聖書注解書

Every soul (πασα ψυχη). As in Romans 2:9; Acts 2:43. A Hebraism for πας ανθρωπος (every man). To the higher powers (εξουσιαις υπερεχουσαις). Abstract for concrete. See Mark 2:10 for εξουσια. Hυπερεχω is an old verb to have or hold over, to be above or supreme, as in 1 Peter 2:13. Except by God (ε μη υπο θεου). So the best MSS. rather than απο θεου (from God). God is the author of order, not anarchy. The powers that be (α ουσα). "The existing authorities" (supply εξουσια). Art ordained (τεταγμενα εισιν). Periphrastic perfect passive indicative of τασσω, "stand ordained by God." Paul is not arguing for the divine right of kings or for any special form of government, but for government and order. Nor does he oppose here revolution for a change of government, but he does oppose all lawlessness and disorder.

return to '

Romans 13:1. πᾶσα ψυχὴ is a Hebraism; cf. Acts 2:43; Acts 3:23, and chap. Romans 2:9. For ἐξουσίαις cf. Luke 12:11 : it is exactly like “authorities” in English—abstract for concrete. ὑπερεχούσαις describes the authorities as being actually in a position of superiority. Cf. 1 P. Romans 2:13, and 2Ma 3:11 (ἀνδρὸς ἐν ὑπεροχῇ κειμένου). οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐξουσία εἰ μὴ ὑπὸ θεοῦ: ὑπὸ is the correct reading ([32] [33] [34]), not ἀπό. Weiss compares Bar 4:27. ἔσται γὰρ ὑμῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐπάγοντος μνεία. It is by God’s act and will alone that there is such a thing as an authority, or magistrate; and those that actually exist have been appointed—set in their place—by Him. With αἱ δὲ οὖσαι the Apostle passes from the abstract to the concrete; the persons and institutions in which for the time authority had its seat, are before his mind—in other words, the Empire with all its grades of officials from the Emperor down. In itself, and quite apart from its relation to the Church, this system had a Divine right to be. It did not need to be legitimated by any special relation to the Church; quite as truly as the Church it existed Dei gratia.

[32] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.

[33] Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).

[34] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.

Romans 13:1. Πᾶσα ψυχή] In the sense of every man, but (comp. on Romans 2:9) of man conceived in reference to his soul-nature, in virtue of which he consciously feels pleasure and displeasure (rejoices, is troubled, etc.), and cherishes corresponding impulses. There lies a certain pathos in the significant: every soul, which at once brings into prominence the universality of the duty. Comp. Acts 2:43; Acts 3:23; Revelation 16:3.

ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχ.] magistrates high in standing (without the article). ὑπερεχ. (see Wis 6:5; 1 Peter 2:13; 1 Timothy 2:2; 2Ma 3:11) is added, in order to set forth the ὑποτάσς.

ὑπέρ and ὑπό being correlative—as corresponding to the standpoint of the magistracy itself (comp. the German: hohe Obrigkeiten); the motive of obedience follows.

There is no magistracy apart from God expresses in general the proceeding of all magistracy whatever from God, and then this relation is still more precisely defined, in respect of those magistracies which exist in concreto as a divine institution, by ὑπὸ Θεοῦ τεταγμ. εἰσίν; comp. Hom. Il. 2:204 ff., ix. 38, 98; Soph. Phil. 140, et al.; Xen. Rep. Lac. 15. 2. Thus Paul has certainly expressed the divine right of magistracy, which Christian princes especially designate by the expression “by the grace of God” (since the time of Louis the Pious). And αἱ δὲ οὖσαι, the extant, actually existing, allows no exception, such as that possibly of tyrants or usurpers (in opposition to Reiche). The Christian, according to Paul, ought to regard any magistracy whatever, provided its rule over him subsists de facto, as divinely ordained, since it has not come into existence without the operation of God’s will; and this applies also to tyrannical or usurped power, although such a power, in the counsel of God, is perhaps destined merely to be temporary and transitional. From this point of view, the Christian obeys not the human caprice and injustice, but the will of God, who—in connection with His plan of government inaccessible to human insight—has presented even the unworthy and unrighteous ruler as the οὖσα ἐξουσία, and has made him the instrument of His measures. Questions as to special cases—such as how the Christian is to conduct himself in political catastrophes, what magistracy he is to look upon in such times as the οὖσα ἐξουσία, as also, how he, if the command of the magistrate is against the command of God, is at any rate to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29), etc.

