Paul's View of the State

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval, for it is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword in vain; it is the servant of God to execute its wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. --Romans 13:1-7

Few passages of scripture have been as consistently misused and misunderstood as Romans 13. Such passages as this have forced Christians on both the right and left to wonder whether "biblical radicalism" is a contradiction of terms. Those on the right balk at talk of a discipleship that at times necessitates resistance to particular actions of a given state. They wonder whether such talk is being biblically irresponsible, because doesn't Paul plainly say, "Whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment?"

Many Christians on the left, sensitive to the need for a Christian resistance and often wanting to be biblically responsible themselves, have tended to downplay their biblical roots out of embarrassment from Paul in such passages as Romans 13. Or they have dealt with such passages in a way that ultimately undermines the meaning of biblical authority in any practical sense, by arguing that some biblical teachings are culturally conditioned, but offering no criteria for determining which ones, except their own offended sensitivities (which are themselves culturally conditioned).

The concern of this article will not be a detailed treatment of Romans 13 or an extensive examination of any one problem, but a more comprehensive general view of Paul's teaching, attitude and action as it pertains to the state. The indirect teachings of Paul will be examined to show how he himself interpreted and acted upon his direct statements, and a contrasting historical situation in Revelations 13 will be considered to indicate the attitude of other biblical writers toward the state. In part two, the terminology and context of Romans 13 will be looked at in some detail.

Passages of Indirect Teaching
Though Romans 13 is the most extensive single passage of direct teaching on the state in the New Testament, it is not the center of biblical teaching on the subject. Biblical teaching has been consistently misunderstood by making Romans 13 absolute and considering it in isolation from the rest of the New Testament material. The extent and diversity of material is larger than one at first might imagine. There are not only four other passages of direct teaching (1 Timothy 2:1-7, Titus 3:1-3, 1 Peter 2:13-17, Mark 12:13-17 and parallels), but numerous other passages of indirect teaching with secondary reference to the state. By showing how the authors themselves interpreted and acted upon their direct statements about the state, such passages shed a qualifying light on the passages of primary teaching and show how the state was viewed in differing historical circumstances.

Exercising the Rights of a Citizen
The record of Paul's encounter with civil authorities in Acts suggests that what he meant in Romans by "submission to the governing authorities" did not mean a passive acceptance of whatever the state did or a submission to their illegal acts. One of the clearest instances of this is Paul's difficulties with the magistrates at Philippi in Acts 16. When the economic interests of some enterprising businessmen of the city were undermined by the work of Paul and Silas, they were dragged before the magistrates and charged with the following: "These men are throwing our city into confusion, and are proclaiming customs which is not lawful for us to accept or observe, being Romans" (Acts 16:20-21). As a study by Boyd Reese shows, the officials then departed from legal procedure and ordered Paul and Silas to be flogged and thrown in jail, plainly contradicting the rights of Roman citizens for protection from summary punishment without trial. The next day, when they were told they could leave, Paul announced that he was a Roman citizen and had been treated illegally. He was highly indignant that as a Roman citizen he had been treated in such a fashion and demanded that the officials themselves come and personally escort them out of jail. Reese summarizes as follows:

...Paul is seen exercising his rights as a Roman citizen in a way that is much more than mere passive, unquestioning submission to the authorities of the state. In Romans 13:3 he taught that good behavior had nothing to fear from the magistrates. In these instances in Acts, he held the magistrates to their duty to protect his rights, the exercise of which one would assume would be considered as good behavior. He forced these men to be in practice what he understood they were supposed to be, both as representatives of the Roman government and as servants of God.

C.E.B. Cranfield (in his book Romans) writes that submission and honor to authorities does not "forbid one to claim whatever legal rights one has over against the government. Paul was not showing disrespect for the magistrates at Philippi, but was rather paying them true respect, when he insisted on his legal rights and thereby summoned them to a proper sense of their own dignity."

Another illuminating example is Paul's experience with city officials at Thessalonica recorded in Acts 17:1-9 and reflected upon in 1 Thessalonians 2:18. The charges brought against Paul at Thessalonica are similar to those brought against him at Philippi: in both cases he was accused of being "un-Roman."

"These men who have upset the world have come here also; and Jason has welcomed them, and they all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king, Jesus" (Acts 17:6-7). The unintended political nature of Paul's religious activity is obvious in such a charge: to proclaim Jesus as Lord was a political threat. F.F. Bruce in his commentary on the Book of Acts wrote, "Jason and the others were charged with harboring political messianic agitators--men who had been guilty of seditious and revolutionary activity in other provinces of the Roman Empire and had now come to Thessalonica with their propaganda, which was not only illegal in itself but actually proclaimed a rival emperor, one Jesus by name, to him who ruled in Rome."

