I recently read a post about about Romans 13.
I will not link it here, or mention the author, but I must say that I disagreed with the interpretation.
The conclusion of the author was that we are supposed to obey the laws of the government.
Although this is an interpretation of that passage that can apply, if we leave the conclusion as such we miss the bigger picture.
Here is a portion from Romans chapter 13, verses 1-7:
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
The problem is that a specific type of government is being described.
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.
Though all rulers may be appointed, allowed, and used of God for various reasons, the rulers that we are supposed to obey are those who reward the good and punish the evil.
Frequently though, governments around the world have not behaved in this manner.
There appears to be a current agenda to punish those who would do good in God's sight and reward, and legislate, the evil deeds.
The beginning of Romans chapter 13 is just a few verses contained inside the entire Bible.
To truly be in context, we must remember that the teachings here cannot disagree with the rest of the Bible.
Out of context, the Bible even tells us repeatedly that "There is no God."
"There is no God" (Psalm 14:1)
"There is no God" (Psalm 53:1)
An interesting statement to be repeated in the Bible for sure, but how is this possible?
Let's check the context though.
Psalm 14:1 states:
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 53:1 states:
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
Obviously, context can change everything.
My belief is that Romans 13 teaches Christians that we should obey the laws of man as long as they do not come in conflict with the laws of God.
I can choose to obey the government, or myself, or God.
But, if I choose to obey God, I should obey Him more than myself, and more than other men, regardless of what laws the government may make.
Consider the following examples from Scripture.
Exodus 1:15-21 : Hebrew Midwives
15 And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:
16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.
17 But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.
18 And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive?
19 And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.
20 Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty.
21 And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.
The law of the government (Pharaoh) was that the Hebrew midwives should kill any male babies that the Hebrew women gave birth to.
But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.
The chose to disobey.
How did not respond to their disobedience of the government?
Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty. And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.
The midwives chose to disobey the earthly authority and not to murder the babies, and God blessed them because of it.
Exodus 1:22 - 2: : The Parents of Moses
22 And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.
1 And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi.
2 And the woman conceived, and bare a son: and when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months.
3 And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein; and she laid it in the flags by the river's brink.
The government had said, "Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river" to kill them.
How did the parents of Moses react to this unjust law?
They "hid him three months" and then managed to keep him alive after that.
How did God respond to their disobedience?
He used Moses to free the children of Israel from the slavery of Egypt.
1 Samuel 22:17 : The Servants of the King
17 And the king said unto the footmen that stood about him, Turn, and slay the priests of the Lord: because their hand also is with David, and because they knew when he fled, and did not shew it to me. But the servants of the king would not put forth their hand to fall upon the priests of the Lord.
King Saul directly commanded his servants to "slay the priests of the Lord."
"But the servants of the king would not..."
Though no direct followup as to how God responded is given, we know that the servants chose to do the right thing by obeying God and not the king.
Daniel 6:6-10 : Daniel
6 Then these presidents and princes assembled together to the king, and said thus unto him, King Darius, live for ever.
7 All the presidents of the kingdom, the governors, and the princes, the counsellors, and the captains, have consulted together to establish a royal statute, and to make a firm decree, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any God or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions.
8 Now, O king, establish the decree, and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not.
9 Wherefore king Darius signed the writing and the decree.
10 Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.
The government made a law that no one could petition (pray to) any god or man besides the king.
"Daniel knew that the writing was signed" and prayed to God anyway, three times a day, in front of an open window.
How did the King respond?
He cast Daniel into the lions den.
How did God respond?
He kept Daniel safe and protected him from the lions, even though Daniel had disobeyed the authority.
Acts 5:27-29 : Peter and the Other Apostles
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,
28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.
29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
We see the same trend carry over into the New Testament as well.
The authorities (high priest and the council) had commanded the apostles not to teach in Jesus' name.
But, the apostles had continued to do so.
Peter and the other apostles even spelled it out for the religious authorities, "We ought to obey God rather than men."
This is the conclusion of the whole matter.
We ought to obey God rather than men.
