Let every soul be subject to the authorities that are above [him]. For there is no authority except from God; and those that exist are set up by God.
Here the letter turns from how believers treat other people to how they stand toward the state, and it rests the whole matter on one claim: authority itself comes from God. That raises three questions: which governments, how far, and what if the ruler is wicked?
The subject changes as chapter 13 opens, and it speaks into two very different situations.
As chapter 13 opens, it tells us how to act toward the governments and authorities of this world. This was a very important point for the early Christians, who were often persecuted by the authorities. It matters for us too, since we live in an age when people show little respect for authority.
The move is not abrupt. First believers hear that they must never avenge themselves. Then comes the office God has appointed to avenge evil.
Step by step we are led from not avenging ourselves, and overcoming evil with good, as suits the children of God, to our relation to the authorities in the world. Their office is to avenge evil: to punish those who do evil, and to praise those who do well.
The verse opens with "every person" — "every soul" in older translations — and that reach goes past believers.
"Let every soul" reaches wider than every believer, and I have no doubt the Spirit meant it that way. No position exempts anyone. The household should feel it too: children or other dependent relatives and servants, as well as believers.
This arrangement is not new. It goes back to the world after the flood, when God spoke to Noah.
The Christian is to recognise that God has set up government in the world, and that the authority to govern comes from Him. God started this government after the flood, when He told Noah plainly, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed" (Gen. 9:6).
The verse draws a careful line. God stands behind the power to govern. That is not the same as approving every ruler or every act.
It states plainly that God has given the authority to govern. It does not say that the particular people who hold that authority are of God, or that the way they use it is of God. Those who hold authority may be, and often are, wicked men who abuse the power for their own ends. Still, the fact remains: God set up the authority they hold.
The command names no system, and a change of regime does not cancel the duty.
"Authorities in power" is an expression that covers every form of governing power, whether a monarchy, an aristocracy, or a republic. That rules out every objection here. The Spirit does not insist merely on the divine right of kings. He says that "there is no authority except from God." And this gives no one an excuse to press for change. Yet if a revolution should overthrow one form and set up another, the Christian's duty is plain: "those that exist have been instituted by God."
How a ruler came by his position is not the believer's file to open.
He has nothing to do with the ways and means by which kings or other rulers have reached their place of authority... Scripture does not demand obedience to the authorities that ought to exist, but to those that do exist.
Because God is behind the office, obedience becomes more than fear of penalty.
It is a completely inadequate view to see the magistrate only on the human side... To see God in the magistrate brings in conscience. So we must be subject not only because of wrath — that would be only a question of consequences from man — but also because of conscience.
The duty has one limit, and there is a set way to meet it.
It is our binding duty to obey them and submit to them in everything, as long as they do not call on us to disobey God or to violate conscience. If they do that, what must we do? Resist? No, but suffer.
The Christian's role here is a modest one.
God has not set us in the world to make governments or to change governments. We are here to seek the interests of our Lord, while giving all proper honour and subjection to governments, whatever they may be... We are to pay all that is due — local taxes and customs duties, as well as income tax. What the authorities may do with our money, when they get it, is their matter, not ours.
- Source — the right to govern is God's institution, going back to His word to Noah after the flood.
- Scope — the command covers every person. No rank, household position or standing exempts anyone.
- Distinction — God stands behind the office, not behind every officer or every use of the power.
- Reason — seeing God in the ruler turns obedience from fear of punishment into conscience.
- Limit — when a government commands disobedience to God, the answer is to suffer, not to resist.
So that he that sets himself in opposition to the authority resists the ordinance of God; and they who [thus] resist shall bring sentence of guilt on themselves.
This verse gives the reason behind the call to be subject to the governing authorities. It makes one claim: opposition to a ruler does not stop at the ruler, and the one who resists faces a real consequence.
The verse traces a line from the ruler to the One who put him there:
To oppose any particular ruler is to oppose the authority established by God. To resist what is of God is to bring oneself under condemnation.
One writer sums up the Christian's whole attitude in a single word, and gives the reason behind it:
The Christian's attitude is to be, in one word — subjection. We are to avoid "resisting the power," that is, setting ourselves against it. Note the reason given with care. The powers that exist are a divine institution. To set yourself against them is to oppose God, whom they are meant to represent, and it earns judgment. These verses (1-7) show authorities in their proper character, as God intended them, not as they often are in actual practice.
