Every single individual who finds interest in the topics concerning public policy and theology is forced, at one time or another, to deal with Romans 13. Not because Romans 13 presents a problem. For this would insinuate that there is problems or paradoxes in the Scripture. If the Bible is the definitive authority on the Christian worldview, we must therefore believe that it is internally consistent, that is, consistent with itself. Rather, the problem stems from the fact that it is abused and misunderstood by both Christians and non-Christians alike.
Romans 13, I would assume, is used as a hammer against the libertarian political positions more so than, say, a mainstream Democrat or Republican. I would venture to say that this is a result of American politics and the atmosphere of policy discussion more than a result of Biblical analysis. I have come to my understanding of political philosophy from propositions and analysis of God’s word, as it is the only revealed standard by which the Christian must interpret the world. ”All other ground is sinking sand,” as the hymn goes.
There are plenty of great dealings with this passage out there. Many of them ask the tough questions such as: “If this passage was meant as a blanket order for the Christian do obey every single government every time, what are we to do about the Hitlers of the world?” Or: “If we are to always to obey government, what if the government makes a person kill an innocent woman?” These are provocative, and healthy, questions. But I want this to be from another angle. What is the positive, as opposed to the previously presented negative, interpretation of Romans 13. It is easy to know what the passage does not mean. But what does the passage mean? That is my goal.
First, I will show the passage. Then I will walk through it verse by verse. Then I will give the four main points.
Romans 13:1-7 reads as follows:
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.”
It is important to remember the context and setting. To be brief (this is no essay), the setting of the passage is that it comes directly after a discussion regarding the “marks of a true Christian.” How should the Christian conduct himself in society, in relationships, and even before his enemies? Paul seeks to answer those questions in chapter 12. The next question that he seeks to answer is seemingly addressed in chapter 13. Paul’s audience understands Paul’s message and then moves forward to question the Christian behavior toward government. Which government? Nero and the Roman Empire. So that is context. The Christians are suffering. How can they apply the content of chapter 12 to an entity that is systematically opposed to them?
Paul answers: (1) “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” Paul immediately addresses this sensitive topic with a statement on the sovereign nature of God. All authority stems from God, and therefore, if an authority is in power, it is because God has placed or instituted it. Those governing authorities, in other words, are the means by which God has determined to accomplish his end. Therefore, the individual must submit to the authority. God does not institute an authority purposelessly. He has a goal in mind and the Christian ought to humble himself before the Lord and his plans. This is a very broad statement that Paul makes. This is not a statement that is uniquely applied to government; the same could be said of anything in reality. The devil himself has been ordained by God as a means by which God will attain some end.
Verse 2: “Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” This is a logical extension of verse 1. God has given authority to something other than Himself. Those who resist it resists what God has appointed. There is no prescription here; only description. God does not say that whoever resists the authorities is wrong because they are resisting what God has appointed. It is simply a logical observation. One could be consistent with this by saying: whoever submits to the authorities submits to what God has appointed.
Moving on to the second part of this sentence, Paul notes that there is a consequence, that is, a result of this resistance. The argument now becomes: if you resist, judgement will be incurred. Since there is a “judgement,” does this mean that verse two is actually a prescription? I don’t think so. The reason I don’t think so is because of who is doing the judging, which will be revealed in the next verse. It is vital to catch the flow that will take place between this verse (2) and the next.
Verse 3a: “For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?” If one resists the authority, the authority will judge. This is the nature of authority. God has instilled this purposeful truism deep into the essence of a ruler. No man has ever feared a ruler who refused to exercise judgement. Understand the reflection here. God possesses ultimate authority and God exercises judgement. God has given some “authority” to institutions that govern. Therefore, he has also given the ability to make judgments.
However, there is something else happening here. Paul is transitioning from a broad statement about government to a prescription for government. There is no reason to think that this sudden prescription is intended as a practical statement for the Christian citizen. Rather, it is a prescription for the government itself. They must be a terror to bad, not good conduct. In other words, government does indeed have a role, and this verse indicates what that role is. The governing institution has zero authorization to be a terror to good conduct. None. Every instance of “terror” or “wrath” that is not applied to bad conduct is outside the authority of the role of government.
Moreover, this nature or essence is ingrained within the government itself. It is naturally terrible to the wrongdoer, yet approving to the “do-gooder.” But of course this assumes that it obeys God’s divine standard of good and bad behavior. What if though, by legislation, it artificially erects its own standard of good and bad? We know from this verse that, by its nature, it will act according to what it sees as good and bad. Therefore, the entity that God intended to be a means to pursue justice, has itself been corrupted when it attempts to deny God-given rights. Hitler determined that it was bad to be a Jew. And therefore he became a terror to those who breached his own artificial standard.
