Romans 13.1-7 and Empire?

What would one say if, while being persecuted, they were to receive a letter that said, “Be subject to the authorities” or the ones persecuting you? Any rational person that was to receive this would wonder. “Do not submit to your beliefs, but submit to the ones that cause you harm?” This tribe is devout to following God, but now what are they to think of this? Now suppose that there was a burgeoning movement of the Church in this country. These men and women were meeting secretly, often reading from a piece of paper. The only page of the Bible they could get their hands on. The only one who could read in the whole group was a man- so he was called their pastor. Those who were a part of this small church would take turns keeping watch for the police should they come around. They knew that the government had made sharing the good news of the Kingdom of God illegal in their country, but they could not help but tell others about the hope they had found. So they disobeyed direct orders from their government.

This situation is not unheard of; in fact this is still common in a myriad of countries today. Yet how are Christians and even Jewish Christians supposed to interpret Romans 13.1-7? Especially in a situation like this, where the Kingdom of God is obviously held higher than any Empire. They were obedient to the Kingdom first and foremost. In the event, the earthly government asked them to do something (or not do something) that was contrary to the Kingdom; they lived obediently to God alone. We know so little about the relations that the early Christians had to the civil and political leaders of the time that the letter to the Romans was written.

Paul gives two reasons why we should submit: because God himself ordains the authorities (v. 1b-2), and that they have the right to punish people who do evil, or who do not submit (vv. 3-4). Here is where most of the problem lies. God instituted rulers, good and bad; so God has ordained even the most malicious rulers? How can this be? This is where the most corrupt rulers look to gain support, as well as the lowly and meek to figure out why they are being persecuted.

Paul then begins to restate his reasons again, in reverse chiastic structure. “We submit because of possible punishment” (v.5). Paul then adds the application that we must show our submission to the government by paying our taxes (vv.6-7). The passage begins and ends with general mandates, with the bulk of the verses being 1-5 they explain why submission is warranted, and then 6-7 makes this injunction concrete. This whole unit is in fact an argument. The use of the Greek word gar (for, because) is found seven times throughout v. 1-6. Before moving forward it would be appropriate to say that Paul is not outlining his view of “the state”; he is not advocating for church and state.

Paul is saying in vv. 6-7 that we submit to the authorities by paying taxes; paying taxes to whom they are due. The noun phoros denotes the direct tributary payment, such as property tax or poll tax. The word telos denotes that of indirect taxes, tolls, and sales tax. In any regard the taxes we pay are in submission the governing authorities.

It can become problematic while reading this for the first time to buy into this theology. We wonder the words of Christ, and how he told us to view the world. Jesus proclaims that, “my kingdom is not of this world” (John 18.36), or the Sermon on the Mount and the beatitudes, yet submit to earthy beings? What about the people who have opposed authority who we hold as great heroes of the faith? Such as Justin Martyr, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr? We also see the great story of Dietrich Bonheoffer rebelling against Hitler with the Confessing Church.

Romans 13.1-7 could be under the concern of the interpolation theory. This is where an addition is made to the manuscript. The removal of 13.1-7 leaves a succinct flow from 12.9-21-13.8-10. However most scholars have rejected the interpolation hypothesis, this is primarily because no manuscript of Romans lacks these verses; an interpolation would have been made so soon after the letter was written that all subsequent copies contained it. The theory could have been propagated in that some group was not willing to submit to even Paul’s outline.
Another way to look at the interpolation hypothesis is that a skilled interpolator could perhaps have contrived this conformity to the language of the wider context. If true this would save Paul from the reputation of being a non-constant theologian. There is undoubtedly no warrant for this unit being an interpolation; there is no cause or secondary source to prove this.

Chapters 12 and 13 in their entirety form one literary unit, therefore they cannot be understood without each other. The text 13.1-7 cannot be understood alone. Chapter 12 begins with a pleading for nonconformity, then the concept of love that recurs in 13.8-10, thus leaving vv. 1-7 up for interpretation. In light of the Kingdom of God some may decide to resist a corrupt government, in this case Rome. This is understandable, because of what the government does to those alike. Their King is not like the kings of this world. Moreover, the Roman government took part in brutally oppressing those who followed Jesus. So Paul appeals to them first by 12.14-21. He is asking them to bless their persecutors, not to curse but to bless. Do not repay evil for evil, nor take revenge. Try to harmonize with the ones around you. If your enemy is hungry feed him, give him a drink if he is thirsty. Now Paul drives his theology into the minds of the Christians by telling them in v. 20 that by doing all of this they will heap burning coals on their heads. They will know that the people who helped them are Christians by the display of their love. We can read into the schema of 13.1-7 by what Paul wrote right before.

