Romans 13

This verse doesn't SOUND like genuine Paul, does it? To me it sounds suspiciously like 1 Peter 2:13 & 14

I'll cite 4 commentaries. I promised to edit this post when I succeeded downloading one of them, as it failed when I tried the first time. Now I'm editing this post

From Cambridge Greek Testament:

1–7. Relation to civil authorities.
There is no introduction or formula of connexion. This is still part of the new σωφροσύνη. It is to be observed that the reasons for civil obedience are fully and clearly given, even with repetitions, as though the matter required explicit treatment. Yet the occasion for the introduction of the subject is not explained or hinted at. It is possible that S. Paul may have had reason to fear, or may have feared that others would expect, that the Christian societies might inherit some of the turbulence of the Jewish, esp. there may have been a danger that Christians at Rome would be infected. Or again, the Christian theory of the civil order may have been raised by the emphasis laid upon the kingdom. And the necessity of clear views may have grown upon S. Paul’s mind with his gradual approach to the centre of the Empire, and his realisation of the importance for the propagation of the Gospel. The establishment of Christian societies in so many places and the development of their internal organisation would also bring this question into prominence, as it did that of legal proceedings (1 Cor. 6). At the same time, it is to be noticed that the treatment of the question, though definite, is quite general; there is no sign either in the argument or in the tone of the passage of any special urgency: and we may conclude that it is due simply to the desire for completeness in indicating the outlines of Christian duty and the character and temper in which it should be fulfilled.
Note further some significant omissions. (1) The question of duty as between rival claimants to civil authority is not touched. (2) Nor is the question of duty to a corrupt and unjust authority: it is assumed throughout that the authority is just and has for its aim the good. (3) Nor is the question of conflict between the civil and spiritual authorities.
S. H. have an excellent excursus on the question, pp. 369 ff. Cf. also E. von Dobschütz, Die Urchristlichen Gemeinden, p. 95 (Leipzig, 1902). Cf. 1 Pet. 2:13–17; 1 Tim. 2:1 f.; Mt. 22:15 f. || Lk.
1. πᾶσα ψυχὴ. Cf. 2:9 (Rev. 16:3, of fish); Acts 2:43, 3:23. L. & S. give || from Greek class. poetry. Epictet. fr. 33 ψυχαὶ = slaves.
ἐξουσίαις, of persons holding civil authority Lk. 12:11; Tit. 3:1 only; cf. 1 Cor. 15:24; Eph. 1:21 al.; Col. 1:16 al.; 1 Pet. 3:22.
ὑπερεχούσαις. Simply of superiority in any degree; cf. 1 Pet. 2:13.
οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐξ. κ.τ.λ. S. Paul lays down the principle that the fact of authority being established involves the divine ordinance of it. The two clauses state the same principle, in a negative and a positive form. The repetition emphasises the point.
2. ἐαυτοῖς. Emphatic: will bring judgment upon themselves.
κρίμα λήμψονται. Of the civil judgment involved by their acts; cf. Lk. 23:40, 24:20.
3. γὰρ. The justice of the government is assumed: so 4a.
τῷ ἀγαθῷ ἔργῳ. Hort favours P. Young’s conj., ἀγαθοεργῷ; cf. 1 Tim. 6:18, ἀγαθοεργεῖν; tempting but hardly necessary.
τὸ ἀγαθὸν ποίει. Cf. 1 Pet. 2:15.

Parry, R. S. J. (Edited). (1921). The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (pp 168–169). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


From Anchor (Yale) Bible:

[I'll get back to this, I tried to download my purchase (bought Accordance on April 12. 2013 and Anchor Yale Bible Commentary New Testament on Feb. 24. 2014) but there was a time-out or FTP error when I tried to download.]

