Lonang Commentary on Romans 13

Rom. 13:1á 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.

Parallel text: Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 1 Pet. 2:13-14.

Authorities Instituted By God

From the beginning of history until the great flood of Noah, the only authority given to mankind was the authority of individuals and families to subdue and rule over the earth, to have children and families, and to exercise dominion. This authority did not include either the right of a person to rule over others (except in the parent-child context), or the right of anyone to hold others accountable for a violation of God’s laws. The law of nature was sufficient to let people know that certain things were inherently wrong, such as theft, murder, adultery, etc., but no one had the authority to enforce these laws. That is why, when Cain killed Abel in Gen. 4, no one had the right to enforce the law of murder, even though murder was wrong.

I’ve already mentioned that as part of God’s covenant with Noah after the flood, capital punishment was instituted and law enforcement authority was granted for the first time. But when I say instituted, I mean only that it started at that time, not that it was connected with any human institution(s) per se. For the only people alive at the time of the covenant were Noah’s immediate family of eight people, and both nations and civil governments would not come along until many years later. Thus, law enforcement authority – what is sometimes referred to as civil power – and civil governments, are not the same thing, nor are they somehow inextricably connected.

Civil power and civil governments arose at separate times, for separate reasons, and began (i.e., were instituted’) by entirely separate means and methods. Thus, civil power and civil governments are not one and the same. Of course Paul, who would have known these things from studying the scriptures, assumes his readers know these things, too. He is not establishing any new principles, or issuing any new commands from God. He is merely summarizing in a succinct form, what it is that God expected people to have figured out from the law of nature and from biblical history.

With that backdrop, what exactly are the governing authorities instituted by God? Most crucially, the statements be subject to the governing authorities and be subject to every human institution, do not refer exclusively to civil government. For individuals, families and the Church were all instituted by God – they are part and parcel of God’s institutional framework and stand on no less than an equal footing with civil government as far as being considered a governing authority according to the scriptures.

So when Peter commends us to be subject to every human institution, “whether it be to” this civil ruler or that civil ruler, these are to be taken as examples, not limitations. The scripture texts above are not limited to civil rulers – rather, the respect we show for rightful authority (i.e., authority actually approved by God and not merely a pretended authority) extends even so far as to civil rulers when they are acting rightfully.

And when I say that the private sector stands on no less than an equal footing with civil government, what I mean, of course, is that the private sector actually stands above civil government. Of all the governing authorities, civil government is the least, not the greatest. Rom. 13 and 1 Pet. 2 do not override God’s authority framework previously established, and somehow elevate civil rulers to the top of the authority pile.

1) The private sector gets its authority directly from God, for both the Adamic covenant (Gen. 1:28-30) and the Noahic covenant (Gen. 9:1-17) were given exclusively to individuals and families (the “private sector”) descended from Adam and Noah. (No civil government has ever been authorized to be fruitful and multiply.’) The Mosaic covenant in particular was limited to Israel as an ethnic nation, yet God only ever entered into the covenant relationship with its people as a whole, not with Israel’s rulers or civil government, per se. There is no divine right of kings. No civil government anywhere on earth has ever stood in a direct covenant relationship with God.

2) Therefore, civil governments must get their authority from somewhere else. There is only one other option – from men, i.e., the people. As the Declaration of Independence says, expressing a biblical principle, governments are instituted among men. Which brings us to this fundamental point: what God grants is always greater than what people grant. Thus, the authority of civil governments is always less than, or under, the authority God has granted to the private sector and (of course) the Church. Civil authority granted by men can never be superior to the private authorities granted by God.

3) Additionally, the people only ever gave civil government a portion of what they have inherently, so that the powers of civil government are always less than and inferior to the totality of rights and powers of the people. Just because the people have created a government does not mean they have deprived themselves of the ability to engage in self-government, or that ultimate sovereignty does not still reside with them. This is, in fact, the whole purpose of the 9^th and 10^th amendments to the U.S. Constitution – to declare that the people have withheld rights and powers from the civil government and retained them for themselves.

4) Civil government is the mere agent of the people, not their master. Public officials owe a duty of allegiance and obedience to follow the will of the people – that is the consent of the governed, which is the paramount power in any political society.

5) All civil governments are disposable. If the people don’t like what the government is doing, they can always change (alter or abolish) the government. Contrariwise, the government has no power to alter or abolish the people. Inherently, the people are greater.

