What's Your Take on Romans 13?

[jkr]

IF THE GUBBERMINT USES FORCE TO MAKE ME CHIP IN ON SOME ASSHOLE CUTTING HIS OWN DICK OFF SO HE CAN BE A DOLPHIN, I HAVE TO DO IT BECAUSE GOD PUT THEM IN CHARGE?!?!


NOPE
I
DONT
THINK
SO

 

[Christian Liberty]

Well, then my point is proven. If it is extremely tough to name a good war or a good reason for an abortion, aren't we forced to concede that scripture is right and the whole institution is evil?

That's is not to say that evil never ever comes from good. If I shoot a guy trying to rob me, I get to keep my stuff. If he would have killed my wife if I didn't shoot him, then I save my wife.

But, isn't aggression as a whole obviously the cause of more problems than it solves? So, if we protect ourselves violently, we do not do so justly, but perhaps out of desperation and our own weakness, and would need to give an account on the Last Day, as the Scripture says we must give an account for every act and idle word.

So, Romans 13 taken as a whole has a clear meaning. I don't like it, but it tells us to submit. Even to a government like Nero's. Like Hitler's? I don't know, but that'd be one exception out of how many hundreds of governments? The Scripture is correct and as usual, we are wrong!

Where does the Bible say killing the robber in question is wrong? And, for that matter, where does the Bible say all war or all overthrowing of governments is wrong?

 

[erowe1]

Where does the Bible say killing the robber in question is wrong? And, for that matter, where does the Bible say all war or all overthrowing of governments is wrong?

I don't think you even need to separate those two questions.

If a guy comes to my house and threatens to kill me and my wife unless we give him whatever he wants, then within the borders of my property, at that moment that robber is the state, and is rightfully called the state just as much as any state ever has been. To kill him would be to overthrow a state.

When a group of passengers on Flight 93 stormed the cockpit and one way or another wrested the plane from the control of terrorists, those passengers overthrew a state.

The only way for that to be wrong would be in thoroughgoing pacifism, which some Christians hold, and not without good reason. But that's not where I am.

 

[robert68]

I don't think you even need to separate those two questions.

If a guy comes to my house and threatens to kill me and my wife unless we give him whatever he wants, then within the borders of my property, at that moment that robber is the state, and is rightfully called the state just as much as any state ever has been. To kill him would be to overthrow a state.

When a group of passengers on Flight 93 stormed the cockpit and one way or another wrested the plane from the control of terrorists, those passengers overthrew a state.

The only way for that to be wrong would be in thoroughgoing pacifism, which some Christians hold, and not without good reason. But that's not where I am.

Where did you get that definition of the "state"?

 

[erowe1]

Where did you get that definition of "state"?

It was probably Nock that got me to look at it that way. But I've seen a number of definitions of "state." I think a number of them fit those situations.

For example, here's one of the definitions at dictionary.com:

11. the operations or activities of a central civil government: affairs of state.

Here's another from the World English Dictionary, a little further down on the same page:

6. a sovereign political power or community

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/state?s=t

 

[AFPVet]

Well, not that I give a lot of credibility to Romans—or anything not directly spoken of by Christ himself, but I believe there is a difference between legitimate government (authority) and a gang of despots without their "face on the coin". "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

 

[erowe1]

Well, not that I give a lot of credibility to Romans—or anything not directly spoken of by Christ himself, but I believe there is a difference between legitimate government (authority) and a gang of despots without their "face on the coin". "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

Caesar did have his face on the coin. Was he a legitimate government or a despot?

 

[shane77m]

http://lewrockwell.com/green-p/green-p20.1.html

For many Christians, both on the left and the right, Romans 13 endorses the power and presence of a police state, a government court system and the right of governments to tax people to pay for it all.

According to the prevailing doctrine, it is the state which has the right to be armed in order to enforce obedience and it is Christians who have a duty to obey – not just for reasons of practicality or prudence, but as a moral obligation.

Interesting read so far. I am about to go to bed for now but I will finish it later.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

This is the absolute best study on Romans 13 I've ever seen. Sure makes sense to me...

Thanks for sharing.

http://lewrockwell.com/green-p/green-p20.1.html

 

[abacabb]

Where does the Bible say killing the robber in question is wrong? And, for that matter, where does the Bible say all war or all overthrowing of governments is wrong?

Where does it say we can. It did tell people to submit to a devoutly evil Roman government.

 

[July]

This is the absolute best study on Romans 13 I've ever seen. Sure makes sense to me...

