If your interpretation of Romans 13:1-5 would require you to submit to a ruler like Hitler, then there is something seriously wrong with it. You need a better interpretation.
As far as I know, all translations and commentaries just accept the traditional interpretation of Romans 13. This is not surprising because most of the early translations into vernacular languages were done when the Christendom model was still widely accepted. Luther was beholden to political rulers for his protection from the pope so he supported state power. The translators who were set up by King James were not going to undermine his role.
Although Christendom has collapsed, most Christians still have a Christendom mindset, so they still trust in political power to make the world a better place. So the same approach to Romans 13 has been carried through into modern translations without any serious questioning, because they are done by biblical scholars who know very little about political theory.
I come from a different direction. Before, I became a Christian I was studying Economics and Political Theory. The main question of political theory is “How should humans govern themselves” and “what limits are there on government power”? Despite some very clever people having a go over a couple of thousand years, secular political theorists have not been able to come up with a satisfactory answer to these questions. When this frustration drove me to Jesus, I began looking in the scriptures for answers to the questions raised by political theory, because I knew God must have answers to them.
The standard Christian response based on Romans 13 seemed to be that “Whoever grabs power is God’s anointed”, and ”They can do whatever they like”, and “Christians must submit to them even if they are evil”. I had read enough history to realise that view was absurd, so I began to read the scriptures differently trying to find God’s true answer to the questions of political theory. It took a long time and serious study to see that God does have an answer.
Not many Christians take the journey that I did (no translators would), because most who are interested politics go to the scriptures to baptise/justify their existing political views. The traditional view of Romans 13 suits them well, because it gives the justification for the position that they have already adopted (and justifies their faith in political power). However, it is dangerous to answer little questions, if you have not resolved the big question correctly.
This series of posts has been quite selective. My full teaching on this topic can be read in Understanding Romans 13.
Excellent judges are raised by God to do good to everyone. In contrast, rulers sometimes do what God wants them to do, but it is usually not good, or even nice. They do what is good for themselves, not what is good for everyone. At best, it is a lesser evil.
If we trust Jesus and obey him, we will live good lives. No one would become a good person by submitting to Cyrus, Nebuchadnezzar or Pharaoh. Rather, they would struggle to be good, and would frequently have to compromise with evil to survive. Their only benefit is that they would be forced to trust in God for their safety.
Daniel served under several emperors, but it was a precarious life. He owed total allegiance to the emperor, and if he refused to obey his decrees, he could lose his place, and possibly be killed. (Actually, Daniel and his three friends would all have died, if God has not protected them from the lions and the furnace).
God placed Daniel in his role so he could speak prophetically, but it was a testing role. In the areas, where Daniel was governor, he had to implement the emperor's decrees, mostly with violent force. He would have to seize any wealth that the emperor demanded. Daniel was not able to establish the Kingdom of God in the places he was governor. His survival depended on his establishing the emperor's kingdom.
God put Joseph under Pharaoh in order to provide food for Abraham's descendants during a famine that the spiritual powers of evil planned to use to destroy the chosen nation before it got started. God did not put Joseph in his role to do good for everyone. Joseph actually enslaved the Egyptians who were land-owning independent farmers and turned them into serfs, totally dependent on the Pharaoh for their survival. They were rescued from a famine, but they paid a terrible price. Joseph was not able to advance the kingdom of God. Rather, he had to do everything that Pharaoh wanted, usually with ruthless force.
We should not be naïve about rulers. They are not good people that God has raised up to rule us so that we will become good, or even so that we will have good lives. God will sometimes use them to eliminate something evil that he is concerned about, or to accomplish some other important purpose, but mostly they will pursue their own good. They are usually manipulated and controlled by powerful government-spirits, so they will mostly be pursuing evil, even if they don't realise it.
We should only submit to a ruler because they have the power to make us do their will, and fighting against them would be a waste of effort, and would distract us from preaching the gospel and advancing the Kingdom of God. We should not assume that submission to rulers advances the kingdom of God or does good, because that would be naïve. It advances their kingdom and allows them to good for their friends.
