What's Your Take on Romans 13?

[abacabb]

And he also ordains people to overthrow tyranny.

It's funny that the Bible was written when guys like Nero were Cesar and there is zero mention of "that guy is just too nuts, he's killing Christians, it's okay to kill that guy."

I think the Bible was practical in its advice, but the advice is timeless. People shouldn't use their religion as an excuse to go about overthrowing a government. Imagine if a bunch of nuts overthrew our government now so Rick Santorum can make us a theocracy! There are "Christians" out there that think not having prayer in public schools, legalizing gay marriage and etcetera is good reason to change the government. Let's not give them the idea to want to violently overthrow it.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I'd just point out that the Bible was translated and transcribed many times, and the Church was often working hand in glove with whoever was in authority when they were not directly the authority.

Contrary to popular believe, the founding fathers were mostly religious men well acquainted with scripture, and somehow they managed to determine that all men are endowed with inalienable rights, and that when auhtority tried to deprive men of those rights, they were not only in the right but they were duty-bound to resist it.

When "the church" was working "hand in glove with those in authority", more times than not, it wasn't "the church". In fact, it persecuted and massacred the true church of God. The church is never ever a part of the state. Whenever it is, you can guarantee that it is not Christian anymore.

 

[shane77m]

These are some verses that I have been contemplating. My conclusion at this point in time is that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Our "leaders"/"rulers" swear an oath to uphold it. So I would say that in Romans 13, Americans should replace ruler/leader with Constitution. Which could potentially bring up more issues since the citizenry is capable of making changes to the Constitution.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Another thing that I look at is that our "leaders" are our servants. They get their power from us. Because of that I would not call our elected officials "leaders"/"rulers". They may have authority but they get that from us. At least that appears to be what the founders thought.

The leader that Paul is speaking of seems to be a benevolent person and not a tyrant. I base that on the fact that he says the leader will treat you good if you follow the rules.

My views on the subject are not popular within the southern Baptists circle. The majority of what I hear is that we are supposed to submit to everything that the government tells us to do unless it violates God's law. The thing I don't think many think about is paying taxes that go to keep the lights on at Planned Parenthood and pay for the bombs that blow up innocent children. I have somewhat of a moral dilemma when it comes to taxes.

So in some aspects I don't think that Romans 13 would apply to the government of the United States. Anyways, that is just some random thoughts I have on Romans 13.

If you think about it though, our country was found upon rebellion.

 

[Christian Liberty]

You're not going to like the answer. Read Ephesians 5 or 1 Peter 3, or Titus 2.

God puts us in different positions. If you are a wife and an employer, you would submit to your husband and with your employees, lead them and love them sacrificially. Depending on where God put you decides how you act.

The Bible is clear that Christians submit to government in all things that do not violate worship. In Acts 5, Christians go to prison rather than forswear Christ. But, they did not have an armed revolt like our founders did, though they justifiably could have.

There is a reason why the American Revolution was over enlightenment ideals and not Christian ones.

I don't claim that I'll like the answer... Will read the passages you mentioned.

I think any definition that doesn't accept the Revolutionary War as justified pretty much has to be wrong, however...

 

[abacabb]

I don't claim that I'll like the answer... Will read the passages you mentioned.

I think any definition that doesn't accept the Revolutionary War as justified pretty much has to be wrong, however...

Sadly, yes. I'm happy by historical accident I'm born here and not North Korea, but while a case can be made that Christians can legitimately at least defend themselves against the government there, that case simply cannot be made here. If anything, the Bible and early church history reflects that Christians would simply allow themselves to be arrested and martyred as Jesus and 11 out of 13 of his disciples were. The exceptions being Judas, because he's a prick and John, who lived an extremely long time by all accounts.

Simply read how the Bible discusses children submitting to parents, wives to husbands, slaves to cruel masters. For example:

“Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in
everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal
from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way
they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.” (Titus 2:9-10)

Granted, masters are supposed to listen to the following:
“Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know
that you also have a Master in heaven.” Colossians 4:1.



But notice that the way Masters are to treat slaves is not predicated upon whether their slaves are any good and the way slaves are to treat masters whether their masters deserve it?

Doesn't Christ love the Church, though the Church not deserve it?

So is our submission to government, sadly. It is not coincidental that discussions of slavery, marriage, child rearing all happen consecutively in 1 Peter 2 and 3. The idea at the center of it is the same. God puts all men in submission to other men, and all men in some aspect of authority over other men. We have a very specific and different role to play in each case.