Does a bad government, or one that seized power, still count? One writer answers from the wording itself:
Scripture presses hard the respect and obedience we owe to authority. But settling the questions of this world is not a Christian's work. He has nothing to do with the ways and means by which kings or other rulers reached their place of authority. There may have been wars, revolutions, and all sorts of questionable means that raised them so high. His task is simply to obey those who are in authority… Scripture does not demand obedience to the powers that ought to be, but to "the powers that be."
The same writer widens it to every form of government, and says where the Christian's real interests lie:
"Authorities in power" is a phrase that covers every form of governing power — rule by a king, by a few, or by a republic… The Spirit does not insist merely on the divine right of kings, but that "there is no authority except from God." That plea is no excuse for demanding a change either. Yet if a revolution overthrows one form and sets up another, the Christian's duty is plain: "those that exist have been instituted by God." His interests are elsewhere — heavenly, in Christ. His responsibility is to accept whatever is in power as a fact, trusting God for the consequences and never behaving as a partisan.
Older English Bibles translate the last word as "damnation." Readers have taken that to mean eternal loss. One writer calls that a mistake and gives the sense of the word:
To resist authority is to oppose God's ordinance, and those who do will receive judgment. The word is not "damnation" — that is a wild mistake here, as it is in Romans 14:23. It means a chastening; compare 1 Corinthians 11:29-32. So conscience acts, and not just dread of punishment.
The ESV wording, "will incur judgment," fits that sense.
Subjection is not unlimited. One writer points to a single exception. He also notes who was on the throne when these words were written:
But we must remember when these words were written. Nero had just come to the imperial throne in Rome, and the man who wrote them would soon suffer terrible things at the hands of the religious authorities in Jerusalem… Only one thing frees us from the subjection required here: when being subject to the authorities would draw us into disobedience to God. Then we must obey the highest Authority. As Peter said, "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).
Even then, the refusal takes a particular shape:
It is our duty to obey them and submit to them in all things — as long as they never call on us to disobey God or do violence to conscience. If they do that, what must we do? Resist? No, but suffer.
The verse rules out protest and rebellion. What takes their place?
God's providence has placed the Christian under his rulers. To make trouble for them in any way, to join a campaign against them, or to rebel against their authority are unchristian acts — resisting the ordinance of God (Romans 13:2). It is the Christian's duty and privilege to pray for them. Not for the rulers of one land only, but for all who are in authority (1 Timothy 2). Then God's people in every land can walk as Christians undisturbed, and live quiet and peaceful lives in all godliness and honesty.
- Ordained — Authority is God's institution. The ruler is there to represent Him, as God intended, not as rulers often behave.
- Existing — The command covers the powers that be, not the powers that ought to be. How a government came to power is not the Christian's question.
- Resisted — Opposition to one ruler goes past him and strikes at what God has appointed.
- Judged — Those who resist receive judgment. It is a chastening, not eternal damnation. Conscience moves the believer, not the fear of punishment.
- Suffering — When rulers command what God forbids, we obey God rather than men. Then the answer is to suffer, not to resist.
For rulers are not a terror to a good work, but to an evil [one]. Dost thou desire then not to be afraid of the authority? practise [what is] good, and thou shalt have praise from it;
Paul has just told believers not to take revenge; here he turns to the ruler God has appointed to punish evil. Power normally rewards the good and frightens the wicked — so what happens when a ruler does the opposite?
A ruler is no terror to good conduct because of what the office is for. One writer traces it back to God's intention, and adds a remark that holds even under bad government:
God has given men authority to restrain evil and protect good. It follows that those in authority are not a terror to good works but to evil. If we want to walk without fear of authority, let us keep away from evil. Whether he knows it or not, the one in authority is God's servant to carry out judgment on the evildoer. Men often twist government to their own ends. Yet in the main we will find that, in the mercy of God, the very worst governments seek to restrain evil.
The move from chapter 12 to chapter 13 is not a change of subject. The Christian never avenges himself; that task belongs to the ruler.
Step by step Paul brings us on. He starts with not avenging ourselves, and overcoming evil with good, as suits the children of God. Then he comes to our relation to the authorities in the world, whose office is to avenge evil: to punish evildoers and to praise those who do well. This was especially fitting from the apostle, writing to believers in imperial Rome, the great capital city of the Gentile world.
Everything in the verse turns on what counts as good and what counts as evil. One writer answers that the measure is God's, not the ruler's. That measure marks out how far the state's authority runs:
Is blind obedience in everything to the ruling power being taught here? Has it authority to exercise unlimited sway over the conscience? We are to obey it within its proper sphere of civil rule, and that is where the apostle points… The good and the evil here must be understood as what is good or evil in God's sight. That shows us how far civil rule reaches, and God's purpose in setting up such authority on earth.
