Questions for Understanding Romans 13

Romans 13 has proven to be somewhat of a debated text throughout church history, to but it mildly. Today, it is used by Christians of all stripes to support their own political ideology. In particular, libertarian Christians have been questioning the dominant protestant interpretation of Romans 13 as granting moral legitimacy to the modern state. Much good work has been done to place Romans 13 in the broader biblical-theological context drawn from key texts such as 1 Samuel 8 and Revelation 13.

However, one generally lacking feature in libertarian circles with regards to the discussion of Romans 13 is a detailed grammatical and syntactical exegesis of the text. If we libertarians ever wish to convince the broader Christian community that ours is a biblically faithful position, we must provide such. Toward that end, here is my list of questions that need to be answered to provide a persuasive interpretation of Romans 13:1:[1]

General

1. Is there any significance to Paul’s switch between the singular and the plural throughout?
2. Is there any significance to the use of words from the τασσ- family? What is the distinction between each compound formed from different prepositional prefixes?
3. What is the significance of Paul’s choice of the indicative mood throughout (with the exception of the imperatives in verses 1 and 7)?
4. How does Romans 13:1-7 relate to the end of Romans 12?
5. What is the OT background for Romans 13?
6. Do Paul’s encounters with the Roman state in Acts shed any light on this passage?
7. What role does the analogy of Scripture play in your interpretation? What other passages shed light on Paul’s teaching here? How does Paul’s teaching here shed light on other passages?

Verse 1

1. What is the semantic domain of ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις? Was it used in other century writings in the ancient world? If so, how?
2. What is the semantic domain of ὑποτασσέσθω? How is Paul using it here?
3. ὑποτασσέσθω is in the imperative mood, is this a command that the first century audience would have been able to obey? If so, how? If not, why not?
4. What is the semantic domain of ἐξουσία?
5. What is the semantic domain of τεταγμέναι? What specific details in the context indicate how Paul is using it here?

Verse 2

1. How is ὥστε functioning? To what is it subordinate?
2. What is the semantic domain of διαταγῇ? How is Paul using it in this context? What does it mean that “the authority” is an “ordinance” of God?
3. Is there any shift in meaning between ἀντιτασσόμενος and ἀνθεστηκότες? Why or why not?
4. Is the judgment (κρίμα) God’s judgment or the judgment of the governing authorities or both?
5. What is the significance of Paul’s use of the future indicative λήμψονται?

Verse 3

1. How is γὰρ functioning? To what is it subordinate?
2. What is the semantic domain of ἄρχοντες (v.3)? To what does it refer? Is it significant that Paul returns to the plural?
3. What do ἀγαθῷ and κακῷ (v.3) mean in this context? Is Paul referring to good and evil in general or with regard to civil order?

Verse 4

1. How is the first γὰρ functioning? To what is it subordinate?
2. What is the semantic domain of διάκονός? How is Paul using it here? Does this shed any light on the identity of the ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις/ἄρχοντες?
3. What is the significance Pauls use of the indicative mood for ἐστιν and φορεῖ?
4. How is the second γὰρ functioning? To what is it subordinate?
5. What does it mean to “bear the sword” in 1^st century Roman Empire context?
6. How is the third γὰρ functioning? To what is it subordinate?
7. Is the wrath (ὀργὴν) God’s or the rulers?
8. What is the significance of the connection between this verse speaking of wrath (ὀργὴν) and an avenger (ἔκδικος) with 12:19, “Beloved, never avenge (ἐκδικοῦντες)  yourselves, but leave it to the wrath (ὀργῇ) of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance (ἐκδίκησις) is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’”
   • How is Paul using Deut. 32:35? Does the context of Deuteronomy shed any light on Paul’s theology here?
   • How does the author to the Hebrews use Deut. 32:35 in Heb. 10:30? How does his use compare to the use here?

Verse 5

1. How is διὸ functioning? To what is it subordinate?
2. Whose ὀργὴν is Paul referring to?
3. What is the semantic domain of συνείδησιν? How is Paul using it here?
4. Is there any significance to Paul’s οὐ μόνον… ἀλλὰ καὶ construction?

Verse 6

1. How is διὰ τοῦτο functioning? To what is it subordinate? What is the antecedent of τοῦτο?
2. What was the tax (φόρους) to which Paul is referring? What is the OT background? What is the Roman background?
3. How is γὰρ functioning? To what is it subordinate?
4. What is the semantic domain of λειτουργοὶ? How is Paul using it here? What is the OT background for
5. What is the antecedent of αὐτὸ τοῦτο?

Verse 7

1. What is the semantic domain of ἀπόδοτε? How is Paul using it here?
2. What is the precise meaning of the construction: dative article + accusative article + accusative substantive + accusative article + accusative substantive? How are we to interpret these pairs? Can we interpret some in one way and others in another?
3. What are the precise meanings of φόρον, τέλος, φόβον, and τιμὴν? Are these terms used in the LXX, if so, how?

A Few More Things

In addition, any serious interpretation needs to interact with the relevant literature. I’d suggest that a serious interpretation needs to interact with the commentaries by the following authors (in addition to the relevant academic articles):

1. Charles Hodge
2. John Murray
3. C. E. B. Cranfield
4. William Hendrikson
5. James Dunn
6. Doug Moo
7. Tom Schriener

Similar lists could be made for Titus 3:1 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 and perhaps that is something I will undertake in the future. The Analogy of Scripture teaches that any interpretation of Romans 13:1-7 which contradicts the teaching of Scripture elsewhere is not the true interpretation, so texts like these do play a significant role.

I hope this is helpful and I welcome any additional questions that need to be added to my list. I may start my own project to answer these questions, but my hope is that someone more qualified with more free time (if such a thing exists anymore) will beat me to it!

---

[1] This is by no means an exhaustive list, but it a beginning. In addition, any full fledged theology of the state must deal with more than one passage and even a full interpretation of this passage must incorporate the other theological disciplines: biblical, systematic, historical, and practical.