 

[Christian Liberty]

They reward those who do good according to how they, the rulers, define the good. And they punish those who do evil according to how they define evil. This is why Paul says in 2 Timothy 2:9 that he is imprisoned as an "evil doer" (same words as in Romans 13), when the "evil" he does is the preaching of the Gospel.

So basically, Paul is saying "If you want the ruler to think well of you, do what he would like you to do.... Well... duh, I guess. This also would imply that you shouldn't always do what the rulers tell you to do.

Because God uses them to accomplish his purposes. You can see this in the one and only example of a ruler that Paul mentions anywhere else in Romans, which is Pharaoh, of whom Paul quotes God saying, "For this very purpose [of Pharaoh disobeying God] I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." (Romans 9). Notice that this claim about rulers isn't an ideal of what they're supposed to be, it's a statement of fact of what all of them always are. The Beast himself will be God's servant, though not meaning to.

True enough. I suppose "Servant of God" doesn't necessariiy mean "Follower." Predestination and all of that.

I don't think it was sarcasm. But I do think he was being deliberately subtle, and expected his audience to see things there that outside eyes wouldn't notice. He wouldn't have wanted to give the authorities something to use against the Roman Christians to accuse them of sedition. But for them it hardly needed to be said that the rulers over them were no friend of the church. And if you notice how this section of Romans follows from what immediately precedes it, it implies that the rulers are their enemies who persecute them, whom they are to bless.

I'll have to parse Romans 12 again, thanks!

Absolutely, 100% agree. Paul was giving practical advice, not a prescription for government. Also, Paul made it clear that God ordains everything, even tyrants to judge sinful people (and even His people).

Yeah true, that God allows something to happen doesn't mean the actor was doing right. That's fairly obvious. Just look at Jesus' persecution.

If you have the power of the sword, yes. Jesus didn't say, "If a Roman soldiers asks you go a mile, go another mile only if he asked really nice."

I think the point there was more to be a witness to the soldier than because he actually has a right to command you to do it. Jesus says "Turn the other cheek" doesn't mean that the one who slaps you is in any way justified.

Doesn't everyone with a sword have the power of the sword?

I also think in that verse Jesus was giving advice, as well as pointing to the humiliation in life that imitation of Christ entails, not speaking to the morality of the situation. He wasn't saying, "Whatever the soldier tells you to do, treat it as though I'm the one telling you. So that if you disobey him you sin against me."

If you take this too literally, I could literally buy a sword and you'd have to obey me as long as I call myself "Government." But by this logic, always obey also literally means always. Not only when the command doesn't disobey God. Always. The parody Landover Baptist Church http://www.bing.com/search?q=Landover+Baptist+Church&form=AGWTDF&pc=MAGW&src=IE-SearchBox uses these passages to say "We should obey EVERY ORDINANCE even if it disobeys God so we can't enforce the OT law now... or something like that....

It was of course an absurd case of cognitive dissonance but since they're really atheists picking on Evangelicals... yeah...

It's funny that the Bible was written when guys like Nero were Cesar and there is zero mention of "that guy is just too nuts, he's killing Christians, it's okay to kill that guy."

I think the Bible was practical in its advice, but the advice is timeless. People shouldn't use their religion as an excuse to go about overthrowing a government. Imagine if a bunch of nuts overthrew our government now so Rick Santorum can make us a theocracy! There are "Christians" out there that think not having prayer in public schools, legalizing gay marriage and etcetera is good reason to change the government. Let's not give them the idea to want to violently overthrow it.

IIRC the most commonly accepted date for Romans is AD57. If I recall correctly, Nero was no yet Caesar and Rome to some degree tolerated Christians although the Jews didn't. I'm not an expert though, so take with a grain of salt.

As for Santorumesque idiots.... firstly, why should we care what they think? Secondly, even if the government they created was unjust, the death of the murderers we now have would still be just. Granted, I'm not actually suggesting an immediate attempt to overthrow the government but this seems a silly reason to oppose it.

Honestly, the kind of absolutism you'd express here would let Hitler get away with killing ten million people. If you had the power to kill Hitler, would you seriously not? I would. It would be justice.