COMMENT

Paul continues his exhortation addressed to the Christians of the capital of the Roman Empire with a specific instruction that must answer questions that they have had in their lives as Christians, viz., in their relation to those who govern them as civil authorities in this world. This admonition, then, represents a specific instance of what he has been talking about thus far in this hortatory section of Romans.
Although this passage of Romans is often spoken of as that in which Paul discusses the relation of Christians to the “state,” there is no mention in it of the “state.” Such a view of this passage reflects a modern problem that especially came to the fore in the period of Hitler and Mussolini and after the Second World War. Nor is there mention of “Rome,” the important and pervasive civil authority in the world at the time in which Paul lived and wrote. We know so little of the relations of early Christians to the civil and political authorities of that time.
It may be that Paul takes up this issue, which he has not discussed in any of his other letters, because he is writing to the Christians of Rome, the capital of the empire of the time. Such a community more than others would have been conscious of imperial authority; so Käsemann, Commentary, 350. The Zealots had not yet emerged in Palestinian Jewish history; they can be traced only to about A.D. 66, a short time before the revolt of Palestinian Jews against Roman occupation and the eventual destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. Diaspora Jews or Jewish Christians in Rome or elsewhere may not have shared their specific rebellious attitude against Rome. But there is no reason to think that Romans Jews would not have been affected by attitudes of Palestinian Jews; and one would have to say the same about Jewish Christians in Rome.
Up to the time that Paul wrote there had been no official persecution of Christians in Rome. Emperor Claudius (41–54) expelled Jews (undoubtedly also Jewish Christians) from Rome about A.D. 49. But the reason for that expulsion was local (see Introduction, section I); it did not reflect something common to Jews all over the Roman Empire, much less Jewish Christians outside of Rome. Yet as he wrote from Corinth (in the winter of 57–58), Paul seems to have learned something about the situation of Christians at Rome, a situation that probably grew out of that expulsion by Claudius (see 14:1–15:13). Moreover, Paul may have been aware of the reaction of people in the empire to the conduct of the publicani and the general tax-situation under Nero (see Introduction, section I). So he may have been moved to say something about the general background of such problems as faced the Christians of Rome. Because the basic attitude of Jews about the imperial government could have had repercussions among early Christians of either Jewish or Gentile background, he could be writing with such a [Rom, p. 663] situation in mind. In the eastern Mediterranean area especially, where the cult of the emperor was popular, there would also have been understandable Christian reactions to such a cult (to judge from later times). See further Bammel, “Romans 13.” For such reasons Paul formulates in this passage his basic ideas about the relation of Christians to governing authorities.
Moreover, the reason Paul includes such a discussion in the hortatory section of Romans may be his desire to stress that Christians, now made “free” through the Christ-event and given the right of a heavenly citizenship (Phil 3:20, “our politeuma [commonwealth] is in heaven”), may not view their relation to earthly authorities with indifference, much less hostility. Though they live in the new aeon as a result of their justification through faith in Christ Jesus, they are still part of this aeon with its laws and order. In the new aeon Christ is Lord, who has granted “freedom” to Christians, but this freedom is neither license nor a right to civil anarchy. The reason is that civil authority itself comes from God, whom Christians are called to reverence and respect.
It is remarkable that Paul can discuss this topic in the absence of any christological consideration. Nor is there anything about faith in this passage, nor anything peculiarly rabbinic about Paul’s mode of argument here. Käsemann (Commentary, 351) also finds it lacking in any eschatological motivation. Yet the mention of “wrath” (13:4–5) and of “judgment” (13:2b) surely evokes some eschatological consideration. Although there are some principles that Paul derives from the OT, the mention of “conscience” (13:5) reveals that Paul’s discussion of this topic is more rational and philosophical than theological, as he gives a theistic interpretation of the relationship of citizens to the governing authorities. For he views civil authority as coming from God, without any Christian or Jewish nuance. It is not specifically the God of Israel or the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who provides the basis of Paul’s argument. It is simply “God.” And it is something that he seems to address to all human beings, not just Christians, for in v 1 he speaks of “every person.” Indeed, as Strobel has shown, Paul’s terminology in the passage shows his acquaintance with Roman administration and constitutional law (“Zum Verständnis,” 90). His peculiar emphasis is to relate it all to God.
The passage emphasizes order, authority, civil obedience, payment of taxes or revenue, and honor for civil authorities, regarded as “God’s servants” (13:6). Even though Paul does argue philosophically about the relation of Christians to civil authorities, his teaching still has to be understood against the background of that about the lordship of the risen Christ (10:9; cf. 1 Cor 12:3), and especially about what he says in 1 Cor 8:6: “Though there are so-called gods in heaven or on earth, as there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”
