Bible students have long differed over the nature and role of civil government. The Bible tells us to “be subject to the higher powers” and to “submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake” (Romans 13:1; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13), but it also tells us that, “we ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). On the one hand, we are obligated to obey civil authorities, but on the other hand, civil authorities are not always right, and cannot always be obeyed.
- Following the birth of Christ, Roman authorities killed all male babies two years old and younger in the region of Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16). In compliance with God’s instructions, the parents of Jesus took Jesus to Egypt to prevent His death.
- The Jesus story reminds us of Pharaoh’s actions against the male babies of the Hebrews. He first ordered the Hebrew midwives to kill all male babies upon the birthing stools (a form of partial birth abortion, Exodus 1:15). The midwives refused to obey Pharaoh’s orders and God rewarded them with their own families. Pharaoh then ordered that all Hebrew male babies be thrown into the river (Exodus 1:22). “By faith” (Hebrews 11:23), the parents of Moses refused to comply with Pharaoh’s orders. They hid their son and took actions to preserve his life.
- The Babylonian government of Daniel’s time ordered the execution of any person who refused to worship Nebuchadnezzar’s idol god. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused to obey the king’s orders, and were miraculously delivered by God (Daniel 3).
- The Medo-Persian king, Darius, was convinced by Daniel’s political enemies to sign a law that forbade prayer to any man or god except Darius. The penalty was execution. Daniel deliberately disobeyed the injunction, but was miraculously delivered by God (Daniel 6).
- According to John, God cast down the civil government described as“the great whore of Babylon,” for persecuting and executing saints (Revelation 17:6; 18:24; 6:9-11).
- With the help and support of the Jews and their officials, the Roman government tortured and crucified the very Son of God.
- There are dozens of other Bible examples of godless and inhumane civil governments, and their nefarious practices. In the 2000 years since the completion of the Bible, hundreds of additional godless governments have slaughtered tens of millions of innocent people. Given this reality, and considering what is now happening in the US and other countries, it is wise for us to consider what the Bible teaches about civil government.
Romans 13: What God “Ordained”
A proper understanding of Romans 13 is essential to a proper understanding of civil government. At the heart of this understanding is a proper understanding of what God has “ordained” with respect to civil government. Many Bible students fall prey to Calvinistic errors with regard to “providence” when they read Romans 13:1. This error causes them to falsely conclude that God “appoints” specific leaders, administrations or regimes. They believe the ordination of such leaders to be a personal and direct act of God. This view is both false and dangerous. It leads people to conclude that one must not question or challenge civil officials regardless of their policies, lest one “be found even to fight against God,” to use the words of Gamaliel (Acts 5:39).
The context of Romans 13 shows that God ordains, not the style of government, or the personnel of government, but the function of government. This is easily seen from the context of Romans 13:1. Paul explains both the purpose and function of civil government:
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval. For he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer”(Romans 13:1-4).
People see the word “instituted” or “ordained” and automatically think of direct divine appointment of civil rulers. Some reach this conclusion because of their false views of providence and predestination. Others simply fail to distinguish between the dispensations of the Old and New Testaments. They attempt to interpret Romans 13:1 in a way that harmonizes with God’s governing methods during the Old Testament Jewish theocracy. Of course, the Old Covenant has been replaced with the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:7-13; 9:15-17; 10:15-20), and the Law of Moses has been replaced with the Law of Christ (Hebrews 7:12; Colossians 2:14). We are not under a theocratic system of governance today. As Jesus said, new wine cannot be stored in old wineskins.
Many people think instantly of Daniel 4:32 when they think of Romans 13:1 (governing authorities are ordained of God). Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar that he needed to learn the lesson that, “…the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will.” The phrases may sound similar, but the context is quite different. Babylon sacked Jerusalem, destroyed the Temple, and carried the Israelites away into captivity because God had “summoned” Babylon as His “bird of prey” (Isaiah 46:11) to execute His vengeance upon apostate Judah. Again, the Jewish religion was theocratic. The Jewish people were God’s “chosen” and “peculiar” nation (Exodus 19:5, 6). God intervened directly and miraculously at different times in both their preservation and their punishment. Those who believe that God continues to work through nations as He did under the Jewish theocracy need to answer this question: Which “nation” is now being directly and miraculously managed by God? Which “nation” is now God’s chosen and peculiar nation? None can be cited, because in this dispensation the church is God’s holy nation and peculiar people (1 Peter 2:9). The church is a spiritual, not a civic kingdom. It is “not of this world” (John 18:36). Paul’s instructions in Romans 13:1-4 address civic matters, not spiritual ones.