These are some verses that I have been contemplating. My conclusion at this point in time is that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Our "leaders"/"rulers" swear an oath to uphold it. So I would say that in Romans 13, Americans should replace ruler/leader with Constitution. Which could potentially bring up more issues since the citizenry is capable of making changes to the Constitution.



Another thing that I look at is that our "leaders" are our servants. They get their power from us. Because of that I would not call our elected officials "leaders"/"rulers". They may have authority but they get that from us. At least that appears to be what the founders thought.

The leader that Paul is speaking of seems to be a benevolent person and not a tyrant. I base that on the fact that he says the leader will treat you good if you follow the rules.

My views on the subject are not popular within the southern Baptists circle. The majority of what I hear is that we are supposed to submit to everything that the government tells us to do unless it violates God's law. The thing I don't think many think about is paying taxes that go to keep the lights on at Planned Parenthood and pay for the bombs that blow up innocent children. I have somewhat of a moral dilemma when it comes to taxes.

So in some aspects I don't think that Romans 13 would apply to the government of the United States. Anyways, that is just some random thoughts I have on Romans 13.

If you think about it though, our country was found upon rebellion.

I sympathize with some of these comments. While I'm not specifically any denomination, I attend a conservative baptist church and I agree with the Baptists on most theological issues.

I agree with a lot of what you said there. The one thing I'm not sure I agree with is "Its Ok not to pay taxes. " Granted, taxes to pay for anything not specifically to protect people and their property is theft, but not paying taxes almost seems like a selfish reason to refuse to obey the government. Other issues at least its usually not purely selfish. I don't think God would want us to break the law for purely monetary gain. Even if it is unjust. I'd think you'd at least need solid moral reasoning. I could be wrong, however.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Sadly, yes. I'm happy by historical accident I'm born here and not North Korea, but while a case can be made that Christians can legitimately at least defend themselves against the government there, that case simply cannot be made here. If anything, the Bible and early church history reflects that Christians would simply allow themselves to be arrested and martyred as Jesus and 11 out of 13 of his disciples were. The exceptions being Judas, because he's a prick and John, who lived an extremely long time by all accounts.

Simply read how the Bible discusses children submitting to parents, wives to husbands, slaves to cruel masters. For example:

“Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in
everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal
from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way
they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.” (Titus 2:9-10)

Granted, masters are supposed to listen to the following:
“Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know
that you also have a Master in heaven.” Colossians 4:1.



But notice that the way Masters are to treat slaves is not predicated upon whether their slaves are any good and the way slaves are to treat masters whether their masters deserve it?

Doesn't Christ love the Church, though the Church not deserve it?

So is our submission to government, sadly. It is not coincidental that discussions of slavery, marriage, child rearing all happen consecutively in 1 Peter 2 and 3. The idea at the center of it is the same. God puts all men in submission to other men, and all men in some aspect of authority over other men. We have a very specific and different role to play in each case.

I think "Just because you say you should sometimes disobey the government means that you want to flat out overthrow the govenrment" is a bit of a strawman. I'm more asking questions about the text itself and in what cases the goverment is actually good and in what cases it must be obeyed. I'm not talking about revolution. Although if one ever happens, I will fight. If I ever get a gun and they try to take it, I will fight so they can't create the next Hitler.

 

[shane77m]

Taxes are not a hill that I would die on. It just bugs me that what they go toward clearly violate God's commands. I don't think that many Christians think about the fact that they pay for abortion. We get all up in arms about having to pay for contraception but say nothing about funding Planned Parenthood. Good ole frothy Santorum made sure Planned Parenthood got their money with Title X but it didn't seem to be an issue with Christians I know that voted for him.

I need to study more about the time and place in which Paul wrote the letter. I think it would give more clues as to what he is exactly saying.

The way things are looking though, I think taxes will become the least of peoples worries.

 

[abacabb]

I wonder who the better Christian was. Bonhoeffer or Stauffenberg.

I don't know, but I can't shake the fact that God asks us to obey and doesn't give exceptions. Out of my own stubborness and my parents own frailties, I don't submit enough to my parents. But, I do so out of weakness, I'm not justified in doing so. So, killing the "next Hitler" to me is more an act of desperation (an easily understandable one) than something sanctioned and smiled upon by God. There's a difference.

I think the point there was more to be a witness to the soldier than because he actually has a right to command you to do it. Jesus says "Turn the other cheek" doesn't mean that the one who slaps you is in any way justified.