Paul here leaves unnoticed, and only gives the main injunction of obedience, which he does not make contingent on this or that form of constitution. By no means, however, are we to think only of the magisterial office as instituted by God (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and others), but rather of the magistracy in its concrete persons and members as the bearers of the divinely-ordained office. Comp. οἱ ἄρχοντες, Romans 13:3, and Romans 13:4; Romans 13:6-7; Dion. Hal. Antt. xi. 32; Plut. Philop. 17; Titus 3:1; also Martyr. Polyc. 10.

Observe, moreover, that Paul has in view Gentile magistrates in concreto; consequently he could not speak more specially of that which Christian magistrates have on their part to do, and which Christian subjects in their duty of obedience for God and right’s sake are to expect and to require from them, although he expresses in general—by repeatedly bringing forward the fact that magistrates are the servants of God (Romans 13:3-4), indeed ministering servants of God (Romans 13:6)—the point of view from which the distinctively Christian judgment as to the duties and rights of magistrate and subject respectively must proceed.

Romans 13:1-7. The proud love of freedom of the Jews (see on John 8:33; Matthew 22:17, and their tumultuary spirit thereby excited, which was peculiarly ardent from the time of Judas Gaulonites (see Acts 5:37; Josephus, Ant. xviii. 1. 1) and had shortly before broken out in Rome itself (Suetonius, Claud. 25; Dio Cassius, lx. 6; see Introd. § 2, and on Acts 18:2), redoubled for the Christians—among whom, indeed, even the Gentile-Christians might easily enough be led astray by the Messianic ideas (theocracy, kingdom of Christ, freedom and κληρονομία of believers, etc.) into perverted thoughts of freedom and desires for emancipation (comp. 1 Corinthians 6:1 ff.)—the necessity of civil obedience, seeing that they, as confessing the Messiah (Acts 17:6-7), and regarded by the Gentiles as a Jewish sect, were much exposed to the suspicion of revolutionary enterprise. The danger thus lay, not indeed exclusively (Mangold, Beyschlag), but primarily and mostly, on the side of the Jewish-Christians, not on that of the Gentile-Christians, as Th. Schott, in the interest of the view that Paul desired to prepare the Roman church to be the base of operations of his western mission to the Gentiles, unhistorically assumes. And was not Rome, the very seat of the government of the world, just the place above all others where that danger was greatest, and where nevertheless the whole Christian body, of the Jewish as well as of the Gentile section, had to distinguish itself by exemplary civil order? Hence we have here the—in the Pauline epistles unique—detailed and emphatic inculcation of obedience towards the magistracy, introduced without link of connection with what precedes as a new subject. Baur, I. p. 384 f., thinks that Paul is here combating Ebionitic dualism, which regarded the secular magistrate as of non-divine, devilish origin. As if Paul could not, without any such antithesis, have held it to be necessary to inculcate upon the Romans the divine right of the state-authority! Moreover, he would certainly not merely have kept his eye upon that dualism in regard to its practical manifestations (Baur’s subterfuge), but would have combated it in principle, and thereby have grasped it at the root.

The partial resemblance, moreover, which exists between Romans 13:1-4 and 1 Peter 2:13-14 is not sufficient to enable us to assume that Peter made use of our passage, or that Paul made use of Peter’s epistle; a view, which has been lately maintained especially by Weiss, Petrin. Lehrbegr. p. 416 ff., and in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, 4; see, on the other hand, Huther on 1 Pet. Introd. § 2. Paul doubtless frequently preached a similar doctrine orally respecting duty towards the heathen magistracy. And the power of his preaching was sufficiently influential in moulding the earliest ecclesiastical language, to lead even a Peter, especially on so peculiar a subject, involuntarily to echo the words of Paul which had vibrated through the whole church. Compare the creative influence of Luther upon the language of the church.

