Romans 13:1

“ Let every soul submit itself unto the higher powers; for there is no power but of God, and the powers that be are ordained of God. ” Why does the apostle say: every soul, instead of every man, or rather every believer? Is he alluding to the fact that submission ought to proceed from the inmost sanctuary of the human being (the conscience, Romans 13:5)? The word every does not correspond well with this explanation; it leads rather to the thought that the apostle means to express that a duty is involved which is naturally incumbent on every human being. This is not an obligation on the believer arising from his spiritual life, like the precepts of chap. 12; it is an obligation of the psychical life which is the common domain of mankind. Every free and reasonable being should recognize its suitableness.

The present imperative, ὑποτασσέσθω, let it submit itself, indicates a reflex action, exercised by the man on himself, and that permanently. This expression is, indeed, the counterpart of the term σωφρονεῖν, to control oneself, in chap. 12

The term higher powers does not denote merely the highest class of authorities in the state. It is all those powers in general and of all degrees; they are thus designated as being raised above the simple citizen; comp. Romans 13:7.

The second part of this verse justifies the duty of submission, and that for two reasons: the first is the divine origin of the state as an institution; the second, the will of God which controls the raising of individuals to office at any given time. The first proposition has the character of a general principle. This appears (1) from the singular ἐξουσία, power; comp. the same word in the plural before and after, in the same verse, which proves that Paul means to speak of power in itself, and not of its historical and particular realizations; (2) from the negative form of the proposition: “there is not but of”...; this form corresponds also to the enunciation of an abstract principle; (3) from the choice of the preposition ἀπό, of, or on the part of, which indicates the origin and essence of the fact. It is true the Alexs. and Byzs. read ὑπό, by, in this proposition as well as in the following. But this is one of the cases in which the Greco-Latin text has certainly preserved the true reading. It is clear, whatever Tischendorf may think, that the copyists have changed the first preposition according to that of the following clause. Meyer himself acknowledges this. We shall see that as thoroughly as ἀπό corresponds to the idea of the first proposition, so thoroughly does ὑπό apply to that of the second. Paul means, therefore, first, that the institution of the state is according to the plan of God who created man as a social being; so that we are called to recognize in the existence of a power (authority) the realization of a divine thought. In the second proposition he goes further (δέ, and, moreover). He declares that at each time the very persons who are established in office occupy this exalted position only in virtue of a divine dispensation. This gradation from the first idea to the second appears (1) from the particle δέ; (2) from the participle οὖσαι, those who are, that is to say, who are there; this term added here would be superfluous if it did not denote the historical fact in opposition to the idea; (3) from the return to the plural (the powers), which proves that Paul means again to designate here, as in the first part of the verse, the manifold realizations of social power; (4) from the affirmative form of the proposition, which applies to the real fact; (5) from the preposition ὑπό, by, which more naturally describes the historical fact than would be done by the preposition ἀπό, on the part of.

The word ἐξουσίαι in the T. R. is probably only a copyist's addition.

But for the very reason of this precept it is asked: If it is not merely the state in itself which is a thought of God, but if the very individuals who possess the power at a given time are set up by His will, what are we to do in a period of revolution, when a new power is violently substituted for another? This question, which the apostle does not raise, may, according to the principles he lays down, be resolved thus: The Christian will submit to the new power as soon as the resistance of the old shall have ceased. In the actual state of matters he will recognize the manifestation of God's will, and will take no part whatever in any reactionary plot. But should the Christian support the power of the state even in its unjust measures? No, there is nothing to show that the submission required by Paul includes active co-operation; it may even show itself in the form of passive resistance, and it does not at all exclude protestation in word and even resistance in deed, provided that to this latter there be joined the calm acceptance of the punishment inflicted; comp. the conduct of the apostles and Peter's answer, Acts 5:29; Acts 5:40-42. This submissive but at the same time firm conduct is also a homage to the inviolability of authority; and experience proves that it is in this way all tyrannies have been morally broken, and all true progress in the history of humanity effected.