Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
–Romans 13:1–7 (NIV)
On June 14, 2018, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions gave a formal address to law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, IN. In the speech, he directly addressed Christian concerns over the separation of parents and children at the border:
Let me take an aside to discuss concerns raised by our church friends about separating families…[I]llegal entry into the United States is a crime—as it should be. Persons who violate the law of our nation are subject to prosecution. I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order.[1]
Later, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders affirmed and echoed Sessions’s sentiment: “It is very biblical to enforce the law.”[2] Robert Jeffress, a former member of Trump’s Evangelical Advisory Board, likewise invoked Romans 13 on several occasions throughout Trump’s first term—at times to condemn protests against police brutality,[3] and at other times to suggest Trump had been given authority by God to bomb North Korea.[4] It’s quite common for Christians to minimize state violence and aggression by appealing to Romans 13. Even the conservative Bible scholar Wayne Grudem has used the passage to justify America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.[5] More recently, Allie Beth Stuckey implicitly claimed that the passage divinely authorizes governing authorities to destroy their enemies.[6] Such logic has been adopted by countless Christians to indiscriminately defend the actions of ICE within the current administration—for example, in their killing of Renée Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis.[7]
The examples I’ve listed above are all of recent vintage; but abuse of this text is nothing new. As many scholars and historians have noted, Romans 13 has been used to support all manner of injustice—“from the church’s acquiescence to Hitler’s Third Reich, to Christian support of the apartheid regime in South Africa, to defenses of the Fugitive Slave Act in America.”[8] Because of its susceptibility to and history of abuse, I want to examine the passage more closely and contextually—and I want to offer three points in particular for your consideration:
- Romans 13 is not a blanket endorsement of whoever happens to be in power.
- Romans 13 is not demanding blind, uncritical allegiance to rulers and authorities.
- Romans 13 is not a blank check for state violence and aggression.
These claims may strike you as self-evident; but historically, abuses of the text have arisen from a seeming ignorance of their truthfulness. It would be wise, then, to spend some time fleshing out each of them. Before I begin, I should mention that there is a sense in which all the claims are interrelated, and so there may be some thematic overlap in the ways I address them. But I think it’s important to make each claim clearly and distinctly.
Let’s start with the first claim: Romans 13 is not a blanket endorsement of whoever happens to be in power.
Romans 13:1–7 is popularly cited without reference to what comes before it (12:1–21) or after it (13:8–14). But to properly understand the passage and its intended audience, we need to understand its immediate context. Beginning in chapter 12, Paul calls the Roman Christians to a kind of selfless and Christlike posture in their relationship not only to one another but to others. This posture requires, among other things, loving one’s enemies (12:12, 20); being peacemakers (12:18); demonstrating humility (12:16); empathizing with one another (12:15); returning good for evil (12:14, 17–21); etc. Michael Gorman calls this “alter-cultural cruciformity,” or “renewed, cross-shaped existence” (cf. 12:1–2).[9] Romans 13:1–7, then, is embedded within a broader call to cruciformity toward outsiders—and submission to authorities is a manifestation of that cruciformity. Given the context of zealotry, tax protests, and threats of revolt among Jews in Rome, Paul is wanting his Christian audience to “consider how they might contribute to the common good rather than resist the empire burdens of taxation” (cf. 13:6–7).[10]
This context is important to my first claim because it demonstrates that Romans 13:1–7 is not addressed to the rulers and authorities, but to believers in Rome. Therefore, those in power are misguided to appeal to this text as instructive for their own role; it’s not intended to instruct them, endorse them, urge their use of coercive force, or delegate to them unrestricted authority. Rather, it’s intended to call disciples of Christ to a posture of voluntary submission as a manifestation of cruciform love—for the sake of the common good. Beverly Gaventa rightly points out that Romans 13:1–7 “is not a treatise on rulership.”[11]
Rather than delegating unrestricted authority to rulers, Paul’s words in Romans 13 are actually restrictive and serve as something of a ‘demotion.’[12] One of the driving themes in Romans and in Paul’s theology more broadly is that the lordship of Christ and the lordship of Caesar are ultimately incompatible. Jesus is Lord, and so Caesar is not. Gaventa offers the insightful reminder that there was an “emerging association between the emperor and divinity” at this point in Roman history; but rather than assigning any sort of divine status to Caesar, Paul emphasizes that the authority of rulers is entirely derivative: “for there is no authority except that which God has established” (13:1).[13] In Paul’s theological framework, Rome is nothing more than an instrument in the hands of the sovereign God who took on flesh in Jesus the Messiah.[14]
This idea of a ruler functioning only instrumentally, or as “God’s servant” (13:4), is thoroughly grounded in Israel’s Scriptures (Isa 45:1; Jer 27:4–7; Dan 2:21, 37–38; 4:17, 31–37; 5:18–21; cf. Prov 8:15–16).[15] But while God used evil, pagan kings like Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus as his instruments, he never endorsed them or offered a blanket approval of their actions. Moreover, the derivative nature of their authority meant that God could withdraw that authority at any time—as he did with Pharoah, who is mentioned by Paul only a few chapters earlier in 9:17. While Paul does urge respect for authorities, “he does not attribute to them authority in and of themselves, a distinction often lost in the history of grappling with this text.”[16] Real authority belongs to God alone.
