Romans 13:1 — How This Verse Has Been Interpreted

The Verse

Text (KJV): "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."

Immediate Context: Paul writes this in a letter to the church at Rome (circa 56–58 CE), addressing both Jewish and Gentile believers in the capital of an empire that will later execute him. The genre is apostolic epistle/ethical instruction. This verse opens a passage (13:1–7) on civic obligation, situated between a section on enemy-love and nonretaliation (12:14–21) and a return to love as the fulfillment of the law (13:8–10). The Roman political context includes Nero's early reign (before the Great Fire of 64 CE and subsequent Christian persecution).

Interpretive Fault Lines

Source of Authority:

Direct divine appointment pole: God specifically installs each individual ruler
General providential ordering pole: God permits human governments as a framework, without endorsing specific regimes

Scope of "Every Soul":

Universal obligation pole: All Christians must obey all government authorities
Contextual limitation pole: Applies only to just governments, or only to matters within government's legitimate domain

"Ordained" (τεταγμέναι / tetagmenai):

Active divine agency pole: God arranges and appoints rulers
Passive divine permission pole: Governments exist within God's ordered creation, but are not necessarily God's will

Temporal vs. Absolute:

Situational advice pole: Paul addresses a specific historical moment (stable Roman governance, no persecution yet)
Timeless principle pole: A universal Christian duty regardless of political regime

Relationship to Revelation 13:

Harmonizable pole: Romans 13 and Revelation 13 address different situations (legitimate vs. beastly government)
Contradictory pole: The New Testament contains competing political theologies

The Core Tension

The central disagreement is whether Paul establishes an unqualified Christian duty to obey all governmental authority, or whether submission is conditional on the government's conformity to divine justice. Readings that emphasize the absolute force of "let every soul be subject" collide with biblical narratives of righteous disobedience (Hebrew midwives, Daniel, apostles in Acts 5:29: "We ought to obey God rather than men"). Competing interpretations survive because the passage does not specify which governments are "ordained of God," whether tyrannical regimes qualify, or what constitutes the "higher powers." The Greek term ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις (exousiais hyperechousais, "authorities having superiority") is descriptive, not evaluative—it does not clarify whether superiority implies moral legitimacy or merely functional power. The tension persists because the verse can be read either as a theological legitimation of the state that has been weaponized by regimes across centuries, or as a pragmatic counsel for Christian communities navigating imperial power without endorsing it.

Key Terms & Translation Fractures

ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις (exousiais hyperechousais):

Semantic range: Authorities having superiority, governing authorities, powers that are over, higher powers
KJV: "higher powers" (emphasizes hierarchy, ambiguous whether human or spiritual)
ESV/NASB: "governing authorities" (specifies human government, removes ambiguity)
NIV: "authorities that exist" (emphasizes facticity, downplays hierarchy)
NRSV: "authorities" (neutral, minimal interpretation)
Amplified: "authorities who hold positions of power" (explicit human reference)
Some Anabaptist readings: Translate with awareness that ἐξουσίαι can also mean spiritual powers (as in Eph 6:12), suggesting possible dual reference

The fracture is whether Paul refers exclusively to human governments or also to cosmic/angelic powers (or both). Traditions emphasizing state authority prefer translations specifying "governing authorities." Traditions suspicious of state power note that ἐξουσίαι appears elsewhere in Paul for spiritual beings.

τεταγμέναι (tetagmenai, "ordained/appointed/instituted"):

Semantic range: Arranged, appointed, instituted, set in place, established
KJV/NKJV: "ordained" (suggests active divine appointment)
ESV: "instituted by God" (explicit divine agency)
NIV: "established by God" (slightly softer, but still divine agency)
NRSV: "instituted by God" (divine agency)
Some critical translations: "arranged" or "ordered" (emphasizes structure, downplays specific appointment)

The fracture is between active divine appointment (God chooses rulers) and passive divine ordering (God permits governmental structures). The perfect passive participle τεταγμέναι is grammatically ambiguous: it could mean "have been arranged by God" (divine agency) or "exist in an arranged state" (descriptive of order).

ὑποτάσσω (hypotassō, "be subject"):

Semantic range: Submit, be subject, subordinate oneself, yield
KJV/ESV/NASB: "be subject" (formal, hierarchical)
NIV: "submit" (slightly softer, but still clear obligation)
NLT: "obey" (stronger, suggests compliance with commands)
Some Anabaptist exegetes: Distinguish ὑποτάσσω (voluntary subordination) from ὑπακούω (obey), arguing Paul does not use the stronger term

The fracture is whether Paul commands active obedience or a posture of nonresistant subordination. Traditions emphasizing state authority prefer "obey." Traditions emphasizing Christian nonviolence prefer "be subject" as a voluntary posture distinct from obedience.

