Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Kerygmania: Romans 13: obedience to the governing authorities

135

Comments

  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    Enoch wrote: »
    The argument about the position if government were to require Mudfrog to perform a SS marriage would not be about Rom 13 but about rendering unto Caesar and conflicting arguments about what is in Caesar's jurisdiction and what in God's.

    Doesn't Rom.13:1-6 make it pretty clear, unequivocally, that the emperor is good and to oppose him, (being as he is God's authority on earth), is therefore bad.

    Any opposition incurs judgment.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    Doesn't Rom.13:1-6 make it pretty clear, unequivocally, that the emperor is good and to oppose him, (being as he is God's authority on earth), is therefore bad.

    Any opposition incurs judgment.
    "Emperor is good"!?. You can take it that way if you wish, but I don't think that is at all consistent with the rest of scriptural revelation. Paul knew his Old Testament. He would have been familiar with his namesake Saul, his fight with David and the sequence of good and bad (often bad) kings in the divided kingdoms.
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

    The inspired word of God? Seems pretty clear to me where this goes. Authorities good, opposing them bad, unless you want to upset God.
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    Steve Langton But so long as he simply means that they won't obey the demand that they practice SSM themselves or perform it for others, then that seems to fit Romans 13 well.

    Because.......?

    SSM is not the ideal example at this point because in practice those who don't agree with it won't actually do it themselves anyway, and can't realistically be forced - it's not that kind of thing; there are however other areas where the state might well say "You must...." and the same consideratioons would not apply....

    However, suppose that the government says
    "If two men come to your church and request that the church marries them, then you must do that for them...."

    then the church will have to say no, they won't perform the SSM ceremony. And if the state then chooses to penalise that, they will have to suffer the penalty. They must 'obey God rather than men' and to perform an SSM would be disobeying God (at least that's being assumed for purposes of this example - we're not here actually arguing the SSM case in itself).


  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

    The inspired word of God? Seems pretty clear to me where this goes. Authorities good, opposing them bad, unless you want to upset God.
    No. Sorry. That's binary nonsense and isn't what it says.

    I see no guarantee there that all those who exercise authority, even if that authority is given to them by God, will exercise it righteously, honestly and in accordance with the high responsibility they have been given. Apart from the passage not saying that, it would lead to the bizarre and ridiculous conclusion that the rest of us get tempted and may or may not give way to temptation, but people exercising any sort of authority, such as Caiaphas and Pilate, are protected and immune to temptation.

    Mr Sessions and Ms Sanders might be arguing that - I'm not sure - but the only other person who maintains that is your goodself, but as part of an argument that this must be an interpolation, and therefore irrelevant altogether.
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

    The inspired word of God? Seems pretty clear to me where this goes. Authorities good, opposing them bad, unless you want to upset God.
    No. Sorry. That's binary nonsense and isn't what it says.

    I see no guarantee there that all those who exercise authority, even if that authority is given to them by God, will exercise it righteously, honestly and in accordance with the high responsibility they have been given. Apart from the passage not saying that, it would lead to the bizarre and ridiculous conclusion that the rest of us get tempted and may or may not give way to temptation, but people exercising any sort of authority, such as Caiaphas and Pilate, are protected and immune to temptation.

    Mr Sessions and Ms Sanders might be arguing that - I'm not sure - but the only other person who maintains that is your goodself, but as part of an argument that this must be an interpolation, and therefore irrelevant altogether.

    No. Sorry. That's binary nonsense and isn't what it says.

    Says you! But the text actually lays down some unequivocally irrefutable assertions.

    (1) Everybody must subjugate themselves to the governing authorities.
    (2) There is no authority except from God.
    (3) Those that exist, are without exception, all from God.
    (4) Anyone who resists will incur judgment.
    (5) All authorities are good and a terror to bad conduct.
    (6) Do as they say and we will get approval from them.
    (7) They are God's servants to make us do good.
    (8) They carry a sword to make sure that we do good.
    (9) By subjecting oneself to them, we are doing God's will and avoiding His wrath.
    (10) God wants them to collect taxes from us, so they do it as His ministers.
    I see no guarantee there that all those who exercise authority, even if that authority is given to them by God, will exercise it righteously, honestly and in accordance with the high responsibility they have been given. Apart from the passage not saying that, it would lead to the bizarre and ridiculous conclusion that the rest of us get tempted and may or may not give way to temptation, but people exercising any sort of authority, such as Caiaphas and Pilate, are protected and immune to temptation.

