1
From Submission to Love:
Understanding the Motivations in Romans 13:1-10
De la sumisión al amor: estudio de las motivaciones en Rom 13,1-10
https://doi.org/10.46543/ISID.2433.1057
Juan Manuel Granados Rojas, S.J.
Pontifical Biblical Institute
Roma (Italy)
jmgranados@biblico.it
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0477-9264
Abstract: This paper studies Rom 13:1-10, analyzing the inner connection between
Paul’s exhortation to submit to governing authorities and his admonition to love one
another. It addresses interpretative and exegetical issues, including possible textual
interpolations and the meanings of key terms. The analysis demonstrates that Paul’s
argument hinges on the incrementum (αὔξησις) of underlying rationales, moving from
general and external incentives to personal and internal motivations. This study highlights
that the coherence of the passage relies on understanding both its imperatives and
motivations, ultimately suggesting a deeper moral imperative.
Keywords: Rom 13:1-10, Paul’s Exhortations, Governing Authorities, Mutual Love,
Rhetorical Analysis
Resumen: Este artículo estudia Rom 13,1-10, analizando los vínculos internos entre la
exhortación de Pablo a someterse a las autoridades gubernamentales y su admonición a
amarse unos a otros. Aborda cuestiones interpretativas y exegéticas, incluyendo las
posibles interpolaciones en el texto y el significado de términos clave. El análisis
demuestra que el argumento de Pablo se basa en el incrementum (αὔξησις) de las razones
subyacentes, pasando de incentivos generales y externos a motivaciones personales e
internas. Este estudio pone de relieve que la coherencia del pasaje depende de la
comprensión tanto de sus imperativos como de sus motivaciones, sugiriendo en última
instancia un imperativo moral más profundo.
Palabras claves: Rom 13,1-10, exhortaciones paulinas, autoridades gubernamentales,
amor mutuo, análisis retórico
Received: 3 July 2024
Accepted: 8 September 2024
1. Introduction
Paul’s exhortation in Rom 13:1 to submit to governing authorities seems to contradict
other passages in Romans and Galatians, where the Apostle advocates for the freedom of
the children of God (cf. Rom 8:21; Gal 5:1, 13a). Several scholars highlight the lack of a
smooth or logical transition between Rom 12 and Rom 13:1-7. Some even consider Rom
13:1-7 to be a non-Pauline interpolation. Furthermore, Paul seems to endorse subjection
to authorities and the payment of taxes, irrespective of the authorities’ ethical
2
performance, based on theological grounds (ὑπὸ θεοῦ). The positioning and delimitation
of this text, as well as some of its contents, certainly continue to provoke debate among
Pauline scholars
1
.
Elucidating the function and content of Rom 13:1-10 involves both interpretative
and exegetical issues. Hermeneutics requires considering the broader context for a
comprehensive understanding (verstehen), while exegesis involves posing specific
questions to clarify (erklären) the text
2
. Some of the most important interpretative issues
include the presence of glosses in the text, the possibility of interpolation, whether it
promotes an anti-imperialist ideology or hidden resistance, and whether it reflects
circumstantial evidence or offers a more universal reflection of a believer’s behavior. The
exegetical issues, on the other hand, concern the meanings of certain ambivalent terms in
the text: πᾶσα ψυχή, ὑποτάσσω, and ὑπὸ θεοῦ in v. 1, as well as διὰ τοῦτο + τελεῖτε in
v. 6. This study demonstrates how often exegetical options are interconnected with
interpretative issues and vice versa.
This passage could be interpreted as an attempt by the Apostle to delineate the
relationship between the Church and the state. Understood this way, it promotes the
political neutrality of Christians—respecting authorities and paying taxes. Alternatively,
it could be seen as an exhortation to civic obedience, suggesting a less neutral stance
aimed at gaining recognition for the nascent Christian communities from the imperial
authorities
3
. Which of these interpretations is the most accurate? This article suggests
that, to interpret Rom 13:1-10 coherently with the theme of not doing harm to others but
doing good (Rom 12:17-18; 13:10), one must carefully analyze not only the imperatives
of the text but also their motivations. The rhetorical articulation between exhortations and
reasons allows for an understanding of the interwoven lines of thought within the text.
Thus, this paper explores the main exegetical and hermeneutical problems of
Rom 13:1-10, highlighting how the rhetorical arrangement of Paul’s argument explains
the apparent inconsistencies in his reasoning. Paul exhorts his readers to submit to
governing authorities, even integrating mutual love as a deeper motivation.
2. Hermeneutical Issues
The recent history of interpretation on Rom 13:1-17 has raised questions about its
function in the parenetic section of the letter. These include the question of glosses and
interpolations as well as the anti-imperialist and the socio-economic reading hypotheses.
2.1. The Hypothesis of Glosses
Some authors suggest that Rom 13:5-7 contains several glosses. According to Bultmann,
Rom 13:5 is an exegetical gloss introduced by διό. He explains this interpretation by
stating that διὰ τοῦτο γάρ in v. 6 hardly follows v. 5, but instead refers back to verse 4.
Thus, v. 6 completes the reasoning begun in v. 4: since the authority (ἡ ἐξουσία) is a
servant of God (θεοῦ γὰρ διάκονος), you also pay taxes. The authorities are indeed God’s
1
Bertschmann has recently explored, for example, whether the argumentation of Rom 13:1-7
should or not include the extension of love in vv. 8-10. Dorothea H. BERTSCHMANN, “The
Good, the Bad and the State: Rom 13.1-7 and the Dynamics of Love,” New Testament Studies
60 (2014) 232-249 (https://doi.org/10.1017/s0028688513000350).
2
Cf. Santiago GUIJARRO OPORTO, Metodología exegética del Nuevo Testamento (Biblioteca de
estudios bíblicos 166), Salamanca, Sígueme, 2021, 25-28.
3
Cf. Jean-Noël ALETTI, “La soumission des chrétiens aux autorités en Rm 13,1-7. Validité des
arguments pauliniens?”, Biblica 89 (2008) 457-476 (here 457-458).
3
servants (λειτουργοὶ γὰρ θεοῦ), who devote themselves to this very task (v. 6). According
to this interpretation of v. 6a, διὰ τοῦτο functions as an analepsis (reiterating the previous
reasoning) and τελεῖτε functions as an indicative verb. Furthermore, v. 5 can be
considered an annotation to v. 6; for when it says οὐ μόνον διὰ τὴν ὀργὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ
τὴν συνείδησιν, this means: not only because the authority wields the sword as an
executor of ὀργή (v. 4), but also because the authority is appointed by God for the
collection of taxes (v. 6). For this reason, Bultmann concludes that the authority is not
only a terror for the criminal, but also a warning for the citizen (who acts driven by
conscience and not by fear)
4
.
According to Beatrice vv. 6a. 7b are apologetic / political glosses, resulting from
a sort of conflation between Matt 22:21 and 1 Pet 2:17b. The exhortations to pay taxes in
these verses should be considered interpolations for three reasons. Firstly, these verses
are contextually foreign to the thematic unity
5
. Secondly, the textual variant
ὑποτάσσεσθε, attested in some ancient manuscripts (𝔓46 D F G Irlat Ambst)
6
, confirms
the imperative (not indicative) interpretation of vv. 5-6. Thirdly, Beatrice’s study of the
expression λειτουργοὶ γὰρ θεοῦ (v. 6b) evidences the impossibility that Paul used it to
designate tax collectors with liturgical obligations. For Beatrice, the emerging Christian
apologetics of the first and second centuries ultimately explain the political reading of
Rom 13:1-7. Thus, the original text, without the glosses, would have referred to the
Jewish law and not to the Roman authorities.
To determine the validity of the aforementioned hypothetical glosses, one should
analyze διὰ τοῦτο and τελεῖτε in verse 6, as will be demonstrated later.
2.2. The Hypothesis of Interpolations
The interpolation hypothesis in Rom 13:1-7 includes different proposals and nuances. For
Barrett, Rom 13:1-7 is a self-contained text in which a special theme is introduced with
no apparent relation to what precedes or follows, “interrupting the course of the epistle”
7
.
The reasons why Paul would choose the example of submission to the authorities, right
after the exhortation to seek peace with enemies in Rom 12:20-21, seem to be unknown
to the reader. For Kallas, Rom 13:1-7 is an interpolation. This section is independent of
its context and interrupts it. These verses “contradict basic Pauline ideas and basic Pauline
forms of expression”
8
. For example, the non-subversive tone of vv. 1-7 contrasts with
4
The authority […] as an executor of ὀργή (v. 4), “bedeutet also nicht nur einen Schrecken für
den Verbrecher, sondern auch eine Mahnung für den Bürger.” Rudolf BULTMANN, “Glossen
im Römerbrief,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 72 (1947) 197-202 (here 200).
