Question for Christians: Romans 13

[unklejman]

I have been thinking over this and was wondering what others here would have to say about Romans 13 and how it relates to the Revolutionary war as well as what we are doing. I have some ideas of my own but I want to hear from you guys.

Romans 13:1-7

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. 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.
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.

[acptulsa]

Well, my first thought is St. Paul wasn't talking about anyone named George, but that's too flip an answer to a serious question. So, let me say that as much respect as St. Paul deserves, he was only St. Paul; that this letter was written in a time when letters were liable to be intercepted and read and Christians were persecuted; and that we can also be tools of God's current will today. So, it doesn't scare me to think God enabled these evil jackasses.

First, maybe it wasn't God. Secondly, even if it was God, what if they've accomplished their purpose and it's time for them to go? Thirdly, we are paying everything to authority and more--we are active and volunteering our time to the G.O.P.

[Conza88]

Thirdly, we are paying everything to authority and more--we are active and volunteering our time to the G.O.P.

Volunteering our time to U.S.A. :o

[LittleLightShining]

I have my opinions about Paul. Some are good, some aren't. A lot of what he says isn't based on Jesus teachings. This is one of those instances to me.

acp makes a good point, though, and one that I hadn't really thought of before.


that this letter was written in a time when letters were liable to be intercepted and read and Christians were persecuted;

[jblosser]

We live in a nation where the established authority is We the People. The Founders lived in a time when that principle was already established in law, and were acting on that duty. The King was not an emporer, and since at least the Magna Carta was himself bound by law and a higher authority.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

[Perry]

I have been thinking over this and was wondering what others here would have to say about Romans 13 and how it relates to the Revolutionary war as well as what we are doing. I have some ideas of my own but I want to hear from you guys.

Romans 13:1-7

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. 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.
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.

The most extreme example - What did Christ do?
He laid down his life in the face of all this.
Christ spoke the truth and even protested(when he entered the temple and began turning over tables) yet never committed violence.
If we were to be perfect we would not commit violence.

[sratiug]

Paul said you shouldn't get married if your not married, because Jesus was returning soon and you needed to devote your life to God. It's a good thing everybody didn't listen to him.

[Southron]

I don't really have any answers on the Revolutionary war. I'm no theologian by any means but if you are a Christian and take the Bible as God's word (as do I) then you can't really get around the fact that Paul says "whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God". You have to take it for what it says whether you like it or not.

On the other hand we don't have any "rulers". We aren't subjects of any earthly king in these united States. In this country the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The people in Washington and our state capitols are just representatives of the people. Theoretically the people are sovereign in this country and they have the right to abolish this government if they so choose, at least according to our founding documents.

So I think we (Christians) should generally submit to authorities, but we also have a duty as being citizens of a republic to uphold the Constitution as well.

[UnReconstructed]

When there is a Government that submits itself to God, then those verses apply.

You can't find a Christian in the New Testament that submitted to Roman authority. Even Christ was a "rebel". I can't see where Government was allowed to play any role in the life of God's people in the Bible. Outside of Christians being arrested...

[Perry]

Paul said you shouldn't get married if your not married, because Jesus was returning soon and you needed to devote your life to God. It's a good thing everybody didn't listen to him.

I don't believe that's what Paul said. Maybe you can show us the verse.

[pcosmar]

This is the problem of trying to hang a doctrine on a single verse while ignoring others.
The Bible has to be taken as a whole, as different parts touch on different aspects.

[acptulsa]

This is the problem of trying to hang a doctrine on a single verse while ignoring others.
The Bible has to be taken as a whole, as different parts touch on different aspects.

Truth. Life has billions of variables. If you're looking to any scripture for a set of cookie cutter guidelines instead of a mindset that allows you to react properly to stimuli, you won't find enough scripture or have enough time to read it all. Too many variables, not enough cookie cutters. What volume could possibly encompass every possibility?

[Perry]

This is the problem of trying to hang a doctrine on a single verse while ignoring others.
The Bible has to be taken as a whole, as different parts touch on different aspects.

I think you would have a very difficult time finding any theme contrary to "turn the other cheek" in the new testament.

[dawnbt]

From what I understand of the passage, Jesus is saying that we are to submit to authorities because God put them there to protect the general public by maintaining good order. If you are following the word and are doing no wrong, you will nothing to worry about. However, if authorities overstep their bounds, you are to follow God's law over man's. Do not retaliate as they will receive their punishment from God.

