하나님나라를 꿈꾸며(Kingdom of God)

22 zWives, asubmit to your own husbands, bas to the Lord. 23 For cthe husband is the head of the wife even as dChrist is the head of the church, his body, and is ehimself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit fin everything to their husbands.

z For ch. 5:22–6:9, see Col. 3:18–4:1

a See Gen. 3:16

b [ch. 6:5]

c 1 Cor. 11:3

d See ch. 1:22, 23

e [1 Cor. 6:13]

f [Col. 3:20, 22; Titus 2:9]

 The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), 엡 5:22–24.

22-24절) 아내들을 향한 명령

그리스도께서 교회의 머리됨과 같이 남편이 아내의 머리되었기에 교회가 그리스도에게 복종하듯 아내들도 범사에 자기 남편에게 복종할 것을 명하심. 

본문에서 말하는 복종이라는 단어는 ‘히포타쏘’라는 단어로 굴복시키다, 복종시키다, 따르게 하다라는 의미이다. 원레 ‘타쏘’라는 단어는 정렬하다, 지명하다는 의미인데 ‘휘포’라는 단어, 곁에, 아래에 라는 단어와 합성되어 아래에 자리하게 하는 것이라는 의미이다. 

복종은 순종의 동의어이다. 그럼에도 불구하고 복종은 신이 정한 관계를 인정하고 다른 사람에게 복종하는 것은 궁극적으로 하나님께 빚진 복종에 달려있다. 게다가 복종은 열등함을 암시하는 것이 아니라 그리스도께서 기능적으로 아버지께 복종하신것과 같이 역할에 있어서의 다름을 의미한다. 남편에 대한 아내의 자발적인 복종의 동기는 바로 주님께 하듯 해야하기 때문이다. 아내가 그녀의 남편에게 복종하듯이 그녀는 또한 주님께 복종한다. 

submit. Frequently synonymous with “obey” (cf. 1 Pet 3:5–6). Nevertheless, submission recognizes a divinely ordered set of relationships, and submission to another human is conditioned on the submission that one ultimately owes to God. Moreover, submission does not imply inferiority (cf. Gal 3:28) but a difference in role since Christ functionally submits to the Father (1 Cor 15:28). as you do to the Lord. The motivation for a wife’s submitting voluntarily to her husband. As the wife submits to her husband, she is also submitting to the Lord.

cf. compare, confer

cf. compare, confer

 Douglas J. Moo, “The Letters and Revelation,” in NIV Zondervan Study Bible: Built on the Truth of Scripture and Centered on the Gospel Message, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 2408.

NIDNTTE에서 말하는 ‘히포타쏘’의 용례중에

It is of some interest that in Rom 13:1–2, Paul’s important statement regarding civil government, there are four occurrences of the word group: “Let every soul be subject [ὑποτασσέσθω] to the authorities; for there is no authority except by God, and those that exist have been appointed [τεταγμέναι, pass. ptc. of τάσσω] by God. Therefore the one who opposes [ἀντιτασσόμενος] authority resists the ordinance of God [τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ διαταγῇ], and those who resist will receive judgment to themselves” (lit. transl.). Other significant uses of τάσσω include the statement that the nature of Paul’s career of service had been divinely assigned (Acts 22:10, where the implied agent of the pass. vb. is certainly God) and the claim that “all who were appointed for eternal life believed” (13:48).

The compound διατάσσω is used of Jesus’ instructions to his disciples (Matt 11:1), of the orders that a master gives to a slave (Luke 17:9–10), of Emperor Claudius’s edict expelling the Jews from Rome, of Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians (1 Cor 7:17; 11:34; 16:1), and of God’s commands (Acts 7:44; 1 Cor 9:14). The term προστάσσω, with its emphatic and rather official sense of “command,” is used with the angel of the Lord (Matt 1:24), Moses (Mark 1:44), Peter (Acts 10:48), Jesus (Matt 21:6), and God as its subject. In Acts 10:33 it refers to what God has charged Peter to say, and in 17:26 to God’s determining appointed or definite epochs in human history (ὁρίσας προστεταγμένους καιρούς; the KJV has “times before appointed,” following the TR reading, προτεταγμένους). The stronger vb. ἐπιτάσσω is used, e.g., of Jesus’ commands to demons (Mark 1:27; 9:25; Luke 8:31) and to natural forces (8:25), of the order by the high priest Ananias that Paul be struck (Acts 23:2), and of Paul’s instructions to Philemon (Phlm 8).