The verse promises approval to the one who does good, not just safety. The same principle appears where Paul lists what the Spirit produces, and then says no law stands against it:
The law will never condemn those who walk in these things. He says the same to the Roman believers in Romans 13, speaking of governors and rulers: "Do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good." So here too, "against such things there is no law." If you are producing these fruits of the Spirit, there is no condemnation against them.
It is fair to object that history is full of rulers who terrorised the innocent. But the objection was already true when the ink was wet:
We may cry out at once about the sad mockery of authority we so often see. But remember when these words were written. Nero had just come to the imperial throne in Rome, and the man who wrote them would soon suffer terrible things from the religious authorities in Jerusalem. Read Acts 23:5 and 26:25, and notice in these cases how well Paul practised what he teaches us here.
The obedience commanded here has one limit. One writer marks it where a ruler demands what belongs to God alone:
"For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad." This is certainly the normal state. But there is surely a point beyond which we must give no obedience to rulers, or to anyone else except God. Suppose they demand of us what is due only to God — worship, for instance, as Daniel faced under Darius, or his three friends under Nebuchadnezzar. Then we must refuse outright… But that is very different from unjust laws or practices that are hard and oppressive. So long as a good conscience toward God is not compromised, it is better that we suffer in subjection.
- Purpose. God gave authority to restrain evil and protect good. That is why the ruler is no threat to the one doing good.
- Standard. The good and evil in view are good and evil as God sees them, and that measure marks out how far civil authority reaches.
- Position. The believer never avenges himself. God has handed that task to the ruler, who serves Him whether he knows it or not.
- Promise. Do good, and you receive approval instead of fear. No law can condemn the conduct the Spirit produces.
- Limit. Paul wrote this while Nero reigned, and the command still stands. It stops only where obeying a ruler would mean disobeying God. Even there the path is to suffer, not to resist.
for it is God's minister to thee for good. But if thou practisest evil, fear; for it bears not the sword in vain; for it is God's minister, an avenger for wrath to him that does evil.
Paul has just told believers not to take revenge, but to leave wrath to God. Here he shows that God has an appointed hand for that wrath on earth. The verse gives the ruler two titles: God's servant for good, and an avenger who carries out wrath. So how far does that authority reach? And what does a Christian owe to a ruler who abuses it?
The word here for "servant" is an everyday word for someone who serves; older translations render it "minister." The New Testament uses it of very different people.
The word is used in a wide sense, and is employed to describe magistrates and rulers, for we read, "He is the minister [deacon] of God to you for good" (Rom. 13:4). Again, Paul and Timothy were made "able ministers [deacons] of the new covenant" (2 Cor. 3:6).
Men may pick a ruler in any number of ways. That is not where his real title comes from.
It is a wholly inadequate view to regard the magistrate on the side of man only. Not that he may not be chosen in all sorts of ways by man, but that he is God's servant, as this passage says again and again. He is His servant for good, not for evil… To see God in the magistrate brings in conscience.
The verse names the ruler's purpose: your good. That purpose holds even under bad governments.
God has given men authority to restrain evil and protect good. So those in authority are not a terror to good works but to evil… Whether he is aware of it or not, the one in authority is a minister of God to judge the evildoer. Men often twist government to their own ends. Even so, in the mercy of God, the very worst governments mostly seek to restrain evil.
The phrase about bearing the sword means the power to punish is genuine, not symbolic.
But suppose, instead of doing good and having praise from the ruler, a man does evil — what then? "Be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain." If the ruler is not to use the sword, then he does bear it in vain… The Christian is bound to respect that sword, whoever holds it. Even if the magistrate were an unbeliever, and treated the will of the people, not God, as the source of his authority, the Christian is still bound to own God's authority in him.
That sword reaches back to a command God gave after the flood:
Scripture speaks of the sword again and again as the instrument of death. In the New Testament the magistrate carries it, Rom. 13:4. This shows that the gospel does not set aside God's governmental principle of capital punishment, which He commanded after the flood. Gen. 9:5-6.
Paul wrote these words while a brutal ruler held power in Rome.
When the apostle wrote to the saints at Rome, God's providence had one of the cruellest despots on the throne. Even so: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities." The worst ruler is better than anarchy. Still, the word of God does not speak for this reason of usefulness. Whoever he may be, he is the minister of God for good.
The ruler serves God, so God sets the limits of his sphere. What happens when a ruler goes past them?