The idea that submitting to a political ruler is the moral equivalent of submitting to God is absurd. Saying, as many do, that we don't have to obey if they are asking us to do something contrary to God's will does not help because it means we have to test every decree or ruling the political powers make to see if it aligns with God's will. We might just as well cut out the middleman and submit directly to Jesus and obey the leading of the Holy Spirit. If we do that, we will be doing God's will, regardless of what the ruler does.
Paul explains that those who resist God's system of good judges will find themselves under powerful worldly rulers who will do terrible evil. He contrasts God's judges (exousia) with worldly rulers. The word that he uses for "ruler" is "arkon". This is the same word as Paul used in the letter to the Ephesians to describe "government-spirits". Arkon are rulers that are opposed to God and usually controlled by powerful government-spirits.
Throughout the letter to the Romans, Paul engages in a debate, setting out a false position and demolishing it, before stating the true position. With regard to government, he begins setting out the contrasts in Romans 12. God's people are called to radically change their thinking and do his will (12:2). They were to love one another by joining together in the body of Jesus and sharing in the gifts of the Spirit (12:3-8).
The body of Christ was a relatively safe place in an evil world, because they could support each other and provide for each other when resisting evil. Paul told them to hate evil and cling to good (12:9). They should not be conformed to the patterns of the world (12:2) by relying on political power to obtain justice (12:19). They should not repay evil with evil (12:17) or see revenge against those who harmed them (2:19)
Followers of Jesus should not participate in the arbitrary and evil of Roman power. It did not provide justice, but protected the rich and powerful. Instead of relying on political power, they should overcome evil by doing good and providing justice within the body of Jesus. This justice would be delivered by elders rising up to become good judges, as described in Romans 13:1-3.
Paul explains that people who object to the justice provided by excellent judges applying God's laws are rebelling against God.
Anyone resisting the decision of a good judge is rebelling against what God has put in place and will receive a sentence from God. Worldly rulers hold no terror for good works, but only for those choosing the evil way (Rom 13:2-3).
Those who reject God's system of justice will inevitably find themselves under worldly rulers. People who have chosen the best way within the body of Jesus are relatively safe from evil, because they can support each other to protect their community. Those who choose God's good life do not need to fear worldly rulers (arkon). Paul urges followers of Jesus to do good by sharing in his body.
If you want to be free of fear of a judge's authority (exousia), do what is good. You will praise him, because he is God's servant for your good (Rom 13:3-4).Excellent judges applying God's law are the servants (deacons) of those who have chosen his good way. They do good for God's people. If we do not break the law by harming our neighbours, the judges will do no harm to us.
In contrast, worldly rulers (arkon) produce fear for those who reject God's way and choose to live under political power in whatever form prevails during their time.
But if you do evil, be afraid; for the ruler does not carry the sword for no purpose; for he is God's servant to avenge those who practice evil by decreeing sentence against them (Rom 13:4).Worldly rulers carry a sword and they are not afraid to use it. Their justice is based on power and coercion. People who are forced to live under political power, or choose to live under it, should be afraid of their rulers, because they can hit them hard if they step out of line, even if they are right.
Rulers carry the sword in an attempt to overcome evil with lesser evil. They don't attempt to overcome evil with good, as God requires.
In contrast, good judges do good for people who have chosen God's way (Rom 13:4). They implement a voluntary justice based on love that always does good for those who accept it.
A big translation problem in Romans 13 is the word "authority" (exousia). It is used four times in the first two verses of the chapter, so its meaning is really important for understanding Paul's message. By attaching the word "governing", modern translations give exousia the strongest possible meaning. However, like the English word "authority", the Greek word "exousia" can take a broad range of meanings, including freedom, ruler, authority and judge. Its most common use is for the authority that was given to Jesus (Matt 28:10). It is also used to describe spiritual authorities (Eph 1:21; 6:12).
In Luke 12:11, exousia is used in the context of appearance before a court, so "judge" or "magistrate" is the appropriate translation. The context in Romans 13 is similar, as Paul is thinking about crime and punishment. In most societies, the punishment of crime is handled by judges in courts of law. Therefore, translating exousia as judge makes sense in this passage.
