Reforned/non-dispensational Calvinists... why aren't you theonomists?

[Christian Liberty]

How is calling it the law of sin and death "demonization?" At a bare minimum theonomic law is based on Mosaic law and Paul explicitly called that the law of sin and death. Now SF and I are debating on precisely what "death" is being talked about there. But it's a denial of plain Biblical truth to say that quoting Paul is somehow "demonization."

There are also NUMEROUS passages that reaffirm the law as good.

Edit: But here's the overall problem with the theonomist position. On the one had it wants to run around and say "You're free! You're free!" with regards to the law of Moses because Christ died for you and you are "predestined" to be saved. Then it turns around and says "You're not free because if you don't keep our definition of the law of Moses we will stone you to death." I'm not even at all clear which laws theonomist believe are still stoning worthy and which are not. I assume the Sabbath is no longer stone worthy. (Do theonomists believe in civil enforcement of Sunday laws?) I guess adultery is. Stoning for witchcraft?

Theonomists disagree among each other on some of these things. Speaking for my own opinions, Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14:5 would refute the idea of executing people for violating the Sabbath (and yeah, I think the idea of switching the sabbath to sunday and enforcing that is exegetically untenable.) Witchcraft falls under the first table, and I'm not sure if the first table is supposed to be enforced today. But, adultery is in the second table and I do believe that should be enforced, provided witnesses. I'm not saying I particularly like that, but I think the Bible teaches it.

Also, if you're relying on Romans 13 for the "voluntaryism isn't Biblical" idea....don't. That was not Paul's finest hour. At best he was writing in code. At worst he was mistaken. The "power the was" at the time was Nero, one of the worst rulers of all time who routinely killed the just and elevated the wicked. Paul appealed to Nero as if he would actually get justice from that madman and he (Paul) literally lost his head as a result. One could argue that Paul was simply continuing the idea of Jesus of "Don't resist evil" (turn the other cheek, the Romans force you to go a mile go two, someone take your coat give your cloak, render to Caeser, agree with your adversary who is suing you) and that's well and good. But he went overboard in claiming that rulers only terrorize those who do wrong.

I don't think Paul actually thought he'd get justice from the man. I think Paul did that on purpose so he could go to Rome and preach the gospel. But I digress.

I believe Romans 13 is talking about LEGITIMATE rulers. I think that's the only interpretation that makes any sense. Paul was instructing the Roman church which would need his instructions for long afterwards.

And that brings me to the ultimate problem with theonomy. Jesus said "If My kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight to keep Me from being arrested. But My kingdom is not of this world." Using Jesus own logic, this is also true. "If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight to establish it." Talk all you want to about establishing theonomy by "conversion", but at some point you would have to fight. If you say you are going to stone me for working on Sunday because Sunday is the Sabbath, I'm kicking your ass. As the RCC and EO people of this forum love to point out, there are thousands of Protestant church. I personally think that's a good thing. That's the free marketplace of ideas at work. I do not believe in forced unity. The last thing I would want would be a church, even my own church, with its hands on the levers of power to be able to force its definition of morality on those who don't agree. And this is what you have not let sink in. Say if you get caught up in a theocracy that you don't agree with? You set up your Calvinist based theocracy, you put down roots, you don't pay attention to demographics, you get outbred by Catholics, and all of a sudden your faced with death for any heresy against the papacy. What then? Oh you can hope they play by your rules and let you leave, but say if they don't?

I don't even think you understand my position. I'm not suggesting that people should be forced to adhere to my definition of Christianity.

Saying theonomists are against 98% of government today does not mean they believe in limited government. North Korea would be against 98% of the U.S. government circa 1800. Great. You are against laws against dancing and gambling. But you don't say what moral laws you are for. And laws have a tendency to multiply themselves. People came up with laws against dancing because they realized some type of dancing are sexual in nature and might lead one to be tempted into fornication and adultery. Why wait until someone breaks a "big law" and stone him to death when you may can "prevent" that person for getting that point in the first place right?

laws have a tendency to multiply themselves. hence why God's Word needs to be the standard.

If you believe that the NAP is good then Romans 13 support the idea of the government enforcing only the NAP.

But that's an imposition on the text.