Implications For Other Institutions
Civil government is not the only divine institution. God also instituted the home and the church. If being “ordained” of God necessarily implies direct divine appointment of particular individuals in government, as some argue from Romans 13:1, then the institution of the home would imply direct divine selection of marriage partners, and the institution of the church would imply direct divine selection of church members (the individual “election” of Calvinistic predestination). Interestingly, some who reject Calvinistic election with respect to salvation accept it with respect to the appointment of civil authorities!
In instituting “the home,” God instituted the function and purpose of the home. In instituting the church, God instituted the function and purpose of the church. In instituting civil government, God instituted the function and purpose of civil government.
The God-Ordained Function Of Civil Government
If Romans 13:1 means direct [miraculous] divine installment of specific leaders or regimes, then God personally installed Hirohito as emperor of Japan, Mao Tse Tung as communist leader of China, Joseph Stalin as dictator of the Soviet Union, Pol Pot as communist leader of Cambodia, Adolf Hitler as fascist leader of Germany and Benito Mussolini as fascist leader of Italy. One would also have to say that God raised these men up for them to do what they did, which was to capriciously kill one hundred million people. God did not “ordain” state sponsored persecution and slaughter of Christians, as was done by Rome (Acts 12:1-3; Rev. 17:6; 18:24). He does not “ordain” the indiscriminate slaughter of people based upon their ethnicity, as done by Stalin, Hitler, Hussein, and Milosevic, nor does He ordain the current ethnic cleansing occurring in Mindanao, Philippines, the Sudan and elsewhere. God does not “ordain” the cruel and merciless slaughter of 1.5 million human babies every year in the US, and millions more each year in China and elsewhere. He does not “ordain” the passage of laws authorizing gay marriage and other godless behavior.
Some say that God directly appoints civil leaders, but that He does not cause or approve their actions. This won’t fit with their use of Daniel 4:32, for God didordain the function of the Babylonians and the Assyrians as instruments of His wrath. Assyria was “dispatched” by God in order to subjugate Israel, as Babylon was later “summoned” against Judah. Assyria served as “a rod” in God’s“hand” against the northern kingdom of Israel (Isaiah 10:5, 6). Those who believe the “ordaining” of Romans 13:1to be defined by God’s actions with respect to Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus and Sennacherib, must understand that God raised these men up because of what they would do as His punishing “servants” (Isaiah 46:11; 44:28; 45:1; 10:5). The functions of these men were as ordained as the men themselves.
So, what function does God have in mind for today’s civil authorities? The New Testament answers this question. It sets forth the divinely approved model of civil government. The purpose of government, as stated by the apostles (Romans 13:3, 4; 1 Peter 2:14), is to punish evildoers and approve those who do what is right. It is a government that is “not a terror to good works, but to evil.” It“praises” those who “do that which is good” (Rom. 13:3). Peter wrote, “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well” (1 Pet. 2:13-14).
God tells us to pray for civil authorities that we may lead “a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” (1 Tim. 2:2). The word translated “quiet” is a word that emphasizes tranquility arising from the absence of outward disturbance. The word translated “peaceable” emphasizes a tranquility arising from within (See W.E. Vine). While this is primarily a prayer passage, we learn from it an important function of civil rulers: They are to provide peaceful and secure conditions in which citizens are free to live lives according to divinely revealed principles of conduct and behavior.
The God-ordained model of government is one that:
- Provides for the safety and security of its citizens (1 Tim. 2:2).
