For there is no authority except from God
Considering others who see a subversive or ironic edge in Romans 13
“Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then?” — Henry David Thoreau
1When we last explored Rom 13:1-7 here, it was without mention of the many Bible readers and exegetes through the centuries that have reached similar conclusions. It’s high time we explored their views.2
The evangelist of empire
Before we get to those I tend to agree with, we should take note of what may be the biggest turning point in the history of the church. And no—I’m not talking about the east-west schism of 1054 AD, or the Christian-Jewish schism in the early church, or the protestant Reformation.
I’m talking about Augustine of Hippo, arguably the most influential Christian theologian of all time. Emperor Constantine’s reign, a major influence on the future of the church and world at large, ended shortly before Augustine was born on the north coast of Africa in 354 AD. Augustine came of age as the empire of Rome wrestled with Christianity as a growing political influence and state religion.
Much has been written about Augustine; it is beyond the scope of this post to attempt to summarize him, his life, his writings, or his influence. It must be sufficient to say I find his views problematic, though his motives may have been reasonable. It was largely Augustine who developed just war theory,3 Augustine who tossed the Sermon on the Mount aside as an impracticability in governing the Roman world,4 Augustine who preached a gospel of empire as the church attempted to use political influence and state power to bring about the kingdom of God themselves.5 “If Constantine laid the foundations of Christendom, its principal architect was Augustine.”6
Augustine is important for a discussion about political theology because he was an inflection point in Christianity’s history.7 The dominant attitude towards the state in the early church was one of non-violent opposition and a rejection of idolatry and injustice in a fierce refusal to let the ends (the kingdom of God and peace on earth) justify secular means (war and legislation). What Constantine ushered in practically, Augustine established doctrinally, and church leadership—already growing corrupt—was ready to use the violent and oppressive means of the state (which “has its origin in man’s pride and rebellion against God”8) to attempt a utopian end: the physical kingdom of God on earth.
One of the scriptures Augustine used to justify his views was Rom 13.
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except by God, and those that exist are put in place by God. So then, the one who resists authority resists the ordinance which is from God, and those who resist will receive condemnation on themselves. For rulers are not a cause of terror for a good deed, but for bad conduct. So do you want not to be afraid of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from it, for it is God’s servant to you for what is good. But if you do what is bad, be afraid, because it does not bear the sword to no purpose. For it is God’s servant, the one who avenges for punishment on the one who does what is bad. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are servants of God, busily engaged in this very thing. Pay to everyone what is owed: pay taxes to whom taxes are due; pay customs duties to whom customs duties are due; pay respect to whom respect is due; pay honor to whom honor is due.
Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another, for the one who loves someone else has fulfilled the law. (Rom 13:1-8, LEB9)
Taking Jesus seriously
My perspective on this obviously clashes with the majority—who follow Augustine, whether they know it or not. I want to highlight some of history’s fellow dissenters.
I have previously suggested that Paul was influenced by passages like Deut 32:8-9 in his understanding of powers and authorities (often represented by the words archē and exousia, of which only the latter appears in Rom 13). Essentially, Paul associated governments and nation powers in the physical world with beings in the spiritual world. This shouldn’t surprise you, since virtually everyone in the ancient world saw it that way—Paul just had actual scripture enabling a more refined perspective than his pagan peers.
20th century theologian Hendrik Berkhof, whose views influenced many other theologians like the French Christian anarchist Jacques Ellul, argued Paul was influenced by an understanding of supernatural beings like angels found in Jewish Second Temple literature.10 Ellul says that Paul’s (and indeed that of other New Testament authors) understanding of authorities “leads us to suppose that earthly political and military authorities really have their basis in an alliance with spiritual powers, which I will not call celestial, since they might equally well be evil and demonic. The existence of these spiritual exousiai would explain the universality of political powers and also the astonishing fact that people obey them as though it were self-evident. These spiritual authorities would then inspire rulers.”11 Paul himself said,
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. (Eph 6:12, ESV)
Is it reasonable to allow Paul’s worldview to influence our reading of passages like these and then ignore it in Romans? “Strangely,” Ellul says, despite Romans 13 appearing as an outlier, “the official church since Constantine has consistently based almost its entire ‘theology of the State’ on Romans 13 and the parallel texts in Peter’s epistles [e.g. 1 Pet 2:13-20].”12
The biblical context, including not just Paul’s other letters but indeed the gospels themselves, requires a subversive reading of Rom 13 that runs counter to popular interpretation; after all, Paul refers to authorities without exception. “It is easy to blindly use this text to support some militaristic adventure of Constantine or the United States and assume its divine sanction,” Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw say, “but this overlooks the fact that ‘all’ must include all authorities: Nero, Domitian, Pilate, Mao Tse-tung, Saddam Hussein, Hitler’s Third Reich, and so on.”13
In a similar manner the early 19th century Christian Barton W. Stone, whose life helped shape my own traditions,14 responded to Rom 13 after emancipating his own slaves by saying, “If it be the duty of Christians under one worldly government to uphold and support that government, then it is the duty of Christians living in every worldly government to uphold and support that government; those living in N. America must uphold and support the [slaveholding] democracy of the United States; those in Britain, must support the monarchy of England; those in Russia, must support the despotism there; those at Rome, most [sic] support the government of the pope, the man of sin, the antichrist of our rightful Lord;—those in South America must support every petty tyrant that wades through blood to sit in the supreme chair of state…Can we for one moment think that the Lord enjoined on his people under the Cesars [sic] of old to uphold and defend their bloody governments, which enjoined the extirpation of the Christians, or to force them to abandon their religions and sacrifice to idols?”15
In light of this reality and the need to give the biblical text what Claiborne and Haw call “the benefit of the doubt” and “assume that the author (in this case Paul) is intelligent enough not to contradict himself”, we must look for evidence that Paul had a cohesive point in Romans and the rest of his letters rather than write off the passage as “a later compromise in Paul’s originally radical politics”.16
The New Testament scholar Esau McCaulley reminds us “the way beyond the impasse is to pursue the logic of the text to the end”17 and, where I focused on God-instituted authorities like Assyria, Babylon, and Rome, McCaulley points out that Paul has already provided an example of human authority appointed by God despite moral incompetency: Pharaoh (Rom 9:17).18 It was God’s victory over Pharoah that spread God’s name, not Israelite allegiance to Egypt or Pharoah’s goodness, and Pharoah’s oppression was never condoned.
