Skip to content
Church.wiki

Romans 13:1: Edit history

Revision #12094

Romans 13:1

English baseline before localization

Status: approved

Changes from the previous English revision

+ ## Context
+ The verse comes immediately after the exhortations in Romans 12 to love and not to avenge oneself. Writing to the church in the capital of the Roman Empire, Paul describes the ruler as "the minister of God" who encourages good and punishes evil (v. 4), and he urges believers to pay taxes (vv. 6–7). Beginning in verse 8, he returns to the debt of love. At the time, Christians in Rome were a minority who, along with Jews, faced social suspicion.
+
+ ## Interpretations
+ - **As a basis for the legitimacy of state authority**: This reading takes the verse to mean that political order itself is an institution established by God. Lutheran and Reformed confessions cite this verse when setting out the duty of obedience to civil magistrates.
+ - **As conditional obedience**: Because the authority described in verses 3–4 is one that rewards good and punishes evil, this reading holds that the verse does not require obedience to commands that contradict that purpose. Acts 5:29, "We ought to obey God rather than men," is cited alongside it. In the Reformed tradition, this line of thought also led to discussions of the right to resist tyranny.
+ - **As nonviolence and distance from the state**: The Anabaptist tradition reads the verse together with the love of enemies in chapter 12, holding that believers should obey the state but should not take part in wielding the sword.
+
+ ## Debates and Issues
+ Whether the "sword" in verse 4 justifies the state's power to punish, and by extension capital punishment, is a matter of debate. There is also historical criticism that the verse has been used to justify dictatorship and mobilization for war.
+
+ ## In the Korean Church
+ During the Japanese colonial period, in connection with the issue of Shinto shrine worship, and again under the military regimes, positions within the church diverged over how to apply this verse. One side cited it to emphasize obedience to the government and the separation of church and state, while those who took part in the democratization movement regarded resistance to unjust power as a duty of faith. More recently, the verse has been cited again in debates over government disease-control guidelines and restrictions on worship services.
+
+ ## Related Passages
+ - Acts 5:29
+ - 1 Peter 2:13–17
+ - Titus 3:1
+ - Revelation 13:1–10


This verse exhorts every person to "be subject unto the higher powers" and declares that all authority comes from God. It is a key text on the relationship between church and state, and how it should be applied under unjust regimes has long been debated.

Full revision

This verse exhorts every person to "be subject unto the higher powers" and declares that all authority comes from God. It is a key text on the relationship between church and state, and how it should be applied under unjust regimes has long been debated.

Context

The verse comes immediately after the exhortations in Romans 12 to love and not to avenge oneself. Writing to the church in the capital of the Roman Empire, Paul describes the ruler as "the minister of God" who encourages good and punishes evil (v. 4), and he urges believers to pay taxes (vv. 6–7). Beginning in verse 8, he returns to the debt of love. At the time, Christians in Rome were a minority who, along with Jews, faced social suspicion.

Interpretations

  • As a basis for the legitimacy of state authority: This reading takes the verse to mean that political order itself is an institution established by God. Lutheran and Reformed confessions cite this verse when setting out the duty of obedience to civil magistrates.
  • As conditional obedience: Because the authority described in verses 3–4 is one that rewards good and punishes evil, this reading holds that the verse does not require obedience to commands that contradict that purpose. Acts 5:29, "We ought to obey God rather than men," is cited alongside it. In the Reformed tradition, this line of thought also led to discussions of the right to resist tyranny.
  • As nonviolence and distance from the state: The Anabaptist tradition reads the verse together with the love of enemies in chapter 12, holding that believers should obey the state but should not take part in wielding the sword.

Debates and Issues

Whether the "sword" in verse 4 justifies the state's power to punish, and by extension capital punishment, is a matter of debate. There is also historical criticism that the verse has been used to justify dictatorship and mobilization for war.

In the Korean Church

During the Japanese colonial period, in connection with the issue of Shinto shrine worship, and again under the military regimes, positions within the church diverged over how to apply this verse. One side cited it to emphasize obedience to the government and the separation of church and state, while those who took part in the democratization movement regarded resistance to unjust power as a duty of faith. More recently, the verse has been cited again in debates over government disease-control guidelines and restrictions on worship services.

Related Passages

  • Acts 5:29
  • 1 Peter 2:13–17
  • Titus 3:1
  • Revelation 13:1–10
RevisionTime (UTC)ContributorSummaryStatus
#120952026-11-05 01:48:32AI localizationLocalized for English-speaking readersapproved
#120942026-11-05 01:48:32AI localizationEnglish baseline before localizationapproved