Because of the lack of a christological emphasis or motivation and because of its rational and philosophical thrust, some interpreters have even raised the [Rom, p. 664] question whether this pericope is an interpolation; thus Barnikol (“Römer 13”), Eggenberger (Die Quellen), Kallas, (“Romans xiii. 1–7”), Munro (“Romans 13:1–7”), O’Neill (Romans, 15), Pallis (To the Romans, 14), and Schmithals (Römerbrief als historisches Problem, 185–97). Such interpreters argue for this view from the lack of a connection between the topic and the context of Romans (compare 12:21 and 13:8), from the differing nuances of some of the vocabulary, from the “subjection material” that it contains (allegedly of later date in the first Christian century), etc. The paragraph sounds much more like what one finds in 1 Pet 2:13–17 (cf. Titus 3:1). Yet, even if one admits with Käsemann (Commentary, 352) that it reads like “an alien body in Paul’s exhortation,” there is really no evidence to think that this passage has been interpolated or that it was not composed by Paul, even for this spot in the hortatory section of Romans, as Wilckens notes (“Römer 13,1–7,” 215–16). By the end of the second century it is quoted by Irenaeus (Adversus haereses 5.24.1), and none of the Greek MSS of Romans lacks it. Moreover, de Kruijf has shown that structurally it is built by inclusiones into connection with chap. 12. The passage suits the context as an extension of the Pauline admonition to “live at peace with everyone” (12:18)—now including even “governing authorities.” See further K. Aland, Neutestamentliche Entwürfe, 41. Again, if Borg is right, 13:1–7 continues the thought of 12:14–21 and is intended as a statement with particular meaning to the Roman church in its particular situation. “Why does Paul urge the Roman church to submit to Roman authority?” Because he “is convinced that what Christ does is to span the chasm between Jew and Gentile, a conviction that he expresses not only in Romans (1:16, 3:23–4, 29–30), but elsewhere as well” (Gal 3:28; cf. Eph 2:11–21). When Paul wrote Romans, “Judaism was on the brink of catastrophe as a result of its longstanding resistance to Roman imperialism. An emerging Christianity, founded by a Jew whom the Romans had crucified—regarded still by Rome as a Jewish sect, and inextricably implicated, by history and culture, by ideology and associational patterns, in the Jewish world—was inevitably caught up in the crisis of Jewish–Roman relations. What was the right posture to adopt toward Rome?” Paul answers that question in this paragraph (“New Context,” 214–18). For a further literary analysis of the passage and its relevance to the rest of Paul’s writing, see Wilckens, “Römer 13,1–7,” 211–13.
Paul’s discussion of the relation of Christians to civil authorities, nevertheless, remains on the level of general principles. Some commentators query whether the composition is dependent on Mark 12:13–17, the pronouncement story about rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. That that story may have been current in early Christian tradition by the time Paul writes Romans can be admitted, but there is no real indication that Paul was aware of it or that it has any bearing on this passage. See Goppelt, “Die Freheit,” 217. Moreover, the composition of the Marcan Gospel is usually set about 65 at the earliest. Surely Paul would not have known that Gospel as we have it today.
The passage has created a major problem in modern theological discussion [Rom, p. 665] because Paul’s teaching has at times been invoked to justify any sort of human government. The supposition running through vv 1–7 is that the civil authorities are good and are conducting themselves rightly in seeking the interests of the political community. Paul does not envisage the possibility of either a totalitarian or a tyrannical government or one failing to cope with the just rights of individual citizens or of a minority group. He insists merely on one aspect of the question: the duty of subjects to duly constituted and legitimate authority. He does not discuss the duty or responsibility of civil authorities to the people governed, apart from one minor reference (13:4). Moreover, the concept of legitimate civil disobedience is beyond his ken. Paul is not discussing in exhaustive fashion the relation of Christians to governing authorities; “he is silent about possible conflicts and the limits of earthly authority” (Käsemann, Commentary, 354).
Paul must certainly have known of the role of Pontius Pilate in the death of Jesus, hence of the connivance of a Roman governor who handed him over to be crucified. Yet that knowledge of Pilate’s involvement did not deter him from recognizing the legitimate role that Pilate had as a civil authority. Through Pilate Jesus suffered the effects of wrath in this world; and through persecuting Roman emperors early Christians would also suffer such effects. They would be part of “the sufferings that we now endure” (8:18).
Again, we know little about how Paul personally got along with Roman governors or officials. His experience before Gallio (Acts 18:12–17) would not have left a bad taste in his mouth; cf. also Acts 16:19–40; 22:22–29; 25:6–12.
What Paul teaches in this passage has to be understood against the background of the OT itself, in which Israel was instructed, especially in the time of the exile, to respect governing authorities, even to pray for them: Jer 29:7 (“Seek the welfare of the city to which I have exiled you and pray to the Lord on behalf of it, for in its welfare will be your welfare”); Bar 1:11 (“Pray for the life of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon”); 1 Macc 7:33. Cf. Ep. Arist. 45; Josephus, J.W. 2.10.4 §197; Ag.Ap. 2.6 §§76–77.


