
the Romans. London: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1957.
________. New Testament Essays. London:
SPCK, 1972.
Best, Ernst. 1 Peter. New Century Bible
Commentary. Edited by Matthew Black. Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971.
Black, Matthew. Romans. New Century Bible
Commentary. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1973.
Bornkamm, Günther. Paul. Translated by D.
M. G. Stalker. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1971.
Brown, Raymond E. and John P. Meier. Antioch
and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity. New
York: Paulist Press, 1983.
Bruce, F. F. 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Word
Biblical Commentary. Edited by Ralph P. Martin, Vol. 45. Waco: Word
Books, Publisher, 1982.
________. The Letter of Paul to the Romans.
Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985.
Carr, Wesley. Angels and Principalities: The
Background, Meaning and Development of the Pauline Phrase hai archai
kai hai exousiai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1981.
Cranfield, C. E. B. The Epistle to the
Romans. The International Critical Commentary. Edited by J. A.
Emerton and C. E. B. Cranfield, Vol. 2. Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1979.
Cullmann, Oscar. The State in the New
Testament. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1956.
Deidun, T. J. New Covenant Morality in
Paul. Analecta Biblica. Vol. 89. Rome: Biblical Institute Press,
1981.
Dibelius, Martin. A Fresh Approach to the New
Testament and Early Christian Literature. London: Ivor Nicholson
and Watson, 1937.
Dunn, James D. G. Romans 1-8. Word Biblical
Commentary. Edited by Ralph P. Martin. Vol. 38a. Dallas, TX: Word
Books, Publisher, 1988.
Dunn, James D. G. Romans 9-16. Word
Biblical Commentary. Edited by Ralph P. Martin. Vol. 38b. Dallas,
TX: Word Books, Publisher, 1988.
Eckstein, Hans-Joachim. Der Begriffe Syneidesis
Bei Paulus: Eine Neutestamentlich-Exegetische Untersuchuing Zum
'Gewissenbegriff'. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen
Testament 2 Reihe. Edited by Martin Hengel and Otfried Hofius. Vol.
10. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1983.
Feine, Paul and Johannes Behm. Introduction to
the New Testament. Rev. ed. Edited by Werner Georg Kümmel.
Translated by A. J. Mattill. New York: Abingdon Press, 1966.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans. The Anchor
Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1993.
Franzmann, Martin H. Romans: A Commentary.
St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1968.
Freed, Edwin D. The New Testament: A Critical
Introduction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company,
1986.
Furnish, Victor Paul. The Moral Teaching of
Paul. 2nd ed. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985.
Goppelt, Leonhard. A Commentary on 1 Peter.
Edited by Ferdinand Hahn. Translated by John E. Alsup. Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993.
Guthrie, Donald. New Testament
Introduction. Rev ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
1990.
Harris, Horton. The Tübingen School: A
Historical and Theological Investigation of the School of F. C.
Baur. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990.
Harrison, Everett F. Introduction to the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1964.
Hendricksen, William. Exposition of Paul's
Letter to the Romans. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1980.
Jewett, Robert. Christian Tolerance.
Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1982.
Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans.
Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980.
Käsemann, Ernst. New Testament Questions of
Today. London: SCM Press, 1969.
Lake, Kirsopp and Silva Lake. An Introduction
to the New Testament. London: Christophers, 1938.
Lampe, G. W. H., ed. A Patristic Greek
Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961.
McNeile, A. H. An Introduction to the New
Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927.
Metzger, Bruce. A Textual Commentary on the
Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies,
1971.
Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans.
Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988.
________. The First Epistle of Paul to the
Corinthians. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Edited by
R.V.G. Tasker. Vol. 7. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1958.
Morrison, C. D. The Powers That Be. Earthly
Rulers and Demonic Powers in Romans 13:1-7. Studies in Biblical
Theology. Vol. 29. London: SCM Press, 1960.
Munro, Winsome. Authority in Paul and Peter:
The Identification of a Pastoral Stratum in the Pauline Corpus and
in 1 Peter. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph
Series. Edited by R. McL. Wilson and Margaret E. Thrall. Vol.
45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
O'Neill, J. C. Paul's Letter to the Romans.
London: Penguin Books, 1975.
Perrin, Norman and Dennis C. Duling. The New
Testament: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Edited by Robert Ferm. New
York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982.
Pierce, C. A. Conscience in the New
Testament. London: SCM Press, 1955.
Ridderbos, Hermann. Paul: An Outline of His
Theology. Translated by John Richard De Witt. Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975.
Robert, A. and A. Feuillet. An Introduction to
the New Testament. Translated by Patrick W. Skehan, Edward P.
Arbez, Kathryn Sullivan, Lawrence J. Dannemiller, Edward F. Siegman,
John P. McCormick and Martin R. P. McGuire. New York: Desclee
Company, 1965.
Sampley, J. Paul. Walking between the Times:
Paul's Moral Reasoning. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.
Selby, Donald J. Introduction to the New
Testament: The Word Became Flesh. New York: The MacMillan
Company, 1971.
Selwyn, Edward Gordon. The First Epistle of St.
Peter. London: MacMillan & Company, 1947.
Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Law and Roman
Society in the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963.
Stuhlmacher, Paul. Der Brief an die Römer.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989.
Theissen, Gerd. The Social Setting of Pauline
Christianity. Edited by John H. Schutz. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1982.
Theissen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the
New Testament. Grand Rapids: William. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1955.
Weiss, Bernhard. A Manual of Introduction to
the New Testament. Translated by A. J. K. Davidson. Vol. 1.
London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1887.
Young, Edward J. The Book of Isaiah. Vol.
3. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972.
Zahn, Theodore. Introduction to the New
Testament. Translated by John Moore Trout, William Arnot Mather,
Louis Hodous, Edward Strong Worcester, William Hoyt Worrell and
Rowland Backus Dodge. Vols. 1-3. Grand Rapids: Kregal Publications,
1953.
Ziesler, John. Paul's Letter to the Romans.
TPI New Testament Commentaries. London: SCM Press, 1989.
Essays
Bammel, Ernst. "Romans 13." In Jesus and the
Politics of His Day. Edited by Ernst Bammel and C. F. D. Moule.
365-83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Bruce, F. F. "Render to Caesar." In Jesus and
the Politics of His Day. Edited by Ernst Bammel and C. F. D.
Moule, 249-63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Donfried, Karl Paul. "A Short Note on Romans 16."
In The Romans Debate. Rev ed. Edited by Karl P. Donfried,
43-52. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.
Grogan, G. W. "Isaiah." In The Expositor's Bible
Commentary. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol. 6, 1-354. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986.
Gundry-Volf, J. M. "Conscience." In Dictionary
of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P.
Martin and Daniel G. Reid, 153-56. Downers Grove, IL:: Intervarsity
Press, 1993.
Harrison, Everett F. "Romans." In The
Expositor's Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol.
10. 1-171. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.
Hart, H. St J. "The Coin of 'Render Unto Caesar .
. .'." In Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by Ernst
Bammell and C. F. D. Moule, 241-48. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1984.
Karris, Robert J. "Romans 14:1-15:13 and the
Occasion of Romans." In The Romans Debate. Rev ed. Edited by
Karl P. Donfried, 65-84. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers,
1991.
Klein, Gunther. "Paul's Purpose in Writing
Romans." In The Romans Debate. Rev ed. Edited by Karl P.
Donfried, 29-44. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.
