- Romans 13 for Dummies -

Ok, here we go. Let's start with some historical/social context around Romans 13.

Paul is talking to the body of believers in the city of Rome, a la Roman Empire. The Roman empire in the time we're discussing was headed by Tiberius, followed by the 3

year and 10 month rule of Caligula, then 13 years under Claudius, and then finally Nero. Tiberius himself was noted as "the gloomiest of men" and shortly after the death of his son retired from Rome and left pretty much every aspect of his rule to administrators. Caligula meant

well but was pretty much a flop, and Claudius, while something of an embarrassment to his family, was of exceptional intelligence and turned out to be a pretty competent administrator, but made the mistake of marrying Aggripina, by all accounts a vindictive bitch who had a son

named Nero from a previous marriage whom she convinced Claudius to name as heir over his own son. It is believed that she poisoned him after he made a comment alluding to doubt over his decision to go with Nero. And that was that for him.

Nero became emperor at the age of 17

and was active in his persecution of the early church and publicly announced himself to be "the first among God's chief enemies." By contrast, Claudius, fancying himself a polytheist, tended to tolerate other gods and religions (saving for Druidism, zero tolerance because they

practiced human sacrifice which Romans generally considered abhorrent). But even Claudius was known for his annoyance with Jews and Christians and did try to have them expelled from Rome during his rule. Nero, though, went much, much further. It was rumored but as far as I know

never proven that he himself set fire to Rome and blamed it on the Christians as an opportunity to both build himself a better palace (and clear out slums) and have further reason to persecute Christians when the fire spread further than intended and he needed a scapegoat.

Paul's letter to the believers in Rome is, by all accounts, written during Nero's reign. Within a year of becoming emperor, the man who considered himself enemy #1 to God had murdered his younger (step-)brother, the day before the boy was to legally become an adult. So that's the

government they were living under. Paul himself was both Roman and Jewish, the son of a Pharisee, member of a pious family from Tarsus, educated by the best of the best (particularly Gamiliel who, while also being a Pharisee, was actually sympathetic to Christians), and was

personally involved in the persecution of the early Christians. His persecution of them was as a Hebrew, a Pharisee in particular, and not as an agent of Rome. While Rome had conquered the Jews and technically ruled them, they were a subject people and thus ran most of their own

affairs with a number of extra regulations and caveats and what have you (for instance, as a subject people of Rome they did not have the authority to conduct executions, that power was taken from them, and they needed Rome's permission, hence Pilate's involvement in the matter

of Jesus's crucifixion). When we think of Judaism today, we think of a religion independent of political rule, but it was clearly and indisputably a legal/political system in the time we're referencing. So while he wasn't an agent of Rome, he was absolutely what we'd call a

statist, acting as an agent of the governing body of Israel, which had become subject to the Roman Empire, which the Jewish people hated and desperately wanted out from under. Part of why Jesus was despised by the Jewish leadership was because he was hailed as the Messiah by

commoners but they were convinced whomever the Messiah was would deliver them from the bondage of Rome, much like Moses had from Egypt. But instead, this Jesus guy was jeapordizing their power and control and calling them out for the corrupt, power hungry frauds they were... That

what they claimed was not what they did, that they used legalism for their own gain, that while they gave lip service to love for God they were furthest of all from actual love for God. Paul was basically a zealot and loathed the early Christians for the threat they posed to

Judaism as a faith, a way of life, and a social/political order. They threatened everything he'd ever known. These people were saying things that were going to destroy his country.... That we weren't bound by law? How dare they...

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Political leaders

the law for their own gain, giving lip service to liberty but their every action is against it... Hating those who speak the truth and squashing them wherever they can. Patriots and nationalists threatened by this "new" idea that we're doing it wrong and don't need the rulers

that are all they've ever known, zealously defending those rulers who oppress them (all they've ever known). Those leaders who hate our ideas because they threaten their power. Just something to chew on. We're more alike than we are unalike, aren't we?

On to Romans 13, shall we?

It starts off with: "Let everyone be subject 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. 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 you will be commended. For the one in authority is

God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible

punishment but also as a matter of conscience.This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if

honor, then honor.