Suppose the civil power disputes God's authority over the conscience and commands what He has forbidden. How often it has done this! Then anyone who resists it will not have its praise; and if they did obey it in such a case, they would not be doing what is good. So the command here is subjection to it within its own lawful sphere. If it oversteps the bounds, Peter's answer to the rulers at Jerusalem will guide the Christian: "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge" (Acts 4:19).
God hands wrath to the magistrate. He never hands it to the individual believer.
God has dealt with the Christian in grace, so he must also act in grace towards others. The word to him is "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord'"… A Christian's duty not to avenge himself in no way clashes with God's government carried out by magistrates. They get their authority from Him to hold down and punish evil.
- Servant, appointed. God gives the ruler his title — the same word used of Paul and Timothy in their service. His office is not just a human arrangement.
- Servant for good. The office exists to restrain evil and shield those who do right. Even the worst governments mostly still do this.
- Servant with a sword. The power to punish is real. It goes back to Genesis 9, and grace does not repeal it.
- Servant, however flawed. Rome's emperor at the time was a tyrant, and the instruction stood — "the worst ruler is better than anarchy."
- Servant, not master. When a ruler commands what God forbids, the believer obeys God. God trusts wrath to the magistrate, never to the private Christian.
Wherefore it is necessary to be subject, not only on account of wrath, but also on account of conscience.
Paul has just called the ruler God's servant. Now he draws his conclusion: obedience rests on two motives, not one. What changes when a believer obeys a law he could have broken without risk? And what happens when the law itself asks him to sin?
Anyone will keep a law if the penalty is heavy enough. That is where the ungodly stop.
Subjection of the ungodly to authority is bought only by fear of punishment. But fear of consequences is not the only thing that should hold the Christian back from disobedience — "not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience." A Christian who wants to keep a good conscience toward God must be subject to authority.
What lifts obedience above calculation is who stands behind the officer.
It is a wholly inadequate view to regard the magistrate on the side of man only. Men may choose him in all kinds of ways. Yet he is God's servant, as this passage says again and again… Seeing God in the magistrate brings in conscience. So one must be subject not only because of wrath — that would be only a question of what men can do to you — but also because of conscience.
"For the sake of conscience" can sound like a licence to do as you please. One writer shuts that door.
If conscience calls me to disobey the authorities so that I may obey God, that is a different matter. But I cannot claim that conscience allows me to disobey the authorities just because I see no evil in disobeying. I have no right to so careless a conscience. In such cases conscience is not the judge. Conscience is itself to be subject to the Word of God.
This reaches further than laws we happen to agree with. One writer presses the point to laws that are genuinely unfair.
Where men can only see themselves, a believer is privileged to see God. The laws of the ruling government carry God's name and the weight of His approval. This holds in every case where they demand nothing of him that he could obey only by breaking some command of God. A law may be most unjust in its wording. Yet the Christian is still to obey it, if the only bad result of obeying is inconvenience or suffering for himself. In complying with an oppressive order of man, he is rendering obedience to the will of God.
The duty does not wait for a government we approve of. One writer points to the ruler on the throne when this letter went out.
Scripture is plain and decided: it is not enough that it be for wrath's sake, but for conscience. God is concerned in our subjection. There is no authority except from God, and those that exist are ordained of God. Monarchy, republic, or any mixture of the two — they are ordained of God… God so ordered it in His providence that when the apostle wrote to the saints at Rome, one of the most cruel tyrants reigned. Even so: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities." The worst ruler is better than anarchy. Still, God's word does not speak on the ground of that usefulness.
Conscience that binds a believer to the state also sets the point where he must stop. Commentators agree the limit is reached only when the ruler demands what belongs to God alone.
The limit of his obedience to kings is obedience to God in obeying them. Suppose a king's demands call on him to disobey God. Then, to keep a good conscience towards God, he must refuse to submit — even at the cost of his life.
Even then the response is not rebellion. Kelly notes that when authority demands what offends God — that an apostle stop speaking of Jesus, or that a Christian sacrifice to an idol or an emperor — "we must obey God rather than man, but suffering, not resisting, if we cannot quietly leave the scene of persecution."
Subjection for conscience' sake is not a theory. One writer names what it can cost.
Christian men cannot resist authority. They must be subject to the powers that be "for the sake of conscience" and "for the Lord's sake"… For many of military age, subjection threatens the break-up of their home life for a time. It threatens hardship for them, and a great burden laid on the shoulders of the wives and dependents left behind… These are realities, and this is a grave crisis. To meet them, something more is needed than empty theories and fair weather theology.
