Help w/ Romans 13

[buckthesystem]

Copperscroll no wonder you get no good answers when you raise this question because it has been "done to death". Out of all the subjects raised on these boards, the question of the interpretation of Romans 13 must be the one that comes up most often and the one people are most staunch on.

Although it seems obvious to me that all of Romans 13 refers to God and heavenly rulers alone and does not, in any way, include MAN'S GOVERNMENT, or government bureaucrats and most certainly DOES NOT refer to rules and legislation made by control-freak, ungodly, politicians I have realised - quite recently (believing the opposite seems to be a recent phenomenon, but I do stand to be corrected on this) that there is a whole doctrine out there that believes that we all should obsequiously cowtow to these freaks "because God has appointed them and commanded that we must obey them".

I find it amazing how many people seem to believe this and I think it is incredibly dangerous - particularly in today's society where the technology exists to fulfill Biblical prophesies. And when the antiChrist arrives on the scene, will people be able to "draw the line" and say "well this is going too far, I am not having any part of this"?

The operative words in Romans 13, I believe, are "there is no power, but of God". I take that literally and to mean that nobody on earth has been given any special powers or authority over others to do what is clearly not God's bidding, but their own.

For Rom. 13.1: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers ............. the powers that be are ordained by God". I believe that it does not mean - as some would have us believe - that God has visited earth and ordained the DMV to steal your car because you parked on a broken yellow line or ordained a meter maid to "issue you with an infringement notice" because you left your car somewhere longer than it should have been, but it means that "higher powers" are God himself and his ministers and ordinances - NOT WORLDLY RULERS. God does not ordain worldly rulers but only his ministers who do and teach his word, or law. The Greek word for "powers" also means privileges, freedoms or rights, so this is saying that all rights or freedoms come from God.

Rom. 13.2: "Whoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resisteth shall receive unto themselves damnation". Explanation: (In my opinion anyway), "resisting man's ungodly law does not bring damnation or judgement. Only resisting God's law brings damnation. Many worldly rulers have had laws against God and God's law, even against being Christian. So obviously this is not referring to the powers of worldly rulers but only to the power of God and his law and his ministers. Worldly rulers, again, are not "higher powers", and since the word for "power" here means "rights or freedoms" it is likely saying that anyone who is a worldly ruler, who resists or opposes human rights, also opposes God's lawful order.

Rom. 13.3: "For rulers are not a terror to good works but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same. Again, "rulers" means ministers ordained by God NOT WORLDLY RULERS. Likewise the "power", again, means God and God's law and not that of any worldly ruler. Worldly rulers praise evil as much as good.

Rom. 13.4: "For he is minister of God to thee for good, but if thou do that which is evil, be afraid for he beareth not the sword in vain: For he is minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Means,Worldly rulers are not ministers of God. His miniters teach the word of God which is God's law. The word of God is sometimes called a sword - as in Eph. 6.17 and Rev. 1.16 and 2.12, 16 where someone like Jesus is said to have a sword meaning God's word coming from his mouth, which destroys, i.e. destroys the pride of the ungodly. Ministers use the same sword, the word of God, to rebuke evil doers. Rebuking sinners is sometimes called the wrath of God, this wrath begins with hurt pride.

Rom. 13.5: Wherefore ye must needs to be subject not only for wrath but also for conscience sake. Means: The wrath is uncomfortable and embarrassing and manifests as illhealth of body and mind. It tortures and destroys our pride but we should be concerned not just about the pain of wrath but also about righteousness - which is conscience. In other words we must follow our consciences, we are not stupid and know "right from wrong" and do not need "worldly rulers" to tell us that (not, of course, that worldly rulers would generally recognise right from wrong anyway).

Rom. 13.6: For this cause pay ye tribute also for they are God's ministers attending continually upon this very thing. And Rom. 13.7: Render therefore to all their dues: Tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to who custom is due, fear to whom fear is due, honour to whom honour is due. This is probably the most important one and the most potentially dangerous one is it is misinterpreted, because I believe that "tribute" does not mean "paying your council tax" but VOLUNTARY TITHES TO OUR MINISTERS WHO ATTEND TO OUR SALVATION and "customs" may refer to tithes to other ministries when we travel.

So that is my take on it anyway (and I had assumed until recently that that was the usual interpretation of this passage apart from the ravings of a few politicians throughout history who have claimed that their evil has been "ordained by God" and have used that as an excuse to excuse the most horrific abuses of the power that MAN has given to them - honestly or dishonestly, or by lying and cheating and "implied consent").