Romans 13:1. From exhorting the believers at Rome to a life of entire devotedness to God, and the various duties of brotherly kindness, the apostle now proceeds to inculcate upon them that subjection and obedience which they owed to their civil rulers, and those duties of justice and benevolence which were due from them to all men. And as Rome was the seat of the empire, it was highly proper for the credit of Christianity, for which indeed it was, in effect, a public apology for him to do this when writing to inhabitants of that city, whether they were originally Jews or Gentiles. Let every soul — Every person, of whatever state, calling, or degree he may be, however endowed with miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, whatever office he may sustain, or in what esteem soever he may be held in the church of Christ; (for that these things were apt to make some Christians overvalue themselves, is obvious from what St. Paul says to the Corinthians, first epistle, chap. 12.; and to the Romans, in the preceding chapter of this epistle;) be subject to the higher powers — Εξουσιαις υπερεχουσαις, the superior or ruling powers; meaning the governing civil authorities which the Divine Providence had established in the places where they lived: an admonition this peculiarly needful for the Jews. For as God had chosen them for his peculiar people, “and, being their king, had dictated to them a system of laws, and had governed them anciently in person, and afterward by princes of his own nomination, many of them reckoned it impiety to submit to heathen laws and rulers. In the same light they viewed the paying of taxes for the support of heathen governments, Matthew 22:17. In short, the zealots of that nation laid it down as a principle, that they would obey God alone as their king and governor, in opposition to Cesar and all kings whatever, who were not of their religion, and who did not govern them by the laws of Moses.” And it is probable, as Locke and Macknight further observe, that some of the Jews who embraced the gospel, did not immediately lay aside this turbulent disposition, and that even of the believing Gentiles there were a few, who, on pretence that they had a sufficient rule of conduct in the spiritual gifts with which they were endowed, thought that they were under no obligation to obey ordinances imposed by idolaters, nor to pay taxes for the support of idolatrous governments. That some Christians were involved in this error, or at least were in danger of being involved in it, appears also from the caution which Peter gives the believers to whom he wrote, (first epistle, chap. 2.,) not to use their liberty for a cloak of maliciousness or misbehaviour. Now, as these principles and practices, if they should prevail, must, of necessity, cause the gospel to be evil spoken of, the apostle judged it necessary, in this letter to the Romans, to show that they had no countenance from the Christian doctrine, by inculcating the duties which subjects owe to magistrates, and by testifying that the disciples of Christ were not exempt from obedience to the wholesome laws, even of the heathen countries where they lived, nor from contributing to the support of the government by which they were protected, although it was administered by idolaters. For there is no power but of God — “There is no legal authority but may, in one sense or another, be said to be from God, the origin of all power. It is his will that there should be magistrates to guard the peace of societies; and the hand of his providence, in directing to the persons of particular governors, ought to be seriously considered and revered.” The powers that be — The authorities that exist, under one form or another; are ordained of God — “Are, in their different places, ranged, disposed, and established by God, the original and universal governor.” So Dr. Doddridge renders the word τεταγμεναι, here used, thinking the English word ordained rather too strong. Compare Acts 13:48. “Divine Providence,” says he, “ranges, and in fact establishes the various governments of the world; they are, therefore, under the character of governments, in the general, to be revered: but this cannot make what is wrong and pernicious, in any particular forms, sacred, divine, and immutable, any more than the hand of God in a famine or pestilence is an argument against seeking proper means to remove it.” But the expression, υπο θεου τεταγμεναι εισιν, might be rendered, are subordinate to, or orderly disposed under God; implying that they are God’s deputies, or vicegerents, and consequently their authority, being in effect his, demands our conscientious obedience. “In other passages,” says Macknight, “εξουσιαι, powers, by a common figure, signifies persons possessed of power or authority. But here, αι εξουσιαι υπερεχουσαι, the higher powers, being distinguished from οι αρχοντες, the rulers, Romans 13:3, must signify, not the persons who possess the supreme authority, but the supreme authority itself, whereby the state is governed, whether that authority be vested in the people or in the nobles, or in a single person, or be shared among these three orders: in short, the higher powers denote that form of government which is established in any country, whatever it may be. This remark deserves attention, because the apostle’s reasoning, while it holds good concerning the form of government established in a country, is not true concerning the persons who possess the supreme power, that there is no power but from God; and that he who resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. For, if the person who possesses the supreme power in any state, exercises it in destroying the fundamental laws, and to the ruin of the people, such a ruler is not from God, is not authorized by him, and ought to be resisted.” The declaration, there is no power but of God, he thinks, “was written to correct the pride of the Jews, who valued themselves exceedingly because they had received a form of government from God. The government of every state, whether it be monarchical, aristocratical, democratical, or mixed, is as really of divine appointment as the government of the Jews was, though none but the Jewish form was of divine legislation. For God having designed mankind to live in society, he has, by the frame of their nature, and by the reason of things, authorized government to be exercised in every country. At the same time, having appointed no particular form to any nation but to the Jews, nor named any particular person or family to exercise the power of government, he has left it to the people to choose what form is most agreeable to themselves, and to commit the exercise of the supreme power to what persons they think fit. And therefore, whatever form of government hath been chosen, or is established in any country, hath the divine sanction; and the persons who by choice, or even by the peaceable submission of the governed, have the reins of government in their hands, are the lawful sovereigns of that country, and have all the rights and prerogatives belonging to the sovereignty vested in their persons.” The sum appears to be, the office of civil government is instituted by him, and the persons who exercise it are invested therewith by the appointment or permission of his providence.