- Motive. Fear of punishment is the only check the ungodly have. The believer obeys for a second, higher reason: a good conscience toward God.
- Sight. Conscience begins the moment you see God in the magistrate. Without that, obedience is only a calculation about what men can do to you.
- Measure. Conscience does not judge which laws to keep. It is itself under the Word of God. "I see no harm in disobeying" is a careless conscience.
- Reach. The duty covers any form of government, and even unjust laws. Obeying an oppressive order, when only you suffer for it, is obedience to God's will.
- Limit. The line is obedience to God in obeying them. When a ruler demands what belongs to God, the believer refuses — even at the cost of his life.
For on this account ye pay tribute also; for they are God's officers, attending continually on this very thing.
Paul has just said that submission to authority is a matter of conscience, not only of fear. Now he points to something his readers already do: they pay their taxes. That ordinary act, he says, rests on an extraordinary fact about who tax officials really are.
The verse opens with "for because of this," tying the tax bill back to what came before. One writer traces the whole chain. He starts with who the ruler really is, moves to conscience, and ends with what the two tax words meant:
It is a completely inadequate view to see the ruler only from the human side. Man may choose him in all sorts of ways, but he is God's servant, as this passage says again and again... To see God in the ruler brings in conscience. So one must be subject not only because of wrath (this would be merely a question of consequences from man), but also because of conscience... The payment of phoros was for the administration of government. It was a tribute or tax on persons or property or both. Telos was on merchandise, and so it is rightly translated "custom."
The verse calls these officials "ministers of God." A dictionary of Bible terms shows who else Scripture describes with that word:
leitourgos, "a public servant," someone holding an official position. Scripture uses it of the Lord, of angels, of Paul, and of rulers. Rom. 13:6; Rom. 15:16; Heb. 1:7; Heb. 8:2.
So the tax collector shares a title with angels and with Paul. One writer sets out the two words behind the description, and what each one says about the job:
"For the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing." They are called God's diakonoi and also His leitourgoi — the first as doing the work given them, keeping the order of the world in obedience to the laws; the second as public officials appointed to it.
If the officials answer to God, then the use of the money is their account to settle, not ours. One writer puts it as a relief rather than a rule:
We are to pay all that is due in the way of rates and custom, as well as income tax. What the authorities may do with our money, when they get it, is their matter, not ours. In the mercy of God we are relieved of that heavy responsibility.
Another writer answers a common objection with an example from the life of Christ:
Some have refused to pay taxes, arguing that the government uses the money to carry out morally bad programs. This does not excuse our refusal to pay taxes... The government must answer to God for its use of the money. The Lord Jesus told Peter to pay the temple tax for Peter and for Himself. He was not really required to pay it. He paid because others thought He should (Matt. 17:24-27). This surely tells us that money is not as important a matter as submission to the authority ordained by God.
Paul did not write this under a kind government. One writer points to the ruler of the day, and to the one thing that overrides obedience:
We must remember that Nero had only just come to the imperial throne in Rome when these words were written. The man who wrote them would soon suffer terrible things at the hands of the religious authorities in Jerusalem... Only one thing frees us from the subjection demanded here. That is when submitting to the authorities would make us disobey God. Then we must be obedient to the highest Authority. As Peter said, "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).
There is a difference between paying and paying well. One writer links cheerful submission to giving up personal rights:
The demands that a human government's law lays on its subject, sometimes very heavy ones, must be regarded as owed. The Spirit of God recognises them as such. A Christian stands on the ground of grace alone. So he has no personal rights that he can rightly say such laws have violated... The clear path for the Christian here is submission — not grudging, not unwilling, but cheerful, as to the Lord and not to man. His obedience to the ordinance of man is itself a result of his perfect freedom from man.
- Conscience — See God behind the ruler, and paying tax stops being about fear of penalties. It becomes a matter of conscience.
- Commission — The word for these officials means a public servant in an official post. Scripture uses it of the Lord, of angels and of Paul.
- Custom — Paul names two payments: a tax on persons and property, and a duty on goods. We pay all that is due.
- Closure — Once you have paid, your responsibility ends. How the government spends the money is its own account with God, and in His mercy we are free of it.
- Cheerfulness — Paul wrote while Nero reigned. He asks not for grudging payment but for glad submission. The one exception is when obeying men would mean disobeying God.
Render to all their dues to whom tribute [is due], tribute; to whom custom, custom; to whom fear, fear; to whom honour, honour.