Longenecker, Richard N. "New Testament Social
Ethics for Today." In Understanding Pauline Ethics. Edited by
Brian S. Rosner, 337-50. Carlisle: The Paternoster Press, 1995.
Mott, S. C. "Civil Authority." In Dictionary of
Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P.
Martin and Daniel G. Reid, 141-43. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1993.
Reasoner, M. "Citizenship, Roman and Heavenly." In
Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F.
Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid, 139-41. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.
Stuhlmacher, Peter. "The Purpose of Romans." In
The Romans Debate. Rev. ed. Edited by Karl P. Donfried,
231-42. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.
Thomas, Robert L. "1 Thessalonians." In The
Expositor's Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol.
11. 227-298. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.
Wiefel, Wolfgang. "The Jewish Community in Ancient
Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity." In The Romans
Debate. Rev. ed. Edited by Karl P. Donfried, 85-101. Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.
Articles
Abineno, J. L. C. "The State, according to Romans
Thirteen." South East Asia Journal Theology 14 (1972):
23-7.
Arzt, P. "Über die Macht des Staates nach Röm 13,
1-7." Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 18 (1993):
163-81.
Austad, Torleiv. "Attitudes towards the State in
Western Theological Thinking." Themelios 16 (1990):
18-22.
Balch, D. L. "Early Christian Criticism of
Patriarchal Authority: I Peter 2:11-3:12." Union Seminary
Quarterly Review 39 (1984): 161-73.
Bammel, E. "The Commands in I Peter II. 17."
New Testament Studies 11 (1965): 279-81.
Barraclough, R. "Romans 13:1-7: Application in
Context." Colloquium 17 (1985): 16-22.
Bolognesi, P. "La Situazione Del Cristiano Davanti
All'autorita Secondo Romani 13." RicBibRel 17 (1982):
9-23.
Borg, Marcus. "A New Context for Romans XIII."
New Testament Studies 19 (1972): 205-18.
Botha, J. "Creation of New Meaning: Rhetorical
Situations and the Reception of Romans 13:1-7." Journal of
Theology of South Africa 79 (1992): 24-37.
Botha, J. "Social Values in the Rhetoric of
Pauline Paraenetic Literature." Neotestamentica 28, (1994):
109-26.
Boyer, Susan. "Exegesis of Romans 13:1-7."
Brethern Life and Thought 32 (1987): 208-16.
Bruce, F. F. "Paul and the 'Powers That Be'."
Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 66 (1984): 78-96.
Carey, George L. "Biblical-Theological
Perspectives on War and Peace." The Evangelical Quarterly 57
(1985): 163-78.
Cranfield, C. E. B. "The Christian's Political
Responsibility According to the New Testament." Scottish Journal
of Theology 15 (1962): 176-92.
Cranfield, C. E. B. "Some Observations on Romans
XIII. 1-7." New Testament Studies 6 (1960): 241-49.
Crawford, R. G. "Theological Bombshell in South
Africa." The Expository Times 98 (1986): 9-13.
Culpepper, Alan. "God's Righteousness in the Life
of His People." Restoration Quarterly 73 (1976): 451-63.
Cuvillier, E. "Soumission aux autorites et liberte
Chretienne. Exegese de Romains 13, 1-7." Hokhma 50 (1992):
29-47.
Dennison, William D. "Indicative and Imperative:
The Basic Structure of Pauline Ethics." Calvin Theological
Journal 14 (1979): 55-78.
Denova, R. I. "Paul's Letter to the Romans,
13:1-7: The Gentile-Christian Response to Civil Authority."
Encounter 53 (1992): 18-38.
Draper, J. A. "'Humble Submission to Almighty God'
and Its Biblical Foundation: Contextual Exegesis of Romans 13:1-7."
Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 63 (1988): 30-38.
Dunn, James D. G. "Romans 13:1-7: A Charter for
Political Quietism?" Ex Auditu 2 (1986): 55-68.
Dyck, H. J. "The Christian and the Authorities in
Romans 13:1-7." Direction 14 (1985): 44-50.
Eller, V. "Romans 13 (Actually Romans 12:14-13:8)
Reexamined." TSF Bulletin 10 (1987): 7-10.
Ellul, J. "Petite Note Complementaire Sur Romains
13, 1." FoiVie 79 (1990): 81-83.
Emslie, B. L. "The Methodology of Proceeding From
Exegesis to an Ethical Decision." Neotestamentica 19 (1985):
87-91.
France R. T. "Liberation in the New Testament."
Evangelical Quarterly 58 (1986): 3-23.
Friedrich, J., W. Pohlmann and P. Stuhlmacher.
"Zur historischen Situation und Intention von Rom 13, 1-7."
Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 73 (1976): 131-66.
Fuchs, Eric. "Romains 13, 1-7." Bulletin du
centre protestant d'etudes 29 (1977): 58-62.
Gale, Herbert M. "Paul's View of the State: A
Discussion of the Problem in Romans 13:1-7." Interpretation 6
(1952): 409-14.
Garrett, J. L. Jr. "The Dialectic of Romans 13:1-7
and Revelation 13: Part One." Journal of Church and State 18
(1976): 433-42.
________. "The Dialectic of Romans 13:1-7 and
Revelation 13: Part Two." Journal of Church and State 19
(1977): 5-20.
Goldstein, H. "Die politischen Paränesen in 1
Peter 2 und Röm 13." BibLeb 14 (1973): 88-104.
Grant, W. J. "Citizenship and Civil Obedience."
The Expository Times 54 (1943): 180, 81.
Heiligentahl, R. "Strategien Konformer Ethik Im
Neuen Testament Am Beispiel Von Röm 13.1-7." New Testament
Studies 29 (1983): 55-61.
Herzog, W. R. "Dissembling, a Weapon of the Weak:
The Case of Christ and Caesar in Mark 12:13-17 and Romans 13:1-7."
Perspectives in Religious Studies 21 (1994): 339-60.
Hultgren, A. J. "Reflections on Romans 13:1-7:
Submission to Governing Authorities." Dialog 15 (1976).
Hutchinson, S. "The Political Implications of
Romans 13:1-7." Biblical Theology 21 (1971): 49-59.
James, Stephen A. "Divine Justice and the
Retributive Duty of Civil Government." Trinity Journal 6
(1985): 199-210.
Kallas, J. "Romans XIII. 1-7: An Interpolation."
New Testament Studies 11 (1965): 365-74.
Käsemann, Ernst. "Römer 13, 1-7 und unserer
Generation." Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 56 (1959):
316-76.
Krodel, Gerhard. "Church and State in the New
Testament." Dialog 15 (1976): 21-28.
Kroger, D. "Paul and the Civil Authorities: An
Exegesis of Romans 13:1-7." Asia Journal of Theology 7
(1993): 344-66.
Légasse, S. "La soumission aux autorités d'après 1
Pierre 2. 13-17: Version spécifique d'une parénèse traditionelle,"
New Testament Studies 34 (1988): 378-96.
Laub, F. "Der Christ und die staatliche Gewalt—Zum
Verständnis der 'politischen' Paränese Röm. 13, 1-7 in der
gegenwartigen Diskussion." Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift
30 (1979): 257-65.
Lee, Page. "'Conscience' in Romans 13:5." Faith
and Mission 8 (1990): 85-93.
S. Légasse, "Paul et César, Romains 13, 1-7: Essai
de synthése," Revue Biblique 101 (1994): 516-32.
Lorimer, W. L. "Romans XIII. 3." New Testament
Studies 12 (1966): 389-91.