The usual practice of translating exousia as authority does not make sense as it implies that Christians should submit every political authority including evil dictators. Paul had warned that Christians should not be "overcome by evil". It is unlikely that he would follow this warning with a message of comfort to rulers and authorities who do not acknowledge Jesus as Lord.
In Romans 13, exousia is authority that has been given by God to those who implement his law, so it must be referring to judges. The core message of Romans 13:1 is that all people should submit to excellent judges.
Every person should submit to the more excellent judges, because there is no legitimate judicial authority except under God.
Most people come to Romans 13 looking for a Christian political theory. Unfortunately, they are disappointed. I come at the passage in a very different way. God gave Israel a perfect system of government when they entered the promised land. They did not need a system of government while they were slaves, but once they began to live together in a small piece of territory, they did. The perfect system that God gave Moses was his law applied by local judges. I describe it in more detail at Law and Judges. God's perfect system of government was recorded in the books of Moses, so God did not need to give it again through Jesus or Paul.
I stumbled on the key to Romans 13 when I was pondering its meaning. My father always referred to the government as "the powers that be" It took me a while to realise this was a quote from Romans 13:1. One day I was wondering about this odd expression, and the conjunction of the plural "powers" with a singular verb "be". I realised that it could be translated as "the judges that are". I then thought "Where?" and "How come they just are, and are not appointed?". It then clicked for me that Paul was referring back to two verses in Deuteronomy that I had recently read.
Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand... before the priests and the judges that shall be in those days (Deut 19:17 ASV).
Thou shalt come unto the judge that shall be in those days: and thou shalt inquire; and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment (Deut 17:9 ASV).The modern translations refer to the judges that are in office in those days, but the word office does not exist in the Hebrew text. A literal translation would is "the judges that shall be in those days" or "the judges that are in those days". Paul would have been familiar with these texts. When he started thinking about justice and government, the Holy Spirit brought this expression to his mind.
These two verses summarise the perfect form of government that God gave through the Mosaic covenant: God's law applied by godly judges. So Paul was referring back to God's ideal government. He was not creating a new political theory in Romans 13:1, he was simply referring back to the perfect system of government that God has already given to Moses and confirming that God's will for government had not changed.
Paul affirmed the system of law and judges that God had already given, just as Jesus did (Matt 5:17-18). (That is why Jesus had nothing much to say about laws and structures of government.). Paul follows his affirmation of "God's law applied by local judges" by giving a few applications for life in the Roman empire, building on the more important behavioural stuff in Romans 12. (Law and government are always secondary for Christians.)
So if we want a Christian political theory, we cannot go to Romans 13, instead we must begin with Deuteronomy and God's law and local judges. I have not found any biblical commentary or Christian political theorist who has seen the link between Romans 13:1 and Deut 19:17 and Deut 17:9. But that does not surprise me, because most Christians who are interested in political theory hate God's law. However, they are missing an essential key, which explains why there has been so much confusion on this topic.
Most Christians assume that we must submit to all political powers. This cannot be true. If Paul believed that all authorities are from God, he would have used the word "all", but he did not. He used the Greek word "all" (pasa) when saying that "all people should submit", but he did not use it when saying which authorities to submit to.
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established (Rom 13:1b).
The traditional interpretation of these verses is that we must submit to all political authorities, because their authority is from God. This is a false syllogism. To see the twisted logic, look at the following sets of statements.
All authority is ordained by GodThis following example exaggerates the point.
Hitler has authority
Therefore Hitler is ordained by God,
so we must submit to him.
All authority is ordained by GodThat is not true. The correct logic is as follows.
Satan has authority
Therefore Satan is ordained by God,
so we must submit to him.
All legitimate authority is from God.The statement that all authority is ordained by God cannot be used to legitimise any and every political authority. It should inspire us to seek out legitimate authority.
Hitler and Satan are hostile to God
Therefore, the authority of Hitler and Satan is illegitimate.
If your interpretation of Romans 13 can be used to justify Hitler's power then there is something wrong with it. We need a better translation and interpretation of Romans 13.