6) Individuals, families and the Church, on the other hand, are not disposable. No human being is authorized to eliminate, modify or redefine the authorities and institutions God has created. The things made by God are eternal, whereas the things made by people are all ultimately temporary.

7) God placed mankind on earth originally with only private sector authority and no civil power. This was all that was necessary for people to survive and thrive. Civil power only came along almost 2,000 years later. Thus, civil government must be less necessary to human existence than the private sector.

Additionally, neither Rom. 13 nor 1 Pet. 2 establish rules of conduct or conscience that are either higher than, or superior to, the Ten Commandments. And if we examine the Decalogue, we find the first four commandments directed to the identity, invisible nature, name and holiness of the Creator, followed immediately by a directive to respect the next highest authority among mankind other than God Himself – parents. The rest of the commandments are directed to activities we may squarely place in the sphere of the private sector (murder, adultery, theft, false accusations and coveting).

What’s missing? Nowhere in the Ten Commandments is there a directive to obey monarchs, governors, public officials or any civil authority. Nor is there a directive to obey pastors, ministers, church elders or any ecclesiastical authority. Church and state? They are not at the top of the authority pile, by a long shot. Allow me to make a radical suggestion: the most important authorities are the ones God gave first (i.e., at creation), for they were the ones most essential and necessary for human existence. Both church and state authorities came along much later – for a reason.

Rom. 13:2-4 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 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, 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.

Parallel text: Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. 1 Pet. 2:13-17.

Legitimate Purposes Of Civil Government

These scriptures now begin to lay out the godly (or ideal) purposes of civil government. But realize what is going on here. On the one hand, God has never yet declared these to be the purposes of civil government in any direct verbal delegation of authority, that is, in any prior divine covenant (with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses or David). On the other hand, neither Paul nor Peter are handing down any new rules or legislation on the purposes of civil government. What they are each doing, led by the Spirit, is to declare the common sense of the subject as derived from the laws of nature. And this civil authority, in root, lies with the people as a whole, not with their rulers.

The rightful mission of civil government is therefore two-fold: a) to punish wrongdoers; and b) to commend what is right (in the American tradition, to secure individual rights). As to punishing wrongdoers, this includes not only punishing criminals, but also providing a means of redress for private litigants who have disputes over breaches of contract, property claims, injuries to persons, or other damages, etc. These are essentially the same means used for protecting individual rights. In other words, to establish a judicial system based on God’s laws. That is why the very first thing Moses did to set the foundation for Israel’s government – even before the Law had been given – was to establish a tiered judicial system. Exo. 18:13-24.

In short, civil power was granted to protect people from malefactors so the purposes of individual and family authority could be carried on without interference – to restrain evil for the benefit of the private sector. Thus, nations were created, and civil power was granted, to provide a stable society for the safety, prosperity and happiness of the people in their private capacities. God did not create nations because individuals inherently need to be ruled, nor to superintend families, nor to exercise a superior dominion over the earth. Nor to be the source of individual rights. Nations and civil government are, in the larger picture, merely facilitators for the private sector, not its replacement.

At the same time, to “commend what is right” does not mean it is the job of civil government to do good things, to dole out special favors, or to do anything which usurps the rightful role of the private sector. Civil government is supposed to protect and facilitate the private sector, not to go into business for itself, run charities, take control of children, or tell people what occupations they can or can’t carry out. Nor is it the purpose of civil government to enforce any alleged rights of the government against the people. Civil governments are not the creations of God, and as such, have no “rights” – including, without limitation, the right to exist. Thus, there is no such thing as an institutional or governmental “right to life.” Only individuals have a right to life.

Further, the legitimate role of civil government is very specifically limited to wielding the sword to carry out wrath on a limited class of wrongdoers. Nowhere do the scriptures commend civil government either to: 1) punish evil thoughts; or 2) punish merely moral wrongs which are not also crimes as God defined them. Nor did God ever give civil rulers the power to (re)define crimes as merely any behavior which those in power want to deter – especially those activities God Himself has expressly authorized the private sector to carry out. The chief evil of civil government is not that it does too little, but that it seeks to do too much.

Thus, Rom. 13 is not a command to obey all purported authorities that people have created – it only applies to authorities that God, through His laws, has delegated to people to carry out. And there is no presumption that merely because some form of human government exists, it was made (or put there) by God. It is the laws of God, which define and restrict all institutions of human authority, that people are to obey and respect. God has never asked people to swear allegiance to a human government or civil ruler. All people are fallible, and all governments are fallible. Thus, human laws are fallible, and sometimes ought to be challenged, instead of obeyed.

