Romans 13 (Perspective)

[pcosmar]

This may be controversial to some. But this chapter has been a point of controversy for years and I am simply offering a perspective on it.. Please contemplate and pray,,, because everyone's lesson plan is unique.

Read it as an indictment. All the nations will be judged.. Read it as an Indictment.

We are to give no reason for them to attack us (they will anyway) but live within the system as much as possible..

We will be witnesses to the crimes when we stand in Judgement..

Romans 13 is an Indictment. Read it that way and contemplate.

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

[pcosmar]

Luke 4.. Christ is tempted.

The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. If you worship me, it will all be yours.”

The devil said.

it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to.

Christ referred to him as Prince of This World.

I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me,

I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming, and he has no claim on Me.

Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

Some translate "ruler"

I will not talk with you much longer, because the ruler of the world is coming. He has no power over me.

"I don't have much more time to talk to you, because the ruler of this world approaches. He has no power over me,

and yet some still question this. and when you stop questioning and accept the reality,,
it answers a lot of questions.

[RonZeplin]

[pcosmar]

And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azâzêl: to him ascribe all sin.

Government has been Evil since History has been recorded.. The first in Scripture was Nimrod..

A half Human Abomination, and against God was the first ruler.. A one world Government.

Romans 13 is not a lesson for believers as much as it is an Indictment against every government ever.

It is not a blessing on Government.. it is an Indictment upon them.

Paul was a skilled in the Law,, and was an inmate in prison when he wrote this.

[pcosmar]

I realize that this is meat that needs to be chewed on,, and not simple milk..

The second half,, he speaks of the Law believers are under.. The perfect law of Love..


Chew in it..it is strong meat..
But if you see it ,, everything changes.

Let him who has eyes see, and ears hear.

[pcosmar]

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.

Most have read this as an endorsement of Governments...

God took Responsibility when the Devil tormented Job..
The Devil is His creation and will be judged,, but He did put him here.

Read it as Indictment,, and it will change your perspective.

[pcosmar]

Read it as Indictment,, and it will change your perspective.

bump

[heavenlyboy34]

This may be controversial to some. But this chapter has been a point of controversy for years and I am simply offering a perspective on it.. Please contemplate and pray,,, because everyone's lesson plan is unique.

Read it as an indictment. All the nations will be judged.. Read it as an Indictment.

We are to give no reason for them to attack us (they will anyway) but live within the system as much as possible..

We will be witnesses to the crimes when we stand in Judgement..

Romans 13 is an Indictment. Read it that way and contemplate.

I already read it that way. :thumbsup: I used to keep that quote in my sig when I had more room.

[wizardwatson]

[I just bumped the most recent Romans 13 thread I could find.]

I said-long before seeing this-that in the U.S., the Constitution is the "governing authority". David Knight gives a great rundown of Romans 13 boot-lickers.

Very relevant in Marxist/Covid hysteria we are all engulfed in.

Not sure I can embed the video:
https://ugetube.com/watch/vaccine-ma...stCS5VUtE.html

...but here's the tweet:

Here's the "Warrenton Declaration" site he mentions. Worth a read as provides sound scriptural backing.
http://www.warrentondeclaration.com

I remember reading Tolstoy's Christian writings where he recounts soldiers defying Rome and refusing to fight in wars based on their Christian principles knowing they faced immediate execution. Obviously, they weren't "Romans 13" bootlickers.

[Invisible Man]

I said-long before seeing this-that in the U.S., the Constitution is the "governing authority".

That is Chuck Baldwin's view. He and his son (a lawyer) wrote a book defending that view. I appreciate it. But I disagree, both with respect to their understanding of Romans 13 and with respect to their understanding of the Constitution.

Romans 13 doesn't refer to laws, or a law of the land, but to superior powers, as in powerful people who have the means to subjugate others by way of wielding the sword effectively (i.e. not in vain). It is understood (and I believe this point would have been much more obvious to the original audience than it is to American evangelicals) that such powers are generally wicked people whose interests do not align with God's. In practice, the powers are the physically present powerful people that Christians must deal with, not some theoretical ideal. The powers are the Roman soldiers, the cops, the criminal gangs who rule neighborhoods, and the armed robbers who accost their victims in dark alleys, also wielding deadly weapons not in vain. Romans 13 refers not to "the powers that ought to be," but to the powers that be, the ones that are actually here.

As for the Constitution, what is the basis for saying that it is the "governing authority"? Is it because the Constitution itself claims that it is? The circularity of that reasoning would apply as well to every other power who asserts rule via might making right. Is it because the Constitution was ostensibly ratified through some legitimate process? If that's the reason, then governments that were constituted via a process like that can hardly have been what Paul had in mind when he wrote Romans 13.

One thing I would point out to those who claim that Romans 13 demands that if the government tells you to wear pinwheels on your head, you do it (and there are man American evangelicals who essentially do say this), is that nowhere in Romans 13 does it use the word "obey." It does use the word "submit." But while "submit" and "obey" have similar and overlapping meanings, and while obedience is one form that submission can take, the two words are not strictly synonyms. The apostles did disobey the powers that were, and even Jesus did (hence his suffering of the death penalty at their hands), but even when they did that, they did so in a posture of submission.