Romans 13:1. This epistle was written about the fourth year of the emperor Nero, about six years after Claudius had expelled the Jews from Rome. It is not improbable, that, as Suetonius relates in the Life of Claudius, this was occasioned by the tumultuous disposition of the Jews, in one shape or other; whether upon a civil or religious account, is not easy to determine. However, we know that they had notions relating to government favourable to none but their own; and it was with great reluctance that they submitted to a foreign jurisdiction. The Christians, under a notion of their being the people of God, and the subjects of his kingdom, might be in danger of being infected by those unruly and rebellious sentiments: therefore the Apostle here points out their duty to the civilmagistrate. To understand him right, we must consider these two things: First, That these rules are given to Christians, who were members of the heathen commonwealth,—to shew them that, by being made Christians, and subjects of Christ's kingdom, they were not, through the freedom of the Gospel, exempt from any tiesof duty or subjection which by the laws of the country wherein they lived they were bound to observe,—from paying all due obedience to the government and magistrates, though heathens, in the same manner as was done by their heathen subjects. But on the other side, these rules did not tie them up, more than any of their fellow-citizens who were not Christians, from any of those due rights which by the law of nature, or the constitution of their country, belonged to them. Whatever any other of their fellow-subjects, being in a like station with them, might do without sinning, of that they were not abridged, but might still do the same, being Christians; the rule here being the same with that given by St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 7:17. As the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. The rules of civil right and wrong, whereby he is to walk, are to him the same that they were before. Secondly, We must consider, that St. Paul, in this direction to the Romans, does not so much describe the magistrates who were then in Rome, as relate whence they, and all magistrates every where, derive their authority; and for what end they have, and should use it: and this he does as becomes his prudence, to avoid bringing any imputation on the Christians from heathen magistrates; especially those insolent and vicious ones of Rome, who could not brook any thing to be told them as their duty, and so might be apt to interpret such plain truths, laid down in a dogmatical way, into sedition or treason;—a scandal cautiously to be kept off from the Christian doctrine. Nor does he, in what he says, in the least flatter the Roman emperor: for he speaks here of the higher powers, that is, the supreme civil power, which is in every commonwealth derived from God, and is of the same extent every where; that is, is absolute and unlimited by any thing, but the end for which God gave it; namely, the good of the people, sincerely pursued according to the best skill of those who share that power; and so is not to be resisted. But how men come by a rightful title to this power, or who has that title, the Apostle is wholly silent: to have meddled with that, would have been to decide of civil rights, contrary to the design and business of the Gospel, and the example of our Saviour. If the reader is attentive, he must be pleased to see in how small a compass, and with how much dexterity, truth, and gravity, the Apostle affirms and explains the foundation, the nature, ends, and just limits of the magistrate's authority, while he is pleading his cause, and teaching the subject the duty and obedience due to governors. See Locke.