[dawnbt]

I don't believe that's what Paul said. Maybe you can show us the verse.

I Corinthians 7:1-8

1
1 2 3 Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: "It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman,"
2
but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.
3
The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise the wife toward her husband.
4
A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife.
5
Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.
6
This I say by way of concession, 4 however, not as a command.
7
Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, 5 one of one kind and one of another.
8
6 Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do,
9
but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.

EDIT: Also I Corinthians 7:32-35

I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.
33
But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
34
and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
35
I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction

[bpassmore]

I’m reminded of several verses here:

Proverbs 21:1
1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD;
he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.

Daniel 4:17
17 'The decision is announced by messengers, the holy ones declare the verdict, so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of men.'

Isaiah 55:8-9
8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD.

9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

and Jeremiah 29:11
11 "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."

All this being said can be summarized in this: "God is in control" We might not see his plan, and he surely can’t tell God what to do, but we can be comforted in knowing the God is a good God how has a plan and is working that out. Now, what does that plan mean to you or me? Will we be rich and happy? maybe. But maybe through our suffering a bigger reward for either ourselves or others may be obtained. Maybe not. God is sovereign and His plans are not our plans. The rules and laws in place are set by God (albeit indirectly sometimes)

This pushes us to trust in Him and lean on Him and not unto our own understanding.

This is not to say the we give up and throw our hands in the air and say "que sera sera" - we have been given brains and He intends for us to use them. Search all things He instructs us in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 “Test everything. Hold on to the good. “

Anyways, I don’t want to get way off track here, so to summarize - Trust God is in control, use the wisdom God has given us to make the best decision based on what we know, and try to honor each other and promote the common good which is based on Biblical morality.

[LibertiORDeth]

I Corinthians 7:1-8

1
1 2 3 Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: "It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman,"
2
but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.
3
The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise the wife toward her husband.
4
A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife.
5
Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.
6
This I say by way of concession, 4 however, not as a command.
7
Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, 5 one of one kind and one of another.
8
6 Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do,
9
but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.

EDIT: Also I Corinthians 7:32-35

I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.
33
But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
34
and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
35
I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction

Everybody I talk to would try to come up with an alternate meaning, such as meaning divorced people.

[nf7mate]

The opening post of this thread posed the question, "What do Christians have to say about Romans 13 and how it relates to the Revolutionary war as well as what we are doing?"

Now there's a bunch of post questioning the validity of the Book of Romans, and whether is acceptable to marry. I'd like to answer the question posed in the opening post.

Romans 13:1-7
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. 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.
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.

God established governing authorities among men to be an agent of God's wrath against the ungodly. Note the scripture doesn't say, "God established authorities to provide housing, food, and medical care to the masses." I often site Romans 13 as an example of Biblical government. The government exists solely to protect God given rights and to punish the wrongdoer. I would add that when a government becomes destructive of the God given rights of the people, then it is not only acceptable to abolish or change such a government, it is the duty of the people to do so.

[bj72]

Okay, I think the main problem in quoting Scripture this way is it is not taken in contex as a whole. I also think that as Americans, most misinterpret Scriptures. Americans (as a whole, not all) tend to view the Scriptures in a Greek mindset. They have no knowledge of Hebraic thinking, or history in general. Yeshua was Jew first...not a Gentile. He never broke G-d's laws. Gentiles over time have rewritten the over the basic concepts to fit their view. The early Believers were (G-d's) law abiding.

I do suggest trying David Stern's translation "The Complete Jewish Bible". It sheds some light on how far off some parts of the NIV (as well as other translations) have strayed from the original intent. Sha'ul (Paul) is often misunderstood by Churches in this country.

Also then take a look at the Roman law at that time vs ours. The Romans started out as a Republic, morphed to a Democracy, then an Oligarchy. The USA is on the same path. We started as a Republic and have morphed into a Democracy. Our original Constitution protects us. Common law does as well I think (I'm not a lawyer though). I could be wrong, but perhaps Paul's principles could be likened to sumbitting to the Constitution...which was written for common law, or G-d's law. In the years since it was written by our Founders it has been misinterpreted greatly (much like the original Scriptures btw).

