Romans 13:1a says, “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities…”

I’ve heard those words used to say that Christians must not oppose or speak against the President of the United States, but rather, must give their support and allegiance (“be subject”) to the President. Is that how this passage applies? I don’t think so; at least not in an absolute way.

What follows is an explanation of my position on how Romans 13:1a should be interpreted in the context of our government, NOT how it may or may not apply to our current President.

First, notice Acts chapter four where Peter and John are commanded by the Sanhedrin (governing authority) to stop teaching and speaking in the name of Jesus. Their response is recorded in verse 19. “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges!” In the very next chapter, Peter and the other disciples face the charges again and answer similarly, “We must obey God rather human beings!” The obvious principle is that God’s authority supersedes earthly authorities. That means if a “governing authority” behaves contrary to God and his will, Christians do not owe allegiance to that authority.

Secondly, consider how being “subject to the governing authorities” applies to our particular form of government. It is too simplistic to equate the Biblical phrase, “governing authorities,” with the President. Our governing authority is not the same as when and where the New Testament was written. It is due to careful, purposeful design that our governing authority is not an emperor, dictator, or king. Our governing authority is not a person at all, but rather a Constitution of the people, and by extension, the three-branches of government it established. As Lincoln put it, “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

Article II of the Constitution gives executive power to a President. Unlike the case of emperors, dictators, and kings, that executive power is rather narrowly defined. The key part of that definition is the President’s responsibility to, “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” (There are also duties like making treaties, receives ambassadors, and serving as the Commander in Chief but his duties do not include making laws or interpreting them.) The Constitution summarizes the President’s role through the oath of office that it sets forth; our President must vow to, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”

Furthermore, in the United States we believe in a principle called the Rule of Law. Among other things, “the rule of law implies that every person is subject to the law including people who are lawmakers, law enforcement officials and judges. (Wikipedia)” That means that unlike emperors, dictators and kings, our President is not above the law. Rather, the President is subject to the law just like everyone else.

To conclude, therefore, if our governing authority consists of a Constitution and the three-branches it established and regulates, and if our President exists through, and is subject to, the Constitution and the other two branches, then Romans 13:1a applies to the President only to the extent that the President faithfully executes the office of President. If you believe the President is behaving contrary to God’s will and/or if you believe the President is behaving contrary to the Constitution and the Rule of Law, then you are not obligated to give support and allegiance to that President. (Not only that, but an argument could be made that under such circumstances, Christians actually have a duty to actively oppose that President.)

Romans 13:1a says, “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities…”

I’ve heard those words used to say that Christians must not oppose or speak against the President of the United States, but rather, must give their support and allegiance (“be subject”) to the President. Is that how this passage applies? I don’t think so; at least not in an absolute way.

What follows is an explanation of my position on how Romans 13:1a should be interpreted in the context of our government, NOT how it may or may not apply to our current President.

First, notice Acts chapter four where Peter and John are commanded by the Sanhedrin (governing authority) to stop teaching and speaking in the name of Jesus. Their response is recorded in verse 19. “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges!” In the very next chapter, Peter and the other disciples face the charges again and answer similarly, “We must obey God rather human beings!” The obvious principle is that God’s authority supersedes earthly authorities. That means if a “governing authority” behaves contrary to God and his will, Christians do not owe allegiance to that authority.

Secondly, consider how being “subject to the governing authorities” applies to our particular form of government. It is too simplistic to equate the Biblical phrase, “governing authorities,” with the President. Our governing authority is not the same as when and where the New Testament was written. It is due to careful, purposeful design that our governing authority is not an emperor, dictator, or king. Our governing authority is not a person at all, but rather a Constitution of the people, and by extension, the three-branches of government it established. As Lincoln put it, “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

Article II of the Constitution gives executive power to a President. Unlike the case of emperors, dictators, and kings, that executive power is rather narrowly defined. The key part of that definition is the President’s responsibility to, “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” (There are also duties like making treaties, receives ambassadors, and serving as the Commander in Chief but his duties do not include making laws or interpreting them.) The Constitution summarizes the President’s role through the oath of office that it sets forth; our President must vow to, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”

Furthermore, in the United States we believe in a principle called the Rule of Law. Among other things, “the rule of law implies that every person is subject to the law including people who are lawmakers, law enforcement officials and judges. (Wikipedia)” That means that unlike emperors, dictators and kings, our President is not above the law. Rather, the President is subject to the law just like everyone else.

To conclude, therefore, if our governing authority consists of a Constitution and the three-branches it established and regulates, and if our President exists through, and is subject to, the Constitution and the other two branches, then Romans 13:1a applies to the President only to the extent that the President faithfully executes the office of President. If you believe the President is behaving contrary to God’s will and/or if you believe the President is behaving contrary to the Constitution and the Rule of Law, then you are not obligated to give support and allegiance to that President. (Not only that, but an argument could be made that under such circumstances, Christians actually have a duty to actively oppose that President.)

Whether you agree or disagree, it’s something to cerebrate.