In our previous post we looked at
the context of Romans 13:1-7 and the main command in this paragraph. This
prepares us now to consider the rationale Paul gives for the command.
3. THE RATIONALE FOR OBEYING
THE COMMAND. 13:1b-5
The first reason is found in the
rest of verse 1.
a.
Reason One. 1b-c
Paul argues here that God both
ordains government and he permits the specific authorities to be in power: “For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”
When Paul affirms “there is no
authority except from God” there appears to be two implications. To begin, in line
with the decretive will of God, no ruler or authority comes to power unless God
has ordained it, which appears also to be the point of the rest of the verse (“those
that exist have been instituted by God”). In Daniel 2:21 we read the same point
made: “…he removes kings and sets up kings….” In other words, as is evidenced
through the Pharaoh of the Exodus and the Roman and Jewish leaders who were the
near causes of the death of Jesus, God has purposes in ordaining any leader to
be in place, even those that are evil and so we should properly submit to the
governance of God—praying for and desiring his will to be done in and through
the set of events faced as a result of the leader(s). We should remember as
Paul has said earlier in Romans (11:36): “For from him and through him and to
him are all things. To him be glory forever.”
Additionally, the apostle seems
to make the point that God ordains the reality of human governments as a good
thing and their very existence is in line with his moral will and so it is right
to submit to them as much as we possibly can. The rest of the paragraph appears
to give more weight to this point made the clause than the previous one we discussed.
b.
Reason Two. 2
The second major rationale is a
conclusion drawn from the first, namely that those who resist authorities resists
what God has ordained. Here is what we read: “Therefore whoever resists the
authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur
judgment.”
The verb that is behind the first
“resist” (antitassō)
is related to the verb used in v. 1 for “instituted.” It literally means to set
oneself against another. Most likely Paul is drawing a strong connection
between the two actions. The person unwilling to place themselves under the
authorities ordained by God are, in a sense, placing self in the position of
God and suggesting what they desire is more important than what which God
desires. In other words, their plan is better than his!
Next, we see that what such a
person is placing themselves against is “the authority which is from God” and so
this person has stood against that which is ordained. In other words, the
person who is unwilling to follow the authorities over them is not merely
opposing the governing authorities, officials, and their laws. They are ultimately
opposing that which God has ordained. Most likely Paul means both the individual
governing authorities in particular, as well as the presence of governing
authorities in general. The verb that stands behind the second and third occurrences
of “resist” (anthistēmi)
literally means “stand against” and gives the picture of bracing oneself
against another so as not to be moved by them, and to do the opposite of what
they desire. It gives a strong sense of opposition. Paul is emphasizing the
rebellious nature of the person who will not be ruled by governing authorities.
Note that the language used here by Paul is not speaking of the opposition of
people against evil authorities. It is more likely the opposition against
reasonably good authorities, i.e. those valued by God. It also is the spirit of the anarchist or
vigilante.
In the final part of this second
rationale we see that “those who have stood against [those leaders whom God has
ordained] shall receive judgment.” Most likely what Paul means, in light of the
near context, is civil judgment (cf. vv. 3-4, 5). Yet also implied, in light of
both the near (see vv. 2, 5) and the far contexts (1:18ff.; 2:6ff.), is God’s
judgment.
Note that the statement here and
then what Paul says in verse 5 below (that those who oppose governing
authorities will receive judgment and be under God’s wrath) make it impossible
to take the call to submission as absolute. For example, would God judge a
person and bring his wrath down upon him for opposing a ruler who sought to
force worship of another God? What about blaspheming the one true God? What
about murder? What about sexual sin? What about stealing or lying? The answer is of course, “No!” God’s judgment would come for not opposing
such a ruler or government. This would also extend to whether or not government
rulers are pursuing biblical justice (e.g. Micah 6:8). Would God put his moral
stamp-of-approval on turning a blind eye and deaf ear to injustice being
practiced against others? The answer is self-evident.
c.
Reason Three. 3
Here we discover God’s design is
for rulers to oppose unlawful conduct and so in such cases when this is what is
happening, one need not fret about submission to authorities, as if it might
bring them harm. Such submission would not be hard and is beneficial to society.
Paul writes: “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,…”
The word “For” introduces an explanation
as to what Paul means by his statement in v. 2 that those who place themselves
against God’s ordained authorities and stand against them will incur judgment.
This explanation also provides an additional reason for submitting to governing
authorities. The sense in the first sentence is this: Government leaders are
not meant by God to be a cause of fear to people who are keeping the law and
thus doing good. Instead, they are a source of fear or terror to those who do
bad (who break the law).
In the subsequent question and
the answer, Paul implies that governing authorities, those who are over us, are
meant by God to reward law-abiding behavior and so if a person does not want to
incur their civil judgment, then they must live a law-abiding life. such a life,
if governing authorities are operating in any reasonable way as they ought,
should keep one in the good graces of governing authorities.
Paul is not arguing that all
governing rulers actually perform in this manner. His point is that this is how
God means for them to function, and even in imperfect governments, it often
happens this way—namely that citizens doing good are rewarded and those doing
bad are punished. The fact that Paul speaks of God’s wrath in verse 5 lets us
know that Paul intends “good” and “bad” to be defined by God’s standards.