So to get back to your original question, "he who rebels against 'authority' is NOT rebelling against what God has instituted at all, but they are rebelling against what MAN has instituted. And if "what man has instituted" (alleged "authority" or not) is evil and goes against our basic human rights, kills, steals and destroys, then I believe that anyone has a RESPONSIBILITY AND AN OBLIGATION to rebel against such ungodly and horrible people.

If we do not, we are setting the scene for the antiChrist to walk in and take over, using the technology and systems put in place by his predessors and commit unspoken of evil, and Christians will back him all the way not realising what they have done.

People are not generally stupid and are capable of realising that there must be basic rules in society and they do not need politicians to "control them". God has already told us how to live our lives, he gave us the 10 commandments.

Yesterday I was reading one of the many news stories about the "national registration" system that is to be imposed on the people of UK and I came to the bottom of the page where it said "comment on this story". One comment suggested that "the only way to defeat this system is to pray for 'our leaders' to gain wisdom", it was followed by several other comments saying things like: "Evangelical Christians will be queueing up for this because they believe that 'this is all part of God's plan and our politicians who are imposing this on us are 'ordained by God'". This is one of the reasons that I believe that the interpretation of Romans 13 I am hearing is incredibly dangerous.

Believing that "the Bible tells us to obey earthly rulers" means, to me anyway, that we are going to walk right into a world that has "paved the way" for the antiChrist and people who always thought they were Christians and were "doing the right thing" will be deceived major-time by false religions and false messiahs.

I realise that this subject has been gone over a lot, but it is increasingly important and we should continue to go over it again and again.

[LadyRaven]

This is the bottom line Copper Scroll. There are consequences for rebellion against authorities. It may be imprisonment. It may be death. Are you willing to take such a chance because you do not like the way a particular government is acting? America can trace it's roots to a rebellion against the British government. In choosing to rebel, our forefathers took a chance on being killed and many men did lose their lives. As it turns out, the rebellion was successful, which tells me that God decided to raise up a new nation here. Then later on there was a rebellion led by the southern states when they desired to leave the union. They also knew that the consequences could mean death, and many brave men lost their lives in a losing cause. Apparently, it was not God's will for the union to be divided at that time in our nation's history.

I guess what it comes down to is if you are going to go against the government, you had better be sure it is the will of God, or it will be at your own peril. At this time, I see no reason to lead such a revolt, but as I have said in other posts, I would support a rebellion against the federal judges when they mandate that each state keep abortion legal. Not only would I support the states one by one passing and enforcing laws that violate the unconstitutional decrees of the Supreme Court, but would be in favor of leaving the union if necessary. I would rather not see things come to that, but am sempathetic to the actions of Christian Exodus and if Roe vs Wade is not overturned, I would even consider moving to South Carolina to help in their efforts.

Do what you feel is right in your conscience Copper Scroll, but if it is to go against the authorities understand there will be a price to pay for that decision. There have been many people that have refused to pay taxes because they believe income taxes to be illegal and have gone to prison for that decision. While I question the way the amendment allowing such taxation was enacted, the fact is it has been upheld and there is nothing we can do about it. My advise is to try to live at peace with everyone including the government whenever possible. It must be in an extreme case when rebellion would be in order.

If you move here to SC, you might want to check out SC League of the South also...

[Copper Scroll]

Copperscroll no wonder you get no good answers when you raise this question because it has been "done to death". Out of all the subjects raised on these boards, the question of the interpretation of Romans 13 must be the one that comes up most often and the one people are most staunch on.

I didn't realize this. Thanks.

Although it seems obvious to me that all of Romans 13 refers to God and heavenly rulers alone and does not, in any way, include MAN'S GOVERNMENT, or government bureaucrats and most certainly DOES NOT refer to rules and legislation made by control-freak, ungodly, politicians I have realised - quite recently (believing the opposite seems to be a recent phenomenon, but I do stand to be corrected on this) that there is a whole doctrine out there that believes that we all should obsequiously cowtow to these freaks "because God has appointed them and commanded that we must obey them".

I find it amazing how many people seem to believe this and I think it is incredibly dangerous - particularly in today's society where the technology exists to fulfill Biblical prophesies. And when the antiChrist arrives on the scene, will people be able to "draw the line" and say "well this is going too far, I am not having any part of this"?

The operative words in Romans 13, I believe, are "there is no power, but of God". I take that literally and to mean that nobody on earth has been given any special powers or authority over others to do what is clearly not God's bidding, but their own.