Food for thought: Before property taxes and social security, one in this country could live as a free person. After these came into affect, most (or maybe all) are subjects (or slaves) to the government...much like Romans in their day. You may think you own your car or home, but if you have paid it off and the govt can tax you on it every year, year after year...do you really own it...no. You are in essence leasing it. It is the big lie of our day. That's not what our founders intended for themselves or future generations. One should be free to pay off his/her own home, budget/save accordingly and live off that amount in retirement without fear of government seizure due to assessments and new laws to steal their hard-earned wealth. This is where a VAT tax or the like is much more fair. We should be taxing on goods and services, not land yearly (not opposed to a 1x at purchase so much though).

Perhaps the Romans also took a stand on their foundational laws vs what it had been bastardized into, and maybe some of the Scriptures give us a peak into why the Sha'ul and others took a stand and were jailed for their faith. If they started as a Republic, most likely they were not disobeying the supreme law of the land (which was being ignored).

[Perry]

I Corinthians 7:1-8

1
1 2 3 Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: "It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman,"
2
but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.
3
The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise the wife toward her husband.
4
A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife.
5
Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.
6
This I say by way of concession, 4 however, not as a command.
7
Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, 5 one of one kind and one of another.
8
6 Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do,
9
but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.

EDIT: Also I Corinthians 7:32-35

I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.
33
But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
34
and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
35
I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction

So it does not say we shouldn't get married. Rather Paul is telling us who should and who should not marry. Furthermore I Corinthians 7:9 says that if we are afraid we will sin that we should get married.

[LEK]

It simply means obey the law unless that law violates God's Word.

I agree with what UnReconstructed said : When there is a Government that submits itself to God, then those verses apply.

[acptulsa]

I agree with what UnReconstructed said : When there is a Government that submits itself to God, then those verses apply.

You certainly couldn't claim it about the Roman government in place when those words were written. The state religion mandated sacrificing to Zeus/Jupiter.

I think St. Paul's intent can best be summed up by the old prayer that goes, "Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the strength to change those things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

[jblosser]

I think you would have a very difficult time finding any theme contrary to "turn the other cheek" in the new testament.

I don't know about that.

Matthew 10, NASV:


11"And whatever city or village you enter, inquire who is worthy in it, and stay at his house until you leave that city.
12"As you enter the house, give it your greeting.
13"If the house is worthy, give it your blessing of peace. But if it is not worthy, take back your blessing of peace.
14"Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet.
15"Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.


34"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35"For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;
36and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.


(caps are not mine, they are from the text because that's a quote itself)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I have been thinking over this and was wondering what others here would have to say about Romans 13 and how it relates to the Revolutionary war as well as what we are doing. I have some ideas of my own but I want to hear from you guys.

Romans 13:1-7

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. 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.
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.

Bingo!
Very good point.
Our founding fathers knew of the sovereignty of the King as God's authority just as Protestant Catholic Martin Luther knew of the sovereignty of the Vatican as God's authority. This is why they created the Declaration of Independence and why they used such terms as "Self Evident" and "Unalienable." These terms reduced down to imprints on the human soul as "laws of nature" or "natural laws." So, according to our founding fathers, no challenge can ever exist to the Declaration of Independence outside of God Himself; no alternate scientific theory, no opposing epistemological or philosophical argument and no legal precedent will ever exist that would challenge its sovereignty.
So, the sovereignty of natural laws always take precendence over the sovereignty of the King.
In other words, if all evidence of it were erased, the sovereign meaning of the Declaration of Independence would still exist on the souls of every human beings. So, President Bush does not need to export American Democracy because such meaning is already written on the conscience of every national leader in the world.

[sratiug]

So it does not say we shouldn't get married. Rather Paul is telling us who should and who should not marry. Furthermore I Corinthians 7:9 says that if we are afraid we will sin that we should get married.

Well maybe I can save me a nice Ron Paul girl from going to hell, then. How about it ladies? Any girls here with no self control please feel free to PM me, lol!

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

apparently Jesus didn't get the memo.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

It simply means obey the law unless that law violates God's Word.

I agree with what UnReconstructed said : When there is a Government that submits itself to God, then those verses apply.

Our founding fathers never questioned that the king had God's authority; rather, they argued that his authority was made irrational by the great distance between Great Britain and America.
In other words, the Declaration of Independence was a claim created by our founding fathers on the level of a natural law so that they could establish "these truths" to be "self evident" that "all men are created equal with unalienable rights." The self evident truths weren't misunderstood by the king as much as he failed to realize them because he wasnt intimately present.
So, according to the Declaration of Independence regarding God's authority over the United States, the sovereignty of the natural law written into the soul of every human being took precedent over the sovereignty of the King's judgement.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

This is the problem of trying to hang a doctrine on a single verse while ignoring others.
The Bible has to be taken as a whole, as different parts touch on different aspects.

