Reading Romans 13 Wisely

Exploring Paul's (Bizarre) Use of Proverbs in his Political Teaching

Last week, I summarized some of the ways God’s people have wrestled with Paul’s instruction that “every person be subject to the governing authorities” (Rom 13:1), especially by reading Romans in dialogue with other parts of Scripture. While reading Scripture alongside Scripture is always a good idea, it’s especially wise to note the way a biblical text is itself referring to other texts within the Bible.

Recently, I noticed that Paul refers to the Greek translation of Proverbs (called the Septuagint)¹ three or four times in the verses just before Romans 13. Paul also does something super weird with these proverbial references—he appears to cut God out of them.

So this week, let’s explore why Paul might allude to Proverbs the way he does, and whether this can help us read his most (in)famous political teaching wisely.

Paul’s References to Proverbs

If Paul’s teaching about political authority in Romans 13:1-7 strikes us as harsh, the immediately previous verses offer a stunning vision of the Christian life. Paul calls us to offer ourselves as living sacrifices, experiencing transformation through the renewing of our minds, and living a life of Spirit-inspired love towards both our siblings in Christ and our enemies. It reads a bit like a a compressed, Pauline Sermon on the Mount.

This is arguably the white hot center of Paul’s politics; as citizens of God’s kingdom, we’re called to embody our King’s self-sacrificial love, even towards our enemies. And to make this case, Paul repeatedly turns to the book of Proverbs.

The chart below places Paul’s words alongside their source texts in Proverbs. The bold words in the Proverbs column are words that are replicated in both texts.

Those who pit the loving merciful Jesus against the “angry OT God” will be surprised that Paul gets his teaching on patience, rejecting vengeance, and loving our enemies from the Old Testament.

But a closer look also reveals that Paul has apparently cut Proverbs’ references to God out. What’s even more surprising is that, on several occasions, the “God stuff” Paul leaves out of his Proverbs references in 12:16-21 he then attributes to the “governing authorities” in Romans 13:1-7.

• Paul quotes Proverbs 3:7’s command not to be “wise” “in themselves,” but leaves out Proverbs’ call to “fear” God and turn from “evil.” But then, in Romans 13:4 he says that people who do “evil” are right to “fear” the authorities.

• Paul refers to Proverbs’ call for God’s people not to “repay” their enemies, but leaves out Proverbs’ reference to God helping those who do so. But then, in Romans 13:4, Paul declares that the “governing authorities” are for “your good” because they helpfully “execute wrath on the wrongdoer.”

• Paul alludes to Proverbs’ command to think about what is “noble” in the sight of people, but leaves out Proverbs’ command to think about what is “noble” in the sight of God. Then, in Romans 13:3-4, God calls his audience to do what is good in the eyes of the authorities.

• Finally, Paul quotes Proverbs 25:22’s lines about caring for your enemies, but leaves out Proverbs’ claim that doing so will result in the Lord "repaying” you with “good.” But then, in Romans 13:3-4 he declares that if God’s people do what is “good,” they will receive the authorities’ praise because the authorities are “God’s servant” for their “good.”

What in the world is going on here?

One Bad Option and Two Good Ones

First, we might think that Paul leaves God out of his proverbial allusions because he wants to downplay God’s involvement. This makes zero sense. In this very passage, Paul quotes Deuteronomy to argue that God will deliver the vengeance his people must refuse to take for themselves (Romans 12:19). When Paul turns to the governing authorities, what looks like a rosy depiction of the state is, upon closer inspection, a “theocratic Trojan horse.”² A primary function of Romans 13:1-7 is to make the governing authorities, who in Paul’s day were strongly associated with and at times treated as gods themselves, no more than “servants” of the One Creator God.

Second, then, perhaps Paul’s curious treatment of Proverbs allows him to emphasize this exact point. Whereas Proverbs 20:22 calls God’s people to give up vengeance and suggests God will repay, Paul identifies the authorities as avenging servants through whom God will repay. Whereas Proverbs 3:4 and 3:7 call the people to fear God and consider what is good in God’s eyes, Paul emphasizes that disciples should also fear the authorities and do what is good in their eyes because, as God’s servants, they are the vehicles through which God’s just judgment will be executed. That, at least, is how they are designed to function.

From this perspective, Paul does not take God out of his proverbial allusions so much as clarify that God can work through the authorities. This adds support to something bible scholars have long noticed: the just vengeance Romans12:19 says Christians must leave in God’s hands, Romans 13:4 says the governing authorities perform on God’s behalf.³ As with that oft-noted link, the effect is not to downplay God’s action, but to emphasize the way God can act in and through governing authorities for God’s own purposes (remember: both the exodus story and the prophets make clear that God can work his purposes through wicked authorities, as well).

A third, mutually compatible option is that Paul leaves God out of the Proverbs allusions, not to take away attention from what God can do, but to emphasize what human disciples can do. Perhaps Paul turns “think of what is noble in the sight of the Lord and of people” into “take thought for what is noble in the sight of all” in order to emphasize just how seriously he wants us to think about how people outside the faith see us. This fits with Paul’s instruction to “live peaceably” with all people whenever possible in 12:18. Yet it also looks ahead to 13:1-7, where Paul is at pains to convince his audience that, at least normatively and under certain circumstances, God’s people can reap the benefit of doing what is right, noble, and peaceable in the sight of one specific group of outsiders: the governing authorities.

