# Obeying the government Romans 13:1-7 has been read as a command of absolute submission to the state and as a limited mandate that permits resistance when rulers abuse their office; the dispute shapes Christian political ethics and civil disobedience. Source: https://manybibles.app/articles/obeying-government — ManyBibles. Scripture is quoted from the New Consensus Bible, an AI rendering. The article is AI-generated from ManyBibles' records of how each tradition reads these passages; it describes their positions and does not rule between them. ## The passage (Scripture) ### Romans 13:1-7 > [1] Let every soul be subordinate to the higher authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the existing authorities have been ordained by God. [2] Therefore the singular one who is insubordinate to the authority has stood against the ordinance of God; and those standing against it will receive judgment to themselves. [3] For rulers are not a fear to the good work, but to the evil. Do you wish not to fear the authority? Do the good, and you will have praise from it; [4] for he is God's servant to you for the good. But if you do the evil, fear; for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is God's servant, an avenger for wrath to the one practicing the evil. [5] Therefore it is necessary to be subordinate, not only because of the wrath but also because of the conscience. [6] For because of this you also pay taxes; for they are God's ministers, constantly attending to this very thing. [7] Render therefore to all their dues: to the one owed the tax, the tax; to the one owed the toll, the toll; to the one owed the fear, the fear; to the one owed the honor, the honor. Study the chapter: https://manybibles.app/study/romans/13 ## The question Must Christians obey every government, and are there limits? ## Background (historical background) Paul's letter to the Christians in Rome, usually dated to the late 50s CE, is addressed to a mixed community of Jewish and non-Jewish believers under the early years of Nero; the passage stands in a section of moral exhortation after the themes of love and non-retaliation in chapter 12 and before the love-command in 13:8-10. Key terms include exousiai ('authorities' or 'powers'), hypotassesthai ('to subordinate oneself' or 'to place oneself under'), diatagē ('ordinance' or 'institution'), leitourgoi ('public servants' or 'ministers'), and machaira ('sword' as symbol of coercive force). This passage reflects a widespread early Christian concern to live peaceably within the Roman order while maintaining loyalty to Christ; no verse in the chapter addresses the question of a ruler who commands idolatry or apostasy, and later Christian discussions therefore argued by extension from other texts such as Acts 5:29, Daniel 3, and Revelation 13. In later centuries, Romans 13 was invoked to demand obedience to slaveholders, to oppose revolutionary movements, and to support state churches; it was also used to justify resistance to tyrants when they were said to have forfeited their divine mandate. ## How the traditions read it (each tradition's interpretation) ### Catholic: Authorities are ordained by God, but unjust commands do not bind conscience. Catholic teaching draws on Chrysostom's distinction between the institution of authority and the individual ruler, and on Thomas Aquinas's argument that an unjust law is an act of violence rather than a binding law. Pope Leo XIII used this chapter to defend the divine origin of political authority while also teaching that authority must serve the common good. The Catechism obliges citizens to contribute to the common good and pay taxes, but also affirms a duty of conscientious objection when state commands contradict moral law. Thus obedience is due to legitimate authority, not to a ruler's every command. ### Eastern Orthodox: God ordains governance, not every wicked ruler; obedience has limits. Following Chrysostom, Eastern Orthodox theology distinguishes the principle of authority, which God ordains to restrain anarchy, from the individual ruler, who may be wicked and is not thereby divinely appointed. This distinction shaped the Byzantine ideal of symphonia, where Church and Empire cooperate as distinct divine gifts. While the tradition teaches civil obedience and payment of taxes, it does not require submission to commands that contradict the faith; the martyrs and confessors are the model. The ascetic reading of verses 11-14 also relativizes earthly politics by directing believers to the inner struggle and theosis. Thus the state is honored but never absolutized. ### Oriental Orthodox: Civil submission is mandated for peace, but spiritual fidelity remains primary. Living as minority communities under Byzantine, Persian, and Islamic rule, Oriental Orthodox theologians such as Severus of Antioch taught that secular rulers are appointed by God to manage earthly affairs and restrain wickedness. Christians therefore yield in civil matters, pay tribute, and contribute to social stability. At the same time, the tradition preserves spiritual fidelity to the Orthodox faith, and has accepted martyrdom rather than obey commands to deny Christ. The monastic reading of putting on Christ (verse 14) reinforces that the believer's ultimate allegiance is to the kingdom of