    If you see no guarantee that authorities will exercise it righteously, you missed "2,3,and 5". or ignored them. In fact I wonder if you have actually read the same text I have.

    Protest as much as you like that "It does not say that", but the passage exactly does say that, as much as ever you may pretend to yourself that it does not. Temptation does not come into it at all, according to the text under consideration. Just the fact that the authorities are without exception all "instituted by God", including of course Caiaphas, Pilot and all other 'authorities' they are guaranteed to be "Not a terror to good conduct but to bad". It is there in a black and white binary statement, the unequivocal, inerrant, authoritative, infallible Word of God. (Unless perhaps it might not be, because it conflicts with so much other scripture, because it might have been penned by an unknown non-apostolic hand).

    It could easily have been included by an untrustworthy scribe who was standing in for Paul's usual one, while he was let off one afternoon to visit his sick mother, for all we know. Paul probably would never have found out, he was very poorly sighted.
    Mr Sessions and Ms Sanders might be arguing that - I'm not sure - but the only other person who maintains that is your goodself, but as part of an argument that this must be an interpolation, and therefore irrelevant altogether.

    Not irrelevant altogether, it makes sensible people think, which has to be a good thing and it makes fools unquestioningly obey authority, which, by and large, is a good thing too, if the authority actually happens to be as the passage assumes, "Good, enforcing goodness". But since it is not "Inspired" by God, merely allowed to remain there, it can easily be abused by knaves and blaggards. But I suppose that is also true of all scripture really.

  • RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    Says you!
    Seriously? What, are we on the playground now?

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    The other question, which I don’t think has yet been addressed on this thread, is whether this passage should be read as a general statement about human governments, or a specific statement about the governing authorities in the place to which and at the time at which Paul was writing, and possibly even a specific answer to a specific question. (A similar question arises over “I do not permit a woman to teach” - is it to be read as a kind of general prohibition, or simply a description of what his practice is/has been at the time?)
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    Says you!
    Seriously? What, are we on the playground now?

    I also wrote a lot of other stuff which seems to have missed your attention.
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    The other question, which I don’t think has yet been addressed on this thread, is whether this passage should be read as a general statement about human governments, or a specific statement about the governing authorities in the place to which and at the time at which Paul was writing, and possibly even a specific answer to a specific question. (A similar question arises over “I do not permit a woman to teach” - is it to be read as a kind of general prohibition, or simply a description of what his practice is/has been at the time?)

    The statements of "Truth" in the passage do seem to be intended to be universally applicable to all 'Authority', what ever form it may take, wherever and whenever it may 'exist'.
  • MudfrogMudfrog Shipmate
    1) It is my understanding that for literary analysis of things like interpolation you need quite a lot of text for comparison. We only just have enough of Paul to even consider such analysis in general. With a text where it is likely that he is basing his words on ideas of the wider church, as if he were quoting a creed, establishing Paul or an interpolator is going to be effectively impossible.

    2) If Mudfrog means to have a fight with the government over SSM in a physical way, like the Puritans fighting King Charles in the ECW, then I'd agree with Kwesi that Romans 13 would be against him! But so long as he simply means that they won't obey the demand that they practice SSM themselves or perform it for others, then that seems to fit Romans 13 well. They will, I hope, be subject to the government both in accepting the right of non-Christians to do SSM if they must, and in accepting penalties from the government for their refusal to comply.

    Yes, indeed.
    'Fight' in this context means verbal disagreement and non-compliant resistance. We're not going to march on Parliament.

    And of course we wouldn't deny the practice for non-Christians. But we wouldn't recognise it as marriage.

    I would be perfectly happy with civil partnerships.
    But this is a dead horse.
    I used it as an example of where I believe the government has overstepped the authority given by God. Not that it would recognise that God-given authority anyway but that's not my problem.

  • RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    Says you!
    Seriously? What, are we on the playground now?

    I also wrote a lot of other stuff which seems to have missed your attention.
    It didn’t miss my attention. I skipped over it (as, to be honest, I do with many of your posts) because:

    1) I tire of how long they often are;
    2) I tire of the sermonizing tone; and
    3) I tire of the seemingly random bolding and italics, as well as the constant insertion of scripture passages (with said bolding and italics, as well as font color changes).

    I started on this one, but decided after “Says you!” it wasn’t worth it.

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    <snip>The statements of "Truth" in the passage do seem to be intended to be universally applicable to all 'Authority', what ever form it may take, wherever and whenever it may 'exist'.
    Hmm. The same could be (and has been) said of “I do not allow a woman to teach.” But that seems to be more about how the passage has been received than about what the Greek requires, and the same is arguably true here. It is certainly no less probable than an interpolation, and makes better sense in the light of Paul’s experiences elsewhere where he doesn’t hesitate to challenge ‘the authorities’ when they overstep the mark.
  • KwesiKwesi Deckhand, Styx
    Mudfrog, you make your position, which has much to commend it, perfectly clear. The point is, of course, that your stance is not compatible with Romans 13, as I'm sure you recognise. (I do not, in consequence, identify you as a biblical inerrantist, as did LeRoc).

  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    Says you!
    Seriously? What, are we on the playground now?

    I also wrote a lot of other stuff which seems to have missed your attention.
    It didn’t miss my attention. I skipped over it (as, to be honest, I do with many of your posts) because:

    1) I tire of how long they often are;
    2) I tire of the sermonizing tone; and
    3) I tire of the seemingly random bolding and italics, as well as the constant insertion of scripture passages (with said bolding and italics, as well as font color changes).

    I started on this one, but decided after “Says you!” it wasn’t worth it.

    When ignorance is bliss, arrogance is thought to be a virtue. I got fed up with "war and peace" because it was too long, but I didn't pretend to myself it was rubbish.
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    <snip>The statements of "Truth" in the passage do seem to be intended to be universally applicable to all 'Authority', what ever form it may take, wherever and whenever it may 'exist'.
    Hmm. The same could be (and has been) said of “I do not allow a woman to teach.” But that seems to be more about how the passage has been received than about what the Greek requires, and the same is arguably true here. It is certainly no less probable than an interpolation, and makes better sense in the light of Paul’s experiences elsewhere where he doesn’t hesitate to challenge ‘the authorities’ when they overstep the mark.

    1 Timothy probably wasn't written by Paul, and 1 Cor.11:3-16 and 14:33b-35 are almost certainly interpolations as well.
  • RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    When ignorance is bliss, arrogance is thought to be a virtue. I got fed up with "war and peace" because it was too long, but I didn't pretend to myself it was rubbish.
    I never said that the points you make are rubbish, nor would I. When I do read your posts, I tend to agree with your viewpoints more often than not, I think.

    What I’m saying is that the way you present what you have to say often gets in the way of me understanding and engaging with what you’re saying rather than aids me in understanding and engaging, and that as a result, I often just take a pass.

    Perhaps this isn’t the case for others, but I’m afraid it is for me.

  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    LeRoc wrote: »
    Ah, I found something here.

    Did you now!
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    edited July 2018
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    <snip>
    1 Timothy probably wasn't written by Paul…
    Irrespective of the authorship of 1 Timothy, the point stands: it is sometimes not easy to be clear whether a writer in Koine Greek is laying down timeless truths, or simply describing (or prescribing for) a specific situation. Indeed even in English it can be hard to tell at times.
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    I appologise for appearing to disagree with your point. I actually agree with you that sometimes it is very difficult to know exactly what the original author intended readers thousands of years in the future to understand from what they wrote. I doubt that most or even any of them envisaged people this far in their future ever reading their thoughts.

    Some of what Paul wrote is actually exactly what he did not believe to be true. He sometimes quoted his detractors comments word for word then refuted what they had said. There is always the possibility that we have one of those passages with Paul's refutation or amendment missing due to scribal error.

