Romans 13:10

The asyndeton between these two verses arises from the vividness with which the author perceives their logical relation: “No, certainly! love cannot do wrong”...It has been asked why the apostle speaks here only of the evil which love does not do, and not of the good which it does. “The good to be done,” answers Hofmann, “was understood as a matter of course.” But the evil not to be done was still more so. The explanation of the fact arises from what precedes. Love is spoken of here only as the means and pledge of the fulfilment of justice. Now, the functions of justice have a negative character (not to do wrong).

The second proposition of this verse serves only to express as a conclusion (therefore, true reading) the maxim laid down as a thesis in Romans 13:8, and regarded as demonstrated. Πλήρωμα, the fulfilment; strictly: what fills a void; the void here is the commandment to be fulfilled.

Paul has thus closed his exposition of the Christian's duties as a member of civil society. It only remains for him to direct the minds of his readers to the solemn expectation which can sustain their zeal and perseverance in the discharge of all those religious and social obligations.

The nature of the state, according to Romans 13

The apostle's doctrine on this important subject occupies the mean between two opposite errors, both equally dangerous: that which opposes the state to the church, and that which confounds them. The first view is that which is expressed in the famous maxim: “The state is godless” (Odillon Barrot). Bordering on this saying, as it seems, was Vinet's thought when he wrote the words: “The state is the flesh,” thus contrasting it with the church, which would be the incarnation of the Spirit. This opinion appears to us false, because the state represents the natural man, and the natural man is neither “godless,” nor “the flesh” pure and simple. There is in him a moral element, the law written in the heart (chap. Romans 2:14-15), and even a religious element, God's natural revelation to the human soul (Romans 1:19-21). And these two elements superior to the flesh ought to enter also into the society of natural men organized as a state. This is what St. Paul has thoroughly marked, and what, according to him, gives a moral and even religious character to the institution of the state, as we have just seen in explaining this passage. But, on the other hand, we must beware of confounding this religious character of the state with the Christian character. It is impossible to distinguish the Christian sphere from the civil more exactly than Paul does in these two Chapter s, xii. and xiii. The one belongs to the psychical order; hence the πᾶσα ψυχη, every human soul, Romans 13:1; the other is spiritual or pneumatic, and supposes faith (Romans 12:1-6). The one has justice as its principle of obligation, the other love. To the one belong means of constraint, for we have the right to demand of every man that he discharge the duties of justice; the other is the reign of liberty, because love is essentially spontaneous, and cannot be exacted from any one. There is therefore a profound distinction between the state and the church, according to Paul's teaching, but not opposition, any more than between law and grace, or between justice and love. As the law paves the way for grace, and as the conscientious practice of justice prepares the soul for the exercise of love, so the state, by repressing crime, preserves public order, and thereby the condition in which the church can tranquilly pursue her work, that of transforming the citizens of the earth into citizens of the kingdom of heaven. There is thus a reciprocal service which the two institutions render to one another. But we must beware of going further; the church has nothing more to ask of the state than her freedom of action, that is to say, the common right. So Paul himself declares, 1 Timothy 2:1-2. And on its side the state has not to espouse the interests of the church, nor consequently to impose on this society, which it has not contributed to form, any belief or procedure whatever. The essence and origin of the two societies being different, their administration ought to remain distinct.

Such is the result of the exposition which we have just studied in chaps. 12 and 13. In tracing these outlines of the philosophy of right and of the theory of the state, by how many centuries was St. Paul ahead of his own age, and perhaps of ours? We have palpable proof of the truth of the saying with which he introduces this whole moral doctrine (Romans 12:3): “I declare unto you by the grace given unto me.”