The derivative nature of authority in Rom 13 also means that rulers ultimately exist to carry out God’s will; this is why Paul’s comments presume the just conduct of those in power. He explains that God uses rulers and authorities to punish evildoers and reward those who do good (vv. 3–4). But as everyone who’s taken a history class knows, those in positions of power too often fail to live up to this ideal. Preston Sprinkle reminds us that Rome was the same government that “beheaded John the Baptist, beat Paul on several occasions, and crucified an innocent Jew named Jesus”—all heinous and unjust abuses that clearly do not merit divine endorsement. For this reason, “Romans 13 can’t be a rubber stamp on all Rome’s attempts at punishing evil.”[17] Interpreters of this letter have always recognized that Paul’s statements here implicitly demand qualification. This recognition is seen in even the earliest allusions to the text (e.g., the writings of Polycarp, Theophilus, Origen, Ambrosiaster, etc.).[18] In more recent history, interpreters have often tempered Romans 13 with Revelation 13—a passage revealing that the empires of this world, while still malleable to God’s sovereign purposes, are nonetheless animated by demonic forces.[19]
This brings me to my second and related claim: Romans 13 is not demanding blind, uncritical allegiance to rulers and authorities.
It’s important to notice that Paul requires submission from his audience—which is distinct from obedience. The Greek word for ‘submit,’ hypotassō, refers to subjection to an authority. Such subjection often involves obedience—so the terms are certainly related; but it is not a coincidence that Paul always reserves the word ‘obedience,’ hypakouō, for God and the gospel (1:5; 6:15, 22; 10:16; 16:26).[20] The word hypotassō is used elsewhere in the NT to urge Christian submission to spiritual leaders (1 Cor 16:16); to one another (Eph 5:21); and in the case of wives, to husbands (Eph 5:22). In each of these contexts, submission clearly does not entail complete, unqualified obedience.[21] Christians pledge their true allegiance to Christ alone—the cosmic King from whom the powerful receive their derivative authority, and to whom they must ultimately give an account. In Romans 13, the submission Paul has in mind comes in the form of paying taxes and honor (vv. 6–7), “pragmatic forms of submission that are greatly removed from obedience to God.”[22]
Moreover, Esau McCaulley has demonstrated that Paul necessarily had exceptions in mind when he urged submission.[23] As we’ve already seen, Paul makes reference to Pharoah a few chapters earlier in Rom 9:17. For Paul, Pharoah was an example of God’s universal sovereignty and the derivative nature of earthly power. Of course, students of the Bible are introduced to Pharoah in the book of Exodus—where God, through the person of Moses, subverts Pharoah’s authority over the Israelites because of his injustice and tyranny. As McCaulley observes, “in Romans 13:1-2, Paul either has some qualification in mind or he considered Moses sinful.”[24] We noted above that Paul’s comments in Romans 13 assume the just conduct of those in power (vv. 3–4). We also noted that Paul’s intention in Romans 13 is not to offer a comprehensive, theological treatise on rulership, but to urge cruciformity among Christians in Rome who are likely being influenced by the Jewish tradition of zealotry. Consequently, Paul does not detract from his primary focus to explicitly address the problem of evil or unjust rulers. McCaulley rightly contends that “we are free to use Paul’s reference to Egypt and the wider biblical account to fill the gap.”[25]
