Romans 13

Background:

Mark Nanos[1] suggests that the letter to the Romans must be read in the context of its cultural and historical setting.  He proposes that the real audience of Paul’s letter is Gentiles who have entered the Messianic community in the synagogues in Rome.  Consequently, the instructions that Paul gives in the letter are aimed at preventing these Gentiles from acting in ways that contradict Jewish expectations of Torah observance.  Paul is concerned with the possibility that Gentiles who claim to honor YHWH and who acknowledge Yeshua as the Messiah may act in ways that would offend Jews who have not yet accepted Yeshua as the Messiah.  Paul’s objective is to create a witness to the truth of Yeshua as Messiah by encouraging Gentile converts to live Torah-observant lives, thereby causing the Jews to be jealous of the relationship these Gentiles enjoy and desire it for themselves.  In other words, Nanos proposes that the exegesis of the letter is to be determined by its setting within the synagogue community, and not as a universal theology divorced from culture and history.

Nanos’ argument stands in opposition to the typical exegesis of the Church.  Since Luther, the Christian church has adopted an exegesis that Paul’s categories of “weak” and “strong” apply to Christians.  Under this interpretation, the weak are those Christians who are deficient in their faith because they fail to realize the full measure of freedom from the Law.  The strong are those Christians who recognize that the Law is finished and no longer applies to them.  Luther’s presupposition that law and grace are polar opposites affected his view of Romans, resulting in a reading that reinforces the dichotomy he already accepted.

Luther wrote:

“When the Apostle here speaks of the “weak,”  he has in mind those who were of the opinion that they were obligated to certain laws, to which in reality they were not obligated.  His words, however, are directed above all against the Jewish error, which some false prophets taught, distinguishing between certain kinds of food  . . . Against this (Christian) liberty, for which the Apostle contends, many false apostles raised their voices to mislead the people to do certain things as though these were necessary.  Against such errorists the Apostle took offensive with amazing zeal.”[2]

A large majority of Christian theologians following Luther accepted the same bifurcation of Law and grace.   Consequently, they assumed that Paul rejected Torah practices and that Paul was addressing Christians who needed to take this “step of faith” away from previous Jewish restrictions.  They were forced to read Romans as if it were a condemnation of Jewish Torah practices.

This Lutheran view of Paul and Torah has been severely criticized in recent scholarship.  It does not account for Paul’s own statements about his continued Torah observance and it ignores the substantial evidence in the Gospels and in Acts that the Yeshua, the disciples and the early community were all Torah observant.  Once we give full weight to the fact that Paul himself remained Torah observant, and that the early community was a community of Jews and Gentiles who were “zealous for the Law,” we are forced to reconsider the Lutheran assumptions regarding the intended audience of the letter to the Romans.

If Paul is not writing to Christians, there two other possibilities for Paul’s intended audience.  The first is Jews within the synagogue community.  This is clearly not the intended audience since the issues that Paul addresses would be de rigueur for Jewish worshippers.  The other possibility is Gentile converts who have come into the community.  These people did not have the Torah background or historical practice of Jews within the community.  They came from pagan environments and would have been familiar with pagan religious practices.  When they converted to Messianic Judaism, they entered the already-existing synagogue community with its previously established protocols.  This created the problem that Paul faced in several synagogue communities.

Jews within the synagogue already practiced Torah.  The observance of Torah was the critical distinguishing mark of Jewish belief, making syncretization into the Roman polytheistic system impossible.  Gentiles who entered the community had to be taught Torah observance.  There was already an established process for proselytes entering Judaism, but Paul argued that acceptance by God was not dependent on becoming a proselyte of Judaism.  Paul’s argument was that both Jews and Gentiles received the status of righteousness before God as a result of God’s unmerited grace.  Both Jews and Gentiles came to God in exactly the same way.  Torah observance was not a means for achieving righteousness.  It was a result of being considered righteous.  Paul makes this argument in Galatians and, in particular, in the second to fourth chapters of Romans.   As the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul’s concern was that Gentiles should not be excluded from fellowship with God because they did not become Jews and that the behavior following the conversion of Gentiles would not alienate Jews from the acceptance of Yeshua as Messiah.

