Romans 13:1-7 and Christian Submission to Civil Government 

Part 2

 
Flow of the Argument

Now let us go through the passage again to notice how the terms fit together to form Paul's
argument:

Verse 1: Paul begins with a command and supports it with a theological reason: Submit to civil
rule because God has ordained civil powers. Paul is not referring to specific individuals, but to
the general principle of civil rule. Although current world powers are temporary (13:11-12) and
ultimately opposed to Christ's rule,35 they are theologically legitimate. God has authorized
humans to have civil governments. However, since God is the source of the authority, civil
orders should not rescind or contravene divine orders.

Verse 2: Because civil authority is legitimate, those who resist civil authority are resisting
something that God has purposely ordained, and they will therefore incur judgment. The present-
tense verbs show that Paul is discussing a persistent resistance, not an isolated incident of
disobedience.36

What kind of "judgment" will come on the rebellious? Divine judgment fits in with 13:1-2a and
perhaps 5, but human judgment fits in with 3-4. "Most commentators prefer to think of it as the
judicial punishment bestowed by civil government" (Earle 205). "To argue that the `judgment' of
13:2 means divine or eternal judgment is to exalt the state to deity" (Hynson 265). However, the
structure of the passage, with statement and consequence in both 13:2 and 3 (see the outline in
the previous section), supports the idea of divine judgment. This does not mean that God will
punish people for every broken civil law — this verse does not give the state authority over
anyone's eternal future — the law-breaking under discussion here is continual, deliberate
subversion, promoting anarchy, and for such there will be divine judgment.37

Verse 3: People who do good need not fear the government, says Paul, since rulers punish the
bad, not the good. This is clearly a generality. Although Judaism was a legal religion, Jews had
nevertheless been persecuted by government officials. Paul himself had been a persecuting
authority, albeit a religious one. Jesus had done good and had nevertheless been punished as an
evildoer. In 12:14 Paul speaks of persecution, which was often done by civil rulers. No civil
government has ever fulfilled its divine responsibilities perfectly.

Paul's primary purpose in this passage is to teach Christians what they should do, and his
comments about civil legitimacy support that practical purpose. His theological foundation is
general; the advice for the situation at hand is specific.38 That does not reduce the truthfulness of
what he says about the state, but it advises us to be cautious about applying Paul's general
statements to other specific situations. This section describes the way government ought to
be;39 it does not specifically address the situation in which government does the opposite of its
divinely ordained function.40

Verse 4: Commentators (and the RSV) often take "wrath" as divine, but I think it may be human
wrath or punishment. First, the evidence for divine wrath: Human wrath is generally criticized in
the NT, but here wrath is viewed favorably. Also, the word usually refers to God's wrath. In
12:19, the nearest use, the wrath is God's.

However, in 13:4, "wrath" seems paired with the ruler's sword. And in 13:5, it seems contrasted
with conscience, and thus contrasted with the theological perspective on civil order. These things
suggest that the wrath may be human punishment. Of course, the ruler is God's agent, so in an
indirect sense the punishment is also of God. Again, Paul is writing in ideal, general terms; he
does not imply that every specific punishment is divinely sanctioned. Rather, the government's
ability to punish is divinely authorized. So I think it is plausible, though not proven, that "wrath"
here refers to human punishment.

Verse 5: Christians should submit not only because of wrath — not only because submission is a
pragmatic way to avoid pain — but also because of conscience. Not only for external reasons
(for fear of getting caught), but also for internal (because of knowledge that submission is God-
ordained). Christians should submit whether or not they are likely to get caught.

Since conscience (either knowledge or inner voice) can also lead us to disobey an unjust civil
rule, "Paul's appeal to conscience (13:5) is a two-edged sword.... The possibility of obedience to
the just state and disobedience to the unjust state are clear alternatives" (Hynson 267). Rom 13
presupposes that civil rulers are using their delegated authority rightly; it does not address the
question of disobedience to unjust orders. "One's own critical reflection and judgment about
what is `good' come into play" (Furnish 137).

Verse 6: We pay taxes because God has authorized civil governments,41 and taxes are the means
by which governments function. Paul is giving a specific example of a way the Roman Christians
should submit to government. Taxes were controversial at the time Paul wrote, and his comments
address a current concern of his readers in Rome.

