1 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. 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. 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.
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.
Just wondering.
Long story made short.
The Way taught that this refers to leadership in the household (trunk leaders, limb leaders, branch leaders, twig leaders, etc.) That was one of their justifications for absolute obedience.
Simple, you submit and obey the government. Just as Christ said, render unto God what is his and unto Ceasar what is his.
The difference between then and the situation Paul wrote this to is this: Back then, they were livng under Ceasar and then Nero. You didn't want to speak out and call attention to yourself.
Today, we can speak out and call our leaders jerks in this country without getting sent to a gulag or a re-education gulag like Cuba, N. Korea, China, etc. Back then, you railed against your leaders you were cannon fodder for the lions in the Coleseum(sic), or maybe impaled on a spike lining Nero's highways.
I believe the advice Paul gave was good - live your life. Obey the law of the land. We are not called to use violence and to overthrow our government. Ephesians tells us our weapons are spiritual - prayer. We wrestle not against flesh and blood but spiritual powers, principalites, etc. and so on.
Most tyrants, I believe, had spiritual help getting them where they got. Hitler survived 34 assassination attempts. They aren't going anywhere until its time. And someone trying to take them out gets caught and dies terribly and accomplishes nothing.
Paul wrote that so believers could be safe. None of us have lived under the likes of a Nero, Caligula, Vlad the Impaler, Stalin, Hitler. If you do, Paul gives darn good advice. Lay low, live your life. God is Jehovah Jireh - God will provide. Trust in him - not whatever secular, earthly government you happen to live under - whether good or bad. Christians have lived under every kind of government known to man - and still had God's joy in their heart.
Oh, wait, you said "conservatism" - is this a trick political question? You don't want to hear from the progressives? How do they reconcile this? Maybe the political section is more appropriate?
I do not believe that God helps tyrants come into power. If He did, then the allies were wrong in opposing him. Wait, God appointed the governing powers in the U.S., Great Britain and France too, so I guess WWII must have been God's will also? I think not.
I believe God is a God of order and therefore would have us be law-abiding citizens so that we may live life unencumbered. I think Sunesis is correct in saying that God did not call us to fight with governmental authority. When it lies within our power, we should, as much as possible obey secular governmental rule. When secular laws strike at humankind's dignity, those laws should be resisted as much as possible. When Martin Luther King, with a few hundred other African-Americans, would order food from a restaurant that didn't serve blacks, he was acting properly even though the rule of law was on the side of the restaurant owner. Why? The law was immoral. When Israeli citizens along with Palestinians lay down in front of bulldozers that are ready to knock down Palestinian homes because they're in the way, they are acting properly even though the rule of law is on the side of the army. I could go on about civil disobedience.
I don't think this cuts against conservatism so I don't see a need to reconcile this passage with conserveratism.
If a person wants to understand how the ideas of individual freedom of speech, individual freedom of conscience and individual freedom of religion came about in the English speaking world, one would do well to study English culture during the 1600s, especially contrasting the reigns of Charles the first, Oliver Cromwell and Charles the second. All of them invoked God as justifying their right to rule, in radically different but uniformly detestable ways.
Oh, wait, you said "conservatism" - is this a trick political question?
Not at all. It's just that Republicans are usually the ones railing against taxes. Now, I realize that nobody likes to pay taxes, but GOP politicians often campaign on promises to lower taxes (and there's nothing inherently wrong with that), but they also demonize democrats as "tax-and-spend liberals", even socialists.
You don't want to hear from the progressives?
Of course I do. But I was mostly interested in how Christian Conservatives feel, especially about verses 6-7, "This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 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."
It seems to me that many conservatives have a very negative, even militant, opposition to any and all taxation. That's okay. But if you identify yourself as a political conservative and at the same time believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God, then I think there's a conflict.
Maybe this does belong in the politics forum. I went back and forth on it.
That's why we also have a mind and reason. If a government is oppresive, and goes so far as to murdering its citizens, people will flee or eventually it will fall - they will turn and fight. Watch the video of Romania when the Dictators, the Coscesceus(sic) were on the balcony giving a speech to the masses and the expressions on their faces when they realized the people had turned in the public square and the military would not protect them. Their execution is still watched today.
The people will get the government they let happen. That simple.
Most people do not have the "resources" to change a government - except a vote.
Those who can make a difference are: Military high ups, or wealthy, educated, connected people who get themselves in positions of government - or, as we saw in Communist Russia - a peasant could join the party and have a relatively decent life - side with those in power.
You and I won't change it. A war will change it, but you and I won't.
Thus, live peaceably and quietly...
Look at the people who did survive when governments went crazy, like Mao's cultural revolution, Stalin's famines, Hitler's genocide, Pol Pot's genocide. Interesting things to learn from.
