Romans 13

CHAPTER XIII

The Christian under Government and in This World, chapter 13

After starting with the fundamental transformation of the Christian, due to justification by faith, chapter 12 shows the Christian among Christians, a member of the spiritual body (12:4, 5). The conclusion which states how he is to act toward his enemies touches also upon his relation to non-Christian enemies, thus preparing us for the next view: The Christian in the Secular World. He lives in a secular world that is controlled by a secular government. The church exists in this world. How shall the justified man, whose obligations as a member of the spiritual body have been outlined, conduct himself in this secular world? This is the natural advance of thought.

As chapter 12 is a unit, so is chapter 13, the latter naturally following the former. This is sometimes not clearly seen although it is rather obvious. First of all the Christian finds himself to be one among many fellow Christians (chapter 12); he also finds himself as one who is still living in a secular world. To begin with, he is a citizen under a secular government (v. 1–7). What are his obligations as a Christian who is living under such a secular government? This is a perennial question; Paul answers it as such.

Then, too, the Christian lives in a great secular world, amid a vast secular population. What obligations rest upon him because of this relation? Paul answers in v. 8–10. Then he adds the thought that the Christian lives as one who is a Christian indeed amid all his secular relations, that he is awake to the light of salvation that has dawned for the world; that he knows the wonderful season or period of this world into which his life has been placed (v. 11–14). The whole chapter is coherent and compact, a presentation of the secular relations of the Christian, the most comprehensive in the New Testament and thus of permanent value for Christians of all times.

To raise the question regarding some special reason for Paul’s exhortation to the Romans regarding secular government is to turn off on a tangent. The special reasons to which we are pointed are unconvincing. Paul lays down only the great positive principles. As we read them we at once see that they apply to all times, to us as well as to the Romans, to our relation to our secular government as well as to their relation to theirs. The question as to how it is possible for a Christian to live under a pagan government is not touched. The question of a persecuting or of an evil government is also not considered.

We find no hint to the effect that a Nero was on the throne; in fact, neither the emperor nor any other individual who might be regarded as a governmental head is named. Paul uses the abstracts ἐξουσίαι, ἐξουσία, and the plural concrete οἱἄρχοντες, and that is all. No covert allusions are found. So nothing can be observed in regard to the conduct of the congregation or its membership at Rome. All lived quietly and peacefully. There were not one agitator, not a single clash with governmental authorities, no trace of persecution, no academic questions or opposite views in the church at Rome.

These are the simple facts, and in their light we read Paul’s instructions.

The fact that the Jews wanted independence for Palestine is of no consequence for a Christian congregation, the Jewish members of which were combined with Gentile members. These Jewish members had not only discarded Judaism but had made their permanent homes in Gentile Italy. The fact that Claudius had expelled the turbulent Jews from Rome plays no part in Paul’s injunctions, for the Jews had returned to Rome. There were at least enough of them to afford membership for seven synagogues. Claudius had been a great friend of the Jews, but the rioting in Rome went to excess. The fact that it in no way involved the Christians of Rome Acts 28:17, etc., shows conclusively.

See the author’s exposition of the pertinent passages in the Acts. No special local conditions are reflected in our chapter, and none shed special light on any statement made in it.

1. Every person, let him range himself under superior authority! For authority does not exist except by God, and those existing exist as having been arranged by God.

No Christian is to be an exception; everyone, as a Christian and because he is a Christian, is to keep in proper subjection and obedience to governmental authorities. The use of ψυχή to designate a living person is common practice; of course, Paul is writing only to a Christian congregation. The injunction is broad and general, and in his elucidation Paul keeps it so. Hence he also uses the abstract noun in the plural with the article: “superior authorities,” literally, authorities “being over or above.” Note that ὕποτασσέσθω and τεταγμέναι correspond; we regard the former as a middle. It is significant to note that Calvinistic writers subscribe to Paul’s dictum with a reservation which even Robertson enters in his very brief notes in W. P. “Nor does he oppose here revolution for a change of government.” Paul does oppose this very thing on the part of the Christian.

The reason for Christian self-subjection is the fact that “authority (namely governmental) does not exist except by God,” by agency of God. We commonly say that the state is a divine institution and thus put Paul’s dictum into other words. It is God’s own doing that such a thing as governmental authority and power (ἐξουσία covers both) exists among men. God has issued no decree on the subject but has constituted man so that in any community, large or small, he must have order and some sort of authority to enforce that order. From the way in which God has thus made men we see his will.

In the first statement we have the plural “authorities,” in the second the singular “authority”; both are equally abstract, the only difference being that the singular summarizes all governmental authority while the plural spreads out to all grades and ranks of such authority. Both singular and plural draw our attention only to the authority exercised as such and disregard the persons who administer this authority.

No particular form of authority is specified: imperial, monarchical, oligarchical, republican, democratic. Whether this authority is exercised in a noble or in an oppressive manner, whether it was attained in a legitimate or in an illegitimate way, neither limits nor qualifies the Christian’s position. One implication is plain: anarchy is not according to the will of God. While it has had its theoretical advocates it could not be established so as to continue, for it is the abolition of all governmental authority.