    In this case though I think that would be very doubtful.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Thanks to those who commented on my request for hints as to interpolation. Without that ability, I'd prefer to take the line that Paul was the author but that what he actually intended is open to discussion.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    Kwesi wrote: »
    (I do not, in consequence, identify you as a biblical inerrantist, as did LeRoc).
    (I didn't.)

    Gee D wrote: »
    I'd prefer to take the line that Paul was the author but that what he actually intended is open to discussion.
    A consensus opinion among mainstream theologians seems to be that he was reacting to a specific situation among Christians in Rome. Some of them wanted to stir things up, possibly by not paying taxes (meaning not giving honour to Caesar) as a form of protest. There may have also been a dividing line between Gentile and Jewish Christians (the latter having a bigger grudge against the Roman Empire) on this point. Paul wanted to take a more cautious route and also prevent these kind of divisions. Works for me.
  • KwesiKwesi Deckhand, Styx
    LeRoc Kwesi wrote: »
    (I do not, in consequence, identify you as a biblical inerrantist, as did LeRoc).
    LeRoc(I didn't.)

    I clearly misunderstood your drift. In which case, unreserved apologies.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    No probs.
  • KwesiKwesi Deckhand, Styx
    Thanks!
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    LeRoc wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »
    (I do not, in consequence, identify you as a biblical inerrantist, as did LeRoc).
    (I didn't.)

    Gee D wrote: »
    I'd prefer to take the line that Paul was the author but that what he actually intended is open to discussion.
    A consensus opinion among mainstream theologians seems to be that he was reacting to a specific situation among Christians in Rome. Some of them wanted to stir things up, possibly by not paying taxes (meaning not giving honour to Caesar) as a form of protest. There may have also been a dividing line between Gentile and Jewish Christians (the latter having a bigger grudge against the Roman Empire) on this point. Paul wanted to take a more cautious route and also prevent these kind of divisions. Works for me.

    And of course Paul never expected what he wrote to be read by 'Bible believing KJV inerrantists', who would take what he wrote quite literally as if written by God himself.

    On the interpolation theme though: I find amusing the fact that such 'inerrantists' dismiss the remotest possibility that it might not be written entirely by Paul himself, on the grounds that God would not ever let anyone tamper with 'The Inerrant Word of God'.

    Amusing, because I can quite easily envisage a scribe thinking to himself that Paul had not gone anywhere near far enough at the end of Rom.12:21, when Paul then excused himself to pop off to the nearest Roman loo for 20 minutes, so we get Rom.12:1-6. Paul then comes back and says: :

    "Ok Scribulus, where had I left off"? "Err"! "Do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good", Ah yes! Ok . . . "Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed."

    "That should do it for that chapter, take the rest of the day off, I'm bushed".

    In those, by no means impossible circumstances, what do the inerrantists think God would have done.
    (1) Made the scribe drop dead on the spot the moment he tried to pen his interpolation?
    (2) Stopped Paul going to the loo?
    (3) Miraculously dried up the scribe's ink well?
    (4) Broke his quill?
    (5)Given him a sudden stroke?

    Or What?

    How come even the remotest possibility of interpolation is so impossible to contemplate for 'fundy-gelical KJV'ers'?

  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    Come on Mudfrog or MPaul, you still haven't decided what to do about the Jews in your cellar.

    Remember what Rom13:1-6 says you must do. Why don't you submit yourself to the demand of God's instituted authority that you tell them the truth about those Jews down there?
  • KwesiKwesi Deckhand, Styx
    I suppose the authorship of any passage in the bible is of no significance to the inerrantist. The author of Romans 13 doesn't matter because by inclusion in the bible it's ipso facto the inspired word of God, interpolation or not. Fear, Jews in the cellar!
  • RdrEmCofE
    I don't think you've quite grasped the point I made earlier that to be 'subject to' does not necessarily mean 'obey'.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    I don't think you've quite grasped the point I made earlier that to be 'subject to' does not necessarily mean 'obey'.
    This is about the weakest pull-out I've ever heard.
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    RdrEmCofE
    I don't think you've quite grasped the point I made earlier that to be 'subject to' does not necessarily mean 'obey'.