5
For Beatrice, Rom 13:1-7 is thematically linked to the divine judgment mentioned in
Rom 12:19 and the exhortation to perfect the observance of the law through the practice of
love in Rom 13:8-10. The author argues that the thematic unity actually includes Rom 13:1-
10. Cf. Pier Franco BEATRICE, “Il giudizio secondo le opere della Legge e l’amore
compimento della Legge. Contributo all’esegesi di Rm 13,1-10”, Studia Patavina 20 (1973)
491-545 (here 541).
6
The evidence from Irenaeus and the parallel text in 1 Pet 2:17 should be read together. The
dissemination of First Peter in ecclesiastical circles in Asia Minor would confirm that the
interpolation of Rom 13:1-7 originated in this region. The glosses would have had an
apologetic and anti-heretical intention. Cf. BEATRICE, “Il giudizio secondo le opere della
Legge”, 542.
7
Charles Kingsley BARRETT, Black’s New Testament Commentary: The Epistle to the Romans,
Rev. ed., Peabody, MA, Hendrickson Publishers, 1991, 224.
8
James KALLAS, “Romans 13:1-7: An Interpolation,” New Testament Studies 11 (1965) 365-
374 (here 367) (https://doi.org/10.1017/s0028688500002071).
4
Paul’s eschatological expectations. The use of ἐξουσία does not reflect Paul’s use
elsewhere, wherein he would typically be referring to cosmic rulers (cf. 1 Cor 2:8;
Col 2:15), and not to governing authorities. The worldview of vv. 1-7 is different from
Paul’s
9
. The eschatological hope and the demonological worldview disappear in this
section. Therefore, the only possible conclusion for Kallas is that this section is an
interpolation.
The question of glosses and interpolations has been accurately summarized by
Jewett
10
, who has reviewed the main interpretative difficulties as it follows:
(1) The shift from second person plural (12:9-21) to third person singular (13:1), i.e., the
transition between chapters 12–13, might indicate an interruption, or insertion, in the text
flow. However, some ethical issues of 12:17-21 (related to the expressions φόβος, ἀγαθός
/ κακός, ἀποδίδωμι) are recalled in 13:3-4.7-8. In fact, one may find hints of thematic
continuity between both chapters.
(2) The apparent incongruous relationship between apocalyptic hostility against the
“rulers of this age” (1 Cor 2:8) and the acknowledgment of the authorities (οἱ ἄρχοντες,
Rom 13:3) may be the result of a misconception of the governing authorities as endless
governments. In Rom 13:1-7 the government instead seems to be a temporary institution
“established by God until the parousia”
11
.
(3) The τασσ- compounds and the expressions of resistance (e.g., ὁ ἀντιτασσόμενος, Rom
13:2), which some authors consider non-Pauline, are consonant with Paul’s use of
διατάσσω and τάσσω elsewhere in his letters
12
. Besides, vv. 1-7 reflects the tone of the
rest of Romans.
(4) There is no clear redactional motivation to demonstrate that Rom 13:1-7 is an insertion
or interpolation; vv. 8-10 follows v. 7 more seamlessly than if they followed Rom 12:21.
Jewett concludes that “when one reviews the usual criteria for determining
whether an interpolation is present
13
, the evidence provides only marginal support for
interpolation despite the resolution it would afford for interpretive difficulties in a passage
that seems to provide ‘support for tyrants’”
14
.
2.3. Anti-Imperialist Interpretations
9
“The basic world view lying behind Rom. xiii. 1-7 is a reincarnation of the Old Testament
view that God was the ruler behind the political forces of the nations.” KALLAS, “Romans
13:1-7: An Interpolation,” 374.
10
Cf. Robert JEWETT – Roy D. KOTANSKY – Eldon Jay EPP, Romans: A Commentary
(Hermeneia), Minneapolis, MN, Fortress Press, 2007, 782-784.
11
JEWETT, Romans, 784
12
See διατάσσω in 1 Cor 7:17; 9:14; 11:32; 16:1; Gal 3:19 and τάσσω in Gal 1:7; 5:10.
13
Cf. Henry S. NASH, “Interpolations in the New Testament,” in Samuel Macauley JACKSON
(ed.), New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. 6, New York, NY, Funk
and Wagnalls, 1910, 23-24 (here 23). Munro relies primarily on thematic and stylistic
observations in the argument for interpolation in Winsome MUNRO, Authority in Paul and
Peter: The Identification of a Pastoral Stratum in the Pauline Corpus and 1 Peter (Monograph
Series. Society for New Testament Studies 45), Cambridge, University Press, 1983, 56-57.
See also Munro’s discussion of nine proposed criteria in Winsome MUNRO, “Interpolation in
the Epistles: Weighing Probability,” New Testament Studies 36 (1990) 431-443 (here 432-
441). Cf. JEWETT, Romans, 783, n. 18 (https://doi.org/10.1017/s0028688500015848).
14
John Cochrane O’NEILL, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1975, 209.
Cf. JEWETT, Romans, 783, n. 19.
5
As Du Toit observes, the empire-reading of Paul largely reflects the postcolonial
interpretation of Paul. This approach interprets Paul’s attitude toward the Roman Empire
in various ways, encompassing a wide range of meanings: subversion
15
, confirmation,
detachment (even rejection)
16
.
For Elliott, for example, Paul’s admonition to submission in Rom 13:1-7 is
actually a warning: be cautious, but it also includes a hidden transcript of defiance of the
Roman imperialist ideology
17
. Paul’s positive attitude toward the governing authorities in
this passage seems to be foreign to the letter, and in contrast to the eschatological tenor
of his thought elsewhere
18
. Paul’s statements about “honor,” “fear,” and “conscience” in
Rom 13:1-7 could be understood as convenient motivations, which deterred Roman
Christians from any overt resistance
19
. However, Paul’s admonition to submit to the
ruling authorities should also be understood as a safeguard for vulnerable Roman
Christians (mainly Jewish) threatened by imperial violence. For Elliott, the “optimistic
remarks in 13:1-7 betray a sobering caution”
20
. The image of the imperial sword conveys
destruction; it is not idle. Therefore, Paul’s admonition is also a warning against any
unruly behavior that could lead to actions against the weak of the community.
For Wright, Rom 13:1-7, firstly, reflects a Jewish point of view, according to
which the authorities must keep order and penalize the lawbreaker (but are not themselves
divine); secondly, it lowers the rank of earthly rulers, suggesting that they are accountable
to—the true—God; thirdly, it echoes the eschatological promise of vv. 11-14
21
, which, in
turn, recalls the anti-imperialist text of 1 Thessalonians 5
22
. Although some authors
interpret this passage as an important argument against an anti-imperialist reading, Wright
believes that other texts in the letter also undermine Roman imperial ideology. The titles
of sovereignty, like Caesar’s titles, “savior” and “lord,” can be interpreted as a hidden
transcript, conveying a messianic theology against the imperial cult. For Paul, the ruling
authorities in the new world order, already initiated by the death and resurrection of
15
According to Horsley, for example, Paul expresses his gospel in “anti-imperial terms […], he
understood his assemblies as communities of an alternative society.” Richard A. HORSLEY
(ed.), Paul and the Roman Imperial Order, Harrisburg, Trinity Press International, 2004, 19.
16
Cf. Philip la Grange DU TOIT, “Paul, Empire and Eschatology,” HTS Theological Studies 77
(2021) 1-10 (here 1-2) (https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v77i4.6904).
17
Cf. Neil ELLIOTT, “Strategies of Resistance and Hidden Transcripts in the Pauline
Communities,” in Richard A. HORSLEY (ed.), Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance:
Applying the Work of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul (Semeia Studies 48), Atlanta, GA,
Society of Biblical Literature, 2004, 97-122 (here 98 and 121).
18
Cf. Neil ELLIOTT, “Romans 13:1-7 in the Context of Imperial Propaganda,” in Richard A.
HORSLEY (ed.), Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society, Harrisburg,
PA, Trinity Press International, 1997, 184-204 (here 203).
19
This hidden transcript would be expressed in similar terms to Philo (De somniis, 2.83-92): it
is better to stay quiet than to risk the violence of the enemies. Elliott’s remark closely reflects
Scott’s studies on “peasant resistance” and on “hidden transcripts”. Cf. James C. SCOTT,
Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts, New Haven, CT, Yale University
Press, 1990.
20
ELLIOTT, “Romans 13:1-7 in the Context of Imperial Propaganda,” 203.