When Paul wrote he scarcely had in mind his personal experiences as a Christian under Roman authority, the climax of which was yet to come when he suffered martyrdom; but he certainly had in mind the Jewish authority which forced Pilate to send Jesus to the cross and his own violence as a rabid tool of the Sanhedrin which led to the martyrdom of so many of the first Christians. The fact that authorities and authority may act criminally changes nothing as to God’s will regarding their establishment among men. The flesh may question that, but the spirit does not.

Lest the statement, “Authority does not exist except by God,” be understood only as an abstract proposition, or as a rule allowing certain exceptions, Paul adds: “And those existing exist as having been arranged by God.” Here the plural is again in place, for it includes all governmental authorities from the highest imperial to the lowest magisterial. Ἔστι, αἱοὖσαι, and the last εἰσίν denote existence, the perfect participle being merely predicative: “as having been arranged by God.” Τεταγμέναιεἰσίν is sometimes regarded as a periphrastic perfect passive indicative (R., W. P., who so regards practically every copula and perfect participle); but the two forms of εἶναι which precede plainly signify existence. Therefore this should also be the force of the third form.

“By God” becomes emphatic because it is repeated. God’s providence has arranged the existing governmental authorities; without his providential agency not one of them could exist. A striking case in point is Pharaoh mentioned in 9:17, perhaps as hardened a ruler as ever lived; God himself indicates his great providential purpose in raising him to the throne. Evil rulers are often sent to punish a nation, even to the point of wrecking its existence. The history of the kings of the two Jewish kingdoms is illuminating, and most certainly the history of the Sanhedrin and of the Jewish kings of Paul’s time. Yet, as in the entire domain of providence, the ways and the purposes of God are generally “unsearchable” and “untraceable” (11:33) to finite minds.

Romans 13:2

2 Paul adds what necessarily follows: Therefore, he who ranges himself against the authority withstands the arrangement of God; and they who withstand shall receive judgment for themselves.

Note that the two τάσσω forms used in v. 1 are followed by a second two and make a fine annominatio (R. 1201); and ὑποτασσέσθω, “range himself under,” is the opposite of ὁἀντιτασσόμενος, “be ranging himself against.” Paul points out the sin of the one who ranges himself against the governmental authority, the one that is at the time being exercised over him: he is withstanding the very arrangement of God. Note that “God” is repeated for the third time. The rebel or revolutionist may think that he is fighting only men; the Christian is to know better. It is clear that the judgment which such men will receive for themselves (sich zuziehen, B.-P. 730, and L.: draw down on themselves) is a verdict from God and not merely one from men.

Κρῖμα is a neutral term, but here the connection requires an adverse judgment. How it will be executed, and what its severity shall be, Paul leaves unsaid. It may be executed by the government itself. The fact that in the next verse “the rulers” are mentioned is not sufficient reason for assuming that this “judgment” is the one they inflict; for the point in all that precedes is the fact that God is involved; and this is the important matter for the Christian.

It is plain that refusal to obey, such as that mentioned in Acts 4:19, 20; 5:29, is not included. God himself ordered this disobedience through his angel (Acts 5:19, 20). The Sanhedrin, and that doubly because it was a Jewish authority, had no authority to muzzle the preaching of the Messiah. Refusal to obey was not in any way standing against the arrangement of God and the governmental authority this high court possessed.

Romans 13:3

3 “For” explains, not merely how the judgment results, but this entire arrangement of government by God and states how it functions and what the Christian is to do accordingly. For the rulers are not a fright for the good work but for the bad. Now dost thou not want to be frightened by the authority? Keep doing the good and thou shalt have praise from it. For God’s minister it is to thee for the good. But if thou doest the bad, be frightened! For not in vain does it bear the sword. For God’s minister it is, an avenger for wrath to the one doing the bad.

“The rulers” = “authorities” and “the authority.” It is a concrete term but a broad and general one, any and all officers of government. Ἄρχοντες has the generic article, and the statement that they are “not a fright for the good work but for the bad” states the object of governmental authority from the viewpoint of both the governing and the governed. We translate this word “fright” in order to make the following verbs match, “to be frightened—be frightened!” for Paul plays on the word. The R. V. loses that wordplay: “terror—have fear—be afraid” by using different words. The point is that God wants the rulers everywhere to be what Paul states; they are that by his appointment. The fact that rulers fail in this primary function is an incident that is not discussed here. Government is for the administration of justice; it condemns itself when it descends to injustice.

By using the word “fright” Paul intends to be deterrent. The world is full of wicked men, and God has placed rulers among them to check and to control this wickedness by means of laws and penalties, all of them being directed, not against good deeds, but against evil deeds. Luther has often said that it is God’s way to hold the world which is full of bad fellows in check by means of bad fellows as rulers. “Fright” points to threatened punishment. “To the good work” and “to the bad” are impersonal, and laws and penalties deal with a citizen’s deed. They would frighten him away from the bad deed and thus keep him to the good. “Good” and “bad” are used in the secular sense, as men, government, human laws, regard a deed good or bad in what is called the justitia civilis, the plane of natural right and justice. In “the good deed,” “the bad one,” the articles make each specific: this or that actual deed. The statement that ἔργον is to designate the whole course of a citizen’s life is a needless addition.