  V 4, p 462  The freq. usage of ὑποτάσσω calls for special discussion. As with the LXX, only context can determine whether the subordination is compulsory or voluntary. When Luke 2:51 states that Jesus ἦν ὑποτασσόμενος (lit., “was being subjected or being obedient”) to his parents, we should not understand that he was forced into obedience against his will, as it were. Rather, the Son of God was voluntarily submissive to his earthly parents. In several passages, most of which quote or allude to Ps 8:6 (LXX 8:7), God is said to put everything under subjection to the exalted and cosmic Christ (1 Cor 15:27–28; Eph 1:22; Phil 3:21; Heb 2:5, 8; 1 Pet 3:22). We read also that “the creation was subjected [ὑπετάγη] to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it [τὸν ὑποτάξαντα]” (Rom 8:20). In Luke 10:17 the disciples report that demons submitted themselves to them (presumably involuntarily). According to Paul, the sinful mind does not submit itself to God’s law (Rom 8:7). Likewise, the Jews who refused God’s provision of salvation in Christ “did not submit to God’s righteousness” (10:3).

Other uses of ὑποτάσσω (in the pass.) involve Christian behavior in the context of established authority structures. Thus all believers should voluntarily “submit to the Father of spirits” (Heb 12:9). They should also be submissive to governing authorities, both secular (Rom 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet 2:13) and ecclesiastical (5:5). Christian slaves likewise should freely serve their masters (Titus 2:9; 1 Pet 2:18), wives should be submissive to their husbands (Eph 5:24; Col 3:18; 1 Pet 3:1, 5), and in a more general sense all believers should “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph 5:21). On the controversial passages 1 Cor 14:34–35 and 1 Tim 2:11–12, see γυνή G1222 NT 3 (a).

pass. passive

ptc. participle

lit. literal(ly), literature

transl. translate(d), translation

pass. passive

vb. verb

KJV King James (Authorized) Version

TR Textus Receptus (Received Text)

vb. verb

e.g. exempli gratia (for example)

freq. frequent(ly)

LXX Septuagint

lit. literal(ly), literature

LXX Septuagint

pass. passive

NT New Testament

 Moisés Silva, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 461–462.

여기서 아내로 하여금 남편에게 복종할 것을 요청하는데 이는 자녀가 자신의 부모에게 복종하는 것과 같지 않고 또한 이를 일반적으로 확장하여 모든 여자가 남자에게 복종한다든지 혹은 모든 남편에게 복종하라고 말하는 것이 아님을 기억해야 한다. 남성과 여성은 모두 동등하게 하나님의 형상을 따라 지음을 받은 존재이다.(창 1:26-28) 또한 약속대로 하나님나라를 유업으로 함께 받을 것이다.(갈 3:28-29) 이 복종은 결혼 관계가 건강하고 조화롭게 작동하게 하기 위해서 남편의 권위, 리더십에 대한 존경을 의미하는 것이다. 

여기서 아내와 남편과의 관계는 교회와 주님과의 관계와 같다. 마치 거울로 비추고 있는것과 같다. 

성경은 분명히 결혼 관계에서 남편이 아내의 머리임을 밝히고 있다.(고전 11:3, 창 2:21-24) 그리스도가 그의 몸된 교회의 머리이시며 교회의 구주가 되심은 문화나 환경에 따라 바뀌는 것이 아니듯이 아내와의 관계에서 남편의 머리됨과 아내가 범사에 그녀의 남편에게 복종해야하는 것도 바뀌는 것이 아니다. 머리라는 단어 ‘케팔레’는 지도자, 머리를 의미하는 단어로 명백히 아내에 대한 남편의 권위를 표현한다. 일부 다른 이들은 이 단어의 의미가 여기에서 ‘원천’을 의미한다고 주장한다. 사실상 어떤 의미에서도 남편은 육체적, 영적으로 아내의 원천이 아니다. 50개 이상의 고대 헬라어 문헌에서 사용된 ‘케팔레’의 용례로 볼 때 “A라는 사람이 B의 머리이다’라는 표현은 A가 B에 대하여 권위를 가진다라는 의미이다. 

The submission of wives is not like the obedience children owe parents, nor does this text command all women to submit to all men (to your own husbands, not to all husbands!). Both genders are equally created in God’s image (Gen. 1:26–28) and heirs together of eternal life (Gal. 3:28–29). This submission is in deference to the ultimate leadership of the husband for the health and harmonious working of the marriage relationship.