21
“In fact, Paul’s remark about governing authorities in Romans 13:1-7 are relativized by his
exhortation in Romans 13:11-14.” Michael F. BIRD, “‘One Who Will Arise to Rule Over the
Nations.’ Paul’s Letter to the Romans and the Roman Empire,” in Scot MCKNIGHT – Joseph
B. MODICA (eds.), Jesus Is Lord, Caesar Is Not: Evaluating Empire in New Testament Studies,
Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity, 2013, 146-165 (here 159).
22
Cf. Nicholas Thomas WRIGHT, Paul: In Fresh Perspective, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress Press,
2005, 78.
6
Christ, are servants of God (διάκονοι). Both the inaugurated eschatology and the hidden
codes of the letter demonstrate, in effect, that Rom 13:1-7 “carries a hidden ‘nevertheless’
in its heart”
23
.
Barclay reviews Elliott’s and Wright’s interpretations, raising some questions
about their understanding of Paul’s subversion of Rome’s imperial ideology. He notices,
for example, that Wright does not offer enough evidence of Jewish texts regarding divine
control of the non-Jewish authorities, which could confirm Paul’s sentiments toward
governing authorities. For Barclay, Wright seems to read between the lines what he
believes Paul intended or must have said, without considering the rhetorical and literary
context. For example, his reading of Rom 13:1-7 is actually in dialectical tension with the
rest of the letter; the divine authorization of the governing authorities in this passage “is
the rhetorical counterweight to Paul’s own subversion of Rome’s ‘imperial ideology’”
24
.
Barclay also raises some doubts with regard the use of the notion of “hidden transcript”
25
.
Paul’s use of a coded language has very little historical support
26
. Scott’s analysis as well
as its application by Wright and Elliott—among others—assumes that there are
discourses of disguise—an intermediate category—with double meanings as well as
codes in Paul’s letters. Barclay responds that these discourses are not stricto sensu
“hidden transcripts” but just traces of it. He also wonders why Paul does not make open
declarations against Caesar or the Roman rulers
27
.
Bertschmann also reconsiders Paul’s anti-imperialist reading, stressing the textual
relationship between Paul’s admonition about the authorities in Rom 13:1-7 and Paul’s
admonition with regard the Church in Rom 13:8-10. The exhortation to love one another
(εἰ μὴ τὸ ἀλλήλους ἀγαπᾶν) in v. 8 is compatible with the civic good. Bertschmann
proposes an overlap between the activities of the authorities and those of the Church. This
23
Nicholas Thomas WRIGHT, “The Letter to the Romans: Introduction, Commentary and
Reflections,” in Robert W. WALL (ed.), The New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 10: The Acts of the
Apostles, Introduction to Epistolary Literature, the Letter to the Romans, the First Letter to
the Corinthians, Nashville, TN, Abingdon Press, 2003, 395-770 (here 722).
24
John M. G. BARCLAY, “Why the Roman Empire Was Insignificant for Paul,” in John M. G.
BARCLAY (ed.), Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen
zum Neuen Testament 275), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 363-387 (here 372).
25
“If subordinate discourse in the presence of the dominant is a public transcript, I shall use the
term hidden transcript to characterize discourse that takes place ‘offstage,’ beyond direct
observation by powerholders. The hidden transcript is thus derivative in the sense that it
consists of those offstage speeches, gestures, and practices that confirm, contradict, or inflect
what appears in the public transcript.” SCOTT, Domination and the Arts of Resistance, 4-5.
26
Krauter, for example, questions scholars who use the notions of “hidden transcripts” and
“hermeneutics of insinuation” to interpret Rom 13:1-7 in anti-imperialist terms. Stefan
KRAUTER, Studien zu Röm 13,1-7: Paulus und der politische Diskurs der neronischen Zeit
(Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 243), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck,
2009, 31-32. He also raises some doubts regarding the precise historical setting of Paul’s
alleged reaction. See, for example, Borg, who identifies the Zealot movement as the historical
context that would explain Paul’s reaction against the adoption of violence within the Christian
community. Marcus J. BORG, “New Context for Romans 13,” New Testament Studies 19
(1973) 205-218 (https://doi.org/10.1017/s0028688500003945).
27
“For all these reasons, the case for tracing a hidden ‘code’ in Paul’s letters appears extremely
implausible. Rather than reading between the lines, or supplementing Paul’s text with ‘and
especially Caesar’ additions, proper exegetical method requires us to read precisely what is on
the lines. If this does not fit what we imagine Paul must have said, it is not Paul’s texts that
need revision, but our preformed expectations of his political theology.” BARCLAY, “Why the
Roman Empire Was Insignificant for Paul,” 383.
7
overlap creates “a realm where the loving behaviour of Christians, understood as ‘doing
nothing bad’, is translated into ‘no terror to the good work’ on the authorities’ side”
28
.
The Christian paradigm of love includes correct behavior in the current structures of the
world; it is compatible with the good of civil society. Thus, Bertschmann also clarifies
the limitations of Rom 13:1-10. The exhortation to love one another hardly supports
political institutions, but neither does it promote resistance to them
29
.
Whether Rom 13:1-7 includes “hidden transcripts,” insinuating an anti-imperialist
discourse or promoting a passive resistance, is a matter of debate. While some scholars
believe that understanding the eschatology of the passage could shed light on Paul’s
attitude toward Roman authorities, others suggest that the question can be elucidated, as
it will be demonstrated below, by analyzing the rhetorical pattern of the entire section.
The lines of thought linking Rom 12:9-21 and Rom 13:8-10 may indeed clarify whether
Paul was in favor of an anti-imperialist attitude in Rom 13:1-7, or not.
2.4. Socio-Economic Interpretations
Some authors discuss whether Rom 13:1-7 reflects Paul’s immediate concern for his
recipients or Paul’s general thought regarding the relationship between Church and civil
authorities. Wischmeyer describes, for example, the two predominant approaches to
interpreting this passage as follows
30
. On the one hand, Rom 13:1-7 is read as Paul’s
reflection on the relationship between political power (the Roman Empire) and the
domestic communities of Rome
31
. This interpretation emphasizes the historical situation
of the Christians in Rome and the specific tenor of Paul’s argumentation. On the other
hand, the same passage is read as a general reflection on the power of the state
32
,
understood as a protector of the lives and welfare of citizens. This interpretation
highlights the obedience of Christians and the universal value of Paul’s theological
argumentation
33
.
For Wischmeyer Paul’s purpose—textpragmatisch—of vv. 1-7 differs from that
of vv. 8-10. The imperatives in Rom 13:1-7 have a didactic, discursive, and descriptive
character; they describe the external world of the Christians and introduce a fictitious
dialogue aimed at understanding their life world. In contrast, the imperatives in Rom 13:8-
10 promote the specific Christian life of the community (cf. Gal 5:25). The true Christian
paraenesis is found in Rom 13:8-10 and 11-14, whereas in Rom 13:1-7, the text merely
28
“This overlap or compatibility makes the authorities unambiguously good (‘for your good’)
for the believers.” BERTSCHMANN, “The Good, the Bad and the State,” 246.
29
For Paul, these institutions do not reflect God’s love revealed in Christ. BERTSCHMANN, “The
Good, the Bad and the State,” 249.
30
Oda WISCHMEYER, “Staat und Christen nach Römer 13,1-7. Ein neuer hermeneutischer
Zugang”, in Martin KARRER – Wolfgang KRAUS – Otto MERK (eds.), Kirche und Volk Gottes.
Festschrift für Jürgen Roloff zum 70. Geburtstag, Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener, 2000,
149-162 (here 150).
31
“Paul continues his exhortation […] with a specific instruction that must answer questions that
they [Christians] have had […] in their relationship to those who govern them as civil
authorities in this world.” Joseph A. FITZMYER, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction
and Commentary (The Anchor Bible 33), New York, NY, Doubleday, 1993, 662.
32
See Ulrich WILCKENS, Der Brief an die Römer (Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das
Neue Testament VI, Vol. 3), Zürich, Benziger, 1982, 28. James D.G. DUNN, Romans 9-16
(Word Biblical Commentary 38 B), Dallas, TX, Word Books, 1988, 757.
33
See Hans LIETZMANN, An die Römer (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 8), Tübingen, Mohr
Siebeck, 1933, 111. Otto MICHEL, Der Brief an die Römer (Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar
über das Neue Testament IV), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 51978, 393.
8
points out the legal and normative divine function without considering Jesus Christ or the
community. According to the author, Paul’s paraenesis is not based on law, but on love
34
.
