(More Bible Studies Available @ www.marktabata.com)
It is written:
Romans 13:1-7-Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
When Paul wrote these words to the Christians at Rome, the Emperor of the Empire was named Nero. He was one of the most wicked leaders in Roman history. He not only delighted in sexual carnality (going so far as making his own sister his lover), but he delighted in the torture of the Christians.
With such a wicked ruler in mind, it is often wondered how Paul (by inspiration of the Holy Spirit) could commend Christians to humbly submit and obey such people.
The first interesting thing about this passage relates to the date of writing here. One researcher has documented the evidence that this Epistle was written around A.D. 59:
“There is a final historical matter we need to take up to help situate the epistle to the Romans in its historical context and Paul’s pastoral concern. Given that the controversy surrounding Romans 13 is the role of government and the rulers of the day, we need to consider the date of Paul’s letter to the Romans more carefully as well as the emperor and his disposition at the time of the writing. That is, what do we know about Nero up until and at the time when Paul wrote Romans? We briefly alluded to and cited many scholarly works that place the writing of Romans around AD 56–58.24 Part of the determination for this date is that Paul wrote this letter almost certainly while he was in or near Corinth, as recorded in Acts 20: 1–6. We come to this conclusion when we compare features of Romans with other New Testament passages, especially the Corinthian correspondence. After such a comparison, it becomes apparent that Paul wrote from or near Corinth somewhere and sometime during his third missionary journey. For example, consider that Paul said he was raising funds from Macedonia and Achaia for Jerusalem in Romans 15: 25–26, which fits with Acts 20: 2–3, “Now when he had gone over that region and encouraged them with many words, he came to Greece and stayed three months. And when the Jews plotted against him as he was about to sail to Syria, he decided to return through Macedonia.” Though Corinth is not mentioned by name in Acts 20, the regions of Greece and Macedonia contain Corinth. This also aligns with Paul’s journey to Jerusalem in the context of Acts 20, especially Acts 19: 21, “When these things were accomplished, Paul purposed in the Spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, ‘After I have been there, I must also see Rome.’” In Romans 16: 21, Paul mentions a greeting to the Romans from a “Sosipater” (Σωσίπατρος; Sōsipatros), whereas in Acts 20: 4, a “Sopater” (Σώπατρος; Sōpatros) accompanied Paul further to Asia, perhaps coming from his stop in Corinth. Are these two passages referring to the same individual? It would seem likely. In Romans 16: 23, we learn that Gaius was hosting Paul. According to 1 Corinthians 1: 14, Gaius was a member of the church at Corinth, again assuming these two passages refer to the same man. Also, in Romans 16: 23, Paul sent the greetings of one Erastus, the manager of the city (ὁ οἰκονόμος τῆς πόλεως; ho oikonomos tēs poleōs). It would seem this Erastus was an influential civic figure of a certain city left unnamed by Paul but which the recipients of Romans knew of already, as Paul simply called it “the city.” Could this be the same Erastus associated with Corinth in 2 Timothy 4: 20? Could this also be the same Erastus confirmed by archeological findings in Corinth as a man with civic authority? 25 Lastly, Phoebe, a “minister” or “servant” from the church in Cenchrea (Rom. 16: 1), was likely the one delivering Paul’s letter to the Romans. This fits with a Corinthian provenance of Paul, as Cenchrea was a port city near Corinth. All these details, when compared to timelines for Paul, would demand a date before AD 59. If we take a mid-60s date for Paul’s execution, then between the time of his writing the letter to the Romans and his execution, he still has to travel to Jerusalem, where he would be arrested (Acts 21), await trail in Caesarea for two years, then complete the arduous journey to Rome in his appeal to Caesar Nero recorded in Acts, where, on his arrival, he would remain another two years under house arrest (Acts 28: 30). After this imprisonment and regaining his freedom, he would (so one theory goes) write more letters, such as the pastoral epistles, possibly travel further (though where is not revealed), return to Rome for another imprisonment, and finally, be executed. 26 It seems more than likely, fitting all those details in and working backward, that Paul wrote to the Romans before AD 59.” (Timothy Decker, A Revolutionary Reading of Romans 13: A Biblical Case for Lawful Subjection to the Civil Magistrate and Dutiful Resistance to Tyrants, 36-38 (Kindle Edition): Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press)
The reason for this dating is due to the little-known fact that Nero (for the first few years of his reign) was acknowledged as a benevolent leader. Decker goes on to document:
