In the last two articles, found here and here, we cleared a great deal of ground. We saw that a literal reading of Romans 13 makes God the sponsor of tyrants and the enemy of heroes, and that it runs counter to the whole weight of a Bible that honors faithful resistance.

We saw that the Rome Paul wrote to was a specific place in a specific crisis, a divided church in a city on the edge of a tax revolt, under an emperor who claimed divine honors Paul assumed his readers would refuse. We saw that the passage has no original chapter break, is structurally welded to the command to love your enemies, and is framed on both sides by the refusal to be conformed to a passing age.

While this context matters, the decisive evidence comes from Paul’s own life. Paul himself did not follow Romans 13 as literalists interpret it. The same person who wrote “be subject to the governing authorities” was, by his own admission, repeatedly punished by those authorities for refusing to comply with their demands.

If this is the case, and the evidence strongly suggests it is, then a literal reading of Romans 13 is not just difficult to defend theologically or historically. It is directly contradicted by Paul’s own actions.

The Testimony of the Scars

If we look at 2 Corinthians 11, we find Paul responding to criticism by reluctantly listing the hardships he has endured for his ministry. This list is not one of triumph, but rather a record of suffering.

He has been imprisoned, he says, far more often than his rivals. He has been near death again and again. Five times he received from the Jewish authorities the forty lashes minus one, the maximum synagogue discipline the Law allowed.

Three times he was beaten with rods, which was a specifically Roman punishment, administered by Roman officials. Once, he was stoned and left for dead. He goes on, through shipwrecks and dangers and sleepless nights, but it is the beatings and imprisonments that concern us here.

These events were not simply accidents or random misfortunes. Paul did not suffer these punishments because he quietly complied with every official demand.

Instead, he was punished for consistently challenging the authorities. He continued to preach where he was told not to, formed communities that drew suspicion, and proclaimed a Lord other than Caesar.

The scars he bore were evidence that he did not practice unconditional obedience to civil authorities, and could not have done so without giving up his mission.

Think about what the literal reading would require us to say about this. It would require us to say that Paul, the author of Romans 13, spent his life violating Romans 13. It would make him a hypocrite of the most flagrant kind, preaching submission while collecting the wounds of resistance. That is absurd.

The far more sensible conclusion is that Paul did not mean what the literalists say he meant. His life is the commentary on his letter, and his life says plainly that “be subject to the governing authorities” was never a command to obey the state in all things.

The Words That Match the Wounds

It was not only Paul’s actions that defied Rome. His words did too, and often pointedly.

In 1 Corinthians 2, Paul writes of “the rulers of this age,” the powers that governed the world, and he says two things about them that no loyal imperial subject would say.

He says they are “doomed to perish,” their authority temporary and their end already decided. And he says that in their ignorance, they crucified the Lord of glory. That second phrase is worth dwelling on, because it names the thing the literal reading most wants us to forget.

The governing authorities, the very powers Romans 13 supposedly tells us to obey without question, are the powers that executed Jesus. Paul never lost sight of that fact. It sat at the center of his gospel.

It is important to remember that Paul was writing this letter to the church in Rome, the very center of imperial power. He was not someone with an idealized view of distant authorities. He addressed people who lived under the direct influence of the government that had crucified Jesus, and that would soon persecute them as well.

When Paul wrote “be subject to the governing authorities,” he was not suggesting that Rome was good or above criticism. He understood the reality of Roman power.

The Conclusion We Cannot Avoid

From this, we can see a clear line of reasoning. Paul did not practice unconditional obedience to the authorities. He was punished for his resistance, and he openly criticized the rulers of his time, remembering that they had crucified Jesus.

Given this, Romans 13 is unlikely to be a blanket endorsement of obedience to the state.

There must be another explanation for the passage. The words may seem to say one thing, but Paul’s life, his readers’ situation, and the letter’s structure suggest a different meaning. Our task is to determine what that meaning is.

Reading Between the Lines

Here is where the argument turns more interesting, and where we need the help of scholars who have looked closely at the text.