Wischmeyer insists that Rom 13:1-7 is not an exhortative text but a descriptive
one
35
. Paul’s contribution, therefore, was to interpret authority from his Judeo-Christian
conviction that the God of Israel is sovereign over any state and legal authority. This
theological description of his life world was interpreted as a specifically Christian
exhortation only later in the history of the text’s reception
36
.
For Jewett, Rom 13:1-7 must be read within the context of Paul’s mission project
of visiting Spain, i.e., within his attempt to gain support for his mission. Paul’s repetition
of the term φόρος (tribute) in verses 6-7 suggests that paying taxes was the issue at stake.
The composition of the communities in Rome, formed by immigrants and non-citizens,
indicates that some of their members were obligated to pay taxes. However, it is not
known for certain how many of them had to pay. In contrast, the situation in Spain was
clearer, where the entire population was required to pay taxes. Thus, for Jewett: “Given
the crucial importance of Spanish revenues, it would have jeopardized the entire mission
project if the church in Rome were to become involved in the emerging conflict over tax
resistance”
37
. Like Schreiber
38
, Jewett considers that Rom 13:1-7 does not describe the
apostle’s interest in political theory. On the contrary, it addresses both the civic issues
faced by the Christians in Rome and the immediate preparation for his journey to Spain
39
.
The Pauline rhetoric of the passage is clear to its original recipients: his mission cannot
promote subversion or illegality.
Authors debate whether this passage reflects Paul’s immediate concern for his
recipients or his general thoughts on the relationship between the Church and civil
authorities. Wischmeyer and Jewett offer contrasting views on the text’s intent and
implications, highlighting the importance of examining the historical and contextual
factors shaping Paul’s message. These socio-economic interpretations of Rom 13:1-7
must be verified through the exegesis of the challenging expressions mentioned above
(e.g., διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ φόρους τελεῖτε, v. 6), as will be demonstrated next.
3. Exegetical Problems
Most of the interpretative issues of Rom 13:1-10 stem from exegetical problems. For
example, the discussion about the continuity between chapters 12 and 13 hinges on the
meaning of πᾶσα ψυχή in v. 1, and the debate about the interpolation hypothesis centers
on the meaning of διὰ τοῦτο in v. 6. The interpretation of the passage also depends on the
correct understanding of ὑποτάσσω and the theological motivation (ὑπὸ θεοῦ) in v. 1.
34
WISCHMEYER, “Staat und Christen nach Römer 13,1-7,” 161.
35
“Textpragmatisch aber ist er nicht parakletisch, sondern deiktisch gemeint.” WISCHMEYER,
“Staat und Christen nach Römer 13,1-7,” 162.
36
During the time of the apologist Theophilus (around 180 AD). Cf. WISCHMEYER, “Staat und
Christen nach Römer 13,1-7,” 162.
37
JEWETT, Romans, 799
38
Cf. Stefan SCHREIBER, “Imperium Romanum und römische Gemeinden: Dimensionen
politischer Sprechweise in Röm 13”, in Ulrich BUSSE (ed.), Die Bedeutung der Exegese für
Theologie und Kirche (Quaestiones Disputatae 215), Freiburg, Herder, 2005, 131-170 (here
131-133).
39
For Jewett, however, while Paul’s missional intentions may be praiseworthy, his evaluation of
the potential evil of totalitarian regimes, including the contemporary Neronian government, is
less commendable. JEWETT, Romans, 796.
9
3.1. The Referent of πᾶσα ψυχή
The expression πᾶσα ψυχή in Rom 13:1 should be interpreted inclusively, encompassing
all individuals, whether they are part of the Christian communities in Rome or anyone
who fears God and acknowledges the divine origin of governing authorities. Paul’s use
of the imperative ὑποτασσέσθω is grounded in theological reasoning, indicating that his
directive transcends the boundaries of Christian belief. The repeated use of the noun
ἐξουσία, whether referring to the governing authorities (ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις, v. 1a)
or to authorities appointed by God (τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ διαταγῇ, v. 2), supports the
broad application of his argument. Moreover, the expression in v. 1b, which states that
there is no authority except from God (οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐξουσία εἰ μὴ ὑπὸ θεοῦ), reflects a
common theme in both biblical and non-biblical literature, reinforcing the universal
nature of Paul’s rationale.
Penna offers several examples of both biblical and non-biblical sources regarding the
ancient topos of submission to the established authorities
40
. In biblical sources, for
example, in the LXX: Isa 45:1
41
; Jer 25:7-11; 27:5-6; Dan 2:21.37; 4:17.22 (4:25b MT);
5:21 (MT)
42
; Prov 8:15-16
43
. In the Deuterocanonical Works: Sir 17:17
44
; Wis 6:1-3
45
. In
the Second Temple literature: 1 Enoch, 46.5
46
; Letter of Aristeas, 219-224
47
; 2 Baruch
40
Cf. Romano PENNA, “La dimensione politica dell’ethos cristiano secondo Rm 13,1-7 nel suo
contesto”, in Ermenegildo MANICARDI – Luca MAZZINGHI (eds.), Il potere politico: bisogno
e rifiuto dell’autorità. XXXVIII settimana biblica nazionale (Roma, 6-10 settembre 2004)
(Ricerche Storico Bibliche 18/1-2), Bologna, Edizioni Dehoniane, 2006, 183-210 (here 189-
190). See also Mathias PEPPEL, “Gott oder Mensch? Kaiserverehrung und
Herrschaftskontrolle”, in Hubert CANCIK – Konrad HITZL (eds.), Die Praxis der
Herrscherverehrung in Rom und seinen Provinzen, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2003, 69-95
(here 77-87).
41
“Thus says the Lord to his anointed (τῷ χριστῷ μου), to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped
to subdue nations before him and strip kings of their robes, to open doors before him—and the
gates shall not be closed.” (Isa 45:1)
42
[…] “until he learned that the Most High God has sovereignty over the kingdom of mortals,
and sets over it whomever he will.” (Dan 5:21).
43
“15By me kings (βασιλεῖς) reign, and rulers (δυνάσται) decree what is just; 16by me rulers
(μεγιστᾶνες) rule, and nobles (τύραννοι), all who govern rightly.” (Prov 8:15-16).
44
“He appointed a ruler (ἡγούμενον) for every nation, but Israel is the Lord’s own portion.” (Sir
17:17).
45
“For your dominion (κράτεσις) was given you from the Lord, and your sovereignty
(δυναστεία) from the Most High.” (Wis 6:3a).
46
“And he shall put down the kings from their thrones and kingdoms. / Because they do not extol
and praise Him, / Nor humbly acknowledge whence the kingdom was bestowed upon them.”
Robert H. CHARLES, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, Vol. II,
Oxford, The Clarendon Press, 1913, 215.
47
“If you consider first of all that it is God who bestows on all kings glory and great wealth and
no one is king by his own power. All men wish to share this glory but cannot, since it is the
gift of God.” (224). Idem, 114.
10
82.9
48
; Philo, On Dreams, 78-92 (here 91)
49
; Josephus, The Jewish War, 2.140
50
.351.
5.367
51
. In non-biblical sources: Seneca, De Clementia, 1.2 (citing Nero Caesar)
52
; Dio
Chrysostom, Discourses 1. On Kingship 1, 45
53
; Pliny the Younger, Panegyricus, 1.4-5
54
.
In the Apostolic Fathers 1 Clem. 60.4–61,3; Mart. Pol. 10.2.
This evidence from both biblical and non-biblical sources refutes the
interpretation of scholars who emphasize the Jewish tenor of Paul’s reasoning in Rom
13:1-7
55
. It is true that the theological motivation, “those authorities that exist have been
instituted by God” (v. 1b), could reflect the understanding of the sovereignty of the God
of Israel over all nations. However, this motivation is also attested in extra-biblical
sources, thereby confirming that πᾶσα ψυχή includes Christians of Jewish and Gentile
origin as well as non-Christians. This theological rationale must also be understood as
introducing the sequence of motivations throughout the entire section, as will be further
demonstrated below.
The change from the second person plural to the third person plural in Rom 13:1
corroborates the general tenor of Paul’s reasoning. Although there is no smooth transition
between Rom 12:21 and 13:1, the introduction of the theological motif to justify
48
“And we remark the boastfulness of their might, / Though they deny the beneficence of God,
who gave (it) to them, / But they shall pass away as a passing cloud.” Idem, 523.
49
“With the rulers it is done to shew them honor (ἄρχουσιν ἐν τιμῇ), with the animals from fear
(διὰ φόβον) and to save us from suffering serious injury from them.” Philo, On Flight and
Finding. On the Change of Names. On Dreams, trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker (Loeb
Classical Library 275), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1934, 484.