McDonald, J. I. H. "Romans 13. 1-7: A Test Case
for New Testament Interpretation." New Testament Studies 35
(1989): 540-49.
________. "Romans 13.1-7 and Christian Social
Ethics Today." Modern Church 29 (1987): 19-25.
Meeks, Wayne A. "The Polyphonic Ethics of the
Apostle Paul." The Annual Society of Christian Ethics (1988):
17-29.
________. "Understanding Early Christian Ethics."
Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (1986): 3-11.
Moiser, Jeremy. "Rethinking Romans 12-15." New
Testament Studies 36 (1990): 571-82.
Moulder, J. "Romans 13 and Conscientious
Disobedience." Journal of Theology for South Africa 21
(1977): 13-23.
Munro, J. "Romans 13:1-7. Apartheid's Last
Biblical Refuge." Biblical Theological Bulletin 20 (1990):
161-68.
Neufeld, K. H. "Das Gewissen. Ein Deutungsversuch
Im Anschluss an Röm 13, 1-7." BibLeb 12 (1971): 32-45.
Neufeld, M. G. "Submission to Governing
Authorities: A Study of Romans 13:1-7." Direction 23 (1994):
90-97.
Neugebauer, F. "Zur Auslegung von Röm. 13, 1-7."
KerDogma 8 (1962): 151-72.
Nurnberger, K. "Theses on Romans 13."
Scriptura 22 (1987): 40-47.
Ogle, A. B. "What Is Left for Caesar? A Look At
Mark 12:13-17 and Romans 13:1-7." Theology Today 35 (1978):
254-64.
Porter, S. E. "Romans 13:1-7 As Pauline Political
Rhetoric." Filologia NeoTestamentica 2 (1990): 115-39.
Racine, J. F. "Romans 13,1-7: Simple preservation
de l'ordre social?" EstBib 51 (1993): 187-205.
Reese, J. T. "Pauline Politics: Rom 13:1-7."
Biblical Theological Bulletin 3 (1973): 232-331.
Refoule, F. "Soumission et liberte." Vie
Spirituelle 690 (1990): 331-42.
Rodriguez, R. Lugo. "El verbo 'Hypotassein' y la
parenesis social de 1 Pe 2, 11-17." EfemMex 9 (1991):
57-70.
Romaniuk, K. "Il Cristiano e l'autorita civile in
Romani 13, 1-7." RevistBib 27 (1979): 261-69.
Senior D. "The Conduct of Christians in the World
(2:11-3:12)." Review and Expositor 79 (1982): 427-38.
Shearier, Jeffery. "The Ethics of Obedience: A
Lutheran Development." Concordia Journal 12 (1986):
55-63.
Stein, R. H. "The Argument of Romans 13:1-7."
Novum Testamentum 31 (1989): 325-43.
Strobel, A. "Furcht, Wem Furcht Gebuhrt. Zum
Profangriechischen Hintergrund Von Rm 13:7." ZeitNTWiss 55
(1964): 58-62.
Talbert, C. H. "A Non-Pauline Fragment At Romans
3:24-26." Journal of Biblical Literature 85 (1966):
287-96.
Thrall, Margaret. "The Pauline Use of Suneidesis."
New Testament Studies 14 (1967): 118-25.
Venetz H. J. "Zwischen Unterwerfung Und
Verweigerung. Widerspruchliches Im Neuen Testament? Zu Röm 13 Und
Offb 13." BibKirch 43 (1988): 153-63.
Vonck, P. "All Authority Comes From God: Romans
13:1-7--a Tricky Text About Obedience to Political Power."
African Ecclesiastical Review 26 (1984): 338-47.
Webster, A. F. C. "St. Paul's Political Advice to
the Haughty Gentile Christians in Rome: An Exegesis of Romans
13:1-7." St. Vladimers Theological Quarterly 25 (1981):
259-82.
Wells, P. "Dieu Createur et politique."
RevRef 27 (1976): 30-44.
Winter, Bruce W. "The Public Honouring of
Christian Benefactors. Romans 13.3-4 and 1 Peter 2. 14-15."
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34 (1988):
87-103.
Wright, N. T. "The New Testament and the State."
Themelios 16 (1990): 11-17.
1 Cf. Karl Paul Donfried, "A
Short Note on Romans 16," in The Romans Debate, rev. ed., ed.
Karl P. Donfried (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991),
43-52.
2 Consult Joseph A. Fitzmyer,
Romans, The Anchor Bible, vol. 33 (Toronto: Doubleday, 1993),
663, 64 for a list of commentators who reject the passage due to the
lack of Christological emphases. C. H. Talbert, "A Non-Pauline
Fragment at Romans 3:24-26," JBL 85 (1966), 287-96, is an
example of one who sees other possible interpolations in the
epistle. A quick review of the textual data on 3:25, 26, listed in
the NA26 reveals that the reading is most likely original
and Pauline. The only substantive problems concern the definite
article th`" in 3:25 and the addition of
Cristou` in 3:26. For a more detailed survey
of textual issues in Romans, cf. H. Gamble, Jr., The Textual
History of the Letter to the Romans: A Study in Textual and Literary
Criticism, Studies and Documents, 42 (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977). There are those who go further
yet and claim that the entire epistle is a compilation from two and
in some cases many different sources. For reference to those who
make such claims see Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction,
rev. ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1990), 426, n.
6 and 427, n. 1. Paul Feine and Johannes Behm, Introduction to
the New Testament, 14th rev. ed., ed. Werner Georg
Kümmel and trans. A. J. Mattill, Jr. (New York: Abingdon Press,
1966), 226, say that "the supposition that the original text of
Romans contained 1:1-16:23 . . . explains the textual tradition the
most convincingly."
3 James Kallas, "Romans xiii.
1-7: An Interpolation," NTS 11 (1965), 365-74.
4 Gamble, Textual History,
91.
5 F. F. Bruce, "Paul and 'the
Powers That Be,'" BJRL (Spring 1984), 80.
6 References to civil
authorities in the Pastorals include 1 Timothy 2:1, 2 and Titus
3:1-2.
7 Perhaps it is just such
contacts with the state, that forms part of the rationale for Luke
writing to Theophilus, if indeed, Theophilus is a high-ranking
official in the Roman government as some claim (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1).
See Richard N. Longenecker, "Acts," in The Expositor's Bible
Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 9 (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 253; I. Howard Marshall, Acts,
Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, ed. R. V. G. Tasker, vol. 5
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing House, 1980), 55.
8 Kallas, "Interpolation,"
367.
9 In this very book Paul uses
novmo" to refer to the O.T. as a whole
(3:19); to the Pentateuch (3:21) and to the principle of law in
general (3:27). Note the use of oijkonomiva
in Ephesians 3:2, 9. The first use in 3:2 refers to Paul's
personal responsibility to make known the mystery of the gospel. The
second use in 3:9 refers to unification of Jew and Gentile in one
body as the expression of God's plan in Christ.
10 Other commentators doubt
Pauline authorship due to the lack of a Christological foundation in
the passage. But as Käsemann says, "it is characteristic of our
chapter that any Christological, as well as any eschatological,
patterning is found wanting. To ignore this is to build castles in
the air and to betray oneself in so doing by the Christology and
cosmology one employs." See Ernst Käsemann, "Principles of the
Interpretation of Romans 13," in New Testament Questions of
Today (London: SCM Press, 1969), 206. With this conclusion I
must agree, but it does not lead to doubtful Pauline authorship.
11 Cf. Bruce Metzger, ed.,
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London:
United Bible Societies, 1971), 528, 29.
