Romans 13

3For 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. 4For 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.

Alright, I was reading Romans 13 (NIV) the other day and came across these two verses, and I simply can't make any sense out of them. What Paul is saying here simply doesn't make any sense -- Paul knows full well that the "civil authorities" (as he calls them earlier in the chapter) are not always God's servants to do good. In fact, I can think of very few cases where this actually was the case. And Paul can hardly claim igorance -- he has his example in Jesus Christ himself. Pilate was hardly doing good when he ordered Christ's crucifixion. He was hardly an "agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer" in this case. And of course the Roman rulers in the next three centuries would greatly persecute Christians. I just can't make heads or tails of these two verses, and I can't understand why Paul would make such obviously false statements.

Any insights?

a couple... but let me address something first in your examples:

Okay... let's say Pilate DIDN'T order Christ's execution... then where are we? You really want to get muddled up try wrapping your mind around that one for a while... but anyway on to your real question.


My guess is Paul is trying to create a chain of command in the church or some way of holding people accountable. The easiest way of doing that is to make people acceptant of authority. There have been debates among various Christian Churches about the acceptance of authority, even corrupt authority, as ruling by divine right. Maybe they don't deserve to BE in power, but they are, and that must be part of God's plan. I think what you see there is the precursor, Paul trying to wrestle with that himself and ultimately deciding, yes these civil authorities have been granted earthly power over us, and we should for now be obiedent to them and accept that God has granted them authority over us.

That being said I disagree with that particular philosophy/religious approach, but that is more because of my own personal religious understanding of Christ's message and teachigns... anyway.

Medieval Catholic philosophy often held that it was unjust to rise up against a tyrant, because even a tyrant was put into power via God's authority.

Nevin, I'm not sure why this should confuse you, since you always bring up how you believe that God has a plan for the world.

Wouldn't you say that even unjust rulers fit into God's plan?

Of course, but the ends hardly justify the means (in my opinion).

Yes, I would -- but it is Paul's choice of words which bothers me. I do agree that unjust rulers are part of God's plan, and that we need to recognize that Earthly suffering is all part of a greater good. But that is not what Paul says. Paul says, do right and rulers will not hurt you. They will only punish evil people, for they are God's servants to do good. This simply isn't true, no matter what way you look at it.

That seems somewhat plausible, I suppose. As I said before, Paul's choice of words still bothers me, but I suppose I oughtn't get into semantics anymore without knowledge of the original text.

Perhaps this passage is as much an exhortation to the ruler as it is to the ruled--suggesting that this is how the ruler should act.

As for this, well Paul was just a man, and I personally don't believe that there's any reason to think that everything Paul said was 100% correct. I mean sure it's "obviously false," but I suppose that most people at some point or another have stated obviously false statements.

It's not that I automatically expect Paul's letters to be inerrant. I don't. It's that this isn't an "understandable mistake," it's clearly false (the way I'm reading it), and Paul really ought to have known that it's false.

That is actually a possibility. A lot of Greek verbs do seem to have more complex meanings that what we translate them as in English. I recall, for instance, upon more closely examining the passage where Jesus says he will give his disciples the "keys to his kingdom," and that what they condemn and allow on Earth will be condemned and allowed in heaven, he is actually just as much commanding them to condemn and allow on Earth that which is already condemned and allowed in heaven (in other words, to follow God's law in all things) as he is saying that they have authority to condemn and allow. So while he is giving them the "keys to his kingdom," it was conditional. This may be similar.

Government is supposed to act as God's agent of wrath and punishment here on earth. Government is punishing arm of God, per se.

But what Paul is talking about, is that as far as it has to do with Believers, we should obey our earthly authorities unless they command us to perform an action that is against God's will.
And Paul is talking about Rulers, those who abide by the law, who use wisdom and good judgment. In those poeple you will find favor in doing good. Now sometimes (actually a LOT of times God puts a rather evil person in a place of power. We are still called to obey, but it is not gaurenteed that we will have a perfect life free from persecution.

Paul is talking about the institution of the civil government, not every single individual government to have ever existed.

There were probably new Christians who were saying that they were not bound by any law but the Law of God and were refusing to obey Rome. What Paul is saying is that we must obey God, but we must also obey the authorities put over us: our parents, our church leaders, our civil leaders, etc. unless they go directly against the Word of God.