Since, according to God’s arrangement, this is the predominant function of rulers, the question for the citizen is: “Dost thou not want to be frightened by the authority” vested in them? The natural answer, of course, is “no”; only a criminal would scoff at this φόβος. The second person singular “thou” is the individualizing representative singular (R. 408). Paul uses it frequently beginning with 2:1, 17; he also employs the first person singular in the same way, notably in chapter 7. He might have used a general plural; “They who do not want, let them,” etc. The singular is more graphic and dramatic. That, too, is why we regard the sentence as a question and not as a declaration: “Thou dost not want to fear the authority; (very well, then) be doing the good thing,” etc. “Thou” does not single out a Christian but refers to any citizen; the presentation is kept along general lines.

“Keep doing (durative, iterative present imperative) the good thing, and thou shalt have praise from it,” i.e., from the secular authority, thou as a good citizen who is law-abiding in the thing that thou dost at any time (the article is used as it was before). God’s purpose in arranging government will thus be accomplished. To be sure, the motive for doing the good thing is only the fear of the authority; Paul uses that word three times. As it is the lowest, so it is the broadest motive, the final one in a world of sinful men, including even the criminally inclined. The higher Christian motive will be indicated presently. Yet even we must remember that government works with compulsion, with police force, with military power.

It does so in the nature of the case, must do so; and even God’s saints are subject to this secular power as citizens. The fact stands; God has so arranged. As the motive, so is the “praise” for the law-abiding citizen “from it” (the human authority).

Romans 13:4

4 The predicate is emphatic because it is placed forward: “For (looked at aright) God’s minister (and no less) it is (the authority of government) to thee for the good,” ethical dative: “for thy benefit,” in its way compelling thee to do “the good” and on its part doing thee good in return, protecting thee and aiding thee as a member of the community and the state. Compare the famous passage in Plato’s Crito, where Socrates, although condemned to die, elaborates on the “laws” and the benefits they work. Paul presents the same natural ethics but calls attention to a fact the pagan philosopher did not see, that God himself is back of the secular authority, “laws,” etc.

Paul does not say that “the rulers” are God’s ministers, for they may abuse the authority, may wreck the state. He calls the authority “God’s minister,” for he refers to its exercise which accords with God’s own arrangement (διαταγή, institution, v. 2). The casual questions about abuse, bad and vicious rulers, do not affect the main issue. Διάκονος is to be understood in the sense explained in 12:7, where we have διακονία: a minister who helps for the sake of helping. “God’s minister” is repeated, the genitive being placed forward each time, thereby emphasizing still more the threefold mention of God in v. 1, 2, the author of this governmental authority. The genitive is not objective as though God receives this ministry; “to or for thee” names the recipient; the genitive indicates origin or possession: God’s own tool.

Δέ presents the other side: “But if thou doest the bad, be frightened!” You certainly have a reason to be. “For not in vain does it (the authority) bear the sword,” which is here not a mere symbol of power but the actual sword in the hands of the executioner who inflicts the death penalty on criminals. This reference to the extreme penalty includes all lesser penalties. Extremes are regularly used thus; murder, for instance, includes anger, reviling, etc.; adultery includes lustful looks (Matt. 5:21, etc.). Paul is writing to the Romans as a Roman citizen, hence he uses μάχαιρα, the Roman short sword, which was used for executing citizens, used for executing Paul because he was a Roman citizen. The discussion deals with what the state does to its citizens; what it does to criminal aliens or slaves is a side issue.

The fact that Christianity and the New Testament sanction the death penalty and that they ought not to be cited to the contrary, is plain. The New Testament, however, lays down no laws for the secular state on any matter. This is left to the natural sense of right and jutice found among men, who also bear the responsibility for the laws they put into force and must bear the consequences, whether these are beneficial or detrimental. Shall a state inflict or not inflict the death penalty for extreme crimes? The answer is one that the state must give. In the Jewish theocracy God inflicts the death penalty; Paul speaks for himself as a Roman citizen in Acts 25:11.

Nero is often introduced at this point. He had been emperor for three years and had not yet developed into the monster that he later became, the matricide, the bloody tyrant, the persecutor of Christians. The claim is made that, if Paul had written later, he would not have written as he does. This claim cannot be sustained. The Jews had had Herod the Great, a monster as great as Nero; they had had the bloody Sanhedrin which crucified Christ, allowed Stephen to be stoned, employed Saul as their agent of bloody tyranny. And the Sanhedrin operated under the theocracy when its frightful violation of God’s own civil laws occurred.

Were these facts momentarily forgotten by Paul? They change nothing regarding God’s arrangement (διαταγή) of state authority. His institution of marriage stands, no matter what abuses men perpetrate. His institution of Christian congregations and of the Christian Church stands despite what some congregations and some church bodies do. To imagine for one moment that God is involved when tyrants and popes arise is a misapprehension. God reckons with every one of them.

No Nero can possibly alter the facts and the principles here laid down.

The authority is equally “God’s minister” in regard to the criminal, in this case “an avenger (one who exacts justice, see the verb and the noun in 12:19) for wrath to the one doing the bad.” The word “wrath” appears eleven times in Romans, and in each instance it is God’s wrath that is referred to (see 1:18); here it is the divine wrath as executed by God on the evildoer through the government as his “minister.” Εἰς denotes purpose and object. Where the consciousness of God is still found in a criminal he will realize that the penalty inflicted on him by the state is God’s punishment for his crime and sin, the evidence of God’s wrath. Luke 23:40, 41. This is the verdict of the conscience.