I agree 100%. By submitting to someone who is not justified in receiving our submission is often God's will. My parents come to mind. The government too. To my wife, I'm sure I come to mind.

IRC the most commonly accepted date for Romans is AD57. If I recall correctly, Nero was no yet Caesar and Rome to some degree tolerated Christians although the Jews didn't. I'm not an expert though, so take with a grain of salt.

I'm not thinking Romans, but Revelation which speaks of martyrs being beheaded and Christians overcoming without violence, and surely John had in mind present day persecution foreshadowing that to be found from Satan's machinations in the future.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Taxes are not a hill that I would die on. It just bugs me that what they go toward clearly violate God's commands. I don't think that many Christians think about the fact that they pay for abortion. We get all up in arms about having to pay for contraception but say nothing about funding Planned Parenthood. Good ole frothy Santorum made sure Planned Parenthood got their money with Title X but it didn't seem to be an issue with Christians I know that voted for him.

I need to study more about the time and place in which Paul wrote the letter. I think it would give more clues as to what he is exactly saying.

The way things are looking though, I think taxes will become the least of peoples worries.

All true... As for Santorum.... I can't even believe people still voted for him. Although not a libertarian, my dad is a constitutionalist. Why the crap did he not support Ron Paul? Yet he supported Santorum He's slowly moving closer to the liberty movement though as the GOP gets worse and worse by any sane metric...

I wonder who the better Christian was. Bonhoeffer or Stauffenberg.

I feel dumb, don't know who they are.

I don't know, but I can't shake the fact that God asks us to obey and doesn't give exceptions. Out of my own stubborness and my parents own frailties, I don't submit enough to my parents. But, I do so out of weakness, I'm not justified in doing so. So, killing the "next Hitler" to me is more an act of desperation (an easily understandable one) than something sanctioned and smiled upon by God. There's a difference.

Parents also are given a lot more authority than the state, and don't usually commit murder. I don't think anyone would fault a child for refusing to obey parents who abused him, or even killing them if need be. Granted, the Bible says "Obey your parents." Submitting to child abuse is not a per say violation of God's command. But I still think its beyond retarded to say a child is obligated to submit to it. Honestly, I see no reason why those of us who would rightfully laugh at that idea would not make similar exceptions for the state.

Children obey your parents does not mean children ALWAYS obey your parents. Jesse told David to go bring food. He killed a giant. Just to give one example.

Parents, Biblically, also have no true authority after you get married. Genesis 2:27 (I think.)

As for Revelation, that's certainly true. There's nuance between "Always obey the government" and "Mass violent revolt."

Once the Great Tribulation starts revolution is clearly pointless, the end is come by then. At that point, just wait for God to do his thing...

 

[abacabb]

I'm no fan of government, so I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but the Bible does not talk about overthrowing governments or physically resisting bad people. It does speak of submitting to them, either for their sake or for the sake of order.

There's a reason a lot of libertarians don't like Christianity. They see the humility in submission as evidence of an element of social control.

 

[erowe1]

If you take this too literally, I could literally buy a sword and you'd have to obey me as long as I call myself "Government." But by this logic, always obey also literally means always. Not only when the command doesn't disobey God. Always. The parody Landover Baptist Church http://www.bing.com/search?q=Landover+Baptist+Church&form=AGWTDF&pc=MAGW&src=IE-SearchBox uses these passages to say "We should obey EVERY ORDINANCE even if it disobeys God so we can't enforce the OT law now... or something like that....

But if you take the passage as practical advice, not moral law, it cuts through those problems. Of course you aren't morally obligated to obey everything someone else tells you to do just because they have a weapon. And sometimes you would even choose to let them kill you before obeying them. But that's the thing. If you choose to disobey them, you make that calculation.

On the other hand, it also doesn't rule out the possibility that in some circumstances fighting back against that thug with the weapon might be the right course. I think we have to say that it is at least sometimes, since Jesus told his disciples to arm themselves with swords (Luke 22:36).

 

[erowe1]

I'm no fan of government, so I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but the Bible does not talk about overthrowing governments or physically resisting bad people. It does speak of submitting to them, either for their sake or for the sake of order.

There's a reason a lot of libertarians don't like Christianity. They see the humility in submission as evidence of an element of social control.

It does talk about physically resisting bad people sometimes, such as Luke 22:36.