If you read Romans 13 literally then Nero was good and Paul being beheaded was good. Some might argue that is was good and I don't simply mean those who don't like Paul but from the view of "all things working together for good" in which case there's no need for Christians to be involved in trying to change or set up government at all since ultimately God is setting up even the worst tyrants for "good." Even that makes more sense than "God really wants Christians to reinstate old testament theocracy but kinda sorta modified as they see fit."

You aren't even accurately representing what I believe, so I think I'm just going to ignore this one and ignore this thread unless I'm asked a legitimate question. Have a good day, and God bless you

[Brett85]

I would have to think about the Biblical case for theonomy in today's society, but I think as far as freedom is concerned, it would be a more anti freedom ideology than what we have today. I think that stoning homosexuals would be more extreme and more anti freedom than say putting someone in prison for using drugs.

[Sola_Fide]

I would have to think about the Biblical case for theonomy in today's society, but I think as far as freedom is concerned, it would be a more anti freedom ideology than what we have today. I think that stoning homosexuals would be more extreme and more anti freedom than say putting someone in prison for using drugs.

The reason that those extreme laws existed in the state of Israel is because sin could not exist there because God's presence was there. They had to expel the wicked person from among them.

In the new covenant, this is continued in the church. Excommunication has replaced execution as the way to expel the wicked person from among the Holy ones to keep the bride of Christ holy.

[TER]

As the RCC and EO people of this forum love to point out, there are thousands of Protestant church. I personally think that's a good thing.

[Christ] neither endured the death of John by being beheaded, nor as Isaiah was he sawn in part, that in death he might keep his body undivided and whole and that there be no pretext for those wishing to divide the Church.

- St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, On the Incarnation circa 4th century

[Brett85]

The reason that those extreme laws existed in the state of Israel is because sin could not exist there because God's presence was there. They had to expel the wicked person from among them.

In the new covenant, this is continued in the church. Excommunication has replaced execution as the way to expel the wicked person from among the Holy ones to keep the bride of Christ holy.

How do you respond to those who use a verse like 1 Peter 2: 14 to argue that the government exists for the purpose of punishing those who do wicked and praising those who do right?

"or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right."

[erowe1]

I believe Romans 13 is talking about LEGITIMATE rulers.

Such as whom?

[Christian Liberty]

I would have to think about the Biblical case for theonomy in today's society, but I think as far as freedom is concerned, it would be a more anti freedom ideology than what we have today. I think that stoning homosexuals would be more extreme and more anti freedom than say putting someone in prison for using drugs.

If by "stoning homosexuals" you actually meant that every single person who has ever slept with another man (let alone every single person with gay attraction) you might be right. But that's not really how it works. Unlike today, in a Biblical theonomy the government would actually have to have witnesses before it could execute anyone. It would be completely unbiblical to have a "war on homosexuality" the same way there is a "war on drugs" today.

That said, if you look at the way the homosexual movement is acting today, and then consider that this law would de facto only actually effect public homosexuality, I think you can figure out why this law would exist, even if you don't like it.

Also, isolating to a handful of issues isn't really helpful either. There are thousands if not millions of crimes in today's society, many of which have nothing to do with government's duty not to punish evil. In a theonomic society there are only a few laws with penalties and every single one of them is directed at those who do evil (note that this does not mean that everyone who does evil is prosecuted.) Theonomy is also completely against a top-down approach. I'm not saying every single individual would approve of it, but these things need to be done at a local level and only after the vast majority of a population is converted. Families and churches are more important than the state. So, to be clear, I'm not advocating just taking our current system, banning homosexuality and adultery, and thinking that can change anything. There is a lot more to it than that.

The reason that those extreme laws existed in the state of Israel is because sin could not exist there because God's presence was there. They had to expel the wicked person from among them.

In the new covenant, this is continued in the church. Excommunication has replaced execution as the way to expel the wicked person from among the Holy ones to keep the bride of Christ holy.

This is probably the best argument against my position, but if you take this logic to its logical conclusion, civil magistrates cannot punish ANY evil, even murder. I don't think the church being able to excommunicate someone precludes the State from executing them.

How do you respond to those who use a verse like 1 Peter 2: 14 to argue that the government exists for the purpose of punishing those who do wicked and praising those who do right?

"or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right."

That verse is critical to the argument I'm advancing.

Such as whom?

Those who actually do what Romans 13 says.

It doesn't matter if there actually are any or not (though I think at the least some of the kings of Israel and some of the Israelite judges would qualify historically.) The point is that the institution of government is ordained by God, even if every single one is currently in rebellion against him.

