How Romans 12 and 13 Anchor the Third Way on Solid Ground

We have covered significant ground so far. Our journey began with Romans 13, often considered one of the most controversial and misused passages in the Bible. We examined how a straightforward, literal reading of this text does not hold up under closer scrutiny. We also explored the historical context of the Roman church that first received this letter, a community divided and living in a city on the brink of unrest, ruled by an emperor who demanded divine status.

We saw that Paul, the author of Romans 13, did not always follow the rule he is often accused of promoting. His life was marked by suffering and resistance to the very authorities he is said to support. After this, we examined Walter Wink’s interpretation of Jesus’s third way. We evaluated Wink’s argument carefully, recognizing its strengths, its weaknesses, and a significant gap at its core.

This brings us to an important question. Wink’s overall vision is compelling, and his main theological point remains strong. But the specific historical details he uses, such as the backhanded slap, the naked debtor, and the Roman mile law, are not always reliable, and at times they do not support his argument as firmly as he suggests.

So, can we find a more solid foundation for this vision? I believe we can. The material we examined in the first three articles, especially Paul’s teaching in Romans 12 and 13, provides a much firmer basis. Paul presents the same third way in a different language and in a less debated context.

Read together, Paul and Wink reinforce each other and become even stronger.

The Same Three Options

Let’s start with the basic architecture of Wink’s argument. He claimed that Jesus offered his hearers three possibilities, rather than the two evolution wired into us. Not the flight of passivity. Not the fight of violence. A third way beyond both.

Now look at what Paul actually does in Romans 12 and 13, read as the single continuous passage it originally was. He tells his readers not to be conformed to this age, which rules out quiet, cowardly compliance, the flight response.

He tells them not to repay anyone evil for evil, and never to avenge themselves, which rules out violent retaliation, the fight response.

He then tells them to overcome evil with good, which is a third thing altogether, neither surrender nor the sword. With no chapter break in the original, he turns to the governing authorities and instructs his readers to be subject to them in a way that, read against his own scarred biography and his own carefully chosen Greek, means something quite specific.

Pay your taxes. Do not mount an armed insurrection. But do not be conformed either. Do not bow to Caesar. Do not stop preaching the gospel. Do not forget who really owns it all.

This is the third way, but reached by a different path. It is neither passive submission nor violent resistance. Instead, it is a creative and loving faithfulness that challenges the empire from within.

Paul arrives at the same conclusion as Wink, but he does so without relying on any of the disputed historical examples that Wink uses.

The Same Greek

This similarity goes beyond just the main idea. It extends to the very words that are used, which is one of the most important points in this discussion.

Recall that Wink built part of his case on the observation that the verb behind “resist not” in Matthew 5:39, antistenai, carries military and insurrectionary overtones and belongs to the language of armed revolt rather than general dissent.

This was, you will remember from Article 5, one of his strongest claims, the one that survived scrutiny best.

Now, recall what we found back in Article 3. When Paul warns against those who “resist” the authority in Romans 13:2, he reaches for antitassomai and anthistemi, verbs from the very same root family, carrying the very same connotations of organized, often violent opposition.

This is not just a matter of similar vocabulary. It shows that both Jesus, as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, and Paul in Romans 13 address the same issue and offer the same response. What is being prohibited is armed rebellion.

Followers are told not to use violence against those in power. This restriction is aimed at violent revolt, not at the broader biblical tradition of faithful resistance that we discussed earlier. This matters for our assessment of Wink.

On this point, where the language stood up well to careful examination, Wink’s argument is not only reasonable but is actually supported by Paul. These two passages help explain each other, and both make it clear that the focus is on rejecting violence, not resistance as a whole.

Love of Enemies as the Frame

Wink argued that Jesus’s third way is not just a strategy, but is grounded in the command to love one’s enemies. This is the foundation of his entire interpretation. In this respect, Paul provides strong support for Wink’s view, especially in the way the passage is structured.

Recall N.T. Wright’s observation, which we examined in Article 2, that Romans 12 and 13 are built as a chiasm, with the passage on governing authorities in Romans 13:1 through 7 set in deliberate parallel with the passage on loving your enemies in Romans 12:14 through 21, the whole section bracketed by the language of love.