Competing Readings

Reading 1: Absolute Submission to All Government

Claim: Christians must obey all governmental authorities without exception, because all governments are installed by God.

Emphasizes: The unqualified "every soul," the divine passive "ordained of God," the warning that resistance brings judgment (13:2), the command to pay taxes and honor (13:7).

Downplays: Acts 5:29 ("obey God rather than men"), Revelation 13 (the beast from the sea, a government demanding worship), the context of 12:14–21 (nonretaliation, leaving vengeance to God), the historical fact that Rome would later persecute Christians.

Handles fault lines by: Source of authority is direct divine appointment, scope is universal, "ordained" means active appointment, command is timeless and absolute, harmonizes by claiming Revelation 13 addresses a different (apostate) situation.

Cannot explain: Why the apostles disobeyed the Sanhedrin (Acts 4–5), why Paul himself was repeatedly arrested for civil disobedience, why Revelation depicts Rome as a beast and harlot, or why early Christians refused emperor worship despite this command.

This reading conflicts directly with Reading 4, which sees submission as conditional on government's conformity to justice, and with Reading 5, which limits the scope to the Roman situation.

Reading 2: Providential Ordering, Not Moral Endorsement

Claim: God permits and orders human governments as part of creation's structure, but this does not mean God approves of or endorses specific rulers or their actions.

Emphasizes: The distinction between God's permissive will and God's perfect will, the passive construction τεταγμέναι (which can mean "arranged in order" without specifying approval), the broader biblical narrative where God uses pagan rulers (Cyrus, Nebuchadnezzar) for purposes that do not imply moral endorsement, the context of Romans 9–11 (where Paul discusses God's sovereignty over Israel's hardening and the nations' inclusion without collapsing sovereignty into approval).

Downplays: The straightforward reading of "ordained" as active divine appointment, the rhetorical force of the passage (which does not explicitly qualify or limit submission), the lack of any caveat in the text itself about unjust rulers.

Handles fault lines by: Source of authority is general providential ordering, scope is universal (all governments exist within God's order, but this does not mean all are good), "ordained" is passive permission, command is timeless as a structural principle but not as endorsement of specific regimes.

Cannot explain: Why Paul does not include any qualifier (e.g., "insofar as they are just"), or how believers are to discern when a government remains within God's ordered structure versus when it has become beastly.

This reading conflicts with Reading 1 (which sees direct divine appointment) and partially overlaps with Reading 4 (which adds the condition of justice).

Reading 3: Pragmatic Counsel, Not Theological Legitimation

Claim: Paul offers practical advice for a Christian minority in the Roman Empire, not a timeless theology of the state. The goal is communal survival and witness, not philosophical justification of government authority.

Emphasizes: The genre (pastoral letter addressing a specific community), the historical context (early Neronian period, before persecution), the rhetorical situation (possible tensions between Jewish Christians and Roman authorities after Claudius' expulsion edict), the shift to love and eschatology immediately after (13:8–14, "the night is far spent"), the lack of a developed political theology in the passage.

Downplays: The theological claims ("ordained of God"), the universal language ("every soul"), the imperatival force ("let every soul be subject"), the later reception history that treated the passage as a universal principle.

Handles fault lines by: Temporal/situational (Paul addresses a specific moment), scope is limited (Roman Christians under stable governance), source of authority is irrelevant (Paul is being pragmatic, not making ontological claims), harmonizes with Revelation 13 by saying contexts differ (stable vs. persecuting empire).

Cannot explain: Why Paul grounds the command theologically ("ordained of God") if he only means pragmatic advice, or why he uses universal language ("every soul") if he means a time-bound counsel, or why centuries of Christian tradition took this as principled teaching if it was merely situational.

This reading conflicts with Readings 1 and 2, both of which treat the passage as principled theology, and with Reading 6, which sees the passage as ironic or subversive.

Reading 4: Conditional Submission to Just Government

Claim: Christians must submit to government insofar as it fulfills its God-given role (punishing evil, rewarding good), but not when it acts outside its legitimate authority or demands evil.

Emphasizes: The qualifier in 13:3–4 (government is "a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil"), the assumption that government serves a moral function, the parallel in 1 Peter 2:13–14 ("submit... to governors... for the punishment of evildoers"), the precedent of righteous disobedience (Hebrew midwives, Daniel, Acts 5:29), the Reformation tradition of resistance to tyrants.

