What does it mean that the government is God's servant for your good (Romans 13:4)?

(Vv. 3, 4). God has given men authority in order to restrain evil and protect good. It follows that those in authority are not a terror to good works but to evil. Would we then walk without fear of authority, let us refrain from evil. Whether he is aware of it or not, the one in authority is a minister of God to exercise judgment upon the evil doer; and, in spite of the fact that men often pervert government to their own ends, it will be found, in the main, that in the mercy of God the very worst governments seek to restrain evil.

(V. 5). Knowing then God's mind for the Christian in relation to the world, we must needs be subject, not only to escape punishment for doing wrong, but, also to maintain a good conscience toward God. Obeying God's word, and walking in subjection, we shall find that the one in authority is God's minister to the Christian for good, and the minister of God to revenge and deal with evil.

The Domain of the Civil Power. — Is, then, blind obedience in everything to the ruling power here inculcated? Has it authority to exercise unlimited sway over the conscience? Within its proper sphere of civil rule it is to be obeyed, and to that the apostle clearly points, as he adds, "Rulers are not a terror to the good work (so we should read) but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he bears not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil" (3, 4). The good and the evil here must clearly be understood of that which is good or evil in God's sight. That will guide as to the domain of civil rule, and the Divine purpose for which such authority has been instituted upon earth.

Were the civil power (how often has it done it?) to dispute God's authority over the conscience, and to command that which He has forbidden, any resisting it would not have praise from it; and if they did obey it in such a case, they would not be doing that which is good. Hence, subjection to it in its own lawful domain is what is here enjoined. If it oversteps the bounds, the answer of Peter to the rulers at Jerusalem will guide the Christian: "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken to you more than to God, judge ye" (Acts 4:19). Where man's claims conflict with God's claims, the path, however trying, is clear, "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). And this important question receives further elucidation. For the same apostle, who so boldly addresses the rulers in the council, wrote by the Spirit to saints scattered abroad, "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or to governors, as to them that are sent by him" (for civil power can be delegated) "for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God" (1 Peter 2:13-16). Subjection, then, to the civil power is to be rendered not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake. It is God's ordinance, and rulers are His ministers, and Christians are His servants. How this clears up matters, and would remove any scruples that might present themselves, arising out of the question of the ruler's religious belief. A heathen, an idolatrous monarch or ruler, was to be obeyed in that domain in which, according to God, he had lawful sway. And the Christian doing good would have praise of the same, and be manifesting that he was a servant of God.

Again, "authorities in power" (ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις) is an expression that embraces every form of governing power, monarchical, aristocratic, or republican. All cavil on this score is therefore foreclosed. The Spirit insists not merely on the divine right of kings but that "there is no authority except from God." Nor is there an excuse on this plea for change; yet if a revolution should overthrow one form and set up another, the Christian's duty is plain: "those that exist are ordained by God." His interests are elsewhere, are heavenly, are in Christ; his responsibility is to acknowledge what is in power as a fact, trusting God as to the consequences and in no case behaving as a partisan. Never is he warranted in setting himself up against the authority as such; for this were to resist the ordinances of God, and those that resist shall receive judgment for themselves. For it is by no means "damnation," but "sentence," or the charge for which he is condemned. Scripture is ever sober, as the apostle said he was, for our sakes: if he were ecstatic, it was for God, as it might well be. Other scriptures show that, where the authority demands that which is offensive to Him, as for instance that an apostle should speak no more of Jesus or that a Christian should 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. For it is evident that it is impossible to plead God's authority for obeying a command which dishonours and denies Him. Every relation has its limits in conduct which virtually nullifies it; and that is a requirement which undermines its own authority by antagonism to Him who set it up. But Calvin seems to speak unwarrantably when he goes so far as to say that tyrannies are not an ordained government; and those who listened to him or shared his thoughts have proved that they did not count it beneath Christians to take an active part in overthrowing what they considered tyrannical.