NOTES

13:1. every person. Lit., “every soul,” a Hebraism (see the NOTE on 2:9), which stresses the obligation of every individual. Paul’s instruction is not restricted to Christians. In some MSS (P46, D✱, F, G) and in the VL version, “soul” is omitted, and there is the simple impv., “be subject to all higher authorities.” This omission even broadens Paul’s counsel.
be subject. The vb. is hypotassein, “be subject,” and not merely hypakouein, “obey.” In other words, Paul recommends submission in earthly matters as an expression of the Christian’s relation to God and his order of things. Compare Titus 3:1; 1 Pet 2:13–14. Such submission is clearly measured by the form of human government in which one resides; it would carry nuances depending on the form of monarchic, democratic, or republican state. It is important to keep [Rom, p. 666] Paul’s perspective in mind, for he does not lose sight of the Christian’s “freedom” in Christ Jesus. Cf. Eph 5:21.
to the governing authorities. Lit., “to authorities having power over (you),” i.e., “highly placed, governing authorities” (BAGD, 841). The noun exousia denotes (1) “freedom of choice, right to act or dispose of”; (2) “ability, capability” to do something; (3) “authority, absolute power” (in the abstract); (4) “an authority” (in the concrete), “a bearer of authority.” In the pl. it is commonly used for human “authorities” in profane Greek (Polybius, History 28.4.9; 30.4.17 [= “those in high position,” not only the “higher ranks,” but all with authority]) and in the NT (Luke 12:11; Titus 3:1). Paul is referring to duly constituted human governing authorities. What he calls “governing authorities” here he will call “rulers” (archontes) in v 3. These are the Greek equivalents of the Roman imperia and magistratus, “the numerous government offices of the comprehensive state-apparatus of the worldwide empire” (Strobel, “Zum Verständnis,” 79).
[...]
Yet in 1 Pet 2:13 basileus, “emperor,” and hēgemones, “governors,” are clearly human, and in this context there is nothing that clearly calls for an angelic meaning of exousia. Indeed, the authorities to whom taxes are paid (v 6) have to be human authorities. Again, Paul would not say that Christians are to be subject to angels; in 1 Cor 6:3 he holds that Christians will “judge angels”; see further Morrison, Powers, 40–54. According to Käsemann (Commentary, 353), the vast majority of exegetes have rejected Cullmann’s interpretation. “Human authorities” is preferred as the interpretation, because Paul is using the vocabulary of Hellenistic political administration: tetagmenai, “set up” (13:1), diatagē, “institution” (13:2); archontes, “rulers” (13:3); leitourgoi, “servants” (13:6) (see TDNT 8.29–30). Hence Paul is referring to ordinary human civil authorities, on whom Christians are dependent and to whom they are expected to subject themselves.
In the postapostolic period Clement of Rome prays for human “rulers and [Rom, p. 667] governors upon the earth” to whom God has given “power of sovereignty” (1 Clem. 60.2–61.2). Polycarp tells the proconsul of Asia, “We have been taught to give honor to magistrates and authorities appointed by God, as is fitting” (Mart. Pol. 10.2). These testimonies clearly continue in the same line of Paul’s thinking.
there is no authority except from God. Lit., “except by God,” because the better reading is the prep. hypo (expressing agency); but some MSS (D✱, F, G) read apo, “from,” a correction demanded by sense. As a Christian, Paul acknowledges the Father as the source of all the welfare, prosperity, and peace brought by human civil rule. He thus states the reason for such obedience. This is fundamentally an OT teaching (see 2 Sam 12:8; Prov 8:15–16; Jer 27:5–6; Isa 45:1; Dan 2:21, 37; 4:17; Sir 4:27; Wis 6:1–3). Josephus ascribes the same teaching to the Essenes: “for not apart from God does anyone rule” (J.W. 2.8.7 §140); cf. 1 Enoch 46:5. As Paul formulates it, however, it sounds like a philosophical truth.
those which exist have been set up by God. In the preceding clause Paul stated the reason for his position negatively; now he does so positively. Even Rome’s imperial authority comes from God, though Rome may not recognize it or may be reluctant to admit it. Civil authorities may not all agree with God’s will in the governance of the world, but their authority still comes from him. It is not an arbitrary creation or invention of human beings. Recall the prayer of early Christians in Acts 4:24–28.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. (1993). Romans: A new translation with introduction and commentary. (D. N. Freedman, Ed.) (pp 662-667). New Haven and London: Yale University Press.


