What's Your Take on Romans 13?

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?

Since Paul wasn't talking about the kind of slavery you are thinking about, it is not analogous. Paul was not talking about anything like the chattel slavery of African Americans, he was talking about the servitude that people in the Roman world entered into voluntarily as a payment for debts.



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.


So you take verses out of context (jesus gouging out your eyeball, hate your family, etc.) and you don't know how to read the Bible as far as what laws expired with the nation of Israel (all of the civil laws you mention). You also don't know what the ceremonial laws were supposed to represent to us for today (all of the "bloody" ceremonial rituals you speak of). So, we're not off to a good start.
 
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.

OK, I'm not going to go one by one there, but I'll address a few general cases.

Most of the moral laws in the Old Testament still apply. The punishments, however, do not. They were a prescription for God's Chosen Nation (Which was Israel BEFORE CHRIST, not the modern Israeli state) not for all states in every time in every situation. Assuming it is in fact canonical, John 8 1-11 (unlike Romans 13, there actually is a real dispute about this one) seems pretty clear that grace trumps legalism. Even if that text isn't canon, Jesus' whole life and character trumps it. It isn't that those passages weren't true, its that they only applied before Jesus' death.

As for the "Women not speaking in church" the key to that text is "Having authority over a man in the church" and that is indeed something I still take literally. Men are to be the authority in their homes and in the church. I do not think the passage is literally saying women can't speak in church period, but that they cannot teach men.

As for the Matthew text, yes, if you divorce, other than for adultery (Matthew is more specific on this point for some reason, Mark and Luke don't actually state the exception) and remarry, that's adultery. I don't think we need a criminal penalty for it (I AM a libertarian, after all) but its still immoral and shouldn't be tolerated in the church.

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.
 
Since Paul wasn't talking about the kind of slavery you are thinking about, it is not analogous. Paul was not talking about anything like the chattel slavery of African Americans, he was talking about the servitude that people in the Roman world entered into voluntarily as a payment for debts.

So you take verses out of context (jesus gouging out your eyeball, hate your family, etc.) and you don't know how to read the Bible as far as what laws expired with the nation of Israel (all of the civil laws you mention). You also don't know what the ceremonial laws were supposed to represent to us for today (all of the "bloody" ceremonial rituals you speak of). So, we're not off to a good start.

So... Anything that doesn't seem to make much sense today we just throw it out because I'm "taking it out of context"? That's awfully convenient. You can just pick and choose, shape it any way you like, ignore whatever is a bit too extreme to take literally. Is that about right?

I realize Old Testament vs. New, and all that, but let's put this into context with Matthew 5:17-20

"17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."


Perhaps you're right; gouging out your own eyeball mentioned in Matthew 5:29 could use some context.


21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

25 “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.


Now... Please explain to me how I'm supposed to pretend this is not literally saying I need to gouge out my own eyeball if it causes me a problem with my lusting. It seems pretty straightforward to me.
 
Last edited:
By the way I'm not trying to say your beliefs are incorrect. I don't agree with them but I respect your right to believe whatever you want. And I apologize if my cynicism comes off as insulting. I'm trying to get better with that.

I'm just trying to point out that it's silly to take Romans 13 literally when there is a mountain of other Bible verses we don't take literally. Surely we can come up with a decent rationalization for ignoring it like we do with so many other things.

Personally I'm sticking with self-preservation. If Paul was spouting rhetoric about not paying taxes, etc., how long do you think his head would stay attached to his neck? It would make for a pretty short mission to spread the Word.
 
So... Anything that doesn't seem to make much sense today we just throw it out because I'm "taking it out of context"? That's awfully convenient. You can just pick and choose, shape it any way you like, ignore whatever is a bit too extreme to take literally. Is that about right?

No. It's not because I'm arbitrarily saying you are taking it out of context. You really were. I am a serious student of the Bible. I don't just say that you are taking things out of context if you're not.



I realize Old Testament vs. New, and all that, but let's put this into context with Matthew 5:17-20

"17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

If you understood what Jesus said in this passage, then you wouldn't be confused about the ceremonial and civil laws you mentioned in your earlier post.





Perhaps you're right; gouging out your own eyeball mentioned in Matthew 5:29 could use some context.


21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

25 “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.
Adultery

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.


Now... Please explain to me how I'm supposed to pretend this is not literally saying I need to gouge out my own eyeball if it causes me a problem with my lusting. It seems pretty straightforward to me.


Those are hard verses aren't they? These passages strike at the heart of what most men love: their own lusts. Yes, it would be better for you to gouge out your eye than for your whole body to go to hell. Who would argue against that?
 
No. It's not because I'm arbitrarily saying you are taking it out of context. You really were. I am a serious student of the Bible. I don't just say that you are taking things out of context if you're not.