50
“[…] that he will forever keep faith with all men, especially with the powers that be, since no
ruler attains his office (τὸ ἄρχειν) save by the will of God;” Josephus, The Jewish War, Vol. I:
Books 1-2, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray (Loeb Classical Library 203), Cambridge, MA, Harvard
University Press, 1927, 377.
51
“Fortune, indeed, had from all quarters passed over to them, and God who went the round of
the nations (καὶ κατὰ ἔθνος τὸν θεὸν ἐμπεριάγοντα τὴν ἀρχὴν), bringing to each in turn the
rod of empire, now rested over Italy”. Josephus, The Jewish War, Vol. III: Books 5-7, trans.
H. St. J. Thackeray (Loeb Classical Library 210), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press,
1928, 116.
52
Egone ex omnibus mortalibus placui electusque sum, qui in terris deorum vice fungerer? Ego
vitae necisque gentibus arbiter; qualem quisque sortem statumque habeat, in mea manu
positum est. “Have I of all mortals found favor with Heaven and been chosen to serve on earth
as vicar of the gods? I am the arbiter of life and death for the nations; it rests in my power what
each man’s lot and state shall be.” Seneca, Moral Essays, Vol. I: De Providentia. De
Constantia. De Ira. De Clementia, trans John W. Basore (Loeb Classical Library 214),
Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1928, 356.
53
“I ween, [kings] derive their powers and their stewardship from Zeus (παρὰ τοῦ Διὸς ἐχόντων
τὴν δύναμιν).” Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 1-11, trans. J. W. Cohoon (Loeb Classical Library
257), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1932, 24-25.
54
“For what gift of the gods could be greater and more glorious than a prince whose purity and
virtue make him their own equal?” Pliny the Younger, Letters, Volume II: Books 8-10.
Panegyricus, trans. Betty Radice (Loeb Classical Library 59), Cambridge, MA, Harvard
University Press, 1969, 322-323.
55
“Il binomio κρίμα - ἔπαινος […] costituisce il nucleo del pensiero espresso in Rm 13,1-7. Esso
ci fa presente una concezione apocalittica del processo escatologico — diffusa nelle sue linee
generali nel tardo giudaismo come nel cristianesimo primitivo.” BEATRICE, “Il giudizio
secondo le opere della Legge,” 496. See also Franz J. LEENHARDT, L’Épître de Saint Paul aux
Romains (Commentaire du Nouveau Testament. 2e série 6), Genève, Labor et Fides, 31995,
183.
11
submission to governing authorities in verse 1b does not interrupt the line of thought
initiated in 12:1-2, particularly the general admonition to “discern what is the will of God”
(εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς τί τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, v. 2b). The imperative in 13:1 can also be
read as part of the general exhortation “to do what is right in the eyes of everyone”
(προνοούμενοι καλὰ ἐνώπιον πάντων ἀνθρώπων, 12:17b), i.e., to provide for the good of
all and to be at peace with everyone (μετὰ πάντων ἀνθρώπων εἰρηνεύοντες, 12:18b).
In addition to the thematic connections between Rom 13:1 and Rom 12, it is
notable that the expression πᾶσα ψυχή in Rom 13:1 reflects a generalization
56
similar to
patterns found elsewhere in Romans
57
. In this sense, the reasoning addressed to “you”
(second person plural), introduced in Rom 12:1-2 and continued in 12:17-18, is amplified
by the general admonition addressed to πᾶσα ψυχή in 13:1. Thus, the reasons that are
valid for everyone (cf. 12:17-18) are valid for “every soul” and, a fortiori, valid for the
Christian community.
3.2. διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ φόρους τελεῖτε (v. 6a)
How should one read the expression διὰ τοῦτο in v. 6a? Does it relate to the previous
sentence or introduce the next one? How should one read the expression τελεῖτε in v. 6a,
as an imperative or an indicative?
The expression “for this reason” (διὰ τοῦτο) might refer back to the imperative
expression “it is necessary to submit” in v. 5a or it might introduce the rationale “for they
are God’s servants” in v. 6b. The first option suggests that paying taxes is a consequence
of civic obedience, as a matter of conscience, while the second option suggests that paying
taxes is due to theological reasons: the collectors are God’s servants. The meaning of
τελεῖτε in v. 6 raises a further exegetical problem: it could be either imperative or
indicative:
- For this reason, you should pay taxes (NJB)
- For this reason, you also pay taxes (NRS)
The imperative reading is based on contextual grounds. In light of the tax protest
against Nero mentioned by Tacitus (Ann. 13.50-51), Friedrich, Pöhlmann, and
Stuhlmacher suggest that Paul is addressing a historical problem faced by the Roman
community
58
. According to these authors, despite the excessive taxes and the tax
collectors’ corruption, Paul advises the Christians to pay and recognize the officials as
God’s servants, advocating for compliance rather than resistance or refusal. The present
imperative would include a continuous aspect: you should continue to pay taxes (instead
of considering stopping the payments). However, as Aletti asserts: “nothing in the passage
indicates that the Christians in Rome wanted to stop paying the tax”
59
.
56
See infra αὔξησις: “Arranging words or clauses in a sequence of increasing force.” Silva
Rhetoricae, rhetoric.byu.edu, ad locum.
57
In Rom 1:18; 2:1 and 2:9a the adjective πᾶς respectively qualifies: (1) the wrongdoings
themselves, (2) those who judge others (i.e., the wrongdoings of others), and (3) those who
commit wrongdoing. Cf Jean Nol ALETTI, “Rm 1:18-3:20 - incohérence ou cohérence de
l’argumentation paulinienne”, Biblica 69 (1988) 47-62.
58
Cf. Johannes FRIEDRICH – Wolfgang POHLMANN – Peter STUHLMACHER, “Zur historischen
Situation und Intention von Röm 13:1-7,” Zeitschrift fr Theologie und Kirche 73 (1976) 131-
166 (here 165).
59
[…] “rien dans le passage n’indique que les chrétiens de Rome voulaient cesser de payer le
tribute.” ALETTI, “La soumission des chrétiens aux autorités en Rm 13,1-7,” 469.
12
For Cranfield, διὰ τοῦτο refers back to διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν in v. 5b. He believes
that the explanatory γάρ in v. 6a would be meaningless if one reads the verb τελεῖτε as
imperative. In fact, an attentive reader may note the sequence of γάρ in this passage
60
,
accompanying an arrangement of imperatives followed by rationales. The first γάρ (v. 6a)
explains what was set forth in the previous sentence: for this reason, i.e., since it is
necessary to be submitted because of conscience, you, as a matter of fact, for example,
pay taxes. The second γάρ (v. 6b) introduces a justifying cause of what was set forth
before (extending the rationale): you also pay taxes because the authorities are God’s
servants. Thus, the indicative reading should be considered the most accurate
interpretation.
3.3. Subjection and Theological Motivation
The imperative verb ὑποτασσέσθω in Rom 13:1 has been interpreted as an admonition to
obey or as an invitation to submit voluntarily. Those who stress obedience read the rest
of the passage as a theological foundation for a political theology, whereas those who
stress the voluntary submission highlight “the ability to refuse on the reader’s part”
61
.
Aletti points out that for Paul, voluntary submission does not equate to obedience.
Submission involves recognizing and respecting the status of a superior (one or more),
and it is the attitude characteristic of an inferior. Obedience, on the other hand, describes
a total adherence of the will, irrespective of status (that of the inferior and the superior)
62
.
Some authors interpret the use of ὑποτάσσω in Rom 13:1, 5 in light of its use in 1 Cor
16:16, where it refers to “believers voluntarily subjecting themselves to their
congregational leaders”
63
. This suggests a matter of personal choice, as officials had not
yet been established in the church
64
. As mentioned above, the submission promoted in
Rom 13:1, 5 must be read in consonance with the initial admonition of the whole section
in Rom 12:2: “Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed […] so that you may
discern what is the will of God.”
The theological motivation in Rom 13:1 is emphasized by the repeated use of the
prepositional phrase ὑπὸ θεοῦ, which may indicate the divine source of authority (ἡ
ἐξουσἰα). This emphasis is reiterated in v. 4 (θεοῦ γὰρ διάκονός [2x]) and v. 6 (λειτουργοὶ
γὰρ θεοῦ). Understanding this theological rationale requires noting both the divinity
referred to and its implications. Firstly, Jewett highlights that the God mentioned
throughout Rom 13:1-7 is not one of the Roman civic deities, but the God introduced in
Rom 1, whose righteousness is elaborated in the preceding chapters. The reference to this
God, who declared Jesus Christ “Son with power according to the Spirit” (Rom 1:4), can
be seen as subversive. Thus, Jewett argues that the assertion that the authorities have been
appointed (τάσσω / διατάσσω) by the God of Jesus Christ (cf. Rom 13:1-2) undermines
the Roman civic cult. Secondly, the implications of this motivation—that the authorities
are instituted by God—suggest a rhetorical reasoning: while individual officials are not
appointed by God, the governing authority (ἡ ἐξουσἰα) itself is divinely instituted
65
.
