Michael Bird’s interpretation of Romans 13:1-7 in three points:
“First, we must remember that Paul’s terse remarks about submission to state authorities are saturated with God language with six references to Theos in the space of seven verses. For Paul there is no authority except from God; the powers are appointed by God; those who resist his appointed political authorities oppose the authority of God; political authorities preserving social order with the sword are in effect the agent of God; the political authorities are even servants of God. This is not capitulation to political power but a fervent affirmation of divine authority over civil powers. Second, nothing in Romans 13:1-7 compromises Jesus’ lordship. However we read Romans 13:1-7, Jesus remains the one in whom the nations place their hopes. Third, we have read Romans 13 in light of Paul’s apocalyptic narrative about the overthrow of all authorities at the return of Jesus. Paul declares the ‘powers,’ be they political or spiritual, have been disarmed and are impotent before Jesus’ lordship (see Rom 8:38-39; 1 Cor 2:8; 15:25-26; Col 2:15).”
Michael Bird, “‘One Who Will Arise to Rule Over the Nations’: Paul’s Letter to the Romans and the Roman Empire” in Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica, Jesus is Lord, Caesar is Not: Evaluating Empire in New Testament Studies, 159.
Bird goes on to explain that “Paul’s remarks about governing authorities in Romans 13:1-7 are relativized by his exhortation in Romans 13:11-14.” In those veres Paul reminds his audience “…that salvation is at least impending and will bring with it the dissolution and judgement of these very same authorities.” Paul’s words were designed to prevent the infantile Jesus movement from being perceived as seditious and dangerous. Christians did not affirm Roma aeterna (eternal Rome), but neither did Christians intend to overthrow any government themselves. Rome would be judged by Christ one day, so there was no reason to accept Rome’s claims of eternality or divine favor, but the Kingdom of God would be established by God in God’s time, so there was no need to attempt to overthrow Caesar to install Christ.
the archives near Emmaus 
Two quick comments:
1. Evidently, Paul saw the Roman Empire in eschatological terms.
2. His admonishment to respect earthly authority (even earthly authority hostile to the Way) would seem to be in line with [Matt 5:39] and [Pro 25:21-22]
Historically, submission to Roman authorities, despite their great cruelty to this new faith, brought believers sympathy, ultimately helping them to spread of the faith. Truly, Yahshua’s saying is true that “..unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.” [John 12:24]
I think when we take the narrative as a whole, we’re to pray for our leaders, respect the law except when it deviates from God’s law. Under no conditions are we to take up arms against our governors. That’s God’s role.
John and Paul would not have advised revolution ever, but, both helped undermine the Roman state because it was desirous of divine worship and we cannot make that compromise. Revelation 2 and 3 seem to be some cases where local groups were being urged to compromise with Caesar or the pagan cultures and Christ was saying, “not a good idea”.
IMO, we face many of the same compromising positions today.
Very insightful! I only wonder…
“Paul’s words were designed to prevent the infantile Jesus movement from being perceived as seditious and dangerous”
Was Paul expecting this letter to circulate outside the church?
I don’t imagine Paul’s letter circulating outside the church, but if the Corinthian epistles tell us anything these meetings weren’t necessarily closed to the public, so it is altogether possible that an outsider could be present for the reading of the epistle. Also, the prevention may be secondary: someone may not hear the letter, but they’d see the actions of the Roman Christians, and if the Roman Christians listen to Paul they will avoid actions that may be perceived as seditious and dangerous.
Dr. Leander Keck in one of his Disciple Bible Study lesson videos says that Paul believed in the imminent return of Jesus, whereupon he may have ‘cut corners’ trying to immediately get Gentiles into the fellowship of believers in Jesus as Messiah. The Jerusalem Council seems to bear this out, issuing minimal ‘table-fellowship’ guidelines for Gentiles with Jews in Acts 15.20 “but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood”.
Therefore, according to my interpretation of Keck’s interpretation of Paul (if I remember correctly… I took then taught DBS a long while back), there wasn’t time to waste in getting married, objecting to current political mis-leadership, etc.
I’m not convinced Paul saw Jesus’ return as imminent. To live is Christ, to die is gain .. Where Paul speaks of his own death he makes it clear he would be joining his saviour. If Christ’s return were imminent it seems reasonable he would be looking forward to it rather than death as a means of rejoining his saviour.
(Besides, there is an OT eschatological reason for thinking Paul knew Christ’s return would not be imminent, and that had to do with the ‘multitude of nations’ being come in (part of the Abrahamic covevant)).
There does seem to be some tension in the Pauline corpus. Paul could write that “the Day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night” and “the day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed” in 1 Thess. 5:2 and 2 Thess. 2:3 respectively. I think how we work through this will inform how we understand Paul’s relationship to Rome and things like marriage.
It is a great help to first think in terms of the overall context http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/romans-13-in-context/
It is always amazing when Christians can speak of “Romans 13” with no mention of Romans 12. Paul wrote a letter, not chapters [which were added over a thousand years later]. Read in context: http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/romans-13-in-context/
You should share that link one more time. You know, just in case.