The Servant, or Agent, of God in Romans 13:1-7
1 Let everyone submit (hypotassō) to the governing authorities (exousiai), since there is no authority (exousia) except from God, and these that exist are instituted by God.[1]
2 So then, the one who resists this authority (exousia) is opposing God’s command, and those who oppose it will bring judgment on themselves.
3 For rulers (archontes) are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the one in authority (exousia)? Do what is good, and you will have his approval. 4 For he is God’s agent (diakonos) for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, because he does not bear the sword (machaira) for no reason. For he is God’s agent (diakonos), an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong.
5 Therefore, you must submit (hypotassō), not only because of wrath but also because of your conscience.
6 And for this reason you pay taxes, since they are God’s servants (leitourgoi)[2] dedicating themselves to this very role.
7 Pay your obligations to everyone: taxes to those you owe taxes, tolls to those you owe tolls, respect to those you owe respect, and honour to those you owe honour.
Romans 13:1-7
I was asked this week who the “servant” (diakonos) in Romans 13:4 was and if he might be a synagogue leader. In this article, I discuss who or what this “servant” was. I also look at the context of Romans 13:1-7 and how we might implement Paul’s instructions today.
Who or What is the Diakonos in Romans 13:4?
The diakonos mentioned twice in Romans 13:4 is referred to with other terms in Romans 13, including exousia. The word exousia can refer to someone in authority or to the concept of authority. And Paul usually uses the word diakonos to mean “an agent with a sacred commission.”[3] Paul’s wording indicates that he thinks the diakonos in this verse has a sacred commission and acts as God’s agent.
The diakonos in this passage may not refer to a person, however, but to the concept or exercise of authority done by rulers.[4] Accordingly, the CSB uses the pronoun “it” rather than “he” when speaking about the diakonos of God.
For it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, because it does not carry the sword for no reason. For it is God’s servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong (Romans 13:4 CSB, italics and bold added).
With this understanding, “authority” (exousia) is an impersonal agent (diakonos), a means or device, used by rulers (archontes). But who are these rulers?
Who “Bears the Sword”?
Romans 13:4 mentions a sword. The sword was the symbol of a Roman magistrate’s imperium, their legal authority, their jus vitae et necis (“right to life and death”). A Roman magistrate was someone who governed a region in the Roman Empire. He could be a consul, proconsul, or praetor, and occasionally had other titles.
Ulpian, the Roman Jurist, for example, stated, “They who rule whole provinces have ‘the right of the sword’ (Latin: jus gladii)” (Ulpian, Opinions 1.8). These governors had the right to inflict the death penalty.[5] Synagogue leaders did not typically bear swords, they did not have authority to impose the death penalty, and they were not usually regarded as “avengers who bring wrath” (Rom. 13:4).[6]
Furthermore, taxes are mentioned in Romans 13:6-7. The word used here, phoros, often referred to tribute paid to foreign kings.[7] These taxes were paid to Caesar (cf. Luke 20:22; 23:2).[8] Also, telōnēs, which means “tax collector” is related to the word for “toll” (telos), a tax on goods, used in Romans 13:7.
The context of Romans 13 rules out the possibility that the diakonos was a synagogue leader. It also rules out spiritual authorities, another idea often mentioned when discussing this passage. People don’t pay taxes to spirit beings. Paul was speaking about the authority of Roman officials in Romans 13:1-7, and he wanted the Christians in Rome to respect this authority (cf. 1 Pet. 2:17). He believed Roman authority was necessary and, overall, had a beneficial effect in keeping the peace throughout the Empire.
Paul’s Dealings with Roman Officials
Paul faced Roman magistrates and other Roman officials several times and occasionally benefited from their protection. Some of these encounters are recorded in Acts.[9]
~ In Acts 18:12-18, Paul stood before Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia. Gallio, however, was not interested in the charges brought against Paul by Jewish leaders in Corinth. He dismissed the dispute as a Jewish concern and freed Paul.
~ On the other hand, in Acts 16, the chief magistrates of Philippi ordered that Paul and Silas be beaten and imprisoned.
~ In Acts 13:6-12, Paul and Barnabas were invited to speak to Sergius Paulus who was proconsul of Cyprus during the reign of Claudius.
~ In Acts 23:11-30, Paul is rescued by Claudius Lysias from a planned assassination. Claudius Lysias was not a magistrate but a tribune and the commander of the Roman garrison in Jerusalem. I mention him because he wrote a letter to Felix about the intended crime against Paul. (Lysias is mentioned again in Acts 24:22.)
~ In Acts chapter 24, we learn that Paul was kept in custody for at least two years while Antonius Felix was the procurator of the province of Judea (52–60). During those two years, Paul had frequent hearings with Felix (Acts 23:34-35; 24:23, 26, 27).
~ In Acts 25, Paul had an audience with Porcius Festus, the next procurator of Judea (circa 60–62) and also with the Jewish Herod Agrippa II, a client king of Rome, and his powerful sister Berenice.
