The principles of “No one is above the law” and “We are a nation of laws,” are embedded in the American conscience. Where did these ideas come from? In our historical ignorance, some wrongly assume such views were common in history. Secularists have gone to great lengths to distort and destroy Western history in an attempt to shame us about our heritage. Gary Amos stresses the importance of knowing our history, “Where we take America depends in part on where we think it came from.” [1] The debate over history is ultimately about the future.
1. Gary Amos, Defending the Declaration: How the Bible and Christianity Influenced the Writing of the Declaration of Independence (Charlottesville, VA: Providence Foundation, 1989), 1.
Any fair study of history demonstrates the profound impact Christianity had on the world, especially politically. For centuries, kings and emperors were viewed as above the law. This political philosophy became known as the divine right of kings.[2] It was believed that rulers had unquestioned authority because they had some connection to the divine. Whether this was the deification of Pharaoh, Caesar, or some other king, their authority became incontrovertible. Like God speaking from the mountaintop, the word of the king was law. He was the law. But is such thinking biblical?
2. Francis Schaeffer, “A Christian Manifesto,” in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview, vol. 5, A Christian View of the West (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1982), 473.
This philosophy, the king is law, began to unravel with the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 AD. King John of England was forced to sign the document that placed him, even as the King, under the authority of the law (including the Ten Commandments). In the Magna Carta, the law was over the king. It also established that the king was to protect and respect the individual rights of his people. These ideas, though formally adopted with the Magna Carta, remained controversial. Some still argued for the divine rights of kings that placed royalty over the law.
Enter Samuel Rutherford (1600 – 1661), a Scottish Presbyterian minister. Rutherford served as a Westminster divine helping to formulate the great Westminster Confession of Faith. He also authored a book called Lex Rex, which is Latin for Law is King. At that time, the debate in England raged over whether the King was the law (Rex Lex), or if the law was king (Lex Rex). The debate was over which authority was higher—the king or the law. Was the written law bound to the word of the king, or was the king bound to the law? From Scripture, Rutherford argued that the law ultimately comes from God; therefore, the King must submit to it. Rutherford’s book got banned, but his argument won the day. His influential work influenced British Common Law, the work of John Locke, and eventually the American Colonies.[3]
3. For more on Lex Rex see Francis Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto, 5:471–479. See also Amos, Defending the Declaration, 62–65.
Without the work of this Scottish pastor, we would not recognize ideas like “we are a nation of laws” and “no one is above the law.” Lex Rex is just another way Christianity reformed the politics of the world. In America, elected representatives still swear to uphold and defend the Constitution (the law), and their authority is delegated from that law. In America, the law is still king.
Which side in this debate is right? Which is higher, the law or kings? Deuteronomy 17:14–20 demonstrates that kings are under the authority of the law. It teaches the superiority of the law by showing how kings rise to power, their need to obey the law, and their equality with their fellow citizens. Once these principles are established, this chapter explores both whether these truths are binding outside of Israel and the divine origin of the law.
How Do Kings Become Kings? (Deut. 17:14–15)
How do rulers rise to power? The Bible provides two complementary answers. First, in texts like Romans 13:1–7, we are told that God appoints rulers. He is sovereign over the rise and fall of nations, kings, and empires. This sovereignty includes even pagan and unbelieving rulers (Dan. 2:31–45). Every government is ultimately appointed by, and accountable to, the Lord God. Yet, this truth does not answer how a government should be formed within history. Throughout time, conquerors have risen and taken whatever they could. Does their might make them right?
This leads to the second way the Bible speaks of governments forming—the consent of the governed as the people to choose their rulers. Deuteronomy 17:14–15 speaks of both God and the people’s role in choosing the when and who of a king. Israel initiates the process by saying, “I will set a king over me” (17:14), and then God grants permission and picks the king himself (17:15). Until these both happened, there would be no king in Israel. The people must first request a king, then God provides one.