The verses posted in the OP clearly state that all kings are blessed with God's authority regardless. This was a sticking point with the founding fathers who understood the consequences with revolting against God's authority. They didn't claim that the king was evil but that he was made irrational because of the great distance between Britain and America which kept him from perceiving what should have been "self evident."

[Anti Federalist]

Paul was a hypocrite.

Had he "submitted to the governing authorities" he would have been executed as Saul, in Damascus, sixteen years earlier, for preaching the gospel of Christ, much to the consternation of Jewish "authorities" in the area.

Had it not been for the disciples "defying" the "lawful authorities" and breaking him out of confinement in a basket, they would have killed him.

Acts 9 - KJV

19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.

20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

21 But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests?

22 But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.

23 And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him:

24 But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him.

25 Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket.

26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.

27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.

The very act of preaching the gospel of Christ was considered "sedition" and a violation of the edicts of the "governing authorities".

I personally think Saul's conversion was due to a whack on the head, which clouded his judgment.

Either that or he was a inside mole, that the disciples were well within their rights to be wary of.

[Anti Federalist]

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 he will commend you.

There is no end of debate concerning what may be true in scripture, what and who is god, what is the origin of life and so on.

Much of that debate ends up in circular arguments proving nothing, because the answers aren't clear.

But here is something that is obviously false. There is no end to the death, misery and terror that government has inflicted on millions of completely innocent people.

[Anti Federalist]

Read closely what you have here:

Romans 13

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. 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.

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.

Now read this:

Romans 13

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.

First was the New International Version, the second, King James.

Just in the translation, the meaning changes greatly.

[DealzOnWheelz]

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.



King James is definitely more widely accepted

For there is no power but of God

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I have my opinions about Paul. Some are good, some aren't. A lot of what he says isn't based on Jesus teachings. This is one of those instances to me.

acp makes a good point, though, and one that I hadn't really thought of before.

The Apostle Paul was God's chosen vessel over the other Apostles. This meant that he was closer to and knew Christ better than even the Apostles who served under Christ as His disciples in the flesh. So, one can't use the history of the 4 Gospels to measure the authenticity of the letters written by the Apostle Paul but vice versa. This is because the Apostle Paul wrote only about the death and crucifixion of Christ which was the history with the great amount of certainty.
The importance of the Apostle Paul in establishing the Church as the body of Christ was not only to create a sanctuary for the slaves to express God's new economy of the new covenent -- love thy neighbor as thyself (in meetings under over turned fishing vessels in most cases) -- but more specifically a sanctuary for the prostitute -- the lowest of the slaves.
To be part of this sanctuary for the wayward prostitute required the great Saul to be transformed by lowering himself under the authority and supervision of the lessor Ananias to be taught in the ways of the lowly Gentile dog.

[Pauliana]

I never liked that Paul guy.

You have to understand the ecumenical council and how the Bible was put together. There are whole books of scripture that were disregarded, books written by people who actually walked with Jesus that were tossed out and actively pushed underground. See "gnostic gospels" "gospel of mary magdalene" "nag hammadi" etc. It makes you wonder. Thomas and Judas even wrote gospels, but they are all labeled as traitors by history and denied the right to defend themselves. Mary Magdalene is labeled as a whore and prostitute - perhaps unfairly? Perhaps because in a misogynistic society Jesus took her in as an equal and the men around her were jealous of the time and attention He "wasted" with a common woman? It makes you wonder. It has taken me a long time to deprogram from this "Holy Bible" cultishness. Can you accept the Savior but question the way the Bible was put together and what was included and rejected? I think so. And you might think I'm going to Hell, but no where in anyone's Bible does it say YOU make that decision. God does.

I think Paul was human. And I also don't think he foresaw Hitler when he wrote that. Therefore, how can his words be straight from God? Think of what blind obedience to government has done in History? Even in Paul's own time - think of how differently things would have gone had Jesus just obeyed government. For one they wouldn't have needed to kill Him.

[Working Poor]

Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

Is it right to let Bush and his croneys walk all over our already established constitution?

[TER]

I never liked that Paul guy.
It is completely astounding to hear a self-professed Christian make such a statement. Lord have mercy on us. :(

[Theocrat]

I have been thinking over this and was wondering what others here would have to say about Romans 13 and how it relates to the Revolutionary war as well as what we are doing. I have some ideas of my own but I want to hear from you guys.