That is the message of the Bible to the believer.
It is not to obey whatever perverse, evil, and ungodly laws the government may create.
It is not to obey ourselves.
It is to obey God.
We ought to obey God rather than men.
2+2=4
Thanks, @narrowminded
Well done and absolutely correct.
Unfortunately, it doesn't get us out of obeying speed limits, homeowners associations, obnoxious employers and other irksome rules that don't contradict God.
This is where more discussion is needed.
Here's a short series I posted about the exceptions (or "loopholes") I could think of.
Bearing the Sword
I'd love to hear your thoughts on them.
For example, if a street gang or crime boss becomes the de-facto government in your neighborhood are they not in control for the same reason as your provincial or national government? If any of the three makes a demand on us that is not in conflict with God's commands, are we not obligated to obey them? If not, what makes one more legitimate under Romans 13 than the others?
Just read your link. So have you decided to follow the Bible or the Declaration of Independence? :)
Can you point out in the Bible where it says we have a 'right' to the 'pursuit of happiness'?
The Bible, of course. I find no concept of "rights" in the Bible. We were created to be servants and children of God who, under His perfectly just rule, have no need for rights. The concept of "rights" is only applicable when we are trying to limit man-made governments.
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery....You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." - Galatians 5:1,13
Well said, @stan. We may have the freedom to do things, but that doesn't make it right.
Thanks for this, I read the Government version the other day...
Just remember, while the Holly Spirit is opening our eyes to so much, things are literally becoming "un-seeable" to some..
Blesssings
I agree that more people could use some eyes to see. I know that opinions may vary, but the truth does not. 2+2=4. Stay narrowminded.
after long consideration, i came to the conclusion that,
https://steemit.com/religion/@lifeworship/the-power-of-christ-compels-you-to-embrace-your-liberty
i would like to know your thoughts .
My first thought is that I am grieved that you are not believer. My second thought is that you definitely have a better understanding of some things than most. Indeed, in America, the government was supposed to be the servant and the people were to be Caesar, so far as they (we) were supposed to be the ones in control of the democracy : oops I fell for their propaganda. I mean Constitutional Republic.. Still, God still overrules Caesar.
"...and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Genesis 1:26
dominion over the Earth belongs to man. I am sure that if God were ruling this place, it would be in better shape.
As we have free will and under our law, no one is permitted to rule over us, each of us is ruler of the self, for good or ill. The concept that most don't get is that we are neither a collective nor mere individuals, but a collective OF individuals. Without the individuals, the collective does not even approach existence, but a solitary individual, does not a future make.
if I could believe, I would.
A very misunderstood passage indeed.
An interesting exercise is to insert your favorite tyrant in place of "rulers" in this passage.
The whole point of the law in the USA is to insert your own name. This is the meaning of, "by the consent of the governed".
I'm guessing, anotherjoe is middle American, but not the middle or there would be more attempt to stand out.
I 70 west, but not coast. east coast education, maybe. Am I close?
Good point. Unfortunately, it's only theory now. US Inc claims all
citizenssubjects as property.SW desert, never spent time on the right side of the country, other than visiting. :) Seminary trained, pastored a church for a few years and have preached in a few countries.
Your assessment is interesting to me. Can you describe the thought process?
"joe" is general issue, there is one in my family. "another" is anonymous. both of these also indicate middle, but no one i've known east of Colorado would call themself "another". California is definitely not middle. your use of language says east coast or Christian, Mormons are probably not on steemit. New Mexicans aren't known for their vocabulary or religion. Your comment about tyrants is on a post about obedience to government. All of this leaves, Colorado, Arizona, or Wyoming at the outside. There is almost no one in Wyoming. Colorado is more middle, but Arizona is more anonymous, not I 70, but not far off. That is as far as I got. There is only so much I can do with 6 lines of text and a screen name. These are all just broad generalities. A person's family can change much.
Wow, that's pretty cool.
Christian, yes.