Likewise, Peter stresses the role of the people in the formation of a government when he calls the state a “human institution/creation” (1 Pet. 2:13). God is sovereign, yet the people have a role in creating the state. This dual sense of how rulers rise to power appears throughout Israel’s history. The people demand a king, God chooses Saul, and then the people covenant with Saul as their king (1 Sam. 8–11). Saul is not the king until he covenants with the people. The people had to consent first, only then would he fully be the king. Later, God chooses David as the next king (1 Sam. 16), yet he cannot ascend to the throne until Saul is dead and the people covenant with him (2 Sam. 5). There are years between David’s anointing and the establishment of his monarchy through a covenant with the people. No covenant equals no kingship. In short, a government requires some level of consent, represented here by a covenant, from the governed. One cannot just declare, “I am the king,” and then expect everyone to submit.
Second Chronicles 22–23 further exhibits the need for this consent of the governed. Ahaziah was made king by “the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (2 Chron. 22:1). Again, the people chose a king from among themselves. God sovereignly works as he appoints the king through the consent of the people. When Ahaziah dies, his mother Athaliah seizes the throne by killing the rest of the royal line (2 Chron. 22:10–12). In defiance of her tyranny, the people hid one from the royal line, Joash, for years. When the time came, the people declared him the rightful king by covenanting with him and executing Athaliah for her wicked usurpation of the throne (2 Chron. 23). Athaliah’s mere claim to authority, which went unchallenged for years, was not enough to make her the rightful ruler. Assertions of power, and the use of the sword, do not a government make. Rather, the people have a say in who rules them. Biblically, this is formalized through a covenant.
From these texts, we get two important truths about the state. First, a level of consent from the governed is necessary for the legitimacy of any state. Second, governments are formed through covenants (or compacts, constitutions, etc.) that lay out the responsibilities of the rulers to their citizens and the citizens to their rulers. Protestants have asserted this reality for centuries. For example, the compacts of the early American settlements were modeled on the biblical idea of a covenant.[4] Also, Protestants assert that when rulers severely violate these covenants, such acts constitute tyranny and are justification for revolution.[5] A revolution is an act of the governed removing their consent in response to egregious tyranny.
4. See Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1988), 12–49. See also Amos, Defending the Declaration, 127–150.
5. Amos, Defending the Declaration, 127–167.
How does someone become the king? God works through the machinery of history to raise up rulers and the people offer their consent to be ruled (and protected) by them. The best biblical model for the people offering their consent to be governed is through a covenant, or compact, that lays out the rights and responsibilities of the king and the citizens. In this way, the king is under that law (i.e., a political covenant, compact, or constitution).
The King’s Submission to the Law (Deut. 17:18–19)
In the Torah, God required the kings of Israel to write their own copy of the law covenant. By requiring this, God instructed the king of his need to obey God’s law. Deuteronomy 17:18–19 reads:
And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them.
One of the first tasks of the king was to handwrite his own copy of the law and then he was to read it all the days of his life. This practice was intended to bring about the king’s obedience to the law. In the Bible, the term law is used in different ways. Sometimes it refers to the covenant and other times it refers to legal/moral standards. Here, God has both uses in mind. The king represents the people to God, and so he must keep the covenant for the good of the whole nation. When Israel had righteous kings, things went well for them. When Israel had wicked kings, they rebelled and came into judgment. For Israel, the importance of having a righteous king was a life-or-death proposition.
Yet, this practice was about more than just keeping covenant with God. It also included the King obeying “all the words of this law and these statutes.” The king had to keep the same legal statutes he was charged with enforcing. In short, the king, like the rest of Israel, was under God’s law. The law was king, even over the king of Israel.
Similarly, when Saul was chosen as king, Samuel told the people about “the rights and duties of the kingship” (1 Sam. 10:25). As king, Saul owed certain duties to God and to the people. Being a king is not a blank check for Saul to do whatever he wants. Again, the law was an authority over even the king. He is bound to keep it before both God and his people. The king is not above the law but under it. For example, when both Saul and David break the law, they are found guilty (1 Sam. 13:8–23; 2 Sam. 12:1–13). Why? Because the king is not over the law, but under it. The idea that no one is above the law, including the king, comes straight from the Bible.