60
The first γάρ (v. 6a) is explanatory while the second (v. 6b) is confirmatory.
61
Stanley E. PORTER, “Romans 13:1-7 as Pauline Political Rhetoric,” Filologia
Neotestamentaria 3 (1990) 115-137 (here 122). Cf. JEWETT, Romans, 788.
62
Cf. ALETTI, “La soumission des chrétiens aux autorités en Rm 13,1-7,” 460.
63
JEWETT, Romans, 788.
64
Cf. Franz J. LEENHARDT, L’Épître de Saint Paul aux Romains, 183-184. WILCKENS, Der Brief
an die Römer, 3:33. Cf. JEWETT, Romans, 788.
65
Cf. JEWETT, Romans, 789-790.
13
Paul promotes voluntary subjection in Rom 13:1, emphasizing recognizing and
respecting authority without equating it to blind obedience. This subjection aligns with
Rom 12:2’s call for transformation and discerning God’s will. The theological
motivation, underscored by the phrase ὑπὸ θεοῦ, indicates that authority comes from God,
specifically the God of Jesus Christ, challenging the Roman civic cult. This divine
establishment of authority implies a broader understanding, according to which the
governing authority is ordained by God, though individual officials are not directly
appointed by Him.
4. The Solution to the Problem: The Extension of Love
Paul’s reasoning in Rom 13:1-10 reflects an αὔξησις, i.e., an incrementum, which one
may recognize by the articulation between imperatives and rationales in the section. The
imperative “let everyone be subject” (πᾶσα ψυχὴ […] ὑποτασσέσθω) in v. 1 is echoed
throughout the expression “it is necessary to submit” (διὸ ἀνάγκη ὑποτάσσεσθαι) in v. 5.
These expressions are further amplified by the imperatives “give to everyone what is due”
(ἀπόδοτε πᾶσι τὰς ὀφειλάς) in v. 6, and “οwe no one anything” (μηδενὶ μηδὲν ὀφείλετε)
in v. 8. How to explain the alternating pattern of imperatives and motivations? How to
explain the reasoning in vv. 1-10?
Imperative
1Πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις ὑποτασσέσθω,
Rationale 1 +
Extension 1
οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐξουσία εἰ μὴ ὑπὸ θεοῦ, αἱ δὲ οὖσαι ὑπὸ θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν.
(v. 1b)
2ὥστε ὁ ἀντιτασσόμενος τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ διαταγῇ ἀνθέστηκεν,
οἱ δὲ ἀνθεστηκότες ἑαυτοῖς κρίμα λήμψονται.
Rationale 2 +
Extension 2a
3οἱ γὰρ ἄρχοντες οὐκ εἰσὶν φόβος τῷ ἀγαθῷ ἔργῳ ἀλλὰ τῷ κακῷ.
θέλεις δὲ μὴ φοβεῖσθαι τὴν ἐξουσίαν; τὸ ἀγαθὸν ποίει, καὶ ἕξεις ἔπαινον ἐξ
αὐτῆς·
Extension 2b
4θεοῦ γὰρ διάκονός ἐστιν σοὶ εἰς τὸ ἀγαθόν.
ἐὰν δὲ τὸ κακὸν ποιῇς, φοβοῦ· οὐ γὰρ εἰκῇ τὴν μάχαιραν φορεῖ·
θεοῦ γὰρ διάκονός ἐστιν, ἔκδικος εἰς ὀργὴν τῷ τὸ κακὸν πράσσοντι.
Imperative +
5διὸ ἀνάγκη ὑποτάσσεσθαι, οὐ μόνον διὰ τὴν ὀργὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὴν
συνείδησιν,
Consequence
Rationale
6διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ φόρους τελεῖτε,
λειτουργοὶ γὰρ θεοῦ εἰσιν εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο προσκαρτεροῦντες.
Imperative +
Extension
7⸀ἀπόδοτε πᾶσι τὰς ὀφειλάς,
τῷ τὸν φόρον τὸν φόρον, τῷ τὸ τέλος τὸ τέλος, τῷ τὸν φόβον τὸν φόβον, τῷ
τὴν τιμὴν τὴν τιμήν.
Imperative +
Rationale
8Μηδενὶ μηδὲν ὀφείλετε, εἰ μὴ τὸ ἀλλήλους ἀγαπᾶν·
ὁ γὰρ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἕτερον νόμον πεπλήρωκεν.
Extension
τὸ γάρ· Οὐ μοιχεύσεις, Οὐ φονεύσεις, Οὐ κλέψεις, Οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις,
καὶ εἴ τις ἑτέρα ἐντολή, ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τούτῳ ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται, ἐν τῷ· Ἀγαπήσεις
τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν.
10ἡ ἀγάπη τῷ πλησίον κακὸν οὐκ ἐργάζεται· πλήρωμα οὖν νόμου ἡ ἀγάπη.
Imperative: Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities (v. 1a)
Rationale 1
66
: for (γάρ) there is no authority (ἐξουσία) except from God (v. 1b)
Extension 1: therefore (ὥστε), whoever resists authority […] will incur judgment (v. 2)
Rationale 2
67
: for (γάρ) rulers (ἄρχοντες) are not a terror to good conduct but to bad (v.
3a)
66
Semantic key words: ἐξουσία + τάσσω / διατάσσω compounds, ἀνθίστημι.
67
Semantic key words: φόβος, φοβέω, ἀγαθός, κακός.
14
Extension 2a: to have no fear of the authority, do what is good, and you will receive its
approval (3b)
Extension 2b: For (γάρ) it is God’s servant for your good, to bring punishment on the
wrongdoer (v. 4)
Consequence: therefore (διό) it is necessary to submit,
Rationale 3: not only because of wrath but also because of conscience (v. 5).
The motivations convey an amplification: they go from the common motif of
respecting the governing authorities, because they are appointed by God, to the motif of
fearing the rulers, because they implement the system of reward (ἔπαινος) and
punishment (κρίμα), and finally, to the motif of respecting the authority as a matter of
conscience (συνείδησις). Everyone (πᾶσα ψυχή), Christian believer or not, can recognize
these three levels of motivation to accept the established authorities. The first motivation
is theological, while the second and the third, stricto sensu, are not: doing good or wrong
expecting reward or fearing punishment, or doing the same because of conscience, are
both civic motivations. Besides, these motivations reflect different degrees of
internalization. Still, one may ask whether the subsequent unit in vv. 6-7 aligns with the
same pattern.
Consequence 2: for this reason (διὰ τοῦτο γάρ) you pay taxes (v. 6a)
Rationale 4
68
: for (γάρ) the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing
(v. 6b)
Imperative: give to everyone what is due: taxes, revenue
69
, respect (φόβος), honor
(τιμή) (v. 7).
The unit comprising vv. 6-7 presents a consequence (διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καί) followed by
an imperative (ἀπόδοτε). First, the phrase “for this reason” in v. 6a introduces an
additional consequence that builds upon the preceding argument in v. 5. This consequence
includes matters of conscience and the obligation to pay taxes, the obligation being
expressed in the indicative mood, as previously noted. Second, the imperative “pay to all”
in v. 7a is followed by a list detailing what is owed
70
: taxes, tributes, respect, and honor
71
.
The justification articulated in v. 6b, along with the extension of the imperative in v. 7b,
also encapsulates the motivations outlined in vv. 1b-5. The repetition of these rationales
reinforces the incrementum within the passage. Paul’s reasoning reflects a process of
internalization, urging not merely the avoidance of punishment, but the adoption of a
deeper moral motivation among his readers.
Imperative: Owe no one anything, except to love one another (ἀλλήλους ἀγαπᾶν) (v. 8a)
Rationale: for (γάρ) the one who loves (ὁ ἀγαπῶν) another has fulfilled the law (v. 8b)
Expansion: in fact (γάρ), the [commandments] “You shall not commit adultery; You shall
not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet”; and any other
commandment, are summed up in this word:
68
Semantic key words: φόρος, φόβος, τιμή.