God, not any empire. Obedience to the state is thus a matter of civil peace, not absolute submission. ### Anglican / Episcopal: Historically strict obedience; later tradition allows resistance to tyranny. The early Church of England used Romans 13:1-7 in the First Book of Homilies and Article 37 of the Thirty-Nine Articles to require obedience to the Crown and condemn rebellion. During the American Revolution, loyalist clergy maintained this reading, while patriot clergy argued that authorities forfeit their divine mandate when they cease to be a minister of God for good, as verse 3 conditions the office. The tradition is therefore internally divided: one stream reads the passage as requiring non-resistance to established government, another as permitting or even requiring resistance to a ruler who becomes a terror to good works. The Book of Common Prayer's collects keep the passage's imagery alive in worship, but political application has varied with context. ### Lutheran: God rules through two realms; civil obedience is due in earthly matters. The Lutheran tradition reads Romans 13 through the doctrine of the two kingdoms: God rules the spiritual realm through the gospel and the earthly realm through law and the sword. Luther's Temporal Authority argues that civil government is a divine ordinance to restrain evil, and the Augsburg Confession uses this chapter to reject Anabaptist withdrawal, affirming that Christians may hold office, judge, and fight in just wars. The state bears the sword for physical order, not to govern conscience or enforce faith. Therefore Lutherans teach obedience to civil authorities in earthly matters, including paying taxes and serving in government, but they deny the state any authority over the gospel. When the state commands sin, God must be obeyed rather than men, though Lutherans generally counsel suffering rather than rebellion. ### Reformed / Presbyterian: Civil magistrates are God's vicars; tyranny forfeits divine mandate. Calvin in the Institutes used Romans 13 to affirm civil government as a holy calling, not a necessary evil, and the Westminster Confession (ch. 23) teaches that Christians may hold office, exact tribute, and bear the sword in just war. Early Reformers stressed absolute submission, but later Reformed thinkers like John Knox and Samuel Rutherford argued from verse 3 that a ruler who becomes a terror to good works ceases to act as God's minister and may be lawfully resisted. This became the classic Reformed basis for resistance to tyranny. The tradition therefore holds obedience to just laws and taxes, but subordinates that obedience to God's law, so that no government has absolute authority over conscience or worship. ### Baptist: Government is ordained for civil good; it cannot govern conscience. Early Baptists such as Thomas Helwys and Roger Williams affirmed the divine institution of civil government but limited its jurisdiction to earthly matters, especially offenses against neighbors, not spiritual orthodoxy. The 1689 Second London Confession (ch. 24) cites Romans 13 to require submission in lawful things while reserving liberty of conscience. Baptists teach exemplary citizenship, payment of taxes, and respect for officials, but they hold that when the state commands what God forbids or infringes religious liberty, civil disobedience is required. Thus the passage authorizes government but not its control over faith. ### Methodist / Wesleyan: Originally monarchical obedience; later nuanced by love and justice. John Wesley read Romans 13:1-7 literally and monarchically, arguing in A Calm Address to our American Colonies that the revolutionaries were resisting God's ordinance. As the tradition developed, Methodist and Holiness voices used the Wesleyan quadrilateral, especially reason and experience, to argue that submission to authorities does not demand complicity with systemic evil, as seen in abolitionism and civil rights activism. The love-command in verses 8-10 is central to Wesleyan theology of Christian perfection, making love the supreme rule that governs civic engagement. Therefore Methodists honor civil authorities and pay taxes, but they test all political obligations by the law of love and may engage in nonviolent resistance to injustice. ### Anabaptist / Mennonite: The state's sword is outside Christ's perfection; Christians submit but do not wield it. The Schleitheim Confession recognizes the state's sword as ordained by God outside the perfection of Christ to punish the wicked; therefore Christians cannot serve as magistrates, bear the sword, or employ lethal force. John Howard Yoder's The Politics of Jesus argues that Paul's call to be subject means a nonviolent subordinate posture, not blanket obedience that requires complicity in state violence. Anabaptists obey laws, pay taxes, and show respect to officials, but they maintain conscientious objection to military service and capital punishment, accepting legal penalties rather than disobeying Christ's law of love. Thus the state is legitimate in its own realm, but the church is a distinct community under a different ethic. ### Classical Trinitarian Pentecostal: Early pacifist leanings; later civic responsibility with ultimate allegiance to God. Early Pentecostals often read the state's sword (verse 4) as a temporal