Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 2 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 2
The chapter quotes 1 Peter 2 and Romans 13 to argue that earthly governments “ultimately derive their authority from God”; what does that reveal about God’s purposes in allowing non-Christian governments to rule, and how should that shape the way Christians talk about (and emotionally respond to) civil authority?
Another way to ask: If governments get their authority from God (1 Peter 2; Romans 13), why would God allow non-Christian rulers? How should that affect the way Christians speak about government and how they feel about it?

Direct Answer Based on Bercot’s teaching, God permits earthly authorities to function as real governing powers that restrain evil and maintain order, even when they are not Christian. That should lead Christians to speak and act with submission, respect, and seriousness toward civil authority—without giving it ultimate allegiance.

Support from Transcript:

  • 1 Peter 2 is quoted: submit “to every ordinance of man…to the king…or to governors…for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good.”
  • Romans 13 is quoted to show source of authority: “there is no authority except from God,” and rulers “are appointed by God.”
  • Bercot explicitly rejects a hostile posture: Christians “do not view earthly governments as illegitimate, hostile forces.”
  • He states a “seeming irony”: to obey Christ, we “first must be obedient to Caesar,” implying a positive purpose for civil order.
  • Yet he limits government claims: Caesar has rights only to “things…he has created,” not our bodies or souls; God has the “ultimate call.”
Discussion Follow-ups What changes in your tone if you truly believe civil authority is “appointed by God”? How can you maintain respect while also remembering that the government is never the “dominant kingdom” over God?