Romans 13:1-7 has often been cited in discussions about the biblical justification (or lack thereof) for the American Revolution. This passage reads:
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. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
At first glance, this passage seems to suggest that the American colonists should have submitted to English rule rather than rebelling. However, there are several important considerations to keep in mind when interpreting and applying this passage:
1. The extent of submission required
Romans 13 calls for submission to governing authorities, but it does not specify the extent or nature of that submission. Christians have long debated how far this submission should go. The consensus view has been that while Christians should generally obey civil laws and authorities, there are exceptional cases where disobedience may be warranted. This includes instances where the state compels a believer to disobey God or enact policies that clearly violate basic biblical moral principles.
During the American Revolution, the colonists argued that the taxes and coercive policies imposed by England went beyond justifiable civil obedience. Christians like John Witherspoon, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, asserted limits to the submission Romans 13 requires.
2. The right to protest and seek redress of grievances
Romans 13 does not prohibit peaceful protest, dissent, or petitioning the government for redress of grievances. The American colonists argued they were not rejecting English authority outright, but were simply demanding their rights as Englishmen which had been violated through taxation without representation and other oppressive policies.
The colonists pointed to clauses in the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights which affirmed the right of subjects to protest executive abuses without being guilty of rebellion.
3. The American colonies had long governed themselves
Unlike in modern nations, the American colonies had governed themselves fairly independently for over 150 years under royal charter. They had their own colonial legislatures, laws, and local officials. English rule was limited mostly to matters of international diplomacy and trade.
When the English government began ramping up its direct control through taxation and coercion in the mid-1700s, the colonists argued this was a violation of their rights as semi-autonomous colonies. Some Christians believed defensive war was permissible to fight back against this encroachment of their historic liberties.
4. The complexity of civil disobedience
When the Continental Congress declared independence in 1776, representatives of the Crown were still present and functioning in the colonies. This raised questions about the proper approach.Some Christian colonists believed it would have been wrong to outright revolt at that time, seeing it as actively resisting established authority.
Others, however, argued that the Crown had already implicitly dissolved its authority by violating colonial charters and oppressing the populace. They saw declaring independence as a just reassertion of local authority in the face of King George’s breached covenant with his subjects.
This illustrates the complexity of applying Romans 13:1-7 during times of social and political turmoil. Sincere Christians can reasonably disagree on when resistance becomes necessary in the face of state overreach.
5. Different perspectives on revolution
During the American Revolution, there were three general perspectives on the conflict within the churches:
- Neutrality – Some Christians believed it was inappropriate for ministers to get involved at all. They encouraged their congregations to remain neutral and avoid partisan politics.
- Loyalism – Some Christians believed the American cause was unjustified rebellion against divinely instituted authority. They preached obedience to King George and encouraged loyalism.
- Advocacy – Some Christians publicly supported independence. They preached sermons defending the American cause as a just war against tyranny. Examples include Witherspoon, Jonathan Mayhew, Samuel Langdon, and Isaac Backus.
This range of views shows Romans 13 was not as clear cut at the time as it may seem in hindsight today. Reasonable Christians understood and applied the passage differently given the complex political situation.
6. Different forms of government
At the time of the New Testament, imperial Rome and its emperors ruled over the Mediterranean world as absolute authorities. This is likely the context Paul has in mind when writing Romans 13.
By contrast, the English government of the 18th century had a more complex structure including Parliament, colonial charters, common law tradition, and rights of subjects. The American colonists argued that aspects of English law and tradition permitted resistance in ways ancient Rome did not.
This example shows we must be careful not to directly equate modern government with the political realities of the Roman Empire that original audience of Romans 13:1-7 lived under.
7. Abuse of power and self-interest
While Romans 13 affirms that civil authorities are ordained by God, it also assumes they more or less fulfill their role as servants of God for the good of the people (v. 4). When governments clearly abuse power and act out of selfish interest rather than public welfare, some Christians have argued that officials can forfeit divine authority.
Many American revolutionaries argued that the tyrannical policies of King George toward the colonies violated the compact between ruler and subjects. Thomas Jefferson wrote the king had engaged in “a long train of abuses evinc[ing] a design to reduce them under absolute despotism.” This, they claimed, justified defensive resistance.
8. Balancing Romans 13 with other passages
As with all Bible study, we must interpret Romans 13 in light of Scripture as a whole. There are other passages that also address how believers should respond to unjust rule or commands that contravene God’s law:
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)
Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?” (Job 2:10)
You shall not follow a crowd to do evil.” (Exodus 23:2)
While Christians debate how to synthesize all relevant Scriptures, these passages do suggest limits to government obedience if authorities promote clear wickedness or compel sin.
9. Diverse denominational views
During the American Revolution, perspectives on Romans 13 followed denominational lines to some degree:
- Anglican ministers tended to preach loyalism and obedience.
- Congregationalist and some Presbyterian ministers often advocated active resistance.
- Quakers and Anabaptists adhered to pacifism and neutrality.
- Baptists and Methodists were divided, with opinions across the spectrum.
This shows how Christians even within the same generation, all earnestly seeking to follow Scripture, can reasonably interpret the same passage differently.
10. Conclusion
In summary, while Romans 13 calls for submission to governing authorities, informed Christians have long acknowledged there are exceptions when civil disobedience may be justified, such as when the state exceeds its proper jurisdiction or requires people to violate God’s commands. There were sound biblical arguments on both sides during the American Revolution.
As with all complex social issues, Christians should approach questions about proper church-state relations with thoughtfulness, nuance, and humility. Sincerely studying all relevant Scriptures and perspectives is crucial.
The example of Romans 13 and the American Revolution reminds us that applying biblical principles to political realities requires wisdom and cannot be reduced to simplistic interpretations. Sincere Christians may reach different conclusions about the appropriate response to government overreach or when defensive resistance is obligatory.