From Hermeneia:

This passage starts afresh, with no transitional links to the preceding pericope. [...] The gnomic style of the preceding pericope continues in 13:1a without transition.

Jewett, R., & Kotansky, R. D. (2006). Romans: A commentary. (E. J. Epp, Ed.) (p. 781). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Whereas all four criteria should be fulfilled to prove an interpolation, only one has proven to be partially compelling in this case. Despite the problems it causes for later interpreters who would prefer a seemingly less subservient attitude toward the state, it remains highly likely that 13:1–7 is an authentic and original portion of Paul’s letter.

Jewett, R., & Kotansky, R. D. (2006). Romans: A commentary. (E. J. Epp, Red) (p. 784). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Exegesis

■ 1 The interpretation of this pericope has swung from abject subservience to political authorities viewed as virtually divine to critical submission on the basis of their advancement of justice. The endless stream of studies has been marked by advocacy of various appraisals of the role of government shaped by denominational traditions and by modern ethical considerations. The passage has been interpreted as a warning not to participate in Jewish zealotism, in revolutionary agitation, or, as seems even less likely, not to create unrest that would jeopardize “the already vulnerable situation of the beleaguered Jewish population in Rome.” It has been seen as a warning against Christian enthusiasm that believed the requirement of a state was incommensurate with the new age, which hardly matches the details in the passage. The quiet early years of the Nero regime are depicted as the background of this positive view of the state, and Paul wished to avoid any gesture of disloyalty that might jeopardize the peaceful extension of the Christian mission. According to the comprehensive survey by Vilho Riekkinen, investigations of the background of Paul’s view of the governing authorities have sifted biblical Hebrew, Hellenistic Jewish, Greco-Roman, and early Christian sources. Since no single tradition or source contains all of the material in 13:1–7, it appears that Paul has incorporated terminology and ideas from a variety of directions. Only recently have scholars begun to view this passage in the light of the Roman civic cult, which could be a step toward taking fuller account of the political and cultural context of Paul’s letter and its missional purpose.
My approach is to interpret the verbal details in view of their rhetorical significance for the Roman audience whom Paul is attempting to recruit in support of his Spanish mission. Romans 13:1–7 was not intended to create the foundation of a political ethic for all times and places in succeeding generations—a task for which it has proven to be singularly ill-suited. Believing himself to be a member of the end-time generation, Paul had no interest in the concerns that would later burden Christian ethics, and which continue to dominate the exegetical discussion. His goal was to appeal to the Roman audience as he conceived it, addressing their concerns in a manner that fit the occasion of his forthcoming visit.
The passage opens in gnomic style with an admonition in 13:1a that sets the tone for the entire pericope. The expression πᾶσα ψυχή (“every soul”) is a semiticism (כל נפשׁ) that echoes the language of the LXX and Qumran where “soul” denotes a person. This expression is particularly frequent in legal materials that sometimes begin the same way. For example, Πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἣ φάγῃ αἷμα, ἀπολεῖται ἡ ψυχὴ ἐκείνη ἀπὸ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτῆς (“Every soul who eats blood, that soul shall perish from his people,” Lev 7:17). Here the word ψυχή has the sense that “every individual person,” without exception, must subject himself or herself to the authorities. No differentiation is allowed by this formula between believers and nonbelievers, between lower and higher ranks of citizens. Paul’s unusual combination of ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις (“governing authorities”) and the desire to avoid abject subservience to dictators have led to elaborate theories about respecting the angelic powers that lie behind political authorities or about personal interactions with noninstitutionalized, governmental agents. While the context does not support either option, the angelic theory in particular is contradicted by Paul’s belief that Christ has triumphed over the demonic principalities and powers (Phil 2:10–11; 1 Cor 15:24–25; Rom 8:38–39). It is also significant that Paul refrains from employing any of the terms for cosmic powers that appeared in 8:38–39. He picks up instead the term employed in 9:21 for the potter’s “power” over the clay. Ἐξουσία has a wide semantic range, including individual freedom of choice, capability, authority in an individual as well as a governmental sphere, dominion, and power. August Strobel showed that the plural expression “governing authorities” used in Rom 13:1 encompasses a variety of imperial and local offices such as proconsulare imperium/ἡ ἀνθυπατικὴ ἐξουσία (“proconsular authority”); tribunicia potestas/ἡ δημαρχικὴ ἐξουσία (“tribunal authority”); praefectura praetorii/ἡ ἐπαρχική ἐξουσία (“pretorian authority”); quaestoria potestas/ἡ ταμιεντικὴ ἐξουσία (“fiscal authority”). The Augustan development of an elaborate system of local officials in Rome