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.
Tim,
It won’t surprise you, of course, that I find this explanation not wholly satisfactory. Mostly I say this because Christians in general live inside of a narrative that is always at odds with the Powers and firmly rooted in a story of “terror” inflicted on one who “did right” by those “in authority” — namely, the crucifixion.
More specifically, the particular Christians to whom Paul is writing are living in a situation already rife with the subtle (and not-so-subtle) implications of following Jesus in the shadow of Powers and the threat of violence implicit in that power conflict. The expulsion of “the Jews” (or jewish christians) has already taken place. Nero is Emperor. Pilate participated in the death of the Christ.
In other words, submission to authorities is no guarantor of good will or good treatment. The opposite is frequently true, especially in the story of God’s people.
Respectfully, I kinda think Paul is being ironic. It feels like a coded message … to me, at least.
Jimmy,
And that’s quite possible. Some feel that we are missing Paul’s sarcasm here, that reading Chapter 12 should leave us in a position where the first part of 13 CAN’T be taken at face value.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Yeah, Old Paul was such a cutup:)
We need to look at the letter to the church in Rome in context to when it was written and what Paul’s plans were, and what Paul said about being all things to all people.
@4 Laymond, are you suggesting that Paul might be saying nationalistic, pro-government things because he is writing to an audience of patriotic, pro-Roman hearers/christians?
Just for clarification. Thanks.
Jimmy, yes. and he had plans to go to Rome, to teach, not in chains.
Tim,
Your “point in time” hermeneutic is spot on. All readers of the NT need to realize that every time “you” is found in the text, it is specific to the “point in time” of hearing/reading. We modern readers are grossly guilty of what I call “antecedentitis” — the imposition of one’s self into the text by assuming to be the antecedent of “you.” There is NO passage where this is a legitimate hermeneutic — especially those “end time” and “holy spirit” passages.
I enjoy reading this blog. Keep it up.
@6 Laymond, thanks for clarifying.
I certainly think that is a somewhat plausible position to take on this text. We do have situations in which Paul appears to be acting out of a strategic sense of how to relate to (or get in the good graces of) various persons in power. Perhaps nearly to the point of duplicity, as in Acts 21.
Still, I’m persuaded that a straightforward nationalistic reading of Rom 13 has to push uphill against several other texts in Paul, particularly his sense of the Powers in Ephesians and the subtle undermining of the imperial narrative in Colossians.
I just posted a slightly lengthy comment on the post “Romans 13: Rulers as God’s Servants” which you all can read. I hope that comment will speak why Romans 13 has nothing to do with Nationalistic concerns that Paul has. Not only that, it would seem Paul would have to be guilty of a theological about-face if he is now expressing a “nationalistic” theology given what Paul stated elsewhere which goes against any hopes of Jewish or Roman nationalism (cf. Eph 1.20ff; Phil 2.9-11; Col 2.15); also the very gospel that Paul preached was a political challange to the ruling authorities.
Grace and peace,
Rex
As Tim, said the Romans had saved Paul from his own people twice, and I believe Paul had come to understand “Words, have consequences” or you catch more flies with honey.
Rom 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
God plays no favorites. Jew and gentile alike enjoy access to God’s promises through Christ. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).
Moses told the Israelites, “For you are a holy people to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples who are on the face of the earth” (Deuteronomy 14:2). They were God’s “congregation” (Acts 7:38) or “church” (King James Version).
God promised Abraham, even before the existence of Israel as a nation (Genesis 12:1-3; Galatians 3:29), that he would be the father of a special, chosen people.
The Jewish people had been taught they were special, favored people of God, and now this (turncoat) Jew was teaching they were not as the bible had said.
They weren’t special. I believe he even argued with Peter about this. Paul could no longer teach in his homeland, with out being in danger of death.
The letter to the Romans was written in contemplation of going to Rome to teach, and (in my opinion) Paul did not want to walk into a hornet’s nest.
Why is phobos translated terror here? I’ve never understood that, and I can’t find a grammatical issue. Why is the more intense word used in so many translations? Is it an artifact from earlier translations?
another interesting discussion. Keep it up.
Hi Brother Archer,
I have a question regarding verses 2-3. I hope that it is not too far off topic. First of all, I was referred to your blog by someone and I am glad I was. This has been very helpful. Just yesterday I began searching the internet for anything related to pacifism and the church of Christ. What sparked my search was the conversation over lunch I had with three christian friends yesterday. Several members of my congregation are taking a concealed weapons carrying license course next week and people were even being recruited in the church house. I expressed my disgust with it which lead to a discussion on serving in the military, law enforcement, and defense of self and others. I was alone in defending pacifism.
Anyways, my question is actually regarding the death penalty. My position is that as a christian, I could never be the person who administers the death penalty. Nor could I ever be an attorney in a position where I would be required to seek the death penalty. In fact, if able, I believe my duty as a christian attorney is to do all I can to prevent someone from being sentenced to death. However, I believe based on Romans 13:4 and God’s use of it in scripture that the death penalty is a just punishment for those who practice evil. However, I am opposed to the death penalty for reasons other than my spiritual convictions regarding non-violence even though its purpose in the United States is to punish evildoers, not godly men. It hasn’t proven to be a deterrent, primarily because of the length of time between sentencing and the actual execution on account of the appeals process, and with so much unfairness and corruption in our justice system, innocent people die.
So, my question is, if the intent of the death penalty in the United States (God’s minister?) is to punish those who do evil, should I as a christian support its use? Would I be frustrating God’s purposes if I oppose its use or publicly protest it as the states policy? Would doing all I can do legally to prevent a person from being sentenced to the death penalty in our justice system be in opposition to God’s will? Am I missing the principle here?
Jack
Hi Jack,
You know, I should address the death penalty question here. I overlooked that.
I personally believe that the State is within its right to use the death penalty, distasteful as it is to me personally. I also believe that the implementation of capital punishment in the U.S. is flawed, so I have trouble supporting it personally.
If you operate within the rules and procedures allowable under U.S. law, I see no problem with you protesting and opposing the practice of capital punishment in this country. I think you especially have that right and responsibility as a lawyer.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Brother Archer,
Thank you. I’m happy we are on the same page on this, and upon reading many of your past entries and comments regarding pacifism, non-violence, and participation in civil government, we’re on the same page there, too. You convey it in a way I never could. I’m still working out my convictions concerning the extent of my involvement in civil government permitted by scripture. I do know that it is very limited, though. However, you can’t get much more black and white than Christ’s command and example of non-violence. I pray for revival of this ideal in the church of Christ. It saddens me when I see brothers and sisters in Christ buying more guns for “protection” in reaction to the day’s political climate. Trust in God! He’s in control!
Jack
Here are two excellent explainations about Romans 13
http://kingwatch.co.nz/Law_Government/romans_13.htm
http://kingwatch.co.nz/Law_Government/submitting_to_political_power.htm
Romans 13 has been mistranslated and biasly translated.
Even considering this we can still find the truth before even having to go deeper into the true meanings of the words (as explained in the links above & I have provided a better translation of verse 1 below).
Any rulers that are a terror to good works lose their classification as ‘ruler’ to the extent that they practice evil.
Verse 3 (“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil”) qualifies verse 1 (“Let every soul be subject to the excellent authorities. For there is no authority except under God, and the authorities that exist are appointed under God.” ).