Romans 13:1-10

Twenty-sixth Passage (13:1-10). The Life of the Believer as a Member of the State.

Meyer and many others find no connection whatever between the subject treated in this chapter and that of the foregoing. “A new subject,” says this author, “placed here without relation to what precedes.” It must be confessed that the connections proposed by commentators are not very satisfactory, and afford some ground for this judgment of Meyer. Tholuck says: The apostle passes here from private offences to official persecutions proceeding from the heathen state. But in what follows the state is not regarded as a persecutor; it is represented, on the contrary, as the guardian of justice. Hofmann sees in the legally-ordered social life one of the aspects of that good by which evil ought to be overcome (Romans 12:21). Schott finds the link between the two passages in the idea of the vengeance which God will one day take by the judgment (Romans 12:19), and which He is taking now by the power of the state (Romans 13:4). Better give up every connection than suppose such as these.

As for us, the difficulty is wholly resolved. We have seen that Paul, after pointing to the Christian consecrating his body to God's service, places him successively in the two domains in which he is to realize the sacrifice of himself: that of spiritual life properly so called, and that of civil life. And what proves that we are really in the track of his thought, is that we discover in the development of this new subject an order exactly parallel to that of the preceding exposition. Paul had pointed to the Christian, first, limiting himself by humility, then giving himself by love. He follows the same plan in the subsequent passage. In Romans 13:1-7, he inculcates the duty of submission by which the believer controls and limits himself in relation to the state; then, in Romans 13:8-10, he enters into the domain of private relations, and points to the Christian giving himself to all in the exercise of righteousness. We therefore find here the counterpart of the two passages, Romans 13:3-14, the former of which presented the believer in his relations to the church as such; the latter, in his conduct in the midst of society in general.

If such is the nexus between the subjects treated in these two Chapter s, there is no necessity for seeking in the local circumstances of the church of Rome for a particular reason to explain this passage. Bauer, proceeding on the idea of a Judeo-Christian majority in this church, has alleged that the apostle meant here to combat the Jewish prejudice which held heathen authorities to be only delegates of Satan, as the prince of this world. But Hofmann justly remarks, that if such were the polemic of the apostle, he would have confined himself to proving that it is allowable for the Christian to submit himself to a heathen power, without going the length of making this submission a duty, and a duty not of expediency only, but one of conscience. Weizsäcker also replies to Baur, that if the matter in question were a Jewish prejudice to be combated, the apostle would require especially to remind his readers that the Christian faith does not at all imply, as the Jewish Messianic viewpoint did, the expectation of an earthly kingdom; whence it follows that nothing is opposed from this side to the submission of believers to the power of the state. It is in this line he argues, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Romans 7:21 et seq., when he shows that there is no incompatibility between the position of slave and Christian. Besides, we have seen the error of Baur's hypothesis regarding the Judeo-Christian composition of the church of Rome too clearly to make it necessary for us to spend more time in refuting this explanation. If it were thought absolutely needful to find in the state of this church a particular reason for the following precepts, we should certainly have to prefer Ewald's hypothesis. This critic thinks that the spirit of insubordination which broke out soon after in the Jewish nation in the revolt against the Romans, was already agitating this people, and making itself felt even at Rome. The apostle's intention was therefore, he thinks, to protect the church of the capital from this contagion emanating from the synagogue. This supposition can no more be proved than it can be refuted by positive facts. All that we can say is, that it is not needed to explain the following passage. Expounding the gospel didactically, and the life which flows from it, the apostle must naturally, especially when writing to the church resident in the heart of the empire, develop a duty which was soon to become one of the most important and difficult in the conflicts for which it was necessary to prepare with the heathen power, that of submission to the state on the ground of conscience, and independently of the character of those who wield the power for the time. Weizsäcker thinks that all Paul says here to Christians supposes no persecution to have yet taken place. We think on this point he is mistaken, and that in any state of the case Paul would have spoken as he does. For, as we shall see, he treats the question from the viewpoint of moral principle, which remains always the standard for the Christian. And what is a clear proof of it is, that the course traced by him has been ratified by the conscience of Christians in all epochs, even in times of persecution. It was followed, in particular, by the whole primitive church, and by the Christians of the Reformed Church of France; and if there was a time when the latter, driven to extremity by extraordinary sufferings, deviated from this line of conduct, their action certainly did not turn out a blessing to them. Moreover, comp. the sayings analogous to those of Paul in Matthew 26:52; Revelation 13:10, and the whole of the First Epistle of Peter, especially chap. 2

We cannot help quoting here, as a specimen of Renan's manner, the observation with which he accompanies the precept of the apostle: “Paul had too much tact to be a mover of sedition. He wished the name of Christian to be of good standing” (p. 477).

In Romans 13:1-7, the apostle points out the Christian's duty in regard to the state (1a), and explains the ground of it (1b). He points out its penal sanction (Romans 13:2), and justifies it (Romans 13:3-4). Romans 13:5 draws the general consequence from these principles; finally, Romans 13:6-7 apply this consequence to the details of social life.