Bible Commentaries
Romans 13

Verses 1-14

XIII 1-7 The Duty of Obedience to the Authority of the State— The Apostle passes on to summarize the Christian’s duties towards the State. He first insists on the duty of submission and obedience to the ruling government as a divine law. Leaving all questions of the natural law aside he proves this divine law from the fact that no government could obtain or retain power without God’s will. Every citizen therefore is bound to render submission and obedience to the de facto facto government because disobeying would be disobeying a divinely appointed authority, a sin which would not be left unpunished, 1-2.

In 3-4 the Apostle gives a brief description of the government as it should be, its main function being to support all good and suppress all evil. After this the way is clear for the conclusion which follows in 5. The submission and obedience due to such a government is a matter of conscience, i.e. the Christian is to obey for God’s sake, and not for fear of being found out and punished. The laws of such a government are not merely penal laws but moral laws. The law of taxation, 6, serves as an example. Finally, in 7 the Apostle concludes with a summary which is reminiscent of the words of our Lord in Matthew 22:21 ’Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s’.

Some of the questions and objections to which St Paul’s statements in 1-7 have given rise may here be reviewed. But they must be regarded as belonging more to the history of the exegesis of the paragraph than to its literal interpretation. Most of them are read into the text.

1. Can a Christian honestly regard and respect as divinely appointed every de facto government even when it is resented as usurping, illegitimate, enforced, foreign, tyrannical, pagan, anti-religious, or antiChristian, 1-2? Yes, in view of God’s justice and vidence; cf.Exodus 9:16; Romans 9:17 (Pharaoh); Jeremiah 21:7; Jeremiah 29:4-14; Jeremiah 51:24 (Babylonian captivity); Matthew 22:15-22; John 19:11 (Roman rule in Palestine); see also Origen-Rufinus, on Romans 13:1; Augustine, De civ. Dei5, 21; St Thomas, Sum. theol. I q 19 a 9; reference from sub-apostolic literature are collected by SH 371 f. For a different answer see Chrysostom and St Thomasad loc.

2. Can v 2 be quoted to show that a Christian must acquiesce in such a state of affairs as described under nr 1 and regard such a government as established for ever? No, to wait for and co-operate with God’s opportunities by using all legitimate means to bring about improvements in such a government or even to replace it by a better, would seem to be every citizen’s right by natural law. At all events every one by natural law has the right to resist injustice even when this injustice is done in the name of a government. In either case, however, the means employed must be in accordance with the moral law; and here in many cases conscience will have to be the final arbiter for the individual; cf. Boylan, on 13:2; SH 372 (on passive obedience); Lehmkuhl, Theol. Moralis, I ( 1898) 472; Génicot, Theol. Moralis, I ( 1922) 287 f.

3. Can v 2 be quoted to show that a Christian is bound to obey government orders also when they are against the divine law? No, the scriptural guidance in such a situation, however, must be taken from such passages as Matthew 22:21; Acts 5:29, etc., not from our passage which presupposes normal conditions, cf. 3-4.

4. Can v 2 be use in favour of the State when in conflict with the Church? No, according to the same principle as under nr 3. See DV (1582) note on 13:4; Gore II 124.

5. Can 1-2 be used to prove that monarchy, the actual form of government at the time, in Rome is the one form of government approved of by St Paul against any other? No, the terms here used are general. The contrast intended (if any) is not monarchy as against democracy or any other form of government, but government, law and order on the one side, against anarchy, the ruin of every state, on the other.

6. Can the political conditions under which St Paul wrote Rom be regarded as normal, 3-4? Opinions differ. For a favourable description of the Roman government at that time see SH XIII-XVIII. The evidence to the contrary comes mostly from the administration of the provinces, cf. CAH XII 712 f. In any case, Paul is here not discussing the grievances of Roman subjects, but stating every citizen’s duty of obedience to the state in general. What kind of government, however, he has in mind can be seen from 3-4.

7. What does St Paul teach in 3-4 about the duties of a Christian government? Nothing directly. He is concerned with the duties of subjects to their government. But from 3-4 one may rightly conclude that if the pagan government is to be ’power on the side of good’, how much more must a Christian government live up to this first of all its duties.

8. Did St Paul himself and the early Church uphold the same principle of obedience to the government even during and after persecution in the Roman empire? Yes, Paul had suffered injustice at the hands of government authorities before he wrote 1-7; cf.Acts 16:37; 2 Corinthians 11:25, 2 Corinthians 11:32. That his attitude remained the same later can be seen from 1 Timothy 2:1-7; Titus 3:1. The early Church remained true to the same principle also during the time of persecution, cf.1 Peter 2:13-17 and the numerous references from the sub-apostolic literature collected by SH 371 f. The government of Rome is judged from a different point of view in Apoc 17:6; 18:24; cf. 2:13; 6:9 f., but this does not contradict St Paul’s principles in 1-7.

9. Can v 5 be quoted to prove that all state laws bind a Christian in conscience? No, Paul is concerned with obedience to state law in general, not with the questions whether this or that state law might be unjust and therefore not binding in conscience, cf. nr 3.

10. Can v 6 be used to prove that not paying all the taxes imposed by the Government is necessarily sinful? No, Paul is again speaking of taxes in general not of this or that tax in particular which can it quite well be unjust. Cf. Catechism of the Council of Trent pt 3 ch 8 qu 10; Génicot, Theol. Moralis I ( 1922) 497-501; H. Davis, Moral Thtol. II ( 1935) 308 f.

