Charlemagne and Romans 13: God, Authority, and Empire
Short answer: Charlemagne was crowned emperor in Rome on Christmas Day, 800, and for the first time in the West a single ruler claimed Christian empire over much of Europe. Romans 13:1-7 speaks directly to that arrangement. It says, "Let every soul be in subjection to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those who exist are ordained by God." That tells us government is not an accident; God ordains it. But the passage never makes any emperor absolute. Paul calls the ruler God's servant, appointed for good and authorized to punish evil. Charlemagne held real power, yet he stood under the same Word that all rulers do, accountable to God.
Who Charlemagne Was and What He Claimed
Charlemagne, or Charles the Great, was king of the Franks from 768 and ruled a realm that stretched across modern France, Germany, northern Italy, and beyond. He fought long campaigns against the Saxons, the Lombards, and Muslim forces in Spain, and he pressed conquered peoples to accept baptism. His reign was central to what historians call the Carolingian Renaissance, a revival of learning, schools, and manuscript copying that preserved much of the Latin literature we still have. On Christmas Day in 800, Pope Leo III crowned him emperor of the Romans in Saint Peter's Basilica. By that act a pope claimed the right to make an emperor, and an emperor claimed to rule a Christian empire.
That coronation mattered far beyond the ceremony. For centuries the eastern Roman emperor in Constantinople had held the title, and the West now had its own rival emperor. The move hardened a division between East and West that would eventually contribute to the schism between Rome and the Eastern churches. It also set a pattern: popes and emperors would argue for centuries over who held the higher authority. Charlemagne's empire did not long outlive him, but the idea of a Christian empire did. The title he received shaped politics, law, and the church's imagination across medieval Europe and, indirectly, down to modern debates about religion and state.
We should be careful not to turn Charlemagne into either a hero or a cartoon. He was a genuine patron of learning who gathered scholars like Alcuin of York and promoted reform of clergy and liturgy. He was also a warrior king whose conquests were often brutal, notably the long Saxon wars, where refusal to be baptized could be punished harshly. Roman politics, personal ambition, and sincere religious concern mixed together in ways that are hard for us to untangle. What we can say plainly is that he exercised vast authority over churches as well as over armies, appointing bishops, calling councils, and setting standards for worship.
So the question Charlemagne forces on us is not whether he was a good or bad man. It is what Scripture says about the authority he claimed and the authority anyone might claim over the conscience. Romans 13:1-7 is the passage most often cited in these discussions, and it deserves a careful reading. It tells us that governing authority comes from God and exists for our good. It does not tell us that any particular ruler is above correction, nor that Christians must obey commands that contradict God himself. Charlemagne's crown raises the question; Paul's letter gives the framework.
What Romans 13 Actually Says About Governing Authority
Paul begins with a sweeping command. Romans 13:1 says, "Let every soul be in subjection to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those who exist are ordained by God." The phrase every soul means exactly what it sounds like: no Christian is exempt, no matter how high or low their station. The word for subjection is not the same as worship or ultimate allegiance. It describes an ordered relationship, the way citizens live under a government, not the way creatures bow before their Creator. Paul is writing to believers in Rome, under a pagan emperor, not under a Christian one. That detail is easy to overlook.
Paul's reasoning is theological, not pragmatic. He does not argue that Rome deserves obedience because it is just, efficient, or friendly to Christians. He argues that authority itself has a divine origin. God is the one who ordains rulers, and so rebellion against rightful authority is not merely a political act. Verse 2 warns that whoever resists will receive judgment, and verse 3 explains why rulers usually exist: they are a terror to bad conduct, not to good. Paul writes as a realist. He knows governors do not always behave this way, but he describes the purpose for which God established them.
Then comes a remarkable statement. Verse 4 calls the ruler "a servant of God to you for good." The Greek word behind servant is diakonos, the same term used for ministers and deacons in the church. Paul applies a ministry word to a pagan emperor. That does not mean the emperor is a Christian minister or that he should run the church. It means God uses even secular rulers to accomplish his purposes: restraining evil, protecting the innocent, maintaining order. The ruler does not need to know God for God to use him. The whole framework of Daniel 4:17 fits here, where the Most High rules in the kingdom of men and sets up over it the lowest of men.