    If a Nazi Oberführer in 1942 Holland, demands you tell him the truth concerning whether you are hiding Jews in your cellar, how do you respond to the authority that God has made you 'subject to', in accordance and in obedience to the words of Rom.13:1-6?

    You have to do good, in terms of the fact that the words of Rom.13:1-6 are absolutely clear that all authority is good, and only ever punishes wicked people. If an authority demands therefore that you tell the truth, you have absolutely no choice but to do so, according to Rom.13:1-6.

    Goodby Jews, women, children and all, but of course you will still know that you have done God's will, because Rom.13:1-6 tells you so.

  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    If a Nazi Oberführer in 1942 Holland, demands you tell him the truth concerning whether you are hiding Jews in your cellar, how do you respond to the authority that God has made you 'subject to', in accordance and in obedience to the words of Rom.13:1-6?
    I have known people (RIPARIG) who have been in this situation.

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    LeRoc wrote: »
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    If a Nazi Oberführer in 1942 Holland, demands you tell him the truth concerning whether you are hiding Jews in your cellar, how do you respond to the authority that God has made you 'subject to', in accordance and in obedience to the words of Rom.13:1-6?
    I have known people (RIPARIG) who have been in this situation.
    Ex 1:15-20 answers that one
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    Enoch wrote: »
    LeRoc wrote: »
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    If a Nazi Oberführer in 1942 Holland, demands you tell him the truth concerning whether you are hiding Jews in your cellar, how do you respond to the authority that God has made you 'subject to', in accordance and in obedience to the words of Rom.13:1-6?
    I have known people (RIPARIG) who have been in this situation.
    Ex 1:15-20 answers that one

    But the Midwives feared God and lied to Pharaoh because presumably he was not an authority instituted by God, and was commanding wickedness of them and punishing good. Rom.13:1-6 unequivocally states that to be impossible.

    The midwives moral position is not in any way supported by Rom.13:1-6. It is roundly condemned by it.

    It states (1) ALL authorities are instituted by God. (2) All authorities must be subjected to. (3) All authorities punish only the wicked and not the good.

    According to Rom.13:1-6, the midwives were not 'good' because (1) they defied a God instituted authority which was ipso facto "God's servant for their good". (2) they then lied to a God instituted authority thereby effectively (according to Rom.13:1-6, 'Lied to God'. God's authority was invested in Pharaoh, as it is in ALL authority.

    Now do you see why Rom.13:1-6 is irrational rubbish.

    In Exodus 1:15-20 the midwives were heroes, morally supported by God.

    In Rom.13:1-6 they would have been criminals defying and lying to an authority, which along with ALL OTHER authorities, was instituted by God and was "God's servant to do them good".

    Rom.13:1-6 leaves no room whatsoever for anyone under any authority to deny its legitimacy as a direct agent of God, and risks God's wrath if they do not obediently comply with its every demand, 'because all authorities behave, always without exception, - "for the good of their subjects"'. (which is nonsense)!

    Thus Rom.13:1-6 fixes the morality of every human decision by whether it complies with all authorities, (which are all instituted by God), wherever and whoever they happen to be.

    There is simply no getting round it, unless Paul either had a particularly bad day with his logical thinking, or it was not actually dictated by Paul.

  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    Ex 1:15-20 answers that one
    An answer, and an inspiration also.
  • AndrasAndras Shipmate
    Paul never lived to see it, but some 13 years after Romans was written was the Year of the Four Emperors (Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian) following the suicide of Nero the previous year.