The structure is not mere decoration. It is an instruction. It tells us that Paul understood submission to the authorities as belonging to the same category of thought as enemy love, as a form of enemy love worked out under the specific pressures of empire. That is the key claim here: Paul frames these commands together so their meaning is read together.

This point is crucial for understanding Wink’s argument. Even if the details of the backhanded slap, the naked debtor, or the Roman mile law are uncertain or unproven, Wink’s main idea remains strong. He claims that Jesus’s teaching is fundamentally about loving one’s enemies, shown through creative and nonviolent resistance.

Paul teaches the same thing in Romans 12 and 13. Both Jesus and Paul, using different language and approaches, present the same vision. That vision does not depend on Wink’s specific historical examples, but on the agreement between Jesus and Paul.

The Same Coded Speech

Wink interpreted Jesus’s three examples as a form of coded resistance, actions that appear to comply with authority but actually challenge and expose injustice. Similarly, as we discussed earlier, T.L. Carter argues that Paul’s words in Romans 13 are intended to carry a double meaning.

On the surface, Paul seems to encourage obedience, but his message to those within the Christian community is much more critical of the authorities. He reminds them that all authority comes from God and that Caesar is only a servant. Paul also emphasizes that a new era is approaching.

This doubled register, a message hidden inside a message, is not unique to Jesus or to Paul. It runs through the whole New Testament witness under the empire. It appears in 1 Peter 2:17, with its careful distinction between fearing God and merely honoring the emperor, reverence reserved for God alone, and only civic courtesy extended to Caesar.

It appears in Jesus’s famous line, “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s,” where the unspoken and dangerous question is what, in the end, actually belongs to Caesar at all, given that everything belongs to God.

Wink’s instinct that the gospel speaks subversively about the empire, that it teaches believers to use the system’s own structures against itself, reflects a pervasive New Testament pattern rather than a quirk of his reading of the Sermon on the Mount. Paul vindicates this pattern even where Wink’s specific examples falter.

Working Within the System

Wink drew on Gandhi, South Africa, and the Philippines to argue that nonviolent resistance works within a system to transform it, rather than either fleeing the system or trying to blow it up. And here, Paul serves as more than a theoretical parallel; he stands as a living demonstration.

Consider how Paul lived out his beliefs. He paid taxes and used his Roman citizenship when it helped his mission, taking advantage of the legal protections available to him. He worked within synagogues, courts, and even Roman prisons. He never led a violent uprising.

At the same time, he continued to proclaim Jesus as Lord, a title that directly challenged Caesar’s authority. He endured beatings and imprisonment, but he persisted. In each city, he established communities that reflected the values of the coming kingdom, right in the midst of the Roman Empire.

This is the same approach that Wink describes, and Paul demonstrated it long before the modern examples Wink mentions. Paul’s life supports the broader vision, regardless of the details in the Sermon on the Mount.

The Apocalyptic Question, Answered

However, we must also recognize where this comparison becomes more difficult. The main criticism of Wink’s argument is not about any one example, but about his treatment of Jesus as an apocalyptic figure who expected God to intervene soon. Joseph Scrivner raised this point in Article 5.

The same issue applies to Paul, who also thought in apocalyptic terms. Paul wrote that the night is almost over and the day is near, and that salvation is closer now than when believers first began. Both Paul and Jesus believed that the end was approaching.

However, including the apocalyptic perspective adds depth to the third way rather than undermining it. The third way is more than a practical strategy for dealing with the present world; it is a way of living that looks forward to the coming world.

Believers are told not to seek revenge because vengeance belongs to God, who will act in due time. Wink mentioned that Christians are to live as signs of the coming kingdom, but Scrivner’s point is that the apocalyptic outlook gives the third way a deeper meaning. Enduring suffering patiently is not only a practical choice; it is an expression of trust in God’s ultimate justice.

It is important to see how Paul brings these ideas together in Romans 12 and 13. He urges believers not to conform to the world, which is the kind of courageous resistance that Wink highlights. At the same time, Paul reminds them that the night is almost over and the day is near, which reflects the apocalyptic patience that Scrivner emphasizes.