Romans 13:1-7

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. 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.
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.

This is one of the great passages in Holy Scripture where we see the limited and distinct role God has given to all governments. As we can see in this passage, God has given civil magistrates the "power of the sword," which means that governments are called to judge and punish evildoers (criminals) as well as protect the innocent from evil threats (domestic or foreign). Nowhere in this passage does God give magistrates the right to regulate the Church or family, to regulate economic policy, to invade and confiscate private property, or to adjudicate education, among other things. No, we definitely see here that civil magistrates have a scope and role in their administration which pertains exclusively to the preservation of rights.

We also see here that those who work for civil governments are called "ministers" (in the Authorized Version), which means that their office is indeed a "ministry" ordained by God and instituted by men. As such, those who work in the civil magistrate should behave and perform their duties as servants to those whom they govern, and we, as the governed, respect their office or ministry through our prayers, our taxes (as they are relevant to civil government affairs), and our allegiance (where it doesn't contradict God's standards and common sense in our God-given human consciences). To be an officer in government means one has to understand where his authority to govern others comes from as well as what duties and limits have been placed upon him to govern rightly.

That's my take on this precious passage from Scripture, and it's one of the many texts in the Bible that has led me to becoming more libertarian in my political philosophy. Whenever I read Romans 13, I'm always reminded that right government is ultimately ordained of God (not just the subjective musings of sinful men's minds), and I believe our Founding Fathers gleaned from such passages in the Bible as this one in order to provide the framework for our constitutional republic.

[Dr.3D]

It is completely astounding to hear a self-professed Christian make such a statement. Lord have mercy on us. :(

Yes, the gnostic gospels are not part of the Bible because they were written by a sect who believed you are saved by what you know rather than by the grace of God. This is an excellent reason those were left out of the Bible.

It is not about what you know, it is about faith in the grace of God and the forgiveness of sins through the blood of the final sacrifice. The final sacrifice to end all sacrifices. This sacrifice started at 09:00 AM, this fulfilled the morning sacrifice.
The sacrifice ended at 03:00 PM, this fulfilled the evening sacrifice. The sacrifice took place when the lambs were being sacrificed at the temple on the eve before the Passover. Jesus is the lamb of God, the final sacrifice to save those who believe in Him, from being placed in the trash heap after the final judgment.

[Fox McCloud]

I haven't read all that's in this topic, I will admit....but my takes on Romans 13:

Its definitely seems to allude to the fact that a good government, and not an evil or maniacal one is already in place....as a close and very good Christian friend once told me:

"you know, when the Bible was divided into chapter and verse, a lot of artificial divisions were put in it" He went on to explain that Romans 12:21 ("Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.") very logically follows with Romans 13....I can't say he's right or wrong, that's for the Holy Spirit to let you know....but, personally, I think it does make a lot of sense.

Of course, Christians like to use Romans 13 to put people in bondage to whoever is the ruler of the day....they forget that our President, Congress, and Judiciary are not the rulers of this land; the Constitution, Bill of Rights, (and in my opinion anyways), the Declaration of Independence are.....Ironically, the NIV states that we should be subject unto governing authorities, which almost has a ring to it that it's people/a person....where as the KJV says "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers." which insinuates that it's more than just "people".

[countrykidz4freedom]

Christians are called worldwide, to stand up for the truth. It is not the will of God for His children to be in bondage. When the laws are in accordance with scripture, we are to obey them, but when anyone goes against the word of God, we are to stand up for the truth. We are to work with peace and love, as God has called us to do. I am concerned that so many Christians these days seem to think they should not do their part, or even vote their conscience, but instead are believing the media and trying to vote to keep the democrats out of office. I have heard from so many,"well the rapture is going to take place soon", (that I feel is their opt-out for being lazy, and also a little afraid to stand up for what is right.

My call to the Christians is this: if we don't stand up for our religious rights, how are we supposed to continue the great commission, for whatever time we remain upon this earth, until the rapture does take place?

Also, do the Christians honestly think they can make the rapture take place any sooner, by just not making a stand? If we are true believers, we have nothing to fear, and we understand that God will choose the time to catch his church away, it may not be as soon as some of us think, or it may be sooner than we realize, but in the meantime, we must retain our rights, so that we can achieve what God has called every Christian to do.

