Submission to Whom?
Paul's letter to the Romans has important teaching about the role of civil government sandwiched within a discussion about the meaning of love. At the end of Romans 12, Paul is expounding Jesus message about "turning the other cheek". He explains that we must not use force against those who harm us, but wait on God to provide justice. We must overcome evil with good.
Paul then answers a question that he had probably been asked many times when talking on this topic. Does the injunction to turn the other cheek apply to the civil authorities? Was Jesus saying that they should turn the other cheek to those who break the law instead of punishing them? Was Jesus advocating absolute pacifism? Paul gives his answer to this important question in Romans 13:1-7. He then goes back to talking about love for the remainder of the chapter.
The heart of Paul's message is that Christians should submit to civil authorities that have been instituted by God.
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves (Rom 13:1,2).
This passage has been used to justify various forms of political control. The common argument is that Paul was writing to the church in the Rome at a time when Nero was Caesar. If a terrible ruler like Nero was instituted by God, then all forms of political power are justified and Christians must submit to whatever political authority they face.
The problem with this argument is that it does not define the "governing authorities" that Paul is writing about. The entire passage has been badly translated into English. Almost every English version has been translated in a way that gives the greatest possible power to political leaders. This is odd given that we are supposed to be submitted to God and that Paul was in trouble with the political authorities throughout his ministry. The assumption that Paul is commanding us to submit to every political authority including dictators and tyrants is absurd.
The Powers that Be
Before we can understand Paul's teaching about the civil authority, we must answer a basic question: who are the civil authorities that he is writing about? I believe that Paul is only referring to judges. His teaching about submission does not apply to other political powers. There are several reasons why this is true.The essential key to understanding Paul's message about civil authority is in Romans 13:1, where Paul writes,
The authorities that be have been established by God
This rather odd expression "the authorities that be" refers Back to Deut 19:17, for which a literal translation refers to "the judges which shall be in those days." This link has been missed, because we do not love the law, so have not connected Romans and Deuteronomy. When Paul says that the "authorities that be" have been established by God, he is speaking about judges only. He is not talking about politicians, parliaments, emperors or presidents.
This is an extremely important principle. We are only required to submit to righteous judges. Romans 13 does not give a blanket authority to political power in all its forms, Paul is simply confirming the Old Testament principle that government by judges is the best way. This is the system of government that has been established by God.
When considering the expression "governing authorities", we should note that the word "governing" is not in the Greek text. The word that is often translated as governing is "huperecho" can mean "superior in rank", but it also has a strong sense of "excellence". Paul used the same word in Phil 3:8, when speaking of the "surpassing greatness" of knowing Christ. Paul is actually saying that we should submit to "excellent judges". This gives us a choice about submitting. We are only required to submit to those judges who have demonstrated excellence.
The word authority (exousia) is used four times in the first two verses of Romans 13. It has a broad meaning, ranging from freedom to ruler to judge. Exousia is used for the authority that was given to Jesus (Matt 28:10) and for spiritual authorities (Eph 1:21; 6:12). One meaning of exousia is judge or magistrate. This is the way that it is translated in Luke 12:11. In Romans 13, exousia is authority that has been given by God to those who "implement his law", so it must be referring to judges.
Implementing the Law
Another key word is given the third verse of the chapter.
For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer (Rom 13:3,4).
The word usually translated as "ruler" is "arkon". English translations always choose the strongest possible translation, but this Greek word can also be translated as "judge" or "magistrate". It is translated as judge in Luke 12:38. The context confirms that Paul is writing about submission to judges. The role of these authorities is to punish the wicked. This is something done by judges, not political leaders or military leaders.
We should also note that the word "authority" is plural. Paul is not talking about a single political leader. He is suggesting that we should submit to authorities (plural). Romans 13 is not about kings and parliaments, but confirms the Old Testament teaching of the role of judges. There will be many judges and authorities and we must submit to the excellent ones. This is consistent with the Old Testament, which always speaks of multiple judges (Ex 22:8,9, Deut 19:17,18; 25:1)
Paul says that good people do not need to fear rulers.
For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you (Rom 13:3).