The King’s Equality (Deut. 17:20)
Not only is the king under the law, but as Deuteronomy 17:20 asserts, he is equal to his fellow citizens. As a king studies the law, God intends that “his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers” (17:20). Under the law, the king is not above anyone else. There is a fundamental equality of every citizen under the rule of law. Amos explains:
In human terms, no man is higher or better than any other man. No man is lord over any other man. No man may insert himself between God and another man.[6]
6. Amos, Defending the Declaration, 107.
Such equality is unique to Christianity. The ancient Greeks did not believe in a fundamental equality. Thinkers like Aristotle and Plato believed, based on their polytheism, that “all men [are] inherently unequal.”[7] The idea of equality appeared unjust to the ancients.[8] It is here, again, that Christian political theory changed the world for the better.
7. Amos, Defending the Declaration, 113.
8. Amos, Defending the Declaration, 114.
Equality is rooted in our relationship with God and our status under his eternal law. Everyone is judged impartially by God and thus the state must impartially execute God’s justice. As justice is the state’s primary ministry, the Bible demands impartiality in the execution of justice. Consider the following verses:
You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit (Exod. 23:2–3).
You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor (Lev. 19:15).
You shall not be partial in judgment. You shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God’s (Deut. 1:17).
You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous (Deut. 16:19).
Partiality means judging someone according to his “face.”[9] It is prejudging someone, positively or negatively, based on who they are. Partiality in judgment is the exact opposite of equality under the law. God tells us not to show partiality to either the rich or the poor. The powerful or the weak. The great or the small. Kings or citizens. Partiality is a perversion of justice. The New Testament also condemns partiality (Col. 3:25; 1 Tim. 5:21; Jas. 2:1–9) because it is contrary to the very nature of God (Deut. 10:17; 2 Chron. 19:7; Acts 10:34; Rom 2:11; Eph. 6:9). To treat a king by a different standard than his citizens violates a core principle of God’s justice. Therefore, God commanded the King of Israel to write the law so that he would realize he was not “above” his brothers. He is equal with his fellow countrymen before God and under the law.
9. David W. Pao, Colossians and Philemon, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Clinton E. Arnold (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 277.
But Isn’t that Just for Israel?
Anytime you glean truths from the Old Testament, someone is bound to object, “But that’s just for Israel, we are not under the Old Covenant.” It is gloriously true that with Christ’s work, we have entered a new era of redemptive history. We have moved from shadows to the substance that is Christ. We may not be under the Old Covenant as it was, but the first five books of Scripture are still God’s authoritative word.
The coming of Christ does not erase the words of God but fulfills them. While there is a major covenantal shift caused by the work of Christ, all of Scripture is still breathed out by God, and all of it is profitable to equip us for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16–18). The Old Testament is no less Scripture than the New Testament. God’s Word is authoritative over all of life. These things were written down for us upon whom the end of the age has come (1 Cor. 10:11). The covenants may change, but God’s moral standards are perfect, universal, eternal, and unchanging. The law, as a moral standard, has an enduring application even to our era of redemptive history (1 Tim. 1:8–11).
The truths about the state found in the Old Testament are not only for Israel; they were written down for our instruction. Does the Bible provide any examples of the law, as a legal/moral standard, applied outside of the covenant people of Israel? Yes. God speaks through the prophet Isaiah to the nations about how they have “defiled” the earth by breaking the “laws,” “statutes,” and the “everlasting covenant” (Isa. 24:5). Similarly, Jonah confronted the Gentile people of Ninevah with their sin, and even their king repented (Jon. 3:6). Every time God pronounces judgments on Gentile kings, he does so according to his moral character which is revealed in his law.