~ In Acts 28:1-10, Paul enjoyed the hospitality of Publius the “chief man,” or governor, of the Island of Malta.[10]
~ In Acts 28:16ff we learn that Paul arrived in Rome and spent two years (circa 60-62) under house arrest. We can assume that during this time he had an audience with Caesar. Most New Testament scholars believe Paul was acquitted and then continued his ministry, possibly travelling to Spain.
Romans 13:1-7 and Emperor Nero
Paul had first-hand experience with magistrates in different parts of the Roman Empire. The exousiai and the diakonos of God who he writes about in Romans 13:1-7 were those based in Rome and would have included the emperor who at that time was Nero.
Nero started reasonably well, but his rule became increasingly capricious and violent. In AD 64, the Christians in Rome were the target of Nero’s persecution. Paul, writing earlier in AD 56-57, was not advising the Roman Christians to needlessly submit to violence.
Paul’s appeal to Caesar and the arduous trip to Rome recorded in Acts happened after he wrote his letter to the Romans but before Nero’s persecution of Christians.
Leon Morris on the Immediate Context of Romans 13:1-7
Romans 13:1-7 seems to fit somewhat awkwardly within Paul’s letter. Leon Morris notes that this passage “forms a unit without connection to what precedes or follows it.” This has led to some regarding it as an interpolation added into an early copy of the letter. This idea is “strengthened by the fact that there is nothing quite like it elsewhere in Paul (though attention may be drawn to 2 Thess 2:6-7). Nor is there any mention of Christ in these verses.”
Some suggest the origin of this passage is Stoic, not Christian, but others regard the passage as authentically Paul’s words and integral to Romans. Paul’s purpose may have been “to dissuade Christian Jews in the capital from taking part in revolutionary movements.” Morris notes that no revolt in first-century Rome was successful.[11]
Christian Jews had been expelled from Rome a few years earlier because of unrest (circa AD 49). Aquila and Priscilla were among those who were forced to leave, but they had returned to Rome by the time Paul wrote his letter (Acts 18:2; Rom. 16:3-5). The situation of the Jewish Christians in Rome was insecure and potentially volatile. Paul may have given his instructions in Romans 13:1-7 with this particular historical context in mind.
The Relevance of Paul’s Advice Today
Paul’s advice to cooperate and comply (hypotassō) with Roman magistrates is given in general terms.[12] He gives no specifics or qualifications. And, as with all biblical instructions, his words in Romans 13, if they are to be followed, should be interpreted and implemented using wisdom and kindness.
Dedicated followers of Jesus throughout the centuries have at times resisted and disobeyed governors and other leaders. Some have spoken up against wicked and harmful regulations. Civil disobedience can be a godly response to harmful leadership.[13]
Importantly, we need to bear in mind that many of us today are living in an entirely different context from the first-century Roman Christians who were a small and vulnerable group. They were not living in a modern democracy. Our responsibility as citizens living in democratic nations, with leaders who we vote for, is vastly different from the Christians living in first-century imperial Rome. However, like our first-century brothers and sisters in Christ, we should be praying for our governments (1 Tim. 2:1-2).[14]
Romans 13:1-7 and the Broader Context of Romans
Furthermore, an interpretation of Romans 13:1-7 shouldn’t lose sight of Paul’s statements elsewhere in his letter. In Romans 10:9, Paul wrote, “If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
Richard Rohr comments on the phrase “Jesus is Lord.”
“Jesus is Lord” (Romans 10:9) was proclaimed by the early church, as their most concise creedal statement. … To say “Jesus is Lord!” was testing and provoking the Roman pledge of allegiance that every Roman citizen had to proclaim when they raised their hand to the imperial insignia and shouted, ‘Caesar is Lord!’ Early Christians were quite aware that their “citizenship” was in a new universal kingdom, announced by Jesus (Philippians 3:20), and that the kingdoms of this world were not their primary loyalty systems.[15]
Our first loyalty is to Jesus and his kingdom. Paul’s instructions in Romans 13:1-7, which were likely given with a particular and precarious situation in mind, at a specific moment in history, do not override this primary and lasting loyalty. They also do not override the “law of love” which Paul goes on to talk about in Romans 13:8-10, because love is the fulfilment of the law (cf. Matt. 22:37-40; Gal. 5:14). Our attitudes and actions, including our obedience to scripture, should be motivated by and guided by love for God and love and kindness for people.
To sum up, Paul was not asking the Roman Christians to unnecessarily submit to foolish or harmful leadership. Nevertheless, he wanted the Christians to be compliant with Roman authority so that they could avoid wrath, violence, and persecution. Paul understood the political tensions of his time.
Footnotes
[1] In Jewish Wars 2.350, Josephus uses exousia to refer to Roman authority. He advises the Jewish people to comply with Roman authority and not provoke it. (English translation; Greek)
[2] Leitourgos is used here with the sense of “public official.” (LSJ entry.) The LSJ entry on the cognate verb is here.
[3] I have more on the word diakonos here.