From the Roman historian Tacitus, we know that public outrage at the corrupt
practices of these citizen collectors of "revenues" reached a climax in a.d.
58.... Paul's letter to the Romans was sent from Corinth in a.d. 56 or 57, before
Nero's tax reforms and during the period when public pressure was building
against the abuses of the revenue collectors (Furnish 132).

If Romans 13.1-7 was written within a very few years of the return of the Jewish
and Christian communities to Rome after the Claudian expulsion, every effort had
to be made to restore the credibility of the Christian community (now
distinguished from the Jewish) as a law-abiding group.... Taxation was a major
issue in Rome...in the year 58AD (McDonald 23).
Verse 7: To whom do Christians owe respect (same Greek word as "fear") and honor? I'm not
sure. Paul has just told his readers how not to fear the civil rulers (4b); does he now tell them
they should fear the rulers? "Taxes and revenue, perhaps honor, are due to Caesar, but fear is due
to God" (Yoder 211). If the Roman Christians had already been taught that "fear" is due only to
God (an unprovable hypothesis), the meaning would be clear; otherwise the natural meaning
would be to fear the civil rulers. The meaning could be either to respect them, or to be afraid if
you have reason to (4b). "Given the theology of good government, `fear' is a proper response
to God-appointed authority" (Dunn 768).

 
The Message of Romans 13:1-7

The Roman Christians were divided into various house churches. They were divided about Paul's
gospel to the Gentiles. Paul wanted to unify them, not only because the gospel calls for Jew-
Gentile unity but also because he wanted to enlist the support of the Roman churches. As part of
Paul's purpose, he wanted to ensure that no Christian faction in Rome, whether Jew or Gentile,
became involved in a revolt, whether by withholding taxes or by active, violent resistance. He
does not give a complete theology of the state — he gives only enough theological background
to serve his argument, which zeroes in on the specific issue of taxes.

First, he gives the general admonition to do good even to evil people, and he reminds his readers
of the universal obligation to love. Since Christians should respond to evil with good, even to the
point of blessing their persecutors rather than responding with violence (12:14-21), it becomes
obvious that a Christian should in normal circumstances cooperate with civil authorities, who,
instead of being inherently evil, have a positive role in society, a role sanctioned by God. Civil
rulers do not acknowledge God's superior authority, and all human governments will in time be
swept aside. Nevertheless, Christians, as God's servants in this world, should submit to the God-
ordained civil functions. Though they will become obsolete, they are not yet obsolete.

Paul states the thesis that everyone should submit to the various civil authorities, which have
been authorized by God. Some interpreters, civil rulers in particular, have used this verse to
demand complete compliance with all their wishes. Such an interpretation distorts what Paul
wrote. Although in most situations obedience is a practical result of submission, exceptions are
allowed. Jesus did not submit to the demands of the Judean leaders who had civil and religious
authority. He submitted to the higher authority and suffered the civil penalty.

"When they [civil rulers] no longer exercise authority in God's service it is no longer the
authority of God.... They are appointed to support the good, but they are not themselves the
arbiters of what is good" (Furnish 136-137). Under some circumstances, when conflicting orders
have been given, submission to a higher authority — God — is required.42

Second, Paul did not give theological legitimacy to specific human rulers or laws, nor to the
Roman Empire or to any form of government (if such were true, God would be changing his
plans almost constantly and working against himself). Instead, God has ordained civil authorities
as a general principle.
Therefore, the person who persistently resists the principle of civil authority — such as a person
who refuses to recognize any legitimate functions of civil government — is working against
what God himself wants, and a resister will incur judgment. Paul is not discussing an otherwise
law-abiding person who feels that a particular civil law is not compatible with Christian duty.
Nor is he discussing occasional infractions. Rather, he is describing an anarchist, a rebel, such as
the Judean/Galilean Zealots and someone involved in tax resistance such as in Rome at the time.

The judicial appeals process illustrates one aspect of submission. According to Acts, Paul used
his right of appeal. An appeal is not submission to a specific person, but it is submissive to
government as an system, and that is what Rom 13 advocates. The appeal system is a human
admission that government is not perfect — appeals are allowed as part of the system. However,
if one does not appeal an injustice, one is failing to submit to the intent (both of God and of the
human designers of the government) of the system to provide justice despite admittedly
imperfect administrators.

