---------------------------
P1. v1. All authority is from God (no authority exists except this)
P2. v3-4. Rulers terrorize evil and promote good
P3. (implicit). Good and evil are defined by God's law, as well as the good means of terrorizing/promoting.
= v5-6 =
Verse 6 must be read in light of verse 5. See how Paul chains together clauses using "for" and "therefore".
In a phrase "A therefore B", A provides a basis for agreement with B.
In a phrase, "A for B", B provides a basis for agreement with A.
Leading up to "we do it not only because of wrath, but because of conscience" in verse 5, we have a "therefore", which indicates that the prior verses form a unit which is now being used to support the idea that "we do it not only because of wrath, but because of conscience". After that, we have "for"s, indicating that verse 6a also supports verse 5, and verse 6b supports verse 6a,
So, recall, verses 1-4 can be summarized: "rulers terrorize evil and promote good because they are servants of God".
v5 "Therefore" (since they are servants of God), we obey not only because we don't want to be terrorized, but also because of our conscience, which demands that we likewise obey God. The "wrath" is something that he expects everyone to intuitively understand; his point here is that it's not only because of wrath, but also because of conscience, and so Paul's emphasis, the thing that is accomplished by his reasoning, is the additional clause, "because of conscience".
v6. (6a) "for" it is because of "this" that you pay taxes, (6b) "for" they are servants of God. The "this" in v6a is "conscience" -- it is the emphasis of the passage, and is established again by repeating the justification from verses 1-4 in v6b.
Verse 6 reiterates that they are servants of God -- why? Remember the point of verses 1-5. "Them being servants of God" (v1-4) implies that "we should obey because of conscience" (v5). So, again, the emphasis here is that something is being done "because of conscience".
Now, isn't it remarkable that "for because of this you also pay taxes" begins with "for", indicating that it is given as a basis for agreement with the idea that we obey "not only because of wrath, but also because of conscience". We could reverse the argument: “we pay taxes for this reason [conscience], therefore we obey rulers not just because of wrath, but also because of conscience.” So taxes are an example of something we do because of conscience, which Paul is using as support, to make the point that the rest of the law is obeyed because of conscience.
If taxes are used as an example for support, then it is because he expects his audience to agree about them in advance. Arguments are supported by examples when the example contains common ground supporting the argument. So the reader is expected to have a prior understanding that taxes are paid because of conscience, which is so firmly rooted in their mind that Paul feels at liberty to use taxes as an example to support the idea that other laws should be obeyed "because of conscience", and not just because of wrath.
In order for the grammatical flow of this argument to make sense, the audience is expected to have had a prior inclination toward the idea that taxes are primarily paid on the basis of conscience as opposed to fear of penalty. It is no coincidence that the Old Testament law presents us with no civil penalty for failure to pay any of its taxes or tithes. Indeed, Paul's audience, on conversion, was given the gospel and the Old Testament, and they knew that their tributes to God were paid because of their conscience alone.
= v7-8 =
This is supportable by verses 7 and 8. Pay taxes to whom taxes are due (v7). Don't owe anyone anything except love (v8). These two statements are not disconnected; verse 8 follows sequentially from verse 7, reiterates verse 7, and describes the consequence of obedience to verse 7.
"Don't owe anyone anything except love" should not be interpreted to mean "don't pay taxes" -- Paul already said we pay taxes because of conscience. Now he frames that behavior as a debt of love. In this way, verse 8 transitions is discussion about the basis of obedience from conscience to love. Conscience and love are closely related, so that the next section (verses 9-10) is not disconnected from the prior section.
= v8-10 =
How do we know that the point about conscience in the case of taxes (which is well established in the mind of his audience) can translate to the rest of the law, so that we should obey the rest of the law because of conscience, just like we do with taxes? Paul employs the link between conscience and love to show that it applies both ways because obedience to the law is loving, and love is a matter of conscience. Here he doubly supports his point about conscience and the law, framing the law as descriptive of love, and love as the embodiment of the law.
Applying the principle which we learned from the example of taxes to the rest of the law, Paul's point can be summarized:
"You already know that we pay taxes primarily because of [love / conscience]. In the same way, we should obey the rest of the law because of [love / conscience]."
= e. =
So, in the final analysis: this passage does not support compulsory taxation. It doesn't say anything at all about compulsory taxation. It does not add any moral tolerability to an act of civil government to penalize nonpayment of taxes, nor to demand more taxes than what the law of Moses prescribes. It does not in any way establish compulsory taxation as a just or morally permissible behavior of government, nor establish additional taxes (not described by Moses) as morally permissible for civil government to take.
Instead, this passage emphatically requires that the audience already know that taxes are given solely on the basis of conscience, and then uses that prerequisite understanding as common ground to build the case that the rest of God's law is also obeyed on the basis of conscience, in particular the rulers to whom God's law delegates authority, insofar as they act within the boundaries of that authority which is given to them by the law.
(Consider the way people interpret this passage without that understanding. All day long we hear the argument that this verse gives secular government blanket divine authority to terrorize evil however they want, as if the word “evil” could not describe any act of the government itself! It leads to moral contradictions and a complete overthrow of the rest of the biblical teachings on morality and justice. It’s as absurd as saying “sin is lawlessness, therefore we should make up some laws”, as though moral anarchists and degenerates were not governed by their own scruples that they just likewise made up.)
---------------------
Anyone who's read my writings on this in the past may notice that my perspective has shifted somewhat, but I think that this reading is better supported by the grammar of the passage, and I feel a better peace about verse 6 than I did prior to this particular parsing. I'll be reviewing this in the future to make sure I'm not messing anything up, as this is a particularly complex argument from Paul, but I am feeling pretty good about it.
"There were so many, I've lost count."