[erowe1]

Those who actually do what Romans 13 says.

It doesn't matter if there actually are any or not (though I think at the least some of the kings of Israel and some of the Israelite judges would qualify historically.) The point is that the institution of government is ordained by God, even if every single one is currently in rebellion against him.

Paul, in writing that passage, apparently thought it did matter if there actually were any. His point, which he states explicitly, is that there do not exist any powerful ones who fail to fit his description.

"There do not exist any powerful ones except for those whom God set up."

He doesn't say this about the institution of government, but about the powerful ones that actually exist.

[Christian Liberty]

Paul, in writing that passage, apparently thought it did matter if there actually were any. His point, which he states explicitly, is that there do not exist any powerful ones who fail to fit his description.

"There do not exist any powerful ones except for those whom God set up."

He doesn't say this about the institution of government, but about the powerful ones that actually exist.

The ESV says "governing authorities." What's a governing authority? I'd say verses 3 and 4 clarify. Your view implicitly allows for the modern evangelical whoredom with tyranny, after all "all governments are ministers of God." I don't think that's Biblically correct.

That said, my view doesn't depend on Romans 13. There's a ton of OT stuff as well.

[Sola_Fide]

Those who actually do what Romans 13 says.

It doesn't matter if there actually are any or not (though I think at the least some of the kings of Israel and some of the Israelite judges would qualify historically.) The point is that the institution of government is ordained by God, even if every single one is currently in rebellion against him.

Compare that with how the evil power or Rome was set up in God's perfect plan against Christ:

John 19:10-13

So Pilate said to Him, "You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?"

Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin."

[erowe1]

The ESV says "governing authorities." What's a governing authority? I'd say verses 3 and 4 clarify. Your view implicitly allows for the modern evangelical whoredom with tyranny, after all "all governments are ministers of God." I don't think that's Biblically correct.

That said, my view doesn't depend on Romans 13. There's a ton of OT stuff as well.

Anyone with power to make others obey them via violence is a "governing authority."

I agree that verses 3-4 clarify. The tool by which these powerful people achieve their power is the sword. Anybody who uses violence to get others to obey them is one of the "governing authorities" this passage is talking about. And it says that there do not exist any at all except that God set them up.

It's true that tyrants are ministers of God. Paul had already given the example of Pharaoh in Romans 9.

And yes, I also agree that there is a ton of OT stuff about God using tyrants to accomplish his purposes.

[Christian Liberty]

Anyone with power to make others obey them via violence is a "governing authority."

I agree that verses 3-4 clarify. The tool by which these powerful people achieve their power is the sword. Anybody who uses violence to get others to obey them is one of the "governing authorities" this passage is talking about. And it says that there do not exist any at all except that God set them up.

It's true that tyrants are ministers of God. Paul had already given the example of Pharaoh in Romans 9.

And yes, I also agree that there is a ton of OT stuff about God using tyrants to accomplish his purposes.

By your interpretation the Jews would have had nothing to fear from Hitler had they "done what is good." You're undermining scriptural infallibility with your interpretation, hence why I ultimately rejected it.

[erowe1]

By your interpretation the Jews would have had nothing to fear from Hitler had they "done what is good."

For Hitler, merely by being Jews and living in his territory they were doing something bad.

You're undermining scriptural infallibility with your interpretation, hence why I ultimately rejected it.

No I'm not. You are. You're saying there do exist powerful people who fail to fit Paul's description, when he explicitly says that there do not exist such people.

[Christian Liberty]

For Hitler, merely by being Jews and living in his territory they were doing something bad.



No I'm not. You are. You're saying there do exist powerful people who fail to fit Paul's description, when he explicitly says that there do not exist such people.

But it doesn't say "powerful people", suhc a translation would make it a moral imperative for you to obey a man who demands the right to rape your spouse. It says "governing authorities." I'm saying that in order for a ruler to qualify as a "governing authority" he must be characterized by the punishment of evil and protection of good. Thus, I would assert that Hitler is nothing more than a glorified thug, nor is Obama. They occupy legitimate offices but they themselves are usurpers who are failing to uphold their duty before God.

Regarding Sola's point, it is indeed the case that God works all things, even tyrants, together for the good of his people. I'll even grant, if you wish, that God actively causes tyrants to engage in tyranny in order to fulfill his plan. That doesn't really change my argument at all, which is that government leaders are supposed to punish evil and reward good. I'm not asserting my view over and above predestination. Predestination is a part of my view.

