The “Powers That Be” and the Legitimacy of Authority in Pauline Theology

Introduction

Few passages in the Pauline corpus have generated as much controversy as Romans 13:1–7, where Paul exhorts believers to submit to governing authorities:

“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God” (Rom. 13:1, NIV).

This directive, often paraphrased as “the powers that be are ordained of God,” has been interpreted variously as legitimizing political authority, requiring absolute submission, or offering a pragmatic call to social order. Across history, rulers have appealed to this text to demand obedience, while reformers have wrestled with its limits in contexts of injustice.

Yet Paul’s theology of authority cannot be reduced to simplistic quietism or political opportunism. His vision is far more nuanced. Drawing from Jewish apocalyptic traditions, Greco-Roman political thought, and the radical ethic of Christ, Paul articulated a paradigm in which authority is simultaneously legitimate, provisional, and accountable to divine justice.

This lesson examines Paul’s teaching on the “powers that be,” analyzing its cultural background, scriptural foundations, theological implications, and historical reception. We will argue that Paul’s vision provided not only guidance for first-century Christians but also a framework that shaped Western concepts of legitimacy, limited government, and the moral responsibilities of rulers.

Authority in the Ancient World

Roman Conceptions of Power

In the Roman Empire, authority was absolute and hierarchical. The emperor (princeps) was the source of law, protector of order, and embodiment of divine favor. Political legitimacy was often reinforced through religion, with emperors worshiped as semi-divine figures. Resistance was equated with treason, punishable by death (Millar, 1977).

The Roman ideal of authority emphasized auctoritas (prestige, influence) and imperium (command, coercive power). Obedience was expected for the sake of stability and prosperity. In return, rulers were to provide protection and justice, though in practice exploitation and corruption often prevailed.

Jewish Perspectives on Authority

Jewish attitudes toward authority were ambivalent. On one hand, rulers were understood as instruments of God’s sovereignty (cf. Jer. 27:6, where God calls Nebuchadnezzar “my servant”). On the other, oppressive regimes like Egypt, Babylon, and Rome were seen as enemies of God’s people. Apocalyptic literature portrayed earthly rulers as beasts under demonic influence, awaiting divine judgment (Dan. 7; 1 Enoch 90).

Thus, Jewish tradition oscillated between submission for survival and prophetic resistance, depending on circumstances.

Paul’s Teaching in Romans 13

Submission to Authority

Paul’s opening statement in Romans 13:1–2 is sweeping: all authority comes from God, and resisting authority is resisting God’s ordinance. This assertion echoes Jewish belief in God’s sovereignty over nations (cf. Prov. 21:1). Yet Paul couches his command within a pastoral concern: persecution was increasing, and rebellion against Rome would bring disaster to the fledgling church. Submission was thus a pragmatic and theological posture.

The Purpose of Authority

Paul defines authority’s function in terms of justice: rulers are “God’s servants for your good” (Rom. 13:4). They bear the sword to punish wrongdoers and commend the righteous. Authority is legitimate insofar as it fulfills this purpose. Legitimacy is not arbitrary but tied to justice and the common good.

Limits of Obedience

While Paul exhorts submission, he never demands blind obedience. His own ministry repeatedly clashed with authorities (Acts 16, 17). Moreover, his ultimate allegiance was to Christ, not Caesar (Phil. 3:20). Thus, Romans 13 cannot be read in isolation from Revelation’s critique of empire or Acts’ portrayal of civil disobedience: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

Other Pauline Texts on Authority

1 Corinthians 2:6–8

Paul speaks of “the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.” Here, authority is transient and subject to God’s wisdom revealed in Christ. Political power is relativized by eschatology.

Colossians 1:15–20

Christ is exalted above “thrones, powers, rulers, and authorities.” While earthly rulers exist, ultimate sovereignty belongs to Christ. Authority is legitimate only insofar as it aligns with His reign.

Ephesians 6:10–12

Paul portrays authority not merely in human terms but as spiritual powers: “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities… in the heavenly realms.” Earthly rulers participate in larger cosmic realities, reminding believers that obedience is never absolute but discerned through faith.