David Lipscomb, another 19th century Christian whose life was incredibly influential in my region and traditions,19 saw Rom 13’s affirmation of God-instituted authorities much like I do. Modern scholar John Mark Hicks summarizes Lipscomb’s view on the passage this way: “But are not human governments ‘ordained’ of God, according to Romans 13? Lipscomb agreed. Human governments are ordained as servants of God for the punishment of evildoers, just as Assyria and Babylon were ordained to punish Israel and Judah for their sins. Nebuchadnezzar and Nero were ‘servants of God’ in this sense, but no Christian can serve as they served because Romans 12 forbids disciples of Jesus to participate in acts of vengeance and strife. Christians do not return evil for evil but give a cup of cold water to their enemies.”20 Lipscomb rejected the notion that Christians should in any way compromise by resorting to the secular methods of the state, going so far as to say “dependence on civil government for help or success in this work [of the kingdom of God] is treason.”21 Like many other Christians quoted here, he considered the church at large to be guilty of this treason since the days of Constantine and Augustine.
The Christian anarcho-capitalist James Redford considered both Paul’s words in Rom 13 and Jesus’ in his famous statement to render unto Caesar what belongs to him22 as “ingenious case[s] of rhetorical misdirection,” for they were revealing what they truly thought by wrapping it in language that at first glance suggests something different.23 The commentator Timothy Carter believed Paul “employs the rhetorical device of irony as a covert way of exposing and subverting the oppressive authority structures of the Roman Empire.”24
We're left with a different picture of the passage: just as Jesus defeated the powers through His death on the cross (Col 2:15), we share in His victory through carrying our cross and dying every day, willing to die once and for all when necessary (cf. 1 Cor 15:31). We don’t bring about the kingdom of God via the violence familiar to the powers of this world.
For many readers who believe Paul to be saying more than meets the eye, one important piece of context is the ever-present danger of persecution by the state. Romans was likely written prior to the worst waves of Christian persecution by Rome, but it was visible on the horizon. Paul knew he was on a mission to spread a message that wouldn’t sit well with Caesar, and he was careful to choose words minimizing danger to his fellow believers already struggling to survive in a brutal pagan world. His skillful use of rhetorical techniques reflects Jesus’s command to be “wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matt 10:16).
Context, both historical and scriptural, is important. I’m not the only one who points out Rom 12-13 comprises practical advice about loving your neighbors with “a progression of love from friends to strangers and then to enemies, and this is where the passage [13:1-7] then comes.”25 Christian pacifist Vernard Eller argues the passage is located here to provide an “example of those to whom it will be the most difficult to make the obligation [of love] apply.”26
Importantly, Paul’s language in the passage is universal. There is no room for subordinating ourselves to some authorities and not others based on what we like or find useful. The complete lack of mention of any exceptions reminds us that Paul did not use the word for “obey” (peitharchacheō27) but rather “subject yourself” or “subordinate yourself” (hypotassō). According to Claiborne and Haw, hypotassō “means that you simply consider yourself under their order. The word is not about patriotism, pledging allegiance, or any affection for the powers. Paul isn’t trying to convince unpatriotic Christians to pledge better allegiance. Rather, Paul’s problem is the opposite: he must convince Christians, who are not conforming to the pattern of this world, not to overthrow the government!”28
Romans is a text that “asserts the sovereignty of God over the state”,29 yet an equally nonviolent one. We cannot align ourselves with the political state that the 14th century Christian Petr Chelčický called “demonic, violent, and out of control”30 or adopt their “secular methods of power, institutionalism, and coercion.”31 Neither can we stoop to their level by violently overthrowing them—hence, we must subordinate ourselves and “heap burning coals”32 on the heads of the beast.33
Could these minority views be correct?