Thanks for sharing.

http://lewrockwell.com/green-p/green-p20.1.html

That's an interesting read.

I was going to say, the conflict stems from the assumption that authority, law, government, and state are all equivalent terms or referring to the same thing/entity...but are they? I think that the common interpretation says more about what we have been taught about government and authority, than what it actually says.

As for the bit about taxes, etc. The same is true here too, we have been taught certain assumptions about taxes and authority. Debt is always owed, the state is always honorable, etc. It seems like that verse is saying we should look at things as they really are--pay what is owed, honor who is honorable, fear what is dangerous, etc. Are we supposed to honor or fear a tyrant? Is there a difference?

Oh, and whether god causes the rulers and governments that we have to come into being, benevelent and tyrant alike, that to me is just another way of saying god causes all things to come into being, and we get the kind of society that we make. Think for a second about Ron's farewell speech where he explained why the Constitution failed to restrain government--because it was made for a moral people. From a libertarian perspective, if you believe markets, economies, and societies are capable of coming about through a kind of spontaneous order, then this is a natural cause and effect process. We have the corrupt governments we have because people are fallen, we are living under delusion, turned away from god, choosing the law of man over the law of god, etc.

 

[mczerone]

Without questioning the source (purported to be Paul), here is my take on the meanings of the claims in this section:

13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

"Bring Judgment" does not mean "damnation" - it means that your actions of rebellion will be judged by the divine, like all your actions. They are not given special canonization because they are done against injustices. Your righteous goals do not excuse immoral means.

3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.

This does not mean that you won't be persecuted by the earthly kingdoms for "doing right" - but only that if you accept the divine, you have nothing to fear in the eternal realm.

It does not say that the people of your time or the government claiming rule will commend you - it says that you will be commended. And you would be - by the righteous beings that you will meet in heaven.

4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

This one is a little too strong ("necessary to submit") for an easy interpretation, but I'd be interested in seeing an original meaning translation of the passage to see if there is some wiggle-room in the native language.

But even then, "your good" and "no reason" can be read as theological value judgments, and not mortal ones. It may be "good" in the omnipotent POV, for you to suffer and die while obstructing tyranny.

And again for "necessary" - is it necessary for your well being, for the mortal society, or for God's master plan?

And does submission entail complete obedience, or merely the recognition that you are owned? A slave could "submit" by admitting that he is a free man who happens to be "owned", while working for abolition, volunteering with the underground railroad, sabotaging the master's crops, and fighting back against corporal punishment - or he could "submit" by not recognizing that he is free and just follow orders happily and blissfully.

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

This is an equivocal statement that is directly parallel to Jesus's "Render unto Caesar" speech at the Temple. It doesn't give any guidelines as to when you owe taxes, revenue, respect, or honor. Therefore you must look to other sources for this assertion to have any meaning.

In conclusion - even taking the view that "the society that exists only exists because God ordained it" doesn't say that you, as a follower of God, must accept a static view and not work for change. You must only remember that you should take heed of the morality of your actions as you fight immorality, and if God ordains, you will win or lose.

(Thanks for the exercise in theology, it helps strengthen my lack of belief in the supernatural)

 

[WhistlinDave]

Personally I don't believe in most of the Bible literally, but pretending for a moment that I do, my take is, it's self preservation and nothing more. Remember when they were trying to find a reason to declare Jesus the enemy of the state, they asked him, "Should people pay taxes," and his response was, "Whose picture appears on your coin" and they said "Caesar's," and he said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Ceasars."

At the time of the writing of that particular letter perhaps Paul had gained insight, either from someone advising him or through his own realization, that the state was not going to tolerate his preachings very long if he didn't appear to be friendly to their agenda. So he said what he had to say in order to be able to keep doing what he was doing.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

I for one have had a big problem believing Romans 13 for a very long time. My best attempt at attacking the idea that this somehow means we need to "obey" "government" is that it states clearly that these people who deserve our respect are "servants of God". That one right there tells me that it sure isn't talking about Ceasar or Obama or Hitler...

 

[jmdrake]

You know, here's a thought. A horrible, twisted throught for some. Could it be possible...just possible....that Paul got it wrong?

Stone me for having the thought. But Paul, in Acts, on multiple occasions appealed to Caesar based on his Roman citizenship. He actually thought that was getting him somewhere. Follow the law. Use it to your advantage. Ultimately this got his head cut off. Okay....he was a great witness to the Gentiles and his martyrdom certainly helped spread the gospel etc.