I get frustrated when Christians blandly use Romans 13:1 as a slogan for political power, assuming it settles the issue, without considering what Paul actually said in his letter.
A well-known theologian recently gave a slightly more sophisticated version of their argument,
Biblical political theology is predicated on the fact that the one God who made the world wants the world to be wisely ordered, and to be wisely ordered through human government. So even people who would be seen as a bad ruler would have a God-given job which must be honoured. Even a cruel, wicked, stupid government has a role that is God-given.This type of political theology, which is very common, is used to interpret Romans 13 and claim that Paul was authenticating the authority of the Roman emperor. The evil man Nero was probably emperor at the time when Paul was writing, so if he was God's servant, we must submit to every political power. The implication is that God gave the Roman emperor authority so that he could bring order to the earth. Therefore, all Christians should submit to him, even if he often does evil things. The same principle is applied to all rulers. We are required to submit to rulers, even when they do evil, because they are carrying out a God-given rule.
This logic is flawed. Firstly, God never said that he was appointing rulers to ensure that his creation was wisely ordered. He gave responsibility for caring for the world to all humans. And he gave the law for the specific purpose of maintaining order on the earth (1 Tim 1:8-11). The idea that God appointed kings, president and other rulers to ensure that the world is wisely ordered is simply not true. In fact, they have been the main cause of disorder (1 Sam 8). Therefore, the claim that they have a God-given role that should be honoured is incorrect.
More important, even a cursory reading of the words that Paul wrote in Romans 13 shows that they are not a description of the Roman Empire. Rome did not do what Paul claimed that good judges would do.
The idea that Rome was interested in order and peace is a myth. The Caesars wanted control. They expanded the area under their area, so they could extract food and other resources and bring them back to Rome.
Roman soldiers were not scattered around the world to protect the people of the nations from troubles. They were there to keep people under control, and they were ruthless in putting down all opposition. Roman soldiers were cruel and heartless in dealing with ordinary people.
They would defend countries against invading armies, not for their protection, but to ensure that another empire did not get control of their resources.
Paul was able to travel fairly freely around the Roman empire, but that was not the result of Roman efforts to spread peace. It was an accidental consequence of their attempts to expand the areas they controlled.
If Paul was claiming in Romans 13 that political power could bring peace and order in the world, he was certainly not talking about the Roman emperor.
Paul was not describing the Roman justice system when he wrote in Romans 13:3-5.
Good judges hold no terror for those who do right, but only for those who do wrong. If you want to be free of fear of judges authority, do what is right. You will praise them, because the judge is God's servant for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for a judge does have the power to punish for nothing; for he is God's servant, to avenge those who practice evil by decreeing sentence against them. Consequently, you must submit, not only because of abhorrence of crime, but also for conscience sake.The Romans were not interested in providing justice for the ordinary people. Roman law provided some protections for the noble families who controlled Rome, but even that was quite capricious. A nobleman could be up one day, and down the next. Most ordinary people got no justice at all. Roman justice was used to enslave people and extract wealth for the benefit of the Empire. Beatings for trivial things were frequent and crucifixions were common for people who had done very little wrong. Even a Roman soldier would be lucky to get justice, if their commanding officer took a snitch against them.
Paul was not thinking about Rome when he said that people who do right had nothing to fear. Good people had very good reasons to fear the Roman authorities. Paul was able to appeal to Caesar, because he was a Roman citizen. That put him into an elite group. Ordinary people could not make that appeal. And the appeal did not seem to work for Paul, because he died in Rome, despite a representative of Rome recognising that he was innocent. King Agrippa said,
They began talking to one another, saying, “This man is not doing anything worthy of death or imprisonment.” And Agrippa said to Festus, “This man might have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar (Acts 26:31-32).This was not justice. True justice would have set Paul free, once it was understood that he had not committed a crime. But Agrippa and Festus wanted to protect their own reputation, so they were scared to do the just thing and set him free.