Romans 13:5

5 A natural conclusion follows: Wherefore (there is) necessity for being in subjection, not only because of this wrath, but also because of the conscience, the one being an outer necessity which the citizen cannot escape by outward means, the other an inner necessity which holds him even more firmly because of whatever consciousness of God he still possesses. With ὑποτάσσεσθαι Paul reverts to v. 1. There it is an admonition, here it is a statement of necessity. “Because of the wrath” = because of the penalty that would be inflicted for non-subjection, this penalty evidencing God’s wrath against us. The subject is still the representative singular “thou”; a change of subject would have to be indicated, “ye” in our versions would necessitate ὑμᾶς. “Because of the conscience” = because of the condemnation which the conscience itself which seconds the wrath would inflict.

We cannot agree with the view that “the wrath” refers to non-Christians, “the conscience” to Christians. This would imply that conscience functions only in Christians. It functions in many non-Christians and at times fails to do so in Christians. Nor does the fear of punishment always deter. The same is true with regard to the rulers. Still the double necessity exists.

This, however, is true, that every Christian is held most strongly by his conscience which also has been, at least should be, properly enlightened. Worldly men often have so little conscience in regard to government that police force alone can deter them. On conscience and how it works even in pagans see 2:15, 16. Where neither penalty nor conscience deter, crime results, and then the authority steps in, at least it ought to.

Romans 13:6

6 For for this reason also you keep paying taxes, for public servants of God are they, steadily attending to this very thing. Duly give to all their dues: tax to whom the tax, tariff to whom the tariff, fear to whom the fear, honor to whom the honor.

When we note that τοῦτο and αὐτὸτοῦτο refer to the same thing we shall not let “for this reason” mean: because of the double necessity of being subject. Paul is not saying that we pay taxes because we have to. The reason is stated in v. 3, 4; it is because of what the government does in suppressing and in punishing crime and in fostering good deeds. Paul now calls the rulers “public servants of God” who as such are “steadily attending to this very thing,” namely suppressing and punishing crime and keeping people doing things that are decent. And it is a fact, we pay our taxes for that purpose; for if we did not, if government ceased or became too weak, crime and disorder would quickly so overrun us that we should of our own account organize some force to restrain it and gladly pay whatever this might cost.

Paul is not so much arguing and proving as he is pointing out the basic facts regarding government in their due connection. Διό in v. 5 introduces a natural deduction: διὰτοῦτο in v. 6 states the underlying reason. The one makes a deduction from v. 3, 4, the other simply points back to v. 3, 4. Because “for this reason also” precedes, τελεῖτε cannot be imperative, as some would have it, who then think of a number of reasons that the Roman Christians were disinclined to pay taxes. Our versions that translate this word with the indicative are right: “you are paying taxes.” Paul points out the great reason for which they are paying them. Jesus settled this question a long time ago, Luke 20:25, and himself paid the tax, Matt. 17:27.

The word λειτουργοί does not have a sacred, priestly connotation because the Temple ministrants were at times so called. Nor should one stress the pagan use of the term which applied to rich citizens who out of their own funds paid the heavy expenses of the Athenian public choruses or for fitting out triremes for the public service. The λειτουργοί here referred to were not under heavy expense for their public services: they were under no expense whatever, the public paid their expenses by means of taxes. The term applies to anyone who acts as a public servant in a public capacity: thus to a military servant, a royal servant, Paul himself as a public servant for the Gentiles (15:16), Epaphroditus as officiating for the Philippians (Phil. 2:25), Christ himself in the most exalted capacity (Heb. 8:2). “God’s ministers” emphasizes “God’s,” while “public servants of God” adds only the genitive. In v. 4, where the benefit derived from rulers is emphasized, “God’s diakonoi” is the fitting designation; here, where taxation for their support in office is mentioned, “public servants” is the proper term. But even then they are such servants by God’s own arrangement.

Paul confines his words to the Christians: “you are paying,” and is no longer speaking in general terms. This plural “you” at once turns also to admonition (v. 7, etc.). Since προσκαρτερέω is regularly construed with the dative, some hesitate in regard to having the participle modified by εἰςαὐτὸτοῦτο; a simple dative would, however, refer to “God.” “To this very thing” implied in their work as “public servants,” the chief part of which is stated in v. 3, 4, these servants “steadily attend.”

Romans 13:7

7 Paul puts his approval upon paying taxes for the reason assigned. The imperative does not imply a reluctance on the part of the Romans since it follows Paul’s instruction, it implies only that the Romans are to act intelligently as well-instructed Christians in “duly giving to all their dues,” whatever may be due to the representatives of the government under which God himself has placed them. The four τῷ which are followed merely by the four objects lead grammarians to supply something. But to supply: “to the one (asking) tax,” etc., is not correct: asking fear, asking honor. Our versions have: “to whom the tax (is due),” the preceding ὀφειλάς furnishing the cue.

All of the articles denote “the tax—the honor” that is rightfully due from us as citizens. Φόρος is “tax” and is here not tribute paid by a subject nation while τέλος is “tariff.” Both are given equally for the support of the government. Paul has mentioned “fear” and stated what one should do that he may not fear. That is, the fear which he now has in mind, by having which we need not have it. Some extend “honor” to any person to whom honor is rightfully due; but why this sudden unmotivated broadening?