For Rom. 13.1: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers ............. the powers that be are ordained by God". I believe that it does not mean - as some would have us believe - that God has visited earth and ordained the DMV to steal your car because you parked on a broken yellow line or ordained a meter maid to "issue you with an infringement notice" because you left your car somewhere longer than it should have been, but it means that "higher powers" are God himself and his ministers and ordinances - NOT WORLDLY RULERS. God does not ordain worldly rulers but only his ministers who do and teach his word, or law. The Greek word for "powers" also means privileges, freedoms or rights, so this is saying that all rights or freedoms come from God.

Rom. 13.2: "Whoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resisteth shall receive unto themselves damnation". Explanation: (In my opinion anyway), "resisting man's ungodly law does not bring damnation or judgement. Only resisting God's law brings damnation. Many worldly rulers have had laws against God and God's law, even against being Christian. So obviously this is not referring to the powers of worldly rulers but only to the power of God and his law and his ministers. Worldly rulers, again, are not "higher powers", and since the word for "power" here means "rights or freedoms" it is likely saying that anyone who is a worldly ruler, who resists or opposes human rights, also opposes God's lawful order.

Rom. 13.3: "For rulers are not a terror to good works but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same. Again, "rulers" means ministers ordained by God NOT WORLDLY RULERS. Likewise the "power", again, means God and God's law and not that of any worldly ruler. Worldly rulers praise evil as much as good.

Rom. 13.4: "For he is minister of God to thee for good, but if thou do that which is evil, be afraid for he beareth not the sword in vain: For he is minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Means,Worldly rulers are not ministers of God. His miniters teach the word of God which is God's law. The word of God is sometimes called a sword - as in Eph. 6.17 and Rev. 1.16 and 2.12, 16 where someone like Jesus is said to have a sword meaning God's word coming from his mouth, which destroys, i.e. destroys the pride of the ungodly. Ministers use the same sword, the word of God, to rebuke evil doers. Rebuking sinners is sometimes called the wrath of God, this wrath begins with hurt pride.

Rom. 13.5: Wherefore ye must needs to be subject not only for wrath but also for conscience sake. Means: The wrath is uncomfortable and embarrassing and manifests as illhealth of body and mind. It tortures and destroys our pride but we should be concerned not just about the pain of wrath but also about righteousness - which is conscience. In other words we must follow our consciences, we are not stupid and know "right from wrong" and do not need "worldly rulers" to tell us that (not, of course, that worldly rulers would generally recognise right from wrong anyway).

Rom. 13.6: For this cause pay ye tribute also for they are God's ministers attending continually upon this very thing. And Rom. 13.7: Render therefore to all their dues: Tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to who custom is due, fear to whom fear is due, honour to whom honour is due. This is probably the most important one and the most potentially dangerous one is it is misinterpreted, because I believe that "tribute" does not mean "paying your council tax" but VOLUNTARY TITHES TO OUR MINISTERS WHO ATTEND TO OUR SALVATION and "customs" may refer to tithes to other ministries when we travel.

So that is my take on it anyway (and I had assumed until recently that that was the usual interpretation of this passage apart from the ravings of a few politicians throughout history who have claimed that their evil has been "ordained by God" and have used that as an excuse to excuse the most horrific abuses of the power that MAN has given to them - honestly or dishonestly, or by lying and cheating and "implied consent").

This interpretation seems a little far-fetched to me, mainly because the text appears to make no distinction between worldly powers and church authorities. If you interpretation is correct, the matter is confused and ambiguous at best. I like your interpretation though and would hope it's true.

So to get back to your original question, "he who rebels against 'authority' is NOT rebelling against what God has instituted at all, but they are rebelling against what MAN has instituted. And if "what man has instituted" (alleged "authority" or not) is evil and goes against our basic human rights, kills, steals and destroys, then I believe that anyone has a RESPONSIBILITY AND AN OBLIGATION to rebel against such ungodly and horrible people.

If we do not, we are setting the scene for the antiChrist to walk in and take over, using the technology and systems put in place by his predessors and commit unspoken of evil, and Christians will back him all the way not realising what they have done.

People are not generally stupid and are capable of realising that there must be basic rules in society and they do not need politicians to "control them". God has already told us how to live our lives, he gave us the 10 commandments.

Yesterday I was reading one of the many news stories about the "national registration" system that is to be imposed on the people of UK and I came to the bottom of the page where it said "comment on this story". One comment suggested that "the only way to defeat this system is to pray for 'our leaders' to gain wisdom", it was followed by several other comments saying things like: "Evangelical Christians will be queueing up for this because they believe that 'this is all part of God's plan and our politicians who are imposing this on us are 'ordained by God'". This is one of the reasons that I believe that the interpretation of Romans 13 I am hearing is incredibly dangerous.