For many, Rom 13:1-7 is a difficult passage. That’s probably a good thing! The passages that ruffle our feathers and make us uncomfortable are especially important. We should wrestle with them, but never conclude anything that goes against Jesus’ teaching of radical love and self-sacrifice. I’m not saying my view is 100% correct, but there are serious reasons to doubt the “traditional” interpretation invented hundreds of years after Jesus died and rose. There has always been a radical remnant of God’s people committed to living out the Sermon on the Mount, whether their views were recorded by history or not.
The authorities of this world are real. God allows them to exist. God even allows good things to come through their evil acts. Unlike Augustine, I don’t think these facts mean we should compromise on loving all people. That might put me in the company of only a few, but it’s good company.
Opening quotation from Civil Disobedience, 1849.
This post is partly indebted to Alexandre Christoyannopaulos' important 2010 work Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel, which introduced me to many important thinkers in Christian history I may not have encountered otherwise.
Augustine of Hippo. 426 AD. The City of God.
For example, see Laurie Johnston’s 2005 article “‘Love Your Enemies’—Even in the Age of Terrorism?” (Political Theology, 6:1), where she points to an example from Augustine’s letters revealing his flawed understanding of the command to love one’s enemies as only referring to the heart, not outward actions towards your enemies (Pp. 93).
The 14th century Christian Petr Chelčický referred to this period of the church as a time when “two great whales” (the Emperor and Pope, whom he also referred to as “insatiable Baals”) “smuggled pagan power and violence beneath the skin of faith.” Quotation from Enrico C. S. Molnár’s translation of Chelčický’s Net of Faith in A Study of Peter Chelčický’s Life (1947).
Bartley, J. 2006. Faith and Politics After Christendom: The Church as a Movement for Anarchy. Paternoster Publishing.
The emperor Constantine and Ambrose of Milan, who preceded Augustine, are perhaps equally relevant but were stepping stones to the false gospel Augustine perfected.
This is Chelcicky’s view which appealed to passages like 1 Sam 8:4-20, 12:18-19, according to Molnár in A Study of Peter Chelčický’s Life (Pp. 30).
Lexham English Bible.
Berkhof, H. 1977. Christ and the Powers. Translated by John Howard Yoder. Herald Press. Pp. 16.
Ellul, J. 1991. Anarchy and Christianity. Translated by George W. Bromily. William B. Eerdmans Publishing. Pp. 83.
Ellul, J. 1988. Anarchism and Christianity. In: Jesus and Marx: From Gospel to Ideology. Translated by Joyce Main Hanks. William B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Claiborne, S. & Haw, C. 2008. Jesus for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals. Zondervan. Pp. 341-342.
Broadly, the Stone-Campbell/restoration movement that spawned out of the Second Great Awakening in the states.
Stone, B.W. 1844. An Interview between an Old and Young Preacher. Christian Messenger, 14(8). Pp 227-228. For a brief introduction to Stone’s apocalyptic and proto-anarchic (in my opinion) political perspective, see the first chapter of Resisting Babel: Allegiance to God and the Problem of Government edited by John Mark Hicks (2020).
Claiborne & Haw. 2008. Jesus for President. Pp. 340-341.
McCaulley, E. 2020. Reading While Black: African American Biblical Interpretation as an Exercise in Hope. InterVarsity Press.
McCaulley’s interpretation is advantaged over mine in that I tend to over-emphasize the eschaton while he keeps the present in adequate perspective.
See footnote 13. The restoration movement was particularly influential in Tennessee & Kentucky, as well as Texas, Arkansas, and Oklahoma.
Hicks, J.M. 2020. Resisting Babel: Allegiance to God and the Problem of Government. ACU Press. Pp. 46.
Ibid., quoting Can Christians Vote and Hold Office? Rejoinder I by Lipscomb in 1881.
Matt 22:15-22, Mark 12:13-17, Luke 20:19-26.
Redford, J. 2001. Jesus is an Anarchist.
Carter, T.L. 2004. The Irony of Romans 13. Novum Testamentum 46(3).
Ellul. 1991. Anarchy and Christianity.
Eller, V. 1987. Christian Anarchy: Jesus’ Primacy over the Powers. Wipf and Stock.
cf. Acts 5:29, 5:32, 27:21, Tit 3:1.
Claiborne & Haw. 2008. Jesus for President. Pp. 343. David Lipscomb likewise says the word “is entirely distinct and separate from and in antagonism to the person or body to which it submits, or to which he brings himself under subjection…Submission carries the idea of antagonism and opposition which are restrained and held in abeyance. This is the relationship everywhere defined as that which connects the Christian with the governments under which they live” (On Civil Government: Its Origin, Mission and Destiny and The Christian’s Relation to It, pg 75. Doulos Christos Press, 2006).
McCaulley, E. 2020. Reading While Black: African American Biblical Interpretation as an Exercise in Hope.
Wagner, M. L. 1983. Petr Chelčický: A Radical Separatist in Hussite Bohemia. Studies in Anabaptist and Mennonite History. Herald Press.
Molnár’s E.C.S. 1947. A Study of Peter Chelčický’s Life and a Translation From Czech of Part One of His Net of Faith. Pp. 35.
Rom 12:20.
Rev 17.