Romans 13:8

8 First, secular government; next, all other secular contacts. The line of thought is clear, the next step follows in due order. No explanations are needed on this point; Christians are surrounded by other people in their communities, and one word is really enough to regulate their entire secular life: love.

Be owing no one anything except to be loving each other! Love is the only debt that the Christian not only permits to stand but of necessity must let stand. The obligation to love is new every morning like the light of another day. Love to the limit, you can never get through. All other debts the Christian can and should pay and be done with, this debt of love he will constantly owe and constantly pay. “Be owing no one anything” does not mean: “Never contract a debt, never borrow money or anything else!” for Jesus himself commands us to lend (Matt. 5:42) and thereby shows that borrowing is not wrong.

The tense is present: “be owing,” and means that as Christians we will not let a debt stand after payment is due. Until payment is due, the debt is in abeyance and thus not a debt for the moment; but when it is due, it must be met, and that then ends the matter. The debt of love never ends. Here there is the same obligation toward Christians as that mentioned in 12:9, it is the love of understanding and corresponding purpose; see 1:7 and 12:9. Τό makes ἀγαπᾷν a noun and thus the object of ὀφείλετε.

It is readily seen why Paul mentions love: For he that loves the other has fulfilled law. There is a paradox in the tenses: By our constant loving the debt of love is never paid off; and yet by our constant loving it is always already paid off! The paradox is true: never paid—always already paid. “Has fulfilled” = has done so in the instant of his loving. R. 898 lists this as a futuristic present perfect; it is the regular perfect to indicate an act just past: the moment I love I have fulfilled law. Yet this goes on continually. Construing together τὸνἔτεροννόμον: “has fulfilled das anderweitige Gesetz, or das uebrige Gesetz, the other (further) law,” is an exegetical curiosity.

Love is the entire summation of the law and not a further part of it. Love for another human being is the whole of the second table of the law even as Paul here states.

Here, as elsewhere, anarthrous νόμος is “law,” qualitative, anything properly deserving the name “law,” and not just the Mosaic code of law. Ὁνόμος is the latter, and then not always. The distinction is clearly carried through in 2:12–27, as we have shown. Yet some, like R. 796, do not agree and justify their view by pointing to the fact that Paul cites the second table of the Mosaic code (v. 9). But he cites this code only as being the best and the purest example of “law” and does not exclude any other code that adequately presents law.

Romans 13:9

9 For this: Thou wilt not commit adultery! Thou wilt not murder! Thou wilt not steal! Thou wilt not covet! and if there be any other commandment, in this statement it is summed up, namely, in this one: Thou wilt love thy neighbor as thyself!

The article τό regards the four commandments as one substantive and includes the εἰ clause and makes this comprehensive substantive the subject of “is summed up.” This verb is not derived from κεφαλή, “head,” but from κεφάλειον, Hauptsache, and means a summation of the chief and essential point (C.-K. 597, etc.). The essential substance of all these and of any other commandments regarding our relation to other men is expressed in the one statement: “Thou wilt love thy neighbor as thyself,” which is taken from Lev. 19:18. The future tenses are volitive legal futures, but volitive for the person addressed by demanding what his will shall be. Hence we translate, “thou wilt,” and not, “thou shalt.” These futures are common in legal dicta and as such are highly peremptory: “Thou wilt do so and so with no contrary thought even entering thy head.”

Already in connection with v. 1–7 we noted that Paul is repeating the very teaching of Jesus in regard to government and taxation; he certainly repeats the master’s instruction here, compare Matt. 22:34–40; Luke 18:20; and the lawyer’s question in Luke 10:29. Paul even has the same order of the commandments as that found in Mark 10:19, and Luke 18:20, where the Sixth Commandment is named before the fifth, compare the LXX. The original order found in Exod. 20:13, 14 is thus not binding, either in regard to these two commandments or any others. Paul cites four, the usual number when complete exemplification is desired. Any four taken from the second table would serve his purpose, see the fourth which pertains to children.

The point that these commandments are stated in a negative form, and that their sum is given in a positive form is not stressed. All these negatives fully imply their corresponding positives just as the final positive summary implies its corresponding negative. Paul is not stressing form but inner and essential substance. Luther saw this when he began the explanation of every commandment with the words: “We should fear and love God.” Ἐντῷ repeats and thus emphasizes, and this article also makes a substantive of the commandment of love.

Romans 13:10

10 Paul adds the characteristic point of this summary of love, which stresses the activity of love: This love works no ill to the neighbor. The article refers to “the” love of which Paul is speaking. It is never only a feeling or a mere disposition but always also an energy that works, namely with inherent intelligence and purpose. It could not possibly remain inactive. In this respect it is like God’s love (John 3:16). Paul’s own elucidation is negative: “it does not work ill,” anything bad, damaging. This whole field is utterly closed to it. That leaves open to it only the field of “good.” So Paul’s negative = “it works only good.” As to “the neighbor,” the one with whom our love comes in contact, Luke 10:29, etc., furnishes the perfect instruction.

Now the final deduction: Fullness, accordingly, of law—this love. A look at the Mosaic law shows that. So the Christian must ever be paying this debt of love although he has already paid it (v. 8). Πλήρωμα is neither “fulfilling” nor “fulfillment.” The latter may also be understood as an activity, although it may mean result. Forms with the suffix -μα denote result (R. 151); so here: “fullness,” when one “has fulfilled” (v. 8), when one has achieved the result, “fulfillment” in this sense. “Law” is again to be understood in its broadest sense. Law is the vessel. Manifest the love Paul describes, and it fills the whole vessel.