5:23–24 the husband is the head of the wife. This is the grounds of the wife’s submission to her husband and is modeled on Christ’s headship over the church. Just as Christ’s position as head of the church and its Savior does not vary from one culture to another, neither does the headship of a husband in relation to his wife and her duty to submit to her husband in everything. “Head” (Gk. kephalē) here clearly refers to a husband’s authority over his wife and cannot mean “source,” as some have argued. In fact, there is no sense in which husbands are the source of their wives either physically or spiritually. In addition, in over 50 examples of kephalē in ancient Greek   p 2272  literature, with the idea “person A is the head of person(s) B,” person A has authority over person(s) B in every case (see also 1:22; Col. 2:10; see note on 1 Cor. 11:3).

 Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 2271–2272.

범사에라는 의미는 하나님의 명령에 반하는 일을 제외한 모든 일에 복종하라는것이다. 

In every area of life except in matters that are contrary to God’s commands (Acts 5:29). Paul presents an ideal picture of Christian marriage: just as the church submits to Christ for her benefit, so the wife submits to her husband, presupposing a relationship in which the husband loves her and has her best interests in view. Each party serves the other unselfishly.

 Douglas J. Moo, “The Letters and Revelation,” in NIV Zondervan Study Bible: Built on the Truth of Scripture and Centered on the Gospel Message, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 2409.

주께하듯 남편에게 복종하라는 명령이 의미하는 바는 다양하게 해석 가능하다. 1) 우리가 그리스도에게 드리는 복종의 방식과 같이, 2) 남편이 주님이신 것처럼, 3) 그리스도에게 드리는 우리의 복종의 일부분으로서 복종하라는 의미로 볼 수 있다. 그런데 두번째, 그리스도와 남편을 동격으로 보는 것은 과도한 해석인데 한국 사회에서는 이러한 해석이 많이 통용된다. 그리스도와 아내의 관계가 그녀의 남편에 대한 그녀의 복종의 기초이며 동기이고 자질인 것이다. 본 23절은 신약에서 가장 오용되는 구절중의 하나이다. 여기의 초점은 남편의 특권이나 지배에 있지 않다. 바울은 결코 아내를 종으로 남편의 어떤 그리고 모든 욕구를 따르도록 강요하는 것이 아니다. 이 본문은 여성들이 그들의 남편들에게 순종할 것을 말하는 것도, 남편들에게 복종을 강요하도록 하는 어떤 자격을 주기위한 것도 아니다. 

What Paul meant by saying wives should “submit to [their own] husbands as to the Lord” is unclear. The words could mean (1) in a similar manner as the submission they give to the Lord, (2) as if the husband were the Lord, or (3) as part of their submission to the Lord. While it is hard to imagine Paul suggesting the second option, either of the other two would be legitimate, but the theology implicit in the third choice clearly underlies the text. The wife’s relation to the Lord is the basis, motivation, and qualification of her submission to her husband. In verse 24 the words “in everything” indicate that all spheres of life are included in this submission, provided, of course, that it is in keeping with life lived “to the Lord.”

Verse 23 is surely one of the most abused and debated texts in the New Testament. Its focus is not on the privilege and dominance of the husband, and Paul never intended to suggest that wives were servants, compelled to follow any and every desire of the husband. The text does not tell women to obey their husbands, nor does it give any license for husbands to attempt to force submission.23

The debate has intensified in recent years over the meaning of kephale, the Greek word for “head.” Many have assumed that kephale means “boss,” “person in charge,” or “leader,” since the word has those metaphorical meanings in English. And the Hebrew word for “head” (roʾsh) is often used metaphorically in the Old Testament for tribal leaders or other persons in authority.24 The problem is that this metaphorical meaning is not common in Greek. Most of the time the lxx uses some other word (such as archon) to translate roʾsh. Kephale was used only sixteen times in the lxx to translate roʾsh when the idea of “authority over” is present (about 180 occurrences).25 Consequently, some have suggested that the metaphorical use of kephale should be understood as “source.” A few scholars have suggested a meaning such as “prominence” or, for Ephesians 5:23, “one who brings to completion.”26 Unfortunately, no one involved in this debate is objective and evenhanded with the evidence.