11. Is the exhortation to the Christians of Rome in 1-7 nothing but the prudent advice of an opportunist, arguing that resistance to the Roman government would only do harm, cf.John 11:48? No, the duty of obedience to the government is clearly stated to be a duty imposed by God, 1, 2, 5, and as such is a precept of the moral law, whilst opportunism is ruled by circumstances and selfishness; against Renan, cf. Gifford 211.

8-10 Exhortation to Charity— From loyalty to the government, 1-7, St Paul passes to charity towards one’s neighbour. The way in which he treats of charity here is short and precise. For the many different aspects under which he could have considered this characteristically Christian duty of. 1 Jn passim; 1 Cor 13; James 2:8-10; K. Vaughan 160-88; textbooks of moral theology, e.g. Noldin II ( 1921) 85-147.

The special feature of 8-10 is the stress laid on the place charity ought to be given among the commandments. The Apostle puts it first. His reason is that he who loves his neighbour will be anxious not to wrong him, cf.Matthew 7:12. Where there is charity, the 6th, th, 7th, 9th and 10th as well as all other commandments will be kept as a matter of course. The objection arises that our Lord in Matthew 22:39 clearly puts love of one’s neighbour second and not first. Some commentators in defence of St Paul refer to 1 John 4:20 and Galatians 5:14 arguing that in practice the love of one’s neighbour implies the love of God, cf. Cornely 683 f. A simpler solution is that Paul called charity the first of the commandments ruling our conduct towards men. This means abstracting from the love of God as not finding a place in the argument:

(1) because the context deals with man’s duties towards man and not with those towards God;

(2) because the examples of 9 are all taken from the second table of the decalogue and not from the first;

(3) because our Lord’s words in Matthew 22:39 are so clear and, if not actually quoted here, yet seem to have been in the Apostle’s mind.

11-14 Exhortation to Vigilance and Sanctity— It is difficult to find one name for the Christian ideal described in this short paragraph. St Thomas calls it ’honestas’, honourableness, sense of honour, purity of life. It is described both negatively and positively by a series of metaphors mainly taken from time. On the one hand we have sleep, night, and the works of darkness: feasting and drinking, fornication and lewdness (wantonness), wranglings and jealousies; all these are to be shunned and cast off. On the other hand, there are the marks of a Christian life: vigilance, the light of day, and—one would expect—the works of light. But the metaphor is changed to ’the armour of light’ which the Christian is to put on.

Connection. Some commentators do not regard 11-14 as a paragraph by itself but as an afterthought to 8-10. Then the meaning of the passage is: let the thought of the coming day of judgement be a further motive to fulfil all the demands of charity set out in 8-10; cf. Cornely.

The metaphors of 11-14. On their understanding depends the appreciation of the passage. But the exact meaning of some is difficult to ascertain. (1) The sleep from which the Roman Christians are to rise, 11, must be the state of their spiritual life at the time. We may think of sleep then in the sense in which even the five prudent virgins ’slumbered and slept’ before the bridegroom arrived, Matthew 25:6 (Gifford). Perhaps we are allowed to go further and think of that carelessness, lukewarmness or indifference which often follows when the first fervour has spent itself, Apoc 2:4 f.; 3:15 f.; so Cornely who speaks of ’socordia, ignavia, tepiditas’. But it would certainly be exaggerating to interpret this sleep the soul’s sleep of death or state of mortal sin; cf.Apoc 3:1 ff. (against Estius). (2) The vigilance to which Paul exhorts in 11 is the same as that of Matthew 24:42; Matthew 25:13; Luke 21:36; 1 Corinthians 16:13; Ephesians 6:18; Colossians 4:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:6; 2 Timothy 4:5; 1 Peter 4:7; 1 Peter 5:8; Apoc 3:2 f.; 16:15. (3) The night that is far gone, 12, has been explained (a) as the whole period of human history before the day of the Last Judgement, (b) as the readers’ life on earth looked upon as the night that precedes the day of their glorification in heaven, (c) as the ’dark ages’ of pagan morals, so Lagrange. (4) The day that is near, 12, has been interpreted (a) as the day of the Last Judgement (Parousia), (b) as the day of the readers’ glorification, (c) as the period of Christianity (Christian morals) enlightening the darkness of heathendom. (5) The works of darkness, 12 = all manner of sin. (6) The armour of light, 12, which the Christian is to wear is amply illustrated in the list of Christian virtues in 1 Thessalonians 5:8; Ephesians 6:10-17.

The nearness of the Parousia or the Second Coming of our Lord, 11. This point is discussed at great length in all modern commentaries. Paul refers to it in 11c when reminding his readers that the day of their final salvation is nearer now than when they were baptized. The purpose of the reminder is evidently exhortation to vigilance, cf.Luke 12:37; 1 Corinthians 7:29; Hebrews 10:25, Hebrews 10:37; 1 Peter 4:7. The modern discussions, however, turn round the question whether this text proves that St Paul regarded the Parousia as imminent. For a full answer to this problem see the commentaries on 1 Thessalonians 4:17. All that need be said here is that inspiration covers no more than what the sacred author actually wrote and with this limitation 11c offers no difficulty. The case seems well put by SH 378 ’The language is that befitting those who expect the actual coming of Christ almost immediately, but it will fit the circumstances of any Christian for whoin death brings the day’.

11. ’Our salvation’: the Greek text can also be translated now the salvation is nearer to us than when . . .’. What the Apostle means is the final salvation or glorification = the revelation of the children of God in 8: 19 = the redemption of the body in 8:23 = the restitution of all things in Acts 3:21. ’When we believed’: Aorist = when we became believers, or Christians, cf. C. J. Vaughan. 14. Put on Christ’: here in the moral sense, cf.Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:12. The same phrase is used in Galatians 3:27 in a dogmatic sense for the sacramental effects of baptism.