Downplays: The unqualified command in 13:1 (no explicit caveat about justice), the risk of making Christians the ultimate arbiters of governmental legitimacy, the lack of a resistance clause in the passage.

Handles fault lines by: Source of authority is functional (government is ordained for a purpose), scope is conditional (submission applies when government acts within its role), "ordained" implies a mandate with limits, harmonizes with Acts 5:29 by saying obedience to God trumps obedience to human authority when they conflict.

Cannot explain: Why Paul does not explicitly include a justice condition in 13:1, or how to define the threshold for when government ceases to be "ordained of God," or what forms of resistance (if any) are permissible.

This reading conflicts with Reading 1 (which sees no conditions) and partially conflicts with Reading 3 (which denies the passage is principled theology).

Reading 5: Ironic Subversion of Imperial Theology

Claim: Paul co-opts Roman imperial language ("ordained," "higher powers," "submission") to subtly subvert it—affirming that ultimate authority belongs to God, not Caesar, and that Christian submission is a nonviolent resistance strategy, not capitulation.

Emphasizes: The context of 12:14–21 (nonretaliation, leaving vengeance to God), the immediate shift to love as the law's fulfillment (13:8–10), Paul's own history of civil disobedience and imprisonment, the rhetorical strategy of irony in Roman political discourse (where "submission" language could be used to undermine authority), the eschatological framework (13:11–14, "salvation nearer than when we believed").

Downplays: The straightforward imperatival force of the text, the theological grounding ("ordained of God"), the lack of explicit ironic markers, the risk of overreading the text through postcolonial or ideological lenses.

Handles fault lines by: Source of authority is ultimately God alone (Paul's language undermines Caesar's claim), scope is tactical (Christian communities navigate empire without endorsing it), "ordained" is a co-opted term emptied of imperial meaning, temporal (the passage addresses Roman Christians under specific conditions), harmonizes with Revelation 13 by seeing both as anti-imperial (one subtle, one overt).

Cannot explain: Why Paul does not use more overtly subversive language if that is his intent, why the text was read for centuries as pro-state if it is anti-imperial, or how to avoid reading modern political commitments into the text.

This reading conflicts with Readings 1, 2, and 4, all of which take the passage as straightforwardly addressing government submission, and overlaps partially with Reading 3 (situational) but adds an ideological dimension (subversion).

Reading 6: Reference to Angelic/Cosmic Powers

Claim: Paul refers not (only) to human governments but to cosmic/angelic powers that structure creation, and Christians are called to recognize God's sovereignty over the cosmos.

Emphasizes: The term ἐξουσίαι is used elsewhere in Paul for spiritual beings (Eph 1:21, 3:10, 6:12; Col 1:16, 2:10, 2:15), the lack of explicit reference to "government" or "rulers" in Romans 13:1 (these are supplied by translators), the broader Pauline theology of cosmic powers and principalities, the context of Romans 8:38–39 (where ἀρχαί and ἐξουσίαι appear in a list of spiritual realities).

Downplays: The immediate context of 13:3–7, which clearly discusses taxes, magistrates, and human governance, the lack of angelic or cosmic language in 13:1–7, the consensus of historical exegesis that the passage addresses human authorities.

Handles fault lines by: Source of authority is cosmic ordering (God orders all powers, human and spiritual), scope is reinterpreted (not about political submission but recognizing creaturely limits), "ordained" applies to the structure of creation, harmonizes with Revelation 13 by distinguishing earthly and heavenly powers.

Cannot explain: Why the passage immediately shifts to taxes, tribute, and fear of magistrates (13:6–7) if Paul means angelic powers, or why no early or medieval interpreter read it this way, or how this reading provides ethical guidance for Christian political life.

This reading conflicts with all other readings, which assume human government is the referent. It is a minority scholarly position (e.g., Clinton Morrison, The Powers That Be, 1960; Walter Wink, Naming the Powers, 1984) and has not gained widespread acceptance.

Harmonization Strategies

Strategy 1: Government as Minister vs. Government as Beast

How it works: Romans 13 describes government when it functions as God's servant ("minister of God to thee for good," 13:4). Revelation 13 describes government when it oversteps its mandate and demands worship. The same entity can be either, depending on its behavior.

Which readings use it: Reading 4 (conditional submission) depends on this distinction. Some Reformed and Anabaptist interpreters use it to reconcile Romans 13 with Revelation 13.