Let every soul— "Every one, however endowed with miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, or advanced to any dignity in the church of Christ:" for that these things were apt to make men overvalue themselves, is obvious from what St. Paul says to the Corinthians, 1 Ep. 12: and to the Romans 12:3-4. But, above all others, the Jews were apt to have an inward reluctancy and indignation against the power of any heathen over them, taking it to be an unjust and tyrannical usurpation uponthem, who were the people of God, and their betters. These the Apostle thought it necessary to restrain, and therefore says, "Every soul, that is, every person among you, whether Jew or Gentile, must live in subjection to the civil magistrate." We see by what St. Peter says on the like occasion, that there was great need that Christians should have this duty inculcated upon them, lest any among them should use their liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, or misbehaviour, 1 Peter 2:13-16. The doctrine of Christianity was a doctrine of liberty. Hence mistaken men, especially Jewish converts, impatient, as we have observed, of any heathen dominion, might be ready to infer, that Christians were exempt from subjection to the laws of heathen governments. This he obviates by telling them, that all other governments derived the power they had from God, as well as that of the Jews, though they had not the whole frame of their government immediately from him, as the Jews had. Whether we take the powers here, in the abstract, for political authority, or in the concrete for the persons de facto exercising political power and jurisdiction, the sense will be the same; viz. that Christians, by virtue of being Christians, are not any way exempt from obedience to the civil magistrates, nor ought by any means to resist them; though by what is said, Rom 13:3 it seems that St. Paul meant here magistrates having and exercising a lawful power. But whether the magistrates in being were or were not such, and consequently were or were not to be obeyed, that Christianity gave them no peculiar power to examine. They had the common right of others their fellow-citizens, but had no distinct privilege as Christians; and therefore we see, Rom 13:7 that where he enjoins the payingof tribute, custom, &c. it is in these words: Render to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute, honour to whom honour, &c. But who it was to whom any of these, or any other dues of right belonged, he decides not; for that he leaves them to be determined by the laws and constitutions of their country. Instead of ordained of God, we may render the original τεταγμεναι, by disposed, or established. See Acts 13:48. Divine Providence ranges, and in some sense establishes, the various governments of the world; they are therefore under the character of governments in the general to be revered: but this cannot make what is wrong and pernicious in any peculiar forms, sacred, divine, andimmutable; any more than the hand of God in a famine or pestilence, is an argument against seeking proper means to remove it. See Locke, Doddridge, and Mintert.

return to '

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Let every soul be subject — In things lawful only; for else we must answer as those apostles did, Acts 4:29 , and as Polycarp, who being commanded to blaspheme Christ, and to swear by the fortune of Caesar, peremptorily refused, and said, We are taught to give honour to princes and potentates, but such honour as is not contrary to God’s religion.

Ordained of God — In regard of its institution, though for the manner of its constitution it is of man.

return to '

第XIII章

内容

本章は主として私たちの政治的義務について論じる。ローマ13:1から13:7まで、使徒は私たちが行政官に対して負う義務を強調する。ローマ13:8から13:10において、彼はクリスチャンが置かれているより一般的な義務に言及するが、依然として彼らの市民的・社会的関係に特別な言及を保つ。ローマ13:11から章の終わりまで、彼は模範的で聖なる行いを命じる。

ローマ13:1-14

分析

権威にある者への従順の義務は強調される、

1. 世俗の支配は神聖な制度であり、それゆえ合法的な権威の行使における行政官への抵抗は神への不従順であるという考察によって、ローマ13:1、ローマ13:2。

2. 彼らの任命の目的またはdesignから。それは社会の善を促進し、悪を行う者には恐怖、善を行う者には誉れとなるためである、ローマ13:3、ローマ13:4。

3. そのような服従が道徳的義務であると同時に市民的義務であるゆえに、ローマ13:5。これらの根拠の上に、貢または税の支払い、および一般的敬意が喜んで払われるべきである、ローマ13:6、ローマ13:7。

クリスチャンは権威にある者に従順であることのみならず、すべての社会的・相対的義務を果たすこと、特に他のすべての義務の遵守を含み確保する愛の義務を果たすことをも束縛される、ローマ13:8-10。夜はふけ、日が近づいた、苦難と試みの時はほぼ終わり、救出の時が近づいているという考察によって、社会の一員としての純潔で模範的ないのちが強調される、ローマ13:11-14。

Commentary

ローマ13:1

すべての人は、上に立つ権威に従いなさい。every soul（すべての人）という表現はevery one（すべての人）と同義にしばしば用いられる。しかし時に強調的であり、この箇所ではおそらくそうである。By higher powers（上に立つ権威によって）は、最も一般的かつ自然には、職の等級や彼らの性格に関わらず、権威にある者たちを意味する。私たちは最高の行政官のみならず、私たちの上に権威を持つすべての者に従うべきである。抽象語powersまたはauthorities（ἐξουσίαι）は、権威を与えられた者たちのために用いられる、ルカ12:11、エペソ1:21、エペソ3:10等々。higherと訳された語（ὑπερέχων）は、尊厳と権威において私たちにまさるすべての者に適用される。1ペテロ2:13において、それは王に最も高い者として、すなわち他のすべての行政官にまさる者として適用される。しかしここでは一つの階級の行政官が他の階級と比較されているのではなく、彼らは職にない他の人々の上にある者として語られる。この語を行政官の性格に関係させ、「良い行政官に従え」という意味にするのは極めて不自然な解釈である。これは語の用法に反し、文脈と不一致である。従順は権威にある者たちの個人的功績のゆえに命じられるのではなく、彼らの公的な地位のゆえに命じられる。