Even the defenders of the so-called divine right of kings back in the 17^th century never made the argument which people now commonly ascribe to Romans 13 – “the mere fact so-and-so is king/ president/ governor/ etc. necessarily proves that God put them here.” You see, the English kings knew that such a claim is easily refuted – all one has to do is assassinate the king and install a successor. Then the new king can claim “it must have been God’s will, because He allowed it to happen.” There isn’t a whole lot of security in that argument. It’s funny that people today gravitate towards a line of reasoning that at the time, when the divine right of kings was popular, was known to be impractical and foolish.

Jesus came to bring liberty (Lk. 4:18) and God intended that civil rulers would be for our good. Yet, the way many people read Romans 13, it brings only bondage and evil through the false doctrine of unlimited submission. So what is the way out of this dilemma? Let me summarize.

For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed.
I take this text to mean primarily that civil government is not inherently evil, but that when God created the nations He intended them to exercise civil power, and that it was mankind’s job to institute such forms of civil government as would carry out God’s intention. Note that it is civil authority which God has instituted, not any particular form of government, nor any specific persons as civil rulers. When civil rulers deviate from the authority God intended for them to exercise, our allegiance is to God, not to rulers.

For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
This text indicates that the institution of civil government, consistent with God’s purposes and intentions, is a good thing. It is also consistent with the general intention of God that all human institutions – including individual self-government, family government, and church government – are meant to restrain evil. Civil government is likewise tasked with restraining evil – the only difference being the types of evils it may restrain and the means it may use to restrain them when compared to the individual, family and church.

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him.
It is the nature of all civil governments to have multiple layers or tiers of responsibility. We see this in the system of judges in ancient Israel, which is carried over into the American system of federal, state and local government. All such authority, when properly constituted, is equally entitled to respect and obedience. The listing of emperors and governors is by way of example – it is not an exhaustive list. The full list is not even limited to civil rulers. “Every human institution” means exactly what it says – not only civil government, but families, churches, and employers, etc.

What I do not see in any of these texts is an injunction for all people to give slavish obedience or unlimited submission to their civil rulers as embodiments of the presence of God among men. We must carefully note what the Rom. 13 and 1 Pet. 2 texts do not say, namely,

Civil rulers stand in the place of God over the people, to the extent they may exercise authority which God has reserved unto Himself alone (i.e., authority over the mind and heart, and matters which God has elsewhere delegated to individuals, families or the church). – Wrong!

God has placed certain people in positions of civil authority, and if you dare to challenge their authority you will incur the wrath of God. – Wrong!

Everything civil rulers do is by definition approved and sanctioned by God, because the mere fact they are in those positions shows divine approval. – Wrong!

Every act taken to hold civil rulers to the limited authority God has given them is an act of rebellion against God Himself. – Wrong!

In other words, none of these statements (above) are what the scriptures stand for.

Rom. 13:5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

For The Sake of Conscience

Here the point is made that believers are called to live peacefully and lawfully in society, not only for the sake of wrath, but also for the sake of conscience. In other words, if we live in violation of valid laws, the short-term effect will be a guilty conscience, and the long-term effect (if not remedied) could well be a hardened conscience, whereas the Lord generally wishes for us to have a tender conscience. This issue will come up again in chapter 14.

But there is a Christian tradition going back centuries that views our consciences as being constrained by presumptively valid laws. So the argument goes,

a law of man is always to be set as a rule in conscience, so that it is not lawful for a man to frame it on the one side, nor on the other: for such a law of man has not only the strength of man’s law, but also the law of reason, or of the law of God, whereof it is derived. For laws made by men, which have received of God power to make laws, be made by God. And therefore conscience must be ordered by the law. [Christopher St. Germain, Doctor and Student (1518), ch. 19.]

In other words, any law of men validly enacted by a proper legislature consistent with either reason or God’s laws is in fact a law of God. And as such, it binds our consciences in such a way as we are not free to think anything against it. So not only is our behavior constrained to obey the law, but our minds are constrained to always only ever affirm the law. So the argument goes.

That’s a good argument to make if you view people merely as sheep, who always need to be told what to do, always go astray unless a shepherd is there to lead them (because leaders never stray), and are incapable of judging matters for themselves. But if you view people as made in the image of God, to whom God gave a mind and the power of reason, and who God made capable of self-government and set on a path of self-government, it is a very crappy argument.