What it cannot resolve: The text of Romans 13 does not include a conditional clause. Paul does not say "if the government is just, then submit"; he says "let every soul be subject." The strategy imports a condition from outside the text.

Strategy 2: Dual Referent (Human and Angelic)

How it works: ἐξουσίαι refers both to human governments and to the spiritual powers that undergird them. Submission to "authorities" is simultaneously submission to earthly governance and recognition of God's cosmic ordering.

Which readings use it: Reading 6 (angelic/cosmic powers) relies on this, and some interpreters influenced by Pauline cosmology (e.g., Berkhof, Christ and the Powers, 1962) see a dual referent.

What it cannot resolve: The immediate context (taxes, magistrates) clearly addresses human government, and no explicit angelic language appears in Romans 13:1–7. The dual referent is a theological construct not evident in the grammar or context.

Strategy 3: Acts 5:29 as Limiting Principle

How it works: Romans 13 establishes a general duty of submission; Acts 5:29 provides the exception: when government commands evil or forbids good, "we ought to obey God rather than men."

Which readings use it: Reading 4 (conditional submission) and Reading 2 (providential ordering) both employ this to preserve Christian resistance to unjust commands while affirming Romans 13.

What it cannot resolve: Romans 13 does not mention exceptions, and Acts 5:29 addresses a specific case (religious authorities forbidding gospel preaching). The strategy juxtaposes two texts from different contexts without clear exegetical warrant for subordinating one to the other.

Strategy 4: Two Kingdoms / Two Governments Doctrine

How it works: God governs through two distinct structures: the kingdom of the right hand (church, gospel, grace) and the kingdom of the left hand (state, law, justice). Romans 13 addresses the latter; the Sermon on the Mount addresses the former. Christians live in both simultaneously but must not confuse them.

Which readings use it: Lutheran theology (following Luther's Temporal Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed, 1523) uses this framework to affirm both Romans 13 (civil obedience) and Matthew 5 (enemy-love, nonretaliation).

What it cannot resolve: Paul does not make this distinction in Romans 13, and the immediate context (12:14–21 on enemy-love, 13:8–10 on love as law's fulfillment) suggests continuity, not a sharp division between kingdoms. The two-kingdoms framework is a theological construct, not an exegetical conclusion from Romans 13 itself.

Strategy 5: Situation-Specific Application

How it works: Romans 13 addressed a specific situation (Roman Christians under stable Neronian rule) and cannot be universalized. Each Christian community must discern its own response to government based on its context, using Romans 13 as one data point, not a universal rule.

Which readings use it: Reading 3 (pragmatic counsel) and Reading 5 (ironic subversion) both treat the passage as time-bound. Some liberation theologians and Anabaptist exegetes use this strategy.

What it cannot resolve: The universal language of the passage ("every soul," "there is no power but of God") resists situational limitation, and Paul's theological grounding ("ordained of God") suggests principled teaching, not ad hoc advice. The strategy risks evacuating the text of normative authority.

Tradition-Specific Profiles

Roman Catholic Tradition

Emphasis: Natural law, legitimate authority, distinction between just and unjust laws. Church and state have distinct but complementary roles. Resistance to unjust authority is permissible under limited conditions.

Supporting documents: Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II Q104 ("On Obedience"); Catechism of the Catholic Church §2238–2243; Papal encyclicals (Pacem in Terris, John XXIII, 1963; Evangelium Vitae, John Paul II, 1995)

How differs: Employs natural law framework to mediate Romans 13 and Acts 5:29. Government authority is real but limited to its proper sphere (temporal common good). Civil disobedience is permitted when law contradicts moral law (e.g., abortion, euthanasia). Strong resistance to Protestant "divine right of kings" readings (Reading 1). Closer to Reading 4 (conditional submission).

Eastern Orthodox Tradition

Emphasis: Symphonia (harmony) between church and state in Byzantine model, but also recognition that earthly kingdoms are provisional. Strong eschatological reservation.

Supporting documents: Justinian's Novella VI (6th century); John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 23 (on Rom 13); liturgical prayers for civil authorities

How differs: Historically close to state power (Byzantine, Russian empires), but theological tradition emphasizes the transitory nature of earthly rule. Romans 13 is read in light of Revelation 21–22 (new creation, no more temple or state). Less systematic legal reasoning than Western Catholicism. Submission is real but relativized by eschatology. Overlaps with Reading 2 (providential ordering).

Magisterial Reformation (Lutheran, Reformed)

Emphasis: Strong affirmation of state authority as God's ordinance, but with varying accounts of resistance to tyranny.