Although the debate will no doubt continue, the most important factor for determining the meaning is the context of Ephesians and Paul’s other writings. The argument for “source” as the meaning of kephale is not convincing. Although it may mean this in a few extracanonical texts, it is rare. Furthermore, “source” does not fit well in most of the Pauline texts. Paul is not arguing in 5:22–24 that the husband is source of the wife as Christ is source of the church. Scholars appear to have chosen this meaning only to avoid negative connotations for the discussion of male-female relations in modern times. The use of kephale in 1:22 and Colossians 2:10, where the issue is the subjection of all things under Christ, precludes the idea of source as the meaning in those texts. Paul is not arguing that Christ is the source of the principalities and powers, but that he has authority over them. Some connotation of authority appears to be included in Paul’s metaphorical uses of kephale.

Still, Ephesians 5:23 does not focus on authority, but on the self-giving love of both Christ and the husband. “Head” in this context suggests “responsibility for.” The husband has a leadership role, though not in order to boss his wife or use his position as privilege. Just as Jesus redefined greatness as being a servant (Matt. 20:26–27), Paul redefines being head as having responsibility to love, to give oneself, and to nurture. A priority is placed on the husband, but, contrary to ancient society, it is for the benefit of the wife. The activity of both wife and husband is based in their relation to Christ and in his giving himself for the church.

Although Paul makes explicit the priority or responsibility of the husband, the text also assumes the oneness and equality of husband and wife in 5:28 and 31. Both headship and equality must be given their due. As elsewhere, the truth is in the tension of the text.

The parenthetical statement in 5:23 that Christ is the Savior of the body (i.e., the church) does not mirror the husband’s relation to the wife. The niv does not show it, but 5:24 actually begins with a contrast (“but”) to 5:23. Although the husband has responsibility for the wife’s welfare, he is not her savior and plays no role in her salvation.

In the summary statement in 5:33 the wife is asked to “fear” (niv, “respect”) her husband. This provides a ring composition that recalls 5:21 and offers another way that the husband-wife relation mirrors that of Christ and the church. But there is no thought of terror or fear of harm. The translation of the Greek word used here as “respect”—if joined to love—comes close to the idea intended for the attitude toward husbands. A wife is to show recognition of her husband’s role and responsibility. No doubt, the fear due Christ is far different from the fear due husbands. The latter do not love as greatly, are not inherently holy, and are not end-time judges.

23 The only time that “obedience” and “submission” are brought close is in 1 Peter 3:1–6.

24 See Numbers 1:16; Deuteronomy 1:13; 2 Samuel 22:44; Isaiah 7:8.

lxx Septuagint

lxx Septuagint

25 Depending on which manuscripts one follows, for there are variants.

26 An overview of the debate can be found in Wayne Grudem, “The Meaning of Kephale (‘Head’): A Response to Recent Studies,” TrinJ, 11 (1990): 3–72.

niv New International Version

niv New International Version

 Klyne Snodgrass, Ephesians, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 294–296.

본문에서 남편이 아내의 머리라고 말한다. 우리는 여기서 머리를 무엇을 해석하느냐에 따라서 매우 다른 의미로 본문을 해석할 수 있다. 머리의 역할을 지배하고 군림하는 역할로 볼 수도 있고 머리를 책임지고 보호하는 역할로 볼 수도 있다. 주님께서는 크고자 하는 자는 섬기는 자가 되어야 한다고(마 20:26-27)라고 말씀하시고 바울은 머리가 되는 것을 자신을 주고, 양육하고 사랑할 책임을 가지고 있는 것으로 재정의한다. 어떤 자리의 머리가 되는 것은 인사외 재정을 마음대로 휘두를 권한을 가지는 것을 의미함과 동시에 그 자리에서의 책임을 지는 것을 의미하는 것이다.(임시 대행으로서의 고민)

• How do we relate to our increasingly secular government and culture? Is it correct to say with some that when a government begins to turn evil, the Christian is obligated to oppose it and to refuse to support it? We must remember that when Paul was writing this, Nero was on the Roman throne. While he had not yet turned into the evil anti-Christian emperor he was to become, there were definitely signs of anti-Christian activity in the empire. So Paul is not writing this under the kind of government many of us have grown up under, and he still calls upon people to submit. This section comes out of the blue without any thematic preparation. Some (Munro 1983:56–67) believe it was a later interpolation into the letter, but that is unnecessary. Probably the discussion of persecutors in 12:9–21 brought this to Paul’s mind. It develops the message of 12:9, 14, 17 and 21 to respond to evil/oppression with good. As Fitzmyer points out (1993b:662), there had not yet been any official persecution in Rome. Claudius had expelled Jews and Christians for rioting in a.d. 49, but that had been local. Still, there were signs of unrest, and Acts tells us of ongoing local problems in most of the cities Paul evangelized.
•  Grant R. Osborne, Romans, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 341.

