Do Christians have to obey the laws of the land?

Scripture is very careful to press the respect and obedience which are due to authority, but it is not a Christian's work to occupy himself with settling questions of the earth. He has nothing to do with the ways and means whereby kings or other governors have reached their place of authority. There may have been wars, and revolutions, and all sorts of questionable means for them to arrive at such exaltation. What he has to do is to obey, as a matter of fact, those who are in authority. "Let every soul be subject unto higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." (Rom. 13:1.) Scripture does not demand obedience to the powers that ought to be, but to "the powers that be." No doubt this may expose to danger where a revolutionary leader usurps authority for a season; but God will care for results, and the duty of the Christian remains simple and sure. He obeys the powers that be. Notwithstanding, all obedience in man has its limits. There are cases where the Christian is bound, I do not say to be disobedient, still less to set up his own authority (which is never his duty), but "to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29.) Where earthly authority demands sin against God, for instance where a Government interferes with and forbids the stewardship of the believer in proclaiming the name of Christ, it is evident that it is a question of a lower authority setting aside the highest. Consequently the principle of obedience to which the Christian is bound forbids his being swayed by what is of man to abandon what he knows to be the will of God.

"Let every soul be subject to authorities in power. For there is no authority save from God, and those that exist are ordered by God: so that he that sets himself against the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those that resist shall receive judgment for themselves. For rulers are not a fear for the good work but for the evil. Dost thou wish then not to be afraid of the authority? Do good, and thou shalt have praise from it; for it is God's servant to thee for good; but if thou do evil, fear; for not in vain doth it wear the sword; for it is God's servant, an avenger for wrath to him that does evil. Wherefore [it is] needful to be subject not only on account of wrath but also on account of conscience. For on this account ye pay tribute also; for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing." (Ver. 1-6.)

The holy wisdom of the exhortation is as worthy of God, as the suitability of all that is taught is apparent for those who, though not of the world, yet have relative duties in it, as they wait for the Lord and are called to do the will of God meanwhile. By a gradual transition we are brought from not avenging ourselves, and overcoming evil with good, as becomes the children of God, to our relation to the authorities in the world whose office it is to avenge evil, punishing evil-doers, and praising those that do well. It was pre-eminently in place from the apostle writing to the saints in the great metropolis of the Gentile world, imperial Rome. No otherwise had the apostle of the circumcision exhorted the christian Jews scattered over the East. The falsehood, the folly, the impurity, the abominations of the Gentiles would naturally expose those who mingled their idolatries with the civil power to find the latter jeoparded when souls discerned and rejected the former in the light of Christ. Hence the exceeding moment of pressing the place which worldly authority should have in the conscience of the saints from among either Jews or Gentiles as of God, spite of the heathenism of those who were in possession of it. "Let every soul" is more comprehensive (and I cannot doubt so intended of the Spirit) than every saint. No position exempts. The household too ought to feel it, children or other dependent relations and servants, as well as believers. It is laid down purposely in the broadest terms: compare Romans 2:9. If the verb be regarded as in the middle voice, it would express the willingness of the subjection so much the more strongly: just as the other side, "he that sets himself against," is seen in verse 3.

Again, "authorities in power" (ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις) is an expression that embraces every form of governing power, monarchical, aristocratic, or republican. All cavil on this score is therefore foreclosed. The Spirit insists not merely on the divine right of kings but that "there is no authority except from God." Nor is there an excuse on this plea for change; yet if a revolution should overthrow one form and set up another, the Christian's duty is plain: "those that exist are ordained by God." His interests are elsewhere, are heavenly, are in Christ; his responsibility is to acknowledge what is in power as a fact, trusting God as to the consequences and in no case behaving as a partisan. Never is he warranted in setting himself up against the authority as such; for this were to resist the ordinances of God, and those that resist shall receive judgment for themselves. For it is by no means "damnation," but "sentence," or the charge for which he is condemned. Scripture is ever sober, as the apostle said he was, for our sakes: if he were ecstatic, it was for God, as it might well be. Other scriptures show that, where the authority demands that which is offensive to Him, as for instance that an apostle should speak no more of Jesus or that a Christian should sacrifice to an idol or an emperor, we must obey God rather than man, but suffering, not resisting, if we cannot quietly leave the scene of persecution. For it is evident that it is impossible to plead God's authority for obeying a command which dishonours and denies Him. Every relation has its limits in conduct which virtually nullifies it; and that is a requirement which undermines its own authority by antagonism to Him who set it up. But Calvin seems to speak unwarrantably when he goes so far as to say that tyrannies are not an ordained government; and those who listened to him or shared his thoughts have proved that they did not count it beneath Christians to take an active part in overthrowing what they considered tyrannical.