If Paul were speaking about all political authorities, this statement would be nonsense. All over the world and throughout history, good people have had terrible harm done to them by rulers. Kings and armies have pillaged and burned houses and farms without discrimination. In the Soviet Union, millions of good people were sent into exile and many were killed. Millions of innocent people were slaughtered in Communist China. Political powers have always been a source of terror for good people.
Democracy does not prevent the political powers from doing terrible harm to good people. After the London bombings, a man was shot dead by police while he walked onto a train. Tax authorities can make life miserable for innocent people. Paul cannot be speaking about all political power, when he says that they hold no terror for those who do right. In fact, the opposite is true. Modern political authorities have so much power that they are terror to good people.
Paul's statement can only be true of excellent judges implementing God's law. They have no power hurt good people and can only harm those who have broken God's law. This is further confirmation that Paul is only commanding submission to judges. His statement cannot be true of other forms of political power.
All authority belongs to God.
There is no authority except that which God has established (Rom 13:1).
If all authority belongs to God, there cannot be another source of authority. There can only be delegated authority, but delegated authorities only have authority, while they are submitted to their superior authority. If they claim an independent authority, their legitimacy disappears. If a king's servant claims the right to make his own decisions, he is refusing to accept the authority of his king.
If all authority comes from God, then Caesar cannot have an independent authority. The same applies to a parliament. The only legitimate authority is one that acknowledges God's authority and implements his law. Political powers that claim sovereignty and an independent authority are in rebellion against God's authority. Any institution that creates its own law is usurping the authority of God. To be legitimate, a political power must apply God's law in every situation. The only legitimate government is righteous judges applying God's law.
We have totally misunderstood Paul's message. He is not saying that we should submit to parliaments, kings and emperors. The real implication of his message is exactly the opposite. These so-called authorities are in rebellion against God, because they are refusing to apply God's laws, but are trying to establish their own laws. The role of parliament is to create laws, so by definition, they are illegitimate. Being law-givers, they have become law breakers. A parliament that acknowledged God's authority would have to vote itself out of existence and hand its power over to anointed judges.
Paul says judges "bear the sword" (Rom 13:4). The sword is a symbol of punishment. This is a confirmation of the Old Testament teaching that judges have the power of coercion. They do not need to turn the other cheek, but are required to punish those who break the law. This can only be done by using force.This passage is not a justification of absolute political authority or democratic political powers. It is a confirmation of the role of judges as developed in the books of the law. God instituted rule by law which must include enforcement by judges. This is the authority that was instituted by God.
Paul warns that resisting what God has instituted is dangerous. This is a challenging thought. We think that a Parliament is better than a King, but neither is instituted by God. A parliament puts the law of the people above God's law. A king put his own laws above God's law. So any nation that is ruled by a king or a parliament is "is rebelling against what God has instituted" and will "bring judgment on themselves".
A more detailed study can be found at Romans 13.
Only One King
A kingdom can only have one king. If God is King then all other kings must stop being kings. If God is lawgiver, then other law givers will have to find something else to do. If they are unwilling to become judges applying God's law, they are usurpers and rebels.Unfortunately, Christians have failed understood this message and have twisted the scriptures to give a justification to kings and parliaments who have set themselves up in opposition to God.
Peter's comments about political rulers in his letter are often misunderstood, because the context is ignored. Whereas Paul is giving basic principles of life, Peter is writing to Christians about practical living in a hostile world.
Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world.... Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds (1 Pet 2:11,12).
He says that Christians who are ruled by kings and dictators should submit to the political powers for the sake of peace.
Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men (1 Pet 2:13-14 NKJV).
Peter is not describing God's will for government, as Paul does in Romans 13. He is explaining to Christians how to should live under a hostile government. He is not teaching about God's ideal. The contrast with Paul's teaching is interesting. Whereas Paul says that judges are instituted by God, Peter is very clear that kings and governors are instituted by man (the ordinance of man). The word translated as ordinance is a derivative of the word for "create", so kings and governors are the creation of man. The reason for the different attitude is that Peter is describing life under an ungodly government, whereas Paul is confirming God's ideal government (just as he describes how Christians should respond to bad people in Romans 12).