“What is less well known to many and hardly mentioned in the context of Paul’s epistle to the Romans is what came to be called the quinquennium Neronis. This was Emperor Trajan’s (reigned AD 98–117) title for the flourishing and prosperity of the first five years of Nero’s reign (AD 54–59). I have countless personal recollections of sermons and lectures that included the depravities of Nero combined with the shocking statements of Paul honoring such a government and ruler in Romans 13. Yet very seldom, if ever, have I heard in a sermon any distinction made between Nero’s early reign and his latter reign. Fourth-century Roman historian Sextus Aurelius Victor said, “He [Nero], although he had reigned as many years as his stepfather while a very young man, nevertheless was so outstanding for five years especially in enhancing the city, that Trajan quite often justifiably asserted that all emperors fell far short of Nero in his (first) five years.”34 Indeed, reading the many early chapters of Suetonius on Nero’s beginnings as emperor, many would be shockingly surprised at the descriptions of Nero during those years. Perhaps this is what led the famous early fourth-century church historian Eusebius to say, “It is probable indeed that as Nero was more disposed to mildness in the beginning, Paul’s defense of his doctrine was more easily received.”35 Guided by the philosopher Seneca and influenced by his mother, whom he allowed to manage his private and public affairs, Nero was known to be judicious and generous in his early reign. He would not delay justice but nevertheless gave special consideration to sentencing and punishment. He was said to salute many people of various castes of society, even by name and without the help of a prompter. He was also known to remove taxes.36 If this five-year period is proximately correct (AD 54–59),37 then it overlaps with the writing of Paul’s letter to the Roman Christians. This fact alone will bear an important perspective for correctly interpreting the role of government and submission in Romans 13. But even now, the typical description of Nero rings hollow as it is so often applied to Romans 13. Indeed, it could be well said of the empire and its magisterial leadership under Nero at the time of Paul’s writing, “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. . . . He is God’s minister to you for good” (Rom 13:3–4). That was a remarkably true statement during the first five years of Nero’s reign, the quinquennium Neronis.” (Timothy Decker, A Revolutionary Reading of Romans 13: A Biblical Case for Lawful Subjection to the Civil Magistrate and Dutiful Resistance to Tyrants, 40-42 (Kindle Edition): Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press)
Paul’s focus here in Romans 13 is not on corrupt governments and morally bankrupt leaders, but on leaders that in some way acknowledge the God-ordained purpose and laws rooted in the universal code of morality that all nations (at one time or another) acknowledge. As another researcher has pointed out:
“Scholars have argued about the exact background and significance of the phrase “bear the sword,” but none of the specific connotations suggested seems to be well established. 53 Probably, then, Paul uses the phrase to refer generally to the right of the government to punish those who violate its laws. 54 For the purpose of his argument at this point, Paul is assuming that the laws of the state embody those general moral principles that are taught in the word of God. 55 The “evil” that the civil authorities punish, therefore, is evil in the absolute sense: those acts that God himself condemns as evil. 56 Only if this is so can we explain how Paul can see the government’s use of the sword as a manifestation of its role as “God’s servant.” At the same time, this suggests that the “wrath” that the governing authority inflicts on wrongdoers is God’s wrath. 57 When the civil authority punishes wrongdoers, the authority, acting as God’s servant, is “an instrument of vengeance” 58 through whom God is executing his wrath on human sin. For, as Rom. 1:18 shows, the final eschatological outpouring of God’s wrath on sin is even now, in the course of human history, finding expression. The “vengeance” that is prohibited to individual Christians (12:19) is executed by God’s chosen servants, the secular authorities.” (Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (New International Commentary on the New Testament (NICNT)), 801-802 (Kindle Edition): Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company)
So the focus of Paul here is on government that is behaving in ways that are morally upright (as Nero was doing in the beginning of his reign when Paul wrote Romans). Christians have an obligation to support government when it thus behaves in harmony with moral uprightness and justice.
On another important note: this does not mean that a God cannot allow wicked rulers to arise and work through them as well. He did this with several wicked rulers throughout history. Pharaoh who reigned during the time of the Jewish Exodus from Egypt comes to mind here:
Romans 9:17-For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I HAVE RAISED YOU UP, THAT I MAY SHOW MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MAY BE DECLARED IN ALL THE EARTH.”
The Lord allowed the Pharaoh to come to power, giving him the same right as He gives to every man: to choose whether or not to follow the God of creation, or to reject Him. Numerous times before we are told that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart we read that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, and continued to harden it.
“With Pharaoh, we see a man already shaking his fist in defiance even as Moses first issued God’s command: “Who is the LORD, that I should obey him and let Israel go? I do not know the LORD and I will not let Israel go” (Ex 5: 2). We see that Pharaoh was obstinate even before God began to harden his heart. It is apparent that God did not transform Pharaoh from a meek and mild gentleman to the fire-breathing dragon Moses met; rather God strengthened Pharaoh’s heart in the perverse direction Pharaoh himself had already resolutely chosen.” (Jerry L. Walls, Joseph R. Dongell, Why I Am Not a Calvinist, 88-89 (Kindle Edition); Downers Grove, Illinois; IVP Academic)
Please notice that Pharaoh was a man who had already made his decision to reject the one true God, and he had led Egypt into a course of action which rebelled against Jehovah God. This was very much like the Jews of Paul’s day, who had rebelled against God and were justly condemned for this decision:
Romans 2:5-But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
Romans 10:21-But to Israel he says: “ALL DAY LONG I HAVE STRETCHED OUT MY HANDS TO A DISOBEDIENT AND CONTRARY PEOPLE.”
