OK, let’s finish off our examination of the text of Romans 13:1-7. I’ll include verse 8; even though it’s often seen as being just a bridge to the next section, it may prove relevant:

“Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.” (Romans 13:7-8)

The principle of honoring the head of state is repeated several times in the New Testament:

“I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.” (1Timothy 2:1-2)
“Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.” (Titus 3:1-2)
“Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.” (1 Peter 2:13-14)
“Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.” (1Peter 2:17)

This principle doesn’t just apply to the Romans. Some of the aspects of Romans 13 may be unique, but the general principle of honor and respect for authorities is taught consistently.

This is not the same thing as partnering with these powers, nor does it say anything about nationalistic loyalty. There is no call to political action nor warrant for joining the military. Any of those things would have to be shown from other texts.

I think the reasons given in 1 Timothy 2 explain a lot: we seek peace, peace to live quietly and to be able to evangelize. James Harding argued that should be seen as the basis for our evaluation of any government. He would pray for the continued success of any government that allowed for religious freedom and evangelistic activity and would pray for the downfall of any government that persecuted the church or limited proselytizing.

Personally I think that our prayers for government should be that they provide a peaceful environment for the spread of the gospel.

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.

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?