God’s people must not follow those in power when they are actively opposing God’s will; and this is a principle we see operating all throughout scripture. Again, Israel’s paradigmatic salvation event involved a repudiation of Pharoah’s injustices and a thorough subversion of his authority. After being exiled to Babylon, faithful Jews refused to compromise on Torah despite cultural and political pressures. These Jews were undoubtedly expected to seek “the peace of the city” (see Jeremiah 29:5-7); but for the most faithful remnant, this could not come at the cost of nationalism, idolatry, and/or Torah disobedience. The book of Daniel illustrates this well. Despite the hegemony of the Babylonian empire, Daniel and his friends were faithful to Israel and Israel’s God. Even when faced with the threat of death, by fire (Daniel 3) or by beasts (Daniel 6), these men continued to give their sole allegiance to God. Daniel even prophesied through Nebuchadnezzar’s dream that the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world (including Babylon) were ultimately incompatible. The Kingdom that God would one day establish was one that could “never be destroyed,” one that would “break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and…stand for ever” (Daniel 2:44). Later, Daniel would learn that the empires of the world were not only fundamentally incompatible with God’s Kingdom, but that they were also demonically empowered (10:10-21). Sprinkle sums things up nicely:
Daniel and his three friends were good citizens. They sought the peace of the city and submitted to Babylon. Yet their exilic identity forced them to peek behind the curtain and recognize what Babylon really was. It wasn’t a friend or an ally or a trustworthy partner in building God’s kingdom. It was a demonically empowered beast that would be destroyed. So were Persia, Greece, Rome, and other empires to follow. The best way exiles can seek the good of Babylon is by living lives of submissive subversion, anticipating God’s future triumph over the beastly empires competing with his reign.[26]
The notion of “submissive subversion” (or ‘subversive submission’) for which Sprinkle advocates might prove useful in our application of Romans 13. With both the immediate and canonical context of the passage now in view, this seems to be the healthiest way of understanding Paul’s vision for a Christian posture toward governing authorities. Far from demanding blind or uncritical allegiance to those in power, Romans 13 (and the Bible more broadly) calls for a kind of submission that subversively witnesses to the ultimate and uncompromisable authority of God. To the extent that those in power turn against God’s will and no longer function as “God’s servant for your good,” the biblical witness attests that civil disobedience might be required.[27]
Finally, I want to argue my third and final claim: Romans 13 is not a blank check for state violence and aggression.
As was noted in the introduction, Romans 13 has been used to justify all manner of state violence and aggression—from American wars in the Middle East, to instances of police brutality, to the killings of Renée Good and Alex Pretti by ICE. This is in large part because Paul acknowledges the role of governing authorities to “bear the sword” in 13:4; and interpreters have often understood this ‘sword-bearing’ role as a kind of blank check for state violence (whether in the form of war, capital punishment, or something else). But several factors point to this being a strained and doubtful interpretation.
First, as has already been argued above, this passage is not addressed to those in power and is not intended to be instructive for those in power. It is not a comprehensive treatise on rulership; and Paul’s positive evaluation of the state in this particular passage is qualified elsewhere (e.g., Rom 9:17). Therefore, any appeal to this passage as a blanket endorsement of all state-sponsored violence is informed by either interpretive naïveté or dishonesty and malintent.
