Let Every Soul Be Subject?

Part 1 of 2
A Study of Romans 13:1-7
By
Tom Atkinson

It is generally thought that Romans 13:1-7 deals with the Christian’s relationship to civil government.
However, there have been alternative views. New Testament scholar Oscar Cullmann has argued that the
word “authorities” in this text meant “invisible angelic powers that stand behind the State government”. 1
Although Paul does use this word elsewhere to mean “angelic authorities” (e.g. Col. 1:16), the evidence is
overwhelming against that meaning here. For example, in Luke 12:11 the same word for authority is used
for magisterial authority. In addition, Jewish historian Josephus uses the term to express the “authority” of
the Roman procurators of Judea (Jewish War, ii.350). Thus, the most natural reading of the text is to take
him to mean the Roman government. But, what does it mean when he says “let every soul be in subjection
to the authorities?’ This is the most difficult aspect of the text.

Verse 1: Let every soul submit (hupotassestho) to the higher powers (exousia). . .for there is no
power except/under/by God, and they that are under God are ordained of him.

Verse 3: For rulers are not a terror to the good (agathos) but to the evil and it is your wish not to
fear the authorities. Do good and it will bring you praise.

Verse 4: For he (the ruler) is a servant (dia’konos) for God for good but if you do evil, a
terror/fear. For he wares not the sword (macharian) in vain; for he is the servant of God, an
avenger unto wrath to the one who does evil

This passage is well within the tradition of Judaism in the positive view it takes of the state. 2 It is clear
from this text that God, not man, is the source and origin of civil government. This view is also reflected in
the OT via the prophets. Daniel 4:25b “the most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives them to
whom he will”. Furthermore, Jesus himself asserted as much when he stood before Pilate:

Pilate therefore said to him, ‘You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to
release you, and power to crucify you?’ Jesus answered him, ‘you would have no power over me
unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin’
(John 19:10-11).

At this juncture, some questions are in order: What does it mean to say that the “rulers” are “servants” of
God for good? How are we to apply this text in every day practical experience? Does it mean that we are
to “obey the laws of the land” even though we may believe that such laws are out of harmony with what we
know God to say? What actually constitutes the “laws of the land”? Is the law of the land the same for a
person living in the USA as it would be if we were in Saudi Arabia? These are the type of questions that
should be on our minds in seeking to understand how to apply this text. Therefore, it seems that the
following observations are in order:

1. This passage does not offer a comprehensive, ‘once and for all’ definition of the state. This passage was
written sometime between 54-58 AD. At that point in history Paul could write about the state in a more
1
Oscar Cullmann, in Christ and Time as quoted by C.K. Barrett. A Commentary on the Epistles to the Romans, p.244
2J
ohn Ziesler, Paul’s letter to the Romans, p. 89
positive light. However, by the time we get to Revelation 13, John paints a more negative portrait of the
governing authorities.3 Therefore, the historical context/circumstances dictate how this text is to be viewed
and how the State itself is to be considered.

2. This passage does not teach that the state has ‘all authority”. An unfortunate view of the state is that the
state has almost a “blank check” to demand/enforce its way on the church. This view tends to see every
supreme court decision, congressional action, etc. as “law” to be obeyed. However, this text reduces the
role of the state from that of “lord” to that of a “servant” (diakonos-deacon). R. J. Rushdoony notes:

As we have seen, Paul does not give us an abstract theological premise for the state. He was
answering a very pressing problem for Christians: Two lords claimed dominion over them, Christ
and Caesar. With Christ as their Lord, what was their relationship to Caesar? Paul reduces the
state and Caesar from Lordship to servitude to God, to a deaconate. 4

Of significance here is the fact that Paul views the role of government as that of a “servant” (dia’konos).
The noun dia’konos means “minister” or “servant. This is certainly not the way governments, as a general
rule, tend to function. Sadly, in our nation we are currently going through a transition wherein the
government is anything but a servant to the people. Which leads me to a third observation, this text does
not rule out civil disobedience on the part of a Christian.

3. This text does not rule out civil disobedience on the part of a Christian. If this passage
is to be understood it must be balanced with Acts 5:29. Acts 5:29 plainly says “We must
obey God rather than man”. To assert that Christians should never be involved in issues
that lead to civil disobedience is to assert that which is contrary to Scripture and history.
The State, according to Paul is to be a “servant” of God for “good.”

To describe the state as a servant of God for “good” is no small point! The word
translated “good” is the Greek word agathos. This is the same word used when Jesus
says “none is good (agathos) but God” (Mark 10:18). It describes the very nature of
God! Therefore, to say that government is to be a “servant” of God for “good” is to say
that government is to do that which is in harmony with God! To the extent that the
Government does that which is consistent with God and His Word to that extent its laws
are legitimate. Romans 13, contrary to much popular opinion does not teach that person
should blindly obey any and/or everything some judge, congress or even the “Supreme”
court may say! It is not an endorsement to blindly obey the laws of the land. Sadly,
generations of Christians in our country have been taught the opposite. Consequently,
much has taken place in our nation which has taken us away from God ordained
principles of civil law.

The late Christian philosopher, Francis Schaeffer, has an excellent way of stating the
importance of this matter.

3
Tim Sensing, ‘Revelation 13:1-10’ (Unpublished Paper: Harding Graduate School of Religion, April 1983).
4 Rousas John Rushdoony, Christianity and the State, p. 100
 Has God set up an authority in the state that is autonomous from Himself? Are
we to obey the state not matter what? Are we? In this one area is indeed Man the
measure of all things? And I would answer, not at all, not at all.