So let's look at that for a second... "There is no authority except that which God has established." He could have said "The authorities in place are what God has established." But he didn't. He said there isn't any unless God established it. What authority

has God established? Man over himself... Man over animals and nature... He did kinda cave back in 1 Samuel 8 to Israel's whining about wanting a king to be like the rest of the world (so God didn't establish those kings). He even tried to talk them out of it, explaining how much

harm it would cause and warning them they'd regret it. So it's clear God didn't establish the world governments and only *permitted* Israel to have one against his preference... And we know that Paul most definitely knew this when he wrote it. So who is he talking about when he

says to submit to governing authorities? Because come on, are we really supposed to believe this bizarre implication that we're all to submit to government? That we're "better" Christians than all the disciples who were literally murdered by government *for their disobedience*??

You can't actually believe that Paul was saying "Nero is a servant of God to do God's work", when Nero himself publicly declares himself God's chief enemy? That Nero holds no terror for those who do right? LMAO! You'd have to be brain dead to actually think that's what Paul is

saying.

So then, what did he mean? Turning to the original Greek, we find that the words used for governing and authorities are translated in the King James as higher and powers. The word translated “higher” (“governing” in the NIV), is huperecho which is derived from “echo,"

meaning “to have, hold, or possess,” and huper, which when used as a prefix means “over, beyond, or more than.” There is nothing about this word that indicates government. The word, “power” is translated from exousia. There are several Greek words which essentially mean

“power” with nuances of differences in meaning as to what kind of power. Exousia generally refers to power in the sense of authority. Let every soul be subject to those who hold higher authority. What authority is this talking about? There is nothing about these words that

indicate the kind of authority referenced. That information can be gained *only* from context. Incidentally, the word for ruler used in Romans 13 was used for Moses in the old testament (and for church leaders, elders, synagogue leaders, Peter and Paul, etc etc etc. Yes, it

*could* refer to a government ruler, but archon was generic and could clearly mean any type. Was Moses (or Peter or Paul) a ruler or a chosen leader? Did people follow Moses because they wanted to and chose to or because Moses had enforcers that would hurt them if they didn't?

(That's a big clue. Dominion and authority are not synonymous.)

So now that we know it's not quite as concrete as we've been taught, we must turn to context to see if that offers us any more clues.

What's Paul talking about before and after this passage? Chapter 12 consists

mostly of do's and don'ts for believers, in relation to each other. He's talking about how to treat other members of the body of believers. He's talking about internal church matters. And then this supposed section on "obeying government" as it's taught, after which he's talking

about how to treat new believers, those new to the faith. So why on earth would we think that in writing a letter to believers in Rome (remembering that he's simply writing and there are no chapters, those are just for ease of study for us reading later), Paul would go from

talking about internal church matters and how to treat each other, and then suddenly for no reason topically wander off and instruct everyone to obey the evil oppressor who declares himself God's enemy because he's God's servant, and then as though it never happened come back on

topic and go right back to internal church matters and how to treat those younger in the faith journey? The simple answer is that he wouldn't. It's absurd. Obviously, context makes it even more preposterous.

So what authorities established by God could he be talking about in a

discussion of internal church matters? Gee, maybe church leaders? And maybe that's why he says submit yourselves to---because internal church leaders under this new covenant aren't going to force submission with soldiers and jails because that goes against God's established order

for the whole of creation, and so especially for believers. This fulfillment of the law in Jesus changed *everything*... Jewish leaders *did* have guards and enforcers and punishers and persecuters (Paul was flogged by them at least 5 times! If he was obeying them, they'd have no

reason to beat him.)

Romans 13 is not in any way an instruction to obey "authority" established by man (which is merely dominion, and which is precisely what the old covenant church and the Sanhedrin became under the new covenant). Even our own government, the US Gov't, claims

it's authority is derived from the consent of the governed, which we know is untrue. It's damning proof that it is not from God, and thus is not in any way a governing authority as described by Paul. But what Romans 13 *is*, however, is a perfect primer for respecting the natural

law established by God, that of self-ownership and voluntary association, where submission is only by choice and not by force. And for the piéce de résistance: the greek word translated as "tax" in Romans 13 (and in Luke 20:22 where Jesus is questioned about the "tax" to Caesar)

is translated in the King James as "tribute". Do you know why? Because the word is phóros and it means "tribute" or "payment" (literally it means to carry or bring, to give--think "phosphorous" as in to carry light, that's where it comes from). It does not mean "compulsory

contribution to state revenue, levied by the government."

Holy crap that took forever. Sorry. lol

The "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" will come another day when my thumbs have rested.