Forget about all of the perfectly rational, but perfectly horrid, reasons laws are passed – trading political favors, benefitting special interest groups, enabling activities the government shouldn’t be doing, etc. The only thing that concerns me in evaluating any law is whether it conforms to the laws of God – a doubtful and tenuous position for any law to claim today. For our manifold legislators at every level of government have not the foggiest clue what the laws of God are, or how they apply to any given piece of legislation. Plus, any overt attempt to conform to God’s laws would be viewed as a breach of the separation of church and state.

But the main point, as it relates to the conscience, is the question of who decides whether any given law of man conforms to right reason or God’s laws? And the answer is, I alone decide for my own conscience, and you alone decide for yours. No one else – regardless of their supposed authority, legal or moral – can decree any law to be binding on my conscience.

The rule, as always, is that we must obey God rather than men, and each of us has the right to make that decision for ourselves. We are never required (by God) to obey lawless men or lawless laws, but are rather free to disobey them and obey God instead. You can do this with a clear conscience, if your conscience and your mind have been properly trained to recognize and understand what God’s laws are, and to know when others are violating or usurping them. It’s hard to have a clear conscience if, in fact, you really don’t know who’s right or wrong, and you’re just making a guess and hoping for the best.

Ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance is dangerous. Ignorance is also no excuse for not knowing whom to obey, or what God requires. Justice is not some loosey-goosey concept that means whatever feels right to you. Justice means doing the will of God, namely, following God’s laws. Unless you know what God’s laws are, you know nothing about true justice.

Rom. 13:6-7 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 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.

Taxation and the Law of Service Debt

When a person becomes indebted to another, he may have to pay the debt by rendering personal service, regardless of how the debt originated. Conversely, when someone renders personal service to another, it may result in a debt being imputed to the recipient. When Abram rescued the people of Sodom, the king of Sodom was obligated to compensate Abram, though he refused anything exceeding his expenses. Gen. 14:14-16,21-24.

Similarly, when government renders the services required to discharge its civil duties, which only it may perform, it confers a benefit upon the people. Since government has no authority to be charitable, the benefit it confers is in the nature of a debt, not a gift. Plus, ostensibly, public officials performed those services only because the people authorized and required them to do so. This debt is paid by the collection of taxes.

The legal justification of taxation is therefore based on service debt, not the civil creation or ownership of wealth. God is the ultimate Creator of all wealth, and He has placed its use, control, and ownership in the hands of the private sector (chiefly the family), not civil government. Public officials have no first claim or priority to the wealth of the family, or of the nation. Which is a principal reason why any so-called wealth tax’ is always a government overreach. As a result, the law of service debt places limitations on the authority to tax.

That is, all lawful taxes must relate to a service which public officials are authorized to confer. First, a valid tax levy must raise revenue solely for the purpose of paying for civil services rendered. If the purpose of any tax is not to pay for civil services rendered, but is for some other purpose, such as the redistribution of wealth, the tax violates the law of service debt. At the same time, a redistribution of wealth violates the nature of civil power, creating a double wrong.

Second, no tax revenues may be expended except to pay for services which public officials may lawfully render. If the purpose of any tax is to permit government to fund religious or charitable services, or any illegal activities, the tax violates the law of service debt. However, any service which public officials may lawfully render is an appropriate purpose for compensation by taxation.

A peculiar attribute of all taxation is that its payment may be compelled by forcible means. The payment of a tax is an exaction, not a gift. Once a civil government has been constituted, it is obligated to render civil services, triggering application of the law of service debt. The people do not choose to pay for these services – they must pay, or else suffer the wrath of public officials as avengers of God. Thus, all taxing authority is uniquely a civil power.

Paul’s statements in verses 6-7 does not mean that all taxes are legitimate. The power to tax is the power to destroy. Taxes can be abusive, oppressive, discriminatory, and anti-private property. Yet, the mere fact all taxes are by nature coercive does not make them necessarily evil. Taxes, like any of man’s laws, have a legitimate place in our system of government, which can be used for good or ill. These verses are a reminder that paying taxes is an inevitable part of life in a civilized society. We each need to find a way to live with tax payments, but without bitterness because of them. With God’s grace, we can meet the obligations of both God’s laws and man’s laws as need be.

Rom. 13:8-10 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Love Fulfills The Law

Perhaps one reason Paul jumps from a discussion of civil government to a discussion of love is that civil rulers, as such, do not love us, nor are they supposed to – it isn’t the job of civil government to love anyone. Civil government operates by the power of the sword, i.e., force and coercion. So by jumping to a discussion of love, Paul is saying, in essence, not to treat each other the way government treats us. They act one way towards people to serve the limited purposes assigned to them, but we have different purposes assigned to us in our private capacities, so we are to treat people differently because of that.