Paul sums up the Christian's duty to the state in one word: dues. That word settles arguments about taxes, respect for officials, and how far our obligations to government run.
The verse does not ask what we think of the government. It asks what is owed.
We should give each one cheerfully — tribute, custom, fear, honour — where and when it is due. We are to pay taxes and customs duties, and to fear, or respect, and honour those in authority. What is due is the guiding principle, and the righteous rule. How it simplifies matters! Pay what is lawfully due. There the Christian's responsibility ends.
The same writer connects the payment to conscience:
In paying what was due he was obeying God. This puts conscience really in the right place, and sheds a true light on the duty of a servant of the Most High. A rightly ordered conscience will not refuse the payment of what is due.
The verse names two payments, not one said twice. Older translations call them tribute and custom, and one writer traces the Greek behind each.
The payment of phoros was for the running of government — a tribute or tax on persons or property or both. Telos was on merchandise, and so it is rightly translated "custom."
Does a bad government lose its claim on us? One writer answers by fixing what our task in the world is, and what it is not.
We are not put in the world to make governments or to change them. We are here to seek the interests of our Lord, while giving all proper honour and subjection to governments, whatever they may be. The instructions apply to such matters as tribute and custom, as verse 7 shows. We are to pay all that is due in the way of rates and customs, as well as income tax. What the authorities may do with our money, when they get it, is their matter, not ours. In His mercy, God relieves us of that heavy responsibility.
Another writer gives a reason to pay gladly, and names the selfishness behind the excuse:
We share in many advantages of government: why should we not be thankful to pay for them? If authorities abuse their power, by wrong use of money and so on, they will have to answer to God for it. But that gives us no liberty to withhold what is due from us. If we would excuse ourselves this way, it is only the subtle working of selfishness taking advantage of wrong to justify wrong.
"Honour to whom honour" would be impossible if it depended on the ruler deserving it. It doesn't.
Since honour is not at all based on their personal character, we have nothing to do with their origin, how they got their power, or how they use their power. All we have to do, as believers, is to own God and the magistrate. Perhaps the magistrate, or the king, does not own God himself. That is a serious thing for him, but it does not change our relation.
The last two items in the verse — fear and honour — are the same currency God asks for in other relationships too.
Scripture requires reverence everywhere. It commands children to honour their parents (Eph. 6:1-3). It charges wives to respect their husbands (Eph. 5:33). About old age it commands, "You shall stand up before the gray head and honor the face of an old man, and you shall fear your God: I am the LORD" (Lev. 19:32). It requires reverence to rulers too.
These words were not written in a safe time, and the duty has one limit.
But we must remember when these words were written. Nero had only just come to the imperial throne in Rome. The man who wrote them was soon to suffer terrible things at the hands of the religious authorities in Jerusalem. Read Acts 23:5 and 26:25, and notice how well Paul practised there what he teaches us here. Only one thing exempts us from the subjection demanded here: when submitting to the authorities would involve us in disobedience to God. Then we must obey the highest Authority. As Peter said, "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).
- Due — the whole verse turns on one test: not what the ruler deserves, but what is lawfully owed. Pay it, and your responsibility ends there.
- Due in money — tribute is the tax on persons and property; custom is the duty on goods. Different names, both owed.
- Due in respect — fear and honour are owed as truly as money. Scripture asks the same reverence for parents, husbands and the aged.
- Due to the office — honour rests on the office, not on the character of the person holding it or on how he uses his power.
- Due to God first — one thing alone releases you: when obeying men would mean disobeying God. Then you obey the higher Authority.
Owe no one anything, unless to love one another for he that loves another has fulfilled the law.
Paul has just told believers to give everyone what is due to them. Verse 8 turns that round: close every account you can, and keep one open for life.
Paul gathers every kind of debt under one rule, then sets one debt apart from the rest.
Paul sums up every possible kind of obligation and states the principle the believer should act on. He goes on, "Owe no one anything, except to love each other." This takes in every form of debt. Love, then, if we may use the word, is an obligation you never pay off. More than that, it is the "fulness" of the law.
At first glance the words sound like a ban on ever taking a loan. Commentators point instead to the moment a payment falls due.
The first sentence does not mean that it is wrong to borrow money. The question is about paying. If a debt is due, you should pay it exactly on time. Borrowing money in a reckless way, with no prospect of paying it back, is sinful. It has often brought great dishonour on the name of our Lord.
It shapes giving too. What you owe comes before what you give.