Supporting documents:

Lutheran: Luther, Temporal Authority (1523); Augsburg Confession Article XVI (1530); Luther's later ambivalence about resistance (see Warning to His Dear German People, 1531, and debates over the Smalcald League)
Reformed: Calvin, Institutes IV.20 ("On Civil Government"); Westminster Confession of Faith XXIII (1646); Knox, Appellation (1558); Beza, Right of Magistrates (1574); Rutherford, Lex, Rex (1644)

How differs:

Lutheran: Strong two-kingdoms framework. Romans 13 applies to civil realm; Christians obey even unjust rulers in most cases, but Luther eventually allowed for resistance by lesser magistrates (not private individuals). Private rebellion is forbidden.
Reformed: More developed doctrine of resistance. Calvin allowed for institutional resistance by lesser magistrates. Later Reformed (Knox, Beza, Rutherford) developed a fuller theory: tyrants forfeit authority, and resistance is a duty when rulers violate God's law. Closer to Reading 4 (conditional submission).

Radical Reformation (Anabaptist, Mennonite, Amish)

Emphasis: Separation from worldly power, nonresistance, refusal of magisterial office, oath-taking, and military service. Romans 13 applies to "the world," not to Christians, or applies in a limited, nonviolent sense.

Supporting documents: Schleitheim Confession (1527), Article VI ("Of the Sword"); Menno Simons, Foundation of Christian Doctrine (1539); Dirk Philips, Enchiridion (1564)

How differs: Romans 13 describes the state's role for those outside the kingdom, but Christians belong to a different order (kingdom of Christ). "Be subject" does not mean participate in coercion (police, military, oaths). Some read ὑποτάσσω as voluntary subordination (suffering unjustly) rather than obedience. Others see Romans 13 as describing the state's function (which God permits) without commanding Christian participation. Strong emphasis on Matthew 5, Romans 12:14–21. Closest to Readings 3 and 5 (situational, subversive).

Social Gospel / Mainline Protestant (20th century)

Emphasis: Prophetic critique of unjust structures, liberation theology, resistance to racism, militarism, economic injustice.

Supporting documents: Walter Rauschenbusch, Christianity and the Social Crisis (1907); Reinhold Niebuhr, Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932); civil rights-era preaching (MLK Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, 1963); Latin American liberation theology (Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation, 1971)

How differs: Suspicious of Romans 13 as a tool of oppression. Emphasizes Acts 5:29, the Hebrew prophets, and Jesus' confrontation with authorities. Often reads Romans 13 through a hermeneutic of suspicion: Paul was constrained by Roman power, or the passage has been misused by the powerful to silence dissent. Closest to Reading 5 (subversive) or treats Romans 13 as a problem text requiring demythologization. Strong emphasis on justice over order.

Christian Nationalism / Theonomy (late 20th–21st century)

Emphasis: Government should enforce biblical law; Romans 13 establishes the state as God's minister to execute wrath on evildoers, including by capital punishment for biblical crimes.

Supporting documents: R.J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law (1973); Gary North, Political Polytheism (1989); dominion theology literature

How differs: Reads Romans 13:4 ("minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath") as warrant for state enforcement of Old Testament law, including capital punishment for blasphemy, adultery, homosexuality, etc. Rejects separation of church and state. Government is God's direct agent, and obedience to Christian government is obedience to God. Extreme version of Reading 1 (absolute submission) combined with a Reconstructionist hermeneutic.

Liberation Theology / Postcolonial Readings (late 20th–21st century)

Emphasis: Romans 13 has been weaponized by colonial and authoritarian regimes; the text must be read from the perspective of the oppressed, not the powerful.

Supporting documents: Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man (1988); Neil Elliott, Liberating Paul (1994); Mitzi Smith, Womanist Sass and Talk Back (2018); postcolonial biblical criticism (Sugirtharajah, etc.)

How differs: Questions the traditional "plain sense" of the text. Argues Paul is either: (1) offering tactical advice for survival under empire, not theological legitimation (Reading 3), or (2) engaging in subversive rhetoric that mimics imperial language to undermine it (Reading 5). Emphasizes the experience of enslaved people, Indigenous peoples, and colonized communities who suffered under regimes citing Romans 13. Calls for a "hermeneutic of suspicion" toward any reading that aligns with power.

Reading vs. Usage

Textual Reading: In historical-critical and traditional exegesis, Romans 13:1–7 is situated between a call to enemy-love and nonretaliation (12:14–21) and a return to love as the law's fulfillment (13:8–10). The passage does not exist in isolation; it is part of a paraenetic (ethical instruction) section of Romans (12:1–15:13) addressing how Christians live in the world. The passage assumes government serves a moral function ("a terror to evil works," 13:3) and prescribes a posture of nonresistant submission.

