Liberty and the Law of God: Romans 13 today

Preached by Reverend Fictious Cartwright, New England, July 4th, 1776

“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.” — Romans 13:1

Brethren,

I speak today not as one drunk with the fever of rebellion, nor as one who loves bloodshed. I speak as a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, compelled by conscience and Scripture to address the storm that now breaks upon our heads.

Some have cried, “Romans 13 today! Submit to the king, for he is ordained by God!” Aye, and were he a righteous king—were he a just man, governing in the fear of the Lord—I would preach submission until my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth.

But tell me, beloved, is King George a minister of God for good? Does he bear the sword to punish evil and reward good, or has he turned the sword upon the innocent, taxed the laborer without voice, sent troops into our homes, and made our prayers for peace a crime?

Romans 13 speaks not of tyranny, but of order.

The Apostle Paul does not bless every man who wears a crown, nor every law issued by a Parliament. He speaks of authority that is just, instituted by God to restrain evil and reward virtue. When a ruler ceases to fulfill that role, he stands not in the place of God—but against Him.

Shall we, like Israel of old, bow to Pharaoh forever? Or shall we say with Moses, “Let my people go, that they may worship their God in freedom”?

Let us also remember the apostles’ words:

“We ought to obey God rather than men.” — Acts 5:29

When earthly law contradicts heavenly law, our allegiance is clear. It is not sedition to honor the higher throne—it is righteousness.

And what of our Lord Himself? He submitted to Pilate not because Pilate was just, but because His kingdom is not of this world. Yet even Christ overturned the tables of injustice in His Father’s house. Shall we not do the same in the house of liberty?

We do not rise to cast off government—we rise to restore it.

We are not anarchists but reformers. Not rebels, but sons of liberty defending the sacred trust of self-government under God. Our cause is not merely political, but deeply theological.

And so I declare: Rebellion against tyranny is obedience to God. Not with hate, but with heavy hearts, we take up arms—not for conquest, but for conscience.

Let our swords be guided by prayer, and our councils by the Word of God. And may the day soon come when peace is restored, and we shall beat our swords into plowshares, and teach war no more.

Amen. And amen.

The Founding Fathers and Christian thinkers of the time rationalized their revolt:

1. Distinguishing Between Tyranny and Legitimate Authority

They argued that Romans 13 refers to legitimate, just government, not tyranny. If a government becomes tyrannical, it forfeits its divine mandate.

• John Locke, whose political philosophy was very influential, argued that when a government violates the natural rights of the people, it ceases to be legitimate.

• Jonathan Mayhew, a New England preacher in 1750, famously preached that resisting a tyrant was not resisting God, but resisting a usurper.

2. Covenantal View of Government

Many colonists viewed government as a mutual covenant between rulers and the ruled. If the British Crown violated the social contract (by taxation without representation, for example), then it was the duty of the people to resist.

• This reflects Old Testament themes where kings who broke covenant with God or oppressed the people were condemned.

3. Appeal to Higher Law

Some believed God’s moral law stood above human law. If the government commanded something contrary to God’s law, Christians were obligated to obey God rather than men (see Acts 5:29).

4. Passive vs. Active Resistance

Some differentiated between resisting the government’s commands versus actively taking up arms. Over time, many came to believe that when peaceful appeals failed, revolution became morally justifiable.

Notable Quotes:

Thomas Jefferson, though not a traditional Christian, argued that rebellion was sometimes necessary:

“Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” (He proposed this as the motto for the seal of the U.S.)

Samuel Adams, a devout Christian, saw the Revolution as defending God-given liberties:

“If we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it.”

In short, the Founding Fathers and their supporters didn’t ignore Romans 13—they interpreted it in a way that allowed for justified resistance when rulers became oppressive and violated God’s higher laws.

Now for some in-depth analysis of

Romans 13 and some context:

When Paul wrote Romans:

• Christianity was not yet outlawed by the Roman Empire.

• Paul wrote this letter in 56-57 AD. Persecution began in 64 AD.