Contrarian... I rarely meet anyone like me. And because of my reading taste, my vocabulary tends to be different. But I also have a lot of relations in the OK/Northeast Texas area, so have been influenced by them somewhat. Then there's the California influence that exists anyway, and is where I went to seminary. I grew up in Phoenix.
"Another" isn't really anonymity, at least not on purpose (other than using a pseudonym for anonymity). It's in contrast with "average". Check out my logo at the bottom of any of my articles and you'll see "Not Another Average Joe", but with "Not Average" in smaller type, making "Another Joe" stand out. IOW, I might be Another Joe, but I'm not average.
OTOH, I feel no need to draw attention to myself. But I'm willing to be heard. ;)
Fun stuff. Thanks for walking through that. I've learned distinctions of peoples in different ways, but that was pretty impressive.
I'm still learning, and some of it seems to have been coincidence or subconscious, but it works a surprising amount of the time. It's mostly just a little deduction and winnowing the possibilities.
No need to insert Pol Pot. You could just insert Nero, who was incredibly evil and who was reigning while Paul was writing.
Of course. And that's more applicable in context. Someone people are more familiar with tends to fit the modern application better though. And there are Nero persecution deniers, so I just avoid it and use someone that's pretty much undeniable. Some insert Hitler, but that's so overused I avoided it this time.
Amen!
Amen and Amen.
Well written. Though I've never come across anyone who says you obey the government when they are telling you to do something in contradiction to God's law. That's a new one to me.
Many will teach unlimited obedience to the state based on the beginning of Romans 13. That's mostly in the "state-approved" churches, but pastors will preach that. I saw a post just the other day concluding that we need to obey the government because that's what the Bible says, so I felt compelled to write this.
We DO need to obey the government because that's what the Bible says. But have you ever seen someone explicitly say we need to obey the government in disobedience to God?
Some teach unlimited obedience to the state. I am not sure if that was the goal of the post that I read, but without adding this clause, it can be taken that way. I wanted to make sure to point out the clause.
Great article! I agree that Believers are too quick to jump on the old R13 train and passively submit to anything. Yeah, the passage says government ordained by God is for our good, but what do you do when the government makes you culpable in criminal and immoral deeds? For instance, I live in the U.S. and my income is garnished by the government and used to fund wars of aggression overseas. I can't imagine Jesus being okay with that, but He seemingly endorsed paying the Romans taxes and they for sure killed people...
I think the point of the passage is that Christians aren't supposed to get hung up in fighting civil authority, but should instead be focused on the true mission, which is to represent Him here on Earth.
Now, what's more interesting to me is the question of who actually has authority in the U.S. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are the founding documents of this country, and are supposed to be the law of the land. Therefore, if the "government" is acting outside the bounds of their Constitutional authority, are Christians living in the U.S. bound by those laws? For instance, the income tax was never properly ratified so should we pay it? The government isn't supposed to be able to go to war without a declaration from Congress but we've been "at war with terror" for decades now. Laws in some places restrict rain water collection, is that legitimate?
Some people just have to have a list of rules to follow, but I don't think that's what the Bible is all about. The Old Covenant was a list of rules, and it didn't work. In the New Covenant we shouldn't be looking for a list of approved behavior but should instead we should try to act out of love for God and each other. Paul's writings in the New Testament were TO specific people, in a SPECIFIC time period. His concerns were pastoral in that they dealt with how the people he wrote to were to address their specific daily problems. IMHO a better approach is to try to understand the writings in their original context and apply the underlying principle to our lives.
Well said, @narrowminded
Here's a perspective from an Indian living in the Middle East. Dubai, gives me an opportunity to interact with Christians from many nationalities. Pakistanis, Afghans, Iraqis & Iranians live out the "servants obey your masters, as unto the Lord" text by dying both to self as well as physically.
If the smile of heaven is not upon America, we will have some more of Barack Hussein Obama's JV teams winning in the Middle East.
Miss Liberty has always looked outward to welcome "your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore..."
May she not begin looking inward.
God bless America and may His man live in the White House.
I am glad that you can appreciate the evidence. God's ways ultimately will overpower our ways, whether or not we are ready for it.