    If as Paul states all authority is instituted by God, one wonders why he kept changing his mind.
  • A (hopefully) interesting sidelight on this comes from looking at its effect on trying to study events historically. This text and its underlying theology of power had a profound effect on the monks writing and transcribing the chronicles of Kievan Rus', between the 9th and 13th centuries. It is pretty much impossible to do any kind of historical research because all the winners are saints, all the losers inevitably devils, and saints become devils at a moment's notice. This is a fundamentally flawed view of human behaviour, nature etc., to the point of distorting humanity out of all recognition. I believe this to be of theological significance because one of my tests for any biblical quotation is whether it helps one to live better. This distorts humanity and licences craven cowardice, as well as removing all human agency from the selection of leaders. Therefore, it cannot be of God, however authentically Pauline. Therefore, some of Paul is not Paul and/or thunderous bunk.
  • Please forgive the double posting, but it has since occurred to me that this may very well, given his circumstances, be the text that Dietrich Bonhoeffer had in mind when he proposed living as if God were dead. I believe that he was advocating abandoning the belief that temporal power is divinely ordained, and wresting from their hands the levers that those wielding it on the side of evil had grasped.
  • After taking time out to consider, I think the problem - if there really is one - is narrower than the whole of Romans 13; 1-6.

    If - and I know it's not easy - you can manage to ignore the later addition of chapter and verse indicators, then 13; 1 does in fact follow pretty well from the end of chapter 12, taking it from 'enemies' in general to the particular idea of the state as a possible enemy.

    'Authorities appointed by God' even though they appear evil is a standard part of OT thinking - God can work providentially through a bad ruler as through a good one. The rulers who defeated Israel and later Judah and enslaved the Jews in Babylon were not outside God's control, but were fulfilling his purposes for ultimate good as well as 'doing their own thing'. The Pharaoh mentioned a few posts back has in fact been mentioned by Paul in Romans 9; 17. as 'set on high' by God. Thus even a Nero, or in our times a Hitler or Stalin - or Trump - can be understood as meaningfully appointed by God. As such Christians are to be subject and are not to rebel; yet are not necessarily required to obey whatever the ruler wants/demands.

    This is compatible with other NT teachings from Jesus own instructions to turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, etc., through to Peter's instructions in his first epistle. As far as you can, obey the ruler; if necessary, obey God rather than man, and when you must disobey the ruler, nevertheless remain subject by accepting martyrdom rather than raising an armed revolt. You may not like it, but it is quite consistent and coherent teaching to meet the situation of a church which is "God's holy nation" but in a 'diaspora' situation rather than being itself a 'kingdom of this world'.

    So there is no real problem with Romans 13; 1-3a
    1 Everyone must submit himself 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, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.

    And I can't then see any problem either in the end of the section from v5 onward, where Paul again uses the vocabulary of 'submission', the Greek 'hypotasso'.

    5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

    6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
    Romans 13:1-7 (NIV)

    IF there is a problem or a possible interpolation it is in vv3a-4
    Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

    And even there, there is no major problem in the end of v4, from "But if you do wrong...." In the sense noted above even the bad ruler is there by God's appointment and in general performs the function of civil order, and if God's people do wrong, God may use the secular ruler among his ways to correct their error.

    The 'problem' is in vv3b-4a
    Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good.

    with its suggestion that 'doing what is right' will automatically earn the ruler's commendation. I now have to go out till late evening; I'll continue thinking about it....


  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    It's not like this wasn't pointed out to you earlier, Steve.
  • Andras wrote: »
    Paul never lived to see it, but some 13 years after Romans was written was the Year of the Four Emperors (Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian) following the suicide of Nero the previous year.

    If as Paul states all authority is instituted by God, one wonders why he kept changing his mind.

    This was something taken very seriously in the so-called Byzantine Empire. The general idea was that whoever was emperor was so by the grace of God. So if you assassinate the emperor and take his place, you are emperor by the grace of God, and by the most obvious of logic, the assassination brought about God's will and thus was not sinful. Thus remaining emperor was in part an exercise in having a good enough network to detect assassination plots before they happen, and thus squelch them. (There's a reason the word "byzantine" means what it does.)
  • AndrasAndras Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Andras wrote: »
    Paul never lived to see it, but some 13 years after Romans was written was the Year of the Four Emperors (Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian) following the suicide of Nero the previous year.

    If as Paul states all authority is instituted by God, one wonders why he kept changing his mind.

    This was something taken very seriously in the so-called Byzantine Empire. The general idea was that whoever was emperor was so by the grace of God. So if you assassinate the emperor and take his place, you are emperor by the grace of God, and by the most obvious of logic, the assassination brought about God's will and thus was not sinful. Thus remaining emperor was in part an exercise in having a good enough network to detect assassination plots before they happen, and thus squelch them. (There's a reason the word "byzantine" means what it does.)