Verse 5 gives two reasons for submission: wrath and conscience. The first is practical. Governments punish lawbreakers, and Christians should not invite that punishment needlessly. The second is deeper. Conscience means we obey not merely to avoid trouble but because we are convinced God has ordered things this way. Then verses 6 and 7 move to taxes and respect: pay what is owed, whether revenue, custom, fear, or honor. Paul ends with a command that is easy to forget. He does not say, pay taxes to rulers you like. He says, render to all their due. The duty is tied to the office, not to the officeholder's personal merit.
The Limits Paul Leaves in Place
Romans 13 is sometimes read as if it made rulers absolute, but the passage itself limits them. The ruler is God's servant, which means he serves someone else. His authority is delegated, not original. A servant who turns against his master's purpose forfeits the moral ground of his service. Paul describes the ruler's task as praising good and punishing evil, so a ruler who praises evil and punishes good is acting against the very reason God ordained government. The passage does not say, obey whatever a ruler commands. It says authority is from God and rulers exist to do good, which quietly assumes a standard they can violate.
Scripture elsewhere makes the limit explicit. When the Sanhedrin ordered the apostles to stop teaching in Jesus' name, Peter answered that we must obey God rather than men. When Pharaoh commanded the killing of Hebrew boys, the midwives disobeyed and God blessed them. When Nebuchadnezzar demanded worship of a golden image, three men refused. Romans 13 does not cancel these examples; it sets them in a frame. The normal Christian posture is submission, and the exception is when a human command directly contradicts God's command. Even then, the biblical pattern is not armed rebellion but faithful refusal and willingness to bear the cost.
This is where the church has often gone wrong in both directions. Some have treated every ruler as God's anointed and blessed whatever the state did, including injustice. Others have turned every disagreement into a reason for revolt. Paul holds a middle course: honor the office, submit in ordinary matters, and refuse only when obedience to the state means disobedience to God. The early Christians were not revolutionaries. They served in the army, paid taxes, and prayed for the emperor, yet they would not burn incense to him. Their refusal was narrow, firm, and costly. That is a model most of us can apply without needing an empire.
Notice also that Paul never tells the church to seize the state. He does not call believers to install a Christian emperor or to govern through the sword. That is a striking silence given the power of Rome. Jesus himself said in John 18:36, "My Kingdom is not of this world. If my Kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight, that I wouldn't be delivered to the Jews." His kingdom advances by witness, not by conquest. When the church later gained the empire, the temptation was to reverse this and use the sword for the gospel. Charlemagne's reign shows how strong that temptation became.
Charlemagne's Crown and the Temptation of Christendom
The coronation of 800 created a new idea in the West: Christendom, a single society in which church and state were two arms of one Christian order. In theory the emperor protected the church and the church blessed the emperor. In practice each used the other, and both used the sword. Charlemagne's Saxon wars are the clearest example. Conversion was tied to conquest, and baptism could be compelled. Whatever political benefit this produced, it confused the sign of faith with the power of the state. The New Testament knows nothing of coercing baptism, and it presents faith as a response to hearing the word, never as a surrender under threat.
Romans 13 can be misused here. If the ruler is God's servant and God has ordained government, someone might argue, then a Christian emperor may rightly enforce true religion, and resisting him is resisting God. But Paul is describing the restraint of evil, not the promotion of the church. The ruler's task in the passage is punishing wrongdoing among evildoers in general. It is not teaching doctrine, administering sacraments, or deciding who belongs to God's people. When emperors and kings claimed that role, the church lost its prophetic voice. Instead of calling rulers to account, church leaders became court officials with a stake in the empire's success.