[Christian Liberty]

Compare that with how the evil power or Rome was set up in God's perfect plan against Christ:

I see two different principles here.

Men occupy the OFFICE of governing authority. These men can be good or evil. God predestines all of this for his plan.

The only men who have rightful MORAL authority are those who actually do what Romans 13 says they do. Two different senses of "authority."

[Sola_Fide]

But it doesn't say "powerful people", suhc a translation would make it a moral imperative for you to obey a man who demands the right to rape your spouse. It says "governing authorities." I'm saying that in order for a ruler to qualify as a "governing authority" he must be characterized by the punishment of evil and protection of good. Thus, I would assert that Hitler is nothing more than a glorified thug, nor is Obama. They occupy legitimate offices but they themselves are usurpers who are failing to uphold their duty before God.

Regarding Sola's point, it is indeed the case that God works all things, even tyrants, together for the good of his people. I'll even grant, if you wish, that God actively causes tyrants to engage in tyranny in order to fulfill his plan. That doesn't really change my argument at all, which is that government leaders are supposed to punish evil and reward good. I'm not asserting my view over and above predestination. Predestination is a part of my view.

I think that is pretty clear all throughout Scripture.

[erowe1]

But it doesn't say "powerful people"

Yes it does.

a translation would make it a moral imperative for you to obey a man who demands the right to rape your spouse.

No it wouldn't, because it isn't giving moral imperatives. It's giving practical advice in dealing with those wielding the sword. A person who would rather endure the sword than obey the one wielding it will be able to make that choice. But they should do so with their eyes open to the consequences.

It says "governing authorities." I'm saying that in order for a ruler to qualify as a "governing authority" he must be characterized by the punishment of evil and protection of good.

But then you're putting the people in a position where they first have to figure out if any so-called governing authority is characterized that way before figuring out if they're supposed to obey them. But the passage does not put people in any such position. It isn't addressing some far off in the future group of Christians living under a kind of government the world has never seen in all its history. It's addressing real-live Christians living under tyrants who persecuted them.

That doesn't really change my argument at all, which is that government leaders are supposed to punish evil and reward good.

But Romans 13 doesn't say anything at all about what "government leaders" are supposed to do. There probably were no government leaders in the audience of that epistle. The advice it gives is to the subjects of the rulers, not the rulers.

[Sola_Fide]

The reason that those extreme laws existed in the state of Israel is because sin could not exist there because God's presence was there. They had to expel the wicked person from among them.

In the new covenant, this is continued in the church. Excommunication has replaced execution as the way to expel the wicked person from among the Holy ones to keep the bride of Christ holy.

This is probably the best argument against my position, but if you take this logic to its logical conclusion, civil magistrates cannot punish ANY evil, even murder. I don't think the church being able to excommunicate someone precludes the State from executing them.

Or...it doesn't have anything to do with civil law at all.

I agree that the Christian man should seek to live in freedom with laws that protect property and sound money and things like this, but the point is that there is not a political blueprint in the Bible for this.

The idol of politics is an alluring idol, and many people have made shipwreck of their faith by going after the idol of politics. The gospel is everything that the Christian needs to be concerned with in this life. That is all the apostles cared about.

[jmdrake]

There are also NUMEROUS passages that reaffirm the law as good.

Of course. But that literally has nothing to do with anything! The law is "good" but it also points out "sin" and the wages of sin is "death." In Moses day that death was immediate. It's a red herring for you to pretend that I'm saying the law is "bad".

Theonomists disagree among each other on some of these things. Speaking for my own opinions, Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14:5 would refute the idea of executing people for violating the Sabbath (and yeah, I think the idea of switching the sabbath to sunday and enforcing that is exegetically untenable.) Witchcraft falls under the first table, and I'm not sure if the first table is supposed to be enforced today. But, adultery is in the second table and I do believe that should be enforced, provided witnesses. I'm not saying I particularly like that, but I think the Bible teaches it.

Of course theonomists disagree. And that's what makes this whole idea untenable. It's one thing if God specifically said to Moses "I want the death penalty for XY and Z." It's quite another for theologians to come back later and pick and choose based on their own interpretation "Well this sin is bad enough to kill somebody over....but not this other sin." God never asked you to do that.