Look into the vessel. Its whole fullness is love. And nothing except love ever fills it to any degree, pour in as much as one will. The article marks the subject, its absence the predicate; thus ἡἀγάπη is the subject.

Just as in v. 1–7 Paul omits all the side issues regarding government, so he here omits all the side issues regarding our fellow citizens: who is to be included, whether any man is ever excluded, our falling short of love, etc. All this shows that Paul has no peculiar local Roman conditions in mind.

Romans 13:11

11 The idea that, after speaking about all men in general, Paul could recall no further persons in regard to whom he could admonish Christians (12:1, 2, in regard to themselves; 12:3–21, in regard to each other; 13:1–7, in regard to rulers; 13:8–10, in regard to men in general), and that he now therefore merely seeks a transition to chapter 14 and the discussion about the strong and the weak, is not tenable; this is not a transition. The idea that to walking in love there is now added the parallel of walking in light, love and light being a natural pair, is likewise untenable. The point to be noted is the καιρός, the ὥρα, the specific period and time in which we live, when final salvation is nearer than ever—this must arouse us. In v. 11–14 we have a conclusion which forms a culmination to what precedes.

And this, too, knowing the time-period, that it is already time for us to be aroused from sleep, for now the salvation is nearer to us than when we came to believe. The night has advanced, and the day is near.

Because he uses so many terms expressing time one can clearly note Paul’s point. The very time in which we live at this moment must rouse us to fullest activity in heeding Paul’s admonitions. Luther has found some followers who adopt the construction: Und weil wir solches wissen, … so lasset uns ablegen usw., which results in a highly involved sentence with two parenthetical clauses and is out of keeping with chapters 12 and 13, and unlikely. Others supply: “And this (do), knowing,” etc., which is nearly correct. In reality we supply nothing, for καὶτοῦτο, like the more frequent καὶταῦτα, is complete in itself and is rather idiomatic: “And this, too,” an absolute nominative (scarcely an absolute accusative), “and” and “also” (or “too”) are combined in καί, R. 1181. Τοῦτο refers back to what Paul has been saying. We need not go back to 12:1, etc., or to 13:1, etc., for 13:8, etc., is ample.

As Christians we certainly know the καιρός, the time-period at which we have arrived; it is not “the nick of time,” for this word always refers to a certain extent of time which is in some way marked to distinguish it from other such stretches of time. The epexegetical ὅτι clause at once states what marks this present period: “that it is already time for us to be aroused from sleep.” Ὥρα is often used, not to designate “hour” (60 minutes), but a specific time: the moment has arrived, the alarm clock is ringing. “Sleep” is figurative for anything resembling delay, carelessness, indifference. The sleeper likes to put off leaping out of his easy bed. “Already” is to be construed with “it is” (understood) and not with the infinitive: “already to be aroused.”

The texts vary between “us” and “you”; we accept the former reading, for it seems that it was changed to the latter by copyists who imagined that Paul would not say concerning himself that he, too, still needed arousing from sleep. But Paul ever admonished himself as much as he did others. He frequently changes from “we” to “you” and might do so here; see “let us” in v. 12. But he can well say here, “that we be aroused,” because he himself not only needs but also heeds his own admonition, in the next breath calling out as one aroused, “Let us cast off the works of darkness,” etc.

With γάρ he explains what he means by saying that it is time to be aroused from sleep: “For now the salvation is nearer to us than when we (first) came to believe.” Here we have “we” and “us” beyond a doubt. “The salvation” is the great and the final deliverance, our transfer into heaven. Every day, every year since we first came to faith (ingressive aorist) has brought us a step nearer to it. The Lord may return for his Parousia at any time; or, if we die before the Parousia, it will amount to the same thing for us, for we shall appear at his Parousia in the condition in which we are when we die. We must combine “nearer to us” and not “our salvation,” for if ἡμῶν be placed before ἡσωτηρία, it would carry an unaccountable emphasis: “our salvation.” In order to get the simple “our salvation” the pronoun would have to follow the noun.

Romans 13:12

12 Paul repeats tersely, showing at just what point we are living: “The night has advanced, and the day is near.” The Greek has the aorist: “did cut forward” in the sense of “did advance,” whereas our idiom requires the perfect: “has advanced.” So also the Greek “has come near” means, “and is now near.” “The night” is the present world age, “the day” the heavenly age to come. This night ends with the Parousia, the everlasting day of blessedness and glory begins. Even since we first came to faith the breaking of that day has come nearer to us.

Paul is often charged with believing and saying that Christ’s glorious return would certainly occur during his own lifetime, and therein, of course, he was mistaken—a false prophet. Paul spoke in two ways exactly as we are obliged to speak in our time. It was neither for him nor for us to know the times or the seasons, Acts 1:7. Christ warned us that his return would be like the thief coming in the night, suddenly and unexpectedly, in the very hour when many are sure that he will not come. He points us to the Flood and to Sodom and Gomorrah. So Paul spoke, and so we, too, speak in two ways, as if Christ may return tomorrow, and as if he may delay for a considerable length of time.