It is a wholly inadequate apprehension to regard the magistrate on the side of man only. Not that he may not be chosen in ever so various a form by man, but that he is God's servant, as here repeatedly said. He is His servant for good, not for evil. But if you practise evil, what then? Fear; for not in vain does he wear the sword; for he is God's servant, an avenger for wrath to him that does evil. To see God in the magistrate brings in conscience. Wherefore one must need be subject not only on account of wrath (this would be merely a question of consequences from man), but also on account of conscience. "For on this account also ye pay tribute." This is connected with the foregoing exhortation as to magistrates, and prepares the way for more general relationships in the world. "For they are God's ministers [or officers], attending diligently unto this very thing." Thus they are designated God's διάκονοι and also His λειτουργοί, the one as doing the work prescribed to them in keeping the order of the world in obedience to the laws, the other as public functionaries or officially appointed to it. The payment of φόρος was for the administation of government, a tribute or tax on persons or property or both, as τέλος was on merchandize and therefore fairly translated "custom." Hence the apostle (ver. 7) exhorts, "Render to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour." The greater and the lesser are thus taken in, each in its just measure; which the Christian can heartily say, inasmuch as he is entitled to acknowledge God in all without seeking anything for himself. For we are here occupied with what is of God in the repression of evil, and hence external to the proper sphere of christian life, save as honouring God in every respect,

Scripture however is plain and decided: it is not enough that it be for wrath's sake, but for conscience. God is concerned in our subjection, for there is no authority but of God; those that be are ordained of God; monarchical, republican, or any mixture of the two, they are ordained of God. "Wherefore he that resisteth authority withstandeth the ordinance of God." Nor does it matter whether it be a supreme ruler or those commissioned by him, as the apostle Peter lets us know (1 Peter 2:13-14), "For thus is the will of God." It was ordered in His providence that when the apostle wrote to the saints at Rome, one of the most cruel despots reigned: even so "Let every soul be in subjection to the higher authorities." The worst ruler is better than anarchy. Nevertheless it is not because of this reason of utility that the word of God speaks. Whoever he may be, he is the minister of God for good. He beareth not the sword in vain. He is a minister of God, and avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil. If this doctrine is strange in our day, it is the more incumbent on the faithful, not only to believe, but to practise accordingly.

It might be thought that the devil was in this instance over-estimating his powers, but our Lord does not dispute the pretension he makes. He may have a hand in the setting up of by far the greater number of those that have reigned, but I question that he had any hand at all in placing either David or Solomon on the throne of Israel. Nor can he place any monarch upon a throne without the permission of God. And God has His own wise purpose in view even when he allows Satan to have his way in putting a sceptre into the hand of a man. In whatever way we see a man rise up to occupy a throne upon earth, it is our privilege, and bounden duty, to recognize that ruler as established by God in the place of supremacy, irrespective of the means he may have used to arrive at that exalted position. He will have to give account to God for the way in which he exercises the authority that has been placed in his hands, but our position is to recognize him as God’s minister, set there for our good, and as one that does not bear the sword in vain.

“The powers that be” have failed more or less in the maintenance of justice in the world. The failure would have been absolute but for the overruling hand of God, and if we see evil pursued and punished and justice in a measure upheld, we are entirely indebted to the mercy of God for it. The failure is there however, as the challenge of the second verse of our Psalm shows: “How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the person of the wicked.” And the exhortation is given in which the purpose of their ordination is set forth: “Defend the poor and the fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and the needy; and rid them out of the hand of the wicked.” If they had done this they would have rightly represented God, for He cares for the poor and the needy. I venture to say that if the governments of the nations had attended to this business for which God had appointed them there would have been no war. They would have had God’s approval instead at His chastisement. But often the spoilers of the widow and the orphan have been and are honoured by the rulers of this world if they have wealth and power enough to bong them into notice, and their victims cry in vain except to God. It is not always so, because of God’s restraining hand upon evil nevertheless that is the trend.

