First, the passage was written to a community without power providing
instruction on how to live in peace with the ruling power. The powerless nature
of the early church is often lost on modern readers. Few of us have experienced
this in any meaningful manner. Living in a society in which one has little or
no power demands that one (or a group) negotiate one’s place in a very careful
manner.
Second, can it be assumed that the government authorities mentioned in
Rom. 13:1-7 can be representative of all governments at any time? The Roman
government had a specific role in the functioning of the empire. In many ways
this was much more limited than governments today. Although the Roman empire
demanded allegiance of its subjects and settled a large range of matters for
its people, it was not involved in many of the activities of many present
governments (e.g. health care, copyright laws, etc.). I am not suggesting that
the roles of modern governments are wrong or that we should adopt a Roman-style
government. I am merely pointing out that the role of the government of Rome was
different in some ways from the roles of governments today. Can we assume that the
more expansive role for government today could be assumed under the commands in
passages like Romans 13?
Third, the reason for the instruction must be considered. In this
passage and other passages in the New Testament that seem to instruct obedience
to government, the focus is not obedience for its own sake but obedience as a
means of minimizing conflict in order for Christians to focus on Christ. Thus,
the primary concern is not good citizenship but Christian peace and survival.
This does not remove the aspect of obedience but puts it in perspective. As
introduced in the discussion of Romans 13 in Chapter 1. Stanley Porter suggests
that this passage instructs obedience to just authorities but permits
disobedience to unjust authorities. This maintains the biblical directive and
provides Christians with the ability to respond to unjust rule.
Fourth, the rulers are not the addressees of this passage, and it is
unlikely that it was ever intended for use by authority. If the paradigm
in other Pauline literature can serve as an example, the author’s method is to
address parties concerning their own responsibilities. Husbands are told to
love their wives and wives are told to respect their husbands; children are
told to obey their parents and parents are told to avoid provoking their
children; and slaves are told to obey their masters and masters are told to
treat their slaves well (Eph. 5.22-6.9; Col. 3.18-4.1). The author does not
instruct husbands that they should be respected, wives that they should be
loved, slaves that they should be treated well and so on. It seems that if Romans
followed this pattern, authorities would be instructed to be just, avoid abuse
and the like. This is the Old Testament and Apocrypha example (Dan. 4.24-37;
Wis. 6.1-11). However, authorities are not addressed explicitly because they
were not among the addressees.
Fifth, as discussed in Chapter 3, it is generally believed that Nero’s
reign before approximately 60 CE was rather fair. Thus, it can be argued that
this moderate rule should be supported by the readers. Failure to pay taxes or
other disruptive acts could only harm the Christian community. After the
decline in Nero’s reign and his persecution of Christians, would Paul have
written this? We cannot know. Also, it is not possible to know if Paul would
have modified his teaching if he wrote later. We cannot know how ‘good’ this
period actually was for Christians. Nor can we assume that Paul was not
thinking universally (some emperors will be good, others bad—all should be obeyed
in the same way). Nevertheless, in light of Paul’s belief in an imminent Christ
event (e.g. 1 Thess. 4.16-5.4), the local nature of much of his writing and the
lack of such teaching in the context of known persecution, we cannot assume
that this teaching would be applied in other circumstances.
The study here suggests that Paul challenges the living emperor for
the role of supreme lord of all, including the Roman empire. Christ, not
Caesar, is supreme lord. Passages such as Phil. 2.9-11 suggest that this is
more than the personal lord of an individual Christian. IT is universal
lordship. If I am correct to see a polemic in Rom. 10.9, it is likely the
reader is urged already to view the living emperor as a subordinate lord to
Christ, the supreme lord. This seems reinforced by Rom. 13.1b-c, 4. The emperor’s
(and the government’s) role is to accomplish God’s will on earth. What is to be
done if God’s usurped? To a powerless community like the one to which Paul
wrote, little can be done. We simply do not know if this instruction would have
been different if the recipients could have responded in a different manner of
were under different circumstances (i.e. active persecution). What we do know
is that Paul saw a role for government. This is supported by the observation
made above in the discussion of 1 Cor. 12.3. The polemic is stated only in the
positive: Jesus is Lord. There is no instruction to curse Caesar. For Paul,
Caesar and government play a role in Christ’s administration of his lordship—even
though the government to which he was subject could be unpredictable and cruel.
IT appears that at the time Paul wrote Romans, things were fairly good.
However, this could change rapidly, as it did a few years later when Nero
blamed Christians for the fire in Rome. Nevertheless, the Roman authorities
were established by God (Rom. 13.1c).
The word κυριος is not used in Rom. 13.1-7. Nevertheless, the relational elements we
have described earlier are in place. The people are subordinate to government,
and the government and the people are subordinate to God. Romans 13 was not
intended to be used by governments to justify the abuse of their subjects. Any
such (ab)use should be resisted by those who submit to Paul’s supreme lord.
What, then, does Paul say to rulers and governments? It has already
been noted that the addressees of Romans 13 do not include the government as an
institution of rulers. It is an instruction to the government. Again, what does
Paul say to rulers and governments? When one surveys his writings, one finds
very little that could be used as specific instruction to governing
authorities. This is generally the case in much of the New Testament. Matthew
25.31-46 presents a story in which nations will be judged based on their
treatment of others. Nations in this story are judged based on their active
kindness and mercy. Even the clearly anti-imperial Apocalypse emphasizes
judgment based on how nations treat people, especially the people of God. There
is a theme of judgment against idolatry, but this too seems to be somewhat
related to how people are treated. The nation that forces people into idolatry
is harming the people. This is not to minimize the anti-idolatry theme, but it
seems there is an interrelationship between treatment of people and idolatry.
As noted above, the recipients of Paul’s letters were generally not in
a position of power. Thus, the need did not arise for instruction. However, it
is possible that Paul, as a Jewish teacher (and other New Testament writers),
assumed Old Testament principles directed to the nations. The nations were
judged in light of how they treated others. This often meant the Jews (e.g.
Jeremiah 46-51; Ezekiel 25-32; Amos 1). However, both the nations and Jewish
states were judged on their treatment of others (e.g. Amos 1-2). There is
judgment for unfaithfulness to Yahweh, but this is primarily (although not
exclusively) a judgment against the Jewish states (e.g. Hosea). The notion in Romans
13 of government being raised up and used for God’s will is throughout Old
Testament teaching (e.g. 2 Chron. 36.22-23; Isa. 45.1; Jer. 25.9).
If one wishes to ask what Paul would say to the rulers and
governments, it does not seem a stretch to suggest that he would instruct
rulers and governments to rule with justice, kindness and mercy. They must take
of their own people, especially those without means, and be kind to outsiders.
One might even add that they should not hinder believers in their worship of
God nor demand loyalty reserved for God. In all types of modern forms of
government, it seems easy to overlook the voiceless in one’s own society and to
ignore any negative consequences of policies on those outside of one’s own
state. Christ is κυριος,
and God has established governments to exercise authority on earth. They rule
at his pleasure. This is what rules should be thinking about. They should not be
using passages like Romans 13 to force people to submit to them. (Joseph F.
Fantin, The Lord of the Entire World: Lord Jesus, a Challenge to Lord
Caesar? [New Testament Monographs 31; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press,
2011], 262-65)