12 Perhaps they are due to a
process of "tidying up the text." See James D. G. Dunn, Romans
9-16, Word Biblical commentary, ed. Ralph P. Martin, vol. 38b
(Dallas, TX: Word Books, Publisher, 1988), 758, note b. On the
variant tw/' ajgaqoergw/' in 13:3 see W. L.
Lorimer, "Romans 13:3," NTS 12 (July 1966), 389-91. Lorimer,
on the basis of Greek writers' reluctance to repeat a compound,
argues for the authenticity of tw/'
ajgaqoevrgw. Given the strength of the manuscript tradition
this is highly unlikely and may be a later scribal attempt to focus
on the "one who does good," rather than on the "works"
themselves as Paul appears to be highlighting. Cranfield, Romans,
2:664, n. 5, sees it as an attempt to improve the text. He does
not say in what particular fashion.
13 Metzger, Textual
Commentary, 529.
14 Dunn, Romans,
2:758, note d.
15 Bruce, "Paul and 'the
Powers That Be,'" 78, n. 2.
16 See the exegesis for the
explanation for the comparison of conscience with God and wrath with
the state. The two major underlying questions concern why and how to
submit to the civil authorities. The question of how has been
subsumed under the subject in the subject/complement statement and
the emphasis has been put upon the why (complement).
17 F. F. Bruce,
"Christianity Under Claudius," BJRL 44 (March 1962), 318,
writes: "Christian and non-Christian Jews alike were expelled from
the capital. But it is plain that, before many years had passed,
both Christian and non-Christian Jews were back in Rome in full
force, together with many Christians of Gentile stock. When Paul
writes to the Roman Christians in A. D. 57, he obviously writes to a
flourishing community which includes many Gentiles, although it is
not forgotten that its base was Jewish."
18 Suetonius, The Deified
Claudius, 25.4, writes concerning Claudius: "Since the Jews
constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus,
he expelled them from Rome." Though the meaning of Suetonius's words
is disputed, it appears to be a genuine reference to Christ. The
fact that he refers to Christ as Chrestus only indicates that
the two spellings would have been pronounced the same. And, if it
were some other person other than Christ one would expect him to
have used quodam Chresto. See n. a in J. C. Rolfe's
translation. For an opposing view see E. A. Judge and G. S. R.
Thomas, "The Origin of the Church at Rome: A New Solution?" RTR
25 (Sept.-Dec. 1966), 85-88.
19 Cf. Acts 18:12. See also
Bruce, "Christianity Under Claudius," 310, 16.
20 Suetonius, Nero,
16.2 states: "Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a
class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition." A "class"
of men seems to imply a distinction from other groups at this point,
including Jews.
21 Cf. Guthrie,
Introduction, 405.
22 Everett F. Harrison,
Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964), 283. See also Romans 9:10.
23 Cf. Feine, Behm, Kümmel,
Introduction, 219.
24 Cf. Guthrie,
Introduction, 405-06. It is also possible that the expulsion
applied only to Jews who were not Roman citizens; cf. M. Reasoner,
"Rome and Roman Christianity," in Dictionary of Paul and His
Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G.
Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 853; C. E. B.
Cranfield, Romans: A Shorter Commentary (Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985), xii-xiii.
25 See William Sanday and
Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans, The International Critical Commentary,
5th ed. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902), 370.
26 Tacitus, Annuls ab
excessu divi Augusti, 13:50, 51, writes: "In the same year, as a
consequence of repeated demands from the public, which complained of
the exactions of the revenue-farmers [Companies of Roman Knights]
Nero hesitated whether he ought to decree the abolition of all
indirect taxation and present the reform as the noblest of gifts to
the human race." That this does not form the background to the
passage has been argued by Winsome Munro, "Romans 13:1-7:
Apartheid's Last Biblical Refuge," Biblical Theological Bulletin
20 (Winter 1990), 164, 5.
27 Though the origin of the
church in Rome is a matter of great debate, it seems reasonable that
the Jews who heard Peter's sermon in Acts 2 :1-13 (cf. v. 10)
carried the good news back to Rome with them.
28 Marcus Borg, "A New
Context for Romans XIII," New Testament Studies 19 (April
1972), 205-18.
29 Ernst Käsemann,
Commentary on Romans, trans. and ed. Geoffrey Bromiley
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980),
351.
30 See also Hermon
Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. John
Richard De Witt (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1975), 323, who says: "Was there not in the fact that
Christ was the church's Lord the possibility of dissociating itself
from every "worldly" bond. ..." See also Günther Bornkamm, Paul,
trans. D. M. G. Stalker (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1971),
213.
31 The passage is somewhat
asyndetic, a feature common in Pauline style (see Rom 9:1; Eph 3:1,
2). Cf. BDF, *463. See also Stanley E. Porter, "Romans 13:1-7 as
Pauline Rhetoric," Filologia Neotestamentica 3 (Nov 1990),
119.
32 Cf. ajgaqov"/kavkov" in 12:21
and 13:3, 4; oJrghv in 12:19 in 13:4, 5;
ejkdikevw/e]kdiko"
in 12:19 and 3:4; pavntwn
ajnqrwvpwn/pa`sin in 12:17, 18 and
13:7; ojfeilhv /ojfeivlw
in 13:7, 8. There are also many linguistic parallels to
2:7-11. See Dunn, Romans, 2:758.
33 For a nice description
of the growing circle of relationships as one moves from Romans 12:1
to 13:1-7 see Porter, "Romans," 118.
34 For a brief summary of
the problem as it currently stands see, Günter Klein, "Paul's
Purpose in Writing the Epistle to the Romans," in The Romans
Debate, rev. ed., ed. Karl P. Donfried (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1991), 29-43. See also L. Ann Jervis, The Purpose of
Romans, JSNTS 55, 1991.
35 See Fitzmyer,
Romans, 341.
36 This is yet another link
that renders this section relevant to the argument of the book.
37 Compare 1 Cor 15:45— and
Genesis 2:7— .hY:j' vp,n<l] !d;a;h;
yhiyÒw".
38 Gerhard Delling,
TDNT, VIII, 41; cf. also Porter, "Romans," 120, n. 22.
39 Concerning taV" ajrcaV" kaiV taV" ejxousiva" as a reference
to Roman officials see, John Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34, Word
Biblical Commentary, ed. Ralph P. Martin, vol. 35b (Dallas, TX: Word
Book, Publisher, 1993), 680.
40 This is the participial
form of the verb uJperevcw. It is
functioning here adjectivally with respect to the noun ejxousiva.
41 Porter, "Romans," 123,
24.
42 Several scholars have
held this view which seems to have its modern impetus from Martin
Dibelius, Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus (Göttingen,
1909). Dibelius later changed his view. See idem, "Rom und die
Christen imersten Jahrhundret," SAH (1942), 7. Other examples
include K. L. Schmidt, "Zum theologischen Briefwechsel zwischen Karl
Barth und Gerhard Kittel," TB 13 (1934), 328-34 and "Das
Gegenüber von Kirche und Staat in der Gemeinde des Neuen
Testaments," TB 16 (1937), 1-16; G. Dehn, "Engel und
Obrigkeit," Theologische Aufsätze Karl Barth zum 50.
Geburtstag, ed. E. Wolf (Munich, 1936), 90-109, developed
Dibelius's ideas. Cf. also R. Walker, Studie zu Röm 13:1-7
(Theologische Existenz Heute; Munich: Kaiser, 1966), 12-15. Cf.