69
The distinction between φόρος and τέλος could be infer from their use in Tacitus, Ann. 13.50-
51. Tacitus employs τέλος for import taxes (vectigal) and φόρος for tributes (tributum). Cf.
JEWETT, Romans, 798-799.
70
The lack of an explicit mention of respect as a matter of conscience (συνείδησις) can be
attributed to its inclusion in the rationale for paying taxes, as outlined in vv. 5-6.
71
The repetition of φόρος reinforces the semantic cohesion of verses 6-7, while the phrase
“God’s servants” in v. 6 may be seen as reiterating the theme introduced in v. 1b, specifically
the notion that authorities are divinely appointed.
15
“Love your neighbor (ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου) as yourself.” (v. 9)
Recapitulation: Love (ἀγάπη) does no wrong to a neighbor; (v. 10a)
Therefore (οὖν), love (ἀγάπη) is the fulfillment of the law (v. 10b).
The motifs of love and the Mosaic law introduced in v. 8 could be interpreted as having
no logical connection to the preceding section (vv. 1-7), potentially functioning as an
excursus and thereby supporting the interpolation hypothesis (as previously discussed).
This interpretation, however, disregards the expansion of the motivations outlined thus
far. Moreover, the negative imperative form (μηδὲν ὀφείλετε) and the negative
construction of the addressees (μηδενί) in v. 8a indicate that Paul’s argument remains
incomplete. For Paul, a crucial motivation is still absent—one that he had already
foreshadowed in Rom 12.
Paul’s exhortation in Rom 12:2 initially seeks to dissuade certain behaviors, followed
by the promotion of those to be embraced (καὶ μὴ συσχηματίζεσθε τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, ἀλλὰ
μεταμορφοῦσθε τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοός). Similarly, in Rom 12:9, Paul’s argument
employs amplification by contrast: he first warns against evil, then encourages the pursuit
of good. The admonition to love in v. 9 may appear somewhat elliptical, lacking specific
qualifications apart from the call for it to be sincere and without hypocrisy. However, this
maxim (ἡ ἀγάπη ἀνυπόκριτος) is further elucidated by the participles in v. 9b-c:
“abhorring (ἀποστυγοῦντες) what is evil” and “clinging to (κολλώμενοι) what is good”
72
.
The love Paul advocates could also be identified as Christian love, as indicated by its
reciprocal manifestations: devotion to one another (εἰς ἀλλήλους) (v. 10a), outdoing one
another (ἀλλήλους) in showing honor (v. 10b), and mutual regard (ἀλλήλους) (v. 16a).
Yet, as Jewett aptly notes, “its range extends beyond the Christian community, as the later
discussion of strangers and persecutors indicates (12:13–14)”
73
.
For Paul, the exhortation to fulfill obligations to governing authorities in Rom 13:1-7
is integrated within the broader admonition in Rom 12–13 to pursue good and avoid evil.
Both the imperatives and their rationales reveal a progression in intensity, which can only
be fully appreciated when considered alongside the exhortation to love all people
(ἀλλήλους ἀγαπᾶν). This call to mutual love in Rom 13:8a, in addition to forming an
inclusio with Rom 12:9-10, (a) confirms Paul’s reasoning, which extends love to
encompass everyone, including persecutors and enemies (cf. vv. 14, 20); (b) underscores
the increasing depth of the motivations, transitioning from external concerns (fear,
respect, retribution) to internal dispositions (conscience, love)
74
; and (c) illustrates Paul’s
use of amplification as a rhetorical strategy aimed at shaping the mindset (νοῦς, cf. Rom
12:2) of his audience.
Paul employs a similar pattern of reasoning elsewhere, specifically through αὔξησις,
or amplification. For instance, in Rom 8:18-30, the progression of groans (στενάζω /
72
Scholars debate whether the participles should be read as imperatives or not. Here, they qualify
the elliptical ἐστίν from the previous sentence. See BDF §468.2. For Godet, “These participles
relate grammatically to the subject of the verb love, […]. It follows from this construction that
the two participles: ‘abhorring, cleaving,’ are intended to qualify the love unfeigned”. Frédéric
GODET, Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, New York, Funk & Wagnalls, 1883,
434. Likewise, Jewett argues that, for the readers of the letter, the connection between the
admonition and the participial phrases reaffirms the distinction between “evil” and “good,”
specifically how “love is kept ‘genuine.’” JEWETT, Romans, 760.
73
JEWETT, Romans, 759.
74
As Aletti states: Paul makes “ἀγάπη the principle of Christian action for relationships between
Church members (ad intra), but also implicitly for those ad extra.” ALETTI, “La soumission
des chrétiens aux autorités en Rm 13,1-7,” 476.
16
στεναγμός) reflects a crescendo that some scholars have identified as an incrementum
75
.
In ancient rhetoric, incrementum is a technique used to enhance the impact of an
argument. It can be understood as a discursive arrangement with increasing intensity, a
rhetorical exaggeration (a figure of speech), or more broadly, as amplification. Increment
by comparison, for example, elevates seemingly trivial matters to significant issues
76
.
Thus, Paul’s use of amplification in Rom 13:1-10 aligns with his overall rhetorical
strategy in Romans and with the conventions of classical rhetoric.
5. Concluding Remarks
Many scholars have attempted to interpret Rom 13:1-7 by focusing on the vocabulary or
themes presented in this section, but few have analyzed the overall argumentation,
including the admonition to love everyone in Rom 13:8-10. The study presented here
demonstrates that the coherence of the passage depends not only on understanding its
imperatives but also, and more importantly, on its underlying motivations (rationales). A
thorough rhetorical analysis shows that Rom 13:1-10 builds upon Paul’s exhortation in
Rom 12:9-21. The expansion of love in this passage amplifies and strengthens the call “to
do what is right in the sight of all” (v. 17b).
Some scholars have interpreted τελεῖτε in Rom 13:6a as an imperative urging the
payment of taxes. This interpretation suggests that Paul is addressing a specific historical
context in which some Christians in Rome were reluctant to pay taxes. Alternatively, it
may assume that Paul sought to avoid potential issues related to his future mission in
Spain, where conflicts over tax resistance were increasing
77
. This study, however, argues
that Paul’s reasoning in Rom 13:1-10 is unlikely to be a response to a specific historical
situation or to function as a hidden anti-imperialist transcript. Instead, it presents
substantial reasons for avoiding evil and adhering to good (cf. Rom 12:9). Furthermore,
Paul’s argument is characterized by a progressive amplification of motivations for doing
good and avoiding evil under any circumstances.
The present analysis also suggests that Paul’s argument hinges on the underlying
incrementum of the rationales rather than on the exhortations themselves; an incrementum
that moves from general and external motivations to personal and internal ones. Paul’s
reaffirmation in Rom 13:8-10 emphasizes that ἀγάπη surpasses adherence to the νόμος
78
.
75
“Las secuencias propuestas no son lineares, sino que ganan en densidad; ellas generan un
espiral, en este caso, de esperanza. El incrementum señalado, en fin, se caracteriza por sugerir
un desarrollo que va de los indicios más exteriores (creación / falta de propósito o dirección)
a los más interiores (Espíritu / intención).” Juan Manuel GRANADOS ROJAS, “La creación puja
y Dios con ella: estudio de la argumentación en Rom 8,18-30,” Cuestiones Teológicas 47
(2020) 64-77 (here 72) (https://doi.org/10.18566/cueteo.v47n108.a04). See also Andrzej
GIENIUSZ, Romans 8:18-30: “Suffering Does Not Thwart the Future Glory” (University of
South Florida. International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism 9), Atlanta, GA,
Scholars Press, 1999, 159.
76
Quintilian precises that “There are […] four main kinds of amplification, based on increment,
comparison, inference, and accumulation” (Quattuor tamen maxime generibus video constare
amplificationem, incremento comparatione ratiocinatione congerie. Incrementum est
potentissimum cum magna videntur etiam quae inferiora sunt). QUINTILIAN, The Orator’s
Education, Volume III: Books 6-8, edited and translated by Donald A. RUSSELL (Loeb
Classical Library 126), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2002, 8.4.3-4 (here 393).
77
Cf. JEWETT, Romans, 799.
78
It is essential for readers to remember that within Romans, the Mosaic Law retains its
significance, being described as “holy,” and “the commandment is holy and just and good”
(Rom 7:12).
17
While fulfilling both the Mosaic law and other legal obligations such as taxation and
respect for others, Paul introduces a loftier motivation—to love one another. This stance
neither opposes nor accommodates civic duties but offers a deeper moral imperative.
Thus, Paul explicitly dissuades Christians (and implicitly non-Christians) from
wrongdoing or harming others, urging them instead to “overcome evil with good” (cf.
Rom 12:21).