So, when God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, He was hardening the heart of a man who had already decided to be wicked long before Moses came as the Prophet of God.
Herein we see this lesson clearly taught: God hardens the hearts of those who first harden their own hearts.
Notice that the prophecy of God hardening Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 4:21) had not yet occurred by the events of Exodus 7:
Exodus 7:3-And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt.
Furthermore, we are not told that God actually hardened Pharaoh’s heart until the events of Exodus 9:
Exodus 9:12-But the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh; and he did not heed them, just as the LORD had spoken to Moses.
So God prophesied that He would harden the heart of Pharaoh, and yet we are not told that He did so until the events of Exodus 9 took place.
What happened in between these passages?
Exodus 7:13-And Pharaoh’s heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, as the LORD had said.
Exodus 7:22-Then the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments; and Pharaoh’s heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, as the LORD had said.
Exodus 8:15-But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not heed them, as the LORD had said.
Exodus 8:19-Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God.” But Pharaoh’s heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, just as the LORD had said.
Exodus 8:32-But Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also; neither would he let the people go.
“As we will see, God does not interfere with Pharaoh’s basic moral alignment and choice to make him bad. Pharaoh had chosen his path of rebellion and oppression before any action of God on him. “Three distinct Hebrew words are used in Exodus in connection with the ‘hardening’ of Pharaoh’s heart: 1) Qashah: stubborn God says he will harden (qashah) Pharaoh’s heart in Exodus 7: 3, and Exodus 13: 15 says Pharaoh is qashah. Qashah as opposed to kabed and chazaq, which we cover below, seems to refer to the overall process of hardening, not to any specific instance. 2) Kabed: heavy/ immovable/ stubborn Pharaoh makes his heart kabed in Exodus 8: 15; 8: 32; 9: 34; 1 Samuel 6: 6, and God says he has made Pharaoh’s heart kabed in Exodus 10: 1 (see also Exodus 7: 14; 9: 7). Kabed refers first to Pharaoh’s obduracy in hardening his heart and later to God confirming Pharaoh’s choice. 3) Chazaq: strengthen/ make firm Pharaoh’s heart is chazaq in Exodus 7: 13; 7: 22; 8: 19; 9: 35 God strengthens Pharaoh’s resolve in Exodus 4: 21; 9: 12; 10: 20; 10: 27; 11: 10; 14: 4; 14: 8; 14: 17; Joshua 11: 20. Chazaq refers to Pharaoh being made firm in his resolve and having courage to follow his inclinations. Strength of resolve (chazaq) is either just there in a person, or God acts to provide it. However, obduracy and refusal to change (kabed) is something over which someone has a moral choice–and in general it is Pharaoh who makes his own heart hard, with God acting on it in a kind of confirmatory judgment only at the end of the process (10: 1). It is as if the Lord says: ‘Very well, if he is determined to be hard and unrepentant then I will make his heart hard, just as he wishes’.” (Roger Forster & Paul Marston, God’s Strategy in Human History: Volume 1 – God’s Path to Victory, 1984-2010 (Kindle Edition); PUSH Publishing)
The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart was a in harmony with Pharaoh’s own freewill. This was well known to the Jewish people who knew the Old Testament Scriptures, and Paul was going to make the same point with them!
In Romans 9, Paul goes on to say:
Romans 9:22-24-What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
In verse 22, Paul discusses how those who would be lost are “vessels of wrath.” Why were they such? The Greek gives us the answer by showing us that the very “prepared” is in the middle voice. What is the significance of this?
…“metaphorically of men persistent in evil, Rom. 9: 22, where “fitted” is in the middle voice, indicating that the vessels of wrath fitted themselves for “destruction”, of the adversaries of the Lord’s people, Phil. 1: 28 (“ perdition”);”. (W.E. Vine & Merrill F. Under, Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words: With Topical Index (Word Study), 2033-2034 (Kindle Edition); Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers)
So the reason why the Jewish unbelievers were unsaved, Paul argues in Romans 9, is because they had chosen to reject the Word of God for themselves.
Every leader-whether morally righteous or morally corrupt-is placed into is position of power by the all-knowing Providence of God.
Third, Paul is adamant here that Christians are to support government in so far as the government supports the righteousness of God. This does not extend to supporting corrupt laws and/or policies that are put in place. Indeed, in those cases:
Acts 5:29-But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.