Or again, in 12:17a and 12:20-21, Paul may intentionally draw his audience away from the idea of God rewarding disciples for doing the right thing. Instead, Paul seeks to motivate his audience with the command to “overcome evil with good.” If Paul envisions enemy love triumphing over evil, creating the possibility for reconciliation rather than simply avoiding conflict, the implications are profound. Paul has reminded Christians that God rewards good works earlier in the letter. Here, however, he emphasizes that Christians do not love their enemies merely for a reward or out of prudential considerations, but because they are ambassadors of the Crucified Messiah, who died for his enemies and transformed them into friends. Or, as another Proverbial text puts it:

The ways of righteous persons are acceptable to the Lord,

and through them even enemies become friends (Proverbs 15:28 LXX)

Because both the apostle and his audience knew authorities often fail, at times miserably. His audience may even have seen the “governing authorities” as enemies, and perhaps have been thinking of such authorities since at least 12:14’s instruction to “bless those who persecute.” Paul’s proverbial teaching on loving your enemies, then, is central to the church’s politics.

Indeed, perhaps Paul’s politics holds out hope that the ruling authorities might not be enemies after all, or even be transformed from being enemies to something else if the people of God seek to live peaceably in their realms as far as it is in their power, performing acts of goodness and love within their domains.

Romans 13:1-7 does not explicitly address a situation in which the governing authorities fail to render just judgment or praise and reward good deeds, much less a regime that actively rewards evil and punishes good. That’s one reason we need other biblical texts that do address such situations, including Paul’s own description of fleeing the authorities when they tried to unjustly arrest him or the midwives being rewarded by God for hustling the Pharaoh. Such texts make clear that Paul’s words in Romans 13:1-7 offers us a rich theological account of God’s design for political authorities, as well as wise guidance for responding to the political authorities in many situations. What it does not offer is a kind of one-size-fits-all political solution, one that squelches any and all resistance or confrontation with political authority.

When the governing authorities do go off the rails, the very proverbial texts Paul references claim God will help, God will reward, and God will repay. Because Paul says as much through his citation of Deuteronomy 32:35, we can be confident he would agree with this proverbial theology. But in Romans his emphasis is on both God’s intended purpose for political authority as God’s servant and the power of God’s people to transform even enemies—including political enemies—into friends through enemy love .

Theologically speaking, Paul’s argument claims all authority for God, denying the Roman political authorities of his day some of the authority they claimed for themselves. But it also may have empowered his marginalized, Christ-following audience; regardless of how good or bad particular political authorities are, God’s people, too, have a job to do. Their job is to follow Jesus by living out Spirit-inspired lives of justice, goodness, peace-making, and enemy love. This, too, is a political act, one that Paul suggests may, at least on some occasions, get noticed by the authorities. And that’s good news for everyone.

Letting Paul Lead Us Back to Proverbs

There’s so much more that could be said, but let me close with this. Paul’s political teaching ought to send us back to Proverbs hungry for the political wisdom we might find there. In previous posts here and here, I’ve tried to point out a few specific ways Proverbs might be transformative for Christian political discipleship.

But reading Romans and Proverbs together reveals another crucial reason why we need Proverbs, and indeed other often-ignored portions of the Old Testament. In Romans 13:1-7, Paul writes about the political authorities, but he does not write to them. Why would he? Almost no Christians in his day had significant direct political influence.

But today, Christians do have significant, direct influence. As Karl Barth pointed out, while Paul’s teaching concerns an “authoritarian State,” citizens in democracies are both under “political authorities” who “rule” and ourselves “political authorities” and “rulers” responsible for ruling.⁴ That’s why it’s so wrongheaded for Christians in power to wield Romans 13 like a weapon to suppress dissent. Rather than listening primarily to Paul’s words to subjects, they should be listening to the Bible’s words to rulers and counselors. Instead of so often shouting “submit to governing authorities” at those under them, political authorities ought to be listening more often to the biblical voices that shout messages to them—messages like “woe to you who write unjust laws” (Isaiah 10:1).

If we want to know what Scripture offers us for imagining how to engage political authorities when we do have more direct influence, then we need to soak in those portions of Scripture that address God’s people in similar circumstances. And Proverbs includes both political authorities and those who counsel them in its audience. In those circumstances, among other emphases, Proverbs calls us to make justice, and especially justice for the marginalized, central to our political advocacy.

So yes . . . Proverbs can help Christian political disciples read Paul’s politics wisely.

This post is directly derived from Michael J. Rhodes, “Reading Paul's Politics Wisely: Interpreting Romans 13:1–7 Intertextually with the Book of Proverbs,” Studies in Christian Ethics (2025).

---

1. Note: the Septuagint of Proverbs does not always match the Hebrew version that is behind our English translations, and indeed, the Greek version occasionally adds material, so that the versification doesn’t always match.

2. Brad Vaughn, Reading Romans with Eastern Eyes: Honor and Shame in Paul’s Message and Mission (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019), 167.

3. Although the significance of this fact is construed differently by commentators. For instance, Harink, following Yoder, believes that the fact that none of Paul’s audience are involved in this role is normative (Harink, Resurrecting Justice, 179-84). By contrast, Horrell argues that Paul’s teaching leaves open the possibility that Christians could be involved as “governing authorities” when the circumstances change (David Horrell, “The Peaceable, Tolerant Community and the Legitimate Role of the State: Ethics and Ethical Dilemmas in Romans 12.1-15.13,” Review & Expositor 100.1 [2003], 81-99).

4. Karl Barth, Community, State, and Church: Three Essays by Karl Barth (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2004), 137.