Before jumping into the grammar of Romans 13, I wanted to state from the outset that I see this passage as being limited in application. And everyone else does too.
Everyone? Isn’t that a bit extreme? Well, if anyone takes this passage as being universal in application, I haven’t found them yet.
Some limit it by saying, “We obey the government except when that conflicts with obedience to God.” I think we see that truth clearly in the book of Acts.
Others limit it by saying that Paul’s statements about governments rewarding good behavior are merely a statement of what governments should do.
There are other minority interpretations, like the view that Paul is only referring to church government or that Paul is talking only about local authorities, not national governments.
Edit, 10:08 a.m.: (Sorry, I forgot this… it’s an important point!) Almost everyone takes with a grain of salt Paul’s statements about being blessed by the government when we do right. Or are there people who really believe that only evildoers suffer at the hands of the government? We know that is a concept that is limited in application. Otherwise, we are calling Jesus an evildoer. <end edit>
Whatever the case, the point is that NOBODY reads Romans 13 as applying to all situations at all times. That’s an important point to keep in mind as we study this passage. It’s not a question of whether or not there are limitations; it’s a question of what we understand the limitations to be.
Yes there are some limitations to its application such as refusing to obey the government if/when the government asks us to engage in immoral and unethical behavior. The problem I see though is that this “exception” does not have its limitations set as an exception clause by the parameters of this scripture passage. In other words, people assume such an exception clause exist because it is not logical that God would have us submitt to a secular law that violates divine will and/or be supportive of a government but then the boundaries to the way this exception clause is practiced is defined by political intuition rather than scripture. As a result, there is no application of this contrived exception clause that keeps most Christians from honoring and yeilding allegiance to the government (and elected officials) with terms of endearment that border, if not render, its government with a certain “king” like stature nor is there any application of this exception clause that keeps many Christians from championing and celebrating revolution (even a violent revolution) against the goverment when the goverment violates their rights. Yet, I am quites convinced that the early Christians would have no part in saying the “Pledge of Allegiance” and certainly not in the worship assembly with a raised government flag before them. I am also convinced that the early Christians would never have considered forming a militia in order to violently revolt against the government. However, contemporary Christians seem to believe such behaviors are “Christian.” How is it that a so-called “exception clause” (which is contrived from but not stated explicitly in scripture) allows contemporary Christians to engage in the exact opposite behaviors of those Christians who lived directly (or closest too) under the influence of the Apostolic leadership?
Grace and peace,
Rex
We tend to read too much scripture as guarantees or promises when it is often communicating principles. Like James 5:15, for instance. Is it a guarantee in every case? Of course not. It’s a principle: pray a prayer of faith if you want someone healed and/or forgiven. Ask God. (Same with John 14:13-14, and others.)
These scriptures don’t have an exception set with the parameters of the context, either, and they give us pause. But I think that’s our failing, and not scripture’s failing. We try to see it as absolute, guaranteed, black-and-white.
Tim: “a grain of salt”??? I think it probably requires more than that. Paul just wrote to Christians living in Rome under the rule of Nero (? likely?) that the “rulers hold no terror for those who do right.” I’m trying to imagine how the assembled church didn’t break out in laughter at this point in the public reading.
Probably because they looked at things very differently than us.