[4] Diakonos is grammatically feminine in Romans 16:1 when it refers to Phoebe, and it may be feminine in Romans 13:4. If exousia (“authority”) in Romans 13:3 is the diakonos (“agent, minister”) of God in Romans 13:4, which seems the best way to take the Greek, then diakonos must be feminine because exousia is a grammatically feminine word. This point is brought out in a few commentaries on Romans. See Meyer’s and the Expositor’s New Testament Commentaries on Romans 13:4 on Bible Hub here.
[5] Philostratus in his Life of Apollonius 7.16 wrote, “Now the Emperor’s ‘sword’ (Greek: xiphos) was at that time in the keeping of Aelian …” (English translation; Greek) This means Aelian had been given authority from the emperor to extract justice including the death penalty. See also Philostratus, Life of the Sophists 1.25.2 (pp. 108-109).
[6] After a few words explaining that ius gladii was the power given to provincial governors in the first two centuries of the Roman Empire, Harrison writes that “it is probable Paul is warning believers against becoming involved in activity that could be construed by the Roman government as encouraging revolution or injury to the state. … To engage in subversive activity would invite speedy retribution, as the word ‘sword’ implies.” Everett F. Harrison, “Romans” in The Expositors Bible Commentary, Volume 10 (Zondervan, 1976), 139.
[7] Justin Martyr uses phoros in his First Apology where he claims that Christians pay their taxes to Rome more readily than other people (Apology 1.17, English translation; Greek)
[8] The Jewish people also paid a temple-tax for the temple in Jerusalem. This temple-tax was not paid to synagogue leaders in Rome. It was collected by other Jewish officials (Philo, The Special Laws 1.78).
[9] Paul’s “pride in his Roman citizenship and his readiness to appeal to it in critical situations are also reflected in Acts.” Harrison, “Romans,” 136.
[10] The description of Publius in Acts 28:7 as τῷ πρώτῳ τῆς νήσου (“the first, i.e. chief, man of the island”) was an “official title of the Maltese representative of the Roman praetor to Sicily, to whose province Malta belonged.” Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary (Source: Bible Hub)
[11] See Morris, Romans, 457-459.
[12] Leon Morris states, “Paul is writing in general terms to meet the needs of the Roman and not legislating for every conceivable situation in which the Christian might find himself.” Morris, Romans, 459.
[13] For example, the midwives Shiphrah and Puah disobeyed Pharoah and God blessed them for it (Exod. 1:15-12). Peter and John refused to obey the Jewish rulers, elders, and teachers of the law, including the high priest, when the Sanhedrin (the Jewish council in Jerusalem) met and decided to ban the duo from teaching about Jesus (Acts 4: 5-6, 15-20; 5:29).
[14] Athenagorus (A Plea for Christians 37) and Tertullian (Apology 30-32), among other early Christians, mention praying for the Roman government, the emperor and his family. Arnobius, writing during Diocletian’s persecution of Christians, states that in church gatherings “prayer is made to the Supreme God, peace and pardon are asked for all in authority, for soldiers, kings, friends, enemies, for those still in life, and those freed from the bondage of the flesh …” (Against the Heathen 4.36)
[15] Richard Rohr, “Richard’s Daily Meditations” May 1, 2013. (Online Source)
© Margaret Mowczko
All Rights Reserved
Thank you to those whose support help me to write articles such as this one.
You can support my work for as little as $3 USD a month at Patreon.
Become a Patron!
Image
“The Apostle Paul explains the tenets of faith in the presence of King Agrippa, his sister Berenice, and the proconsul Festus” by Russian artist Vasily Surikov (1875). Public Domain (Source: Wikimedia)
Explore more
My articles which discuss the word exousia (“authority, right”) are here.
My articles which discuss diakonos (“agent, servant, deacon”) are here.
My articles which discuss hypotassō (“submit”) are here.
A Note on Hebrews 13:17
An interesting article on Paul’s encounters with seven Roman officials, written in 1898, is here.
1 thought on “Who is the Servant of God in Romans 13:4?”
Hi Marg.
You make a good point about Nero not being a tyrant at the beginning of his rule. However, when Paul wrote Romans he had already been beaten with rods three times (2 Cor 11:25). Are we really to believe that Paul thought that those who beat him were God’s avengers, bringing wrath on those who did wrong (including on himself!)?
Luke’s audience knew that Luke had to choose his words carefully (for their own protection). Therefore we should not take its surface meaning (public transcript) on Roman authorities at face value. For example, the audience knew that Sosthenes was Crispus renamed and this does effect how they would have understood Acts 18:17. Gallio did not side with Paul. Rather, he gave the synagogue Jews jurisdiction, saying “see to it yourselves.” At that point they did see to it themselves, by beating up Crispus who had defected to Paul’s camp.
So I am not persuaded that Paul can be referring to Roman authorities in Rom 13:1–7. What about the possibility that the sword here is metaphorical? Compare the military metaphor in Rom 13:12. Also, could these authorities be the church leaders (principally Mary (Rom 16:6))? This would fit the context, which concerns relationships among Christians.