necessity for the world but forbidden to Spirit-filled believers, leading to pacifism. As the movement matured, scholars like Stanley M. Horton taught a more classical Protestant reading: God instituted civil government for order and justice, and believers are called to civic responsibility and submission, provided the state does not usurp God's supreme authority. Pentecostals pray for leaders, participate in civic duties, and pay taxes, while maintaining that their primary citizenship is in heaven. The eschatological reading of verses 11-14 as a call to final awakening reinforces a certain detachment from earthly politics. When the state commands what contradicts God, Pentecostals obey God rather than men. ### Seventh-day Adventist: Civil government has jurisdiction only over civil matters, not religious duties. Adventist interpreters like A.T. Jones argued from the immediate context of verses 8-10, where Paul cites only the second table of the Decalogue, that civil government's authority is restricted to human-to-human obligations, not duties owed to God such as Sabbath observance. This exegesis was deployed against Sunday law enforcement. Adventists strive to be exemplary citizens who pay taxes and uphold public order, but they draw a firm boundary at state interference in religious observance. They advocate globally for religious liberty and rights of conscience. Thus they read Romans 13 as requiring obedience to civil government in its proper sphere, while denying it any jurisdiction over worship or conscience. ### Restorationist / Churches of Christ: Historically pacifist and separatist; later mainstream civic responsibility. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, David Lipscomb in Civil Government argued from Romans 13 that while God ordains human government to rule over the worldly and punish evil, Christians are citizens of a heavenly kingdom and must avoid participation in the state's coercive machinery—no voting, office-holding, or bearing arms. By the mid-to-late twentieth century, the mainstream Churches of Christ shifted toward teaching direct civic responsibility, with commentators like R.L. Whiteside emphasizing law-abiding citizenship and payment of taxes. Today the tradition is internally divided, with some retaining the pacifist-separatist stance and others embracing active civic engagement. Both streams agree that Christians must be respectful and pay taxes, but they differ over whether believers may wield the sword. ### Latter-day Saint: Two readings: civic obedience from KJV; ecclesiastical authority from JST. The Joseph Smith Translation heavily revises Romans 13:1-7 to refer not to secular government but to authority within the Church: the 'powers' are in the church, and tribute becomes consecrations. However, Latter-day Saints also retain the King James Version reading as authoritative for civil government, harmonized with the twelfth Article of Faith and Doctrine and Covenants 134, which affirm the divine institution of civil government. Thus they teach obedience to secular law and honest payment of taxes, while also applying the JST to sustaining Church leaders and paying tithes. In practice, Latter-day Saints are active in civic life but believe government is limited by God and does not override religious duties. Obedience to civil authority is therefore important but not absolute. ### Jehovah's Witnesses: Superior authorities are permitted by God; subjection is relative and limited. Jehovah's Witnesses identify the 'superior authorities' of Romans 13:1 as human governmental systems, which Jehovah permits to exist to prevent chaos until his Kingdom takes full control. Historically they briefly interpreted the authorities as Jehovah and Christ, but since 1962 they have reverted to seeing them as secular governments. Witnesses conscientiously pay taxes, obey laws, and show respect to officials, but they maintain absolute political neutrality: they do not vote, run for office, or serve in the military. Their subjection is 'relative' because they obey God first; when the state demands what God forbids—such as idolatrous acts or killing—they refuse, accepting whatever penalty follows. Thus they honor the state but never give it ultimate allegiance. ### Jewish interpretation: No canonical status; analyzed as Paul's Jewish political pragmatism. Judaism does not treat Romans as Scripture, so the passage has no halakhic or liturgical application. Modern Jewish scholars of Christian origins analyze Paul as a first-century Jew, often comparing the civil obedience teaching to the rabbinic principle dina d'malkhuta dina ('the law of the land is the law'). Mark Nanos has proposed (debated) that the 'higher authorities' in verse 1 refer to synagogue leaders in Rome, not the Roman Empire. Jewish scholars also recognize verses 8-10 as a standard Pharisaic summary of Torah, paralleling Hillel and Rabbi Akiva. The passage is thus studied in interfaith contexts to show Paul's embeddedness in Jewish legal and ethical reasoning, not as a normative command. ### Historical-critical scholarship: The passage addresses concrete Roman civic obligations, not a timeless theory of the state. Most historical critics reject the early twentieth-century proposal that verses 1-7 are a non-Pauline interpolation, affirming Pauline