But the simply fact is, there is no truth to the statement:

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.

Now, we can "fix this up in our mind" to say:

For good, God ordained rulers hold no terror to those who do right, but for those who do wrong.

That's true. That's not what the verse said. Certainly if you have a bad ruler, that's no excuse to do evil yourself. And if you refrain from doing evil, you may escape the gaze of an evil ruler for longer. And maybe if you know you've done right, you aren't in terror in death, but can face it with grace as did Stephen. Or...maybe Romans 13 should be read in the light of the fact that everything the apostles were saying and doing at the time was being read by the "authorities" and, as the saying goes, if you have your head in the lion's mouth, don't sneeze.

 

[erowe1]

You know, here's a thought. A horrible, twisted throught for some. Could it be possible...just possible....that Paul got it wrong?

Stone me for having the thought. But Paul, in Acts, on multiple occasions appealed to Caesar based on his Roman citizenship. He actually thought that was getting him somewhere. Follow the law. Use it to your advantage. Ultimately this got his head cut off. Okay....he was a great witness to the Gentiles and his martyrdom certainly helped spread the gospel etc.

But the simply fact is, there is no truth to the statement:

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.

Now, we can "fix this up in our mind" to say:

For good, God ordained rulers hold no terror to those who do right, but for those who do wrong.

That's true. That's not what the verse said. Certainly if you have a bad ruler, that's no excuse to do evil yourself. And if you refrain from doing evil, you may escape the gaze of an evil ruler for longer. And maybe if you know you've done right, you aren't in terror in death, but can face it with grace as did Stephen. Or...maybe Romans 13 should be read in the light of the fact that everything the apostles were saying and doing at the time was being read by the "authorities" and, as the saying goes, if you have your head in the lion's mouth, don't sneeze.

But it's not as if Paul never got punished by rulers until his martyrdom. He had always been persecuted as a Christian, and knew the persecution of Christians from the rulers' side as well. You are right that Paul is clearly talking about wicked rulers here, not just some idealized ones. The very rulers who punish Christians as wrong-doers for obeying God are the ones whom God uses as his servants to accomplish his purposes. The sole example Paul mentioned earlier in Romans of a ruler was Pharaoh, whom Paul talks about God using as his servant precisely by way of his sins.

 

[Sola_Fide]

The very rulers who punish Christians as wrong-doers for obeying God are the ones whom God uses as his servants to accomplish his purposes. The sole example Paul mentioned earlier in Romans of a ruler was Pharaoh, whom Paul talks about God using as his servant precisely by way of his sins.

Exactly. The only way to properly understand Romans 13 so as not to think that "Paul got it wrong" or to think that Paul was talking about a prescription for government is to understand it in the sense of predestination.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I for one have had a big problem believing Romans 13 for a very long time. My best attempt at attacking the idea that this somehow means we need to "obey" "government" is that it states clearly that these people who deserve our respect are "servants of God". That one right there tells me that it sure isn't talking about Ceasar or Obama or Hitler...

I'm honestly in the same boat that you were in. I'm a Biblical literalist. Obviously not every single text can be taken 100% literally, but I'm pretty close to "As close as it gets". There are a few texts that I think can go either way, there are some texts in Revelation that I can see being literal or figurative, and that I don't have a huge opinion on. For instance, I think the fire-breathing witnesses in Revelation 11 are probably speaking the Word of God (Which is metaphorically called "Fire") but even with something like that, I'm open to the idea that that could be taken literally. I definitely don't think that taking everything literally is in any way essential to Christianity, but I usually do. That's just how I am. I take God at face value, as much as I feel is possible.

Romans 13 just doesn't sound like a metaphor to me. I can see why someone would take Genesis or Revelation as metaphor, even though I don't (With a few exceptions in Revelation), and obviously the parables are metaphors, but Romans just seems like a letter full of doctrine. As such, it seems like the text should be taken literally. But it just doesn't make sense if you take it literally. It just doesn't. And I'm almost certain there's no evidence of this text being added later, like with John 8:1-11. It almost seems like something that might have been written by Constantine, but this is not the case, because there is no evidence of such. I can only assume that Paul wrote it, however much I may wish he didn't.

Utlimately, I don't really know what to think. I'll definitely read that commentary someone linked me to. I read John Macarthur's take on this recently, and his matter-of-fact "All the time, unless it specifically contradicts God's stated commands" just isn't doing it for me. As Chuck Baldwin correctly states, it is very absurd that anyone would allow his wife to be raped because a state agent said so, yet some pastor told him that this is what Romans 13 commands. Even though, to my knowledge, there is no clear, ironclad command not to submit in such cases, it would still be completely moral and righteous to shoot the SOB who tried between the eyes. I don't know where the line is, and I'm not sure how much wiggle room there is in the passage itself.