• Several commentators (Barrett 1957; Bruce 1985, Wilckens 1982; Dunn 1988b; Moo 1996; Schreiner 1998; Towner 1999) also see a link with the “do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world” of 12:2. Some in the early church may have interpreted that to mean that Christians no longer have any connection to this world, including the state. While remaining apart from this world, believers are still a part of this world, and the responsibilities to government are clearly spelled out in Jesus’ teaching, to which Paul is undoubtedly indebted. In Matthew 17:24–27 Jesus said that while the children of the kingdom in one sense are exempt from duties such as taxes, they will pay them anyway as a witness. In Matthew 22:15–22 he said further that his followers are responsible to “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” Paul is probably reflecting on this (see further Thompson 1991:112–17), and the similarities between this passage and 1 Peter 2:13–17 probably mean both were reflecting early Christian catechetical tradition on these issues. Towner (1999:159–60) believes a major purpose is to tell the Christians how they can be a transforming influence in society. Since God has entered this world, his people must reform it. Paul’s purpose is not disengagement or radical separation but transformation.
•  Grant R. Osborne, Romans, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 341–342.

• It is true that thosegoverning authorities that exist have been instituted by God, but sometimes God gives good authorities as a blessing, and   p 2180  sometimes he institutes evil rulers as a means of trial or judgment (2 Chron. 25:20; 32:24–25). On God’s rule over earthly authorities, see Ps. 75:7 and Dan. 2:21. These earthly “authorities” will ultimately be superseded by the rule of Christ (Dan. 2:44; Rev. 22:1–5).
•  Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible(Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 2179–2180.

• The Bible consistently recognizes that God’s sovereignty extends to secular rulers (e.g., 1 Sam 12:8; Prov 8:15–16; Isa 41:2–4; 45:1–7; Jer 21:7, 10; 27:5–6; Dan 2:21, 37–38; 4:17).
• e.g. for example
•  Douglas J. Moo, “The Letters and Revelation,”in NIV Zondervan Study Bible: Built on the Truth of Scripture and Centered on the Gospel Message, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 2316.

• It is important to remember that government is God’s way of maintaining the public good and directing the affairs of state.
•  Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 243.

• Obviously this does not happen in every instance. Government sometimes oversteps its rightful domain. When this happens, the believer will find it impossible to obey the ruler. Two clear examples of civil disobedience are found in Acts. When Peter and John were told by the Sanhedrin not to preach in the name of Jesus, they replied, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God” (Acts 4:19). Upon being released they resumed their work and consequently were taken into custody. To the charge of the Sanhedrin that they had filled Jerusalem with their teaching they replied, “We must obey God rather than man!” (Acts 5:29). The believer’s ultimate allegiance is to God. Wherever the demands of secular society clearly violate this higher allegiance, the Christian will act outside the law.66This, of course, must not be done in a cavalier fashion.
• 66“Whenever laws are enacted which contradict God’s law,” writes Stott, “civil disobedience becomes a Christian duty” (Romans[Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994], 342).
•  Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 244.