I think the real message of Christianity is that humility of submission can sometimes be the greatest weapon against the powers that be. When someone tells them, "You can kill me, but you'll never be my lord." it undermines all their power. The blood we spill as martyrs will do more against the regime than politics and weapons.

But I think when we add that moral element to it, where some say, if you disobey the government you sin, that doesn't work.

 

[abacabb]

But if you take the passage as practical advice, not moral law, it cuts through those problems. Of course you aren't morally obligated to obey everything someone else tells you to do just because they have a weapon. And sometimes you would even choose to let them kill you before obeying them. But that's the thing. If you choose to disobey them, you make that calculation.

On the other hand, it also doesn't rule out the possibility that in some circumstances fighting back against that thug with the weapon might be the right course. I think we have to say that it is at least sometimes, since Jesus told his disciples to arm themselves with swords (Luke 22:36).

Luke 22:36 is a difficult passage because 4 hours later Christ tells them "Those who live by the sword die by the sword."

It seems more like Christ told them to buy swords just so he'd have a sweet action hero line to say in a few hours. And, being God, He was able to follow through.

Think of it has divine theatrics. Just like parting the Red Sea. God could've just teleported the nation of Israel across the body of water, but God often opts for visible occurrences of events to be educative for us, so we may understand him. Luke 22:36 clearly does not speak of armed self defense, especially in light of what happened hours after Jesus said it.

 

[erowe1]

Luke 22:36 is a difficult passage because 4 hours later Christ tells them "Those who live by the sword die by the sword."

It seems more like Christ told them to buy swords just so he'd have a sweet action hero line to say in a few hours. And, being God, He was able to follow through.

Think of it has divine theater.

But his saying that line later didn't depend at all on what he said in Luke 22:36. Luke 22:36 was looking forward to a later time. The sword Peter used to cut off the soldiers ear was, I assume, one he already had, not one he sold his cloak to buy just that night because of what Jesus said in Luke 22:36.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm no fan of government, so I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but the Bible does not talk about overthrowing governments or physically resisting bad people. It does speak of submitting to them, either for their sake or for the sake of order.

There's a reason a lot of libertarians don't like Christianity. They see the humility in submission as evidence of an element of social control.

There's truth to that, yes.

Note that I can't really be right here, considering I haven't taken a position. I'm quite confused actually.

 

[abacabb]

But his saying that line later didn't depend at all on what he said in Luke 22:36. Luke 22:36 was looking forward to a later time. The sword Peter used to cut off the soldiers ear was, I assume, one he already had, not one he sold his cloak to buy just that night because of what Jesus said in Luke 22:36.

I'd have to disagree. Peter is to be crucified at a later time and he did not resist, though he would have been justified in doing so. Notice, when Peter is in prison (2 Peter) he never complains about his destiny or the injustice of his punishment.

Being that no where in the Bible Peter walks around with a sword, then Jesus tells him to buy one and then, bam, he has one and the Jesus tells him to put it away. It seems to me pretty obvious that Christ told him to have the sword because He ordained that during His arrest, that He had something to teach us through it.

 

[abacabb]

There's truth to that, yes.

Note that I can't really be right here, considering I haven't taken a position. I'm quite confused actually.

Thankfully, true freedom is not something we fight for but something God gives us by His Truth. We are more free submitting to Him and His commands than rebelling.

 

[Christian Liberty]

While true, not necessarily entirely relevant to Romans 13...

I do have a moral stance that any moral system that says "Don't kill Hitler" is absurd. but I don't have a fully fleshed viewpoint.

 

[abacabb]

While true, not necessarily entirely relevant to Romans 13...

I do have a moral stance that any moral system that says "Don't kill Hitler" is absurd. but I don't have a fully fleshed viewpoint.

Well, it's like killing the dictator of North Korea. Yeah, it's probably good.

Ironically, being that a lot of these mad men are incompetent, not assassinating Hitler probably shortened the war by a lot. Imagine if Hitler let his generals run the show and the 15th army rolled out the Pas de Calais and tried driving the Allies back into the beach.

Let's look at the western hemisphere. Every country but Canada had a violent revolution for its freedom. All of them involved free masonry and enlightenment ideals. Only one country, ours, turned out good. The rest are a mess.

History seems to show that violent revolutions generally beget tons of more violence for generations. I think as spoiled Americans with true legendary heroes (Washington really WAS a Cincinattus), we tend to think that overthrowing governments betters mankind. Ask Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan etc how that's working out.