Pauls statement about good people having nothing to fear does not fit with Jesus’ treatment by Pilate. He agreed that Jesus was innocent, but he had him flogged and crucified anyway, because he was scared the Jewish power brokers would report him to Rome. Jesus was killed by Roman justice, like many others of his countrymen, so it could not be said that good people had nothing to fear from Roman justice. Paul knew what happened to Jesus and many other disciples, so he was clearly not writing about Roman justice in his letter to the Romans.
When Paul spoke about giving money to those we owe, he was not writing about Rome.
This is why we pay a contribution to good judges. They are God's servants devoting all their time to administering justice. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe a contribution, pay a contribution; if a toll is owed, then pay a toll. Respect those judges worthy of respect. Only, honour those worthy of honour (Rom 13:7).Paul was not saying that people should pay taxes to Rome in return for the services that Rome provided them. He did not see Rome as a service provider. Roman made was not committed to providing services for ordinary people. Any benefits that fell to ordinary people were a mistake.
The Roman tax system was not set up to raise money to support ordinary people in the way that modern people think about taxes. It was an extraction system designed to seize as much wealth as possible from subservient peoples. Roman-appointed tax farmers would take as much as they could get, leaving their victims with almost nothing to live on. Romans soldiers would wreck the house of anyone thought to be hiding grain or gold. Romans 13:6-7 is not a description of the Roman tax system.
When Paul wrote Romans 13, he was clearly not thinking about the Roman Empire. He must have been thinking about something quite different, so this passage cannot be used to demand submission to all political power.
Paul was actually reminding Christians that the system of Law and Local Judges that God have through Moses will provide true justice. In Romans 13:1 he said,
Do not be overcome by evil, but conquer evil with good. Every person should submit to the more excellent judges, because there is no legitimate judicial authority except under God. The judges that have emerged in a free society are arranged by God.This was a reference to Deut 17:9.
You shall come to the judge that shall be in those days: and you shall inquire; and they will show you the sentence of judgment.I explain this further in Understanding Romans 13.
Many Christians interpret Romans as saying the state is a servant (minister) of God. They agree that it can be rebellious, but they do not give any criteria for distinguishing between a servant state and a rebellious state. Unfortunately, there are no such criteria in the New Testament. It would be a stretch to extract them from the Sermon on the Mount.
Deut 17:14-20 gives some rules for kings, but because kings are sub-optimal (1 Sam 8), it does not really give much detail. The reason is that God intended a different social order, based on law and judges, not kings and political power. Paul was actually pointing back to that. (The prophets point out some things that are wrong, but they do not say what is allowable, except to point to the Torah.)
The problem with the usual interpretation of Romans 13 (and it is mostly used as a slogan) is that if a ruler has a ministry from God, he must have freedom to exercise their ministry. Admitting that political rulers are servants of God actually opens a really wide door.
We need a political theory that is consistent with on Romans 12, that does not try to do good using evil. I have done this in Government of God.
Romans 12 is addressed to Paul’s fellow Christians. He addresses them as brethren in Romans 12:1.
Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy… (Rom 12:1).
Paul teaches about how to overcome evil by doing good. The chapter parallels Jesus teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. Love those who hate you, and leave justice to God.
Romans 13 shifts to a different audience. The chapter begins by addressing all people, whether they are Christians or not.
Let every soul be subject…. (Rom 13:1).People who are not Christians cannot be expected to love those who hate them. Paul says that all that is required of them is to submit to good judges applying God’s law. They will pronounce judgment against those who steal and these who assault or kill. This is required for order in society.
The distance between the two audiences is evident in Paul’s use of the word wrath (orge).
In Romans 12, Christians are to have nothing to do with wrath. They are to leave that to God.
Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath (Rom 12:19).In the next chapter, judges are God’s ministers who execute wrath.
They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer (Rom 13:4).We must submit to local judges so we have a clear conscience, but also that wrath may be executed effectively.
Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake (Rom 13:5)More at Understanding Romans 13.
Christians try to build a theology of Government on the basis of Romans 13. This just does not work. Paul was not articulating a theology of government. He was providing advice about coping with life under a despotic ruler, not articulating an ideal.
God had already given a theology of government in the Torah. Christians who are serious about developing theology of government should begin there.