I don't think you even need to separate those two questions.

If a guy comes to my house and threatens to kill me and my wife unless we give him whatever he wants, then within the borders of my property, at that moment that robber is the state, and is rightfully called the state just as much as any state ever has been. To kill him would be to overthrow a state.

When a group of passengers on Flight 93 stormed the cockpit and one way or another wrested the plane from the control of terrorists, those passengers overthrew a state.

The only way for that to be wrong would be in thoroughgoing pacifism, which some Christians hold, and not without good reason. But that's not where I am.

Yeah, I'm not a pacifist either. Although Paul seems to see a type of distinction that you aren't seeing. I could be wrong, and as I said, I don't know how to take Romans 13, otherwise I would have never started this thread, but Paul does seem to be saying that some governments, or at least some theoretical government, should be obeyed.

http://lewrockwell.com/green-p/green-p20.1.html



Interesting read so far. I am about to go to bed for now but I will finish it later.

Will read.

Where does it say we can. It did tell people to submit to a devoutly evil Roman government.

I'm not convinced Paul was necessarily talking about the Roman Government in Romans 13, although I have no doubt he wanted the agents of the state to think he was. I'm not sure if you're wrong, and I definitely appreciate that you're arguing an alternative viewpoint here, but I'm still not really convinced of any particular viewpoint on the issue.

 

[WhistlinDave]

Was Paul speaking the Eternal, unchanging word of God when he wrote Ephesians 6:5-9? "Slaves, submit to your masters..."

Was he right or wrong? And if he was right, does it still apply today?

Call me a cynic, but that book is full of stuff we KNOW today is not the will or word of God, and was simply written in the cultural context at the time.

Deuteronomy 22:13-29 If your wife said she was a virgin, and you find out her hymen was already broken, you go tell her parents and then we all stone her to death.

1 Corinthians 14:34 Women need to shut up in church. Not a peep.

Deuteronomy 17:1-7 If someone sacrifices an ox or sheep to the Lord and the animal has any imperfection, that person has committed an abomination and they are to be promptly stoned to death.

1 Peter 3:3 Women should not use jewelry, fancy hairdos, or clothing in an attempt to make themselves look beautiful

Leviticus 20:27 Wizards and mediums must be stoned to death

(Leviticus also forbids shaving your face, wearing a cotton/polyester blend, eating shellfish, getting a tattoo, and many many other things.)

Leviticus chapters 1 through 9 are detailed instructions for bloody animal sacrifices.

1 Corinthians 7:27 and Matthew 5:32 Forbid second marriages. (Technically Matthew 5:32 doesn't forbid it but says you're committing adultery if you do it.)

Matthew 5:29 If you can't control your lustful thoughts when looking at women, you need to GOUGE OUT YOUR OWN EYEBALL.

Matthew 6:6 Don't pray in public places

Deuteronomy 23:1 If you lose your penis and/or testicles, you will NOT get into heaven. (Be careful around moving machinery if you work with it.)

Luke 14:26 Hate your own family

I could go on and on... These are just the tip of the iceberg.

The point is, there is so much stuff in the Bible that simply isn't valid today. Or if it is valid, and God really is that screwed up, nobody today cares about most of it. Most people pretend this stuff isn't in there or they find some way to rationalize it away while going bat shit crazy over a few selected passages that somehow ARE still valid today.

So... Was Paul correct when he wrote Romans 13? I'd say there's a fair chance he was wrong.

 

[erowe1]

Yeah, I'm not a pacifist either. Although Paul seems to see a type of distinction that you aren't seeing. I could be wrong, and as I said, I don't know how to take Romans 13, otherwise I would have never started this thread, but Paul does seem to be saying that some governments, or at least some theoretical government, should be obeyed.

Actually, for me one of the keys that unlocks the whole passage is realizing that he's not talking about only some governments or a theoretical government. He's talking about all rulers that exist in the real world subjugating others with the sword, including Caesar, Pilate, Pharaoh, Herod, Nebuchadnezzar, the Beast, Hitler, the Mafia, terrorists who highjack your plane, etc. It's the very same people who a few verses prior Paul referred to as "your enemies," "those who persecute you," and who do evil against whom you should not do evil in return, and whom God will avenge.