C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, The
International Critical Commentary, ed. J. A. Emerton and C. E. B.
Cranfield (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979), 656-57 cites some of
these commentators. For our discussion here see Oscar Cullmann,
Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and
History, trans. Floyd V. Filson (Philadelphia: The Westminster
Press, 1950), 191-210. This view was also held in the patristic
period; see Ernst Bammel, "Romans 13," in Jesus and the Politics
of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1984), 365.
43 Cullmann, Christ and
Time, 194.
44 This statement of course
is built on Cullmann's dating of Daniel. He does not say when this
is, but probably it has a date sometime after the temple desecration
perpetrated by Antiochus IV (i.e 167 B. C.-164 B. C.)—around 160-140
B. C. In the long run, it really does not matter, only that Daniel
is sometime before the writing of the New Testament and that
Daniel's writing influenced Paul in the way Cullmann asserts.
45 Cullmann, Christ and
Time, 191.
46 Ibid., 193.
47 For the interpretation
that only men are in view, see, W. Harold Mare, 1 Corinthians,
in The Expositior's Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein,
vol. 10 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1976), 200,
22.
48 See Robert H. Mounce,
The Book of Revelation, The New International Commentary on
the New Testament, ed. Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), 248.
49 Susan Boyer, "Exegesis
of Romans 13:1-7," Brethern Life and Thought 32 (Autumn
1987), 209. I list this point as a possible rebuttal to Cullmann's
view. Although it could be said that Cullmann never argues that only
angels are in view, he clearly argues for a double referent—both men
and angels. Therefore, the command to pay taxes is not necessarily
out-of-line with a double referent. At best, the focus on paying
taxes is a corroboratory argument for human rulers only.
50 Käsemann, "Principles of
the Interpretation of Romans 13," 204. Käsemann is following A.
Strobel, "Zum Verständnis vom Röm, 13 ZNW 47 (1956), 67-93,
at this point. His idea about Hellenistic sources is true to a point
and can be seen in the use of uJpotavssw.
But, the rationale Paul gives for obedience to the secular
authorities, seems to come from Jewish OT and intertestamental
materials. This is pointed out in the exegesis of verse 2.
Käsemann's argument is raised here simply to show that it is by no
means certain as Cullmann would have us believe that angels are also
in view in Romans 13:1 for even the background of the passage is
difficult to discern with absolute certainty.
51 Cranfield, writing in
1965, suggested that he was not certain that the authorities spoken
of in Romans 13:1-7 were angelic or not. Then in his commentary,
written in 1979 and his shorter commentary written in 1985, he
argued that such an identification was not likely and that Paul only
had in mind the civil authorities. Cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, "Some
Observations on Romans xiii. 1-7," NTS 6 (1959), 241; idem,
Romans, 659; idem, Romans: Shorter Commentary, 320.
See also William Hendricksen, Romans, New Testament
Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980), 429-31; Ernst
Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. Geoeffrey W.
Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1980), 353; Everett F. Harrison, Romans, in The Expositor's
Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1976), 140; Fitzmyer, Romans, 666; Dunn,
Romans, 2:760. Clinton D. Morrison, The Powers That Be:
Earthly Rulers and demonic Powers in Romans 13:1-7 (Naperville,
IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1960), 63-100, argues that the Greco-Roman
period as well as the Jewish people assigned angelic beings to
rulers over nations. Just because, he says, it is not clearly
mentioned in the New Testament does not mean that it is not there.
The problem with this view is that it proceeds by way of silence as
regards NT data. It is at best a hypothesis without a lot of
internal support.
52 Cf. BDF, *252 (1) and
the generic use of the article.
53 On 1 Peter 2:14 see,
Norman Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, New International
Biblical Commentary, ed. W. Ward Gasque (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1992), 78; Ernest Best, 1 Peter, New Century
Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids; William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1971), 114.
54 Robert H. Stein, "The
Argument of Romans 13:1-7," Novum Testamentum 31 (October
1989), 326.
55 For the view that Romans
13 and 1 Peter 2 share a common heritage in early Christian
paraenetic material, see S. Légasse, "La soumission aux autorités
d'après 1 Pierre 2. 13-17: Version spécifique d'une parénèse
traditionelle," NTS 34 (July 1988), 378-96.
56 Cf. Ernst Käsemann,
New Testament Questions of Today (London: SCM Press, 1969),
199.
57 The "one doing the
subjection" is not mentioned here. Some have postulated sinful Adam,
others Satan, etc. It seems however, that most would agree that God
is in view here. See Cranfield, Romans: Shorter Commentary,
196, 97; Dunn, Romans, 2:471; Fitzmyer, Romans,
508; Harrison, Romans, 93-95; Hendricksen, Romans,
266-68.
58 Delling, TDNT, 8:
40.
59 Porter, "Romans," 120,
21.
60 See George L. Carey,
"Biblical-Theological Perspectives on War and Peace," The
Evangelical Quarterly 57 (April 1985), 169, who says concerning
unconditional obedience to the state: "Paul would have been
horrified by such an inference."
61 See Leon Morris, The
Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1988), 461.
62 Some commentators, due
to the strong use of subjection language in the passage seem to
imply an obedience to the state which is rendered without question.
See Morrison, The Powers that Be, 113. This fails to
recognize the import of Mark 12:13-17 (Caesar and God) and the
underlying premise in Romans 13, namely, that the state is
permitting one to be and live as a Christian.
63 The magistrates (perhaps
these rulers make up part of the eJxousiva
Paul is talking about in Romans 13.) treated Paul and Silas
unlawfully. They violated their own laws by beating a Roman citizen.
Paul may have made such an issue out of it in order to protect the
Christians in Philippi from any further unnecessary harassment from
the authorities, but at the bottom of it lies the just protest of
one who was unjustly handled by the state. On Paul's rights as a
Roman citizen, see I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the
Apostles, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, ed R. V. G.
Tasker (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980),
274, 75; Richard N. Longenecker, "Acts," in The Expositor's Bible
Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 9 (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 466, 67.
64 Cf. J. I. H. McDonald,
"Romans 13.1-7: A Test Case for New Testament Interpretation,"
NTS 35 (October 1989), 543.
65 Käsemann says that
obedience to the state "ends when further service becomes
impossible." One cannot deny their Christianity, but he says, this
is not the same thing as having to adopt a new form of worship
because of the state. See "Principles of the Interpretation of
Romans 13," 214-216.
66 So Fitzmyer, Romans,
667, who recognizes that the sense is ajpov
but that the manuscript evidence for it is basically Western
with its tendency to smooth out the text. The preferred reading is
uJpov.
67 The use of the perfect
tetagmevnai conveys a sense of the
permanence of the governmental authorities. See Morris, Romans,
461, n. 15.
68 Gerhard Delling,
TDNT, 8:27f.
69 This does not in anyway
negate the cross or bring into question the Pauline authorship of
this segment. Paul is simply applying truths from the OT and his
background which he felt illuminated the Christian church's
responsibility in the world, as a witness for Christ. For further
discussion of this issue, see N. T. Wright, "The New Testament and
the State," Themelios 16 (Oct/Nov 1990), 14.
70 See Edward J. Young,
The Book of Isaiah, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1972), 194-200; G. W. Grogan, "Isaiah," in
The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein,
vol. 6 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1986), 270, 71.
71 John F. Walvoord,
Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1971), 75, 76.
72 For Rabbinic examples
consult Herman L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum neuen
Testament aus Talmud und Midrash (München: C. H. Beck'sche
Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1926), 304, who cite GnR 94 which says, "R.