Historical Usage: Deployed by regimes across centuries to demand Christian obedience and silence dissent:

Constantine and Christendom: Used to theologically legitimate Christian empire
Medieval papacy and monarchies: Invoked by both sides in church-state conflicts
Reformation-era princes: Cited by Lutheran princes to resist peasant uprisings (Peasants' War, 1524–1525)
American slavery: Slaveholders cited Romans 13 to demand enslaved people's obedience (see Frederick Douglass' critique in Narrative, 1845)
Nazi Germany: Some German Christians cited Romans 13 to justify cooperation with the Third Reich (Barmen Declaration, 1934, resisted this)
Apartheid South Africa: White Dutch Reformed Church invoked Romans 13 to theologically support racial hierarchy
American segregation: Used to oppose civil disobedience (Dr. King addressed this in Letter from Birmingham Jail, 1963)
Modern authoritarianism: Cited by authoritarian regimes to demand Christian compliance (e.g., Jeff Sessions' 2018 invocation of Romans 13 to defend family separation at the U.S. border)

Where They Diverge: The text itself is situated in a context of love, nonretaliation, and eschatological hope ("the night is far spent," 13:12). Historical usage has often stripped the passage from this context and deployed it as a weapon of control. What was (possibly) pastoral advice for a minority community navigating empire has been weaponized by empires themselves.

What Gets Distorted: The command to "be subject" becomes "do not resist," and the theological claim that powers are "ordained of God" becomes "God endorses this specific regime." The passage is used to silence prophetic critique and Christian resistance to injustice, inverting Paul's own prophetic tradition (he repeatedly challenges authorities and is imprisoned for it).

Reception History

Patristic Era (2nd–5th centuries)

Conflict it addressed: Christian relation to Roman Empire pre- and post-Constantine, persecution, emerging Christendom

Named anchors:

Justin Martyr (First Apology 17, circa 155 CE): Christians pray for emperors and obey laws, but refuse idolatry. Romans 13 applies to civil matters, not worship.
Tertullian (Apology 32, circa 197 CE): Christians honor the emperor but do not worship him. "We pay taxes, we render dues." Romans 13 is real submission, but limited.
Origen (Against Celsus VIII.73, circa 248 CE): Christians obey earthly kings but are ultimately citizens of heaven. The soul's true allegiance is to God.
John Chrysostom (Homilies on Romans 23, circa 391 CE): Strong affirmation of submission. Even unjust rulers are ordained by God for order. Resistance brings divine judgment.
Augustine (City of God V.21, circa 413–426 CE): Earthly kingdoms are part of the "earthly city," providentially ordered by God but not to be confused with the City of God. Christians obey for the sake of peace, but ultimate loyalty is elsewhere.

The Fathers navigated between persecution (pre-Constantinian, where submission was nonviolent endurance) and Christendom (post-Constantinian, where submission became legitimation of Christian empire). Romans 13 was read as affirming order, but with eschatological and theological qualifications.

Medieval Era (6th–15th centuries)

Conflict it addressed: Papal vs. imperial authority, investiture controversy, conciliarism, tyrannicide debates

Named anchors:

Gelasius I (Duo Sunt, 494 CE): Two authorities govern the world: sacred authority of priests and royal power. Each has its sphere; neither is absolute. Romans 13 applies to temporal realm.
Aquinas (Summa Theologica II-II Q104): Obedience is due to legitimate authority in temporal matters, but not when it commands sin. Unjust laws are not laws; they do not bind conscience. Romans 13 assumes just governance.
John of Salisbury (Policraticus, 1159): Developed theory of tyrannicide. A ruler who acts contrary to law is a tyrant and may be resisted or killed. Romans 13 applies to legitimate rulers, not tyrants.
Marsilius of Padua (Defensor Pacis, 1324): Argued for popular sovereignty; government derives authority from the people, not directly from God. Romans 13 is compatible with limited, accountable government.

Medieval exegesis distinguished legitimate from illegitimate authority and debated the limits of Romans 13. The passage was not read as absolute submission; tyranny was a recognized category.