Second, the ‘sword’ mentioned in verse 4 is a symbol of the state’s “authority to intimidate and deter unlawful behavior.”[28] Remember that, in this particular context, the authorities Paul has in mind are local officials concerned with taxes and levies (vv. 6–7).[29] Paul is simply reminding those Christians tempted to revolt and/or join tax protests that 1) there are serious penalties for those actions, and 2) taxes are, in principle, aimed at ‘your good’ (13:4).[30] None of this indicates that Paul believed God had authorized rulers to kill at their discretion; he was simply offering a general recognition of the state’s role in punishing wrongdoers, including tax evaders (cf. 1 Pet 2:14). Moreover, Sprinkle has rightly noted that Paul is concerned with “police action within a government’s jurisdiction, and not warfare outside its territory.”[31] Therefore, this text is not at all sufficient to bear the weight of defending, for instance, America’s wars in Iraq and Iran.
Regarding capital punishment, John Nugent has wisely urged interpreters of Romans 13 to take into account Paul’s words in 1 Tim 1:12–16:
I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me trustworthy, appointing me to his service. Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life.
Paul was, by his own admission, “the worst of sinners”—a violent and murderous man who sought permission from the high priest to organize a targeted attack against Christians (cf. Acts 9:1–2). Even so, God had a purpose for his life—and in Christ, Paul was met with patience and found grace, mercy, and redemption. As Nugent notes:
It stretches the imagination to think that the man who wrote this to Timothy elsewhere provides the only New Testament justification for humans killing other humans at their own discretion. Paul solicited permission from authorities to legitimate his own pogrom against Christians, which surely wasn’t right. He also acted quite obstinately when Roman authorities overstepped their jurisdiction and mistreated a Roman citizen. He certainly wouldn’t have written them a blank check to kill.[32]
Conclusion
Failing to properly discern the complexity and nuance in this passage exposes us to many dangers. One of those dangers is presupposing that those in power are, by virtue of their power, perfect representations and arbiters of God’s justice. This is a particularly strong temptation when our preferred political tribe is in power. With a quick appeal to Romans 13, we conflate their authority with God’s authority, their will with God’s will, and/or their enemies with God’s enemies—such that those who are opposed in any way to our preferred political leaders are now opposed to God himself and worthy of violent destruction. This kind of syncretism is tantamount to idolatry, and it incites uncritical allegiance to powers and authorities that are ultimately demonically animated.
Moreover, I am worried that some Christians, perhaps unconsciously, have found in Romans 13 a convenient loophole that allows us to hate our enemies ‘by proxy.’ Of course, as Christians we know that Jesus calls us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us (Matt 5:44); but it’s difficult to escape the temptation to hate (or even ‘destroy’) our enemies—particularly in a political landscape as polarized as our own. And so, we seek instead to elect officials who can hate and destroy on our behalf. We celebrate and revel in the hatred and destruction they foment, all the while claiming innocence from it. “After all,” we reckon, “Paul tells us this is what government is for.”
I hope it’s clear by now that these are profoundly irresponsible handlings of the text. Romans 13 is not a blanket endorsement of rulers, a demand for uncritical allegiance to authorities, or a blank check for state-sponsored violence and aggression. Paul’s words in Romans 13 are directed to Christians and are located within a broader exhortation to live transformed, cross-shaped lives characterized by humility, empathy, and enemy-love. Sprinkle is correct to note that “Romans 13 underscores the church’s submissive posture in a violent world,” and it “cannot be used to foster a militaristic spirit among Christians.”[33] When we twist Paul’s words such that they sanctify our hateful, violent, and/or idolatrous imaginations, we reveal a significant problem with our heart’s orientation. In such moments, may God renew our hearts and minds by the power of his Spirit, and transform us into the image of his loving, merciful, and peaceable Son.
[1] Jeff Sessions, “Attorney General Sessions Addresses Recent Criticisms of Zero Tolerance by Church Leaders,” U.S. Department of Justice, June 14, 2018, https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-addresses-recent-criticisms-zero-tolerance-church-leaders.
[2] Ed Payne, “Jeff Sessions Invokes Bible Verse to Justify Trump Administration’s Immigration Policy,” USA Today, June 16, 2018, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/06/16/jeff-sessions-bible-romans-13-trump-immigration-policy/707749002/.