Nobody brought up the American Revolutionary War, which would seem to go directly against the verses I posted.
The Revolutionary War is a good example of people rebelling against a government. One of the primary reasons American colonists fought the war was because of onerous taxation. What makes a tax onerous? It's not simply a matter of whose ox is doing the goring, i.e. In 1765, the Stamp Act was considered onerous, so it was a matter of who the ox was goring. The British Parliment, in response to American protests passed the Declatory Act. In that act, Parliment declared thet they could indeed pass laws that affected Colonists only, laws for taxes that didn't apply to any other British citizens, taxes no other Brit would have to pay.
It's interesting to note that Colonial taxes were raised to cover the British National Debt. Colonists objected to the tax because they were forced to pay them and had no legal recourse. Whenever one group of people are taxed above another, without any sign of or sense of gain for doing so - other than to fatten the coffers of a financially irresponsible government, you have an onerous tax.
If you follow the Bible, there are certain taxes delineated By God to Samuel when Saul was made king, also in the Law there are forms of taxation, yet in all of these there is no predisposition to unjustly take more from an individual than he can rationally contribute, and the amounts are fairly applied.
I've heard people say that the verses you supplied apply to godly and demonic governments alike, yet it stretches my imagination to think God is encouraging any sort of wickedness or unfair burden be levied upon His children. As in Hezekiah's Kingdom, a government that is evil will fall, if it does not correct itself, or that leader will eat of the fruit of his own ways. There were many occasions where God told a prophet to cry out to Rulers to change their ways, and when God's people cry out to Him, he will deliver them from evil.
An interesting question. Along the lines of Sunesis's response, "conservatism" in it's modern American forms wasn't being addressed in Romans 13. Left, Right, Liberal, Conservative, all of that social/economic/"political" stuff we label today wasn't the way people lived at that time. I think we all know that - don't we?
I've read the population of Rome around this time was about a million people, of all religions, nations and races, many of them slaves of some sort under and in the Roman empire. Completely different environment than what we live in today in the U.S. Some would argue that and I suppose it can be argued from different angles but the idea of a social structure based on economic factors like we have in the U.S. wasn't the lay of the land at that time. Pulling ones self up by their own boot straps as we refer to it wasn't possible as it is today. For many many people there was nowhere up to go but plenty of down around.
Now - even having said that if I look at our own history and the way residents of this country were driven, herded and killed by the onslaught of new generations that came here and were born here - we have a wide history of various forms of "manifest destiny" that conservative and liberals alike often choose to ignore or redefine. I don't see it as uniquely "political" that generations do that, rather the tendency of human nature. Whether it be Greed or God there's never been a lack of lust for claiming other's life and land for one''s own and making it "right".
Governance according to the entire Bible is the ultimate domain of God. God's delivered part of that to man and the part man has to deal with is his to do with as he sees fit, good or bad, right or wrong. Romans gives a pretty clear view into a world governed by violence and strength, where the sheer volume of conquest and the lands and people that went with it required constant vigilance to maintain both order and some semblance of "peace" mixed with the realization that the people themselves retained their own identities - but all under the Roman Empire.
Unwieldy? Of course, and it didn't last in that form forever. But it was in that world that Christianity grew and thrived. So I would see Romans 13 as a simple set of instructions to live "peaceably", as much as one was able to, in those days. But I doubt seriously that Romans 13 can be used as a tight instruction to support any thing at any one time irrevocably. as right or wrong.
Take to the streets tomorrow and try to overthrow our government by force - be it Repulican, Democrat, or anything inbetween - and see what happens.
Broken Arrow, I did not say it was God who put tyrants in power - or necessarily any other leaders.
I mentioned that because in one of your previous posts you said:
"Most tyrants, I believe, had spiritual help getting them where they got. Hitler survived 34 assassination attempts. They aren't going anywhere until its time. And someone trying to take them out gets caught and dies terribly and accomplishes nothing."
I wasn't sure what you meant by "spiritual power". Another statement you made was, "They aren't going anywhere until its time", referring to failed assassination attempts on Hitler. The statement "until its time" implies to me some other power determines the timing of a leader's rule. So, on the one hand you say you believe leaders have spiritual help and that they aren't going anywhere until it's time. Then you say you don't think God puts leaders in power. What am I missing here?
BTW, I'm not arguing with you or criticizing you. In fact I enjoy reading your posts. I'm just trying to track with you.
I would see Romans 13 as a simple set of instructions to live "peaceably", as much as one was able to, in those days. But I doubt seriously that Romans 13 can be used as a tight instruction to support any thing at any one time irrevocably. as right or wrong.
Interesting to read this section in different versions.
NASB treats verse 4ff For it [authority] is a minister of God...