Reformation Era (16th–17th centuries)

Conflict it addressed: Authority of princes vs. emperor/pope, peasant revolts, wars of religion, resistance to tyrants

Named anchors:

Luther (Temporal Authority, 1523): Strong two-kingdoms doctrine. Christians obey temporal authority in civil matters but not in matters of faith. Initially opposed resistance, but later (1530s) allowed for resistance by lesser magistrates in the face of imperial persecution.
Luther (Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants, 1525): Invoked Romans 13 to condemn peasant uprising, calling for princes to suppress revolt. Controversial and criticized even by contemporaries.
Calvin (Institutes IV.20.31–32, 1559): Affirmed submission to rulers as God's ordinance, but allowed for resistance by lesser magistrates. Private individuals must not resist, but constitutional authorities can oppose tyranny.
Beza (Right of Magistrates, 1574): Developed Reformed resistance theory. Magistrates are accountable to God and the people; tyrants forfeit authority and may be resisted by legal representatives.
Menno Simons (Foundation of Christian Doctrine, 1539): Anabaptist position. Christians do not resist (nonviolence), but also do not participate in state coercion. Romans 13 describes the state's role for the world, not for Christians.

The Reformation divided over Romans 13. Magisterial Protestants affirmed state authority but developed doctrines of resistance to tyranny. Radical Reformers rejected participation in coercive power altogether.

Modern Era (18th–21st centuries)

Conflict it addressed: Enlightenment political theory, democratic revolutions, totalitarianism, colonialism, civil rights, liberation movements

Named anchors:

American Revolution (1776): Debated whether Romans 13 forbids revolt against King George III. Patriots argued for resistance theory (lesser magistrates, unjust laws); Loyalists cited absolute submission. Clergy divided.
19th-century abolitionists vs. slaveholders: Abolitionists (e.g., William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass) condemned use of Romans 13 to justify slavery. Douglass in Narrative (1845) described slaveholders preaching "slaves, obey your masters" from Romans 13.
Barmen Declaration (1934): Confessing Church in Germany rejected Nazi co-optation of Romans 13, affirming that Jesus Christ, not the state, is Lord. "We reject the false doctrine... that the State... should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life."
Bonhoeffer (Ethics, written 1940–1943): Argued that Romans 13 cannot be used to justify obedience to a demonic regime. The state's authority is real but limited; when it exceeds limits, it becomes tyrannical.
MLK Jr. (Letter from Birmingham Jail, 1963): Challenged white clergy who used Romans 13 to oppose civil disobedience. Argued that unjust laws are not laws and Christians have a duty to disobey them.
South African apartheid: Dutch Reformed Church cited Romans 13 to support apartheid; resistance came from Kairos Document (1985) and Belhar Confession (1986), which declared apartheid a heresy and affirmed Christian resistance.
Jeff Sessions (2018): U.S. Attorney General cited Romans 13:1 to defend family separation policy at the southern border. Widespread Christian backlash from across the spectrum, arguing the use of Romans 13 to justify cruelty to children was a perversion of the text.

The modern era sees Romans 13 polarized: either a tool of oppression (used by regimes and apologists) or a problem text requiring reinterpretation (by liberationists, civil rights advocates, and resisters of authoritarianism). The passage's ethical authority is widely contested.

Open Interpretive Questions

Does "ordained of God" (τεταγμέναι ὑπὸ θεοῦ) mean active divine appointment of specific rulers, or general divine ordering of governmental structure? The grammar (perfect passive participle) allows both readings. If the former, God chooses each ruler; if the latter, God permits government as a framework without endorsing specific regimes.
Is the passage timeless principle or situational counsel? Does Paul prescribe a universal Christian political ethic, or address a specific pastoral situation (Roman Christians under stable governance, pre-persecution)? The genre (paraenesis) could support either.
What is the relationship between Romans 13:1–7 and Romans 12:14–21? Romans 12 commands enemy-love, nonretaliation, and leaving vengeance to God. Romans 13 describes government as "a revenger to execute wrath" (13:4). Are these in tension, or complementary (Christians do not take vengeance; God uses government for that purpose)?
How does Romans 13 relate to Revelation 13? Both address "beasts" and "powers": Romans 13 says they are ordained by God; Revelation 13 depicts Rome as a blasphemous beast. Are these compatible (different situations), or does the NT contain competing political theologies?
What is the scope of "every soul"? Does this include government officials themselves (are they subject to higher authorities?), or only subjects/citizens? Does it include slaves (does Paul command them to submit to unjust masters via civil authorities?)?
Is there a threshold where government ceases to be "ordained of God"? If so, what marks that threshold (persecution of the church, tyranny, injustice)? If not, does this mean even the most demonic regimes are divinely ordained?
Does ὑποτάσσω ("be subject") entail active obedience, or a posture of nonviolent nonresistance? Is there a distinction between submission and obedience? The term allows both, and tradition has divided.
Why does Paul not mention exceptions or qualifications? Acts 5:29 is not cited; Daniel's disobedience is not referenced; Jesus' confrontation with authorities is not mentioned. Does the absence of qualifiers mean there are none, or does Paul assume his readers know the broader scriptural tradition?