It is a wholly inadequate apprehension to regard the magistrate on the side of man only. Not that he may not be chosen in ever so various a form by man, but that he is God's servant, as here repeatedly said. He is His servant for good, not for evil. But if you practise evil, what then? Fear; for not in vain does he wear the sword; for he is God's servant, an avenger for wrath to him that does evil. To see God in the magistrate brings in conscience. Wherefore one must need be subject not only on account of wrath (this would be merely a question of consequences from man), but also on account of conscience. "For on this account also ye pay tribute." This is connected with the foregoing exhortation as to magistrates, and prepares the way for more general relationships in the world. "For they are God's ministers [or officers], attending diligently unto this very thing." Thus they are designated God's διάκονοι and also His λειτουργοί, the one as doing the work prescribed to them in keeping the order of the world in obedience to the laws, the other as public functionaries or officially appointed to it. The payment of φόρος was for the administation of government, a tribute or tax on persons or property or both, as τέλος was on merchandize and therefore fairly translated "custom." Hence the apostle (ver. 7) exhorts, "Render to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour." The greater and the lesser are thus taken in, each in its just measure; which the Christian can heartily say, inasmuch as he is entitled to acknowledge God in all without seeking anything for himself. For we are here occupied with what is of God in the repression of evil, and hence external to the proper sphere of christian life, save as honouring God in every respect,

All this is perfectly marvellous; but thus it is, and we, as Christians, are called to act on this morally glorious principle. It may be said, by some, "How could we ever get on in the world, how could we conduct our business, on such a principle as this? We should be robbed and ruined; designing people would take advantage of us, if they knew that we would not go to law with them; they would take our goods, or borrow our money, or occupy our houses, and refuse to pay us. In short, we could never get on in a world like this, if we did not assert our rights and establish our claims by the strong hand of power. What is the law for but to make people behave themselves? Are not the powers that be ordained of God for the very purpose of maintaining peace and good order in our midst? What would become of society, if we had not soldiers, policemen, magistrates and judges? And if God has ordained that such things should be, why should not His people avail themselves of them? And not only so, but who so fit to occupy places of authority and power, or to wield the sword of justice as the people of God?

There is, no doubt, very great apparent force in all this line of argument. The powers that be are ordained of God. The king, the governor, the judge, the magistrate are, each in his place, the expression of the power of God. It is God who invests each with the power which he wields; it is He who has put the sword into his hand, for the punishment of evil-doers, and the praise of them that do well. We bless God with all our hearts for the constituted authorities of the country. Day and night, in private and in public, we pray for them. It is our bounden duty to obey and submit ourselves to them, in all things, provided always that they do not call upon us to disobey God, or do violence to conscience. If they do this, we must — what? Resist? Nay, but suffer.

Are we, then, at liberty to disregard human law on such a matter, because it may go beyond the requirements of God's word? No Christian should accept such a proposition for a moment. We are to "be subject to the higher powers. For there is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained of God" (Rom. 13:1) We are to be obedient to rule (Titus 3:1) and to submit ourselves to every human institution for the Lord's sake, as Peter (1 Peter 2:13) exhorts us. Are we, then, advocating a blind subjection to earthly rule? By no means. For when human commands conflict with the divine word this same apostle has taught us how to act, as he, with the other apostles boldly told the Sanhedrin. "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). But in this matter there is no conflict of authority — God's word does not enjoin on us the contracting of such unions as those of which we write, though it permits them. No one, therefore, is under divine obligation to do in this matter what the law of the land will not sanction. The Christian is clearly bound to respect such an enactment, though it may curtail the freedom allowed him by God's word. For the Lord's sake this law of the land should be respected by the child of God.

Were the civil power (how often has it done it?) to dispute God's authority over the conscience, and to command that which He has forbidden, any resisting it would not have praise from it; and if they did obey it in such a case, they would not be doing that which is good. Hence, subjection to it in its own lawful domain is what is here enjoined. If it oversteps the bounds, the answer of Peter to the rulers at Jerusalem will guide the Christian: "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken to you more than to God, judge ye" (Acts 4:19). Where man's claims conflict with God's claims, the path, however trying, is clear, "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). And this important question receives further elucidation. For the same apostle, who so boldly addresses the rulers in the council, wrote by the Spirit to saints scattered abroad, "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or to governors, as to them that are sent by him" (for civil power can be delegated) "for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God" (1 Peter 2:13-16). Subjection, then, to the civil power is to be rendered not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake. It is God's ordinance, and rulers are His ministers, and Christians are His servants. How this clears up matters, and would remove any scruples that might present themselves, arising out of the question of the ruler's religious belief. A heathen, an idolatrous monarch or ruler, was to be obeyed in that domain in which, according to God, he had lawful sway. And the Christian doing good would have praise of the same, and be manifesting that he was a servant of God.