Judan (um 350) hat gesagt: Wer sich frech gegen den König benimmt,
ist wie einer, der sich frech gegen die Schekhina
(Gottheit) benimmt." Cf. also Midrash on Psalm 2:2.
73 Dunn, Romans,
2:761; Cranfield, Romans, 2:663. Several other commentators
agree with an OT, Jewish background to Paul's rationale here. See C.
K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New
York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1957), 245; Matthew Black,
Romans, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973), 160; Fitzmyer, Romans,
667; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 366, 67; John Zeisler,
Paul's Letter to the Romans, TPI New Testament Commentaries
(Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989), 30.
74 Dunn, Romans,
2:762.
75 Porter, "Romans, " 126,
27.
76 The construction is
w{ste plus the indicative—a construction
found only 6 times in the Gospels and 15 times in Paul, three of
which are in Romans. In Romans 7:4, 12, Paul uses the term w}ste in a similar way. BDF *391 (2) state: "w{ste is used in the NT to introduce independent
sentences , too (as in classical), and may take the indicative,
imperative, or hortatory subjunctive. . . ." See also BAGD, 899 *1a;
Dunn, Romans, 1:361; Fitzmyer, Romans, 667; Morris,
Romans, 462; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 367.
77 1 Kings 11:34 in the LXX
reads: "kaiV ouj mhV lavbw o{lhn thVn basileivan
ejk ceiroV" aujtou', diovti ajntitassovmeno" ajntitavxomai aujtw'/
pavsa" taV" hJmevra" th'" zwh'" aujtou', diaV Dauid toVn dou'lovn
mou, o}n ejxelexavmhn aujtovn." It appears that the
participle is being used to enforce the certainty of the future form
of the verb, i.e. ajntitavxomai. This is
certainly a highly interpretive rendering of the MT.
78 The MT reads .!h,l; aC;a, acon:AyKi
while the LXX renders the phrase: ajll! h]
ajntitassovmeno" ajntitavxomai aujtoi'". This use of the
participle with the finite future verb is exactly the same
construction in 1 Kings 11:34.
79 See BAGD, 189.
80 Käsemann, Romans,
356. He says that "diataghv means
'structure' . . . and the "result is that even the fallen world can
point to manifestations and instruments of the order which God has
set up."
81 The genitive
construction th'/ tou' qeou' diatagh' could
be taken as a subjective genitive (see Porter, "Romans," 128), but
the emphasis on the permanence of the government (cf. tetagmevnai) favors a more
static idea, i.e. "institution" and the genitive appears to reflect
more the idea of "source." God is the source of the governing
authorities. See also Morris, Romans, 462. He also references
the work of Deissmann who "cites a second-century inscription which
he thinks read tw`n qeivwn dia[tag]w`n and meant
"imperial ordinances", "a most exact parallel to the celebrated
passage in the Epistle to the Romans, which also refers to the Roman
authorities." Fitzmyer, Romans, 667, refers to Deismann's
work and says the text should have been reconstructed as tw`n qeivwn dia[tagma]tw`n.
82 Herbert M. Gale, "Paul's
View of the State: A Discussion of the Problem in Romans 13:1-7,"
Interpretation 6 (1952), 414. Gale recognizes the exalted
position Paul affords the state and its incredible authority—which
has been read by some to mean absolute authority. He argues that the
idea of "being divinely instituted" is used of the Law in Galatians
(which was only limited authority and jurisdiction) and therefore
the authority possessed by the state is not final and absolute.
Gale's argument could more easily be made by an appeal to the
language of diavkono" (13:4) which clearly
indicates derived authority and concomitant responsibility.
83 It is always used in the
sense of the middle voice: "to set oneself up against." (cf. Morris,
Romans, 462, n. 18).
84 See Bruce, Romans,
223 and Dunn, Romans, 2:762, who says, "ajnqevsthken is nearly synonymous and may be
introduced for reasons of stylistic variation."
85 Porter, "Romans,"
128.
86 The expression krivma lhvmyontai appears to be a Semitic
locution: "to receive judgment." See Matt 12:40 Luke 20:47; James
3:1; cf. Black, Romans, 160; Cranfield, Romans, 2:664;
Dunn, Romans, 2:762.
87 The use of the perfect
emphasizes the resolve involved in resisting the authorities (see
Dunn, Romans, 2:762).
88 The idea of God meting
out judgment through human instruments is a familiar Jewish as well
as Hellenistic concept (Isa. 13:17-19; Dan 7:9-14; Zeph 1:14-2:3;
Mal 4:1; Wisd Sol 12:12).
89 Cf. Dunn, Romans,
2:762.
90 Barrett, Romans,
245. Cranfield, Romans, 2:664 argues that both the
eternal judgment as well as a temporal judgment are in view. His
emphasis though is on the divine judgment and he takes the gavr of 13:3 as introducing another reason for
obedience to the state. This, however, appears to disrupt the flow
of the passage. Other commentators who hold to the judgment as both
that of the state and God include: Porter. "Romans," 129; Käsemann,
Romans, 357; Morris, Romans, 462. Sanday and Headlam,
Romans, 367 limit it to the state: "There is no reference
here to eternal punishment." For the tension that exists between the
age of God's grace in the gospel and the punishment of the state on
wrongdoers, see Stephen A. James, "Divine Justice and the
Retributive Duty of Civil Government," Trinity Journal 6
(Autumn 1985), 199-210.
91 There is debate as to
whether gavr gives a further reason for the
command in verse 1 or introduces an explanation relating to the
krivma of verse 2. Porter, "Romans," 129
understands the connection to the command in verse 1, but on better
grounds Stein, "Romans," connects it with verse 2.
92 The change from ejxousivai" (verse 1) to oiJ
a[rconte" (verse 3) is probably stylistic to avoid a
redundancy.
93 Sanday and Headlam,
Romans, 367. The plural, though, cannot be used to
substantiate the "generic character of the political situation," as
Fitzmyer, Romans, 667, maintains. Simply because Paul is
speaking quite generally at this point does not mean that there is
no specific occasion in mind.
94 Cf. Ziesler, Romans,
312. The fact that Paul is referring to moral behavior that
falls within the limits set out in the laws of the land, does not
mean that he is speaking solely of political behavior; see
Cranfield, Romans, 664, n. 5; Käsemann, Romans,
358.
95 Dunn, Romans,
2:763.
96 An example of a current
problem concerns apartheid in South Africa. For the devastating use
of this passage in a modern setting see Munro, "Romans 13:1-7:
Apartheid's Last Biblical Refuge," BTB 20 (1990), 161-67.
97 Bruce, Romans,
224; Dunn, Romans, 2:763; Fitzmyer, Romans, 667
(notice his use of the term "legitimate" when referring to the
authorities); Hendricksen, Romans, 434; Morris, Romans,
463; O'Neill, Romans, 210, 11; Porter, "Romans," 130,
(Porter gets the idea of a "just" authority from the use of uJperecw in verse 1); Stein, "Romans," 333;
Ziesler, Romans, 312.
98 See Morris, Romans,
463.
99 See BDF, *471 (3) refer
to this text as an example of parataxis in the place of conditional
subordination and says that (*494) "the resolution of a sentence
into unconnected components produces a more powerful effect than
would the periodic form proper." See also, Morris, Romans,
463; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 367.
100 J. C. O'Neill,
Romans, 211, follows Rudolph Bultmann, Der Stil der
paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe
(Göttingen, 1910), 15ff, and argues for the diatribe style
here.