Holman puts it this way, as "government":
A Christian's Duties to the State
1 Everyone must submit to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are instituted by God. 2 So then, the one who resists the authority is opposing God's command, and those who oppose it will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do good and you will have its approval. 4 For government is God's servant to you for good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, because it does not carry the sword for no reason. For government is God's servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong. 5 Therefore, you must submit, not only because of wrath, but also because of your conscience. 6 And for this reason you pay taxes, since the [authorities] are God's public servants, continually attending to these tasks. 7 Pay your obligations to everyone: taxes to those you owe taxes, tolls to those you owe tolls, respect to those you owe respect, and honor to those you owe honor.
Amplified starts "Let every person be loyally subject to the governing (civil) authorities...those who resist will bring down judgment upon themselves [receiving the penalty due to them]. For civil authorities aer not a terror to [people of good conduct]."
Definitely worth remarking that this is all in context of CIVIL AUTHORITY and not authority in the church, where these same verses are often used to beat congregations into submission. We have become so used to church hierarchies that this can be overlooked.
These verses were written way before church and state became entangled and Christianity became the "state religion" some centuries later.
And don't forget to consider 13:1ff in light of 12:21 - "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" - for, as 13:3 reminds us, rulers are not a terror to good works" (KJV) "not a cause of fear for good behavior (NASB) "Not a terror to [people of] good conduct, but to [those of] bad behavior." (Amp)
Jesus lived under a regime that was considered vile and brutal by most of the oppressed inhabitants. He did everything without arguing and complaining. There's nothing to indicate that he opposed the regime as such; in fact, his behavior caused him to be held in respect by (eg) the centurion who sought help; and even by Pilate himself.
We can also see passive resistance among the early Israelite women Puah and Shiprah who, whilst not protesting the order to kill male babies, just quietly ignored the order (Ex 1)...because they were subject to a higher moral law (of God).
But Moses, who opposed with violence, was forced to flee.
Is the question suggesting that conservative politics would pay no taxes, or not be subject to civil or govermental authority?
(or Liberal or whatever the other labels are).
Yeah, my own comment above regarding the Revolutionary War got me thinking and I came to the conclusion that my question is not a good one.
When governments become oppressive the people will revolt, as they should.
I'm puzzled by the very first verse of Romans 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."
Could this mean that the Roman authorities were established by God?
Ignoring context it's always easy
to rally around a verse or two, attach deep personal and even universal meaning to it and insist that it is the Verse of the Day,
the perfect piece for that moment, day, issue, and/or person.
I'm puzzled by the very first verse of Romans 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."
Could this mean that the Roman authorities were established by God?
Answering my own question...
My NIV study bible says that the "governing authorities" refers to the civil rulers at the time, "all of whom were probably pagans".
"Christians may have been tempted to not submit to them and to claim allegiance only to Christ"
"Even the possibility of a persecuting state did not shake Paul's conviction that civil government is ordained by God."
Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. (NIV)
The commentary says Peter is urging Christians to submit to all legitimate authorities, whether or not the persons excercising authority are believers.
But there obviously came a point many times in history when the people decided to revolt. Did they think they were acting with God's blessing?
Also, totalitarian regimes like China, North Korea and Myanmar Republic have existed for years. Evil as they are, I don't think they're going anywhere soon.
I'd say Paul is exhorting people to live peaceably in their environment. Put up with whatever governmental organization there is. Behave decently to all - always, everything within the concept of behaving decently.
What would be the flip side? If everyone rejected their civil governments, there would be anarchy, chaos, people fighting people, every man for himself. And that certainly isn't Godly.
Education, health services, roads, safety of food supplies, water supplies, sewerage, and heaps of other things probably wouldn't get done, or done so efficiently. You only have to look at countries where civil government is very poor or has broken down to see the result. Somalia, for example, hasn't had a government for over 20 years. A fine culture has broken down to piracy. Somalia
Countries might not be able to wage war against other countries ... but then, they couldn't defend themselves easily either.
So on balance, even a not-very-good government is better than no government at all.
The commentary says Peter is urging Christians to submit to all legitimate authorities, whether or not the persons excercising authority are believers.
I would agree in principle. Many Christians today seem prone to look for "believers" as some kind of sanctified answer to leadership then act surprised and shocked when those same leaders fail them. No surprise there, it's part of the fabric of life. Knowing right and good doesn't make right or good It takes action and work and vigilance and requires agreement on clear standards, plus accountability and continual review. "Government", ongoing and continuous. There will be failures and others will let us down. We keep working till we die and do the best we can while we live is the way I see it.
But there obviously came a point many times in history when the people decided to revolt. Did they think they were acting with God's blessing?
People think all kinds of things. When something's wrong by how we reckon right it's reasonable to act to correct it.