Because Gentiles could be welcomed into the community on the basis of faith alone, some Gentiles concluded that Torah observance made no difference.  Paul argues that this is partially true.  Torah observance makes no difference with regard to fellowship with God. Rescue, deliverance, salvation and forgiveness do not depend on Torah observance.  But this does not mean that Torah observance is without purpose.  Torah observance is the natural extension of gratefulness and the desire to please Him according to His instructions.  Furthermore, Torah observance is the means by which God creates a holy community to act as a magnet for the nations.  Torah observance is the differentiator, the physical manifestation of the inward transformation.  Gentiles who concluded that Torah observance did not matter failed to recognize the difference between salvation (grace) and redemptive purpose (usefulness).  Paul’s concern is simply this:  If  Gentile believers live as though Torah doesn’t matter, they will not exhibit the outward signs of inner transformation that any Jew would expect and recognize.  Therefore, Jews would claim that these Gentiles did not worship the true God, YHWH, because they did not follow YHWH’s instructions for living.  Consequently, the witness of the Gentiles would be diminished and the Jews would dismiss Yeshua as the Messiah of both Jew and Gentile.

Nanos’ argument is compelling.  It accounts for Paul’s personal Torah observance and for the extended argument in Paul’s letters concerning the difference between grace and Torah.  Nanos’ view gives full weight to the place of Torah while acknowledging that Torah observance is not a means to grace.  Furthermore, Nanos’ view clarifies the teaching of the first Jerusalem council and the reasons why James and Peter ask Paul to demonstrate his personal commitment to Torah through paying for a temple vow.

What we have learned is that Romans is addressed to Gentile Messianic believers who came into the community without first being proselytes to Judaism.  Now they are using their entry by grace to assert liberty from Torah, misunderstanding the relationship between Torah and grace, and causing Jews who are not yet believers in Yeshua as Messiah to question the veracity of their faith.  With this background, we can turn to the controversial passage in Romans 13.

Application:

Romans 13 must be understood within the context of the Gentile-Jewish issue in the synagogue.  Paul’s letter is not addressed to the universal audience of Mankind.  It is addressed to those who are in conflict in the synagogue.  This means that the “authorities” are those recognized as authorities within the synagogue community.  Nanos writes:

“It is my contention that Paul’s instructions in 13:1-7 are not concerned with the state, empire, or any other such organization of secular government.  His concern was rather to address the obligation of Christians, particularly Christian gentiles associating with the synagogue of Rome for the practice of their new “faith,” to subordinate themselves to the leaders of the synagogues and to the customary “rules of behavior” that had been developed in Diaspora synagogues for defining the appropriate behavior of “righteous gentiles” seeking association with Jews and their God.”[3]

Subordination is the issue here, not the role of the civil government.  While Luther’s exegesis forces biblical readers to remove the Jewish framework from the text, there is nothing in Paul’s letter, or in his life, that requires such a divorce.  It is noteworthy that Kasemann, a world-renowned Greek scholar,  distinguishes the Greek word hupakouein (usually meaning “free obedience”) from hupotassphai (meaning “submission to divinely-established order”).  Paul uses the latter Greek word to describe the obligation of Gentiles within the community.  In other words, Paul chooses a term that implies submission required by God’s divine order, not simply on the basis of  man’s exercise of free choice.  It is hard to imagine that Paul would have considered the Roman hierarchy, widely recognized for its cruelty and oppressive power, to be “divinely-established” since everything in the Hebrew Scriptures challenged the ethical authority of Rome’s actions.  For Paul to apply this obligation to believers would require a reversal of the ethical teaching of the Tanakh and a denial of the lessons Israel learned when its ethical behavior departed from Torah observance, something Paul could never have done.