I don't think Paul actually thought he'd get justice from the man. I think Paul did that on purpose so he could go to Rome and preach the gospel. But I digress.

The Bible doesn't say one way or the other. But at one point his appeal to his Roman citizenship did make those who had beat him unjustly do a double take. He could have very well believed he was being "smart." Either way, he never called out the Roman government for being evil, even though anybody objectively looking at it knew that at that point it was totally evil.

I believe Romans 13 is talking about LEGITIMATE rulers. I think that's the only interpretation that makes any sense. Paul was instructing the Roman church which would need his instructions for long afterwards.

Yeah....but you're reading that into the text. It doesn't say that. Paul never says "The legitimate powers that be are ordained of God" or "The good powers that be are ordained of God." Daniel told King Nebuchadnezzer "The Most High rules in the kingdom of men and He puts up and He takes down whom He sees fit." So following that same parallel language, Paul would necessarily believe that Romans 13 applied to Nero. That said, if you are going to read "legitimate" into Romans 13 when it doesn't say that, then you are wrong to say someone else can't read NAP into Romans 13 as well.

I don't even think you understand my position. I'm not suggesting that people should be forced to adhere to my definition of Christianity.

You just got through saying you weren't sure that the idea of "voluntary" government is Biblical. If something is not voluntary then it is forced. And if you believe that certain things that are wrong only from a Christian point of view should be part of an involuntary government....well what would you call that then? Oh yeah. It's "voluntary" because somebody can leave...as long as they make sure they leave before they have been caught violating some arbitrary law that they might not even know about.

laws have a tendency to multiply themselves. hence why God's Word needs to be the standard.

According to God's word lust in your heart = adultery. That's what Jesus said. If lust = adultery and adultery = offense worthy of stoning and if just about all men lust in their heart at some point or another....let's just stone everybody and be done with it.

But that's an imposition on the text.

No more so than your imposition of "legitimate government" on a chapter that says no such thing.

You aren't even accurately representing what I believe, so I think I'm just going to ignore this one and ignore this thread unless I'm asked a legitimate question. Have a good day, and God bless you

I'm not sure you understand the implication of what you believe.

[jmdrake]

If by "stoning homosexuals" you actually meant that every single person who has ever slept with another man (let alone every single person with gay attraction) you might be right. But that's not really how it works. Unlike today, in a Biblical theonomy the government would actually have to have witnesses before it could execute anyone. It would be completely unbiblical to have a "war on homosexuality" the same way there is a "war on drugs" today.

How many witnesses so Achan take the booty from Jericho? Rhetorical question. The answer is zero. Now you may say "Well God saw Achan steal." And that's true. God also saw the woman caught in adultery when the Pharisees brought her to Him to be stoned. He declined to do so. Think about that.

[Sola_Fide]

According to God's word lust in your heart = adultery. That's what Jesus said. If lust = adultery and adultery = offense worthy of stoning and if just about all men lust in their heart at some point or another....let's just stone everybody and be done with it.

Actually that wasn't even in the OT law.

[jmdrake]

Actually that wasn't even in the OT law.

Stoning for adultery or that heart lust = adultery? I realize heart lust = adultery is Jesus talking. But Jesus is, of course, God.

[Sola_Fide]

Stoning for adultery or that heart lust = adultery? I realize heart lust = adultery is Jesus talking. But Jesus is, of course, God.

Execution or exile was the punishment for adultery. But there wasn't an outward punishment for lust.

[Christian Liberty]

No it wouldn't, because it isn't giving moral imperatives. It's giving practical advice in dealing with those wielding the sword. A person who would rather endure the sword than obey the one wielding it will be able to make that choice. But they should do so with their eyes open to the consequences.

Except that that doesn't even fit with the text and what it says, anymore than "children obey your parents" is "practical advice."

I think that is pretty clear all throughout Scripture.

I'd dispute the phrasing as usual but I don't really want to debate that because to do so is to miss the point.

Or...it doesn't have anything to do with civil law at all.

I agree that the Christian man should seek to live in freedom with laws that protect property and sound money and things like this, but the point is that there is not a political blueprint in the Bible for this.

The idol of politics is an alluring idol, and many people have made shipwreck of their faith by going after the idol of politics. The gospel is everything that the Christian needs to be concerned with in this life. That is all the apostles cared about.

I'm not even totally sure what you're trying to argue here. Its almost as if you're arguing that Christians shouldn't care about politics at all, except that you aren't really arguing this because you know it would be hypocritical for you to do so.

