As I write this, political authorities in the United States are preparing for another wave of the Covid-19 virus. Already, hospitals and universities in New York are re-instituting mask mandates, and the development of a new vaccine is underway.
Christians who remember the previous iteration of the Covid pandemic are understandably frustrated. The many guidelines strained pastors and made their work as shepherds of God’s flock undeniably difficult. Moreover, many of the directives were unequally enforced such that corporate worship was ruled a public health threat while sordid activities like gambling were not.
While few Christians denied that selective enforcement of Covid guidelines was unjust, many argued against any civil resistance on the basis of Romans 13. Scripture unequivocally commands us to “be subject to the governing authorities,” so they said, and that includes the President, local health officials, the CDC, and Anthony Fauci.
While that may be one application of the text, it is certainly not the only one. In fact, Protestants—especially Reformed and Presbyterian traditions—have a long tradition of incorporating Romans 13 into their rationale for civil resistance.
As the church faces new confrontations with government power, including the possibility of another pandemic, perhaps the best preparations it can make include growing in their knowledge of the Bible.
Romans 13 and two kingdoms theology
Romans 13:1-7 is sometimes called a political theology in itself “since it contains the longest discourse on believers’ relationship to governing authorities.”1 But is that a good way to think about this passage?
Generally speaking, we should be careful about isolating specific texts from the rest of Scripture. The Westminster Divines were keen to acknowledge “the consent of all the parts” of Scripture, meaning the parts are divinely designed to be read with and against each other (WCF 1.5). If we want to gather the whole counsel of God on the topic of government, we must consult the entirety of God’s revealed Word.
Moreover, we should read a passage like Romans 13:1-7 in its particular context—in this case, within a larger section mostly focused on application. To read the passage as an excursion from Paul’s practical imperatives in Romans 12 requires justification on the interpreter’s part. It is this writer’s opinion that no such justification exists on the merits of the text. Romans 13 cannot be divorced from Romans 12 nor from what precedes it in Romans 1-11.
As Scott Murray cogently argues, it is not insignificant that Paul’s instructions concerning obedience to the Roman authorities comes after an exposition of the justification of sinners:
Our response to earthly authority has as its backdrop our exalted status in the presence of a gracious God, who has redeemed us through the blood of his own Son and counted us not guilty in his sight. That reality of our justification in the sight of God also has powerful implications for how we live out our life in this world. Romans 13 is set squarely in the midst of a larger section (Romans 12-13), in which Paul discloses the implications of living in the old age when we are the justified children of the new age.2
The larger theological context is the reality of living in “the in-between times” or what is sometimes called the already and not-yet.3 What Lutherans like Murray often describe as a tension simply reflects a dual reality for Christians on this side of glory. Many evangelicals today are wary of dualisms, but that is no excuse for ignoring the obvious distinctions Scripture makes between the earthly and the heavenly—between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of man.
Christ himself affirms the distinction in Matthew 22:17-22. When confronted by the Pharisees about the Roman tax, Jesus distinguishes between obligations to earthly authorities and those owed to heavenly authority: “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Christ acknowledges a distinction between two kingdoms—civil and spiritual—each with their own sphere of authority.4
But that is not to say the two are so different as to be completely and totally independent from one another. In fact, the two are related by virtue of man’s nature—he is at the same time body and soul. Thus, there is a “unity and integrity of the two kingdoms within the daily life of the Christian person.”5
An exegetical look
From the start, Paul acknowledges the spirit-body reality of human experience. In v. 1, Paul uses the Greek word ψυχη meaning “soul” to address men. Obeying government authorities is not something segregated to the material body but has a spiritual dimension as well.
Moreover, Paul means to convey a universal obligation for all people (“Πασα ψυχη”), meaning what is true for Christians is also true for non-Christians. Thus, it is impossible to reject God’s claim on the public sphere as so many secularists do today. “Earthly government is not some God-free zone,” Murray says, “or a morally neutral sector of human endeavor.”6
Paul goes on to base his argument in the authority which government receives from God (“ὑπο θεου”). No one sits on the throne apart from God’s sovereign decree (Daniel 2:21), nor are the fate of nations beyond God’s control (2 Chronicles 20:6; Psalm 22:28; Psalm 103:19; Isaiah 45:6-7; Daniel 4:35).
Thus, disobeying God’s ordained temporal authorities is akin to disobeying his divine authority (v. 2). This, of course, raises the question of the Christian’s right to resist evil or unjust authorities—an issue which I will discuss momentarily.
