The interpretation and application of Romans 13

Scripture seems rather clear that unless the government orders us to do something contrary to God's law (such as happened to Daniel, etc.) we are to be obedient and peaceful.

 

The best way to bring understanding on Romans 13 is to ask, "Who was apostle Paul writing to at Rome?" The answer is found at Romans 1:7: Paul was writing to all those in Rome who are "beloved of God, called to be saints." He was not writing to the general population at Rome. He was specifically addressing the "called out ones," the Body of Christ.

If apostle Paul was advocating obedience to secular authorities, then Caesar would have no cause against him. Why would Caesar have Paul beheaded if he was promoting obedience to Rome?

The truth is that Apostle Paul was beheaded for promoting a rival government known as the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. Already this new government was turning the world upside down. Caesar had Paul killed to help stop this threat to Rome's power.

If Romans 13 does not mean "obey the State," what does it mean? Romans 13 means, "Remember them which have the rule over you," as you will also find at Hebrews 13:7. Since Paul was addressing the saints at Rome, it is logical that he would instruct them to submit to those who look after their souls. It is a reminder to be obedient to the authorities God has placed over His people. For they are truly the "ministers of God to thee for good." Unlike worldly rulers, God's ministers are not a terror to good works but to the evil. Therefore, "do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same."

Romans 13 is probably the most devastating thing to a Christian in the hands of the ungodly. It sounds so convincing to obey those who appear to be in power. For too long, secular governments have used Romans 13 as a club to beat Christians into obedience to them. Just because a group maintains power through their guns and jails, does not mean God put them there.

God said there are powers not ordained by Him at Hosea 8:4, "They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not."

Source: http://romans13.embassyofheaven.com/understanding.htm

 

Christians today believe they are to give unquestioning obedience to the state. Such an attitude is based on a faulty misinterpretation of Romans 13:1: “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” (please read vv. 2-7 also). Statists are accustomed to appeal to this text as if it supported an unconditional and uncritical subjection to any and every demand of the state. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The immediate context shows that Paul’s point is something quite different. He is at pains to show that the state performs properly what is forbidden to the individual Christian: it takes vengeance on the one who does evil (see verse 4). Christians, on the contrary, must never repay evil for evil (12:17), and therefore they are not to oppose this legitimate function of the state but are to submit to it. God alone may take vengeance, and it is the “sword” of the state that he uses for this purpose. Essentially, Paul is teaching the same thing that Jesus taught: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” Jesus assumes that the existence of the state is willed of God – even the existence of the pagan Roman Empire. But the disciple of Jesus is not allowed to give to the state what is God’s. Whenever the state makes an illegitimate claim to what is God’s it has transgressed its limits; and the Christian will not render to the state what is unjustly required of him.

The state is often confused with the kingdom of God. Indeed, many Christians are guilty of this false association. The state is a temporary institution (see 13:11). It will pass away, whereas the kingdom is eternal. Therefore, as long as the present age exists, Christians need not oppose the institution of the state as such. Rather they are to give the state what it needs to exist (e.g., taxes) and submit to its right to bear the sword. This is the plain meaning of Romans 13.

Source Dave Black

Dave is currently Professor of New Testament and Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina.

 

The scholarly journal Novum Testamentum, Volume 46, Number 3, 2004, pp. 209-228(20) offers an essay on "The Irony of Romans 13," arguing that what at first blush appears to be an uncompromising endorsement of political authority is actually a deft criticism of Roman rule under Nero.

Source: Novum Testamentum

 

I find parts of Pastor Revere's page on Romans 13 and I agree with Dave article on Romans 13, they both believe that Romans 13 does not mean "obey the state", and I agree.

Mr. Black goes on to say in his writing that "Inasmuch as the state remains within its proper limits, the Christian will acknowledge it as the servant of God. But inasmuch as the state transgresses its limits, it is to be considered the instrument of Satan. But even when the state functions properly as God’s servant, the genuine state for the Christian – his politeuma (the Greek word Paul uses in Phil. 3:20) – is in heaven.

And so the Christian gladly acknowledges the place of the state in God’s earthly economy, but he also knows the state’s place within the divine order. For that reason he will see his task regarding the state as one of watching to see that at no point does the state fall away from the divine order.

Thus I am forced to conclude that, far from teaching that the state is to be accepted uncritically in all that it does, Paul’s discussion in Romans 13 serves as a warning against the state exceeding its limits."

I believe that states that governments that are "ministers to good" to the people are ordained by God, but governments that are not doing good to the people are not ordained by God. While there may be some disagreements in what I posted from Pastor Revere and Dave Black, I can see that they both agree that not all governments are ordained by God, and therefore not all governments are to be submitted to by Christians.

There are many who use Romans 13 to say that all governments are ordained by God, even governments like Hilter's, Saddam's, etc. I don't believe that is a proper understanding of Romans 13.

 

So how does one decide which government is in the "divine order" and doing "good?" Where do we draw the line?

What about when Paul was writing Romans -- isn't it true that the government at that time would not have been seen as good? So Paul was writing something that he would not have applied to the Roman gov't he and other believers were living under?

Rom. 13.1 says that there is "no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God" and it seems pretty clear that there is no exception. I don't see the biblical basis for believing that Rom. 13 is only speaking of "good" governments.

 

You can't read verse one alone, you have to read the entire context, verse 3 describes what a government ordained by God is, "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil." Verse four continues in this description of a "good" government, "For he is the minister of God to thee for good."

A government that is not a terror to evil, but to good works and not a minister of God to thee for good, is not the government that is said to be ordained by God in the Scriptures.

Do you believe it was a sin for those few Christians who opposed Hitler to do so because of Romans 13?

 

Do you mean the Christians who hid the Jews? That was to protect their lives. They were disobeying a gov't that was directing people to turn people in so they could be imprisoned, injured or killed.

I think disobeying a law directing us to do evil is different from breaking the law when we merely disagree with it.

 

Verse seven states we are to pay tribute to those who are due. By not giving her seat to the man who by law was entitled to it, she is in biblical trouble allready.

I beleive verse 4 tells us to obey the government as long as it doesn't cause us to disobey God's word. This law, however horrible it appears to us now, does not violate any scripture.

I read that Rosa Parks was a Christian lady. I hope it's true, but I think with prayer, and a Christ-like attitude, she would have given up her seat.

But I sure have an immense amount of respect for the woman. She seemed to be pretty humble.

 

rlvaughn,

You are referring to my argument. Here is the outline I use for the book of Romans.

</font>

• Introduction: Romans 1:1-17</font>

</font>

• All men's guilt as sinners: 1:18- 3:20</font>

</font>

• Salvation available to all by faith: 3:21-8:39</font>

</font>

• The plan of God for Israel: 9:1-11:36</font>

</font>

• Christian relationships/attitudes: 12:1-15:13</font>

</font>

• Greetings and benediction: 15:14-16:27</font>

Romans 12 deals with the body of Christ and a Christians love and respect for one another. In Romans 14 Paul deals with conduct toward those of weaker faith, (i.e., the stronger Christian is not be a stumbling block to the weaker in faith). I do not believe that Romans 13 is a call for blind obedience to civil government. I do not consider civil government to be necessarily "ordained of God." Church leaders, however, are "ordained of God." Romans 13:1 says, "There is no power but of God." Romans 13:2 says, "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God." Do you not think an argument could be made that this verse is directed toward church leaders?

(BTW, I am a she, not that it matters- )

 

No. Church leaders do not "bear the sword," in the execution of their duties.