These two attitudes work together as two sides of the same approach. The third way is a form of creative and courageous nonviolent resistance, grounded in a deep trust that God will have the final say. Paul combines the strengths of both Wink’s and his critics’ perspectives, showing that a fuller understanding comes from considering both together.

What This Means for Us

To summarize, Wink provides us with a vivid and practical understanding of Jesus’s teaching, showing the creativity, courage, and real-life actions involved in turning the other cheek or carrying a burden. Paul offers the same vision, but expresses it differently.

He uses coded language to challenge the empire, builds his argument on the foundation of loving one’s enemies, and gives practical advice to help the early church avoid unnecessary suffering. He also keeps the focus on the coming kingdom.

Each perspective adds something important, and together they form a stronger and more complete picture than either does alone.

The historical criticisms of Wink’s argument, when taken seriously, help clarify and strengthen the overall message rather than undermine it.

We do not need to prove every detail about the backhanded slap, the naked debtor, or the Roman mile law to support the idea that both Jesus and Paul taught a third way, one that is nonviolent, subversive, and rooted in love. The Sermon on the Mount as a whole teaches this. Paul’s life and his letters, especially Romans 12 and 13, teach it.

The broader biblical tradition of civil disobedience, starting with the Hebrew midwives, also supports it. Wink’s specific examples are helpful illustrations, but the main vision does not depend on them.

Four Things to Carry With You

Let me summarize the main points to remember.

First, it is important to critically examine the work of even the scholars you admire. Wink has been a major influence on the theology of nonviolence, inspiring many people and movements. However, genuine respect for a thinker does not mean accepting everything they say without question. A careful reader should apply the same standards to arguments they agree with as to those they do not. Wink himself valued truth above reputation and would have encouraged this approach.

Second, do not dismiss an important idea just because some of the arguments supporting it are imperfect. The third way is a real and meaningful concept. The Bible supports it, Jesus demonstrated it, and Paul lived it out. We have seen it in action during the civil rights movement, in the Philippines in 1986, and in the Solidarity movement in Poland. Even if Wink did not get every historical detail correct, the vision he described is supported by the New Testament and has been confirmed by history.

Third, keep both the practical and the future-oriented aspects in mind. The third way is not just a useful method; it is a way of living that anticipates the coming kingdom. Pay your taxes, but remember who truly owns everything. Do not conform to the world. Love your enemies, even those in positions of power. And always keep in mind that a new day is approaching.

Fourth, seek to bring about change from within the system. This is the approach taken by Jesus, Paul, the apostles, and many others who have practiced nonviolence. Trying to destroy a system through violence often leads to becoming what you oppose, while accepting its injustices means abandoning your true values. The third way offers a path between these extremes. It is challenging and requires sacrifice, but it is a genuine and effective approach.

The Last Word

As a final thought, consider this: when someone uses Romans 13 to argue for obedience to unjust authorities, remember who wrote those words. Paul wrote them after experiencing beatings, imprisonment, and ultimately martyrdom at the hands of the Roman Empire.

He addressed a church that would soon face persecution under Nero. Paul wrote with full awareness that Jesus himself had been executed by the authorities he was often thought to support.

Romans 13 was never intended as a guide for submitting to injustice. At its core, it is, as Walter Wink recognized, a guide for those committed to love and justice in the face of oppression.

The night is far gone. The day is near. May we live as people of the coming day, in the third way that Jesus modeled, that Paul lived, and that Walter Wink, for all the imperfections of his historical reconstructions, helped a generation of Christians rediscover.

May we be neither cowards nor tyrants, neither silent collaborators nor violent insurrectionists, but creative, loving, defiant witnesses to a kingdom that is breaking in even now.

This article is part of a series exploring Romans 13.
Part 1: How Romans 13 Became a Method of Control, and What the Rest of Scripture Says Back – The Curious Christian
Part 2: Why Context Changes Almost Everything About Romans 13 – The Curious Christian
Part 3: Paul, His Scars, and the Subversive Reading of Romans 13 – The Curious Christian
Part 4: The Man Who Argued We Had Mistranslated Jesus for Two Thousand Years – The Curious Christian
Part 5: Where Walter Wink Is Right, Where He Overreaches, and the One Thing He Left Out – The Curious Christian