and the provinces is reflected in Paul’s wording. Since the participle οἱ ὑπερέχοντες, as well as the noun ἐξουσίαι, can be used to refer to governmental officials, their somewhat redundant combination here has a cumulative sense that encompasses a range of officials placed in superior positions of political authority, duly appointed to their tasks and currently exercising their power. In contrast to the premise of “church–state” debate based on this passage, this reference is “not of the state as such but of political and civil authority as it would actually bear upon his readers,” that is, the local magistrates in Rome. Since two of the Christian groups Paul knows to be in Rome consist of imperial slaves working in behalf of such officials, the implication of Paul’s wording is that they would not be exercising their power without divine appointment.
[...]
The first argument in 13:1b–3a provides a basic rationale for the foregoing admonition. There is no ambiguity about the wording of v. 1b-c or its background in the Jewish wisdom tradition. It opens the first argument for submission, that governmental authority has a divine origin, a point made first negatively in v. 1b and then positively in 1c. The word “authority” is repeated in the claim that it is ὑπὸ θεοῦ (“by God”). Since this same expression appears in both v. 1b and 1c, it appears to be a formula for designating the source of governmental power.75 Thus, no matter what Roman officials may claim as their authority, it really comes from the God of Jewish and Christian faith. We find basically the same idea in the OT (Jer 27:5–6; Dan 4:17, 25, 32; 5:21) and in Hellenistic Judaism. For example, Sir 10:4 uses the key term ἐξουσία in claiming that “the power of the earth is in the hands of the Lord (ἐν χειρὶ κυρίου ἡ ἐξουσία τῆς γῆς).” The Wisdom of Solomon 6:3 formulates this with different terminology: ὅτι ἐδόθη παρὰ κυρίου ἡ κράτησις ὑμῖν καὶ ἡ δυναστεία παρὰ ὑψίστου (“your dominion was given to you from the Lord, and your power from the Most High”). The verb τάσσω, appearing in v. 1c in the perfect passive participle, τεταγμέναι, derives from military use, meaning arranged in rank and file; an associated concept is to be placed in command of others in the order of battle, and then in the political sphere. The same verb is employed in the LXX for political appointments (2 Sam 7:11; Tob 1:21).
The key to understanding the revolutionary implications of this argument is the twice-repeated formula, “by God” in v. 1b-c, echoed and reinforced by 1a, v. 4a & d, and v. 6b referring to governmental agents as servants of God. That all such officials are divinely appointed needs to be understood rhetorically. The range of interest of the Roman audience would not have extended to the question of whether officials beyond the boundaries of the empire, or whether governments arising in later centuries, were appointed by God; the relevant question was the status of the Roman government. The issue usually not raised in the scholarly discussion is precisely who this God is. The relevance of this question is most easily grasped when one compares Paul’s statement with the Roman civic cult and takes account of the twelve chapters of argument that precede this pericope. The God who grants authority to governmental agencies in Paul’s argument is not Mars or Jupiter, as in the Roman civic cult; nor is he represented by the pantheon of Greco-Roman deities that had been assimilated into the civic cult since the time of Augustus.
The God of whom Paul speaks here is the same as announced in chapter 1 whose righteousness was elaborated for the next twelve chapters; it is the God embodied in the crucified Christ that is in view here, which turns this passage into a massive act of political co-optation. If the Roman authorities had understood this argument, it would have been viewed as thoroughly subversive. That the Roman authorities were appointed by the God and Father of Jesus Christ turns the entire Roman civic cult on its head, exposing its suppression of the truth. Its involvement in the martyrdom of Christ, crucified under Pontius Pilate, cannot have been forgotten by the readers of chapter 13, who knew from firsthand experience of the Edict of Claudius the hollowness of Rome’s claim to have established a benign rule of law. The critique of the law in all its forms in the first eight chapters of this letter cannot have been forgotten, which explains why the proudest institution of the Pax Romana, the rule of law, goes unmentioned here. Nothing remains of the claim in Roman propaganda that its law-enforcement system was redemptive, producing a kind of messianic peace under the rule of the gods Justitia and Clementia. Christ alone is the fulfillment of the law (10:4), not the emperor or the Roman gods. And nothing remains of the specious claim in the civic cult that the empire had been given to Rome because of its superior virtue and piety, a matter that had been demolished by 1:18–3:20. What remains is the simple fact of divine appointment, a matter justified not by the virtue of the appointee but by the mysterious mind of God who elects whom she will as the agents of her purpose (9:14–33; 11:17–32). Submission to the governmental authorities is therefore an expression of respect not for the authorities themselves but for the crucified deity who stands behind them. That this argument would have had an appeal to Christian groups working within the Roman administration is self-evident.