He said until heaven and earth disappear; both are still there to my knowledge. I'm not sure how I'm misunderstanding.
 
Those are hard verses aren't they? These passages strike at the heart of what most men love: their own lusts. Yes, it would be better for you to gouge out your eye than for your whole body to go to hell. Who would argue against that?

+ rep for consistency. I agree with you, by the way, and that was my point. I don't think there's any way to take it other than literally. And yet nobody is gouging their eyes out.

So if we can overlook something like this, then why not Romans 13? I think it can be explained away as self-preservation (Paul's self preservation) much more easily than we can justify looking at women and having lustful, sinful thoughts without gouging out our own eyes. (Well, not you, I mean, I was speaking for myself.)
 
+ rep for consistency. I agree with you, by the way, and that was my point. I don't think there's any way to take it other than literally. And yet nobody is gouging their eyes out.

So if we can overlook something like this, then why not Romans 13? I think it can be explained away as self-preservation (Paul's self preservation) much more easily than we can justify looking at women and having lustful, sinful thoughts without gouging out our own eyes. (Well, not you, I mean, I was speaking for myself.)

No, we don't overlook anything. Please read posts #97 and #100 of this thread to understand how to read Romans 13.
 
No, we don't overlook anything. Please read posts #97 and #100 of this thread to understand how to read Romans 13.

OK, I can go with that. (Personally I disagree with the doctrine of predestination, but for one who believes in it, those two posts together provide a reasonable enough explanation that I wouldn't argue against it.)

However, I do think the vast majority of Christians do overlook a lot of things in the Bible, even some things Jesus said. Otherwise there would be a lot more people walking around with white canes instead of eyeballs.
 
OK, I can go with that. (Personally I disagree with the doctrine of predestination, but for one who believes in it, those two posts together provide a reasonable enough explanation that I wouldn't argue against it.)

However, I do think the vast majority of Christians do overlook a lot of things in the Bible, even some things Jesus said. Otherwise there would be a lot more people walking around with white canes instead of eyeballs.

In Matthew 5, Jesus is just saying something that should be self-evident, namely, it is better to have one eye rather than your whole body go to hell. He's not saying "Are you lusting? Then gouge out your eyeball right now". He's just stating a truth that should be evident to everyone: it would be better to gouge out your own eye than to go to Hell.

And in the context of the passage, Jesus is talking about the laws of marriage.
 
with our government working to strike God from thr courts, schools, ects and also allowing a fight for the so called right to kill a child I think we would not have to worry about our govetnment being under God. America is in rebellion against God that much should seem pretty darned clear yo anyone who maybe concern about what Romans says about govrrnment.
 
OK, I can go with that. (Personally I disagree with the doctrine of predestination, but for one who believes in it, those two posts together provide a reasonable enough explanation that I wouldn't argue against it.)

Why do you disagree with predestination?
 
Why do you disagree with predestination?

Because of quantum uncertainty, and because of my own personal experiences with consciousness, and the creative process. To be fair, I do believe in a certain degree of predestination, but I also believe there's enough wiggle room in there that nothing is absolute.
 
Because of quantum uncertainty, and because of my own personal experiences with consciousness, and the creative process. To be fair, I do believe in a certain degree of predestination, but I also believe there's enough wiggle room in there that nothing is absolute.

Hmmm. I see. So your objection is not Biblical. Well, as a Christian, I believe that God has spoken to man in the Scripture, and the Bible teaches that God has ordained everything that comes to pass.

Ephesians 1:11 NASBO

also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,

God works everything together after the counsel of His will.
 
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.

Thank you Erowe1. This post may get lost in the shuffle of everything, but it deserves more thought and discussion than its getting. This is the key to understanding how Romans 13 does not teach statism.
 
@Sola Fide- I definitely agree with predestination. Not sure if I agree with predestination as John Calvin understood it.

Well, how do you understand it? Calvin basically just restated what the Bible says on this: God ordains everything that comes to pass.
 
Well, how do you understand it? Calvin basically just restated what the Bible says on this: God ordains everything that comes to pass.

Well, Peter says this:
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

If God wants everyone to come to repentence, why would he predestine anyone to go to Hell? That would seem contrary to his nature.

Exodus 9:12

But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses

If God predesines everything that happens in this case, why did he need to specifically intervene here, and why did he do so? If everything is predestined, for God to specifically change Pharoah's heart would be odd.

There are some other texts as well but I haven't actually argued this in awhile so I have to search again. I do recognize that there are plenty of proof texts for a more Calvinistic view as well, and I'm not really sure what side I'd fall on. Ultimately I'm not convinced that it really matters.
 
Back
Top