Request your free, three-month trial to Tabletalk magazine. You’ll receive the print issue monthly and gain immediate digital access to decades of archives. This trial is risk-free. No credit card required.
Try Tabletalk NowAlready receive Tabletalk magazine every month?
Verify your email address to gain unlimited access.
Christians live in two worlds. By faith in Christ, we belong to the world to come. We have been adopted as God’s own children (Rom. 8:14–17), we are seated with Christ in the heavenly realms (Eph. 2:6), and we share in the victory over sin and death that Christ won through the cross and the resurrection (Rom. 5–8). But we also continue to live in this world. We exist in bodies that God created for us, bodies that require food and clothing. And we have responsibilities as members of families and as employees.
How are we to view our obligations to these two worlds? Christians have answered this question in very different ways. At one extreme are Christians who so emphasize the world to come that they basically drop out of this world. Spending as much time as possible in prayer, meditation and worship, they separate themselves as much as possible from ordinary life. At the other extreme are those who are so involved in this world that they forget the world to come. They become so enmeshed in activities—some good, some neutral, some sinful—that they effectively ignore the next world. One example is the career-minded business person who has no time for church, family, or prayers.
First-century Christians faced this same tension and reacted in basically the same ways we do. Most often, probably, the tendency was to allow this world to loom too large in their affections. The famous exhortation of Romans 12:2—“do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind”—was directed to just this kind of attitude. But we find the opposite problem also. Romans 13:1–7, containing Paul’s exhortation to “be subject to the governing authorities,” probably was written to Christians who had decided that their spiritual status as citizens of heaven meant they didn’t need to bother obeying the state.
What Paul does in this paragraph, then, is to remind us that Christians still have obligations to the kingdoms of this world. We should not be “conformed” to this world by accepting its perspectives and values. But we still live in this world, and not everything in this world is bad. In fact, some things, such as government, are good. God Himself appoints governing authorities to maintain order and administer justice in this world. Christians, therefore, Paul insists, must “be subject” to the authorities, recognizing in them the power and authority of God Himself.
But how far must our obedience go? Romans 13:1–7 does not clearly limit the requirement that we submit to the government. But other New Testament passages make it clear that commitment to Christ sometimes requires that we do not obey what our governments tell us to do. The best-known example in the early church is the refusal of Peter and John to obey the Jewish authorities when they insisted that they stop preaching about Jesus (Acts 4:19–20). And the book of Revelation calls Christians to show allegiance to their Lord by refusing to bow to government authorities. Clearly the command to be “be subject to the governing authorities” has exceptions.
But it may be that Paul hints at an exception to his command in two ways in Romans 13:1–7 itself. The first suggestion comes in Paul’s optimistic description of the way governments administer justice (vv. 3–4). Do all government officials recognize God and do His will? Clearly not—as Paul knew very well from his own Jewish history, as well as from the crowning injustice of all: the crucifixion of God’s own Son by Roman officials. In these verses, then, Paul seems to be describing government as it ought to function—not as in fact it always does. Perhaps, then, Paul would allow Christians to disobey governing authorities who are consistently punishing good and rewarding evil.
Second, and more basic, we need to ask just what the command “be subject” really means. Significantly, the term Paul uses here (hypotasso in the Greek) means “order under.” It refers to a general hierarchy of relationship. Standing over the Christian in God’s economy are governing authorities, appointed by God. To “be subject” to the authorities, then, is to acknowledge the existence of this relationship. To be sure, being “subject” to government means that we must obey what government tells us to do in most cases. But not in all cases. For the Christian can never think about a hierarchy of relationships without taking into consideration the One who stands at the pinnacle of that hierarchy. We acknowledge that we “stand under” the government. But we also acknowledge that government itself ultimately stands under God, and when orders from these two authorities conflict, our obligation must always be to the higher authority.
A parallel may help illuminate the situation. Paul uses this same language of “being subject” in describing the marriage relationship. Wives are to be subject to their husbands (Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18). But if a husband—perhaps an unbeliever—were to order his wife to do something clearly contrary to God’s Word, Paul’s advice would be clear: She must obey God rather than her husband.
Of course, the central thrust of Romans 13:1–7 runs in the other direction. We are people belonging to the new world inaugurated through Christ, but we must not forget the obligations that we continue to have to this world. Indeed, living as good citizens of heaven usually will mean living as good citizens of the earthly nations where God has placed us.