“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.” This is certainly the normal state. There is a point surely beyond which we must render no obedience either to rulers or anyone else except God. If they were to demand of us what is due only to God — worship, for instance, as in the case of Daniel with Darius, or his three friends with Nebuchadnezzar — we must firmly refuse. If they require us to definitely sin against God, it is for us to boldly use the language of Peter — “We ought to obey God rather than men.” But this is far different even than unjust statutes 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, and commit the keeping of our souls to God, as unto a faithful Creator. We must remember that “the heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord: He turneth it whithersoever He will.”

But suppose, instead of doing good, and having praise of the ruler, a man does evil, what then? "Be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vain." Assuredly, if the ruler is not to use the sword, he does bear it in vain. He might as well, or better, not bear it at all; for an idle threat is a proof of feebleness, and a brutum fulmen brings a ruler, of all men, into contempt. St. Paul, however, anticipates no such dereliction of duty on the part of the magistrate, but warns the ill-disposed that he is God's servant, "a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." The passage is clear as noonday. It demonstrates that the authority of the sword delegated to Noah and his sons, as representatives of government, is no more repealed or neutralised by the grace of the Christian revelation, than it had been by the righteousness of the Mosaic code. It proves that the Christian is bound to respect that sword by whatever hands it may be wielded. Even if the magistrate were an infidel, if he degraded his office by regarding the popular will, not God, as the source of his authority, the Christian is not the less bound to own God's authority in him, and to honour him as God's minister in worldly things, in "the things of Caesar." It is mere delusion, therefore, to suppose that Christianity deprives a government of the authority to punish evil-doers with the sword. St. Paul, as we have seen, fully recognises that power, and describes the ruler as one authorised by God to avenge evil. To speak of mercy, amendment, etc., as the sole or chief aim when law is violated and a man is convicted of murder, for instance, is to evince the utmost confusion of thought. For while grace is the central idea in God's scheme for saving sinners by the cross, justice is and must be the foundation of all earthly government, Jewish or Gentile. Doubtless, in the gospel God can and does justify — not pardon only, but justify — the chief of sinners freely, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. But thence to infer that a world's ruler ought to deal on the same principle towards criminals, is, in my opinion, to despise both revelation and reason.

Some, I am aware, find a difficulty because of Matt. 5:38, etc., and similar texts. This is due to a failure in seizing the bearing of these scriptures; for no believer would even insinuate that one part of God's word contradicts another. Now we have seen Rom. 13 to teach distinctly that the ruler is to be owned as bearing not the sword in vain; as an avenger to execute wrath on him that doeth evil; in short, as God's minister in earthly things, no less than Paul and Apollos were God's ministers in heavenly things. This chapter formally sets the Christian in the place of subjection to the powers that be, asserts the authority which God has vested in them, and finally makes it a matter not of wrath merely, but of conscience to the believer. Matt. 5 is in quite another direction, but perfectly consistent with the former teaching. Here the Lord instructs His disciples in their individual path, not their relation to governors, and puts their calling to walk in grace, active or passive, in contrast with the Jews, who were called to act in the righteousness of the law. It is absurd to apply such a passage to a government or a worldly tribunal. If it did so apply, it would prove that magistrates ought to caress and reward every culprit, instead of punishing any.

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 thee for good” (Rom. 13:4). Again, Paul and Timothy were made “able ministers [deacons] of the new testament” (2 Cor. 3:6). Again we read, “Is Christ therefore the minister [deacon] of sin? God forbid” (Gal. 2:17).

Rulers are not a terror to good work but to the evil. Nor does the king bear the sword in vain. He is ordained as God's servant, an avenger for wrath to him that does evil. The terror he inspires is therefore as a lion's roar. To provoke his anger is to sin against one's own soul. That again is sheer folly and wrong. Would you then have no fear of an authority so able to punish? Do that which is good, and you shall have praise from it.