The Greek word that Peter uses for governor is "hegemon", which is not a positive word like "judge". (We should also note that governors are sent by the king and not by God as some translations suggest.)
Kings and governors exist and they have real political power, so fighting against them is pointless. Since Christians have very little choice, they should submit to kings and "hegemons" for the sake of peace and to gain freedom for God's work. Peter is being a realist, but he is not saying that political rulers are instituted by God. We might have to submit to them to survive, but submitting to a king or a parliament is not the same as submitting to God. They are the creation of man, so their power has been stolen from God.
Christians should not attract unnecessary attention, by trying to overthrow the government, but should submit to it, so they can get on with preaching the gospel. We do not need to start a revolution against emperors or parliaments, because our gospel is revolutionary. As more and more people at converted and give their allegiance to Jesus, the power of kings and rulers will gradually leak away. The gospel undermined and defeated the Roman empire, so it can destroy any political power. Powerful preaching of the gospel supported by prayer will be more effective than any revolution.
Peter encouraged Christians to be clear about what they are doing. Although they are submitting to political rulers for pragmatic reasons, they must guard our freedom, so that we can continue to serve God.
Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God (1 Pet 2:16).
If God required us to submit to evil rulers, then we would not be free. However, Peter is advocating voluntary submission. The distinction is important, because a person who submits voluntarily remains free to disobey when the need arises. For example, Pete mostly ignored the political authorities, but if they prevented him from do God's work he refused to obey them.
And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said to them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:18-20).
Peter advocated voluntary submission to political powers, but he never forgot that serving God takes priority. A Christian should not draw unnecessary attention from the political authorities.
If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler (1 Pet 4:14,15).
Christians should try to stay out of trouble with the state, so they can be free to get on with God's work.
Honour the King
We must honour the king, but surprise, surprise, we are required to honour everyone. The king is not worthy of special honour.
Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king (1 Pet 2:17 NASB).
We should love other Christians and we must fear God, but we are not required to love or fear the king. The king is below God and our Christian friends, but on the same level as other people. We should honour the king, but no more than we would honour any one else.
I am to submit to my Christian brethren, but I am not required to submit to all people. I am not require to submit to every king or hegemon.
Praying for Kings
The scriptures tell us to pray for kings, but that does not mean they are appointed by God.
I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone-for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness (1 Tim 2:1,2).
The word used for authority is not the same word as Paul used in Romans. The word here is "huperache", which means to be placed above. Kings have placed themselves above us, but they do not have authority in the same sense as a judge who is applying God's law.
We pray for kings so we can live in peace and have freedom to share the gospel, but our prayers do not make them God's people. We can pray for members of parliament, but that does not mean that they are God's servants in the same way as judges. Their authority is not authority from God.
We pray for Kings because God is greater than they are. He was able to bring down Nebuchadnezzar, the ruler of Babylon and one of the most powerful emperors that have ever existed (Dan 4). God decides the times and boundaries of the nations (Acts 17:26), but this does not mean that kings, dictators and parliaments are appointed by him.
Servants of God
Judges who apply God's law are his servants.
For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer (Rom 13:4).
God has given us his law, but he cannot implement it himself. He needs servants to do this for him. Excellent judges are as much his servants as pastors and apostles (Eph 4:12).
Jesus stated clearly that we cannot be a servant of two masters.
No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other (Matt 6:24).
Most modern judges serve a king or a parliament. There loyalty is either to one man or the entire people as represented by their parliament. However, a judge cannot serve two masters. A judge serving a democracy cannot be serving God. God is needs judges who will serve him alone.
Paul summarises these principles in his letter to Titus.
Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good (Tit 3:1).
Rulers and judges are "arkon' and "exousia", so Paul is urging people to submit to judges and magistrates. This is another confirmation that God's government consists of judges and magistrates applying biblical law.Achieving this goal will require most people to believe in Jesus. However punishing theft, assault and murder will make sense to most people, so judges who apply God's law would be acceptable to people who do not believe in Jesus.
Return to Judges
Return to Turning the Check