When Paul and Silas could not be found at Jason's house, Jason and his companions were dragged before the city authorities and forced to "receive a pledge." Bruce wrote, "Jason and his companions were made responsible for seeing that there was no repetition of the trouble; this probably meant that Paul had to leave the city and that his friends guaranteed that he would not come back-at least during the present magistrates' term of office. It is probably with reference to this situation that Paul, some weeks later, wrote to assure the Thessalonian Christians that he greatly desired to go back and see them, but 'Satan hindered us' (1 Thessalonians 2:18)."

Here in some of Paul's earliest correspondence we see the beginning of a theme that is to take on greater prominence with John at the end of the century-the governing authorities are in some sense regarded as agents of Satan, doing Satan's "hindering" work. Though the New Testament recognizes the state as willed by God and as a divinely ordained principle to protect human life from the powers of chaos, it is also aware of the demonic possibilities inherent within the state. The paradox and the tension of being at the same time both "minister of God" and "instrument of Satan" is fundamental to an understanding of the state in the New Testament. These two sorts of assertions which seem to be contradictory actually proceed from one and the same fundamental attitude toward the state as necessary, but provisional and temporary.

This same attitude of ambivalence toward the state and its functions is seen in 1 Corinthians 6:1ff: "When one of you has a grievance against another, do you dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints?…If then you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who are least esteemed by the church?" It is false to read Romans 13 apart from such passages as above, or to read 1 Corinthians 6 apart from the passages of direct teaching. The one is the complement of the other. Oscar Cullmann wrote, "Whoever interprets Romans 13:1ff without reference to the context must necessarily find a complete contradiction between Romans 13:1ff and 1 Corinthians 6:1ff...What is said in Romans 13:1ff stands in the background of 1 Corinthians 6, but is not explicit here, just as what is said in 1 Corinthians 6 stands in the background of the Romans passage, but is not explicit there."

1 Corinthians 6 deals with the same function of the state mentioned in Romans 13:3-4, the administration of justice. In Romans, Paul assumes that the Roman state knows how to judge, that it knows how to discriminate between good and evil, and that it punishes only the evil. In 1 Corinthians 6, however, Paul orders the Corinthian Christians not to bring their lawsuits before the state's courts of justice, but to keep away from this institution. Cullmann wrote,

Here we see clearly that for Paul there exists a limit to the recognition of any state. Even to the extent that it remains within its legitimate limits (and the administration of justice in the Roman state is a legitimate function), the state is nothing absolute, nothing final...This chapter shows us in an especially clear manner that it is false to ascribe to Paul in Romans 13:1ff. the opinion that the state is by nature a divine form and that is principles are equally valid as those Jesus deduced from the expectation of the Kingdom of God...If it were of divine nature, then according to Paul the Christians could bring their litigations before the state just as well as before the congregation. Here we see the limit which is set to all affirmation, even of the legitimate state: it is a temporary institution.

A Contrasting Historical Situation: Revelations 13
This apparent contradictory stance of the first Christians toward the state is nowhere more clearly indicated than in the contrast of Revelations 13 and Romans 13. That John describes the state as in some way the special incarnation of the power of evil on earth and the most tangible embodiment of Satanic power of his day seems to be in conflict with Paul's view of the state as a "minister of God." John describes the Roman Empire in Revelation as a "beast from the abyss" empowered by the dragon Satan and endowed with the full powers of the Devil for the Devil's work in the world (Revelation 13:1, 2; cf. 17:7-18 and 12:9).

John adopts the imagery of the four beasts in Daniel 7, which represent the four kingdoms of the world, and concentrates the features of all four into one. The beast of Revelation is thus an abstraction of all the world powers that had gone before and has reference to that which is universally true of all world powers (cf. the temptation narratives, where the kingdoms of the world are in Satan's power to give to Christ). The symbolism of the beast thus suggests that it is archetypal of the demonic in triumph in any nation.

SOME OF THE apparent conflict arises from contrasting historical situations in the writings of Romans and Revelation. The persecutions of both Nero and Domitian were subsequent to Paul's writing of Romans, which was written about A.D. 57 during that period of Nero's reign when there was relative calm throughout the provinces and before the subsequent persecutions broke out in A.D. 64. Revelation was not written until the last decade of the first century, at the end of Domitian's reign, when Rome had reached the height of both its power and its moral insensitivity. The empire's enormous wealth and extravagant luxury were offset by a background of extreme poverty (18:11-16; cf. 6:5, 6). Already the corrupting influence of its power and affluence was experienced worldwide (18:3) under the banner of a rampant nationalism that proclaimed Pax Romana.