This is due to the fact that we do not know and to the sharp warnings about the unexpectedness of the coming. The night of this world with its black pall of sin had certainly lasted a long time when Paul lived, thousands of years. As the next event Christ had promised his return. Yes, it had come near. Now almost 2, 000 additional years have passed. The night has now certainly cut forward still closer to the sudden break of the final day.

Like Paul, we can do only one thing: be ready every moment, be fully aroused while so many sleep. 2 Pet. 3:4–14.

Let us put away, therefore, from ourselves the works of the darkness, and let us draw on the weapons of the light. There is no reference to nightshirts or pajamas in ἀποθώμεθα. The first clause is literal. “Let us put away from ourselves, let us rid ourselves of, the works of the darkness.” The article points to the whole category of such works. “The darkness” is like “the sin,” which since 5:12 we have found so often almost personified as the sin power; “the death” likewise, the article is always significant. So here “the darkness” = the darkness power; and “the works of the darkness” = the works of the devil, he being the embodiment of this power. “The darkness” matches “the night”; as long as this world age lasts, “the night” continues, “the works of the darkness” go on continually, and we Christians live in this world age and are constantly beset to join in these works. Not for one moment does Paul exempt himself.

He uses the aorist in the hortative subjunctive: “let us decisively put away from ourselves” (middle voice). This does not mean as a man puts off his “night clothes.” Was Paul, and were the Roman Christians still dressed in “the works of the darkness”? Or did they have some rags of this nightshirt or of these pajamas still clinging to them? The word means: “Let us once for all separate ourselves from all such works so that no solicitation to join in them, and no inward desire to join in them may contaminate us.” The danger is that we become careless, negligent, and, instead of abiding by our decision, yield here and there. The temptation is great because so many about us think it strange that we run not with them to the same excess of riot and speak evil of us, 1 Pet. 4:4. Paul is not implying that he and the Romans were still in “the works of the darkness.”

Paul plainly implies that he has no “night clothes” in mind when he adds the positive to the negative: “Let us put or draw on the weapons of the light.” Weapons are not clothes. Fortunately, we have Paul’s own picture of the Christian hoplite (heavy-armed soldier) and a list of the ὅπλα which constitute his panoply for standing in battle, Eph. 6:13, etc.: girdle of truth, breastplate of righteousness, gospel shoes, shield of faith, helmet of salvation, sword of the Word. Ὅπλα signify full equipment, and “let us put on ourselves” the equipment shows in what sense the verb is here to be understood. This verb is often used with reference to clothes, for they, too, are drawn on ourselves; but here we have “equipment.” Again we have the article: “of the light,” in the sense of the light power, the opposite of “the darkness power.” According to Eph. 6:13: “the panoply of God” = “the equipment of the light,” so that “the light” refers to “God,” whose great attribute is light, who is ever victorious over the devil and the darkness.

Before the day arrives, the glorious world age about to come, while the night of this dark world age, in which the devil rules to such an extent, still continues, Paul wants himself and all Christians to be thus clothed in the full panoply of the light. Certainly not because these “weapons” will be needed for the fast-approaching day. The moment that day arrives, all fighting will be over. We are to fight the good fight of faith here, during the night; our weapons of the light are to drive from us “the works of the darkness.” We are not merely to stand in shining armor but to do battle, to stand victorious until the Lord arrives or until he calls us away before he arrives.

The aorist of the hortative subjunctive means, “Let us once for all clothe ourselves”; it asks for finality. Both of these aorists do not imply that these acts had not hitherto been done; Paul as one, and he includes himself, had put away the works of the darkness and had armed himself with the weapons of the light. The answer to these aorists is: “We have already done so!” If any are slack and slow, these aorists come to rouse them: “We will at once do so completely!” But all need these aorists again and again. They are to ring in our ears so as to keep us staunch and true and fully armed at all times. We gladly hear them sounding forth in the entire church every first Sunday in Advent.

Romans 13:13

13 As in daytime let us walk decorously, not with carousings and drunkennesses, not with harlotries and excesses, not with strife and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ and be making no provisions for the flesh for lusts.

In v. 12 the two hortatives are naturally single acts and thus aorists; but unlike the one act of putting away from ourselves and the one act of clothing ourselves with armor, walking is naturally continuous and extensively so when it is used figuratively with regard to the course of Christian conduct. This, then, is a constative (summarizing) hortative aorist subjunctive. It considers our whole conduct as one grand unit.

“Day” is without the article and is not “the day” of v. 12, for the heavenly day has not yet come, we are still in “the night.” Hence Paul also says, “As in daytime,” and this is general: as people walk and act in daylight when everybody sees them; in the dark, where no one sees them, they feel no restraint. Jesus uses this very distinction in John 3:19, 20: wickedness likes the cover of darkness, good actions gladly come out into full daylight. So while we are still in “the night” we are not to walk in night deeds, in “the works of the darkness,” but as men walk in full daylight, “decorously,” in good and proper form. “Honestly,” i.e., honorably, reproduces the general idea. Of course, this decorous conduct of the Christians is to be utterly sincere and not like that of worldly men who act respectably when they are seen but damnably when they think no one sees or will find out.

