In the verses that follow in Romans 13, Paul calls the rulers “servants” (diakonos):
“For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.” (Romans 13:4-6)
Does this mean that the rulers are voluntarily in service to God? No. Does this mean that the rulers are godly? No again. God has inanimate objects as his servants (Psalm 104:4; 148:8), which does not imply any type of piety on their part. God can raise up rulers, even evil ones, and use them for his purposes.
God has “ordered” the powers, putting limits on what they can do. He can use them when they serve his ends. When they are being used by God, man is not to oppose them, but is to submit to them.
Tim, could it be that Paul’s past could have influenced his writings.
I agree with laymond. Paul was all about the “Kingdom is at hand”
I am referencing John the baptist, here. At the time of this writing, many Jews were in Rome. I don’t think the letter is actually to the Romans of the day, but to the Jews in Rome. Paul pleads with them that they should obey government authority. The revolt in 70 A.D. in Jeruselem was the final straw. Another thing Nero was emporer and the Christians of course were blamed for parts of Rome burning. You can’t ignore and isolate Paul’s writings. Its obvious to me that what was going on in his surroundings greatly affected his comments. The fact that he was a Pharisee, also affects his comments. Being at one time part of the religious ruling order, coupled with Israel having a King and the occupation of the Romans has very thick political overtones.
As Paul finds out, if you say anything you are bound to make someone mad. How many time was he approached with an attempt to harm him? Common Jews, Roman citizens, Religious Jews, Roman Merchants, Roman authority, Herod. A pretty long list, in any one’s book. This with the backdrop, of the rapture, the emmenant return of Christ, and the setting up of the Kingdom, Christ ruling and Israel and the 12 apostles and 12 elders in control. (Revelation)
Laymond,
I think that’s very possible. If we read in Acts, all of his dealings with the Roman authorities had been “by the book,” while his Jewish opponents had used mob action and underhanded tactics. They tried to kill Paul in Jerusalem, and he was saved by the Romans. They tried to murder him while in Roman custody, and he was again saved by the Romans.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
H.B.,
I agree with the impact of the current political climate on Paul’s writing. That’s what I was talking about here: http://www.timothyarcher.com/kitchen/?p=3073
As for the idea of the imminent return, I think that also plays a part, especially if we read the rest of Chapter 13.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
A couple of observations…first, Paul was writing to Christians in Rome who happened to be an ethnic mix of Jews and Gentiles and were experiencing conflict related to their ethnic roots after the Jewish Christians returned to Rome following the death of Claudius in 54 AD (have been among the Jews expelled from Rome by Claudius in 49 AD, cf. Acts 18.2). Because the Jewish Christians have just returned to a city in which they were expelled from, this might have something to do with the comments Paul is making in Romans 13.
Second, though the Pharisees were a sect within Judaism that adhered to a specific religious-political ideology (just like any political and/or religious group adheres to), they probably did not have much political power unlike the Saducees. However, the political-religious ideological ambitions of the Pharisees would not have had anything to do with Paul’s theology because he had already came to the conclusion – in light of the crucified and resurrected Jesus Christ – that his former ideologies as a Pharisee was pointless (Phil 3.7-9). With that in mind, it is not too much of a stretch to think that the Jewish Christians in Rome, who were at odds with their Gentiles bretheren, were thinking out of those old Jewish political-religious hopes that gave birth to the different ideological sects within Judaism. Not only are such ideologies pointless since the hope of Israel – God’s faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant – has already been fulfilled in Jesus Christ (Romans 1-11) but such ideologies will only quicken a desire to act in revolt against the prevailing governmental authority (power) of Rome which will only result in incuring the wrath of the government.
So instead of revolting against the government, which would be pointless anyways in light of God’s fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant in Jesus Christ, Christians (and especially the Jewish Christians) should recognize that even though the governing authorities can be guilty of great injustice that violates God’s will they also act as God’s servants (diakonos) to ensure that a certain level of civility – rather than anarchy – remains in tact.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Rex, I agree with the thrust of your comments, but didn’t the Pharisees make up half of the Sanhedrin?