Believing that "the Bible tells us to obey earthly rulers" means, to me anyway, that we are going to walk right into a world that has "paved the way" for the antiChrist and people who always thought they were Christians and were "doing the right thing" will be deceived major-time by false religions and false messiahs

I agree completely.

I realise that this subject has been gone over a lot, but it is increasingly important and we should continue to go over it again and again.

[Copper Scroll]

Ceasar Nero was the person being talked about in relation to the government there. Can you honestly say that literally speaking Nero fulfilled the role of Government as described in Romans 13 with a literal interpretation?

Look and place the word Nero in the appropriate places and see what it ends up meaning..

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities (Nero), for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities (Nero) that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority(Nero) is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers(Nero) hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the (Nero) one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For (Nero) he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for (Nero) he does not bear the sword for nothing. (Nero) He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the (Nero)authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for (Nero) the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Now...logically, can anyone say that Nero held no terror for those who did right?

This sounds like your criticizing Paul--the text as it's written... not as it's interpreted.

I doubt the Christians who were put on crosses and burnt to light Nero's roads would say this. It also meant that if you did right NERO would commend you. Doing right under Nero meant death not commendation. With this in mind it is obvious that a literal interpretation of this verse makes no sense. Nero was ordained by God, but he did not act in a manner consistent with what Romans 13 suggests he would/should.

But the text doesn't set any conditions that I can see. It seems like you are imposing conditions on it.

The only ways this verse can be taken as even remotely literally is if good and evil are not good and evil as defined by God, but good and evil as defined by the state. Submission therefore is what is expedient, to avoid punishment of the state.

In NO theological system that I can think of, is submission and obedience ever considered absolute anyhow. If the government commanded you to kill your youngest child as a sacrifice to the president nobody on this board would do it.

[buckthesystem]

In reply to:

QUOTE

I doubt the Christians who were put on crosses and burnt to light Nero's roads would say this. It also meant that if you did right NERO would commend you. Doing right under Nero meant death not commendation. With this in mind it is obvious that a literal interpretation of this verse makes no sense. Nero was ordained by God, but he did not act in a manner consistent with what Romans 13 suggests he would/should.

Copper scroll wrote: "But the text doesn't set any conditions that I can see. It seems like you are imposing conditions on it."

Another QUOTE

The only ways this verse can be taken as even remotely literally is if good and evil are not good and evil as defined by God, but good and evil as defined by the state. Submission therefore is what is expedient, to avoid punishment of the state.

In NO theological system that I can think of, is submission and obedience ever considered absolute anyhow. If the government commanded you to kill your youngest child as a sacrifice to the president nobody on this board would do it.

My reply: The argument is that many, many people seem to take all of Rom. 13 to be a total absolute. Either it is interpreted as "we should obey WORLDLY 'authority'" always, or we don't!

Some of us might be able to "draw the line" but I rather doubt if the majority of the public will be able to understand the difference between "obeying the laws of the land" (which I believe that we have the 10 commandments for - and our own common sense of course, anyway) and obsequiously obeying evil or incompetent and bumbling, and lying "world authorities".

It might be that nobody on this board would "sacrifice their youngest child" if they were commanded to do so, but some others would, and there would most certainly be no shortage of people who would be really excited to have the "job" (they would perhaps excuse it by saying "it's a hard job, but somebody's got to do it" or some such other sanctimoneous, idiotic statement) of rounding up those kids whose parents wouldn't "obey" and killing them and then jailing the parents.

Here's where the danger lies.

[Smalcald]

Of course we should resist the world. If our government prevents us from practicing our faith, and then we must resist it, I do agree.

Right now my government in the US protects me and allows me to practice my faith in freedom and in peace, for this I thank God, and only God would institute a government, which allowed Christians to live in peace and practice their faith. I drove to work this morning without fear of death by bandits, my children are in a school that I am not worried will be raided by Muslims or other fascists, my home is protected, I am very grateful for these benefits of good government. I do agree there will be a time when we must be ready to die for our faith at the hands of the authorities.

However, we must separate true persecution, from fantasy persecution, Christians today are being killed for simply being Christians, they have no security, they have no government of laws or redress. Think of being a Christian in Bagdhad right now, they have been there at least a thousand years, they have no government, they are under constant threat of death, no law, no order, no utilities, etc.

[Copper Scroll]

Right now my government in the US protects me and allows me to practice my faith in freedom and in peace, for this I thank God, and only God would institute a government, which allowed Christians to live in peace and practice their faith. I drove to work this morning without fear of death by bandits, my children are in a school that I am not worried will be raided by Muslims or other fascists, my home is protected, I am very grateful for these benefits of good government.

Not everyone in the US lives like this. Not everyone is safe and secure.