T.L. Carter, in an article called “The Irony of Romans 13,” published in the journal Novum Testamentum, offers a reading that tries to make sense of this entire puzzle. Carter argues that Paul is writing ironically.

On the surface, the passage sounds like a dutiful endorsement of Roman authority, exactly the sort of thing a nervous imperial official would want to hear. But beneath the surface, for readers within the Christian community, the passage quietly exposes and subverts the very power it appears to praise.

This is not as strange as it may first sound. Throughout history, people who were vulnerable to powerful authorities have often spoken in ways that protected them from direct confrontation.

Early Christians understood that openly opposing Rome would have been dangerous. As a result, they sometimes wrote in ways that appeared compliant to outsiders, but carried a different meaning for those within the community.

On this reading, Paul carefully crafted his message so that it would be acceptable to Roman officials, while still conveying a deeper, more challenging message to believers.

Once you start reading with that possibility in mind, the details of the passage light up.

Stripping Caesar of His Crown

Let us look at Paul’s opening statement: “There is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God.”

At first glance, this appears to support the existing powers. However, when we place it in its Roman context, it actually challenges the very foundation of Roman authority by denying Caesar any ultimate claim.

Caesar did not present his authority as something given by another. He claimed to be a divine figure, worthy of worship, and the imperial cult was built on this idea.

Paul’s statement, however, asserts that all authority comes from God and that any earthly power, including Caesar, only holds authority as something granted by God. In saying this, Paul reduces Caesar from a divine ruler to a servant under God’s authority.

What may sound like praise is, in fact, a subtle challenge to the core of Roman power.

The Weight of Two Greek Words

If we examine Romans 13:2 and the Greek words Paul uses, we see that he warns against those who would “resist” authority, using the terms antitassomai and anthistemi. These words are not general terms for disagreement, but are specifically associated with organized or armed opposition, such as insurrection or rebellion.

This distinction is important. On this reading, when Paul says not to resist authority, he is not forbidding all forms of disagreement with the state. He is not commanding silence or total compliance, nor is he rejecting the biblical tradition of faithful resistance.

Rather, he is specifically warning against violent rebellion. He is advising the community not to take up arms against Rome or join in armed revolt, which would likely lead to their destruction.

This distinction changes how we understand the passage. Paul is not instructing a persecuted church to accept injustice without question. Instead, he is offering a strategy for survival.

He advises paying taxes to avoid being seen as part of a tax revolt, and warns against taking up arms, since that would lead to destruction. At the same time, he leaves room for other forms of resistance, such as refusing to worship Caesar or to stop preaching.

Paul is outlining a middle path between passive compliance and violent rebellion.

A Word That Will Matter Later

There is one more thing to note about that Greek, and I flag it now because it will become important later in this series. The verb anthistemi, which Paul uses in Romans 13:2, shares its root with a word that sits at the very center of one of Jesus’s most famous and most misunderstood sayings.

In Matthew 5:39, the King James renders a command by Jesus quite nicely: “resist not evil.” The verb behind “resist” comes from the same family.

I am not going to unpack the significance of that yet, because it deserves the careful treatment it will get when we take up Walter Wink directly. But hold the coincidence in mind.

In fact, it may not be a coincidence at all. It may be a clue that Jesus and Paul, in their different idioms, were addressing the very same question and reaching the very same answer.

The Shape of the Middle Path

Looking at all the evidence, Paul’s experiences, his words about the rulers, the context of his readers, and his choice of language, we see that Romans 13 describes a middle path.

Paul rejects violent rebellion, as it would be both futile and contrary to the teachings of Jesus. He also rejects passive compliance, since he himself refused to worship Caesar or stop preaching, even at great personal cost.

What Paul offers is a third way: living faithfully under unjust authority without surrendering to evil or responding with violence.

This third option is not a modern idea imposed on the ancient text. Rather, it is what Jesus himself taught. In the twentieth century, the scholar Walter Wink did much to recover and explain this teaching of a third way.

In the next article, we will turn to Wink’s account and consider its significance.