Three pairs of negative datives of manner throw the positive adverb “decorously” into bold relief. The darker the background, the sharper the white image set against it. Paul mentions some of the worst works of the darkness, and pious folks ask: “Can it be possible that the Roman Christians needed warning against such wickedness?” They should really ask how Paul could possibly include himself, for he writes: “Let us walk not with carousings,” etc. One answer Isaiah 1 Cor. 10:12. Another is Christ’s own warning in Luke 21:34, which names these same sins. All the apostolic writings proceed in the same way.

This is done not only because the naming of the worst excesses is intended to include all lesser ones, which is a very common reason in Scripture for naming the worst, but also because to this day, when the devil brings Christians to fall, especially such as have had the reputation of great sanctity, he often drags them into the most shameful sins. Paul’s psychology is genuine; he does not operate with illusions and assumptions, he knows human nature. How many “excellent” church members have been caught in vice and crime and been stained with utter disgrace!

The world loves “carousings” and “drunken sprees” to this day and regards them as great pleasure, especially as long as they can be kept secret. We have no exact English counterpart to κοίτη, “couch” or “bed,” a euphemism for sexual intercourse, the plural indicating that harlotries, whoring is meant. In the old days of paganism these abominations accompanied many celebrations at temples, and Paul wrote 1 Cor. 6:15–20. Those who have visited the excavated ruins of Pompeii will know what is to be seen there in the way of brothels. The pagan world stank with vice, and does the modern world stink less?

Ἀσέλγειαι = excesses, Zuegellosigkeiten, Ausschweifungen, unbridled acts, whether sexual or of other kinds. Finally Paul mentions “strife” or quarreling and “jealousy,” of which the world is full, and of which the church has always had far too much. These are samples of “the works of the darkness” of which our conduct must ever be rid. Not only must the fully developed growth be absent but equally the little poisonous sprouts that the devil’s seed tries to start everywhere.

Romans 13:14

14 From the hortative subjunctives, “let us,” Paul finally turns to the peremptory aorist imperative which is incisive and strong. But this turn from “let us” to “do ye” does not imply that Paul now excludes himself. For he now points to the positive and basic acts by which the three preceding hortations are carried into effect, and in these Paul is involved as much as any Christian. Luther has the correct interpretation. With the command: “But put on the Lord Jesus Christ,” Paul “briefly draws into one heap all the weapons of the light.” Christ is put on in two ways: once as the garment of our righteousness, which is done in the instant when faith appropriates his death and his merit (Isa. 61:10; Matt. 22:12, the wedding garment); secondly, as our armor of defense and of offense (Eph. 6:13), which is the act of faith when it uses Christ as the power of our sanctification and follows his example. The solemnity of the full name “the Lord Jesus Christ” (see 1:4, 7) should be noted.

“Let us draw (put) on ourselves” in v. 12 and “draw (put) on yourselves” in v. 13 denote the same action. The view that this verb means only drawing on one’s clothes leads not only to confusing the garment of Christ’s righteousness with our life in sanctification but also to the incongruity: “that they who have arisen from their night couch allow themselves to be seen not unclothed or in incomplete clothing in the daylight and in public” (Zahn). Paul is not saying: “Be justified!” or: “Take the Lord Jesus Christ for your justification!” but: “Be sanctified!” “Take Christ for your sanctification!” We need not say how dangerous it is to confuse these two even by misunderstanding a metaphor. Ἐνδύω is not confined to garments. The ὅπλα are utensils, equipment, weapons; in Eph. 6:13, Paul uses ἀναλάβετε, “take up” the πανοπλίαν. The fact that “the Lord Jesus Christ” is used after this same verb “draw on for yourselves” plainly indicates that he is the embodiment of our weapons, our full panoply. As for being naked or only half-dressed in daylight and in public, this idea confuses “the day” with “as in daytime.”

The last admonition must necessarily lose much in translation, for we cannot place the genitive first and the phrase last as the Greek does and obtain an emphasis on both; nor can we get the same effect as the Greek does with its use of the article and its absence of the article. “And for the flesh (the body we all have, through which so much sin tries to invade us, objective genitive), any forethought (you may take, no article), do not be making it for yourselves (durative and middle: making it at any time) for (anything in the way of) lusts (εἰς, for the purpose of lusts of any kind and for lusts as the result).” Any forethought we may take in providing for our bodies and their needs is never to be of such a nature that any lusts are stirred up or satisfied.

Paul does not tell us to exercise forethought for our bodies; that is a natural instinct. All false asceticism is foreign to the Scriptures as is all derogation of the body as something to be despised, as though the sooner we are rid of it, the better. But in this life the body is so responsive to sin; read 6:12, etc., also 7:23, etc., regarding the bodily members. Even clothing, food and drink, a house and home may stir up lusts; the bodily senses so easily inflame lusts. Here lies the danger, and Paul points it out. When “the day” comes and ushers in Christ’s Parousia, our vile bodies will be made like his glorious body, and all contamination by way of the body will be forever removed.

On “lusts” see 6:13. “Flesh” is used as it is in Gal. 2:20: “What I now live in flesh,” i.e., in body and in bodily existence. The word is not to be understood in its ethical, derived sense: our corrupt nature, as some would understand it here. Yet “flesh” in the sense of “body” is our “mortal body” (6:12) with its weakness since the fall, with its proneness to sin. This thought suffices here.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.

L. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Dritter Band. Die Briefe des Apostels Paulus. 1. An die Roemer. D. Hans Lietzmann. 2. Auflage.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.