Fourth, the Bible specifies the manner of opposing wicked rulers. It is not through violence! Throughout the New Testament, the Lord Jesus teaches that true resistance is brought forth by the use of spiritual weapons, i.e., the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God (Ephesians 6:17)! As followers of Christ, we do not become entrenched in political strongholds and resort to physical violence.
Matthew 5:44-45-But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
We may also use our rights as national citizens to promote change, which such is in harmony with the Word of God.
Acts 22:25-30-And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who stood by, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman, and uncondemned?” 26 When the centurion heard that, he went and told the commander, saying, “Take care what you do, for this man is a Roman.” 27 Then the commander came and said to him, “Tell me, are you a Roman?” He said, “Yes.” 28 The commander answered, “With a large sum I obtained this citizenship.” And Paul said, “But I was born a citizen.” 29 Then immediately those who were about to examine him withdrew from him; and the commander was also afraid after he found out that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him. 30 The next day, because he wanted to know for certain why he was accused by the Jews, he released him from his bonds, and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down and set him before them.
Acts 25:11-For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar.”
Paul used his unique privileges as a Roman citizen in order to promote the Gospel and the kingdom of Christ in this world. Being a Roman citizen, it was unlawful for him to be scourged by the Roman law enforcement officers. Further, he had the right to appeal his legal case to Caesar, which afforded him the opportunity to preach the Gospel to the very highest offices of the Roman Empire. Furthermore, he also freely acknowledged that he was bound to obey the laws of the Roman Empire so that he would abide by the legal judgments of the government if he had truly violated national laws which did not violate the law of God.
Notice specifically how Paul used his Roman citizenship in the face of unjust persecution from corrupt government officials:
“This detail about the release is important because it is against Roman law to cane a Roman citizen, and so Paul is owed an apology at the least. Paul’s rights, established by ancient law codes, have been violated. The Valerian (509 BC), Porcian (248 BC), and Julian law codes (ca. 23 BC) affirmed such protections (Conzelmann 1987: 133; Bruce 1990: 366). 6 Livy (Hist. Rom. 10.9.4) notes the heavy penalty for flogging or killing a Roman citizen, according to the Porcian Law (Barrett 1998: 801). Some exceptions allowed Roman citizens to be beaten, but it was never without a full hearing (Williams 1990: 291; Sherwin-White 1963: 72–76). The risk to the magistrates is significant, for part of their role is to protect Romans from injustice. If they fail in giving such protection, they might never serve in such a role again (Dio Cassius, Rom. Hist. 60.24.4). Paul therefore refuses simply to go free, given that as a Roman citizen he has been beaten without a formal charge being proved against him and without receiving a formal hearing. He wishes to make his innocence a matter of record to those in charge and to be publicly escorted out of prison, an act showing his innocence. A false claim of such citizenship could mean execution, so that is not likely here (Witherington 1998: 499–502; Suetonius, Claudius 25.3). As proof of such citizenship, individuals might carry a professio with them, or birth certificate indicating their status. These were small wooden diptychs (Williams 1990: 292; Sherwin-White 1963: 148–49). Normally, however, people did not carry such important documents. It may well be that the officials accepted Paul’s claim because the legal risk to Paul for lying made it unlikely that he would do so. Paul’s public release constituted an added element of protection for the local community. The magistrates would be more careful in the future. The magistrates come, address the concern, and ask (ἠρώτων, ērōtōn) Paul’s group to leave the city, 7 probably to guarantee the peace. Paul and Silas graciously accept. The imperfect tense of ἠρώτων is probably iterative, given the progressive nature of the tense in this context: they “repeatedly asked” them to leave as they discussed the matter. Although the RSV, NET, and NLT translate the aorist verb παρεκάλεσαν (parekalesan) as “apologized,” this rendering may be too strong. The term simply indicates an effort at exhortation and comfort, a conciliation (BAGD 617 §5; BDAG 765 §5), much as the father does with the elder son in the parable of the prodigal, where this term also appears (Luke 15: 28). “Appealed to them” (NASB) and “came to appease them” (NIV) are better renderings. A pattern will emerge in Acts 16–18: Christians are brought before officials, are accused, and are told to stop preaching or face a reaction that seeks to curb their mission, but the mission continues. The mission is shaking the pagan culture, but justice shows that it should not be stopped. Paul notes his suffering here in 1 Thess. 2: 2 and in 2 Cor. 11: 25. These events remain with him.” (Darrell L. Bock, Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 829-831 (Kindle Edition): Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic)
During these times of uncertainty, let us keep our eyes focused on Jesus. No matter who God providentially appoints to the presidency of the United States, Jesus is still King…and He always will be!
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. Amen.