Moving to the New Testament, consider John the Baptist’s confrontation with King Herod Antipas. His father, King Herod the Great, was not an ethnic Jew and thus was never accepted by the Jews as their rightful king.[10] Yet, Herod ruled over the Jews within the Roman structure of governance. Herod Antipas’s authority came from the Roman Empire. His kingship was outside of the Old Covenant. Yet, in Matthew 14:3–4, John the Baptist confronts Antipas for violating God’s law:
10. R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2007), 70n44.
For Herod had seized John and bound him and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, because John had been saying to him, “It is not lawful for you to have her.”
John the Baptist charges a Roman ruler for his sexual immorality by citing biblical law. His case is simple, “It is against the law for you to have your brother’s wife.” As horrifying as it is to some today, John appeals to the legal code of Leviticus to rebuke a secular ruler (Lev. 18:16; 20:21). Though a Roman tetrarch, Herod is still bound to God’s law. He has broken it and needs to repent. Even as a Gentile ruler, King Herod Antipas is not exempt from God’s law.
Where Does the Law Come From?
The law is king, but which law are we talking about? Where does this law come from? Does each society get to make its own laws based on their differing beliefs? Francis Schaeffer explains what’s at stake with this question, “If there are no absolutes by which to judge society, then society becomes absolute.”[11] As it pertains to our discussions, if the law is determined by society—whether it be kings, representatives, or the people—then morality becomes relativistic. Society becomes God. In such a world, law becomes an expression of arbitrary power; those with the power determine what is right and what is wrong. Just as Christians opposed the supremacy of kings over the law, we must also reject presidents, courts, congresses, and society as the source of the law. Democracy alone is no surer foundation for the law than a monarchy.
11. Francis Schaeffer, “How Should We Then Live?” in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview, vol. 5, A Christian View of the West (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1982), 224.
For a legal theory to be Christian, it must begin with the truth that the law, the standard for morality, comes from God. Contrary to the popular trope, we can and do legislate morality. Every law is based on some vision of ethics and morality. Every law legislates morality. Therefore, every law is built on some moral foundation. The only question is: which foundation will we use? If we believe that morality is relative, then laws are also relative. Conversely, if there is a universal moral standard, then we must align our laws with it.
For morality to be universal, there must be a universal God to ground it in.[12] For humans to know God’s standards, they must be revealed to us from God. The Christian legal tradition generally speaks of two ways God reveals his law to us—in nature and Scripture. Thus, we have natural law and biblical law. Both are revelations from God. Nature reveals nothing by itself; rather, God reveals his standards as they are hardwired into creation (Rom. 1:16–2:16). Therefore, humanity is without excuse. Yet, in our sin, humanity distorts, perverts, and suppresses this revelation. Natural law, like natural revelation, is not sufficient. If it was, then God would not have given us biblical law. Even before man’s fall into sin, God spoke verbally to Adam instructing him on how to live (Gen. 2:15–17). Verbal revelation was always necessary for man to know right from wrong.
12. See Francis Schaeffer, He is There and He is Not Silent (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2001), 19–32.
Currently, in the American church, there is a fierce debate between those who advocate for natural law versus those who argue for biblical law. For some, natural law is all the state needs to govern righteously. Thus, they argue for the sufficiency of natural revelation to the exclusion of the special revelation found in Scripture. By excluding Scripture from civic life, such Christians end up sounding eerily like secularists. Others argue that biblical law is necessary for a just legal code. Often in this debate, natural and biblical law are portrayed as two competing foundations. Parties on both sides act as if there are two different standards of morality, both from God, that somehow contradict one another. Such thinking displays an ignorance of Christian and Protestant political thought.