For now, it is sufficient to say vv. 3-4 present the picture of just government: “For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.” A magistrate who governs as he should, acknowledging his authority comes solely from God and ruling according to God’s ways, will punish evil and praise the good (1 Peter 2:14). That Paul has in mind the moral law as established by God is confirmed by remembering Romans 13 exists in context with Romans 12. Throughout the passage, “good’ (ἀγαθος) repeatedly refers to the heavenly good. The idea that Paul suddenly means to convey the good according to worldly authorities does not fit with the context.
Thus, we can confidently state Paul has in mind an ideal political arrangement where government authorities rule justly and Christians live out their calling as faithful citizens in obedience to God. This especially in situations when Christians are victims of personal attack. Notice that Paul calls the magistrate an ἐκδικος (“an avenger”) who bears God’s wrath for public justice. The Greek root appears earlier in Romans 12:19: “Beloved, never avenge (ἐκδικουντες) yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance (ἐκδικησις) is mine.’”
While personal revenge is fine by the world’s standards, Christians demonstrate their faith in God and his providence by seeking justice through God’s ordained means; namely, his civil servant (“διακονος”) vested with earthly authority. This again relates to what we have already said about government’s divine ordination. Christ is head over all, including the state. But we see here in Romans 13:1-7 that his power and authority in civil affairs “is mediated through earthly civil rule.”7
Finally, Paul applies submission to the area of taxpaying. He encourages Christians to pay what they owe, again reminding them that the government authorities are “ministers of God” attending to their divine calling (“προσκαρτερουντες” literally translates to “devoting themselves”). “λειτουργοι” refers to the public service activities of government (like building bridges or fixing roads). Its roots are “in the sacrificial offerings brought to the temple,” says Murray, giving Paul’s words here “a sacral ring.”8 Again, magistrates are God’s ministers and therefore deserving of Christians’ obedience, respect, and honor (v. 7).
While fairly straightforward, Romans 13:1-7 creates a dilemma for Christians since the ideal described by Paul hardly manifests in real life—a fact the apostle knew by witnessing the reigns of Emperors Caligula and Nero. Perhaps even more difficult is applying Romans 13 when the actions of government are mixed. Nearly every regime in history has punished murder and theft while generally striving for some level of social tranquility. These are noble endeavors not to be taken lightly and worthy of our support as Christians, especially considering our knowledge of the depravity of man. Things are often not as bad as we know they could be, a blessing from God for which we are grateful.
However, history gives us examples when Christian peoples exercised a right to revolution—sometimes justified on the basis of Romans 13:1-7 which we just said compels our submission and obedience! How can that be? We will now examine the question of political rebellion from a Christian perspective.
Resistance justified?
On January 30, 1750 a Congregationalist minister in Boston rose to deliver a special sermon for a special occasion. Rev. Jonathan Mayhew was the minister at Old West Church, a congregation which the future President, John Adams, was also known to attend on occasion.
On that cold, winter morning, Mayhew chose Romans 13:1-7 as his sermon text. It was, perhaps, a slightly surprising passage to preach that day because it was also the 100th anniversary of the execution of Charles I. In his sermon, “Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers,” Mayhew addressed the question of applying Romans 13:1-7 in a fallen world: “How far are we obliged to submit?” If the answer is always, is that reasonable? What if the magistrate commands us to do something evil? If the answer is sometimes, “Where shall we stop?” An underdeveloped theology of resistance, Mayhew acknowledged, could lead “to the total dissolution of civil government” and “introduce such scenes of wild anarchy and confusion, as are more fatal to society than the worst of tyranny.”9
Mayhew began by articulating what I’ve already demonstrated above, namely that “civil rulers, as they are supposed to fulfill the pleasure of God, are the ordinance of God.” The conditional clause is key: submission, according to Mayhew, depends in some measure on the civil magistrate’s obedience to the moral law.
It is important to note that Mayhew was not alone in his view. John Calvin, commentating on Titus 3:1, another Pauline text about obeying civil authorities, also recognized the implied condition: “When we obey men who rule in accordance with his will, we obey the one who first appointed him” (emphasis mine).10
From that we draw the opposite conclusion: Obeying civil authorities when they disregard God’s moral law and rule unjustly is not obedience to the true, divine authority. For example, if the civil magistrate ordered us to administer “gender-affirming care” to our child, we would not only be justified but obligated to disobey the earthly power in submission to the heavenly one. Mayhew agreed. Indeed, there must be embedded in Romans 13:1-7 a right to resistance in certain cases or else “there can be no safety for the good.”