• The government is primary, for it is God’s servantor “minister” (Greek diakonos) for good. Actually, verse 4 begins and ends with the twofold work of government as God’s servant for good and his servant for wrath. Here servantis used in its more common meaning to designate a government “official” rather than its religious use for a “minister,” but still it refers to the ruler as a servant of God doing his work. This is especially seen when Paul says the authority is “an avenger for wrath against the evildoer.” Avenger(niv, agent) is a cognate of vengeanceor “revenge” in 12:19. Since only God can avenge, the state does so only because it is his servantin bringing revenge upon evil people. So those who do wrongshould rightly be afraid,for the ruler does not bear the sword for nothing.The power of the sword was reserved for Roman officials. This was why the Sanhedrin had to deliver Jesus to Pilate, for only the Roman government could execute a person. So while bear the sword*primarily connotes the death penalty, it also generally describes the duty of the state to punish people who commit crimes in general. Modern debates over capital punishment were foreign to the ancient world for the most part. Paul means that those who do wrong will receive their just desserts from the state.
• After stating the reasons for submitting to government, Paul repeats the command (v. 5) and adds further material, arguing it is necessaryto submit. This probably refers to the divine order of things, saying that it is God’s will that they do so. Now there are two reasons for submission—not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.Paul had developed the wrathmotivation in verses 2–4, but now he adds conscience.The unbeliever will primarily be motivated by the danger of facing the wrathof government, but the Christian will depend upon conscience, which in 2:14–15 referred to that inner awareness of right and wrong that God had “written on [the Gentiles’] hearts.” Here conscienceis still an inner awareness of God’s will, but for the Christian it is based on the knowledge of God’s will that is informed and transformed by the Spirit (cf. 12:1–2). Brown (1975:352–53, building on Pierce 1955) argues that conscience has primarily a negative function, referring to the pain we feel when we transgress the moral law, but at the same time it “includes the power of discernment and rational reflection which enables the mind to analyze situations and actions, to discern moral issues and principles, the capacity to hear and apply the Word of God to our lives.” The negative force is primarily true here for unbelievers, while for Christians it functions positively, telling what God wants us to do.
• *13:4Most agree that the sword does not refer to ius gladii, the “law of the sword” that gave the governors the right of execution, for that was restricted to Roman citizens serving in the military. However, the sword still represents generally the power over life and death (so Murray 1968; Dunn 1988b; Schreiner 1998).
•  Grant R. Osborne, Romans, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 345–346.

• Christians must not refuse to pay taxessimply because they think some of the money is used unjustly, for the Roman Empire surely did not use all of its money for godly purposes! So, too, believers are to honortheir leaders, even if they are not fully admirable.
•  Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible(Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 2180.

• The primary example of submission is paying taxes (vv. 6–7). This is also whypoints back to both the God-given authority of government (vv. 1–4) and the Christian conscience (v. 5) as the reasons for Christians to pay taxes. Paul says that officials are God’s servants,using a different term from that in verse 4; this Greek word (leitourgos) may have religious connotations, appropriate to the context of the government doing God’s work. Taxes were especially onerous in the first century because the Jewish people had to pay Roman taxes as well as the temple tax. Paul may also be responding to a particular situation in Rome. At the time this letter was written (a.d. 57) there was growing resistance to the indirect taxes (see on v. 7). Rome’s increasing demands on its people culminated in a tax revolt in a.d. 58 (so Tacitus). Paul thus would be telling the Roman Christians that they were obligated before God to pay these taxes as a sign of their submission to the state (so Dunn 1988b; Thompson 1991:114–15; Schreiner 1998; contra Moo 1996). This undoubtedly reflects the Jesus tradition, specifically the pronouncements about paying taxes as a sign of Christian stewardship (Mt 17:24–27; 22:15–22). The reason for paying such taxes is that the authorities give their full time to governing(literally, “devote themselves to this very thing”), meaning that they give themselves totally to serving God in governing the people. Since they have dedicated themselves to doing God’s work in running the nation, believers are obligated to support them both generally with submission and specifically by paying taxes.
•  Grant R. Osborne, Romans, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 346–347.

• The teaching of Paul in this section has had an important and often negative effect on the history of the Western world. It has been used to justify the papal states of the middle ages as well as Hitler’s government. Yet at the same time it teaches an important doctrine, that the Christian is duty bound to respect and submit to the secular government as an arm of the will of God. The difficulty is always how a Christian submits to a government that is not following God. Moo (1996:807–9) gives us a survey of the possible solutions (from the least to the most likely): (1) submission is not mandated because the text is a late addition (there is no evidence for this); (2) Paul was naï;ve because he was living in the early years of Nero’s reign, a period of peace and stability (overstated and untrue); (3) Paul expected the eschaton to come soon and so only demanded submission for this “interim” period before the end of all things (there is no evidence for such an eschatological view here); (4) submission to the “authorities” (both secular and angelic) is mandated only so long as those powers are subject to God (unlikely; see discussion of v. 1); (5) Paul is addressing only a local situation and is not developing universal principles (the text says “every person” and “all authorities” and goes beyond a purely local situation); (6) submission is only demanded so long as the government functions as it should (Paul’s language in vv. 1–2 is universal and not based on how good government is); (7) Paul demands submission but not blind obedience—the believer respects and submits in every way possible except when the government asks something contrary to God’s will. This last is the proper understanding. For a valid response to evil in government, see the concept of prophetic warning in the discussion on verse 1 above.
•  Grant R. Osborne, Romans, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 348.