Christians today are being killed for simply being Christians

Let me add that Jews are being killed for being Jews... and Buddhists are killed for being Buddhists... and the list could go on.

[Smalcald]

Right now my government in the US protects me and allows me to practice my faith in freedom and in peace, for this I thank God, and only God would institute a government, which allowed Christians to live in peace and practice their faith. I drove to work this morning without fear of death by bandits, my children are in a school that I am not worried will be raided by Muslims or other fascists, my home is protected, I am very grateful for these benefits of good government.

Not everyone in the US lives like this. Not everyone is safe and secure.

Christians today are being killed for simply being Christians

Let me add that Jews are being killed for being Jews... and Buddhists are killed for being Buddhists... and the list could go on.

Sure we have problems, but if we rank ordered governments instituted since Christ, the United States government is one of the most legitimate and overall good governments to exist. It has problems, but nobody in the US worries about invasion for example or about hordes of foreign fighters taking their land, like people do in some parts of the world. Even the poorest communities are far better off than whole countries in other parts of the world. Could we do better? Yes we could, but in general we are at peace, we have a system of laws which are good and punishes evil, and we have a property rights system which works, we actually have a system.

My point about persecution was that indeed Christians (and other faiths) in some parts of the world are truly persecuted, Christians in the US and in the West in general are not persecuted, but protected. We denigrate the very real sacrifice to death of these Christians, when we whine about our little problems. Our peace and our protections are a gift of God through reasonably good government I don't understand this strange overreaction against our government.

[buckthesystem]

Right now my government in the US protects me and allows me to practice my faith in freedom and in peace, for this I thank God, and only God would institute a government, which allowed Christians to live in peace and practice their faith. I drove to work this morning without fear of death by bandits, my children are in a school that I am not worried will be raided by Muslims or other fascists, my home is protected, I am very grateful for these benefits of good government.

Not everyone in the US lives like this. Not everyone is safe and secure.

Christians today are being killed for simply being Christians

Let me add that Jews are being killed for being Jews... and Buddhists are killed for being Buddhists... and the list could go on.

Sure we have problems, but if we rank ordered governments instituted since Christ, the United States government is one of the most legitimate and overall good governments to exist. It has problems, but nobody in the US worries about invasion for example or about hordes of foreign fighters taking their land, like people do in some parts of the world. Even the poorest communities are far better off than whole countries in other parts of the world. Could we do better? Yes we could, but in general we are at peace, we have a system of laws which are good and punishes evil, and we have a property rights system which works, we actually have a system.

My point about persecution was that indeed Christians (and other faiths) in some parts of the world are truly persecuted, Christians in the US and in the West in general are not persecuted, but protected. We denigrate the very real sacrifice to death of these Christians, when we whine about our little problems. Our peace and our protections are a gift of God through reasonably good government I don't understand this strange overreaction against our government.

Yet more reason to believe that Rom. 13 does not refer to worldly "authorities". If the idea that Paul was referring to "obeying politicians" in Rom. 13 was true then why would God endorse a country like the US of A which has "freedom of religion" alongside other nations where practising Christianity is a death sentence?

BTW the present government in the US of A might be reasonably fair and benign but you should never be lulled into a sense of complacency about this. Leaders are subject to change in "no time" and hence policies of governments are subject to change just as quickly.

It is also important to remember that "government makes a good servant, but a fearsome master". And (ok all the platitudes) "liberty is conditional on eternal vigilance" (or words to that effect, I am not that good at quotes). We must not ever give governments too much power, or revere them, the people who are "in government" cannot handle power and people end up by getting killed.

As to your last sentence. I am not dis'ing your government particularly (it is not all good, but then compared to a lot of others it is, and I still believe in the old Jimmy Stewart films about "American Justice". I could be being naive, I don't know) but I am cautioning against people ever putting trust in earthly "authorities". I believe that just about all earthly "authorities" are inherently evil and are "paving the way for the Antichrist".

[Smalcald]

I think we should be on constant guard about our obligation toward Christ His service and His worship. I agree with some of what you say buck.

But also let us get back to Romans 13 a little. Look at this passage at the end.

6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If youowe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

I think this is a actually a brilliant verse, I think it foresees the problems we will have in the world and how some may use faux rebellion as an excuse for simply not doing things that they ought to do. I use government services every day, I vote, I accept my citizenship in this country, when I am old enough to retire I will accept Social Security, when I have needed them I have called the police and they came, ergo, I owe them, I owe them taxes and I owe them respect and honor. I just served on a jury, I was compelled to go, and I owe that to my country. I also think my culture is sliding down the toilet, but whose fault is that? But I don