The claim that Christians should never break the law is highly controversial because the Bible appears to offer conflicting teachings about political authority and moral obedience. On the one hand, St Paul teaches in Romans 13 that “there is no authority except that which God has established”, and therefore Christians should “submit to the governing authorities.” Likewise, in John 19, Jesus tells Pontius Pilate that his authority has been “given… from above”, suggesting that earthly governments possess legitimacy under God’s providence. These passages have traditionally been used to support political obedience and social stability. However, the Bible also contains many examples where disobedience to human law is either commanded or rewarded by God. In Exodus, the Hebrew midwives disobey Pharaoh’s order to kill Hebrew babies and are blessed by God for doing so. In Acts 5:29, Peter openly declares, “We must obey God rather than human beings.” Similarly, figures such as Daniel and the apostles willingly broke laws that prevented worship or demanded injustice. The issue is therefore whether Christians owe unconditional obedience to the state or whether God’s moral law takes priority over human authority. This essay will argue that Christians should not believe they must never break the law because unjust laws may contradict divine morality, and Christian discipleship sometimes requires civil disobedience in defence of justice, conscience and obedience to God.

One reason Christians may be justified in breaking the law is that God’s authority is ultimately higher than the authority of the state. Human laws are not automatically moral simply because governments enforce them. According to Christian teaching, morality originates from God, meaning earthly authority is limited and conditional rather than absolute. This principle is clearly expressed in Acts 5:29 when Peter tells the Sanhedrin, “We must obey God rather than human beings.” The apostles continued preaching despite legal prohibition because they believed divine commands outweighed political authority. St Augustine supports this position through his claim that “an unjust law is no law at all.” For Augustine, laws only possess genuine authority if they reflect justice and the eternal law of God. This argument is persuasive because it prevents Christians from becoming morally passive in the face of evil. History demonstrates that governments can create deeply unjust laws, including laws supporting slavery, segregation or genocide. If Christians believed they should never break the law, they could become complicit in serious injustice. Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s resistance to Nazi Germany illustrates this point powerfully. Bonhoeffer believed the Church had a duty not merely to “bandage the victims under the wheel, but to put a spoke in the wheel itself.” His participation in resistance against Hitler involved breaking the law, yet many Christians regard his actions as morally courageous and faithful. Moreover, natural law theory supports the idea that unjust human laws lack moral legitimacy because they contradict universal moral principles. The strength of this argument is that it preserves moral responsibility and prevents blind obedience to corrupt authority. Therefore, Christians should sometimes break the law when obedience to God and justice requires it.

A further reason why Christians may legitimately break the law is that Jesus himself often challenged legal and religious authorities in defence of compassion and human dignity. Although Jesus generally taught respect for authority, his actions repeatedly demonstrated that laws should serve human flourishing rather than become absolute. For example, Jesus healed on the Sabbath despite criticism from religious leaders, arguing that “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” This suggests that rigid obedience to rules can become morally wrong when it prevents love and justice. Christian ethics therefore places agape, selfless love, above legalism. Joseph Fletcher’s Situation Ethics develops this principle by arguing that the only absolute moral command is love. Fletcher claimed that “love is the only norm”, meaning Christians should sometimes reject laws if doing so produces a more loving outcome. This approach is convincing because it reflects the central teachings of Jesus, who consistently prioritised mercy over strict rule-following. Martin Luther King Jr., strongly influenced by Christian theology, defended civil disobedience against segregation laws in the United States. In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, King argued that “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” His campaign deliberately broke laws concerning protests and racial separation, yet his actions are now widely recognised as morally justified. This demonstrates that lawbreaking can contribute to social progress and justice when motivated by Christian principles of equality and love. Critics may fear that allowing lawbreaking creates disorder, but Christian civil disobedience is usually non-violent and principled rather than anarchic. It involves accepting legal consequences while witnessing to a higher moral truth. Consequently, examples from Jesus’ ministry and later Christian activism strongly support the view that Christians should not obey laws unconditionally.

Nevertheless, some Christians argue that believers should never break the law because social order depends upon obedience to authority. Romans 13 explicitly commands Christians to “submit” to governing authorities because rulers are “God’s servants.” From this perspective, rebellion against the law risks rebellion against God himself. Thomas Hobbes similarly argued that political stability is essential because without obedience society descends into chaos and violence. Some Christians therefore maintain that even imperfect governments are preferable to disorder and revolution. Furthermore, Jesus himself told his followers to “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”, suggesting acceptance of political authority and taxation. This argument has some force because widespread lawbreaking could encourage extremism, subjectivism and social instability. If every individual decided which laws were just, society could become fragmented and ungovernable. However, this counterargument is ultimately unconvincing because it ignores the conditional nature of biblical obedience. Romans 13 cannot mean absolute submission in every circumstance, since the Bible itself praises figures who disobey unjust rulers. The Hebrew midwives, Daniel and the apostles all broke laws in obedience to God and were commended for doing so. Moreover, blind obedience has historically enabled atrocities. During the Holocaust, many individuals defended immoral actions by claiming they were “only following orders.” Christian ethics requires conscience and moral discernment rather than passive conformity. Aquinas argued that unjust laws are acts of violence rather than true laws because they contradict reason and the common good. Therefore, while Christians should normally respect legal authority to preserve social order, obedience cannot be absolute when laws violate divine justice or human dignity. The counterargument fails because it prioritises political stability over moral truth and ignores Christianity’s deeper commitment to justice.

In conclusion, Christians should not believe they must never break the law because obedience to God and the demands of justice sometimes require civil disobedience. The strongest reason for this view is that human laws are fallible and can contradict divine morality, meaning Christians must ultimately follow conscience and God’s commands above political authority. Biblical examples, from the Hebrew midwives to the apostles, clearly demonstrate that lawbreaking may be righteous when it protects truth, compassion or justice. Although Romans 13 emphasises obedience to authority, this teaching cannot justify blind submission to evil or oppression. Christian history repeatedly shows that courageous lawbreaking has often advanced justice and defended human dignity. Christians today should therefore reject the idea of unconditional legal obedience and instead develop the wisdom to distinguish between just laws that deserve support and unjust laws that must be challenged in the name of God and moral truth.