使徒時代には、世俗の行政官への従順の義務を教え込むことに特有な必要があった。この必要は部分的には、キリスト教への改宗者の大部分がユダヤ人であり、異邦の権威に服することに特に嫌悪感を抱いていたという事実から生じた。この嫌悪感は（特有であった限りにおいて）、この服従が不法であり、あるいは少なくとも神の民としての彼らの性格を著しく損なうものであるという彼らの間の一般的な印象から生じた。彼らは長く神政政治の下で生きてきた。申命記17:15において、「あなたは必ず主あなたの神が選ばれる者を王として自分の上に立てる。あなたの同胞の中から、あなたは王を自分の上に立てる。あなたの兄弟でない外国人を自分の上に立ててはならない」と言われる。それゆえ彼らの間で「カイザルに税を納めることは合法か、否か」と絶えず議論された疑問であった。大半が少なくとも密かに否定的に答える傾向にあった疑問である。外国のくびきの下でのユダヤ人の落ち着きのなさのもう一つの源は、メシヤの国の性質について彼らが抱いた観念であった。彼らは世的な君、その国がこの世のものとなることを期待したので、だれかが「私はキリストである」と叫ぶたびに反乱を起こす用意があった。この時期のユダヤ人の歴史は、これらおよび類似の原因がローマ政府に対する彼らの感情にどれほど大きな影響を及ぼしたかを示す。彼らは絶えず騒動を起こし、それはローマからの追放、ついにはエルサレムの完全な破壊に至った。それゆえそのような民からの改宗者が「上に立つ権威に従え」という命令を必要とすることは驚くべきことではない。彼らの以前の意見や感情の効果に加えて、キリスト教自身の性格の中に、またそれが引き起こす興奮の付随的な結果の中に、初期クリスチャンの多くが世俗の支配者に服することに反発する理由を説明するものがある。彼らは疑いなく、他の教理と同様に、自分の好みに合うようにクリスチャンの自由の教理を歪めた。しかし、この結果は宗教に帰せられるべきではなく、その完全な力なしに真理の形だけが受け入れられた者たちの不適切な感情に帰せられるべきである。

というのは、神から出ていない権威はなく、存在している権威はすべて神によって立てられたものだからです。Οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐξουσία εἰ μὴ ἀπὸ θεοῦ。これは非常に包括的な命題である。すべての権威は神から出ている。神から派生したものでない限り、いかなる人も他の人の上に正当な力を持たない。すべての人間の力は委任的かつ奉仕的である。これは両親、行政官、および教会の役員について真である。しかし、これがこの箇所の意味のすべてではない。それはすべての政府（ἐξουσία、権威）が（ἀπὸ θεοῦ）神から派生したものであると主張するだけでなく、すべての行政官が神のものであると主張する。すなわちその権威はjure divino（神法による）である。ἐξουσίαという語はこの連結において明らかに具体的な意味で用いられている。これは節の他の句における語の用法から明らかである。「上に立つ権威」および「存在している権威」は具体的な語であり、権威を与えられた者たちを意味する。ローマ13:3、13:4を比較せよ。そこでは「支配者」と「奉仕者」が抽象的な「権威」の代わりに置かれる。ここで教えられる教理は節の第一の句に含まれる命令の根拠である。私たちは行政官に従うべきである。なぜなら彼らはその権威を神から受けるから。人間の政府は神聖な制度であるだけでなく、その政府が存在する形態、およびその機能を行使する人々は、彼の摂理によって決定される。いかなる等級の行政官も神聖な任命によって行動すると見なされるべきである。神が個人を指名するのではなく、行政官がいることが彼の御心であることから、事実上権威を着せられるすべての者が、神の御心に基づく従順の主張を持つと見なされる。同様に、両親の子供に対する権威、夫の妻に対する権威、主人のしもべに対する権威は神の制定による。この節の命令には、従順の対象に関する限り制限はないが、従順自体の程度に関する限りはある。すなわち、私たちは実際に私たちの上にあるすべての権威に、その権威が合法であれ簒奪されたものであれ、彼らが正しくあれ不正であれ、従うべきである。実際に在位する皇帝は、その笏に対する権利についてどう考えようと、ローマのクリスチャンによって従われるべきであった。しかし、もしそれが権威を越え、彼らに偶像を礼拝するよう要求するなら、彼らは人にではなく神に従うべきであった。これがすべての人間の権威に対する制限である。人への従順が神への従順と不一致であるときはいつでも、不従順が義務となる。

return to '