Nanos writes:

“I suggest that there is no conjunction to announce a break in Paul’s larger paraenetical concerns of 12:1 – 15:13 because there is no conceptual change of focus in 13:1-7.  The entire section, including “every person” of 13:1-7, is concerned with addressing the new lifestyle of the Christian gentiles in response to the gospel’s revelation of the “mercies of God” toward themselves, so that they would be committed to “proper behavior” in the congregation of the people of God to which they now belong as new members of the synagogues of Rome through their “introduction” by “faith” in Christ Jesus.”[4]

Nanos continues with an examination of the Greek words used to describe those in authority.  They are:

1. governing authorities who derive their authority from God (exousias huperechousias)
2. rulers who support good works and fight against evil (archontes)
3. ministers of God who act for the good of the community and who bring wrath against those who practice evil (bearing the sword) (theou gar diakonos)
4. servants of God who are devoted to collecting taxes (leitourgoi)

The Greek phrase translated “governing authorities” literally means those who are superior in rank or stronger.  The assumption that this phrase refers to institutional authority such as the local government or the empire misunderstands the lexical field of the phrase.  It is always about the persons who exercise control.  When Paul adds the thought that these people are appointed by God to their position of authority, he simply cannot have in mind the empire or the hierarchy of government.  Interpreting his words in that way would require us to set aside everything we know about the Tanakh’s treatment of evil or idolatrous rulers.  How can we imagine that Paul ignores the stories of Daniel and the Israelites in captivity or the verdicts God ascribes to many of the kings of Israel?  Is Paul asserting that God’s judgment on these men in power is misplaced?  Are we ready to endorse them as God’s choices for leadership when God Himself describes them as wicked?

Consider the parallel phrase translated “rulers who support good works and fight against evil.”  Paul can hardly describe Caesar in these terms.  Even some kings of Israel fail to meet this standard.  If the governing authorities are also described by the Greek words here, then any person who opposes the instructions of God cannot be included in Paul’s phrase “those who are superior or stronger.”

Finally, once we recognize that the topic at hand is voluntary submission, we must conclude that Paul cannot be endorsing a blanket application to anyone who happens to be in power.  This would fly in the face of the Hebrew Scriptures.  How many times do we find resistance, judgment and denouncement of evil at every level in society in the Tanakh?  Even David is called to account for his sins.  There is no indication at all in the Tanakh that God requires voluntary submission to whomever is in leadership.  Submission depends on the godly character of the leader, not on the rank held.

If we are convinced that the intended audience of the letter to the Romans is Gentiles who have entered into the Jewish synagogue community as Messianic believers, then we can understand why Paul instructs them concerning “authorities.”  Jewish members would not require instruction concerning authority within the community.  Centuries of involvement and tradition provided a framework for submission to the leaders of the synagogue.  But newly involved Gentiles did not have this traditional background.  They were moving from one authority (the Roman government or the idolatrous culture) to another authority (the leadership of the synagogue) and that requires Paul to explain the need for personal voluntary submission.  It is worth noting that other uses of the Greek exousias (authorities) in the New Testament are associated with the synagogue, even by Yeshua (e.g. Luke 12:11).  The parallel term archontes (rulers – see number 2 above) is also used in connection with the leaders of the synagogue and the Sanhedrin (e.g. Luke 14:1, 18:18, 23:13).  Likewise, “ministers of God” translates the familiar diakonos, clearly associated with those in the believing community.  Since diakonos is commonly used in Scripture to describe those who serve the Lord within the community, it seems reasonable to conclude that Paul would not choose this word to describe leaders in the civil government who show no signs of ethical choices based on Scripture.  Furthermore, the foundation of being a diakonos is submission to YHWH and Yeshua so it is extremely unlikely that Paul would apply the same term to those civil authorities who never submitted to God.

Paul’s final Greek term is leitourgoi, translated “servants” of God.  These people served the community rather than an individual.  The term is used in connection with many religious functions of priests in rabbinic Judaism.  The word is also used for civil public servants, particularly taxes collectors, but Kasemann thinks it is impossible that this is what Paul has in mind.  After all, Paul uses this word to describe these people as constantly involved with the things of God.  This can hardly be the case among civil servants.  It is undoubtedly true that taxes were collected in the community according to Torah.  Paul seems to have this function in mind when he describes the tax collecting activities in the community.  Given Paul’s characterization of their relationship to God, it is impossible to claim that Paul was speaking about Roman taxes or governmental officials.  Once again, Paul’s instructions are aimed at the incoming Gentile population who would not have been familiar with Jewish Torah collection of the Temple tax and the other tithes.  Failure of the Gentile believers to cooperate with this Torah obligation would have been seen as an indication that the Gentiles did not actually serve YHWH.