authorship based on manuscript evidence and context. Scholars debate whether exousiai in verse 1 refers to human officials or to angelic or demonic powers; the current consensus leans toward civic officials. Commentators also debate whether the passage is politically conservative or subversive, with some, like Robert Jewett, arguing that Paul co-opts Roman imperial propaganda to relativize it. The passage is studied as evidence of early Christian negotiation with Roman power, situated between apocalyptic identity and civic responsibility. It is not read as a direct answer to modern constitutional questions, but as a case study in historical context. ## The text and its translation (historical background) The Greek exousiai can mean either human rulers or spiritual powers; most current scholarship understands it as civic officials. The verb hypotassesthai is often translated 'be subject' rather than 'obey,' implying voluntary self-ordering under authority rather than unquestioning compliance. The Joseph Smith Translation revises verses 1-7 to refer to ecclesiastical authority and changes 'tribute' to 'consecrations.' The New World Translation renders 'superior authorities' to emphasize human governments. Some early textual critics, such as J.C. O'Neill, argued that verses 1-7 were a later interpolation, but manuscript evidence and scholarly consensus reject this. The phrase about bearing the sword in verse 4 is central to debates over capital punishment and military service, with machaira referring to a short sword or dagger used by police or soldiers. ## Common ground (AI explanation) Among Christian traditions that receive this passage as Scripture, there is broad agreement that God ordains civil government as a means of restraining evil and promoting order, and that Christians ordinarily owe obedience to laws, payment of taxes, and respect to officials. They also generally agree that obedience to God takes precedence when a state command directly contradicts divine law. The main disagreements concern the extent of legitimate resistance, the use of coercive force, and the boundary between civil and religious authority. ## Why it matters (AI explanation) This passage has shaped Christian responses to government from the Constantinian era to the American Revolution, the abolition of slavery, Nazi Germany, and civil rights. It has been used to demand obedience to slaveholders, to justify state violence, and to oppose revolution, but also to argue for limited government, religious liberty, and the right of resistance to tyranny. How a community reads Romans 13 affects whether its members may serve in the military, hold public office, vote, pay taxes under protest, or engage in civil disobedience. The dispute therefore touches both individual conscience and the church's public witness. ## Questions people ask ### Does Romans 13:1-7 require Christians to obey every government? The article shows there is no single answer across traditions. Most Christian readings agree that God ordains civil government to restrain evil and that believers ordinarily obey laws and pay taxes, but they disagree about whether that obedience is absolute. Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist, Anabaptist, Adventist and other traditions each set limits, usually holding that God is to be obeyed rather than the state when a command contradicts divine law. ### What does 'be subject to the governing authorities' mean in Romans 13:1? 'Be subject' translates the Greek verb hypotassesthai, which many scholars read as voluntarily placing oneself under authority rather than giving unquestioning compliance. The 'authorities' (exousiai) are usually understood today as civic officials, though some interpreters take them as spiritual powers. The article notes this wording is one reason the passage is disputed rather than settled. ### Do any Christian traditions allow resisting a tyrannical government? Yes, several do. Reformed writers such as John Knox and Samuel Rutherford argued from verse 3 that a ruler who becomes a terror to good works forfeits the divine mandate and may be resisted, and Anglican and Methodist interpreters have reached similar positions in some periods. Anabaptist, Adventist and Jehovah's Witness readings instead emphasise non-participation in the state's coercive power or conscientious refusal, rather than armed resistance. ### Has Romans 13:1-7 been used to support slavery or state violence? The article records that the passage has been invoked to demand obedience to slaveholders and to justify state violence, and also to argue for limited government, religious liberty and the right of resistance. It presents these as episodes in the history of interpretation, alongside uses in abolitionism, the civil rights movement and opposition to Nazism, without endorsing any of them. ### What does the sword in Romans 13:4 mean? The Greek word machaira refers to a short sword or dagger of the kind carried by police or soldiers, and this image is central to debates over capital punishment and military service. Lutheran and Reformed teaching has used it to affirm that Christians may serve as magistrates, judges or soldiers. Anabaptist and early Pentecostal readings take it as a sign that the state's coercive role lies outside the ethic expected of believers.