Watch our Livestream 10am Sundays at 10am on Sundays Give Online
I’ll start with four questions to consider as we approach this topic:
Let’s pray.
Start with the Bible – Here as with all things. The topic of “Christians and Government” is broadly within the category of Christian ethics. In ethics we’re trying to figure out how a Christian ought to live in this world. It’s connected to what we’re obligated to believe, but it’s also in the realm of Christian behavior.
Determining our behavior (ethics) requires that we not only see what the Bible says but think through how we are to understand the commands and examples within our specific era of salvation history, the new covenant era.
What does the Bible say about how we’re supposed to live in our various societies? What kind of government should we be trying to build? How should we respond to the various civil governments?
First, we should start with clear statements in the New Testament:
Second, we should let the New Testament guide our reading of the Old Testament.
When we do that, we observe some big-picture concepts. Covenant theology helps us here. It helps us see the various epochs in the Bible and where the divisions lie.
On thinking through the topic of civil government, notice five epochs in the Bible:
Interpreting our Bible rightly will need to factor in these important divisions. In other words, be careful how you use the Mosaic era to build your case for modern civil governments. That was a different epoch of salvation history.
This framework leads to our next two convictions.
Government is not just the idea of “the consent of the governed” (Declaration of Independence) and isn’t simply the result of some “social contract” people in a society have made. Before there’s any human action at all, God’s divine power and Word have established civil governments.
The covenant with Noah is the first instance where some form of civil government seems to be implied:
But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. 6 Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. (Gen 9:4–6)
A clear commandment is given here not to murder, but the punishment is also given. Murder is a capital crime and “by man” the murderer shall have his own life taken. God is saying that he won’t directly kill the murderer, but people entrusted with this task will do it.
Romans 13:1 is also clear that government is God’s idea:
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. (Rom 13:1)
As we saw, Genesis 4–6 show there’s a need for some kind of restraining force for humanity:
The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Gen 6:5)
Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. (Gen 6:11)
In a similar way, theologians have talked about the restraining influence of the law of God. It is one of the three uses of the law:[1]
With a civil government, the second use of God’s law takes on a tangible and enforceable set of requirements. God’s law gets combined with the power of the physical “sword” (Rom 13:3–4).
Sometimes this second use is called the “political use” of the law.[2]
It would be nice to think Christians shouldn’t need to be governed by a civil law, but situations like American slavery and child-labor laws prove that even so-called Christians benefit by the second use of the law.
What is the basic job of the state as defined by the New Testament? It is to punish evil and reward the good:
Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. (1 Pet 2:13–14)
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, 4 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. (Rom 13:3–4)
“Good” and “do good” are from the same word, agathos, “pertaining to meeting a high standard of worth and merit, good” (BDAG, 3). “Wrong” and “do evil” are also from the same word, kakos, “doing what is morally reprehensible, bad, evil” (BDAG, 501).
Natural law reveals some things:
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Rom 2:14–16)
But sin in the heart distorts our knowledge of natural law and especially our moral commitment to it:
Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Rom 1:32)
Natural law reveals something of God’s moral law. At the very least, it is the basics of God’s moral law such as the 6th-9th commandments:
“You shall not murder.
14 “You shall not commit adultery.
15 “You shall not steal.
16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. (Exod 20:13–16)
Consider how many thousands of statutes are connected to these laws:
Truly, sin in the heart blinds people and governments to what they truly know, but even in our sinful state, civil governments bear witness to God’s law.
All cultures forbid at least certain cases of murder, have some restrictions on sexuality and marriage, forbid stealing of some kind, and condemn certain kinds of lying.
The punishments vary, but the laws are remarkably similar. Certainly not a perfect reflection of God’s moral law, but all bearing some reflection.
But which matters of “good” and “evil” are matters for the state? All of them?
No.We don’t want the state punishing children who disobey their parents (Eph 6:1) or church members who are being divisive (Tit 3:10).
Where is the line, though?
Vern Poythress explores the role of government and points out the distinction in the Old Testament between behaviors that are “crimes” and those that are merely sinful.[3]
Coveting is a sin and explicitly forbidden in the Old Testament (Exod 20:17), being one of the 10 Commandments. But coveting is not a crime punishable by the state, even in the Old Testament. When coveting becomes greed that steals, that theft is punishable as a crime and not just a sin (Exod 22:1).
Anger in the heart is a sin in the Old Testament (Prov 14:29), but it isn’t punishable. Yet, when anger in the heart turns into hatred that lashes out and kills someone, that act is punishable as murder and not just a sin (Gen 9:4–6; Deut 19:11–13).
Lust is condemned in the Old Testament as a sin (Exod 20:17), but it isn’t punishable. Yet, when lust becomes adultery, adultery is punished as a crime and not just a sin (Deut 22:22).
Even in the Old Testament, the state is punishing actions that are criminal and not just sins of the heart.
That lays the groundwork for seeing the state as involved with punishing evil that results in outward actions and behavior that harms other people.