It seems clear that there is no essential reason for interpreting the passage as if it applies to civil government or the government’s officials.  Furthermore, Nanos’ suggestion that Paul’s audience is Gentile believers makes sense of the entire “strong” and “weak” argument as a part of the overall concern of the letter.  Suggesting that Paul diverts his attention from his concern for a strong witness for the Messiah by suddenly speaking about civil government disrupts the flow of the letter unnecessarily.  Paul’s concern is with his Jewish brothers and sisters.  He desires above all else that they should accept Yeshua as their Messiah.  It is far more consistent to interpret the text as part of this concern rather than some distraction about Rome.

What can we say then about Paul’s use of the word “sword”?  Must we conclude that this means Paul is speaking of civil authorities and civil actions?  The Greek word used here (machairan) is the equivalent of the Hebrew word used to describe the knife used in circumcision (Joshua 5:2), the sacrificial knife used in the offering of Isaac (Genesis 22:6) and a small dagger (Judges 3:16).  It is not the Greek word used to describe the typical military sword of the Roman soldiers.  Furthermore, this term is used symbolically for a sign of judicial authority in Roman law.  Paul may be using the word as a metaphor for disciplinary action of the synagogue authorities.  There is no reason to assume that Paul is speaking of Roman civil authority here.  As Nanos suggests:

“This fits Paul’s description of the purpose of the “bearing” (psorei: “wearing,” “carrying”) of the “sword” as the “avenger of wrath.”  “Wrath” (orgen) is a deeply nuanced phrase in Judaism and thus for Paul.  God’s wrath is linked with his covenant with humanity, with the recognition of the One God and his elect people who were no longer to worship other gods.  It is a central theme of the monotheistic faith of Israel.  For the early Christian gentiles to make the monotheistic claims they would be making without “necessarily” (anagke: 13:5) adopting the “proper behavior” of “righteous gentiles,” including payment of the Temple tax, would have been the source of the synagogue “authorities” justifiable “wrath” as the legitimate representatives of God’s “order” in the congregation of the people of God.”[5]

This is the same metaphorical use found in Hebrew 4:12 where the Word of God is compared to a two-edged sword.  Furthermore, it fits the metaphorical imagery of Paul’s own description regarding the equipping of the saints with the armor of the Lord.  Nanos points out that Paul’s metaphorical use of armor in Romans 13:12 provides evidence that the entire passage is to be taken metaphorically, especially since the phrase, “proper behavior,” in verse 13 is literally “walk decently,” a clear reference to the Jewish description of Torah observance.  Nanos concludes the “synagogue officials may be said to have the authority of the sword even though they did not literally use it to discipline their members, that is, they have the right to govern their membership.”[6]

In conclusion, Nanos presents a credible argument that Paul is not writing about the general issue of civil government and obedience to civil authorities.  His argument actually resolves long-standing ethical dilemmas concerning the common interpretation of the text without doing violence to the cultural and historical context.  Nanos recognizes that Paul’s primary objective in the reconciliation of believing Gentiles and Jews.  Reading the text in this way demonstrates continuity in Paul’s thought.  Reading the text with the traditional interpretation views Paul as unfocused and distracted by peripheral issues.  Since there is no compelling reason to reject Nanos’ argument other than the traditional complicated exegesis, it seems reasonable to revise our views of this infamous section of Romans and recognize it as part of the overall plan of Paul’s desire to unify the Roman congregation around the truth of the Messiah.

[2] Luther, Romans, p. 194-195.

[3] Nanos, Romans, p. 291.

[4] Nanos, Romans, p. 295.

[5] Nanos, Romans, p. 311.

[6] Nanos, Romans, p. 313.