Subject to the Higher Powers, Unless… : Lloyd-Jones on Christian Civil Subjection

Life in Two Kingdoms, volume 13 of Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ series of expositions of Romans, covers Romans 13:1–7. This is, as Dr Lloyd-Jones notes, the locus classicus—the classic place—where the Holy Spirit, through Paul, addresses the question of the state: the ‘powers that be’. The following excerpt is taken from pages 51 to 53 of that volume:

I suggest that this passage teaches something along the following lines: It is clear that we are to be subject to the state, to the governing powers that be. This is something we will all agree about. The Christian is always to be a good and peaceable citizen. We can go so far as to say that Christians should always be the best citizens in the country. Their faith does not give them greater brain power, but, for example, they do not harm their minds by drinking too much or by eating too much, and so on. They should be better men and women than anybody else and therefore should be better citizens.

Now this, let me repeat, is simply because they are Christians. As the Apostle puts it in verse 5: ‘Ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath…’ This is one of the great differences between a Christian and a non-Christian. As far as non-Christians are concerned, the main motive for observing the law is the threat of punishment, so they will go as near the line as they can, just short of being caught. Wrath! In the main, they are governed by the fear of wrath. There are, I know, exceptions, but speaking generally, this is true. Nothing but fear makes people conform to the law.

But that is not to be the case with the Christian. ‘Ye must needs be subject,’ says Paul, ‘not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake’, which means, as we have seen, that as a Christian you have an understanding of this matter. It is only Christians who see the real need for the state. It is Christians alone who really believe in sin, who know what sin is, and the power it has in each person’s life. They realize as nobody else can, the extent to which sin can lead us, both individually and collectively. They also see more clearly than anyone else the necessity for controlling sin and its manifestations and results. That is why Christians should always be on the side of law and order. Humanists do not believe in sin at all, so they do not see the same need for legislation, and you will therefore find that, as a general rule, they are opposed to various laws. I shall return to this a little later.

But not only do Christians see the need for law, control and order, they know that God Himself has made this provision for the maintenance of life. Try to think what life in the world would be like if you suddenly banished all the laws; if you banished the police force and everything that is designed to preserve law and order.

Christians have an understanding of these things. This is what is meant by conscience. And, therefore, they know the need for discipline and punishment. For those reasons they must be subject to the state and to its enactments. But I must hasten to add that there is a qualification to that statement; there is a limit beyond which it is not true. It is quite clear in the Scriptures that if the state should ever come between me and my relationship to God, then I must not obey it.

Let me give you my evidence for this. You find it, for instance, in the Acts of the Apostles, in the fourth chapter. Peter and John had been arrested for preaching and for healing the man at the Beautiful Gate of the temple and had been dragged before the ruling powers. Then we read in verses 18 to 20: ‘And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.’ This is repeated in the fifth chapter, after the Apostles had again been told to stop preaching. In verse 28, the authorities say to them, ‘Did we not straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.’ And Peter and the other Apostles reply, ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’

Now at first you might think that this contradicts verse 1 of Romans chapter 13 where the Apostle Paul says, ‘Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.’ But there is a qualification: the powers that be are designed to carry out God’s will, and if they thwart or try to thwart it, and seek to prevent people from observing it and carrying it out, then those people are entitled to say to them, ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ That is quite clear in the Acts of the Apostles, and that was the principle on which the early Christians acted.

Later on, of course, many Christians were in this position. The state, the Roman state, not only looked to the emperor as a governor and a leader, but deified and worshipped him; they said, ‘Caesar is Lord.’ When the Christians were told that they, too, must say that, they replied: ‘We know that Jesus is Lord, and we cannot worship any man.’ So they were confronted with the choice — either they said, ‘Caesar is Lord’, or else they were put to death. And they were very ready indeed to die rather than make that statement. At that point they rightly refused to be subject to the powers that be. They disobeyed them and were ready to suffer the consequences of their disobedience.

So we are to be subject to the higher powers until they in any way come between us and our loyalty to God Himself and His commandments to us.

Featured Photo (visible when article shared on social media) by Hansjörg Keller on Unsplash.