101 Porter, "Romans," 131.
See also S. Légasse, "Paul et César, Romains 13, 1-7: Essai de
Synthése," Revue Biblique 101 (October 1994), 520, who
affirms that "La diatribê est caractéristique de Paul."
102 Morris, Romans,
463, seems to understand the reference to toV
ajgaqoVn in 13:3 as a reference to "law-abiding." See also,
Black, Romans, 160. That this is certainly part of Paul's
idea is clear from the command in 13:1. But he may have more in mind
as well. The imperative poivei refers to
actively doing good deeds as a member of society, not just passively
keeping within the limits of the laws of the land. Not many people
receive praise for staying within the law, but perhaps someone might
receive praise for not only staying within the limits, but also
going beyond the law in service to people (cf. Gal. 6:10 and the
toV agjaqovn, also, 1 Peter 3:13).
103 Barrett, Romans,
246.
104 Hendricksen, Romans,
435. See also Bruce W. Winter, "The Public Honouring of
Christian Benefactors," JSNT 34 (October 1988), 87-103.
105 This is also the case
in its second, parallel use later in verse 4.
106 Morris, Romans,
463.
107 The expression occurs
only in 2 Corinthians 6:4 where Paul says, ajll!
ejn pantiV sunivstante" eJautouV" wJ" qeou' diavkonoi.
Here, of course, he is speaking of the holy and blameless character
of the mission he carried out for the Lord.
108 See Moulton and
Milligan.
109 In these passages in
Esther, the LXX translates the Hebrew term trev;m] as diavkono", although the
LXX generally translates the term with leitourgov" (see H. Strathmann, TDNT, 4:231
n. 8).
110 Sanday and Headlam,
Romans, 367;
111 Borg, "A New Context,"
217.
112 Barrett, Romans,
246, simply ignores the presence of the pronoun soiv in his translation and commentary. Cranfield
is responding to this generalized interpretation of the passage.
113 Cranfield,
Romans, 2:666. Borg, "A New Context," 217.
114 Dunn, Romans,
2:764.
115 Ibid. See also
Fitzmyer, Romans, 668; Sanday and Headlam, Romans,
367.
116 Barrett, Romans,
246; Cranfield, Romans, 2:666.
117 Hendricksen, Romans,
435.
118 Ibid.
119 BDF, *371 (4). In other
words the condition is very general with no necessary inference as
to the fulfillment of the protasis. However, if the protasis becomes
a reality, so also does the apodosis.
120 BAGD, 864 (1). The term
is used in the NT only five times (Matt 11:8; John 19:5; Romans
13:4; 1 Cor. 15:49; James 2:3.) The reference in Matthew, John and
James refer to wearing clothes (see also Josephus, Ant. 3,
153). The reference in 1 Corinthians refers to Christians taking on
the likeness of Christ just as they had the likeness of Adam while
on the earth before glorification. See Leon Morris, The First
Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, Tyndale New Testament
Commentaries, ed. R.V.G. Tasker (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1958), 230, 31. In each use of the word in the
NT it has the idea of "continually bearing" (i.e. wearing) and that
is the sense here in Romans 13:4 as well. It is a continual function
of the state to mete out punishment on those who do evil.
121 BAGD, 496 (2).
122 Working strictly from
OT usage, Borg, "A New Context," 216-218, argues for the sword as a
symbol of the war-making capabilities of the state—especially to put
down Jewish rebellion. He has disregarded the context in Romans 13
with its focus on the individual and his conclusion therefore seems
highly unlikely. Paul's concern is not with rebellion en masse,
but with the Christian as an individual living in a political
world. Paul says the government is God's avenger unto wrath against
the one who does evil.
123 Barrett, Romans,
247. He cites Tacitus, Histories, III. 68 as support for
the comparison. The text refers to Vitellius, who after having
suffered the humiliation of defeat offered his dagger to Caecilius
Simplex, the consul standing beside him, in order that the consul
might put him to death.
124 A. N. Sherwin-White,
Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1963), 10. He contends that "the term ius
gladii has not been used in a technical sense for the power of
the governor over either Roman citizens or peregrini" (p.
9).
125 Many commentators
reject the comparison, including Cranfield, Romans, 2:666,
67; Dunn, Romans, 2:764; Fitzmyer, Romans, 668;
Morris, Romans, 464; Murray, Romans, 152 and Ziesler,
Romans, 312.
126 See also Philostratus,
Lives of the Sophists, 1. 25 which says, dikastou` gaVr dei`sqai aujta" xivfo"
e]conte"— "For they needed a judge
with a sword in his hand."
127 Murray, Romans,
152.
128 Cf. BAGD, 222 (3).
Note The Letter of Aristeas 168: The text says that "no
ordinances have been made in scripture without purpose or
fancifully, but to the intent that through the whole of our lives we
may also practice justice to all mankind. . . ." Stein argues on the
basis of Ex 21:12, 14; Lev 24:17 and Num 35:16-34 that perhaps the
state exercised the sword in obedience to the command of God. This
is highly unlikely. Ziesler, Romans, 312, says that just
because the state is the servant of God does not mean that it is
consciously cooperating with God.
129 Gottlob Schrenk,
TDNT, 2:444.
130 See P Oxy. II
26114 (A. D. 55) which says sunestavkenai aujthn toVn progegravmmenon uiJwnwVn
hjmovna e]gdikon ejpiV pavsh" ejxousivai",
"that she has appointed her said grandson Chaeremon to appear
for her before every authority." Though somewhat later, see P Oxy.
II 237vii (A D 186). The term also carried this meaning
into several patristic writers. See G. W. H. Lampe, ed., A
Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), 427.
See also Wisdom of Solomon 12:12: "Who will come before you
to plead as an advocate for the unrighteous."
131 Cf. Schrenk, TDNT,
2:444; BAGD, 238.
132 See F. F. Bruce, 1
& 2 Thessalonians, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Ralph P.
Martin, vol. 45 (Waco: Word Books, Publisher, 1982), 85 and Robert
L. Thomas, "1 Thessalonians," in The Expositor's Bible
Commentary, ed. Frank E Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing, 1978), 272, who argues that the avenging is a
future eschatological punishment.
133 Note also 4 Macc
15:29.
134 Dunn, Romans,
2:765, says that e]kdiko" is to be taken
in its strongest sense. Its use with eij" ojrghvn
"puts the question beyond dispute." For a different
perspective on the force of the term see Ziesler, Romans,
313.
135 O'Neill, Romans,
212.
136 Black, Romans,
160; Calvin, Romans, 283; Dunn, Romans, 2:765;
Fitzmyer, Romans, 669 and Käsemann, Romans, 358, who
says that "earthly punishment carries out God's wrath." See also
Bruce, Romans, 224; Hendricksen, Romans, 436; Morris,
Romans, 464; Murray, Romans, 153; Porter, "Romans,"
132; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 368; Stein, "Romans,"
336.
137 Barrett, Romans,
247; Zielser, Romans, 313. Stein, "Romans, 336, disagrees
with this observation.
138 BAGD, 198, cite this
reference as an example of an inferential conjunction meaning
"therefore," or "for this reason."
139 See Walter Grundmann,
TDNT, 1. 344-47. By Greek literature, Grundmann means
Aristotle (Metaphysics 4. 5) and Plato for the most part.
140 Ibid, 344,
45.