Verse 3b and 4: “Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” ….” In context, what could possible be meant here? The recipients of Paul’s message would clearly have grounds for strong objection with such a statement. They were under the reign of Nero, a Christian hater. I would interpret this statement as follows. Christians, do what is good, as discussed [in chapter 12] and know that the purpose of a governing entity is to respond to this good with approval. That is what God has designed this entity to do. If they don’t respond to good with approval, remember the previous chapter: “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” (12:19).
That is a lot of extra words. Am I adding to the scripture here? I would humbly pray not. I am simply reading such a seemingly backwards verse in the broader context that all the readers have already read. In summary, the Christian ought to focus on what he can control, the government has a certain role that it must practice, and if the government refuses to properly adhere to its purpose, God (who is sovereign [verse 1]) will take care of it. For if God hands over authority to an entity, and that entity abuses this authority, God still has ultimate jurisdiction to judge even the governments. Government is subject to the same law as God has ordained them to enforce. This was the historical protestant principle of Lex Rex, that is, the Law is above the king. (Samuel Rutherford)
Verse 5: “Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.” Submit to the authority that is in the hands of the Government. This is a “turn the other cheek” (Matt 5:39) principle. If you don’t, the government will exercise God’s wrath. Why does it say “God’s wrath?” Because all authority and wrath ultimately belongs to the Lord. “Jesus answered [Pilate], “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above.” (John 19:11). The government has been loaned the ability and authority to exercise wrath, but ultimately, that wrath belongs to the Lord. That, dear reader, is an incredible amount of pressure on government. What happens when God gives an institution authority to exercise wrath, and this institution abuses the wrath? Perhaps we catch a glimpse of the result in the discussion of “Babylon” in Revelation.
Moving on, besides from the fact that the government has wrath-on-loan, it is also for the sake of the conscience that the Christian also ought to subject himself to the governing authorities. It eases the mind when one is not in a state of constant panic regarding the possible wrath of the State. The State is powerful and dangerous, and if all possible, living with a clear conscience is practically a great piece of advice. In other words, submit to the government to avoid punishment, but also to avoid the fear of punishment.
Verse 6 and 7: 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.” If the government says pay taxes, it is wise to pay them. We as Christians are not trying to make enemies. Again, this is a turn the other cheek principle. Submit your hearts to trusting God by giving up the money that the government aims to steal.
In summation of the passage, it should not be used as a justification for whatever the State does and however it acts. Paul is dealing with a specific problem amongst the Roman Christians in the first century. However, we are to obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29) whenever we are told to act in a way that is immoral, unethical, or unjust.
There are four overall points that can be gathered in this passage.
1. God is sovereign and he has a plan. He can use evil to achieve the ends that he has ordained before the foundations of time. In the original context: God exists over Nero.
2. In our gospel-oriented ministry, we are not seeking to overthrow the government. When Paul wrote this he understood that it might have reached Nero’s hands. It was wise of him to make sure Nero understood that there was no Christian movement to take over. All governments from the dawn of time until today, are jealous governments, always scared that someone will steal the throne. In the original context: Nero, we are not aiming for your throne.
3. Government has a mandate to submit to the higher law of God by only punishing the wicked and not the good. Anything beyond that is abuse of power. Therefore, as the absolute libertarians would advocate, it is wrong for the government to forbid the spontaneous arising of other governments. There is no mandate in scripture telling the government that it must have a monopoly on governing services. In the original context: Nero, you have a purpose; submit to it.
4. Turn the other cheek. We must practice daily Christian character. In the original context: Apply my lessons [in Romans 12] to even the government.
To conclude, from a libertarian standpoint, it is important to note that a governing entity is the means by which God has decided to carry out justice. This in no way should be assumed to be a defense of the morality of the State itself. This passage can only be assumed to be a defense of the existence of an entity that practices the pursuance of justice. God has given law. Man has rights to his life and his property because God has entrusted him with those things. And what God has given, man cannot take away. This is the law. Justice consists of protecting these rights, this law. This is the only role of a governing institution.
This entity is not given monopoly rights. Natural (God’s) law must be enforced, and yet this does not necessarily lead to the existence of a Federal Government no more than it leads to the existence of a world government. Is a State-level government too big? Depends on whether the counties, and subsequently towns, want to secede. God has given no government, at any level, the right of monopoly. The beauty of the free market is that it provides a check and balance. If a government body becomes the enemy of free property rights, another governing body may challenge it. This principle is even consistent with property-rights based anarchy (absence of a State –but note the difference between a role [government] and an institution [the State]).
There is no need to assume that the governing body itself must be “public” or a tax (theft)-based agency (private, for-profit or insurance-based services are far more moral and consistent). But if it is, Paul says to submit. And submit I shall. Unless of course it orders me to disobey the standards of God.