Paul explains himself further by noting that civil rulers, in general and at that particular time,
punish people who harm society; they generally leave good citizens in peace, or even reward
them. There are of course exceptions to this, but this is the way civil government usually
operates, and we can see that this is a good function, with good results. It would not be wrong to
work against specific injustices, but it is wrong to work against government itself, because civil
government is generally beneficial. As rulers do their assigned jobs to punish evil, even to using
the sword, they are doing work authorized by God. This does not mean that every civil judgment
is divinely authorized (the appeals process is an admission of that) but it means that civil rulers
are authorized to make such judgments.

So if people want to avoid fear of punishment, they should submit. If they are doing wrong as an
ongoing practice, they have reason to fear. God won't give supernatural protection to their
rebellion. In 13:5, Paul summarizes his argument: everyone should submit to civil authority not
only for practicality but also because they should know that civil government has a right to rule.

Paul then moves to a specific application, taxes, a topic most likely to be of concern in Rome
(and to anybody, anytime, anywhere). Paul starts with a positive assumption: You pay taxes.
Taxes pay for the good functions that civil government does. Paul then moves to an imperative:
Pay all your taxes. Don't think that you can find justification in Christianity for a tax revolt.
Taxes belong to the authorities (not the individuals, of course, but the offices), and we owe it to
them; we should give the money back. Taxes are simply one of our obligations.

So the meaning is simple: Christians are not anarchists. Even though they preach the eventual
reign of Christ, they are not a threat to the existing civil governments. They are law-abiding, and
they pay all their taxes.

Paul wrote for a narrow purpose: to squelch any ideas of participation in the current tax revolt in
Rome.43 He addressed a contemporary concern in the Roman church. Whereas much of Roman
society was grumbling about the telos taxes, Paul was advising Christians to avoid participation
in a tax revolt or a violent rebellion.
 
Application in Other Situations

When we apply Paul's principles to other situations, we may arrive at more questions than
answers. How many of his comments were based on the temporary situation, and how many
were timeless? Paul did not address the legitimacy of specific individuals or political systems.
He did not address the conflicts that inevitably arise when sinful humans are asked to administer
godly goals or when the government fails to perform its God-ordained function to punish evil
and reward good. And he certainly did not address modern democracy. But these are the issues
about which Christians today want ethical guidance.

Christian submission becomes more difficult when civil legitimacy is clouded. Few civil
governments have acquired power legitimately. Almost all, including the Roman rulers when
Paul wrote, took it by violence from someone else, or their ancestors did. At most times, there is
no question as to who is exercising authority. But there are sometimes transitions in which it may
not be possible to know who is legitimate. For practical purposes, Christians have to treat almost
all as legitimate and submit to those who have civil power.44 The gospel should not be tainted
with political positions.

This presents a practical problem in civil wars, especially those involving guerilla operations.
Both sides claim legitimacy; both may exercise power, but no one can determine which side, if
any, will win in the end. Suppose a Christian lives in an area that has been controlled by
insurgents for several years. The insurgents have set up government administration, punishing
evildoers and rewarding good behavior, administering schools, building roads and managing an
economy. They are rebels to the central government but authorities locally; a Christian in the
area should submit to the people who are currently exercising civil authority. In some areas,
however, practical control may fluctuate from day to day. When the federal army is in the area,
the Christian submits to that authority. When the army leaves, the guerrillas return, and the
Christians again submit. The end result is that Christians in such an area may pay taxes to both
sides.

Another question may arise when there is a difference between written law and de facto law.
Bribes are illegal, but in some countries, nothing can be done without paying bribes. Should the
Christian submit to the person exercising authority, or to a written law that is functionally
powerless? In some situations a Christian might decide that a "bribe" is for practical purposes a
tax that functions to supplement the otherwise inadequate salaries of government officials. Some
of the taxes taken by Roman tax collectors seem little different than modern bribes, but Paul
apparently advised paying the charges.

The application of Rom 13 in such situations challenges a Christian's wisdom. In

what way should one submit to authority? Equally sincere Christians may make different
decisions, all acknowledging God's right to rule, the fact that he has allowed fallible humans to
rule, and that he wants Christians to serve in this world of inevitable contradictions.
What should a Christian do when a civil ruler or a law requires a Christian to break God's law?
The answer is clear; God's law has priority, since he is the supreme authority. Rom 13:8-10
teaches the priority of love and the avoidance of harm. This divine demand may conflict with
civil laws. "Disobedience to the state on the ground of conscience [e.g., knowledge that
complying with civil orders will hurt our neighbors], which is certainly inferred in 13:5, is...one
legitimate reason for disobedience" (Hynson 261).