Honestly, after working with so many Christians on these issues, I am convinced the Christians are largely apathetic, it is time to awaken-the Christians should be leading America to wake up, because we all know by the signs how closely everything is aligning, so to me, if we neglect the opportunity to help others see, then shame on us.

[H Roark]

Has Ron Paul ever addressed Romans 13? I would love to hear what he has to say about this. I remember he was interviewed by a "Christian" organization early on, but I don't know if the guy ever touched on this.

[pcosmar]

I would say it is up to each to person, to come to a decision. It is a question of Faith and conscious.
For myself, I am having trouble recognizing the present Government as legitimate.

I see them and an occupying enemy rather than a rightful authority.
The "Rightful" authority is "WE THE PEOPLE".

[rmodel65]

to the OP
the way i see it our "governing authority" is set up to be able to be questioned so we are fully submitted to it. But yet we also are able to question and oppose the "GA" without going against the word as long as it is lawful.

[dawnbt]

A civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection.

So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.

Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew?

Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops?

Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity?

Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem?

So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority--even civil authority--is limited.

Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit to the Constitution of the United States.

[constituent]

that this letter was written in a time when letters were liable to be intercepted and read and Christians were persecuted;.


I have my opinions about Paul. Some are good, some aren't. A lot of what he says isn't based on Jesus teachings. This is one of those instances to me.

acp makes a good point, though, and one that I hadn't really thought of before.

so, what does this say for the bible as a whole?

what does "inspired word of God" actually mean?

[LittleLightShining]

so, what does this say for the bible as a whole?

what does "inspired word of God" actually mean?That's a good question and I'm not sure if I have an answer that would be acceptable to you or anyone else for that matter. As I have said before I am really conflicted about Paul and that generally gets me into trouble with Christians which is a big part of the reason I don't go to church. It seems to me that most church teaching is based on Paul's writings, someone who never knew Jesus and who up until his sudden, blinding transformation was intent on massacring Christians.

Jesus came to atone for our sins. He removed the old law and gave us a new one. Paul took that message and set up churches with rules that Jesus never advocated. Jesus' message was one of freedom. Paul's teachings subject the believer to arbitrary rules based on his own interpretation of how a Christian ought to live. Jesus told Peter that HIS church would be built upon Peter, the Rock, not some future apostle. Jesus also tells us that there will be many who come in His name but are not of Him.

The only book in the Bible which comes with an express warning not to change the text or risk damnation is Revelation. I know it opens a can of worms that I'm not sure if I can put the lid back on, and I'm always open to other perspectives.

This is my interpretation, I'm not sure I answered your question, but this is specifically my feelings about the validity of Paul's teaching.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

A civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

The word "civil" has purpose when compared to the word "legal." While Civil Purpose reduces itself down to concrete Dna, legal precedents are necessary evils for the dispensing of the Civil Purpose dynamically to the people. When "legal precedence" is claimed as concrete, it is an attempt to distract people from Civil Purpose.
The Civil Purpose deals with the Social Contract theory of bringing the master and the slave to sit at the same dinner table (I don't like using the word "Social Contract" for political reasons so I use the term Civil Purpose). The implementation of this type of "positive" government is in contrast with the primitive types of governments which sat the master and slave at different dinner tables.
A way to see this clearly is by understanding how the servant teacher Socrates --he fashioned himself as a midwife philosopher to the poor -- was able to help the soul of a poor slave boy "recollect" the knowledge that had been scattered from him during the trauma of birth. As the philosopher emulated his mother who served also as a midwife to poor pregnent women, Socrates contrasted sharply with the prior way in which teachers taught in a caste system. We can see the prior methodology in how Aristotle later trained Alexander the Great to take his rightful place on his father's throne.
The Civil Purpose of our constitutional government in the United States is to have the master and the slave sit at the same dinner table. While the master is king and has been granted authority as such, the people themselves have been granted ownership of the dinner table.
This Democratic relationship is not necessarily a peaceful one in that it gives people a face of authority at the table. In fact, at times in American history, it has become necessary for the nation to shrewdly regulate liberty by binding the master and freeing the slave so that the Civil Purpose could be maintained.



Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection.

Great! So, if we can trust that our government hasn't been blessed the capacity beyond that of terrorizing evil works or evil people to terrorize good works or good people, then we have been freed or granted the grace to tend to our contentment. If government can be trusted in such a fashion, then our problems aren't with flesh and blood but with principalities and powers. This notion would help drop the veils which shield our authority so that we can rule more responsibly together at the dinner table.