Where does that begin and Romans 13 end? Good question. Good will overcome evil but when we choose the lesser of two evils we still choose....evil. I don't believe the determinations religious PAC groups make are as "godly" as they think, nor that God is behind every scrimmage and pass we make. Few and far between are the clear and righteous decisions we make in life that will change the world with a single brush stroke. I see it as the 1,000's we make day in and day out, with the intent to do the best we can at any given time.
I have found the famous theologian, Dietrich Bonhoffer, a great example of what we are talking about here.
He was a devout Christian, from a well to do upper class german family, I think one brother became SS or something in the Nazi party.
He could not in good conscience join the Nazi Party. He also wrote about the dilemma he found himself in: Do I pray for my leader to succeed knowing it may destroy my country, or do I pray for him not to suceed knowing it will be best for my country?
However he prayed, he led fellowships and as the war broke out, was offered several times passage to America where he could teach and wait the war out. He refused saying how could he ever face his congregation after the war if he left and they had stayed and suffered? He stayed.
Now, I personally believe, Ephesians - our "warfare" is spiritual, i.e, it is by prayer to the bringing down of strongholds of spiritual wickedness and principalitie in high places. Sometimes we forget - there are things going on behind the scenes we aren't aware of. But, we are not called to go to war and overthrow our governments. Can we work to change it, get out the vote, etc? sure.
But, getting back to Bonhoeffer, as time went on, and he was horrified by Hitler, the war and destruction, he got involved in one of the plots to kill Hitler. The plot failed. He and others were caught and put in jail. As I said, because of his family, he had a nice cell, he could write, receive packages, food, etc. He wasn't brutally tortured and thrown in a dungeon somewhere to rot or sent to a camp. He was from a good family.
You should read his letters from prison sometime. He writes to friends and family. Since he is from the well known, 100% pure aryan stock, no one, neither friends nor family, really believe he will be killed for his actions. So they write along, can't wait 'til you get out, yadda yadda.
One day, without warning, he and several others are put on a truck, driven into the woods, lined up and shot.
The family is still writing then after a couple of weeks, start wondering why he's not replying...
I guess my point here is - here is a man who decided to be a "warrior" and forgot our battle is against higher spiritual wickedness on high - of which we have been given the Power to withstand and our weapon is prayer. He got sucked into - well, I need to kill him...
Result? Friends and family survive and a man's life is thrown away. I think he could have done so much if he had lived and not put himself in that situation. Of course, who am I to judge? But I think sometimes, so many Christians because of naivite and good intentions, die when its maybe not God's will for them to.
34 times they tried to assassinate Hitler. I do believe he rose to power with the help of ungodly spiritual force and was protected by them.
The Chinese have a saying: a ruler has a "divine mandate" and when he loses it you'll know. Things start going wrong, little omens. Whom the gods would destroy they first exalt.
Just as the angel, on his way to teach Daniel was withheld for 21 days by the spirit prince and ruler of Persia, whom Michael had to finally come rebuke, I do believe a leader can ride on the coattails of evil in a spiritual sense to power.
The 20th century was a century of unprecedented death and evil - easily about 200 million wiped out by the Stalins, Lenins, Castros, Pol Pots, Hitlers, Mao - wickedness unleashed.
As I said, I think for the average person, Paul, Peter and Jesus' advice is good and can keep one alive. Obey the authorities to the best of your ability. If you can't - well, don't announce it to the world - quietly go on your way.
Every country must have government - Somalia was a great example of what happens when you don't. The world has many forms of government to choose from. Its all secular. I'm thankful for it, but there are better things to put my trust in.
I think I need to study this some more and re-formulate my questions. Maybe I'll dig into some of that 17th century English history Steve Lortz suggested.
Great discussion... Wish I had something to add.. But I don't.. Just enjoying the dialogue!
"The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."
Recommended Posts
waysider
Long story made short.
The Way taught that this refers to leadership in the household (trunk leaders, limb leaders, branch leaders, twig leaders, etc.) That was one of their justifications for absolute obedience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Simple, you submit and obey the government. Just as Christ said, render unto God what is his and unto Ceasar what is his.
The difference between then and the situation Paul wrote this to is this: Back then, they were livng under Ceasar and then Nero. You didn't want to speak out and call attention to yourself.
Today, we can speak out and call our leaders jerks in this country without getting sent to a gulag or a re-education gulag like Cuba, N. Korea, China, etc. Back then, you railed against your leaders you were cannon fodder for the lions in the Coleseum(sic), or maybe impaled on a spike lining Nero's highways.
I believe the advice Paul gave was good - live your life. Obey the law of the land. We are not called to use violence and to overthrow our government. Ephesians tells us our weapons are spiritual - prayer. We wrestle not against flesh and blood but spiritual powers, principalites, etc. and so on.