Reading Matrix

Reading	Scope of Submission	Source of Authority	"Ordained" Meaning	Temporal/Timeless	Revelation 13 Relation
1. Absolute Submission	Universal, all governments	Direct divine appointment	Active: God installs rulers	Timeless principle	Different situation (apostasy)
2. Providential Ordering	Universal, all structures	General divine ordering	Passive: God permits order	Timeless principle	Compatible (both describe order)
3. Pragmatic Counsel	Roman situation	Functional/pragmatic	Descriptive of power	Situational	Different context (stable vs. hostile)
4. Conditional Submission	Just governments only	Functional (for justice)	Active, but conditional on role	Timeless principle with limits	Same entity, different states (minister vs. beast)
5. Ironic Subversion	Tactical, not principled	Ultimately God alone	Co-opted imperial term	Situational, subversive	Both anti-imperial (subtle vs. overt)
6. Angelic/Cosmic Powers	Cosmic order, not political	Divine ordering of cosmos	Structural/ontological	Timeless cosmic principle	Compatible (spiritual powers)

Agreement vs. Disagreement

Consensus Points

The passage appears in Romans, written by Paul to the church at Rome, circa 56–58 CE.
The immediate context is ethical instruction (paraenesis) following theological exposition (Romans 1–11).
The passage addresses "higher powers" or "governing authorities" (however translated).
Paul grounds the command theologically: powers are "ordained of God."
The passage includes concrete commands: pay taxes, give honor, fear the magistrate.
The verb is ὑποτάσσω (be subject/submit), not ὑπακούω (obey).
The passage has been used historically to demand Christian obedience to various regimes.

Persistent Disputes (mapped to Fault Lines)

Source of Authority:

Does God actively appoint each ruler, or generally order governmental structures without endorsing specific regimes?
Is governmental authority intrinsic (from God) or functional (for a purpose)?

Scope of "Every Soul":

Does the command apply universally (all Christians, all governments, all times), or situationally (Roman Christians under stable governance)?
Are there exceptions (tyranny, injustice, commands to sin), or is submission absolute?

Meaning of "Ordained" (τεταγμέναι):

Does it mean God arranges/appoints (active), or that government exists within God's ordered creation (passive)?
Does "ordained" imply moral legitimacy, or only factual existence?

Temporal vs. Timeless:

Is this timeless Christian teaching, or pastoral advice for a specific historical moment?
Does the passage change meaning after the Roman persecution of Christians (post-64 CE)?

Relationship to Other Texts:

How does Romans 13 relate to Acts 5:29 ("obey God rather than men"), Revelation 13 (beastly government), Jesus' confrontations with authorities, Hebrew Bible narratives of righteous disobedience?
Can these texts be harmonized, or does the NT contain competing political visions?

Agent and Action:

Does "be subject" mean obey commands, participate in government, or adopt a posture of nonviolent nonresistance?
Who is the subject: individuals, churches, all humanity?

Translation and Lexical Range:

Should ἐξουσίαι be translated "governing authorities" (specifying human government) or "powers" (leaving open spiritual referent)?
Should τεταγμέναι be translated "ordained" (strong divine agency) or "instituted/arranged" (softer)?

These disputes remain unresolved because the passage is theologically weighted ("ordained of God") but contextually limited (no explicit qualifiers), the key terms have broad semantic range, and the canonical context includes both commands to submit and examples of righteous resistance. The text's historical weaponization by regimes has also made it a site of ideological contest, complicating exegesis.

Related Verses

Romans 13:2–7 — Consequences of resistance, duties to authorities (taxes, honor)
Acts 5:29 — "We ought to obey God rather than men"
Revelation 13 — The beast from the sea: government demanding worship
1 Peter 2:13–17 — "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake"
Titus 3:1 — "Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers"
Matthew 22:15–22 — "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
Daniel 3 — Refusal to worship the golden image
Daniel 6 — Daniel's disobedience to the king's decree
Exodus 1:15–21 — Hebrew midwives disobey Pharaoh
Romans 12:14–21 — Enemy-love, nonretaliation, leaving vengeance to God
Romans 13:8–10 — Love as the fulfillment of the law