So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.

Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew?

Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops?

Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity?

Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem?

So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority--even civil authority--is limited.

It isn't that we shouldn't rebel but that we should put our faith in Christ who has already defied death by entering into darkness to resurrect Himself as a marriage of authority in paradise. It is Christ who has already removed the veil from our dark faces so that we can sit with the king at the dinner table.


Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit to the Constitution of the United States.

The administrative president was supposed to be a strong kingly position. It has been said that the greatest contribution by George Washington as a founding father was the way he chose to set a kind legal precedent for the position. In other words, George Washington administered the position of the president willfully while later presidents emulated him as a set legal precedent.

I would like to point out that "supreme Law of the Land" has no legal purpose. Legality in itself has no purpose other than it can be noted rightfully or wrongfully as a legal precedent. This was the burden of our founding fathers who knew that Civil Purpose has a natural tendency to erode to tyranny. Not only is it natural for the master class to feel that the slave class shouldn't be sitting at the same dinner table as they, but the discouraged slave class will feel so likewise.
In order to keep the master and slave sitting at the same dinner table together, it is necessary to bind the master to do so and free the slave to do likewise. In order to maintain this vision, we must work to keep the primary Civil Purpose as supreme over secondary legal precedents.

[acptulsa]

In order to maintain this vision, we must work to keep the primary Civil Purpose as supreme over secondary legal precedents.

As soon as you start parsing the Bible looking for a dogma loophole that lets you into Heaven no matter what crap you pull in this world, you've gone off on the wrong track. The Bible covers a massive time frame and a massive host of different conditions. Even the people that Paul wrote letters to were enjoying or suffering a wide variety of situations.

Any law that refuses to take circumstances into account is, in Dickens' words, "a ass". One would assume God's law isn't.

Lessons are lessons and laws are laws, and Peter's words, good a man as he may have been, aren't God's words. Take the wisdom of the Bible as it fits your circumstances, and if the parable in question doesn't fit the circumstances you're in when you need guidance, look elsewhere and look harder. Right?

[SevenEyedJeff]

Well the authority that God allowed to be set up in the United States is the Constitution.

Therefore if certain evil people threaten that Constitution, do we not have an obligation to rise up and protect it???

If we allow that evil to reign and destroy our Constitution, do we not deserve the government that forms as a result?

[constituent]

This is my interpretation, I'm not sure I answered your question, but this is specifically my feelings about the validity of Paul's teaching.

yes, quite well. thanks.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

As soon as you start parsing the Bible looking for a dogma loophole that lets you into Heaven no matter what crap you pull in this world, you've gone off on the wrong track. The Bible covers a massive time frame and a massive host of different conditions. Even the people that Paul wrote letters to were enjoying or suffering a wide variety of situations.

Any law that refuses to take circumstances into account is, in Dickens' words, "a ass". One would assume God's law isn't.

Lessons are lessons and laws are laws, and Peter's words, good a man as he may have been, aren't God's words. Take the wisdom of the Bible as it fits your circumstances, and if the parable in question doesn't fit the circumstances you're in when you need guidance, look elsewhere and look harder. Right?

I feel when mentioning Socrates that he is correctly referred to as the pivotal point in history when the primitive government during that ancient time contrasted with the idea of a more modern kind of "positive" government that we now have in the United States. This modern government with a self evident Civil Purpose attempts to ideally sit the master with the slave at the same dinner table even to the point that in history our nation has had to bind the the master class and free the slave class.
As I tried pointing out in a prior post, while law is divided up into legal and civil terms, the term "legal" itself has no purpose. Legality in itself has no purpose other than it can be rightfully or wrongfully judged as a legal precedent. We don't suffer from the corruption of power when these right or wrong legal precedents get judged concrete over Civil Purpose; but, rather, we suffer from the corruption of power when secondary legal precedents distract us from the primary importance of the Civil Purpose.
It was Friedrich Nietzsche who warned that we shouldn't look at the morality of the structure in government but the morality of the people necessary for its function -- God [morality] is dead. Still, we can't blame flesh and blood even in this situation but the way people become filthy, morally speaking, when they get themselves lost in legal precedents rather than they have a clear vision of the overall Civil Purpose. When we work against the pressure to erode to tyranny, we work to maintain the Civil Purpose of our positive government.