Most tyrants, I believe, had spiritual help getting them where they got. Hitler survived 34 assassination attempts. They aren't going anywhere until its time. And someone trying to take them out gets caught and dies terribly and accomplishes nothing.
Paul wrote that so believers could be safe. None of us have lived under the likes of a Nero, Caligula, Vlad the Impaler, Stalin, Hitler. If you do, Paul gives darn good advice. Lay low, live your life. God is Jehovah Jireh - God will provide. Trust in him - not whatever secular, earthly government you happen to live under - whether good or bad. Christians have lived under every kind of government known to man - and still had God's joy in their heart.
Oh, wait, you said "conservatism" - is this a trick political question? You don't want to hear from the progressives? How do they reconcile this? Maybe the political section is more appropriate?
Edited by SunesisLink to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
I do not believe that God helps tyrants come into power. If He did, then the allies were wrong in opposing him. Wait, God appointed the governing powers in the U.S., Great Britain and France too, so I guess WWII must have been God's will also? I think not.
I believe God is a God of order and therefore would have us be law-abiding citizens so that we may live life unencumbered. I think Sunesis is correct in saying that God did not call us to fight with governmental authority. When it lies within our power, we should, as much as possible obey secular governmental rule. When secular laws strike at humankind's dignity, those laws should be resisted as much as possible. When Martin Luther King, with a few hundred other African-Americans, would order food from a restaurant that didn't serve blacks, he was acting properly even though the rule of law was on the side of the restaurant owner. Why? The law was immoral. When Israeli citizens along with Palestinians lay down in front of bulldozers that are ready to knock down Palestinian homes because they're in the way, they are acting properly even though the rule of law is on the side of the army. I could go on about civil disobedience.
I don't think this cuts against conservatism so I don't see a need to reconcile this passage with conserveratism.
Edited by Broken ArrowLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
If a person wants to understand how the ideas of individual freedom of speech, individual freedom of conscience and individual freedom of religion came about in the English speaking world, one would do well to study English culture during the 1600s, especially contrasting the reigns of Charles the first, Oliver Cromwell and Charles the second. All of them invoked God as justifying their right to rule, in radically different but uniformly detestable ways.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Not at all. It's just that Republicans are usually the ones railing against taxes. Now, I realize that nobody likes to pay taxes, but GOP politicians often campaign on promises to lower taxes (and there's nothing inherently wrong with that), but they also demonize democrats as "tax-and-spend liberals", even socialists.
Of course I do. But I was mostly interested in how Christian Conservatives feel, especially about verses 6-7, "This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 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."
It seems to me that many conservatives have a very negative, even militant, opposition to any and all taxation. That's okay. But if you identify yourself as a political conservative and at the same time believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God, then I think there's a conflict.
Maybe this does belong in the politics forum. I went back and forth on it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Reading the scripture there presents the question of what authorities is being referred to.
Those that God has established....
I would think these would have to be recognized.
imo it's not men of political or spiritual position or state.
But certainly authorities that can be identified.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Broken Arrow, I did not say it was God who put tyrants in power - or necessarily any other leaders.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Nobody brought up the American Revolutionary War, which would seem to go directly against the verses I posted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
That's why we also have a mind and reason. If a government is oppresive, and goes so far as to murdering its citizens, people will flee or eventually it will fall - they will turn and fight. Watch the video of Romania when the Dictators, the Coscesceus(sic) were on the balcony giving a speech to the masses and the expressions on their faces when they realized the people had turned in the public square and the military would not protect them. Their execution is still watched today.
The people will get the government they let happen. That simple.
Most people do not have the "resources" to change a government - except a vote.
Those who can make a difference are: Military high ups, or wealthy, educated, connected people who get themselves in positions of government - or, as we saw in Communist Russia - a peasant could join the party and have a relatively decent life - side with those in power.
You and I won't change it. A war will change it, but you and I won't.
Thus, live peaceably and quietly...
Look at the people who did survive when governments went crazy, like Mao's cultural revolution, Stalin's famines, Hitler's genocide, Pol Pot's genocide. Interesting things to learn from.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
The Revolutionary War is a good example of people rebelling against a government. One of the primary reasons American colonists fought the war was because of onerous taxation. What makes a tax onerous? It's not simply a matter of whose ox is doing the goring, i.e. In 1765, the Stamp Act was considered onerous, so it was a matter of who the ox was goring. The British Parliment, in response to American protests passed the Declatory Act. In that act, Parliment declared thet they could indeed pass laws that affected Colonists only, laws for taxes that didn't apply to any other British citizens, taxes no other Brit would have to pay.