There is a better way to read the passage. Because rulers are servants of God for good, the church can hold them to that standard in plain speech. A ruler who protects the innocent, punishes the guilty, and keeps peace is doing God-given work, no matter his personal faith. A ruler who uses the sword against the innocent, silences faithful preaching, or claims the place of God is not exercising authority but abusing it. Prophets did this in Israel, and John the Baptist did it with Herod. Loyalty to the state and honest criticism of the state are not opposites; they belong together. Charlemagne's reign needed that kind of honest voice and rarely received it.
This does not mean that a society cannot be influenced by Christian conviction. It means the influence should come through persuasion, good works, and faithful witness, not through the arm of the state. Christians may promote just laws, serve in government, and seek the good of their neighbors. But the moment the church holds the sword over conscience, she has adopted a method foreign to the gospel. The cross is not a weapon of coercion. Jesus did not send his disciples to compel the nations but to make disciples among them, teaching them to observe all he commanded. The difference is not small, and history has proved it repeatedly.
What This Means for Christians and Governments Today
Most of us will never meet an emperor, but we live under authorities of some kind, and Paul still speaks. We pay taxes, obey traffic laws, serve on juries, and submit to court orders. Romans 13 says that is not a compromise; it is Christian obedience. We also honor rulers we did not vote for and would not choose. Verse 7 lists respect and honor among our debts, and it does not qualify them by the ruler's character. This is not servility. It is a settled confidence that God is at work even in political arrangements we dislike. If Proverbs 21:1 is true, that the king's heart is in Yahweh's hand like the watercourses, then no election result or palace intrigue is outside his rule.
At the same time, we are not called to silence. Paul himself answered governors and appealed to Caesar. Christians may critique unjust laws, petition rulers, and work for reform. Daniel served in Babylon and Persia while remaining faithful to God. Joseph advised Pharaoh. The church can be a blessing to any state by being honest, industrious, and peaceable, and by refusing to flatter the powerful. What we may not do is treat any political program as the kingdom of God or any candidate as its savior. Politics matters, but it cannot bear the weight of salvation. When it is asked to, it crushes both the church and the society it claims to serve.
The hard cases remain hard. What does submission require under a regime that commands what God forbids or forbids what God commands? Scripture gives us patterns, not a single rule that answers every scenario. Peter and John refused to stop preaching and accepted the consequences. Corrie ten Boom's family hid Jews, at great cost, because obedience to a murderous law would have meant sharing in murder. Christians have differed over whether, in extreme cases, armed resistance against a tyrant is permissible. Faithful believers have reached different conclusions. What all agree on is that ordinary submission is the default and that God must be obeyed above every human authority.
Prayer is part of this, not a retreat from it. 1 Timothy 2:1-2 says, "I exhort therefore, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and givings of thanks be made for all men," including kings and all in authority, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life. Prayer for rulers is political action in the deepest sense. It acknowledges that the God who ordains governments also directs them. And 1 Peter 2:13-17 tells us to subject ourselves for the Lord's sake, honoring the king as supreme, yet living as free people who fear God. That is the posture Charlemagne's empire did not always model and which we are still learning.
Reading the Coronation in Light of Romans 13
Does Romans 13 justify Charlemagne's empire? Not in the way his court theologians imagined. The passage grants rulers genuine, God-ordained authority to maintain order and punish evil. It does not grant them authority over the conscience, the gospel, or the church's worship. Charlemagne's rule over church appointments and his use of force in religion went beyond anything Paul describes. Where he protected the weak, promoted order, and advanced learning, he was doing a ruler's work. Where he compelled faith, he was claiming a power God had not delegated. The same test applies to any government: does it do the good God intends, or does it reach for what belongs to God alone?
It is worth saying clearly what the passage does not establish, because it has been misused in every century. Romans 13 does not say that whatever a government does is right. It does not say that every ruler is personally chosen by God for a special destiny. It does not say that Christians may never criticize, resist, or disobey. It does not say that the church should be absorbed into the state. And it does not say that political power is a legitimate tool for spreading the gospel. A common misreading today treats Romans 13 as a blank check for any authority, which turns God's servant into God's replacement. That is not what Paul wrote, and it is not what the early church practiced.