Perhaps the most difficult application problem is a civil government that is so corrupt or inept
that it does not do its God-ordained function. It does not deter crime; it allows good people to be
punished. Can a government ever become so ungodly that a Christian should rightly seek its
overthrow?45 Paul's teaching is flexible, but I don't think it can be stretched to support active
rebellion.46 Paul does not require absolute obedience — he commands an attitude of submission
(which normally results in obedience but allows civil disobedience whenever it is necessary to
obey God's law). He specifically disallows tax revolts and implies that persistent rejection of
civil authority is ungodly. His instructions do not seem to have room for a complete rejection of
the legitimacy of a government that is currently exercising power.

Practical problems also argue against rebellion. No government is perfect, and we do not know
how flawed it must be before submission is no longer appropriate.47 The Roman government was
flawed, sometimes conquering territories, killing thousands, enslaving other ethnic groups, due
to the personal ambition and greed of corrupt leaders, but Paul does not hint that rebellion is in
any way justified. Second, when government becomes thoroughly flawed, other civil authorities
rise to fill the power vacuum. Christians need not use violence to initiate this, but may assist the
new authorities after they have risen. Third, even though Christianity might be perceived as a
political threat, it should not actually be a threat to existing civil governments; in most cases that
would detract from the gospel.

How does submission apply in a participatory democracy, in which citizens are asked to exercise
political powers? In democracy, all voters have some power for a few moments each year, and
then they turn over the authority to elected officials who have the responsibility to exercise day-
to-day authority. Each participant in the system submits to the collective power, the choice of the
majority.

Is political participation, such as voting or lobbying, a Christian duty, as Cranfield claims?48 This

passage permits participation, but it does not require it in most democracies, in which
participation is optional rather than required. Rom 13:1-7 does not list any participation as a duty
to government; it was not an option at the time Paul wrote.49 "It is therefore illegitimate to extend
the meaning of the text as if it self-evidently applied as well to other kinds of services which
other kinds of governments in other ages might ask of their citizens" (Yoder 205). This text does
not tell us whether a Christian should vote; for that we must evaluate other biblical principles.
Voting may entail moral compromises (deciding which platform has the fewer evils) and the
possible duplicity of participating in a system when one is unwilling to support the results if they
conflict with religious sensitivities. For such reasons, Christians may vote, or they may choose to
avoid voting.
Is it permissible for a Christian to serve in the role of a judge or executioner, who is asked by the
civil authority to exercise vengeance50 on behalf of others? Some Christians, such as those in
Anabaptist traditions, keep away from political power for that reason.

Christians are told (12:19) never to exercise vengeance.... Then the authorities are
recognized (13:4) as executing the particular function which the Christian was to
leave to God.... The function exercised by government is not the function to be
exercised by Christians.51

We live in a fallen world. Despite the high ideals of civil government, despite the good intentions
of democratic leaders, the system itself can support injustice. Christians who are honest may not
make as much money as people who cheat. Indeed, Christians may be the ones being cheated,
and governments may be unable to restore their money. People with scruples may be penalized
in schools and on the job. No matter how many avenues of appeal we may try, sometimes we
suffer due to the way government is administered. The Christian response is not to rebel or to
withhold taxes, but to submit — even if it entails suffering.

Many people are not willing to accept suffering, but Christ has not promised us freedom from
suffering or freedom from injustice in this world. "The willingness to suffer...is itself a
participation in the character of God's victorious patience with the rebellious powers of his
creation. We subject ourselves to government because it was in so doing that Jesus revealed and
achieved God's victory" (Yoder 213).

 
The Message of Other Biblical Texts

Rom 13 presents a general picture of civil rule; we should also consider other relevant passages
and the example of God's faithful people recorded in the Scriptures.

