As we continue our analysis of Romans 13:1-7, I don’t find much remarkable to comment on in verse 2:

“Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.” (Romans 13:2)

The verse, as far as I can see, merely emphasizes what is already stated in verse 1, adding the concept of judgment. If you see something else that needs to be brought out, please mention it in the comment section.

Let’s look at verse 3:

“For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.” (Romans 13:3)

This verse could definitely use some comment. Here’s where I see another sign (in addition to what we talked about in the last post) pointing to “point in time” interpretation for this passage.

Basically it comes down to this: this verse isn’t always true. That is, it’s not true at all times in all places. “Do what is right and he will commend you.” Really? Always? No. Not always. History shows us that godly men have died at the hands of unjust governments. One of them was Jesus Christ.

Now, I have problems with interpretations that make the Bible say things that aren’t true. Therefore, we are obligated to find some way to explain this verse. There are numerous explanations out there; again, feel free to provide some in the comment section.

For me, the idea that Paul is speaking to a specific situation at a specific point in time takes care of things. He isn’t saying that every ruler throughout history has/will be good to those who do what is right. He is saying that the Roman Christians at the time of the writing of his letter will be able to avoid problems by submitting to the powers that hold authority.

Admittedly, even this interpretation is difficult, because the emperor will begin persecuting Christians in about a decade or so. They won’t be commended for doing good; they will be killed. However, if we factor in a sense of immediacy, this practice would save the Christians from conflicts with the government for a few years. It would keep them from being cast out of Rome as the Jews had been. It would allow them to practice their religion in relative peace.

On Thursday, Darin rightly questioned the use of “point in time” theology. I may have made it sound like I was assuming a point in time interpretation with no particular reason.

Look at the phrasing at the end of verse 1. It’s a bit awkward (although you can’t see that in the NIV). Paul says “the powers that are” are ordered by God. Why not just “the powers”? Why not “all powers”?

Remember the translation used by the KJV and the ASV?
“the powers that be are ordained of God.”

Webster’s old literal translation shows the awkwardness of the wording:
“the powers that are, are ordained by God.” (Webster)

Weymouth translated it favoring the “point in time” view:
“and our present rulers have had their rank and power assigned to them by Him.” (Weymouth)

A lot of translations go for the idea of “powers that exist.” This expression doesn’t necessarily mean that Paul is only referring to the powers that existed at that time, but it’s an unusual expression that will leave us watching for an explanation.

Things get interesting as we continue to analyze Romans 13:1-7. The next sentence says: “For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” (Romans 13:1)

“Authority” here is exousia. That word is sometimes translated as “right” or “liberty,” and some feel that it should be here. I think “authorities” or “powers” is correct in this context. All authority, all power is eventually from God.

The second part of this sentence is a little more difficult. In his commentary on Acts, J.W. McGarvey commented on this verse (when discussing Acts 13:48):

The word in question is a generic term, having no single word in English to fully represent it. Its generic sense is best represented by our phrase, set in order. In its various specific applications, however, we have single terms which accurately represent it. Thus, when Jesus etaxato set in order a certain mountain in Galilee as a place to meet his disciples, or the Jews in Rome taxamenoi set in order a day to meet Paul,} we best express the idea by appointed. But when Paul [at Romans 13:1] says of civil rulers that “the existing authorities tetagmenai eisin were set in order by God,” he does not intend to affirm that God had appointed those rulers, but merely asserts his general providence in their existence and arrangement. The idea is best expressed in English by using the phrase set in order, or by saying they were arranged by God.

From what I can tell, the verb translated “ordained” can refer to established, appointed or set in place, as well as ordered. This verse is reminding the Romans that no matter what seems to be, it is God that is ultimately in control.

We also need to recognize that the verse is talking about the powers in existence at that moment. We may be able to extrapolate that to refer to all authorities at all times, but the initial meaning is limited. The “powers that be,” the rules in power at that moment were there because God wanted them to be there. It was right for Christians to submit to these authorities because God had them there for a reason.

At least at this point, we aren’t ready to make this a universal application. And there is a lot more to be said about this passage. Let’s take it one step at a time.

Input, please. What are your thoughts so far?

OK, let’s start analyzing the text of Romans 13. The passage starts off: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.” (Romans 13:1)

In an article in Direction Journal, Jon Isaak notes:

Paul does not use the most common word for obedience (hypakouo) in 13:1 and 13:5 (Yoder, 212). Instead he uses a more general word, meaning “to submit” or “to stand under” (hypotasso). There is a difference between societal obedience (that which is automatic and unreflective) and internal consent (that which is offered only after reflection and assessment).

That’s presented for your consideration and comment. I don’t know enough Greek to comment one way or the other.

The other part of the verse, the term translated authorities, is the term translated as “powers” in several other passages. We spent some time last week discussing this concept of powers; suffice it for now to say that this is more than just a simple reference to human government. Paul would have had a hard time separating the officials from the spiritual powers behind them. And we should have a harder time doing the same.

We have a Western view of government, with a “separation of church and state.” There’s no reason to think that Paul would have done the same. He saw “the powers” as just that: the powers. Powers that compete to some degree with Christ’s authority and that will eventually be destroyed by Christ.

We’ll continue examining this passage over the next few days. As always, thoughts and comments are not only welcomed, they are thoroughly encouraged.

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.