- Provides an atmosphere in which its citizens may live peacefully, mind their own affairs, and work with their own hands, doing what is right for themselves, their families and their neighbors (1 Thessalonians 4:11; 1 Timothy 5:8; Rom. 13:1-10).
- Punishes those whose actions are harmful and detrimental to the divinely ordained function of society.
Any government that fails or refuses to follow this model cannot be classified as a God-ordained government.
An Observation About Taxation
Upon defining a God-ordained government, Paul said, “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing” (Rom. 13:6). There is linkage between one’s duty to pay taxes, and the function of his government. Taxes are to be paid to support a God-ordained government – that is, a government that meets the above described qualifications. This begs the question: What if one’s government begins executing citizens whom it deems “unproductive” to society? Should its “productive” citizens pay tax dollars to fund such executions? No, for just three verses later (Rom. 13:9), Paul condemns murder.
Some object to this, saying that Paul commanded Christians to pay their taxes even though Rome was killing innocent people. This argument overlooks two things: 1. Rome’s downfall was being divinely orchestrated even as Paul penned the Roman epistle, and 2. The argument assumes that the Roman government fits the paradigm of a God-ordained government, which it did not.
Others like to point out that Jesus paid taxes (Matthew 17:24-27). Of course, that tax was a Jewish tax that was exacted for the maintenance of the Temple (Ex. 30:11-16). And while Jesus did pay the Temple tax, He did so in order to avoid offense, and He miraculously fabricated the money that He used (Matthew 17:27). As for Matthew 22:17-21, Jesus answered the tax question by pointing out that the money belonged to the organization that printed it. Roman currency contained Caesar’s image and superscription, thus Jesus instructed, “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” His comments were intended to distinguish between two completely different and often-conflicting realms of activity – human government and divine. Rome was the fourth and final world empire of Daniel’s prophecy (Daniel 2). Again, its demise was already under way, and Jesus had certain knowledge of its fate.
Conclusion
Paul concludes his comments about civil government by explaining how [civil] laws are fulfilled when people fulfill “the royal law” or “second great commandment,” which is to “love your neighbor as yourself” (James 2:8; Matthew 22:39; Romans 13:8). He cites certain civil laws and explains how they are “briefly summarized” in the action of loving one’s neighbor. “Love does no harm to his neighbor: therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law” (Romans 13:10). Thus, the need for civil law is eliminated when citizens behave according to divine principles.
Solomon said, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34). “Righteousness” involves one’s treatment of his fellow man. When exercised by the members of any nation, the principles of righteousness will elevate that nation. Honesty, integrity, justice, fairness, generosity, personal responsibility and respect for others are just a few of the qualities that are embodied in righteousness. History tells us that as long as the people of a nation abide by these principles their nation is exalted.
Obviously, not all governments function according to the God-ordained model. When governments ignore or depart from their divinely specified function, they soon begin to infringe upon citizen’s rights, hindering their freedoms, crushing their spirits, and stifling their productivity. As we have seen, some governments become so wicked that they slaughter their own people. According to history, governments have committed ninety percent of the violence that has been inflicted upon mankind.
Because of their knowledge of biblical principles of conduct, Bible students are those who are best qualified to speak and act in ways that best influence government and society. Let us not be afraid to say and do what is necessary to cultivate a God-ordained government.
Tim Haile
Thank you so much for writing this article and helping me to understand Romans 13 in context. I go to Sonrise Church in Hillsboro, OR. My women’s bible study just finished Bible study on Romans 13: 1-7 and a few of the members I thought interpret this passage too literally or out of context. There is much controversy about what Paul means when he says God has “ordained” or “appointed” authorities in civil government. I didn’t know that it is a Calvinistic error: “They believe the ordination of such leaders to be a personal and direct act of God. This view is both false and dangerous.” Thank you for clariying. I searched the internet after Bible Study to and this is the best article I came across . . .
Unfortunately, you’ve completely missed it with this article. You made the same basic mistake that you do with MDR. You equate God recognizing/ordaining with His approval and that’s just not the case. Isaiah is full of descriptions of God using evil nations to accomplish His will. And by the way, if Jesus was only advocating paying the Temple tax, why did He say, “Render unto Caesar”?