Jewett, R., & Kotansky, R. D. (2006). Romans: A commentary. (E. J. Epp, Ed.) (pp 785–790). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.


From Paideia:

Paul takes up a specific issue: the obligation of the justified to submit themselves to the authorities that rule over them by paying taxes and revenues (13:1–7). Although the moral exhortation that he gives here appears to have been occasioned by, and tailored to, the needs of the Roman Christians, it has commanded “the sustained attention of interpreters in the last two millennia” (Reasoner 2005, 129) because of what it says about the source of political authority and the obligation that believers have toward that authority, a topic that I will consider under “Theological Issues.”
The unit consists of four subunits: an initial exhortation that functions as a thesis statement (13:1a), a supporting argument for the thesis (13:1b–2), a further argument that exhibits characteristics of a diatribe (13:3–5), and the application of the thesis to the question of paying taxes and revenues (13:6–7).
Paul begins by announcing his thesis: Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities (13:1a). Two points are important here. First, the subject that Paul has in view is the thinking and willing self (pasa psychē; lit., “every soul”), which I have translated as “everyone.” By highlighting the reflecting self as the subject of this unit, Paul relates this exhortation to his opening injunction that believers should be transformed by the renewal of their minds (12:2). Second, in exhorting the reflecting self to “subject” (hypotassesthō) itself to the governing authorities, Paul reminds believers that they are part of an ordered society in which they should find and acknowledge their place. Accordingly, he is not so much summoning the Romans to obey the governing authorities (although this is not excluded) as he is exhorting them to find their place in an ordered society and live accordingly. The “governing authorities” (exousiais hyperechousais) to which they are to submit are not angelic powers but human rulers who exercise “a variety of imperial and local offices” (Jewett 2007, 788) within the Roman Empire.
Paul supports his injunction in two ways. First, he points to God as the source of all authority: for there is no authority except that appointed by God, and those that exist have been put in place by God (13:1b). In making this statement, Paul is not breaking new ground but affirming what Israel’s scriptures already teach. For example, God’s personified wisdom proclaims, “By me kings reign, and rulers decree what is just; by me rulers rule, and nobles, all who govern rightly” (Prov. 8:15–16). Similarly, Daniel reveals to Nebuchadnezzar, “He [God] changes times and seasons, deposes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to those who have understanding” (Dan. 2:21). And again, “You [Nebuchadnezzar] shall be made to eat grass like oxen, and seven times shall pass over you, until you have learned that the Most High has sovereignty over the kingdom of mortals and gives it to whom he will” (4:32). The notion that all authority comes from God, which is difficult for contemporary readers to understand, derives from Paul’s understanding of God as the source and origin of all things (1 Cor. 8:6).

Matera, F. J. (2010). Romans (pp 293–294). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.