When Jesus says in Matthew 22:21: ‘Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God
what is God’s, it is not:

GOD and CAESAR

It was, is, and it will always be:

GOD
And
CAESAR

The civil government, as all of life, stands under the Law of God. In this fallen
world God has given us certain offices to protect us from the chaos which is the
natural result of that fallenness. But when any office commands that which is
contrary to the Word of God, those who hold that office abrogate their authority
and they are not to be obeyed. And that includes the State.4

The State and The Sword

As a side note of our study, one issue that often comes up in association with this text is
the issue of Capital Punishment. It is not uncommon, whenever the State executes
someone for a capital crime, to see protesters marching up and down the street with signs
reading “thou shalt not kill”, “if you kill you are no better than the accused”, etc… The
implication of all these objections to Capital Punishment is that it is against the Will of
God for the state to carry out executions. However, this is clearly not in harmony with
Romans 13.

Romans 13:4 says that civil authorities “bears not the sword in vain.” There are
individuals who are so evil that only the restraint of the sword can control them. The
word “sword” is the same term used to describe a “war/battle” sword. It was a symbol of
authority.5 In my view, based on this evidence, this text clearly authorizes the
government to use the death penalty against certain crimes. Verse 9 quotes the Old
Testament and says “thou shall not kill” (literally “murder”). Murder was a crime
punished by execution under the Old Testament (Exodus 10:13; 21:12). However, this
principle predates the Law of Moses (cf. Genesis 9:6). It seems that Paul assumes the
validity of this practice in his day as well.

Conclusions

4
Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto (Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1981), pp. 90-91
5
A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament
This writer would argue that the text is clear, once understood within the broader context
in which it is writen.

(1). Romans 13 is not intended to be a “once and for all time definition” of the State and
one’s relationship to it! At the point in history in which the text was written, the State
had not yet turned to persecution of Christians. In fact, depending on the time in history
passages (both Old and New Testament) often depict the State in very negative terms!
(cf. Psalm 2 and Revelation 13).

(2). Romans 13 gives a different image of the state than that which is currently being
fostered upon the American people (or the people of the whole world for that matter).
Here Paul clearly says the State occupies, in the chain of God’s command, the role of a
“servant.” In fact, further study of this word would show a very different image from that
often portrayed in the terminology of Christians today. Lusk, offers an excellent
summary on the history and nature of this word. 6
6
In fact, further study of this word would show a very different image from that often portrayed in the
terminology of Christians today. Lusk, offers an excellent summary on the history and nature of this word

The word "diakoni'a" means "ministry" and the verb diakone'o means "to minister to." 
Neither of them mean "deacon" or "to deacon," which is how the Catholic Church
attempted to portray them.  Of all the occurrences of the verb diakone'o (37 occurrences in
the NT) it means "to minister to" or "to serve," and the noun diakoni'a (34 occurrences in
the NT) is used for "ministry" or "service."   The noun dia'konos means "minister" or
"servant."  To translate the word as "deacon" is to not translate it at all, it is to transliterate
it, which means to substitute  English letters for the Greek letters, as was done with the
word baptize, which in Greek means to immerse.   None of these words could be
intelligently understood by a Greek speaking person of the first century as "deacon" "to
deacon" or "to serve in the office of deacon." 
 
If this is the case, why do we have the word "deacon" in 1 Tim 3:8 and 12, and Phil 1:1,
and the expression "to serve in the office of deacon" in 1 Tim  3:10 and 13?   In the post-
apostolic period the office of deacon was identified with the seven men of Acts 6:1-7, who
were basically assistants to the bishops.  When the scribes attempted to translate the Greek
dia'konos into Latin in the culture of the Roman Catholic Church, the Latin noun
dia'conus was created to avoid the actual translation of the word as "minister."   Then in
the English translations of Wycliffe and Tyndale, both of whom were Catholic priests, the
word deacon was simply absorbed into the English translation and the English language in
general. 

The reason for all of this chicanery was to protect the practice of celibacy of the priests of
Catholic Church.  When faced with the fact that the dia'konos of 1 Tim 3:8-13, must be the
husband of one wife, a biblical precedent was clearly found to be in opposition to the
dogma of the Catholic Church.   If they translated the word dia'konos as "minister," as it is
translated in 27 of it 30 occurrences in the NT, it would have created a serious problem for
the dogma of the celibacy of the priesthood.    So, a secondary office was created for the
one called a deacon who was distinct from the priest, thus avoiding a challenge to the
dogma of celibacy for the priest, who was distinguished in terminology from the priest,
thus disassociating the priest from the 1 Tim 3:8-13 text.  

Later, as the Protestant churches separated from the Roman Church, this transliteration
was carried over into their traditions, as was the role of priests, bishops, and archbishops,
even though the doctrine of celibacy was later rejected by the Protestant churches. (For
(3). finally, this text, contrary to some modernist in our midst, does not teach that the
State has “all” or “final authority”, nor does it teach blind obedience to the State on the
part of Christians! In fact, the possibility of Civil Disobedience is not ruled out by this
text! Rather, the State is to be a servant of God, for the people and not the other way
around! The State is not God!!

In our next installment we will specifically address the Christian and the role Civil
Disobedience might play in today’s world.

**********

further study and elaboration on this and other Biblical studies see Maurice W. Lusk, III,,
at http://www.godstory.net