Domitian (A.D. 81-96) was the first Roman emperor to take seriously his own divinity and to insist on emperor worship as a loyalty test. Against every form of resistance he unleashed one of the most intense political persecutions that history has known. A stubborn resistance group, first called Christians in Syrian Antioch, bore the brunt of Domitian's wrath. They believed that another should be worshiped. While a political prisoner in exile on Patmos, a small barren island in the Aegean Sea used as a penal settlement by the Romans, one of the early Christian leaders wrote "the revelation of John," perhaps the most political pieces of literature in the entire Bible. Here was a political-religious manifesto that declared open resistance to the Roman Empire. Here was the Christians' first tractate against the hellish iniquities and arrogant nationalism of the world's most powerful nation. Thus, according as the state remains within its proper limits or transgresses them, the Christian will describe it as the servant of God or as the instrument of the Devil.

That just 35 years elapsed between the writing of Romans 13 and Revelation 13 suggests that even a legitimate state which knows how to "distinguish between good and evil" is always in danger of becoming satanic. There is an inevitable drift toward the demonic: Caesar always and irresistibly tends toward demanding for himself not only that which is Caesar's but that which is God's.

The seven heads of the beast (Revelation 13:1) are later explained as seven kings (Revelation 17:10). Commentators are divided over whether these seven kings represent the succession of Roman emperors from Caesar to Domitian or whether they are simply symbolic, representing the Roman power as a historic whole. In either case, the same emperor that Paul described as the "minister of God" in A.D. 57 is included in these seven heads as part of the beast that from beginning to end is the manifestation of Satan's presence on earth and the Devil's special instrument. Again we can see the paradox and the tension of being at the same time both "minister of God" and "instrument of Satan" as fundamental to an understanding of the state in the New Testament, teaching both the necessity of the state as willed by God to meet the emergency of a fallen creation as well as the demonic possibilities at all times inherent within the state.

The book of Revelation also highlights a much ignored input in constructing a politically responsible discipleship in the 20th century: that is, the political significance of all of scripture. Major doctrines have crucial political implications and a critical significance in translating New Testament teaching into a changed cultural context. Nowhere in the New Testament is the relationship between worship and politics more clearly seen than in Revelation.

The pervasive sense of worship in Revelation reaches maximum intensity in chapters 17-19 where the fall of Babylon (= Rome) occasions a celebration in heaven. The death of a society, once the richest and most powerful, does not seem to be an appropriate time for rejoicing. Yet the destruction of this powerful city is associated with the salvation of the world (19:1) and is a sign of the sovereign rule and justice of God over nations (19:2,6). Only those who profit by its power and affluence mourn its fall. Only the heavens and the people of God who have "come out of her," who have disentangled themselves from implication in Babylon's corruption (18:4), have occasion to rejoice. Thus is made a bold contrast between the silence that is the sole remain of a once mighty city and the thunderous celebration of the heavenly multitude. And in contrast to the three dirges of woe uttered by the "kings of the earth," "the merchants of the earth," and the "shipmasters," there are three outbursts of hallelujah by the heavenly chorus (19:1,3,6): Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God. Hallelujah! Her smoke rises up forever and ever. Hallelujah! For the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns.

THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS of worshiping God and the religious implications of worshiping an emperor or a nation are unmistakable in the third outburst of praise to God following the destruction of Rome: "Hallelujah! For the Lord our God, the Almighty, is King" ("reigns" is a cognate verb form of the noun for "king" and is thus better translated "is king"). The author adopts two titles normally reserved for the emperor--"Lord God" and "King"--and applies them to God, imputing to God that which the emperor assigned exclusively to himself.

In the thought-world of the first century it was not possible to divide the "religious" and the "political" into two neat, separate realms. Religious assertions such as "Jesus is King" or "Yahweh is Lord God" had necessary political implications that galvanized civil authorities such as "Caesar is King" or "Caesar is Lord God" had necessary religious implications that restricted Christians from participation in the imperial cult and made them a political-religious resistance movement.

For the early Christians to say "Jesus is King" was as much a political as a theological affirmation. For them to say only "Yahweh is the Lord God" was to register a political protest. To worship Caesar as Lord God and King was to contribute to civic stability; the imperial cult was the cement that held the empire together. When Christians held themselves above the authority of the state by worshiping another "Lord God" and another "King," they were therefore completely disruptive and a threat to the empire. When political powers demand the worship of unconditional obedience that assumes individuals should assign them ultimate value, then worship of God and the assigning of ultimate value to his kingdom becomes a radical act, a political threat.

The first Christians did not try to overturn the Roman Empire by force or to use it for their own purposes. Simply by believing that Rome was not the real center of power and authority and by fleshing out that belief in daily, active worship, they so threatened the system that the Romans felt compelled to exterminate them. For the early Christians the Roman Empire, then approaching the zenith of its power, was already "fallen." So certain was its destruction that in typically prophetic fashion John employed the past tense (18:3; 14:8) "Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great!" Living in daily expectancy of its catastrophic end, this small group of worshipers did not consider their primary allegiance to be to the present order. The empire with all the "power of its luxury" (18:3) held neither attraction nor threat for the little band that dared to live as if the emperor and his kingdom were not.

Bob Sabath was web technologist of Sojourners when this article appeared.