Shawn, I hope you and your family are doing well.Thanks for the note.
1. You have greatly misunderstood me if you think that I do not acknowledge the difference between God’s seeing a thing and His approval of that thing. “The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding both the evil and the good” (Prov. 15:3). God’s seeing a thing does not equate to His approval of that thing. I find your observation quite interesting in view of the volume of material I have written on this very point. Since “all things are naked and exposed before the eyes of God” (Heb. 4:13), He sees all things, including unlawful divorces. He approves only of the innocent spouse who puts away his fornicator-mate (Matt. 19:9). Your objection proves that you still reject the Lord’s permission in this passage, and you somehow feel qualified to bar innocent spouses from exercising their God-given right. You continue to utterly ignore the context of Matthew 19:9 and insist upon some imaginary put-away status. The context of Matthew 19 (vs. 3-9) provides us with certain descriptions of this particular put-away woman. The Pharisees had asked if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife for just any cause. Jesus, in Matthew 19:8-9, answered that question in the negative, and He stated the consequences of doing such for both the putting-away man and the put-away woman: adulterous remarriage! The right of remarriage for the innocent spouse is not determined by the relative speed with which he takes repudiative action against his mate, but by whether or not he puts away his mate FOR FORNICATION.
2. The last time I checked, the book of Isaiah was a part of the Old Testament, and specifically of the Mosaic THEOCRACY. Under that theocratic form of government, God’s people, the Jews, were obligated to remain distinct and separate from all other nations (Lev. 11-20). God was King over the Jews, and their social, civil and religious functions were tied inextricably to their status as God’s peculiar nation. The Jewish nation was God’s uniquely chosen nation of people (Deut. 7:6; 5:2-3). If God continues to work today as He did in the days of Isaiah, then which modern nation is the nation of God’s special choosing? Some will say “the USA,” but such a claim is baseless and silly. Abortion, gay marriage and overall hedonism are not marks of a God-ordained “nation.”
As for your comment about the Temple tax and rendering to Caesar, I simply did not state or imply what you allege. I teach that Christians are responsible to pay their taxes as taught by both Jesus and Paul (Matt. 22:21; Rom. 13:7). Perhaps you misunderstood me.
Your response in #1 above simply proves my point. If someone puts away their spouse for a reason other than fornication, you call it an “imaginary put-away status” because God doesn’t approve of it. However, the passage calls it put away and denies the right of remarriage.
As for point #2, while Israel was God’s chosen nation, that did not prevent Him from bringing others to power in other nations and using them for His purposes.
And to the Temple tax issue, your whole point is that if you believe the government isn’t fulfilling its God-ordained role, then we have no responsibility to pay taxes. If that’s not the case, why is that section even in this article?
1. There is nothing about my response that proves your point, and be careful about your use of quotation marks. What you have done is flatly dishonest. I have never described any divorces as “imaginary.” I challenge you to find where I have ever said such a thing. You have dishonestly attributed to me a statement that I did not make and a position that I do not hold. Please correct this deliberate fabrication or you will no longer be permitted to post on our site. I do not have discussions with people who falsely accuse me. Please correct this public false charge at your earliest convenience.
Now to the point: I cited Scriptures proving that in “beholding evil,” God sees thoughts, words and actions that He does not approve. By “approve” I mean to accept and condone. God beholds unlawful divorces and “hates” them (Mal. 2:16). That is, he does not condone or accept them. The only way that one can be condemned by a sinful action is if God is aware of that action! All puttings-away (divorces) are REAL, but only some are approved. Some are “lawful” and some are unlawful. Jesus was asked whether or not it was “lawful” for a man to put away his wife for any cause. I will say it again, though you ignored it before: Matthew 19:9 allows an innocent spouse to repudiate his fornicator-mate and marry another without committing adultery. If one puts away his mate not for fornication and marries another he commits adultery. If a put-away fornicator marries another he commits adultery. If two people put each other away not for fornication, then both commit adultery upon remarriage.
