Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How do Christian Nationalists interpret biblical passages like Romans 13?
Executive summary
Christian Nationalists commonly point to Romans 13 to argue that civil magistrates are ordained by God and that Christians should give rulers authority, taxes, and honor; organizations and statements tied to Christian Nationalism explicitly list Romans 13 among foundational scriptures [1] [2]. Other Christian interpreters — from pacifists to scholars to pastors in diverse contexts — caution that Romans 13 has been read as a proof-text, must be weighed against broader New Testament teaching, and was written to Christians living under imperial Rome, not as an absolute template for all governments [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. How Christian Nationalists use Romans 13: “Magistrates ordained by God”
Christian Nationalist statements and platforms treat Romans 13 as affirming that civil rulers receive delegated authority from God and must be supported to punish evil and promote the common good; the Statement on Christian Nationalism cites Romans 13 alongside other texts to justify national recognition of Christian orthodoxy and legal norms [2]. Reporting on movements that link policy proposals to Scripture likewise notes that proponents embed Paul’s language about duty and doing what is right into governance promises [7].
2. Translation into policy: why the citation matters politically
Those who invoke Romans 13 in public policy typically use it to support laws and institutions that align the state with a particular Christian moral vision, arguing that obedience, honor, and legal sanction of “good” are not merely civic goods but divinely sanctioned duties [2] [7]. Critics of such projects see a clear throughline from scriptural citation to political aims — for example, coverage of Project 2025 highlights how Christian-language framing, including Romans-derived concepts, animates policy goals [7].
3. Alternative theological readings: conditional and contextual interpretations
Many theologians and pastors reject a single, absolutist reading. Commentators stress that Romans 13 was written to first‑century Christians under Roman rule and must be read with Paul’s broader teaching — including the lordship of Christ and commands to love and resist evil — meaning submission to authorities is not unconditional [5] [3]. Some interpreters argue Romans 13 is a narrowly pastoral instruction for a dangerous imperial context, not a carte blanche for theocratic rule [5] [8].
4. Historical diversity: how major Christian traditions handled Romans 13
Historically, interpreters have split. Some Reformation figures used Romans 13 to justify state coercion for order; other traditions (Anabaptists, Christian anarchists, pacifists) read the passage very differently, emphasizing conscience, nonviolence, or that state authority is legitimate only when exercised rightly [9] [4] [3]. Contemporary pastors around the world likewise disagree: some read Romans 13 as requiring humility before rulers regardless of their character; others treat it as conditioned by larger concerns about justice and conscience [10].
5. The “proof‑text” problem: why many urge caution
Public and religious writers warn that treating Romans 13 as the starting point for political theology is problematic because it is an easy proof-text that can be detached from broader biblical ethics; Providence magazine explicitly argues against beginning political theology there for that reason [6]. Devotional and pastoral resources likewise emphasize connecting Romans 13 to surrounding chapters that prioritize love, conscience, and non-retaliation [11] [12].
6. What the sources do and do not say about Christian Nationalists’ motives
The Statement on Christian Nationalism explicitly grounds a political project in Romans 13 and related texts, making a theological case for civil enforcement of certain Christian norms [2]. Reporting and critique of movements like Project 2025 link scriptural language to explicit political aims [7]. Available sources do not mention specific, comprehensive theological rebuttals from every Christian group to every policy proposal; rather, they sample a range of interpretive responses [10] [6].
7. Bottom line for readers
Romans 13 is central to Christian Nationalist rhetoric as a scriptural warrant for state authority and moral governance [2] [7]. But church history, pastoral commentary, and contemporary theologians show a robust debate: some read Paul as requiring submission to rulers as God‑appointed, others insist that submission is contextual, restrained by conscience, and subordinate to the gospel’s demands to love and resist evil [1] [3] [5]. If you want to assess any political claim that rests on Romans 13, examine how proponents handle context, competing New Testament commands, and whether they treat Paul’s instruction as unconditional or conditional [6] [12].