    It's a little reminiscent of the Chinese idea that the Emperor rules because he possesses The Mandate of Heaven; when that is withdrawn, he falls.
  • Andras wrote: »
    It's a little reminiscent of the Chinese idea that the Emperor rules because he possesses The Mandate of Heaven; when that is withdrawn, he falls.

    I was not familiar with that concept, but yes it appears very similar.
  • KwesiKwesi Deckhand, Styx
    Variants of The Divine Right of Kings is a pretty common feature of human societies, and in European society reached a peak with the claims of Absolute Monarchy.
  • MudfrogMudfrog Shipmate
    Andras wrote: »
    Paul never lived to see it, but some 13 years after Romans was written was the Year of the Four Emperors (Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian) following the suicide of Nero the previous year.

    If as Paul states all authority is instituted by God, one wonders why he kept changing his mind.


    I'm wondering here whether the 'authority' established by God is 'general administrative leadership' rather than individual administrations or individual characters in office.

    In the UK (and other places like Canada and Australia) there is always The Monarch and government that rules in the name of The Crown. There is never not a monarch, there is never not a Crown. When a General Election changes not only the PM but the Party, the Monarch/Crown stays the same. If the Government of the day were to introduce a set of laws that were dreadful, and then a subsequent Government rescinded that law, the Monarch/Crown would remain unaltered. We would still be a constitutional monarchy and the Government of the day would govern in the name of the Crown.
    When Elizabeth dies Charles (whatever his regnal name will be) will immediately be the king. There will be no break. There will be no moment in time when Crown authority will cease.
    In short, the royal woman or man who wears the crown is not the authority.
    The woman or man who sits in the House of commons as PM is not the authority.
    The authority (believed in our argument here to be ordained by God) is the Crown, not the person wearing or appealing to it.

    If therefore, authority is given by God, then the 'authorities' and the one acting as 'an authority' must accept that the power they wields is greater than the decisions they make.
    The authority we obey is the greater authority that is delegated to 'the authorities.'

    It follows therefore that if the one who governs, let's say a Hitler, oversteps, abuses, the greater authority that is above him, then the greater national good, and indeed that greater authority over him, would reasonably and acceptably have the right to deny the one in authority the ability to continue in that position.

    Whether through the ballot box or more 'immediate' means might depend on the circumstances.
    I think that's where Bonhoeffer was justified.
    Hitler was given the right to wield authority as a national leader but he abused the 'authority' that God has established.




  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    Andras wrote: »
    It's a little reminiscent of the Chinese idea that the Emperor rules because he possesses The Mandate of Heaven; when that is withdrawn, he falls.
    In China it was a useful way of regaining stability after you'd had a change of regime. The Western Divine Right of Kings didn't work so well in that way.
  • MudfrogMudfrog Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Andras wrote: »
    It's a little reminiscent of the Chinese idea that the Emperor rules because he possesses The Mandate of Heaven; when that is withdrawn, he falls.
    In China it was a useful way of regaining stability after you'd had a change of regime. The Western Divine Right of Kings didn't work so well in that way.

    Indeed, which is why when Charles I overstepped the authority given him - even that given by God himself - Parliament was right to strip him of his position.
    Whether they should have killed him is another matter entirely.

  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    [Mudfrog] : Whether through the ballot box or more 'immediate' means might depend on the circumstances.
    I think that's where Bonhoeffer was justified.
    Hitler was given the right to wield authority as a national leader but he abused the 'authority' that God has established.

    You still have not told us what you would say to the Nazi Oberführer in 1942 Holland, when he demands you tell him whether there are any Jews hiding in your cellar. You are being more reticent about that with us, than presumably you would be with him, if you take Rom.13:1-6 literally as being entirely "God's Inerrant Word." In what universe is it possible to lie to an authority instituted by God for your good and who punishes only the wicked for opposing it or even non cooperation with it. Would you effectively lie to God's ordained agent of enforcement, armed to ensure compliance to its righteous commands? Rom.13:1-6 leaves absolutely no room whatever for speculation about whether any authority is actually righteous.

