Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.
Hmmmmmmm. This one’s complicated. Most of us would like to add a few words to his verse “as long as I agree with it”.
People who once balked at government overreach during Covid are now encouraging everyone in Minneapolis to “just obey.” I can admit that I pointed to government rules as a reason to keep masks on in church during Covid but am pretty quick to call for civil disobedience today. But I am not going to pick a side in the modern debates here.
What I am interested in exploring is what role does this passage have to do with the modern issues facing the United States’ government right now? My answer is simple, not that much, and quite a bit.
First, to understand Romans 13:1 we have to understand the context in which it was written. Neither Paul nor God were articulating an attitude that Christians should universally hold in all times and at all places. Paul’s attitude towards Christian civil responsibilities is not abstract. It flows out of what scholars often refer to as Paul’s “eschatological ethic.” In short, Paul thought that Jesus was going to return during his own lifetime. The idea of the imminent end of the world shaped Paul’s ethics. One lives differently if one believes the end of the world is just around the corner. Paul’s statements on controversial issues such as slavery, the role of women in the church, and the nature and role of civil government are all colored by the view that the end of the world was approaching.
Paul wasn’t ok with slavery. Paul didn’t believe in the continued subjugation of women (at least, I hope not). Paul’s sole focus was on his mission to bring the message of Christ’s death and resurrection to the Gentiles. Nothing was to stand in the way of that mission. That “nothing” included the upheaval of Roman social norms. What witness would it be for the church if they promoted a new ethic that freed slaves and uplifted women when the empire was about to end? Mission and not submission was Paul’s focus. The same can be said about the relationship between the church and the Roman government. Staging a rebellion against the empire just wasn’t worth the effort when God’s new society was just around the corner. The message was rather simple: obey, be good citizens, and spread the gospel. It will be over soon.
Second, while Romans 13 makes it clear that the Roman authorities had received their authority from God, Revelation 13 makes it just as clear that Rome’s power and position was derived from Satan. Revelation was written to Christians undergoing marginalization and even persecution.Christian suffering was not at the hands of an empire appointed and given authority by God. In fact, God would save them from it. So according to God (Scripture), Roman government is both godly and demonic. The New Testament doesn’t have a consistent ethic on government.
Some might find the lack of consistency in the New Testament on the role of government troubling or problematic. I find it refreshing.
How important is Romans 13 for understanding the Trump or Biden administrations? Not that much. We now know that we do not have the luxury of belief that the return of Christ is imminent. We must live in the reality that the here and now matters as much as the world to come. As Christians, we have a responsibility to shape this world in addition to hoping for the next one. Slavery must be dealt with now. Gender inequality must be dealt with now. All the troubles of the world must be dealt with now. To ignore the now is to ignore the gospel.
How important is Romans 13 (and Revelation 13) for understanding the Trump or Biden administrations? Quite a bit. In Scripture we see the early church wrestling with how to live faithfully, and it comes up with different answers based upon circumstances. While Romans and Revelation might disagree on the specific nature of government, they do agree on a fundamental idea: the relationship between the church and state is determined by context. The situations we endure flow into a theology of government. An abstract theology of government should not dictate our ethics at any given moment or issue.
Whether it be vaccinations or the nature and role of ICE in immigration, our theology should not be driven by one verse taken out of context. Rather we should engage the world based as best we can on the ethic of Jesus, the golden rule, and the kingdom of God. Only then, when viewed through the lens of Christ, can we best determine just how godly or ungodly a government is as well as how to read any passage of Scripture.
I am well aware that many are not comfortable with a fluid understanding of Scripture. But I am more and more convinced that our faith is best described as a walk rather than a stance. And I look forward to continuing the journey.
10 Responses
“My only comfort in life and in death is that” I have an absolute and literal understanding of scripture. My Christ is American. You are so right in this reflection. Paul’s words are sometimes pastoral, advisory, practical, and intended for certain circumstances. In these particular cases, they are intended to strategically prioritize and sequentially reduce harm. Maintaining some semblance of order was practical, particularly if Christ’s return had been a reality. A zealot rebellion would have been crushed and the spread of Christianity hindered.
There is another angle to the civil disobedience question, in my mind. Those in Paul’s day had no concept of a democracy as we understand it today. In a democracy, our influence CAN make a difference. We have a responsibility to oppose tyranny, discrimination, injustice and cold-blooded neglect. To not oppose that is to allow tyranny ( the normal world order) to return.
So….would Christians, nationalistic and obsessively patriotic ones particularly, allow their sons and grandsons to be drafted for the invasion of Greenland, or perhaps even Canada or Mexico? Or how about local police forces and courts coming under the authority/ domination of a commander-in-chief? Better start thinking of where to draw the line! Let us not be as neglectful as the 1935 Ge4man church for the sake of Romans 13. If one wishes to apply Romans 13, apply it to support shalom, constitutional balance-of-power, worldwide health, trade, and treaty alliances. MAGA is not listed or implied in Romans 13. The opportunistic window is closing.
Thanks. “Our faith is best described as a walk not a stance”. Or both? Thoughtful and challenging. Subjectively, we are in the same boat with Paul in feeling that the end of the world is very near, except, unlike Paul, we believe we are the ones causing it.
I like the truth of thinking the Christian life is both a walk and a stance. It reminds me of the title of a mid-20th century book by Watchman Nee called “Sit, Walk, Stand.” He was looking in Ephesians of how Paul said that we are sitting in the heavens with Jesus (Eph 2:6), are called to walk by faith and love (Eph 4:1; 5:2), and stand against the principalities and powers (Eph 6:11, 13-14).
Chad, thanks for this helpful contextual reading of Scripture — and particularly, Romans 13.
Thank you for raising a complicated issue. I think you are correct to point out that our “walk” is of greater importance than our stance, but it is also difficult at times to separate the two. Scripture seems to be replete that the chief role of government is to provide justice and promote equity. What we see unfolding with our government is neither — it provides tax breaks for the wealthy and powerful while denying funding for the Affordable Healthcare Act, etc.
Thank you for this, Chad. I have found a couple of commentaries on Romans 13 in its larger context to be helpful. First one by Cherice Bock (Romans 12: 17 – 13:10 & Quakers’ Relation to the States) in which she points out that Romans 13:1 is part of a chiasm and the center point is 12:21 “love as a fulfillment of the law.” Love is what controls our relationship to others even through government. Keesmaat and Walsh’s Romans Disarmed: Empire and Justice has a helpful section on this passage. Even John Stott makes the distinction between Romans 13:1 as a divine ideal, not a human reality.
Thanks Chad, insightful and thoughtful as usual. When teaching Acts – Revelation I often had fun with the challenges of texts that seem to contradict each other, (Paul in 1 Corinthians does it several times) and what you raise was often interesting. I clearly remember the day when I asked if Romans 13 or Revelation 13 was more applicable to our current situation, a young lady from Central America had no doubt it was Revelation 13. I think, with thanks to Scot McKnight, the Revelation passage is showing us what is needed when a follower of the Lamb is living in “Babylon,” one needs to choose, will you follow the Lamb or bend the knee to Babylon? I doubt Paul would approve of anyone using his letter to encourage followers of the Lamb to bend the knee to Babylon.
Thanks Chad. So many Christians today point to Romans 13 as requiring obedience to whatever the government says or does. As you point out so well that is not an accurate understanding of Romans 13 or any part of scripture
For more recent commentary on Romans 13, check out Russell Moore’s article “Christians, Let’s Stop Abusing Romans 13” at https://www.russellmoore.com/2026/01/14/christians-lets-stop-abusing-romans-13/
How we miss you!