In verse two we see resistance, and ultimately that authority that which has been instated is by God. If we resist authorities in an unloving matter then we are opposing what God has instated. All believers are to submit to the exousia because the authority itself is from God. Here Paul uses words like “resist” and “oppose” to convey how we should act towards the authorities. Paul uses the word; antitassō -which is a word that is a militant term. It was originally a military term, meaning to "range battle against." It actually means to battle against someone- to resist them in violent means. If we are going to stand up for what we believe, it needs to be out of love, exemplified through Christ. For instance, to bomb an abortion clinic simply because we do not believe in abortion is not only inhumane, but uses violent means, ones that Christ would never use.

Question- did Paul himself ever stand in objection to the government? Was he ever subordinate? In Acts 16 Paul and Silas are imprisoned in Philippi, they are thrown in jail after being severely beaten. That night an earthquake comes and breaks their cell doors open, yet they do not escape. The prison guard and his family are then converted to Christ. The next morning the magistrates send the constable over to release them. Did Paul and Silas obey the governing authorities, even if it meant they could escape into freedom? It clearly seems so.

Paul’s response to the message of the magistrates may change the idea of submission. Paul retorts, “They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men who are Roman citizens, and have thrown us into prison; and do they now throw us out secretly? No! Let them come themselves and take us out” (Acts 16.37 ESV). Paul was very stern in showing the cowardice of the magistrates. Once the magistrates found out that they were Roman citizens they came and apologized at once, and then Paul and Silas were free to go. Paul is saying that after such a display of injustice, and such a disregard for due process, the magistrates cannot get off so easily.

Paul did honor the magistrates, by asking that they would exercise their authority. As well as asking that what they did in public should be brought to the public. Properly authorized individuals have the duty to keep order and punish wrongdoers. This is a standard Jewish viewpoint, and in light of this it is not far from a moderate Pharisaic line.

We have seen Paul in a way where he submits to the governing authorities, yet simultaneously places burning coals on their heads. Paul is showing his theology of 12.14-13.5 in the account in Acts when him and Silas are in jail. He was not subordinate, but loving, in a way that you can only love the magistrates.

In Daniel 4, Nebuchadnezzar has a dream. In him retelling the story he says, "The sentence is by the decree of the watchers, the decision by the word of the holy ones, to the end that the living may know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will and sets over it the lowliest of men" (Dan 4.17 ESV). The King, in his dream, recognizes that his Kingdom was given to him by God. God gave Nebuchadnezzar his kingdom? We see a picture of a pagan king that rules a massive Empire, an Empire that was responsible for the destruction of Judah and the exile of God's people. This is something that cannot be understood. Yet should we just submit, what if that happened today? The persecuted are not only in the New Testament.

So what then are we to do about such leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, and Saddam Hussein? These are some of the most corrupt leaders that we have seen outside of the Bible. Are we to submit? Are we to fight, with means of violence (which usually seems to be the case)? When Hitler was forming the Nazi party he called on the pastors of the German area to support him. The crisis of Nazism touched down right in the heart of Protestant theological scholarship, although there was little question. Most followed without question. Even the most corrupt rulers look to this passage in support of their corrupt regime.

When questioned about why he would not fight in the Roman Military, Justin Martyr, an early church father, said:


We who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, we willingly die confessing Christ. We have exchanged our swords for plowshares, our spears for farm tools… now we cultivate the fear of God, justice, kindness, faith and the expectation of a future… given us through the Crucified One (The First Apology, Chapter 39).


Is this submission? Is this resistance? Is this, as Paul says, in Romans 13.5, submission to authority? We cannot understand why he did this; nonetheless this is a church father standing up the Kingdom of God, not the Roman Empire.

In America we often believe that we can easily apply these verses. This is because we live in the myth of a Christian nation. Yet we must remember that while governing authorities have been given power by God, no Empire should ever be wedded with the Kingdom of Heaven. As well as nationalist narratives have no place being in bed with scripture. This is not a statement against Empires, as much as it is a loyalty to the Kingdom. This is where our allegiance should lie, first and foremost.