It's interesting to note that Colonial taxes were raised to cover the British National Debt. Colonists objected to the tax because they were forced to pay them and had no legal recourse. Whenever one group of people are taxed above another, without any sign of or sense of gain for doing so - other than to fatten the coffers of a financially irresponsible government, you have an onerous tax.
If you follow the Bible, there are certain taxes delineated By God to Samuel when Saul was made king, also in the Law there are forms of taxation, yet in all of these there is no predisposition to unjustly take more from an individual than he can rationally contribute, and the amounts are fairly applied.
I've heard people say that the verses you supplied apply to godly and demonic governments alike, yet it stretches my imagination to think God is encouraging any sort of wickedness or unfair burden be levied upon His children. As in Hezekiah's Kingdom, a government that is evil will fall, if it does not correct itself, or that leader will eat of the fruit of his own ways. There were many occasions where God told a prophet to cry out to Rulers to change their ways, and when God's people cry out to Him, he will deliver them from evil.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
I think, like cman said, one has to determine who exactly are the God-appointed "governing authorities".
I have a hard time believing that God would have a hand in the establishment or maintenance of evil governmental regimes.
Of course, I also have a hard time believing that God wants slaves to submit to their masters. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
An interesting question. Along the lines of Sunesis's response, "conservatism" in it's modern American forms wasn't being addressed in Romans 13. Left, Right, Liberal, Conservative, all of that social/economic/"political" stuff we label today wasn't the way people lived at that time. I think we all know that - don't we?
I've read the population of Rome around this time was about a million people, of all religions, nations and races, many of them slaves of some sort under and in the Roman empire. Completely different environment than what we live in today in the U.S. Some would argue that and I suppose it can be argued from different angles but the idea of a social structure based on economic factors like we have in the U.S. wasn't the lay of the land at that time. Pulling ones self up by their own boot straps as we refer to it wasn't possible as it is today. For many many people there was nowhere up to go but plenty of down around.
Now - even having said that if I look at our own history and the way residents of this country were driven, herded and killed by the onslaught of new generations that came here and were born here - we have a wide history of various forms of "manifest destiny" that conservative and liberals alike often choose to ignore or redefine. I don't see it as uniquely "political" that generations do that, rather the tendency of human nature. Whether it be Greed or God there's never been a lack of lust for claiming other's life and land for one''s own and making it "right".
Governance according to the entire Bible is the ultimate domain of God. God's delivered part of that to man and the part man has to deal with is his to do with as he sees fit, good or bad, right or wrong. Romans gives a pretty clear view into a world governed by violence and strength, where the sheer volume of conquest and the lands and people that went with it required constant vigilance to maintain both order and some semblance of "peace" mixed with the realization that the people themselves retained their own identities - but all under the Roman Empire.
Unwieldy? Of course, and it didn't last in that form forever. But it was in that world that Christianity grew and thrived. So I would see Romans 13 as a simple set of instructions to live "peaceably", as much as one was able to, in those days. But I doubt seriously that Romans 13 can be used as a tight instruction to support any thing at any one time irrevocably. as right or wrong.
Take to the streets tomorrow and try to overthrow our government by force - be it Repulican, Democrat, or anything inbetween - and see what happens.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
I mentioned that because in one of your previous posts you said:
"Most tyrants, I believe, had spiritual help getting them where they got. Hitler survived 34 assassination attempts. They aren't going anywhere until its time. And someone trying to take them out gets caught and dies terribly and accomplishes nothing."
I wasn't sure what you meant by "spiritual power". Another statement you made was, "They aren't going anywhere until its time", referring to failed assassination attempts on Hitler. The statement "until its time" implies to me some other power determines the timing of a leader's rule. So, on the one hand you say you believe leaders have spiritual help and that they aren't going anywhere until it's time. Then you say you don't think God puts leaders in power. What am I missing here?
BTW, I'm not arguing with you or criticizing you. In fact I enjoy reading your posts. I'm just trying to track with you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Very well put Socks.
Edited by Broken ArrowLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Interesting to read this section in different versions.
NASB treats verse 4ff For it [authority] is a minister of God...
Holman puts it this way, as "government":
A Christian's Duties to the State
1 Everyone must submit to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are instituted by God. 2 So then, the one who resists the authority is opposing God's command, and those who oppose it will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do good and you will have its approval. 4 For government is God's servant to you for good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, because it does not carry the sword for no reason. For government is God's servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong. 5 Therefore, you must submit, not only because of wrath, but also because of your conscience. 6 And for this reason you pay taxes, since the [authorities] are God's public servants, continually attending to these tasks. 7 Pay your obligations to everyone: taxes to those you owe taxes, tolls to those you owe tolls, respect to those you owe respect, and honor to those you owe honor.