Charlemagne is a useful case study precisely because he is complicated. He is not a Bible villain and not a saint of the faith. He was a powerful man who did real good and real harm, and the church of his day often blessed the harm because it benefited from the power. Romans 13 would have reminded everyone involved that the emperor was a servant, not a master, and that his authority was given for the good of ordinary people, not for the aggrandizement of his own house. The reminder still stands. Whenever the state grows too large or the church grows too cozy with it, we need this chapter read carefully again, aloud, in full.
The deepest point of the passage is not about politics at all, but about trust. Paul tells the Roman Christians to submit because he believes God is sovereign even over pagan emperors and nowhere near losing control of his world. That confidence frees us from fear of rulers and from the need to fight for our own advantage through them. We can honor authority, pray for leaders, obey just laws, refuse unjust ones, and leave the outcome to God. Empires rise and fall; Rome fell, and Charlemagne's came and went. The kingdom Paul served does not pass, and its king is not crowned by any pope or parliament.
Biblical fidelity check
What Romans 13:1-7 establishes is this: governing authority derives from God, rulers are his servants for good, and Christians normally submit and honor them. The passage describes a general purpose for government, not a guarantee about every ruler's conduct, and not a license for governments to claim absolute loyalty. It also does not address the question of a Christian empire or of state-enforced religion, both of which Charlemagne's reign raised. To use the passage to bless compulsory baptism or the sword in spiritual matters is to read into Paul something he never wrote. He writes about punishing evildoers and praising good, about taxes and respect, not about governing the church.
A common misreading says that whoever holds power is God's appointed ruler and therefore must never be opposed. This turns a delegated ministry into an absolute right and ignores the rest of Scripture, where God's people disobey unjust commands and prophets rebuke kings. It also confuses God's sovereignty with human infallibility. God ordains rulers, but rulers remain accountable to him and often face his judgment, as Daniel 4:17 makes plain. The right reading holds both truths: submit to authority, and obey God first. Charlemagne's crown should remind us that even the mightiest emperor holds power by permission, serves as a servant, and answers to the King of kings.
Other passages that speak to Romans 13:1-7
Several related studies help fill out the picture of authority, conscience, and the Christian life. You can explore What Does 1 John 1:1 Mean? Context, Theology, and Application for the apostolic witness that grounds our obedience, and What Does 1 John 1:8 Mean? Context, Theology, and Application for honesty about sin in a world of power. For the forgiveness that every ruler and citizen needs, see 1 John 1:9 Meaning: Confession, Forgiveness, and Cleansing. And for the warning against loving the world's power, read What Does 1 John 2:15 Mean? Context, Theology, and Application, which steadies the heart before any empire.
Frequently asked questions
Does Romans 13 require Christians to obey every government command?
No. Romans 13 commands normal submission and honor because God ordains authority for good. But when a human command directly contradicts God's command, Scripture shows God's people obeying God rather than men. Peter and John kept preaching when forbidden, and the Hebrew midwives refused to kill. The New Testament pattern is faithful refusal of the specific unjust command, not blanket revolt. Ordinarily we obey; when conscience is bound, we obey God and accept the cost.
Was Charlemagne's empire a fulfillment of Romans 13?
Not in any simple way. Romans 13 gives rulers authority to keep order and punish evil, and Charlemagne did some of that. But he also used force in religious matters and exercised control over church appointments, going beyond the passage's scope. The chapter describes a ministry of restraint and public good, not the enforcement of baptism or doctrine. To claim the latter is to exceed what God delegated. His reign is better read as a warning about church and state blending.
Should Christians today obey rulers they did not vote for?
Yes, ordinarily. Paul wrote to believers under a pagan emperor and told them to pay taxes, show respect, and submit, not because Rome deserved it but because God ordained authority. Proverbs 21:1 says the king's heart is in Yahweh's hand like the watercourses. That frees us from fear and from the need to fight every political battle. We may work for change, but our default posture is honor, prayer, and peaceable obedience.