So when is resistance justified? Refusing a single order is one thing, but what about deposing a civil authority? How do we decide when a magistrate has crossed the line, requiring not just our resistance but outright rebellion?
Historically, Protestants have answered that question in different ways, but I will focus on what is often called the doctrine of the lesser magistrate.
The genesis of the doctrine of the lesser magistrate, Glenn Moots says, was Protestantism’s preference “to take the responsibility for resistance out of the hands of individuals, if possible, and assign it to other civil authorities.”11 Doing so necessarily elevated the common good over individual judgments based on personal conscience. Evangelicals today often accuse early Americans as advancing an individualist cause antithetical to the Bible. But it is important to remember that their understanding of natural rights was much different than the “abstractions” popular today. Early Americans Protestants, many of whom advanced the cause of the American Revolution in the late eighteenth century, would have thought about rights less in the modern liberal sense than the traditional one, rooted in the rule of law.12
Since the end of government is securing the common good of the people, the people could appeal to a lesser authority with the same vocational calling when the higher authority reneged on its duty. Theirs was the same responsibility according to the authority invested in them by God. We see then that even in resistance, the doctrine of the lesser magistrate still depends on principles based on Romans 13:1-7.
So rebellion is justified sometimes, but that does not mean it is always the best course of action. Protestants were adamant that “all civil action—especially rebellion—has to be approached using prudence.”13
Those who lived through the religious wars of the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries knew of the fragility of civilization—a reality lost on many of us today living amidst such decadence. Rebelling against an unjust ruler did not guarantee his replacement would be better. War creates factions, so rebellion could lead to civil war or outright anarchy. Thus, prudence dictates when revolution is a proper course of action and follows closely along the lines of just war theory, including the assumption of a reasonable probability of success.14
Conclusion
The goal of this essay was to further explore the complete meaning of Romans 13:1-7 in light of its immediate and broader context. By looking at the passage exegetically, I demonstrated its connection to Romans 12 and how to draw from it important principles for a biblical theology of government—including the proper end of government and the duties of magistrates who lead it. Finally, we looked at the question of application, specifically the question of civil resistance.
While there is much more one could say about this passage, my hope is that what little I have offered can bolster pastors and laypeople in their biblical knowledge on such topics and encourage them to faithfulness in our politically disruptive times.
Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ-A Pauline Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001), 447.
Scott R. Murray, “Romans 13:1-7 and the Two Kingdoms,” Logia 30, no. 1 (Epiphany 2021): 7.
Murray calls this “the cosmological equivalent of the simul justus et preccator.”
Two kingdoms theology has had something of a renaissance lately, probably as a reaction against the “transformationalist,” “Neo-Calvinist,” or “Kuyperian” theology predominate among the young, restless, and reformed movement of the late 90’s and early 2000’s. And while it may be partly a reaction, it is also retrieval of classic magisterial Protestant political theology. Nearly all the Reformers, including Luther and Calvin, as well as many of the classic Reformed confessions and creeds affirm a version of two kingdoms theology. For a simple and short introduction to a Presbyterian two kingdoms theology see Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2022), 300-309.
Murray, 8; There are those in conservative Reformed circles who would insist on a much sharper division between the two kingdoms—what is sometimes called radical two kingdoms. But in closing off one kingdom from the other, they effectively disintegrate the lived human experience as an embodied soul. It is for that reason, Murray goes so far as to call radical two kingdoms theology “a Nestorian doctrine of church and state.”
Murray, 8.
Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism, 300.
Murray, 13.
Jonathan Mayhew, “Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers,” in The Pulpit of the American Revolution, or The Political Sermons of the Period of 1776, ed. John Wingate Thornton (Boston, MA: Gould and Lincoln, 1860).
John Calvin, Sermons on Titus (Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth, 2015), 230.
Glenn Moots, “Resistance and Rebellion” in Protestant Social Teaching: An Introduction (Davenant Press, 2022), 54-55.
Moots, 55.
Moots, 56.
Stephen Wolfe argues for the right to resistance on similar grounds, claiming a tyrant is really “a private man waging an unjust war against the people. With force, the people can pressure him to act justly, remove him from office, or declare separation and independence (when possible). Since the people resist an aggressor, revolution is a type of defensive war.” The reader should note that Wolfe is arguing for a right to revolution that can be mediated through lesser magistrates but does not require them. As political sovereignty rests in the consent of the governed, the banding together of a resistance movement lends authority to the group in itself. However, just war principles still apply. Though resistance may be permissible it does not necessarily make it just. See Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism, 334.
 | A guest post by
|