Bibliografía
ALETTI, Jean Nol, “Rm 1:18-3:20 - incohérence ou cohérence de l’argumentation paulinienne”,
Biblica 69 (1988) 47-62.
ALETTI, Jean-Noël, “La soumission des chrétiens aux autorités en Rm 13,1-7. Validité des
arguments pauliniens?”, Biblica 89 (2008) 457-476.
BARCLAY, John M. G., “Why the Roman Empire Was Insignificant for Paul,” in John M. G.
BARCLAY (ed.), Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen
zum Neuen Testament 275), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 363-387.
BARRETT, Charles Kingsley, Black’s New Testament Commentary: The Epistle to the Romans,
Rev. ed., Peabody, MA, Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.
BEATRICE, Pier Franco, “Il giudizio secondo le opere della Legge e l’amore compimento della
Legge. Contributo all’esegesi di Rm 13,1-10”, Studia Patavina 20 (1973) 491-545.
BERTSCHMANN, Dorothea H., “The Good, the Bad and the State: Rom 13.1-7 and the Dynamics
of Love,” New Testament Studies 60 (2014) 232-249
(https://doi.org/10.1017/s0028688513000350).
BIRD, Michael F., “‘One Who Will Arise to Rule Over the Nations.’ Paul’s Letter to the Romans
and the Roman Empire,” in Scot MCKNIGHT – Joseph B. MODICA (eds.), Jesus Is Lord, Caesar
Is Not: Evaluating Empire in New Testament Studies, Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity, 2013,
146-165.
BORG, Marcus J., “New Context for Romans 13,” New Testament Studies 19 (1973) 205-218
(https://doi.org/10.1017/s0028688500003945).
BULTMANN, Rudolf, “Glossen im Römerbrief,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 72 (1947) 197-
202.
CHARLES, Robert H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, Vol. II, Oxford,
The Clarendon Press, 1913.
DIO CHRYSOSTOM, Discourses 1-11, trans. J. W. Cohoon (Loeb Classical Library 257),
Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1932.
DU TOIT, Philip la Grange, “Paul, Empire and Eschatology,” HTS Theological Studies 77 (2021)
1-10 (https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v77i4.6904).
DUNN, James D.G., Romans 9-16 (Word Biblical Commentary 38 B), Dallas, TX, Word Books,
1988.
18
ELLIOTT, Neil, “Romans 13:1-7 in the Context of Imperial Propaganda,” in Richard A. HORSLEY
(ed.), Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society, Harrisburg, PA,
Trinity Press International, 1997, 184-204.
ELLIOTT, Neil, “Strategies of Resistance and Hidden Transcripts in the Pauline Communities,” in
Richard A. HORSLEY (ed.), Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance: Applying the Work
of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul (Semeia Studies 48), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical
Literature, 2004, 97-122.
FITZMYER, Joseph A., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The
Anchor Bible 33), New York, NY, Doubleday, 1993.
FRIEDRICH, Johannes – Wolfgang POHLMANN – Peter STUHLMACHER, “Zur historischen
Situation und Intention von Röm 13:1-7,” Zeitschrift fr Theologie und Kirche 73 (1976) 131-
166.
GIENIUSZ, Andrzej, Romans 8:18-30: “Suffering Does Not Thwart the Future Glory” (University
of South Florida. International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism 9), Atlanta, GA,
Scholars Press, 1999.
GODET, Frédéric, Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, New York, Funk & Wagnalls,
1883.
GRANADOS ROJAS, Juan Manuel, “La creación puja y Dios con ella: estudio de la argumentación
en Rom 8,18-30,” Cuestiones Teológicas 47 (2020) 64-77
(https://doi.org/10.18566/cueteo.v47n108.a04).
GUIJARRO OPORTO, Santiago, Metodología exegética del Nuevo Testamento (Biblioteca de
estudios bíblicos 166), Salamanca, Sígueme, 2021.
HORSLEY, Richard A. (ed.), Paul and the Roman Imperial Order, Harrisburg, Trinity Press
International, 2004.
JEWETT, Robert – Roy D. KOTANSKY – Eldon Jay EPP, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia),
Minneapolis, MN, Fortress Press, 2007.
JOSEPHUS, The Jewish War, Vol. I: Books 1-2, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray (Loeb Classical Library
203), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1927.
JOSEPHUS, The Jewish War, Vol. III: Books 5-7, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray (Loeb Classical Library
210), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1928.
KALLAS, James, “Romans 13:1-7: An Interpolation,” New Testament Studies 11 (1965) 365-374
(https://doi.org/10.1017/s0028688500002071).
KRAUTER, Stefan, Studien zu Röm 13,1-7: Paulus und der politische Diskurs der neronischen Zeit
(Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 243), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck,
2009.
LEENHARDT, Franz J., L’Épître de Saint Paul aux Romains (Commentaire du Nouveau
Testament. 2e série 6), Genève, Labor et Fides, 31995.
LIETZMANN, Hans, An die Römer (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 8), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck,
1933.
19
MICHEL, Otto, Der Brief an die Römer (Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue
Testament IV), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 51978.
MUNRO, Winsome, “Interpolation in the Epistles: Weighing Probability,” New Testament Studies
36 (1990) 431-443 (https://doi.org/10.1017/s0028688500015848).
MUNRO, Winsome, Authority in Paul and Peter: The Identification of a Pastoral Stratum in the
Pauline Corpus and 1 Peter (Monograph Series. Society for New Testament Studies 45),
Cambridge, University Press, 1983.
NASH, Henry S., “Interpolations in the New Testament,” in Samuel Macauley JACKSON (ed.),
New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. 6, New York, NY, Funk and
Wagnalls, 1910, 23-24.
O’NEILL, John Cochrane, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1975.
PENNA, Romano, “La dimensione politica dell’ethos cristiano secondo Rm 13,1-7 nel suo
contesto”, in Ermenegildo MANICARDI – Luca MAZZINGHI (eds.), Il potere politico: bisogno
e rifiuto dell’autorità. XXXVIII settimana biblica nazionale (Roma, 6-10 settembre 2004)
(Ricerche Storico Bibliche 18/1-2), Bologna, Edizioni Dehoniane, 2006, 183-210.
PEPPEL, Mathias, “Gott oder Mensch? Kaiserverehrung und Herrschaftskontrolle”, in Hubert
CANCIK – Konrad HITZL (eds.), Die Praxis der Herrscherverehrung in Rom und seinen
Provinzen, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2003, 69-95.
PHILO, On Flight and Finding. On the Change of Names. On Dreams, trans. F. H. Colson and G.
H. Whitaker (Loeb Classical Library 275), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1934.
PLINY THE YOUNGER, Letters, Volume II: Books 8-10. Panegyricus, trans. Betty Radice (Loeb
Classical Library 59), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1969.
PORTER, Stanley E., “Romans 13:1-7 as Pauline Political Rhetoric,” Filologia Neotestamentaria
3 (1990) 115-137.
QUINTILIAN, The Orator’s Education, Volume III: Books 6-8, edited and translated by Donald A.
RUSSELL (Loeb Classical Library 126), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2002.
SCHREIBER, Stefan, “Imperium Romanum und römische Gemeinden: Dimensionen politischer
Sprechweise in Röm 13”, in Ulrich BUSSE (ed.), Die Bedeutung der Exegese für Theologie
und Kirche (Quaestiones Disputatae 215), Freiburg, Herder, 2005, 131-170.
SCOTT, James C., Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts, New Haven, CT,
Yale University Press, 1990.
SENECA, Moral Essays, Vol. I: De Providentia. De Constantia. De Ira. De Clementia, trans John
W. Basore (Loeb Classical Library 214), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1928.
WILCKENS, Ulrich, Der Brief an die Römer (Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue
Testament VI, Vol. 3), Zürich, Benziger, 1982.
WISCHMEYER, Oda, “Staat und Christen nach Römer 13,1-7. Ein neuer hermeneutischer Zugang”,
in Martin KARRER – Wolfgang KRAUS – Otto MERK (eds.), Kirche und Volk Gottes.
Festschrift für Jürgen Roloff zum 70. Geburtstag, Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener, 2000,
149-162.
20
WRIGHT, Nicholas Thomas, “The Letter to the Romans: Introduction, Commentary and
Reflections,” in Robert W. WALL (ed.), The New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 10: The Acts of the
Apostles, Introduction to Epistolary Literature, the Letter to the Romans, the First Letter to
the Corinthians, Nashville, TN, Abingdon Press, 2003, 395-770.
WRIGHT, Nicholas Thomas, Paul: In Fresh Perspective, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress Press, 2005.