Before continuing it needs to be
noted that though governments are a good thing God has given, they also have a
tendency, due to sin, for overreach, and for seeking to displace God as our
ultimate allegiance. This is seen in Revelation 13.
d.
Reason Four. 4
Citizens, especially Christians
who want to please God, should submit to governing authorities since these
authorities are in one sense ministers of God. In other words, they carry out
an important mission God has ordained for governments. Related to this, God has
given them the calling and authority to punish law breakers. Here we read: “…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.”
There are several discoveries we
make.
To begin, twice in this verse Paul
says that the one with government authority (in context this would include government
leaders and representatives who serve in law enforcement and in the military)
is a minister (diakonos) of God. In other
words, they serve the interests of God, i.e. the interest of justice.
The word diakonos (“deacon”)
is used to speak of the office of deacon in the church (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8),
one who is a minister of Christ (2 Cor. 11:23; Col. 1:7; 1 Thes. 4:6)—i.e. one
who serves Christ (John 12:26), a minister of God (1 Thes. 3:2), a minister of
the Word (2 Cor. 6:4; Col. 1:25), a minister who serves the church (Rom. 16:1);
and a minister of the gospel (Eph. 3:7; Col. 1:23). As we can see from the way
it is used elsewhere, Paul is attributing to government officials who protect
the citizenry and exercise justice a label that displays they truly do serve
the interests and glory of God, whether they recognize it or not.
The next discovery we make in
verse 4 is that the governing authority is a minister of God who serves the
good of the citizen. Paul says he is God’s minister or servant, literally, “for
you unto good.” The good comes from defending citizens against threats and
maintaining law and order that serves life and well-being in many ways.
Another discovery in this verse is
that the governing authority, as a minister of God, also is given the authority
of punishment by God (“the sword”) and is to bring about the justice of God’s
wrath upon those who break the law. The “sword” most likely refers to
punishment for sin (including capital punishment, Gen. 9:6) carried out by
those in law enforcement and the judicial system and also extends to military
action that protects citizens from those who would be the brand of law breaker
who is providing threats from outside the country.
Finally, we see in this verse
that the servant of God does not bear the sword in vain. The fact he does not
have this authority in vain, means he doesn’t have it without purpose.
Government officials are to protect and defend and promote the safety of their
citizenry. This is at the heart of why God has ordained government and why
citizens should seek to abide by the law. It promotes the punishment and
curtailment of law breaking, yet in a way that promotes law and order, rather
than vigilante groups roaming the street (compare Rom. 12:19 with Rom. 13:4).
e.
Conclusion To The Rationale. 5
Paul’s conclusion is simply this:
“Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also
for the sake of conscience.”
The first part of the verse makes
it clear that Paul has been setting forth the rationale in 1b-4 for why we are
to submit to governing authorities and now he brings his treatment back to that
command as a concluding remark. There is a need, a necessity to be subject to
governing authorities so that the well-being of all can be preserved and God’s
interests can be served.
As Paul rounds out his discussion
of rationale, he offers two motivations.
First is avoiding the judgment of
God’s (his wrath) that not only deals with future judgment, but also current
judgment through government ministers. The text literally says only “because of
the wrath,” not “God’s wrath.” In
context, it is true that first and foremost this is the wrath of the civil
authorities (cf. vv. 3-4). Yet, verse four seems to make the point that the
minister is acting on behalf of God and so as they carry out judgment in a just
manner, they are carrying out God’s justice, his wrath. In that sense the ESV
is right to translate this as “God’s wrath.”
The second motivation has to do
with our conscience. The conscience is:
The built-in power of
our minds to pass moral judgments on ourselves, approving or disapproving our
actions, thoughts, and plans, and telling us, if what we have done is assessed
as wrong, that we deserve to suffer for it. Conscience has in it two elements:
an awareness of certain things as being right or wrong, and an ability to apply
laws and rules to specific situations. Conscience insists on judging us, and
insists on judging us by the highest standard we know. Hence we call it God’s
voice in the soul, and in a sense it is.[1]
In Acts 23:1 we may gain a sense
of what Paul means by this statement on conscience in the public arena. There
Luke quotes him as saying (my own translation): “Now, Paul, after looking
earnestly at the Sanhedrin, said, ‘Men, brothers, I myself with a good
conscience that encompasses all areas, have lived as a citizen before God until
this day.’” Paul’s point is that though he was being unjustly accused of wrongdoing
by others, at the level of conscience he knew he had lived as a good citizen
before God. In other words, Paul is not saying that everyone else necessarily
thought he had done right and so he had a clear conscience. He knew he had done
right before God and so his conscience did not stand in judgment upon him or
his actions.
So, a clear conscience before God
means that a citizen is obeying the laws of the governing authorities, unless
they are commanding him to go against the commands of God or unless they have
so abdicated their responsibility to pursue peace and justice a citizen needs
to be part of rectifying that. In these latter two cases the citizen may end up
on the wrong side of authorities, but they can still have a clear conscience.
Most directly, then, Paul is writing
that we should obey the governing authorities and their laws so that our
conscience does not condemn us of doing that which we know to be displeasing to
God.
In our remaining post we will
look at the implied limitations in this paragraph to our submission to
governing authorities and we will also look at the bearing this teaching has
upon our paying taxes and honoring government leaders.