    That is the problem!

    Biblical inerrancy: and God supports Nazis against wicked subversion by anyone. No getting round it. Plain as a pikestaff.

    Interpolated text: and the problem goes away, Paul just advises "overcoming evil with good", "Paying debts: taxes, revenue, respect, (but only to whom it is due, ie. deserving), honor only to whom honor is owed, (i.e again, if deserving).

    Come on Mudfrog the Nazi Oberführer is getting impatient. "Do you haf Yuden in your cellar"?

    Read Rom.13:1-6 again and find a way out for them please, without lying to God's duly appointed authority.

  • MudfrogMudfrog Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    [Mudfrog] : Whether through the ballot box or more 'immediate' means might depend on the circumstances.
    I think that's where Bonhoeffer was justified.
    Hitler was given the right to wield authority as a national leader but he abused the 'authority' that God has established.

    You still have not told us what you would say to the Nazi Oberführer in 1942 Holland, when he demands you tell him whether there are any Jews hiding in your cellar. You are being more reticent about that with us, than presumably you would be with him, if you take Rom.13:1-6 literally as being entirely "God's Inerrant Word." In what universe is it possible to lie to an authority instituted by God for your good and who punishes only the wicked for opposing it or even non cooperation with it. Would you effectively lie to God's ordained agent of enforcement, armed to ensure compliance to its righteous commands? Rom.13:1-6 leaves absolutely no room whatever for speculation about whether any authority is actually righteous.

    That is the problem!

    Biblical inerrancy: and God supports Nazis against wicked subversion by anyone. No getting round it. Plain as a pikestaff.

    Interpolated text: and the problem goes away, Paul just advises "overcoming evil with good", "Paying debts: taxes, revenue, respect, (but only to whom it is due, ie. deserving), honor only to whom honor is owed, (i.e again, if deserving).

    Come on Mudfrog the Nazi Oberführer is getting impatient. "Do you haf Yuden in your cellar"?

    Read Rom.13:1-6 again and find a way out for them please, without lying to God's duly appointed authority.

    Firstly, I don't accept what I think might be your implied definition of inerrancy.
    perhaps you could give a definition. I suspect that what you term inerrancy is actually 'literalism' - something that not even a proponent of inerrancy and infallibility accepts.

    Secondly, I think I've answered your question in my broad statement. If an authority goes beyond or abuses THE authority that is above it, i.e. God's, then it needn't be obeyed. If you take your implied position to its extreme we would never have elections because the whole process of democracy is to replace an 'authority' we don't like with an 'authority that we do like.

    So, specifically to your not unreasonable question - considering the activities of some Dutch people, Christians among them - who protected their Jewish brothers and sisters, I hope I would be brave enough firstly to hide those Jewish people and secondly to tell the Oberführer, " Nein, es gibt keine Juden hier."

  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    [Mudfrog] : So, specifically to your not unreasonable question - considering the activities of some Dutch people, Christians among them - who protected their Jewish brothers and sisters, I hope I would be brave enough firstly to hide those Jewish people and secondly to tell the Oberführer, " Nein, es gibt keine Juden hier."

    Thank you!

    You have joined the exulted ranks of the faithful who, like the Hebrew Midwives who refused to carry out Pharaohs orders, then also lied to him, did God's will in the face of evil, because God's people are not subject to any authority which tries to compel them to be disobedient to God.

    Not a scenario that Rom.13:1-6 either contemplates or inspirationally foresees the possibility of it ever occurring.

    As for democracy as we experience it, that is not in any way allowed for by Rom.13:1-6 either. It assumes that ALL authority is God Instituted and ALL opposition to it is effectively treason against God's agents and will incur God's wrath. The people are not God and even Paul probably didn't consider authority to reside in the kind of people in Roman society that surrounded him on all sides every day. He probably did think authority resided ultimately with God but was not so naive as to think that Roman authority was only ever used to punish wickedness and affirm righteousness. Indeed he suffered persecution under that same 'authority', on numerous occasions for merely preaching the gospel.

Sign In or Register to comment.