Have you ever wondered whether Paul regretted writing Romans 13 as his head was laid on the block for execution? The very Roman ruler in power when Paul penned the letter, Nero, was the same ruler under whom Paul was condemned to death.
Didn’t Paul suggest that our leaders are anointed, that their authority serves God-ordained justice? Didn’t he imply that if the rulers brought the sword down on you, you must have deserved it? Didn’t he say that what rulers enact is, somehow, the will of God?
So then, good riddance, Paul! And for that matter, good riddance to the multitude of Christians Nero would later put to death. Yes, Paul wrote before Nero went fully mad, during a period of relative peace, when disrupting that peace would have accomplished little, except put innocent people in harm’s way. But he can’t take his words back now. Surely the “anointed” Nero knew what he was doing. And as for that troublesome John of Patmos, who condemned the rule and ways of Nero, let’s toss out that so-called Revelation, too.
These must be the logical conclusions if we are to be faithful to Romans 13, right?
What a relief, then, to know that the church that supported Hitler didn’t get it wrong. It may be a bitter pill to swallow that we must also affirm the anointing of Biden and Trump, let alone Putin, Xi Jinping, and Kim Jong-un, but Romans 13 is clear, isn’t it?
Or perhaps Romans 13 does not mean what we think it means.
Ben Witherington III often tells his seminary students that reading Romans is like riding a bicycle: if you stop moving, you fall over. The letter has momentum. What comes before shapes what follows. Treating Romans 13 as a standalone, timeless command, detached from context or qualification, is a good way to crash hard. Blind obedience to the government “because Paul said so” will get you into trouble. It is more than a little ironic that many who rightly understand the Second Amendment as a safeguard against tyrannical government will also insist that Romans 13 settles the matter against any form of dissent against that same government. If Romans 13 is absolute, then perhaps we should give up those arms altogether. Or are there limits to obedience, limits rooted in faithfulness to God?
If you’ve heard sermons on Paul’s letters, you’ve likely encountered the “telephone call” analogy: we only hear one side of the conversation. To understand the other side, we must reconstruct it from contextual clues and historical background.
With Romans, we have help from the letter itself, from Acts, and from contemporary sources. Before Paul wrote, Emperor Claudius expelled Jews from Rome. When the ban was lifted, Jewish Christians returned to congregations that had become entirely Gentile during their absence. They came home to churches that, in their view, had forgotten their roots. Tensions followed.
At the same time, Jews, Christian and non-Christian alike, were under suspicion throughout Rome. The last thing this vulnerable community needed was renewed friction that would invite state repression. Roman authorities made little distinction between Jews and Christians. If the church engaged in public dissent, it would matter little whether some Jews abstained; they would all suffer the consequences. This is the very specific context into which Paul is speaking. It may well have implications for us, but we should not ignore the full context.
Above resolving internal disputes, Paul exhorts the Roman Christians, out of concern for peace and safety, to live peaceably with one another and with the surrounding society. This is not only theology; it is pastoral realism. It echoes Jeremiah’s advice to exiles: “Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jeremiah 29:7).
The returning Jewish population was fragile and closely watched. Even a hint of unrest could provoke harsh punishment. Paul’s call to civil obedience is therefore aimed, at least in part, not at preserving the Roman state but at protecting the vulnerable community within it. Hearing Romans 13 only through the ears of people living in a modern democracy, especially those of us outside marginalized communities, makes submission feel easy. Using it as a cudgel to demand blind obedience would sound very different under threat of persecution.
Romans 13 should prompt discernment about how to live as citizens of God’s kingdom, not turn us into political doormats.
It appears that some Roman Christians were considering “stirring the pot” during a fragile peace, a peace that depended on the very order they wished to disrupt. Some advocated resistance to authority. Beyond tax refusal, we can’t know all they proposed, but whatever it was, it was serious enough to invite the sword. Paul urges them to protect the vulnerable by protecting the peace. What he does not address here is what Christians should do when the state itself becomes the violator of justice. That was not the context at the time, but it would be later. For guidance on how to live as disciples under persecution, perhaps we should consider the Book of Revelation rather than Romans 13, letting each speak to its context.
Paul was not asking believers to accept any and all abuse. When a president posts a racist meme, Romans 13 is not the passage to silence protest. When questions arise about the treatment of immigrants being arrested, we should feel free to ask them. The Romans were contemplating actions far more dangerous than lawful dissent in a democratic society. If the church were organizing a militia, perhaps Romans 13 would apply directly. But when a political leader claims that it is our Christian duty to support agencies like ICE because they are “ordained by God,” I return to what I said earlier: do not use Scripture as a tool for emotional manipulation or, heaven forbid, suppression, especially not against people who can see that something is deeply wrong.
Reading Romans 13 as a means to suppress Christian protest reverses the text. In the Roman world, emperors were regarded as divine or semi-divine, and their agents shared in that authority. Paul’s insistence that God is the true source of all authority demotes Caesar from the pagan perspective. It is quietly subversive. Paul is saying, in effect, obey, not because Caesar is Lord, but because Caesar, whether he knows it or not, is subject to God. God desires human societies to be ordered. God expects the government to justly keep order. So, insofar as it is within your power, promote that just order by living respectfully as servants of God, not of Caesar.
This is not a threat of blasphemy against those who criticize leaders. Quite the opposite. To attribute the evil actions of rulers to the ordained will of God is the real blasphemy.
So does Romans 13 matter for Christians in modern America? Absolutely. Like Paul’s original audience, we are called to avoid reckless troublemaking, pursue peace and unity, and care for the vulnerable. We should seek the welfare of our nation. Sometimes that means naming injustice and speaking truth to power. When a nation promotes injustice, we should fear the Protector of the weak more than the sword. In those moments, we say with the Apostles, “We must obey God rather than any human authority…” (Acts 5:29).
Where is the line? When is it time to speak? These are matters of Christian conscience and faithful debate. But we must never claim that no line exists for the powerful to go too far, or that blind loyalty is biblical. Romans 13 is, above all, a call to peace for the sake of the weak. That is the takeaway. So, don’t be silenced. Neither be provoked to violent vengeance, but speak forth the truth for the cause of the abused and marginalized. We honor God when we live as peacemakers, pray for our leaders, reject violence in all its forms, and refuse to tear one another apart, even online. Yet, that does not mean we are to be bullied into silence through emotional manipulation, which turns the Bible against justice. Never.
Shout out; do not hold back!
Lift up your voice like a trumpet!
Announce to my people their rebellion…
loose the bonds of injustice,
…undo the straps of the yoke,
to let the oppressed go free,
and to break every yoke?
…if you satisfy the needs of the afflicted,
then your light shall rise in the darkness
and your gloom be like the noonday.
(Isaiah 58:1,6,8)
