Dear Rich,

On yesterday's show I heard a caller repeat the oft-heard argument based on Romans 13 that we don't have to submit to evil politicians, because Romans 13:3-4 says that "rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil," and any politician who (for example) prohibits the preaching of the gospel forfeits his right to be called a legitimate "ruler," to whom submission is owed.

This position is manifestly unBiblical.

In Acts 3 Peter and John heal a man crippled from birth and use this miracle as a springboard to tell the crowd about the greater miracle of Christ's resurrection. They are arrested and set the next day before the "rulers, elders, and scribes, {6} as well as Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the family of the high priest, [who] were gathered together at Jerusalem." Acts 4:5-6  

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, addressed them as "Rulers of the people and elders of Israel" (Acts 4:8). He indicted those he called "rulers" for assassinating Christ, and he was ordered not to preach the Gospel. Upon his release, he shared with his Christian brothers and sisters what the rulers had done, and they broke out in singing Psalm 2: 

"The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ." Acts 4:26  

In all cases, the word "ruler" is the same Greek word as in Romans 13.

Clearly, even one who commits the most egregious crime in all of history -- executing the Lord's Christ -- is still a "ruler," and the submission commanded in Romans 13 is still due. After saying to one such ruler, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall!" Paul admitted this: "I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'" (Acts 23:5)