Tribute and Custom. — Another question, and one apparently not yet settled for some in our day, presents itself, and is finally dealt with by the apostle. Tribute, custom, fear, honour, each should be cheerfully rendered, where and when due. Taxes, and custom dues are to be paid, and those in authority feared, or reverenced, and honoured. What is due is the guiding principle, and the righteous rule. Is not this at times forgotten? How it simplifies matters! What is lawfully due, pay. There the Christian's responsibility ends. Thus the Word could smooth his path, whilst maintaining the authority of God, stimulating him too to subjection in all things lawful to the civil power for conscience' sake. For in paying what was due he was obeying God. This puts conscience really in the right place, and sheds a true light on the duty of a servant of the Most High. A rightly ordered conscience will not refuse the payment of that which is due.

This attitude of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego defines with exactitude, as already remarked, the true position of the believer in relation to the powers that be. Everywhere in the New Testament submission to these is enjoined, and such is to be the path of the Christian in the midst of political agitations and confusions. He is neither to raise questions, nor to examine the lawfulness of constituted authorities. It is enough for him that they are in power, and he pursues his way in peace as he renders the required obedience. But if these authorities, whether they be emperors, kings, or magistrates, travel outside of their own province, as Nebuchadnezzar did, and seek to substitute their will for the word of God, and to impose that will on the consciences of their subjects — putting themselves, in fact, in the place of God — then, in very faithfulness to God, like these three children of the captivity, and at whatever cost, the believer is bound to disobey. The limit of his obedience to kings is obedience to God in obeying them. The moment he is called upon to disobey God by yielding to a monarch's demands, he must, if he would retain a good conscience towards God, refuse the demanded subjection, even at the cost of life. Such was the ground taken in this conflict between Nebuchadnezzar and these three subjects of his realm.

The Christian will not fail in subjection, provided the laws of man do not call upon him to disobey God’s laws, in which case he will seek grace to act on the Apostle Peter’s declaration before the Sanhedrin, “We ought to obey God rather than men,” cost what it may.

Though we are not of this world, as the blessed hope of Chapter 2:13 reminds us, yet while in it, our relationships toward it are to bear true Christian character. God has Himself constituted proper authority in the world's govern­ment: therefore the Christian is to be subject to it, whether or not he feels it is acting rightly or wisely, and though he may suffer from it materially. Of course, if in any given case such subjection would involve disobedience to God, then it is God, and not man, he must obey. Along with the character of subjection, however, is the virtue of being prepared to every good work, so that, when occasion arises, the goodness in meeting the occasion will be spontaneous.

At the Babylonish captivity, God severed the principle of earthly rule from that of His call, transferring the former to the Gentiles. The four great empires appeared in succession, as Daniel and other inspired writers predicted and attested. The last, or Roman empire, bore sway, as is notorious, when our Lord was born and died; and God began to call His church, chosen from Jews and Gentiles, as one body here below. But it is clear and certain, from the Acts of the Apostles and the rest of the New Testament, that the church in no way interfered with the government of the earth, which God had placed in the hands of magistrates. They had, no doubt, to hear and to bear the reproach of turning the world upside down, and of doing contrary to the decrees of Caesar; but it was false. Christ's kingdom is not of this world. They knew it, they had it, and they did not want another. They remembered His own glowing words about them: "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world"; and they waited for Him from heaven, assured that those who suffer shall also reign with Him. As they never resisted the authorities by force, so they sought in their teachings to uphold, not to weaken, the just place which God of old had assigned them. Hence St. Paul thus addressed the believers in the imperial city: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation" (rather judgment, as also in 1 Cor. 11:29, where the context is decisively against the idea of "damnation"). "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same; for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger [or avenger] to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake,'' etc. (Rom. 13). The reigning emperor was a pagan and a persecutor; but clearly that was not the question. The language of the Spirit is so framed as to exclude cavil, founded either on the profession or the practice of the ruler. "There is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." What can be conceived more definite on the one hand, more comprehensive on the other? What more opposed to revolutionary movement? It was most wholesome; just in the right place and time. For the Jews were then turbulent, and the Christians were obnoxious in the extreme to the ruling powers. It seems probable that some at Rome, from old Jewish associations, found it hard to own and respect, as of God, rulers whom they saw sunken in the spiritual and moral degradations of heathenism. Under such circumstances, if under any, one might have supposed à priori that God might have revoked the grant of power from its Gentile holders, if He did not transfer it to the church. But no! The door is closed against every excuse. "The powers that be are ordained of God."

