Paul’s words about authority, which cannot fail to be from God, often provoke inner resistance in readers of his letter. It is all too obvious that representatives of authority often use their “swords” not at all for good works, even in the sense in which they themselves understand good, and as for God’s laws there is no need to speak of them. Meanwhile the apostle’s words are far from so unambiguous, even if one approaches them formally and tears Paul’s statement about “authority not from God” out of context. In any case, they certainly cannot be used to support any particular authority: if every authority really is from God, then one can speak of the legitimacy of a particular authority and particular rulers only so long as that authority exists and those rulers remain in power. And in the event, for example, of a coup or a revolution, the new authority will have to be acknowledged, since it cannot fail to be from God.

Of course, supporters of the overthrown authority will speak of illegality, of rebellion, perhaps even of violating God’s commandment, but... as the poet said on this occasion, “rebellion cannot end in success: otherwise it is called by another name.” And if that is so, then the new authority too is “from God,” just like the former one. But in that case it is obvious that God does not directly support any authority. He simply allows it to exist, every kind and variety of it, depending on the situation and on the spiritual condition of the people that produces that authority. In such a case theologians speak not of God’s will but of His permission: not of what He supports, but of what He allows to exist without taking part directly in the process of its existence by His will. He allows it sometimes to avoid a worse alternative, and sometimes simply because there is no alternative.

In general, this attitude toward the state and state authority can be considered broadly biblical: the Bible knows no good authority at all. Authority can only be bad or very bad. Sometimes, with God’s help, it is possible to bring it about that in a particular place and at a particular time authority is not very bad, but no one has ever managed to make it good from God’s point of view. And still, there is no point in making political struggle an end in itself. For supporters of political messianism, of whom there were more than enough when the letter was written, this approach of the apostle was unacceptable: they were convinced precisely that the Messiah had to become an earthly king, and therefore religious-political struggle was for them something self-evident, as was the war for the Kingdom in which it would someday inevitably end.

For Paul, however, it was obvious that a war for the Kingdom against earthly authorities is absurd, because the Kingdom had already entered the world without any war, above all political barriers. But this does not remove the need to make a choice when, in conscience, one cannot obey earthly authority. It is no accident that the apostle says there is sense in obeying earthly authority not out of fear, but precisely for conscience’s sake, that is, when conscience does not condemn such obedience. But if something is done against conscience, obedience has no meaning: God does not need such obedience, for it then becomes an empty formality and only destroys that inner wholeness of the person without which normal spiritual life is impossible.

As long as obedience to earthly authority does not hinder Christian life, it is the most proper choice. But if such obedience destroys Christian life by forcing one to act against conscience, it loses all meaning and becomes spiritually destructive. This position is entirely understandable: the purpose of Christian life is to abide in the Kingdom, and everything that hinders such abiding must be removed from life, whether it is loyalty to earthly authority or the absence of such loyalty.

Reasoning about earthly authorities, Paul remains faithful to the witness about the Kingdom, which, according to the Savior's word, is "not of this world." He does not speak of loyalty to any particular authority and does not give preference to any state or social order. Indeed, if, according to the apostle's word, every authority is from God (vv. 1-2), this can only mean that God is indifferent to any particular form of authority, just as He is indifferent to the particular persons connected with the structure of power. Such an attitude toward the state and earthly authorities in general is possible only if the Kingdom and its action in our still not fully transformed world in no way depends on the activity of any earthly authority and is in no way determined by it. If one accepts the Kingdom as something precisely "not of this world," that is, as something that lives by laws having nothing to do with economics or sociology, this approach proves not only natural but the only possible one. The witnesses of the Kingdom, however, have to act in a world where the history of earthly states and governments has not yet ended, and therefore they need criteria for evaluating the actions of this earthly authority and knowledge of how to relate to it.

Here Paul is quite consistent: he, like Jesus Himself, speaks of the possibility for witnesses of the Kingdom to be loyal to any authority in matters that do not go beyond the bounds of "this world," such as taxes, the rules of public life established by the authorities, state institutions, and the like (vv. 5-7). The apostle, as is clear, by no means supports any messianic religious-political movements, whose representatives often denied secular statehood as such, believing that only the Messiah could establish a truly just state on earth, and that precisely this task would be His main one. Such political messianism was widespread in the Jewish milieu at that time, and it is not excluded that views of this kind could also penetrate the Church, so Paul evidently had to remind Christians of the true Kingdom that Jesus brought into the world.

But Paul does define the criterion for relating to the concrete actions of concrete representatives of authority: they are "God's servants" if they act "for good" (vv. 3-4). Evidently the apostle allows that a representative of secular, pagan authority, like any person, can do both good deeds and evil ones. Here too Paul is quite consistent: he does not deny pagans the possibility of knowing the "natural Torah" and following it. If a pagan is guided in his actions by the "natural Torah," then objectively he will not oppose the Kingdom and its witnesses. For the apostle, no authority is sacred in itself; in fact, he is not speaking so much about some abstract authority as about the people clothed with that authority. About people who stand in the same relation to the Kingdom as any person. No more and no less.

The passage about submission to governing authorities always raises many questions and disputes. But the apostle Paul is very specific and emphasizes two things in particular. The first is the necessity of the very principle of authority for every society. This does not mean regarding every person vested with authority as a “higher being,” but recognizing people's need to establish common rules for living together, without which no one can live in safety. Whatever a person's attitude toward other people may be, that person always demands justice and respect for his or her own rights. It is in this sense that the state is a necessary body of rules for the life of a human community.

The second point is also very important. According to the apostle Paul, the state cannot regulate matters of faith. Money and taxes, administration and the courts—all of this may fall within the state's jurisdiction. But every person's individual choice, as well as a person's attitude toward the actions of those in power, belongs to that person. No one has the right to deprive a person of the freedom to call a tyrant a tyrant; no one has the right to dictate what another person must believe.