So then how are we to live in light of Romans 13.1-7 in America today? How are we to live when Christian brothers and sisters put Empire ideologies before the Kingdom of God? There seems to be two prominent sides of Christianity that have quarrels with each other. Some will bless an atomic bomb to wipe out a whole country, guilty or not. Others stand up and challenge the ethic of war. Both have their views on poverty, one side lets Capitalism trickle down to were there really is not enough, others give up their whole lives to serve and live among the poor. These are two extremes, however that is not the point of this argument. Rather it is to say that these sides have two different views on these issues (mostly social here) yet do they follow the same God? Most would say so. The point is that both these parties are different, yes, but they, in some way or another, oppose a type of government. Both sides have said their share of pointed things to governmental leaders on issues such as war, national security, abortion, poverty, energy, spending, and same sex marriage.

The Bush Administration took a very violent approach to the war in Iraq. The uncontrolled use of capitalism was also, and still is, under much scrutiny. “Promoting a culture of life” was used by John Paul’s papacy, until it fell under the rhetoric of President Bush. The meaning was lost; it became the narrow agenda of the public party. To be fair, Pope John Paul II opposed most Democratic views on abortion and same-sex marriage, but when Bush visited the Vatican the Pope shook his finger disapprovingly at Bush over the U.S. war in Iraq.

Rabbi Michael Lerner proposed in The New York Times that President George Bush should go before the United Nations and confess that, based on reports from intelligence experts he had believed that there we weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (this is why he called for an invasion), however the reports were wrong. As a result hundreds of thousands of innocent people were killed, cities were destroyed, the widows and orphans left were without shelter or food. Because of this the President should ask for forgiveness on behalf of himself and the great number of Americans that supported this. Rabbi Michael Lerner may be on to something. This story seems very familiar to the story of Paul and Silas in prison, and them asking the magistrates to openly apologize for the injustice they had done.

So should we oppose a power such as this? A power that kills anonymously, that leaves people in the dust for the pursuit of power. We should not comply. However we need to do it out of Love, not on our own agenda. This has been a great problem in America today. People are not complying with parts of the American system, once again they are asked to observe Romans 13.1-7 by most that do not even know the meaning.

However to be fair there are always two sides of the coin. When a more Conservative power is at work the then they are opposed by a more liberal party, or by ones who simply do not agree. Now with a more Liberal president, the conservative side is raising up. There are two sides that are opposing the powers that God has instated. What are we to do about this? It is easier to look at the more Conservative party, because the majority are Christians. Not always, but here in America we are seeing the gross combination of the Church and State- this is the ideal of the Conservative party, not the Liberal. Though the separation of Church and State is biblically founded, it is given to the Liberal party, making many Christians unhappy with the outcome.

We need to ask ourselves who is opposing? What are they opposing? Which side is opposing rightly? Should either side oppose our leaders at all? Are these issues important? Should we muddy ourselves in politics? Is it right to oppose a political leader for supporting abortion, and not oppose a leader for supporting a war that has killed innocent civilians? Is it right to oppose a political leader who gives billions to the wealthiest for our own economic security, and not oppose a leader who thinks it best to reduce giving to the world's poorest? This is a difficult task and, it is evident that most do not carry the answers to this.

God establishes all authority, but that does not mean that He approves all authorities. He is greater than all authority; even the best democracy in the world is not worthy of allegiance. God orders all powers. Just as a librarian orders the books and stocks the shelves, but she does not necessarily approve their content.

We can still oppose, yet it has to be out of love, we should then live according to Romans 13. Kingdom citizens should be the best citizens of any nation - especially if we carefully observe Romans 12.14-21. It is about our conscience, and how that motivates our subordination. There are two different realms of obligation. The duties of Romans 13 takes precedence over the social realm, the duties of Matthew 5 are of personal intent, yet they still can function in a social setting. Yet for now we need to listen well, argue well, and peruse an understanding. The Church and the people need to be able to argue well in times like this. There is no way to overcome all evil in the world.

At all costs we must never be overcome by evil nor overcome evil with evil, but overcome evil with good. When we do this we need to keep in mind to be the best citizens we can be, because our love is over any Empire.


Some sources used:

Byrne, Brendan, Romans, in Berit Olam. Edited by Daniel J. Harrington et al.; Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1996.
Campolo, Tony. Red Letter Christians. California: Regal, 2008.
Claiborne, Shane and Haw, Chris. Jesus for President. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2008.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans. Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY.: Doubleday, 1992.
Keck, Leander E. Romans. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville.: Abingdon Press, 2005.
Moo, Douglas J. Encountering the book of Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.
Wallis, Jim. The Great Awakening. New York: Harper One, 2008.
Walsh, Brian J. and Keesmaat, Sylvia C. Colossians Remixed. Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Wright, N.T. Paul in Fresh Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005.
Yoder, John Howard. The Politics of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.