As regards Christian responsibility, it is of no essential importance what may be the form of government. It may be despotic or constitutional: it may be aristocratic or republican. Nay, more, in its profession, it may be Pagan or Mahometan, Popish or Protestant. The principle or rule, as regards mankind and the earth, remains untouched. Thus, the Christian is bound to pay allegiance and honour wherever he may be — in England to the Queen, and in France to the Emperor; in Russia to the Czar, and in Turkey to the Sultan; and the same thing is true of all subordinate authorities. The only limit is that the Christian owes absolute subjection to God; and therefore when obeying an earthly government entails — happily a rare thing — disobedience to God, it need scarcely be said that he must obey God rather than man. To resist the powers is to resist God's ordinance. The alternative for the Christian, when he may not obey a human command that involves a breach of God's will, is suffering, not resistance. But in general it remains true that to him who does good, the magistrate, under any government you please, is God's minister for good. So said St. Paul in view of an arbitrary and an idolatrous power. "But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid: FOR HE BEARETH NOT THE SWORD IN VAIN." That is to say, we have the Apostle, long after Christ had been extensively preached among the Gentiles, urging the saints at Rome to submit themselves to the existing authorities, to render to Caesar the things of Caesar. Of course, if Caesar had sought to corrupt the faith or destroy the worship of God's church; if Nero had ordered them to give up the Lord, positively like Nebuchadnezzar, or negatively like Darius, their duty had been plain — not to protest merely, and sin all the while, but to suffer for righteousness' sake: they were not to render the things of God, but of Caesar, to Caesar. But if the State demanded any service, however hard, Christianity taught them to yield it, if not positively sinful. If it insulted and persecuted them, still they were taught to pray for kings and for all in authority, "that we may live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty."

But suppose, instead of doing good, and having praise of the ruler, a man does evil, what then? "Be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vain." Assuredly, if the ruler is not to use the sword, he does bear it in vain. He might as well, or better, not bear it at all; for an idle threat is a proof of feebleness, and a brutum fulmen brings a ruler, of all men, into contempt. St. Paul, however, anticipates no such dereliction of duty on the part of the magistrate, but warns the ill-disposed that he is God's servant, "a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." The passage is clear as noonday. It demonstrates that the authority of the sword delegated to Noah and his sons, as representatives of government, is no more repealed or neutralised by the grace of the Christian revelation, than it had been by the righteousness of the Mosaic code. It proves that the Christian is bound to respect that sword by whatever hands it may be wielded. Even if the magistrate were an infidel, if he degraded his office by regarding the popular will, not God, as the source of his authority, the Christian is not the less bound to own God's authority in him, and to honour him as God's minister in worldly things, in "the things of Caesar." It is mere delusion, therefore, to suppose that Christianity deprives a government of the authority to punish evil-doers with the sword. St. Paul, as we have seen, fully recognises that power, and describes the ruler as one authorised by God to avenge evil. To speak of mercy, amendment, etc., as the sole or chief aim when law is violated and a man is convicted of murder, for instance, is to evince the utmost confusion of thought. For while grace is the central idea in God's scheme for saving sinners by the cross, justice is and must be the foundation of all earthly government, Jewish or Gentile. Doubtless, in the gospel God can and does justify — not pardon only, but justify — the chief of sinners freely, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. But thence to infer that a world's ruler ought to deal on the same principle towards criminals, is, in my opinion, to despise both revelation and reason.

This chapter is as clear as can be in its teaching: nothing but a spirit of rebellion could find difficulty with it — except possibly in the matter of how far this subjection to government is to extend. Plainly, if matters are simply governmental, even though their requirements are in our estimation unjust and discriminatory, detrimental to our personal comfort or welfare, the honorable Christian attitude is submission. Anything else is resistance of God's established order, and we may expect to suffer for it. Everyone knows that the governments of the day, whatever form they may take, are not guided by pure truth, honesty, and fairness, but this is in no way to affect the Christian attitude of subjection. God has set up the authority — not the particular form of it, nor the abuses of it. The only alternative, if authority were removed, is an indescribable state of anarchy, every man free to indulge his evil will to the full. Which of us would choose this?

“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.” This is certainly the normal state. There is a point surely beyond which we must render no obedience either to rulers or anyone else except God. If they were to demand of us what is due only to God — worship, for instance, as in the case of Daniel with Darius, or his three friends with Nebuchadnezzar — we must firmly refuse. If they require us to definitely sin against God, it is for us to boldly use the language of Peter — “We ought to obey God rather than men.” But this is far different even than unjust statutes or practices that are hard and oppressive. So long as a good conscience toward God is not compromised, it is better that we suffer in subjection, and commit the keeping of our souls to God, as unto a faithful Creator. We must remember that “the heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord: He turneth it whithersoever He will.”