From the Magna Carta to British common law, the West has appealed to both biblical law and natural law as essential to our civic laws.[13] Our American legal system was built off of the British common law tradition. Whether we admit it or not, our system is still informed by both natural and biblical law. In some ways, we are still ruled by a Christian understanding of law, and for this, we should be grateful.[14]
13. Amos, Defending the Declaration, 35–74.
14. Joseph Boot, The Mission of God: A Manifesto of Hope for Society (London: Wilberforce Publications, 2016), 253–259.
For example, in the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers mention the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” as a foundation for our liberty. Some wrongly think this is an appeal to a deistic understanding of God and natural law. Through citing primary sources, Amos proves such phrases were used for centuries in Christian political thought.[15] Similar wording is even used in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Amos writes that this terminology, laws of nature and nature’s God, was “a legal phrase for God’s law revealed through nature and his moral law revealed in the Bible.”[16] Our nation was founded on both natural and biblical law. The two are meant to go together.
15. Amos, Defending the Declaration, 35–74.
16. Amos, Defending the Declaration, 35.
William Blackstone, who wrote one of the most influential commentaries on British common law, asserted the need for both natural and biblical law. His work greatly influenced the American colonies and our founding fathers. Blackstone described the origins of British law this way:
Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation [Scripture] depend all human laws…the law of nature and the law of God.[17]
17. Cited in Amos, Defending the Declaration, 44.
Blackstone is not alone. Aquinas, a favorite of those who seek to treat natural law as independent from biblical law, wrote this about the superiority of biblical law:
The written law is… given for the correction of the natural law, either because it supplies what was lacking in the natural law, or because the natural law was perverted in the hearts of different men, as to different matters, so that they thought those things good which are natural evil, which perversion stood in need of correction.[18]
18. Cited in Amos, Defending the Declaration, 49.
Natural law is insufficient. It needs biblical law. Amos summarizes this reality, “It is incorrect, at least where Aquinas and Blackstone are concerned, to say that the ‘law of nature’ tradition made ‘natural law’ independent from the control of Scripture.”[19] There is no sound historical or biblical reason to treat the two as contrary or independent from one another. Amos, commenting on Rutherford’s beliefs, writes:
19. Amos, Defending the Declaration, 50.
Thus, according to Rutherford, the authority of the government rests on two foundations, divine law and the law of nature, and the two laws are one.[20]
20. Amos, Defending the Declaration, 64.
The law is king and thus rulers are under its authority. This law is none other than the very law of God. Its divine source is precisely why the law transcends kings and cultures and is universally binding. No creature can claim an exemption from God’s universal moral standards. Thus, our law-making is never to be arbitrary. No king, senate, president, or majority has the right to pass a bill that contradicts the law of God. To claim the prerogative to autonomously make law is to usurp a power that belongs to God alone.
Every law asserts some form of morality: everything from speed limits to marriage laws. Hence, morality and the law are inseparable. Both require an authoritative and universal foundation. Thus, the foundation for every just law is the law of God. For this reason, the people of God are duty-bound to oppose arbitrary and tyrannical laws. Throughout history, from Moses and Daniel to Ambrose of Milan and the Protestant Reformers,[21] God’s people oppose evil, arbitrary, and unjust laws.
21. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto, 470–474.
The law is king, and God’s law is the foundation of all true laws. Passages like Deuteronomy 17:14–20 teach us that no one is above the law because the law comes from God. The words of John the Baptist to Herod Antipas demonstrate its universal application. Through this doctrine, Christianity changed politics and the world for the better. The idea of Lex Rex held tyrants accountable, advanced justice, and even helped to birth a new nation.
Christians need to remember their own history and to appreciate the advances of Christian political thought. Revisionist history has lied to us for too long. Christianity is not an oppressive force; rather it is liberating because it confines the power of the state. Moreover, the heritage of American Constitutionalism is rooted in a Protestant understanding of law and covenant.[22] The church needs to recover this vision and declare it to our confused age. Only by rightly understanding our history can we then chart a faithful course for the future. It is time for the church to speak with clarity that God’s word is authoritative over all of life. His law is perfect and we are all under it. These truths transformed the world once before, and they can do so again.