[3] Jerry Markon, Fenit Nirappil, and Wesley Lowery, “Sharp Emotions, Further Protests Deepen Nation’s Divide over Race and Policing,” Washington Post, July 10, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/police-arrest-black-lives-matter-activist-deray-mckesson-200-other-protesters/2016/07/10/f79a12ac-46d0-11e6-bdb9-701687974517_story.html
[4] Sarah Pulliam Bailey, “‘God Has Given Trump Authority to Take Out Kim Jong Un,’ Evangelical Adviser Says,” Washington Post, August 9, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/08/08/god-has-given-trump-authority-to-take-out-kim-jong-un-evangelical-adviser-says/
[5] Wayne Grudem, Politics—According to the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 403.
[6] Allie Beth Stuckey (@conservmillen), “There was a big contrast between Erika’s forgiveness speech and Stephen Miller’s “destroy our enemies” speech. Exactly as it should be.…,” X (formerly Twitter), September 19, 2025, https://x.com/conservmillen/status/1970131602433863797
[7] See, for example, Carol M. Swain (@carolmswain), “As ‘Renee’ trends amid #Minneapolis chaos: Tragic outcomes remind us that Romans 13: 1-4 calls for submission to legitimate authority.…,” X (formerly Twitter), April 9, 2026, https://x.com/carolmswain/status/2010105300502585769
[8] Kaitlyn Schiess, The Ballot and the Bible: How Scripture Has Been Used and Abused in American Politics and Where We Go from Here (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2023), 30.
[9] Michael J. Gorman, Romans: A Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2022), Kindle edition, loc. 5556.
[10] Scot McKnight, Reading Romans Backwards: A Gospel of Peace in the Midst of Empire (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2019), 50. For more on the context of zealotry, tax protests, and threats of revolt, see McKnight, Reading Romans, 25–26, 45–50; and Gorman, Romans, loc. 5571, 5586.
[11] Beverly Roberts Gaventa, Romans: A Commentary, New Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2024), 357. Emphasis mine. Interestingly, Gaventa also demonstrates that even Queen Elizabeth I recognized this point and looked “to other sources for wisdom about her own role.” See ibid., 357n30.
[12] Ibid., 363.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Preston Sprinkle notes that “the phrase ‘God’s servant’ refers not to Rome’s sanctified service to God but to God’s sovereign ability to use an evil empire as an instrument in his hands.” See Preston Sprinkle, Exiles: The Church in the Shadow of Empire (Colorado Springs: David C Cook, 2024), 167. A similar point is made in Schiess, The Ballot and the Bible, 31.
[15] Michael Bird points also toward the prevalence of this theme in deuterocanonical texts (e.g., Sir 10:4) and in Josephus (War 2.140). See Michael F. Bird, Romans, Story of God Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2016), 444.
[16] Gaventa, Romans, 368.
[17] Preston Sprinkle, Nonviolence: The Revolutionary Way of Jesus (Colorado Springs: David C Cook, 2021), 169.
[18] For a very brief history of interpretation, see Gaventa, Romans, 355–56.
[19] See, for example, Karl Barth, “The Christian Community in the Midst of Political Change,” in Against the Stream: Shorter Post-War Writings, 1946–52, ed. Ronald Gregor Smith (New York: Philosophical Library, 1954), 97.
[20] Gorman, Romans, loc. 5598–5611. See also Sprinkle, Nonviolence, 168; and Gaventa, Romans, 360.
[21] Schiess, The Ballot and the Bible, 30.
[22] Gaventa, Romans, 360.
[23] Esau McCaulley, Reading While Black: African American Biblical Interpretation as an Exercise in Hope (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2020), 32–40.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid., 40.
[26] Sprinkle, Exiles, 58–59.
[27] See Gorman, Romans, loc. 5613; Bird, Romans, 449; and John R. W. Stott, The Message of Romans: God’s Good News for the World, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1994), 342.
[28] John C. Nugent, Priestly Presence: The Church as a Place of Healing (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2024), 102–03.
[29] Gaventa, Romans, 361.
[30] Gorman, Romans, loc. 5598.
[31] Sprinkle, Nonviolence, 167.
[32] Nugent, Priestly Presence, 103.
[33] Sprinkle, Nonviolence, 170.
Jared Dale Greer 
Leave a comment