• Christians were viewed with suspicion by some, but there was no formal empire-wide policy of persecution yet.

• Paul’s command to “submit to authorities” came before the government turned openly hostile.

  
  

This helps us understand: Romans 13 was not written to tell believers to obey evil tyrants blindly. It was a call to respect authority as a divine institution, while still obeying God above all—especially when persecution came later.

Paul himself was a citizen of Rome and utilized the benefits of their legal system to protect himself. (Acts 22: 25-29).Largely in the states/nations that Rome had conquered they also policed. They set up systems and laws to govern these lands. Rome did not seek chaos in these regions, but peace and stability, albeit, maintained by the presence of a military force.

Thus Paul could confirm through experience that Governments, even a pagan one, could serve God's purposes.

The persecution of Christians in Rome began in A.D. 64, under the Emperor Nero—about 7–8 years after Paul wrote Romans (around A.D. 56–57). That’s an important historical detail, because Romans 13 was written before full-scale Roman persecution began.

Matthew Henry (again) supports this:

He says submission is owed only “in the Lord”—in things lawful. If rulers command what God forbids or forbid what God commands, obedience to God must come first.

Romans 13 assumes that rulers are acting in their God-given role—rewarding good and punishing evil.

If a ruler inverts that role—punishing the righteous and rewarding the wicked—they are no longer functioning as “God’s servant for your good.”

So, the biblical principle is conditional submission:

• Yes, submit to rulers as long as it doesn’t require sin.

• No, do not obey when they violate God’s higher law.

Romans 13:4 says:

“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.”

This verse sets a standard for rulers:

They are to promote good and punish evil—serving as God’s ministers of justice.

So if a ruler does not fulfill that role—are they still to be obeyed?

Biblically speaking, here’s the general principle:

Yes, rulers are to be obeyed insofar as their commands do not contradict God’s law.

But when they pervert justice, promote evil, or command sin, believers are no longer bound to obey.

Scriptural Support:

• Acts 5:29 – “We must obey God rather than men.”

  The apostles disobeyed the authorities when they were forbidden to preach Christ.

• Daniel 6 – Daniel respects King Darius but still disobeys the decree against prayer.

• Exodus 1 – The Hebrew midwives disobey Pharaoh’s genocidal command—and God rewards them.

• Revelation 13 shows a time when government becomes beastly and oppressive, directly opposing God’s people. Resistance is not just permitted—it’s righteous.

  
  

What about Romans 13 itself?

Romans 13 assumes that rulers are acting in their God-given role—rewarding good and punishing evil.

If a ruler inverts that role—punishing the righteous and rewarding the wicked—they are no longer functioning as “God’s servant for your good.”

So, the biblical principle is conditional submission:

• Yes, submit to rulers as long as it doesn’t require sin.

• No, do not obey when they violate God’s higher law.

So Was Paul Referring Specifically to Rome?

• Yes, in context—Rome was the existing “higher power” (Greek: exousia) at the time.

• But, Paul writes in universal terms: “There is no authority except from God” (Rom 13:1).

  • He doesn’t name Caesar or local magistrates.

  • He appeals to the principle of authority and order in society—not just one government.

  
  

This is important because Paul’s teaching would apply not just to Rome, but to any governing body—good or bad—as a general Christian ethic.

What’s the Key Point Paul Makes?

• Government is a God-ordained structure for justice, not chaos.

• Even flawed rulers can and should serve to restrain evil.

• Christians should generally submit to authority, unless doing so would cause them to disobey God (Acts 5:29).

How Did Early Christians Understand This?

• Many early Christians honored the spirit of Romans 13—living peaceably, paying taxes, not stirring rebellion.

• But they also refused to worship the emperor, rejected immoral commands, and were willing to suffer for righteousness.

In Summary:

• Yes, Paul was writing with the Roman Empire in mind.

• But he was teaching a general principle for all believers:

  Respect civil authority as God’s design—but never above God’s authority.

By M. Joseph Hutzler,

Eschatologist