However, it is a little odd, given all the prior discussion of the Mosaic law in Romans so far, that Paul should tie the duty to love our neighbor to fulfilling that law. And yes, he is talking specifically about the Mosaic law – the very law that cannot bring redemption, and that was only ever given and applied to the Jews. One may rightly ask, why on earth would Gentile believers even want to fulfill the Mosaic law?

Paul may have in mind Jesus’ statement to the same effect in Mat. 22:39, but both Jesus and Paul are quoting from Lev. 19:18, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.” Although, knowing that only cements the point that this is a law for Jews only. Why should Gentiles care?

Actually, I don’t think Paul is urging Gentiles to obey the Mosaic law at all, because he has acknowledged more than once that it does not bind them. Rather, he is urging all believers to fulfill the overall purposes of that law – not any of the specific provisions of the Law. Remember, in the early chapters of Romans Paul concluded that while the law of nature and the Mosaic law differed in origin and method of delivery (law of nature: at creation in non-verbal form; Mosaic law: at Mt. Sinai in verbal form), nonetheless together they put all of humanity on a common moral basis and a uniform standard of divine judgment.

Which would imply that if the overall moral purpose of the Mosaic law is to love our neighbor as ourselves, then that must also be the overall moral purpose of the law of nature, because they share the same standard. Similarly, if the greatest commandment of the Mosaic law is to love God with our heart, soul and mind, then that must also be the greatest commandment of the law of nature. Which is perfectly consistent with the last half of chapter 1. The creation reveals God’s eternal power and divine nature why? – so that people can obey, and love, Him.

Furthermore, it is consistent with our prior analysis of the Ten Commandments, that they are merely a verbalization of the law of nature. They bind everyone in the world not because they were given to the Jews at Sinai, but because they are each traceable to the creation account and became impressed upon the creation at that time – binding on all creatures. Hence, Paul here refers to the sixth, seventh, eighth and tenth commandments for the purpose of denoting them as universal truths for all people. So rather than urging Gentiles to obey the Mosaic law, Paul is really urging everyone to adhere to the common moral standard that binds us all.

Rom. 13:11-14 Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.

The Night Is Far Gone

The theme of light vs. darkness, or day vs. night, is a common one in scripture. Jesus referred to Himself as being the light, and those who did not believe in Him as being in darkness. Jn. 8:12; 12:35,46. Believers in Christ are referred to as children of the light, who are not of the night or darkness. Eph. 5:8; 1 Th. 5:5. So one obvious thrust of these verses is an exhortation to righteous living, and to shun unrighteous behaviors.

Now this statement in verse 14 to “make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires” is not a call to asceticism, that is, extreme self-denial and austerity in the manner of Eastern religions. Rather, I take it in the sense of 1 Jn. 2:15-16, which follows a number of verses talking about the light and the darkness which establish a similar context as we have here in Rom. 13. “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life is not from the Father but is from the world.”

In other words, verse 14 is a further call for believers to avoid the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life, that is, exactly the things that lead people to engage in orgies, drunkenness, sexual immorality, sensuality, quarreling and jealousy.

A similar text is 1 Th. 4:1-7, which is another exhortation of righteous living, and a warning to avoid immorality, lustful passions and impurity. However, right after these verses in 1 Thessalonians, the discussion moves to a consideration of the Second Coming of Christ and the First Resurrection. 1 Th. 4:14-17. Which parallels Paul’s statement here, “For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. The night is far gone; the day is at hand.” I believe Paul is making a metaphorical reference to the Second Coming.

He isn’t telling us anything about the Second Coming, as such – only that the clock (or the calendar) is constantly advancing, and things will not continue as they are currently forever. Paul is advising us to be aware of the time: to know not only that our individual lives will all come to an end (and usually without warning), but to rightly appraise where we are in the flow of history. This, I believe, is the primary purpose of Jesus’ statements in Mat. 24 – to give believers a heads up as to when the time of the end is drawing near.

Paul of course could have no idea Jesus would delay returning for 2,000 years or so – any more than the disciples could have known in Mat. 24. But Paul seems to have adopted the attitude expressed in Mat. 24:34, that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” Or in Paul’s words, “the night is far gone; the day is at hand.” In other words, be vigilant and keep watch, for we have no way of knowing when He will return. Nonetheless, we should live as though He could come at any time. And this is what Paul is getting at here.