I agree that they had less power in Jerusalem proper, and in Temple politics – that was generally accepted to be Sadducee priesthood territory. But outside of Jerusalem and in the synagogues, the Pharisees (and their more Zealous ideological cousins) wielded tremendous power. That, coupled with their presence on the Sanhedrin, suggests that, while they were the out-of-power party, they still had considerable influence.
Paul’s comments in Romans 13, even though directed to quell the rebellious passions of the Jewish Christians, would be heard even by Gentile Roman Christians as a calming influence – a salve to fears that they *would* be expected to act like radical Jews and hate the Assemblies and the Senate and the Emperor.
The Imperial cult was not very old at this point, and there would still be a LOT of Romans who were very uneasy about this new arrangement of authority. Romans hated kings every bit as much as Americans do. That’s why the Assemblies and the Senate were never disbanded, despite the elevation of the imperium – and the emperors took great strides to avoid the appearance of absolute power in Rome itself.
Nick,
I thought the Pharisees had nothing to do with the Sanhedrin. Although I can be wrong too. Regardless, I did not mean to imply the Pharisees were without any influential power. I was just trying to point out that they had no “official” power, which is not always easily recognizable by contemporary readers of the Bible who have no exposure to the extra-biblical literature of Second-Temple Judaism.
Also, I like your point about how Paul’s comments in Romans 13 would have removed the fears from Gentile Christians who may have been pressured to act like a radical Jew. But that raises another question – what view did Paul wish for the Christians (Jewish and Gentile) to have towards the authorities? We know that the Apostle John proclaimed a very negative view (Revelation) and even called upon the Christians to have nothing to do with “Babylon…so that you will not share in her sins…” (Rev 18). And we know with reasonable certainty from post-apostolic eary Christian literature that the church developed a worldview that had, as N.T. Wright observes, “the overtones of Jewish Messianism on the one hand, but without the nationalist and military overtones on the other; a movement looking back to Jesus as Messiah… …which flouted the Roman emperor’s claim to be the ultimate object of allegiance” (N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p. 352). So that raises the question of how should the authorities be viewed and how do we make sense of what Paul says along with the Apostle John and other early Christian literature.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Luke indicates there were Pharisees on the Sanhedrin: “Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead.”” (Acts 23:6)
My mistake…I guess the Pharisees were part of the Sanhedrin.
Tim,
I think you make a very good point. I think we make assumptions about who can and can not get God’s will done but that is based on modern assumptions.
I would say in the discussion that the way they lived their lives did impact the Roman Empire in powerful ways by following the laws of the land. Maybe we assume much about what terror is. Matthew 10:28?
Darin,
It’s interesting in the Bible to see who God uses to punish. It is almost without exception the ungodly. Israel was sent to conquer the Promised Land. They were allowed to fight those that impeded them (and later punish those same nations). They were allowed to defend themselves. They were never sent to a foreign nation as a punishing force just because of that nation’s immorality. (Closest I can think of was the Amalekites, but they were punished for attacking Israel on their way to the Promised Land). Can anyone think of other exceptions?
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim: In regards to Canaan, what are we to make of Lev 18? After describing the abominable practices such as child sacrifice, the practicing of homosexuality, etc., we see in v.24-25 “‘Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.'”
It seems that here God is punishing Canaan, through the Israelite invasion, because of their immorality. Of course, this is in conjunction with the Promised Land mission so it may not be a valid point; but it certainly seems like built in to that mission there was immorality-reasoning for God’s ordering of the destroying of the Canaanites. The Canaanites had done nothing against the Israelites prior to their invasion, had they?
Jr,
I see the Promised Land as a figure of our future inheritance. Just as all evil must be removed from God’s presence, so all evil was to be removed from the Promised Land.
To some degree, we can equate it with the cleansing/sanctification of the Tabernacle. The sins of the Canaanites had defiled the very land itself, just as an unclean item could defile the Tabernacle. The land would never be holy until every trace of the Canaanites was removed.
However (darn those howevers) it is true that God used Israel as the human agent in this cleansing. He could have destroyed the Canaanites in a different fashion, but chose to use Israel. I’m thankful that he HASN’T called on Christians to perform a cleansing before taking full possession of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim: Good points. I’m in full agreement with you here. The Gospel must not be advanced with the sword… for as Jesus said, “‘My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world'” (John 18:36). Amen and Amen to that!