Amplified starts "Let every person be loyally subject to the governing (civil) authorities...those who resist will bring down judgment upon themselves [receiving the penalty due to them]. For civil authorities aer not a terror to [people of good conduct]."
Definitely worth remarking that this is all in context of CIVIL AUTHORITY and not authority in the church, where these same verses are often used to beat congregations into submission. We have become so used to church hierarchies that this can be overlooked.
These verses were written way before church and state became entangled and Christianity became the "state religion" some centuries later.
And don't forget to consider 13:1ff in light of 12:21 - "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" - for, as 13:3 reminds us, rulers are not a terror to good works" (KJV) "not a cause of fear for good behavior (NASB) "Not a terror to [people of] good conduct, but to [those of] bad behavior." (Amp)
Jesus lived under a regime that was considered vile and brutal by most of the oppressed inhabitants. He did everything without arguing and complaining. There's nothing to indicate that he opposed the regime as such; in fact, his behavior caused him to be held in respect by (eg) the centurion who sought help; and even by Pilate himself.
We can also see passive resistance among the early Israelite women Puah and Shiprah who, whilst not protesting the order to kill male babies, just quietly ignored the order (Ex 1)...because they were subject to a higher moral law (of God).
But Moses, who opposed with violence, was forced to flee.
Edited by TwinkyLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I would wonder, as to the original question -
Is the question suggesting that conservative politics would pay no taxes, or not be subject to civil or govermental authority?
(or Liberal or whatever the other labels are).
Nothing in Romans 13 suggests that anyone is to ignore their moral convictions or duty in order to obey government.
Romans 12 deals with areas of conduct, morals, behavior. How to treat others, how to deal with enemies and friend alike.
"Saint and sinner". It's pretty simple stuff. 13 continues that theme.
Romans 13 can't be leveraged to force someone to obey a government they believe is morally wrong, nor made to insist
that a person rebel against it.
To do that all of the other areas of the bible that offer instruction would have to be ignored. Ignoring context it's always easy
to rally around a verse or two, attach deep personal and even universal meaning to it and insist that it is the Verse of the Day,
the perfect piece for that moment, day, issue, and/or person.
Your question is a good one soul search, nothing against you or your asking it. When I write "you" I mean "all youse"
13 offers no real set of standards of governance that would be able to stand alone and separate from other areas that
give specific individual instruction - example:
"Thou Shalt Not Have No Other Gods".
Scenario - you have to pay local taxes and the City Council refuses any recognition of God,
and fights against inclusion of religious concerns into local governing.
They also do the work related to their jobs, the city's business etc.
Response - do you not pay taxes? Because they're not "godly"?
-can you be forced to pay taxes because Rom. 13 "says so"?
-do you benefit from any of the services they do provide and the work they do perform?
-can you be forced to pay more and more taxes, regardless of the local issues and needs, simply because Rom. 13 "says so"?
-can you automatically ignore your tax debt and not pay it because you disagree on principle?
There's no pat answer, or one that fits all cicrumstances is there? Each person has to follow their conscience, reasonably and
as best they can, weighing the concerns against the best possible answer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Yeah, my own comment above regarding the Revolutionary War got me thinking and I came to the conclusion that my question is not a good one.
When governments become oppressive the people will revolt, as they should.
I'm puzzled by the very first verse of Romans 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."
Could this mean that the Roman authorities were established by God?
Very good point.
I have to think about this some more.
Edited by soul searcherLink to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Answering my own question...
My NIV study bible says that the "governing authorities" refers to the civil rulers at the time, "all of whom were probably pagans".
"Christians may have been tempted to not submit to them and to claim allegiance only to Christ"
"Even the possibility of a persecuting state did not shake Paul's conviction that civil government is ordained by God."
Interesting. So was Paul wrong?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
1 Peter 2:13-14
Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. (NIV)
The commentary says Peter is urging Christians to submit to all legitimate authorities, whether or not the persons excercising authority are believers.
But there obviously came a point many times in history when the people decided to revolt. Did they think they were acting with God's blessing?
Also, totalitarian regimes like China, North Korea and Myanmar Republic have existed for years. Evil as they are, I don't think they're going anywhere soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I'd say Paul is exhorting people to live peaceably in their environment. Put up with whatever governmental organization there is. Behave decently to all - always, everything within the concept of behaving decently.
What would be the flip side? If everyone rejected their civil governments, there would be anarchy, chaos, people fighting people, every man for himself. And that certainly isn't Godly.
Education, health services, roads, safety of food supplies, water supplies, sewerage, and heaps of other things probably wouldn't get done, or done so efficiently. You only have to look at countries where civil government is very poor or has broken down to see the result. Somalia, for example, hasn't had a government for over 20 years. A fine culture has broken down to piracy. Somalia
Countries might not be able to wage war against other countries ... but then, they couldn't defend themselves easily either.