Genesis 9:6 seems to authorize capital punishment, but it does not specify how it is to be
administered. Ancient Israel has many examples of civil administration, but space does not
permit an adequate discussion of their relevance to modern Christianity. It is notable, however,
that Samuel warned the Israelites that a formal civil government would raise taxes and create
injustices (1 Sam 8:11-18). When the Jewish nation came to an end, God apparently expected the
Jews to submit to the conquering empires.

The Maccabean revolt is a historical precedent for a religious-motivated rebellion, but the
example is neither criticized or condemned in the New Testament. The revolt quickly went
beyond its religious basis, and the Maccabean kingdom had serious shortcomings and was
replaced by the Romans.

Jesus taught that we should pay tax "not on the ground of the legitimacy of the tax, but on the
pragmatic basis of avoiding offence (Mt. 17:24-27)" (Hynson 256)52; in Matt 22:15-22 he
advised paying tax because Caesar (meaning the government, not the specific man) owned the
money.53 But Jesus did not become a slave of the government, either — he continued to preach
allegiance to the kingdom of God even when threatened with death. "He urged submission to and
practiced criticism of the government at the same time" (Cook 48). Jesus called Herod a fox
(Luke 13:32); he criticized the way gentile rulers behaved (Matt 20:20-28; Luke 22:25). But his
resistance was nonviolent, and he did not allow the crowds to force him into leading a revolution.
He knew the inadequacies of human rulers but allowed them to rule. He refused to enter a civil
dispute and left it to civil authorities (Luke 12:13-15).

In Acts 4 and 5, Peter disobeyed the rulers because of conscience, and he also accepted the
consequences. Paul exercised his rights as a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37-40; 22:25-29; 25:10-12).
Submission to and respect for civil government is also taught in 1 Tim 2:1-4; Tit 3:1; and 1 Pet
2:12-17.54

 
Conclusion

Christians should, as conscience and wisdom allow, obey civil authority. We recognize its
legitimacy; we know that the divine replacement has not yet come. We recognize its
imperfections, but as a general rule we submit. Civil authority, at least in principle, is for good
purposes, and we therefore support it by paying all the taxes we owe.

If there is a conflict between what God wants and what civil powers want, we are clearly told to
obey God, the higher authority (Acts 5:29). Individual laws may be broken for conscience' sake,
but there is no support in Scripture for deliberate rebellion against government per se or a refusal
to pay taxes. There are many gray areas not specifically addressed in the Bible, and these call for
wisdom and prayer.

 
Endnotes

35
 "Paul is resisting the attitude which in virtue of heavenly citizenship [Phil. 3:20] views earthly
authorities with indifference or contempt" (Käsemann [1980] 351).

36 "The immediate concrete meaning of this text for the Christian Jews in Rome...is to call them away from any notion of revolution or insubordination. The call is to a

nonresistant attitude toward a tyrannical government.... By `nonresistant'...is not meant compliance or acquiescence in evil, but...the suffering renunciation of retaliation
in kind. It does not exclude other kinds of opposition to evil" (Yoder 204).

37 Cranfield also favors the meaning of divine judgment, noting that it is not limited to the final judgment or eternal damnation -- divine punishment may also come in

this age (664 and note 1).

38 "The chief accent is not on the theological or metaphysical basis but on the injunction to be subordinate to the political authorities" (Käsemann [1980] 354).

39 This section also describes the way Roman government was at the time, and perhaps we should allow Paul's present-tense verbs to have more temporal significance

rather than describing a permanent truth. At the time Paul wrote, Roman rulers were not a terror to Christians, and they were allowing the gospel to spread. At that time
(as opposed to Nero's later rule, for example), people who did right were rewarded. The rulers were unwittingly assisting the spread of Christianity, and were
functioning as God's ministers.

40 "Romans 13 is concerned with the norm of civil obedience rather than with the problem of civil disobedience" (McDonald 22). "He is silent about possible conflicts

and the limits of earthly authority. The basis of what he demands is reduced to a minimum, while exegesis usually seeks [incorrectly] to take from it a maximum"
(Käsemann [1980] 354).

41 It seems unjustified to argue, as Weiss does (1257), that Paul argues for submission to all authorities based on a pre-existent willingness to pay taxes. (Weiss even

makes the unjustified claim that they pay taxes "without demur"!) Paul was not addressing, as Weiss claims, a "latently negative attitude" -- Paul wrote about deliberate
and persistent revolt -- active rebellion. Rebellion is often shown first in resistance to taxes (for example, in Judea at the time Paul wrote), and taxes seem to be an
important part of the problem Paul was addressing rather than a presupposition on which he could base his argument.