We are to owe no one anything except to love one another. As the saying goes, "we must be just before we are generous." This matters greatly. We cannot give while we have not settled the just claims others have on us.
You can settle every other account and be done with it. This debt stands in a class of its own.
The debt of love is the only one that is legitimate and honourable. It is good among men and acceptable to the Lord. It is the debt we should always be paying, but can never pay off. Grace alone gives the power, and only that power fulfils the law. Law had constantly claimed love but never found it.
Commentators differ on the reach of "one another" here. Some read it of fellow believers and see the Lord standing behind the claim.
There is one load of debt the Christian has neither the power nor the wish to be free from. A firm bond holds him to a never-ending love for fellow believers, for the Lord's sake. His real creditor is the Lord Himself. His sheep are the ones appointed to receive what is due to Him.
Others take it as wide as "all men", believers and unbelievers alike.
These verses urge us to the right conduct of the believer towards all men, whether believers or unbelievers. Because this is our conduct towards all, the law comes in here, rather than the high standard of Christianity. We are to owe no one anything except to love.
So does love put the Christian back under the law? One writer answers by pointing to who supplies the love.
They should regard themselves as under the obligation of showing love to all. In doing this they are fulfilling what the law required. It demanded love, but man in the flesh has no power to meet the demand. The Spirit dwells in the Christian. With Him there is power to produce what the law required. So the Spirit's power carries out the law's requirement in the Christian. And it does this without putting him under law, either for righteousness or as a rule of life.
So which comes first — the law's demand, or the obedience?
As another has put it in few words, "By the conduct which flows from love, the law is already fulfilled before its requirement is applied."
Love shows up in what we refuse to say about someone.
Apart from love we may rake up something against a brother that we know has been judged, owned, and finished with, and so destroy his reputation by an idle word. In the Christian circle everyone's reputation should be safe from slander.
- Pay — the verse is about paying what is due, on time. It does not forbid borrowing. It forbids leaving just claims unmet.
- Owe — one account stays open for life. Love is the debt you always pay and never clear.
- Reach — commentators differ. Some read "one another" of fellow believers, others of all men.
- Power — the law demanded love and never got it; the Spirit produces it in a believer who is not placed under law.
- Proof — the test is ordinary: bills paid on time, and a brother's reputation safe when you speak.
For, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not lust; and if there be any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Paul lists the commandments about how we treat other people, then folds them into one command: love your neighbour as yourself. But why point believers back to the law at all?
Commentators tie this list to a debt. It is not a debt like any other.
Love is the only debt that is right and honourable. It is good among men and acceptable to the Lord. It is the debt we should always be paying, but can never pay off. Grace alone gives the power, and that power fulfils the law — nothing else ever does. Law had continually claimed love but never found it. Those under the law were obliged to love, but had no power to do it. Grace reveals Christ. It shows us His perfection and fullness, and it shapes the heart to match. Loving your neighbour sums up the commandments about people; loving God sums up the commandments about Him.
Paul picks the commandments about other people. Whom does this love cover?
These verses urge us to act rightly toward all men, whether believers or unbelievers. Since this covers our conduct toward everyone, the law comes in here, not the high standard of Christianity. In showing love we shall fulfil the law... Love will not kill, nor steal, nor bear false witness. True, a man with no love at all may hold back from killing or stealing for fear of the consequences. Yet he may still slip into bearing false witness. Only love will refrain from bearing false witness against our brother... In the Christian circle everyone's reputation should be safe from slander.
The last item on Paul's list is different. It forbids no action at all — only a desire.
No man could convict the Apostle Paul of breaking them, for he wrote, "as to righteousness under the law, blameless" (Phil. 3:6). Yet even he has to say, "I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, 'You shall not covet'... but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died" (Rom. 7:7-9). The commandment "You shall not covet" convicts the very best under the law. There was not found a man who loved the Lord his God with all his heart, and his neighbour as himself.
If nobody could keep these commands, how does a Christian fulfil them? Everything turns on what comes first.
God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us (Rom. 5:5). Now, when that love works, it flows out to others — the love of God in our hearts by the Spirit. The result is, "the one who loves another has fulfilled the law." So the commands about our neighbour are all fulfilled... This does not put the Christian under law again. It does not say that if he keeps the law, God will love him and give him the Holy Spirit. Nor is it telling him to pray for the Spirit so that he may keep the law. It is the opposite of all this. He already has the love of God and the Spirit... How beautiful God's order is! God never puts the effect before the cause.
In this commandment, you are the measure. Commentators point to another measure in Christ.