2. You failed to answer my question about which current physical nation is God’s chosen nation. During Israel’s theocracy all nations were accountable to God, and they were DIRECTLY judged based upon God’s then standard. Assyria was a “rod” in God’s hand against Israel (Isa. 10:5). Babylon was God’s bird of prey against Judah. Both nations were later destroyed for their sin and cruelty. God’s people knew of God’s purposes with respect to these nations because they were TOLD by the prophets (see Jer. Dan. Isa. etc). What is God telling us today about such things? What Scripture can be produced that identifies God’s present-day chosen nation, and describes God’s present use of that nation and others? According to Scripture (Dan. 2, 8), the last world empire to be used by God was ROME. We are safe when proclaiming these truths, for God has revealed them (1 Pet. 4:11). Any additional allegations of such present interpositions by God is to speak suppositionally and without Scripture. It speculative and presumptuous.
Question: Since the land of Canaan has fallen into the hands of people who reject Christ as Lord, should we do as God once instructed His holy nation Israel and go conquer that land from those wicked people? After all, God then used nation against nation. Those on God’s side were told who they were and what they were to do. Where can we today go in Scripture to discover such divine preferences, plans and intentions with regard to God’s use of nations?
3. Last point: I would stop funding my government if it were to order the slaughter of innocent people (infanticide, euthanasia, ethnic cleansing…). Romans 13 sets forth the FUNCTION of a God-ordained government, which is to punish evil-doers and support those who do well. Few modern governments respect this model.
You used the phrase “imaginary put-away status” to falsely describe my belief on this passage. I described my position and attributed your terminology about said position to you by directly quoting you. Now I’m the one who is guilty of “deliberate fabrication,” and a “public false charge”? My conscience is clear in this matter and I’m content to let God judge. Whether you choose to ban me or not is really irrelevant, as I won’t be returning to this site any more.
As for the question about God having a chosen nation today, I didn’t fail to answer it. I ignored it because it is irrelevant. I don’t have to be able to identify where or when God acts in order to believe that He does. I cannot say for sure exactly when God acts in my life either, but I believe He does nonetheless. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t pray for Him to do anything. What would be the point?
Finally, since the U.S. government advocated the slaughter of innocent children when the Supreme Court upheld Roe v. Wade, your own argument demands that you would not have paid taxes since 1973, but I highly doubt that’s really what you’ve practiced.
Since I do believe that God is active today, I’ll be praying that you might understand His will in these matters more accurately in the future.
Shawn, this is quite interesting. I assumed that your criticism constituted disagreement on your part. You now deny holding the put-away status position, which is absolutely great! It means that you and I are now in agreement on the subject of the remarriage rights of an innocent spouse whose bound mate has committed fornication. You must now take the position that I have openly taught and defended, that neither a divorce-court judge nor a fast moving fornicator can eliminate the innocent spouse’s right to repudiate his fornicator-mate and marry another. Again, this is great news.
Of course, in fairness to me, you should be willing to admit that you did hold the put-away status view in the past. I know this because you and I have discussed this issue in the past and you used to argue that even the innocent spouse of a fornicator-mate was forbidden remarriage if the fornicator beat the innocent spouse in taking some type of civil divorce action. You forbade the innocent spouse the right to remarry on the basis of his being a put-away person (had obtained a put-away status). So, while I’m glad that you have now announced that you no longer hold this position, I must admit to having some difficulty in understanding the basis of your criticism of me, for if you renounce and reject the put-away status position, then we have no disagreement! I, as you now do, utterly reject the put-away status position. That is, I do not deny an innocent spouse the right to put away his fornicator-mate and marry another, even in cases where the innocent spouse was beaten to such action by the fornicator. As you now claim to admit, there is no “put-away status” by which the innocent spouse is knocked out of his right to exercise his God-given right merely because some divorce court judge has granted a divorce to a vow-breaking fornicator. In Matthew 19:9, Jesus granted the right to the innocent spouse to repudiate his fornicator-mate and marry another without committing adultery. That is what I believe. I believe that Jesus has more authority than divorce court judges and vow-breaking fornicators.