42 Rom 13:8-10 says that we owe no one anything but love, which never harms others. "It therefore becomes impossible to maintain that the subjection referred to in

verses 1-7 can include a moral obligation under certain circumstances to do harm to others at the behest of government" (Yoder 212).

43 Even though this epistle wasn't designed to be sent to Jerusalem, Paul may have been conscious of growing political discontent there. Since he was planning to visit

Jerusalem, he may have been thinking about how to address the situation there. Even when writing to Rome, he may have chosen terms and arguments that were
applicable to both Rome and Judea.

44 "The man who has asserted himself politically has a God-bestowed function and authority simply as the possessor of power de facto.... I...include tyranny and

despotism, which in any event reigned supreme over wide stretches of the Roman Empire.... Despotism, in modern terms the police state, is in no way excluded by
what is said in the text" (Käsemann [1969] 202-203). Dictators have taken upon themselves a responsibility, and God wants them to use it for good. Rom 13 does not
require unthinking obedience to every dictatorial order, but does advocate submission to laws that do not conflict with God's.

"Every sentence can apply also in a police state and it simply should not be overlooked that the apostle is in fact writing under a dictatorship with largely corrupt and
capricious representatives" (Käsemann [1980] 356).

45 "Where a government was not serving God for the good of its citizens, any appeal to this passage as a way of maintaining their subservience would be a complete

distortion" (Dunn 774). If the state was not good for the citizens, it would be failing to meet the functions that should come with legitimacy. But Christians might need
to submit so that the church did not become identified as a political enemy, and thus the gospel could continued to be preached. The best course of action might be
different in a predominantly non-Christian nation than in a nominally Christian state such as Nazi Germany. In the latter case, Christian truth might make a more
powerful impact by resistance (which could be nonviolent) than by cooperation and the appearance of complicity with injustices.

46 Soon after Paul wrote, the Roman empire persecuted and killed Christians. Revelation describes a demonic government that seeks the blood of martyrs, but

Revelation does not advocate or authorize or even hint at organized resistance to the persecution.

47 "Who is to judge how bad a government can be and still be good? How much deviation from the norm is justifiable on the grounds of human frailty? At what point

is a government disqualified?" (Yoder 201-202).

48 For the Christian living in a democracy...[submission] will include voting...on the basis of adequate knowledge" (Cranfield 663).

49 "Paul limits his scope to the requirement of obedience.... There was normally no other means of political expression for the stratum of society out of which early

Christianity arose" (Käsemann [1969] 205).

50 According to some theories, criminal penalties are not vengeful, but reformatory and serving as examples that help prevent future crimes by others. The honorable

ideals of theory are rarely attained; the common perception that criminal penalties are punishment is probably accurate.

51 Yoder 199. "The state may do some things that an individual [Christian] may not do, such as repay evil for evil" (Cook 53).

52 The tax mentioned in Matt 17 is the temple tax, which brings in the additional complication of Jesus' attitude toward the temple. Horsley rightly notes that Jesus'

response cannot be taken as a blanket endorsement of taxes, but Horsley's conclusion on the opposite extreme is unwarranted. He claims that "Jews (Israel) were not
obligated to pay taxes to God" (282). Arguing against his claim is Mt 23:23, in which Jesus sanctioned the practice of tithing. And Jesus told Peter to pay the tax for
two people, when only one payment was necessary for the situation. (Cf. when an official compels you to go one mile, go with him two.) Jesus' reply in Matt 17 was
meant to be ambiguous.

53 Horsley argues that Jesus was subtly advocating nonpayment of taxes by stressing that everything we own is actually God's (307, 310-313). This would be true if

Mark 12:17 were alone, but it ignores verse 16, which implies approval on the thought that Caesar had a legitimate claim on the money. If people felt that there was a
conflict between paying money to Caesar and serving God, they had the option of living without Caesar's money. Jesus' comment here was also meant to be
ambiguous. Taking sides in the politically-charged debate would have detracted from his gospel.

54 "Peter sets forth the motivation for subjection: `for the Lord's sake' (v.13).... Submit yourselves because to do so will honor His name [and his message] and failure

to do so would dishonor it" (Cook 52).