The gospel is first and foremost, and it always should be. But God has instructions for his people to, some of which deal with civil government. Regardless of your eschatology and regardless of whether you think political action will actually succeed or not.

[Sola_Fide]

Except that that doesn't even fit with the text and what it says, anymore than "children obey your parents" is "practical advice."


I'd dispute the phrasing as usual but I don't really want to debate that because to do so is to miss the point.

Or...it doesn't have anything to do with civil law at all.



I'm not even totally sure what you're trying to argue here. Its almost as if you're arguing that Christians shouldn't care about politics at all, except that you aren't really arguing this because you know it would be hypocritical for you to do so.

The gospel is first and foremost, and it always should be. But God has instructions for his people to, some of which deal with civil government. Regardless of your eschatology and regardless of whether you think political action will actually succeed or not.

Well, with Paul, you can see where he gets right into the heart of the matter with the gospel, and then you can see where he gets on the practical side of things with secondary political matters. To me, that is a wonderful example to follow.

[jmdrake]

Execution or exile was the punishment for adultery. But there wasn't an outward punishment for lust.

I never recall reading that someone had an exile option for adultery. Source?

And before Jesus made His pronouncement lust itself wasn't considered adultery. It's not that the law of Moses said "Lust is wrong but there is no punishment for it."

[Sola_Fide]

I never recall reading that someone had an exile option for adultery. Source?

And before Jesus made His pronouncement lust itself wasn't considered adultery. It's not that the law of Moses said "Lust is wrong but there is no punishment for it."

Lust wasn't a penalty that carried death. Adultery was. Jesus was saying that although the Pharisees who thought they were righteous by not committing adultery still deserved eternal death (and separation from God's holy people) because they were adulterers in their heart. They were not righteous. They were guilty.

[jmdrake]

Lust wasn't a penalty that carried death. Adultery was. Jesus was saying that although the Pharisees who thought they were righteous by not committing adultery still deserved eternal death (and separation from God's holy people) because they were adulterers in their heart. They were not righteous. They were guilty.

I think you are missing the point and you will keep missing it perpetually. If we are going to take Jesus at His word then lust for another man's wife = adultery. So the idea of going around stoning people for adultery is silly. Yes, the Pharisees were not righteous. That's why when they brought someone to Jesus to stone for adultery, Jesus said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." The idea of stoning people for adultery goes directly against the New Covenant teaching of Jesus. Anyway, still waiting on that source for exile for adultery.

[Christian Liberty]

Lust wasn't a penalty that carried death. Adultery was. Jesus was saying that although the Pharisees who thought they were righteous by not committing adultery still deserved eternal death (and separation from God's holy people) because they were adulterers in their heart. They were not righteous. They were guilty.

Jesus said hate was murder as well. His point was, as you say, that nobody can say they are righteous before God on the basis of their words. He isn't saying that magistrates shouldn't punish murder. Adultery, similarly, simply isn't a "victimless crime."

I should have expected the dramatic reactions I've seen on this thread, but I didn't really consider them. As it is, I'm probably not going to comment much more because I did not intend to post this thread to try to persuade people of a position I am not totally certain of myself. I posted it to have a productive discussion, and that isn't happening. God has really been convicting me about wasting time on fruitless things and especially on lacking grace, so I'm probably not going to comment too much more.

[Christian Liberty]

Yes it does.



No it wouldn't, because it isn't giving moral imperatives. It's giving practical advice in dealing with those wielding the sword. A person who would rather endure the sword than obey the one wielding it will be able to make that choice. But they should do so with their eyes open to the consequences.



But then you're putting the people in a position where they first have to figure out if any so-called governing authority is characterized that way before figuring out if they're supposed to obey them. But the passage does not put people in any such position. It isn't addressing some far off in the future group of Christians living under a kind of government the world has never seen in all its history. It's addressing real-live Christians living under tyrants who persecuted them.



But Romans 13 doesn't say anything at all about what "government leaders" are supposed to do. There probably were no government leaders in the audience of that epistle. The advice it gives is to the subjects of the rulers, not the rulers.

I don't think "practical advice" fits the text considering its worded as a command. And also, at the very least, some of the Israelite kings and some of the Israelite judges would fit the definition of Romans 13, and I doubt there were no others, so, "never existed throughout all history" clearly isn't the case.