On the question of civil law: While we oppose abortion and the Roe/Wade ruling, the US is not actively killing these babies. It is the mother/father who are making such choices and taking such actions.Roe/Wade does not REQUIRE parents to kill their babies. The US does not force women to have abortions (as the Chinese government presently does). Thus, the parents are the ones responsible for the killing, not the government. While it would be great for Roe V. Wade to be overturned, it would be far better that parents quit killing their unborn babies!
The government also grants marriage licenses to homosexuals in several States. They do not force people to marry the same sex, but they do allow same-sex marriages, just as they also allow all types of adulterous marriages to be legally formed. While it would be great if the government refused to accept all [biblically-defined] unlawful marriages, it would be better for people to never seek such unions to begin with. Interestingly, even God allows humans the free agency and ability to commit various sins. Though God does not approve of sinful behavior, He nonetheless designed and equipped man with the ability to make free choices, both good and bad. So, while we would like for the government to legislate morality, given the history of human government, Americans should be thankful that at least the US government is not actively slaughtering its citizens, as is done by a host of other countries.
You imply that if one says that God works providentially today, rather than miraculously, then he denies that God is active. I reject your conclusion.
You also imply that the knowledge of God’s will can be obtained through prayer. Romans 10:17, 2 Timothy 2:15 and other passages teach that such knowledge is derived from Scripture.
I said I wouldn’t post again, but I feel the need to say one last thing, based on your final comment. Your willingness to twist words, to assign implications where none exist and to assign false conclusions to your brethren is unbelievable. I’ve experienced it before, so I don’t know why I’m so surprised. I really do hope and pray you are able to overcome this some day.
Shawn, you act as though I mistreated or misrepresented you, yet you have yet to provide me with any particulars as to when, how or where. I know your position, both from your own arguments and from those whom you support on this issue. As we have both confirmed, you and I have a history on this subject.
Perhaps you were upset with my facetiousness in my last posting. If so, please know that it was nothing more than an ad hominem teaching device. I meant no evil from it, and I have obviously made my point. My argument is valid: Either you take the position that the innocent spouse’s remarriage rights are nullified by the [faster, racier] actions of the vow-breaking fornicator, or you take the position that humans cannot nullify a SPECIFIC God-given right! There is no middle ground. You take either one position or the other. Your frustration with me is not because I have misrepresented you, for I did not, but because I have answered you. Your arguments (at least those that you have made in the past) lead inexorably to the conclusion that an innocent spouse’s right to remarry is determined, not upon the basis of his spouse’s fornication, but by whether or not the innocent spouse beats the fornicator in taking some repudiative action. I stand upon the unalterable and infallible ground of Matthew 19:9, and frankly don’t care what the fornicator may or may not accomplish at a court house or with any other procedural process. Jesus taught that an innocent spouse may repudiate his fornicator-mate and marry another without committing adultery. Enough said…
Tim, thank you for this article, which I wish I could have found much sooner. You have identified and resolved several major issues concerning Romans 13 and related issues.
I have studied this issue of civil government my entire adult life, but only in the last twenty years finally came to conclusions much like yours. Much of your thoughts (and mine) are also applicable to the government of the Lord’s body itself: the elders and the congregation. Given the situation in recent years in which more and more congregations that were (once) part of the Lord’s body, this is important today.
Given the situation, literally in the last few days and weeks and years, in which certain governments (including many in the States) HAVE indeed demanded that immoral and ungodly acts be performed by christians, and yet still seeing many who call themselves children of God still demand obedience to the “ordained authorities,” your discussion is more important today than 3 years ago.
Lest you think that there is another shoe to drop, the only concern I have with your discussion (including that with the frustrating Shane) is that you did not point out that the full statement of the Christ was “Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s,” and NOT a blanket command to pay taxes, either then or now. Without going into a detailed discussion of Roman government and economics, the difference between then and today in most nations is significant and further buttresses your argument regarding payment and nonpayment of taxes.
Tim, please forgive me: in going back and rereading the article, I see that you DID point out “… that which is Caesar’s” and applied that understanding.
Nathan