141 The example from the
Didache 12:2 is important for it has the same construction as
Romans 13:5, namely, ajnagkhv plus the
infinitive. The term is also used in the LXX (Ps 106:13; Zeph 1:15)
and in Josephus (War 5, 571; Test 2:4) to refer to
judgment or calamity, but not in any way in connection with a
personified deity as in Greek usage.
142 Note the textual
problem in Luke 23:17.
143 So Dunn, Romans,
2:765; contra Käsemann, Romans, 358. There is more here
than the simple idea of necessity. There is the implication as
stated in the text that here we have the divine ordering of things.
Perhaps it is not as deterministic as Dunn implies, but it is not
just a necessity for those who want to share in the practical
results described in verses 3, 4; so Porter, "Romans," 133.
144 This count includes
six occurrences that come from the Pastoral Epistles.
145 C. A. Pierce,
Conscience in the New Testament (London: SCM press, 1955).
Pierce argues, (p. 71) that Paul's concept of conscience is clear:
"it is the pain a man suffers when he has done wrong." As to the
origin of the term he states (p. 72) that "St. Paul takes the Greek
idea and sets it firmly and brilliantly in a significantly but
hardly, as will be seen, pre-eminent place in his Judeo-Christian
Weltanschauung." See Paul Jewett, Paul's Anthropological
Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings (Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1977), 440, who also argues for conscience as a reference to
acts already committed.
146 Christian Maurer,
TDNT, 7:917; Margaret E. Thrall, "The Pauline Use of Suneivdhsi"," New Testament Studies
(October 1967), 123, 125, says that conscience provides
"guidance for future moral action and also as being able to assess
the actions of others." For similar criticisms against Pierce, see
J. M. Gundry-Volf, "Conscience," in Dictionary of Paul and His
Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G.
Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 153-56; Page
Lee, "'Conscience' in Romans 13:5," Faith and Mission 8 (Fall
1990), 88, 89.
147 Barrett, Romans,
247; Black, Romans, 160; Bruce, Romans, 224;
Cranfield, Romans, 2:668; Dunn, Romans, 2:765;
Fitzmyer, Romans, 669; Hendricksen, Romans, 437;
Porter, "Romans," 134; Stein, "Romans," 337. But Dunn, Romans,
2:765, says that "Paul appeals to the moral sensibility of the
ancient world." The background may lie here as Maurer has shown, but
Paul has developed the concept more than Dunn is willing to
allow.
148 W. J. Grant,
"Citizenship and Civil Obedience," The Expository Times
(1943), 80, 81, argues that inherent in the idea of conscience
is the responsibility of the Christian to obey "just" authority, and
to choose righteousness and God over the state should the two
conflict.
149 The presence of the
diov in verse 5 lends further credibility to
Stein's proposal that what Paul is doing is summarizing his previous
argument in verses 1-4.
150 For a more detailed
presentation see Stein, "Romans, " 339, 40.
151 So Cranfield,
Romans, 2:668; Hendricksen, Romans, 436.
152 The expression
diaV tou'to occurs in Rom
1:26; 4:16; 5:12; 13:6; 15:9; 1 Cor 4:7; 11:10, 30; 2 Cor 4:1; 7:13;
13:10; Eph 1:15; 5:17; 6:13; Col 1:9; 1 Thes 2:13; 3:5, 7; 2 Thes
2:11; 1 Tim 1:16; 2 Tim 2:10; Phlm 15. In all these instances it
refers back to the previous argument not to a single term. See
Stein, "Romans," 340, who understands the phrase to look backward to
the preceding argument as well as forward to leitourgoiV gaVr qeou' eijsin eij" aujtoV tou'to
proskarterou'nte". Porter, "Romans," 134, interprets it to
refer only to the preceding argument, not to anything following it.
This is a difficult decision to make and there does not appear to be
enough clear evidence to be dogmatic on one side or the other.
153 Fitzmyer, Romans,
669.
154 See Konrad Weiss,
TDNT, 9:80-83; BAGD, 865; Fitzmyer, Romans, 669 and
Ziesler, Romans, 314.
155 Bruce, Romans,
225, seems to feel that it could go either way, but again, the
presence of the gavr seems to rule out the
imperative. See also Käsemann, Romans, 359, who takes it as
an indicative.
156 Stein, "Romans," 341.
Many commentators take telei`te as an
indicative and an example therefore of the divine origin of civil
government.
157 Dunn, Romans,
2:767, attempts to draw out of the term all cultic overtones and
leave it as it is found solely in Hellenistic usage—a reference to
one who serves the body politic. The heavy emphasis in the passage
on God's appointment of the state and its direct connection to qeou` would seem to weaken such a conclusion. J.
L. C. Abineno, "The State, according to Romans Thirteen," South
East Asia Journal of Theology 14 (1972), 26, says that "this
term (leitourgos) does not possess the cultic meaning it has
in the Septuagint, so that gathering taxes is not the same as making
an offering. Nevertheless, the term 'servant' is not to be given an
everyday meaning. It means at least that the office of the
government official, his leitourgia is from God. Consciously
or not he works at God's direction. Thus Christians must obey him
and pay their taxes."
158 BAGD, 715.
159 This presents a
problem for translation, as Dunn, Romans, 2:767, comments.
The sense, however, is clear from the context and if we take the
accusative as reference/respect, then we could translate the clause
as follows: "these leitourgoiv give
themselves with respect to this very thing."
160 So Cranfield,
Romans, 669; Fitzmyer, Romans, 669; Morris, Romans,
467.
161 Barrett, Romans,
247.
162 Stein, "Romans,"
342.
163 Käsemann, Romans,
359, takes exception to this interpretation arguing that the
sense is as follows: "we take the verb to be active concern for
something, the meaning might be that as rulers discharge their
functions they remain within their divine commission." See also
Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 368.
164 jApovdote is an imperative verb with a continuous
nuance. For the idea of "give back" see BAGD, 90, *2. BAGD list the
meaning of the term under *1 "give away, give up, give out." This
does not seem to take into account that when the Christians in Rome
are rendering to the state, they are giving back to God (as the
author of the state) what has been entrusted to them.
165 The term means a
"general obligation or duty;" so BAGD, 598, *2a.
166 BAGD, 865. Dues paid
by a subject nation (cf. 1 Macc 10:33; Luke 20:22). See Sanday and
Headlam, Romans, 368.
167 BAGD, 812, *3 (cf. 1
Macc 10:31; Matt 17:25).
168 BAGD, 864, *2b b.
169 BAGD, 817, *2b.
170 Cranfield, Romans,
2:670-72. See Morris, Romans, 467.
171 So Fitzmyer,
Romans, 670.
172 Stein, "Romans, " 342,
points out that, "The parallelism and rhyme (fovron-fovbon; tevlo"-timhvn) should be
noted. Due to the poetic nature of 13:7b-e one should probably not
seek a precise or technical meaning in these four Greek terms." This
means that the interpreter must be hesitant in referring one term
(i.e. timhvn) to one kind of ruler and the
other term (i.e. fovbo") to a lower
ruler.
173 See Cranfield,
Romans, 2:669, 70 and Dunn, Romans, 2:768, who also
cites the fact that Luke 20:22, 25 uses the term fovron. S. Légasse, "Paul et César," 526, argues
that Romans 13:1-7 is pre-Pauline, but that it does not go back to
Jesus' words in Mark 12, some Hellenistic concept, or even to God as
Creator, but rather to Christ's example of submission, even to the
point of death. Note also Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on 1
Peter, ed. Ferdinand Hahn and trans. John E. Alsup (Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), 173, 80, who
understands it to originate with Jesus.
174 Barrett, Romans,
248.