Exegesis of Romans 13:1–7

A careful exegesis reveals several nuances:

1. Universality: Paul’s “everyone” indicates that submission applies to all believers, not only to certain classes.

2. Divine Sovereignty: Authority exists because of God’s overarching governance, not because rulers are inherently just.

3. Instrumentality: Rulers are “God’s servants,” tasked with rewarding good and punishing evil. Legitimacy depends on fulfilling this role.

4. Pragmatism: Payment of taxes (v. 6) reflects the need for social order and stability, not necessarily moral approval of imperial policies.

5. Eschatology: Paul’s broader theology relativizes earthly authority in light of Christ’s lordship. Submission is temporary and conditional.

Theological Implications

Authority as a Divine Trust

Paul frames authority as a trust delegated by God. Rulers are accountable to God for justice. Authority is legitimate not by divine right in perpetuity but by divine appointment for service.

Limits of Legitimacy

When rulers pervert justice, their legitimacy collapses. Paul does not explicitly call for rebellion, but his theology provides grounds for critique: if authority exists to promote good, tyrannical rule contradicts God’s intent. Later Christian thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas would build on this logic to articulate theories of just governance.

Freedom of Conscience

Paul links obedience to conscience (Rom. 13:5). This underscores that submission is not mere fear of punishment but recognition of divine order. Yet conscience also limits obedience: when authority demands what is evil, conscience must resist.

Historical Reception

Early Church

Early Christians generally adopted a posture of submission, seeking to avoid persecution. Yet martyrdom demonstrates the limits of obedience: believers chose fidelity to Christ over compliance with imperial cults.

Medieval Thought

Augustine taught that unjust rulers were still permitted by God but not beyond critique. Aquinas developed a more systematic theory: legitimate authority requires orientation toward the common good; tyranny forfeits legitimacy.

Reformation and Modern Era

Reformers like Calvin emphasized obedience but acknowledged resistance when rulers defied God’s law. In the modern period, Paul’s teaching influenced theories of limited government and the rule of law. The American Revolution and later democratic movements drew on the conviction that rulers are accountable to a higher moral authority.

Long-Term Impact on Western Civilization

Paul’s teaching on the “powers that be” shaped Western notions of political legitimacy in several ways:

1. Divine Source of Authority: Legitimacy derives from alignment with God’s justice, not mere coercion.

2. Accountability of Rulers: Authority is a trust; rulers must serve the common good.

3. Conditional Obedience: Obedience is due unless rulers demand disobedience to God.

4. Foundation for Limited Government: Paul’s theology seeded later doctrines of checks, balances, and rule of law.

Conclusion

Paul’s teaching on the “powers that be” offers a paradigm that is both affirming and subversive. On the one hand, it legitimizes authority as God’s instrument for order and justice. On the other, it relativizes earthly power under the lordship of Christ and subjects rulers to divine accountability.

This paradox—submission yet critique, legitimacy yet limitation—has profoundly shaped Christian political thought. It provided the early church with a survival ethic, medieval theologians with a theory of just rule, and modern societies with the conviction that authority must be accountable to higher moral law.

Suggested Homework Assignments

1. Exegetical Paper: Write a 10–12 page exegesis of Romans 13:1–7, paying special attention to the balance of submission and critique.

2. Comparative Essay: Compare Paul’s teaching on authority with Jewish apocalyptic views of rulers in Daniel 7.

3. Research Assignment: Trace the use of Romans 13 in political debates from Augustine to the American Revolution.

4. Reflection Journal: Reflect on a modern context where obedience to authority conflicts with conscience. How might Paul’s paradigm guide discernment?

References

Augustine. (1998). The city of God (H. Bettenson, Trans.). Penguin Classics.
Aquinas, T. (2002). Political writings (R. W. Dyson, Trans.). Cambridge University Press.
Dunn, J. D. G. (1993). The theology of Paul the Apostle. Eerdmans.
Millar, F. (1977). The emperor in the Roman world. Duckworth.
Sanders, E. P. (1977). Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Fortress Press.
Stark, R. (2005). The victory of reason: How Christianity led to freedom, capitalism, and Western success. Random House.
The Holy Bible, New International Version. (2011). Zondervan.