So on balance, even a not-very-good government is better than no government at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
The commentary says Peter is urging Christians to submit to all legitimate authorities, whether or not the persons excercising authority are believers.
I would agree in principle. Many Christians today seem prone to look for "believers" as some kind of sanctified answer to leadership then act surprised and shocked when those same leaders fail them. No surprise there, it's part of the fabric of life. Knowing right and good doesn't make right or good It takes action and work and vigilance and requires agreement on clear standards, plus accountability and continual review. "Government", ongoing and continuous. There will be failures and others will let us down. We keep working till we die and do the best we can while we live is the way I see it.
But there obviously came a point many times in history when the people decided to revolt. Did they think they were acting with God's blessing?
People think all kinds of things. When something's wrong by how we reckon right it's reasonable to act to correct it.
Where does that begin and Romans 13 end? Good question. Good will overcome evil but when we choose the lesser of two evils we still choose....evil. I don't believe the determinations religious PAC groups make are as "godly" as they think, nor that God is behind every scrimmage and pass we make. Few and far between are the clear and righteous decisions we make in life that will change the world with a single brush stroke. I see it as the 1,000's we make day in and day out, with the intent to do the best we can at any given time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
I have found the famous theologian, Dietrich Bonhoffer, a great example of what we are talking about here.
He was a devout Christian, from a well to do upper class german family, I think one brother became SS or something in the Nazi party.
He could not in good conscience join the Nazi Party. He also wrote about the dilemma he found himself in: Do I pray for my leader to succeed knowing it may destroy my country, or do I pray for him not to suceed knowing it will be best for my country?
However he prayed, he led fellowships and as the war broke out, was offered several times passage to America where he could teach and wait the war out. He refused saying how could he ever face his congregation after the war if he left and they had stayed and suffered? He stayed.
Now, I personally believe, Ephesians - our "warfare" is spiritual, i.e, it is by prayer to the bringing down of strongholds of spiritual wickedness and principalitie in high places. Sometimes we forget - there are things going on behind the scenes we aren't aware of. But, we are not called to go to war and overthrow our governments. Can we work to change it, get out the vote, etc? sure.
But, getting back to Bonhoeffer, as time went on, and he was horrified by Hitler, the war and destruction, he got involved in one of the plots to kill Hitler. The plot failed. He and others were caught and put in jail. As I said, because of his family, he had a nice cell, he could write, receive packages, food, etc. He wasn't brutally tortured and thrown in a dungeon somewhere to rot or sent to a camp. He was from a good family.
You should read his letters from prison sometime. He writes to friends and family. Since he is from the well known, 100% pure aryan stock, no one, neither friends nor family, really believe he will be killed for his actions. So they write along, can't wait 'til you get out, yadda yadda.
One day, without warning, he and several others are put on a truck, driven into the woods, lined up and shot.
The family is still writing then after a couple of weeks, start wondering why he's not replying...
I guess my point here is - here is a man who decided to be a "warrior" and forgot our battle is against higher spiritual wickedness on high - of which we have been given the Power to withstand and our weapon is prayer. He got sucked into - well, I need to kill him...
Result? Friends and family survive and a man's life is thrown away. I think he could have done so much if he had lived and not put himself in that situation. Of course, who am I to judge? But I think sometimes, so many Christians because of naivite and good intentions, die when its maybe not God's will for them to.
34 times they tried to assassinate Hitler. I do believe he rose to power with the help of ungodly spiritual force and was protected by them.
The Chinese have a saying: a ruler has a "divine mandate" and when he loses it you'll know. Things start going wrong, little omens. Whom the gods would destroy they first exalt.
Just as the angel, on his way to teach Daniel was withheld for 21 days by the spirit prince and ruler of Persia, whom Michael had to finally come rebuke, I do believe a leader can ride on the coattails of evil in a spiritual sense to power.
The 20th century was a century of unprecedented death and evil - easily about 200 million wiped out by the Stalins, Lenins, Castros, Pol Pots, Hitlers, Mao - wickedness unleashed.
As I said, I think for the average person, Paul, Peter and Jesus' advice is good and can keep one alive. Obey the authorities to the best of your ability. If you can't - well, don't announce it to the world - quietly go on your way.
Every country must have government - Somalia was a great example of what happens when you don't. The world has many forms of government to choose from. Its all secular. I'm thankful for it, but there are better things to put my trust in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Interesting post, Sunesis. Thanks.
And thanks to the rest of you that responded.
I think I need to study this some more and re-formulate my questions. Maybe I'll dig into some of that 17th century English history Steve Lortz suggested.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Great discussion... Wish I had something to add.. But I don't.. Just enjoying the dialogue!
"The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.