Yet, Israel is a theocracy (where the church = the state). Some explicitly religious sins are capital crimes punishable by the state:
We’re under a new covenant now and not the Mosaic. What is true now?
The state as an authority which punishes external behavior that harms others is evident in the book of Acts.
Acts 18 in Corinth. The Jews are opposing Paul and seek recourse in the Roman courts. “Gallio” the “proconsul” (ruler of a Roman province) rejected their premise:
“If it were a matter of wrongdoing or vicious crime, O Jews, I would have reason to accept your complaint. 15 But since it is a matter of questions about words and names and your own law, see to it yourselves. I refuse to be a judge of these things.” (Acts 18:14–15)
Note the distinction between “wrongdoing or vicious crime” and “a matter of questions about words and names and your own law.” Paul was preaching Nicene Creed Christianity effectively, but this was outside the jurisdiction of the civil authority.
Also in Acts 23 after Paul’s arrest, “Claudius Lysias” the Roman tribune (commander of cohort, 1000 soldiers) is sending Paul to “the governor Felix” (governor of Judea) and writes:
“I found that he was being accused about questions of their law, but charged with nothing deserving death or imprisonment.” (Acts 23:29)
Again, there is the same distinction between “questions of their law” and then something “deserving death and imprisonment.” Matters of “their law” are outside of his jurisdiction.
This is a consistent pattern in Acts (Acts 19). It mirrors Jesus before Pilate, too.
Luke seems to be doing more in these snapshots than merely recording history. He appears to be implying throughout that these governing officials are acting justly according to their civil responsibilities—and implying that the Jews are disruptive to society in a way that Christians are not.
These examples are especially fascinating when we consider that Rome at this time was a place of religious pluralism—in the sense that many religions were present, not necessarily that all were tolerated. In a pluralistic society, religious freedom is highly desirable.
These examples cannot be read as an absolute law for all local and federal governments, but they do carve out categories of law. Civil authorities are presented positively by Luke as those who oversee moral laws regarding how one person treats another but not explicitly religious laws that deal with doctrinal matters.
In the 16th and early 17th century, it was assumed by many Christians that governing authorities should further Christianity by punishing blasphemy and idolatry.
An example is the 1561 Belgic Confession, which affirmed,
And the government’s task is not limited to caring for and watching over the public domain but extends also to upholding the sacred ministry, with a view to removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship of the Antichrist; to promoting the kingdom of Jesus Christ; and to furthering the preaching of the gospel everywhere; to the end that God may be honored and served by everyone, as he requires in his Word.
Belgic Confession 36[4]
Yet, since the mid-1600s, Reformed theologians have rejected this idea. The realities of Christian pluralism and Protestant persecution made it clear that combining the spiritual sword and the physical sword did not help churches or Christianity.
Some version of religious freedom is now the view of virtually all Christian traditions.[5]
From the above, what can we say?
Let’s go back to our opening questions and see what we can say:
A good place to end:
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. (1 Tim 2:1–2)
[1] See Calvin’s Institutes 2.7 (Book 2, chapter 7). Accessible here: https://archive.org/details/institutesofchri0001calv_p7o5/page/348/mode/2up. For a briefer look, see a good summary at https://founders.org/articles/of-what-use-is-the-law-three-purposes/.
[2]https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2023/07/the-three-uses-of-the-law/
[3] Vern Poythress, “The Principle of Impartiality as a Limit for Civil Government,” WTJ 88 No 1 (Spring 2026): 25–46. He argues that the demand of judges and kings to be “impartial” is a helpful rubric (Exod 23:3; Lev 19:15; Deut 1:17; 16:19). States are concerned with areas where partiality is felt to be wrong—not partial toward the rich or the poor, not for or against the widow, not for or against the sojourner. Churches are to treat the poor differently than the rich, though never with sinful partiality (James 2:1–10). In his framework, Christian nationalism is wrong because it requires partiality toward one religion and not others.
[4] This paragraph was deemed as unbiblical by Herman Bavinck, Abraham Kuyper, and many Reformed synods, who adopted the stance of religious freedom instead. A similar idea was deemed as unbiblical within the Westminster Confession tradition by American Presbyterians in 1788 and by John Murray and J. Gresham Machen in the early 1900s. Baptists (Reformed and General) have always affirmed religious freedom. The original WCF 23.3 was rewritten completely in 1788 and then reaffirmed by the OPC in the early 1900s at its founding, affirming religious freedom.
[5] In other words, any support for a “Christian nationalism” where Christianity has a favored status and governing officials should be some kind of “Christian prince” is a throwback to traditions that have been long since rejected as unbiblical by the vast majority of Christian traditions, Reformed and non-Reformed.
Here are some other recent messages.
We are a church built on the Bible, guided and empowered by the Spirit, striving to make disciples, and pursuing holiness in the context of robust biblical relationships.
© 2026 Cornerstone Fellowship Church of Apex