Law required that we love our neighbour as ourselves. That is a perfect rule where all is right, and it brings blessing to both sides. But it does not suit a state of sin, and it cannot meet it. We are called to love as Christ loved, and to give ourselves, our lives if needed, for others. The one takes self as the measure when all is happy. The other means giving ourselves up for need, misery, or want of any kind.
Some Bibles include "You shall not bear false witness" in this list. The ESV does not.
In Romans 13:9 the words "You shall not bear false witness" are also an addition. Some no doubt thought the quotations would read better in a fuller form. So they added the pieces named, to correct what they judged to be omissions.
- Cause — the Spirit pours God's love into the heart first. The command comes after the gift, never before it.
- Debt — love is the one honourable debt. We pay it always and never clear it, because grace gives the power the law only demanded.
- Reach — these commands cover how we treat people, and they govern our conduct toward everyone, believer or not.
- Depth — "You shall not covet" convicts even the blameless, because it forbids the desire and not just the deed.
- Result — love needs no command. It will not kill, steal, or ruin a reputation. And Christ set a higher measure: love that gives itself away for others.
Love works no ill to its neighbour; love therefore [is the] whole law.
Paul has just gathered the commandments about adultery, murder, theft and coveting into one line: love your neighbour as yourself. Verse 10 says why that line holds — and raises a question: does it put the Christian back under the law, or give him something the law could never reach?
The verse defines love first by what it will not do. One writer follows this through those commandments, down to the one that fear alone cannot cover:
Love works no evil. Love will not kill, nor steal, nor bear false witness. True, a man may refrain from killing or stealing for fear of the consequences, with no love at all. Yet he may still slip into bearing false witness. Only love will refrain from bearing false witness against our brother. Apart from love we may dig up something against a brother that we know has been judged, admitted, and finished with. One idle word then destroys his reputation. In the Christian circle everyone's reputation should be safe from slander.
The commandments Paul quotes are all negative — a list of things not to do. Love is more than the absence of those things. It owes something to everyone:
Love is what fulfils the law, or the whole of it, for if we love our neighbour as ourselves, love works no wrong to a neighbour. The commandments give us only the prohibition of these various forms of harm. Love owns the debt to all men and pays it.
The word translated "fulfilling" is the same word used elsewhere for "fullness." It carries the sense of filling something out to the brim:
In Romans 13:10, love is called the "fullness of law"; that is the correct rendering of the word. Every thought of God in the law finds its expression and filling out in love. By no other principle could God's mind in the law be expressed.
The law had always demanded this love. The problem was never the demand — no one under it could produce the love:
The debt of love is the only one that is right and honourable, good among men and acceptable to the Lord. It is the debt we should always be paying, but can never pay off. Grace alone gives the power to fulfil the law, and there is no other way. The law had continually claimed love but never found it. Those under the law were under obligation but were wholly unable to make it good. Grace reveals Christ. It shows us His perfection and fullness, and it shapes the heart to match.
Some use this verse to argue that the Christian is under the law after all. The same writer turns the argument around:
It proves the very reverse. The Christian, in the new nature that marks him now, does love — not as a requirement under law, but as the outflow of his life in Christ. Love works no wrong to one's neighbour. So love is the fulfilment, or full complement, of law. But this comes by being under grace, not under law.
This debt is never paid off. That shapes how the Christian treats everyone, and what he expects back:
Love, if we may use the word, is an obligation that is never paid off. Further, it is the "fullness" of the law. As another has put it in few words, "By the conduct that flows from love, the law is already fulfilled before its requirement is applied." So the activity of love in the believer — the activity of the divine nature — governs his conduct in every relationship. He gives everyone what is due to them and expects nothing in return. That holds even if, like our blessed Lord, he meets with little but ingratitude and hatred.
Loving your neighbour as yourself is where the law stops. Christian love is free to pass that mark:
To love one's neighbour as oneself is the limit under the law. Only under grace is it possible to go a step beyond this, as, for instance, Aquila and Priscilla did, as recorded in Romans 16:4.
- Debt. Love is the one debt a Christian should always be paying and can never pay off.
- Fullness. "Fulfilling" translates a word meaning fullness. Love fills out every thought of God in the law, and nothing else can.
- Power. The law claimed love but never found it. Grace reveals Christ and shapes the heart, and the love appears at last.
- Freedom. Love acts first, so it fulfils the law before the law makes its demand. That is life under grace, not a return to law.
- Reach. The law's ceiling is loving your neighbour as yourself. Grace lets love step past it and expect nothing back.