[wizardwatson]

That is Chuck Baldwin's view. He and his son (a lawyer) wrote a book defending that view. I appreciate it. But I disagree, both with respect to their understanding of Romans 13 and with respect to their understanding of the Constitution.

Romans 13 doesn't refer to laws, or a law of the land, but to superior powers, as in powerful people who have the means to subjugate others by way of wielding the sword effectively (i.e. not in vain). It is understood (and I believe this point would have been much more obvious to the original audience than it is to American evangelicals) that such powers are generally wicked people whose interests do not align with God's. In practice, the powers are the physically present powerful people that Christians must deal with, not some theoretical ideal. The powers are the Roman soldiers, the cops, the criminal gangs who rule neighborhoods, and the armed robbers who accost their victims in dark alleys, also wielding deadly weapons not in vain. Romans 13 refers not to "the powers that ought to be," but to the powers that be, the ones that are actually here.

As for the Constitution, what is the basis for saying that it is the "governing authority"? Is it because the Constitution itself claims that it is? The circularity of that reasoning would apply as well to every other power who asserts rule via might making right. Is it because the Constitution was ostensibly ratified through some legitimate process? If that's the reason, then governments that were constituted via a process like that can hardly have been what Paul had in mind when he wrote Romans 13.

One thing I would point out to those who claim that Romans 13 demands that if the government tells you to wear pinwheels on your head, you do it (and there are man American evangelicals who essentially do say this), is that nowhere in Romans 13 does it use the word "obey." It does use the word "submit." But while "submit" and "obey" have similar and overlapping meanings, and while obedience is one form that submission can take, the two words are not strictly synonyms. The apostles did disobey the powers that were, and even Jesus did (hence his suffering of the death penalty at their hands), but even when they did that, they did so in a posture of submission.

Governing authority in the sense that it's the law of the land. In this country then, it means that certainly anyone who swore an oath to it, derives its legitimate authority from it. So it "is" the authority by nature of those who swore to defend it, have no other thing from which they derive power.

Did Paul obey or submit when he appealed all the way to Caesar?

Anyway, your argument is nuanced, but the context is vaccine mandates.

Do you believe Romans 13 says you should "submit" to a vaccine mandate because sleepy Joe orders you to do so?

[Invisible Man]

Do you believe Romans 13 says you should "submit" to a vaccine mandate because sleepy Joe orders you to do so?

Yes, Paul's appeal to Caesar was a good example of his submission to the superior powers.

On the other hand, when he escaped capture by way of sneaking out a window and getting lowered to the ground in a basket, he was still being submissive (i.e. accepting his position below the authorities who pursued him with respect to the superior power that they wielded over him in the realm of the flesh).

I don't believe that Romans 13 requires taking the vaccine if the government mandates it. But I do believe that sleepy Joe and the government agents who bear the sword on his behalf do qualify as the kind of superior power that Romans 13 is talking about, whether they honor their oath to uphold the Constitution or not.

One way to submit to them when they institute vaccine mandates would be to take the vaccine. But that wouldn't be the only way to submit. One could also seek every means possible of living free in this unfree world and making efforts to stay out of the powers' ways, while doing one's business as discreetly as possible without taking the vaccine, and accepting the risk of punishment at their hands that this would involve.

[Sonny Tufts]

Romans 13 doesn't refer to laws, or a law of the land

I think it does. See below.

It is understood (and I believe this point would have been much more obvious to the original audience than it is to American evangelicals) that such powers are generally wicked people whose interests do not align with God's.

Yet verses 1 and 6 say that the authorities have been established by God and are His servants (probably the source of the theory of the Divine Right of Kings). It's strange to think that God would establish wicked people to govern.

nowhere in Romans 13 does it use the word "obey." It does use the word "submit." But while "submit" and "obey" have similar and overlapping meanings, and while obedience is one form that submission can take, the two words are not strictly synonyms.

Verse 6 says to pay taxes if you owe them. This would be an example of obedience to a law that imposes taxes and thereby creates an obligation to pay them.

How do you rationalize verse 2 ("Consequently whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves") with the notion of disobedience?

Don't misunderstand -- I'm not agreeing with what Paul appears to be saying (or with what the translator concludes he is saying). I just don't see how the first seven verses can be referring to "the Roman soldiers, the cops, the criminal gangs who rule neighborhoods, and the armed robbers who accost their victims in dark alleys, also wielding deadly weapons not in vain" or to other wicked people.

[Invisible Man]

Incidentally, I know that the modern English versions of the Bible tend to put the word "governing" in Romans 13. But this is not a good translation of the Greek word huperecho, for which the word "governing" is being used in these versions.

Huperecho really means something more like "occupying a higher place than." When modifying the word exousia, meaning power or authority (in the context of Romans 13 I much prefer using the word "power" than "authority"), it refers to people who occupy higher positions of power than oneself, who must in turn hupotasso (i.e. submit), accepting one's resulting position in a lower state of power than that other higher power.

When these modern versions inject the word "governing," they stack the deck in favor of an interpretation of Romans 13 that assumes it means some kind of legitimate government. Likewise, when they say "authority" rather than "power." The result is to make it sound like these powerful people have a moral license granted by God to exercise their rule, when in fact the passage does not say that they have such a license, only that God is sovereign over them uses them as his tools to do good whether they themselves wish to be used this way or not, which God does even through their wicked deeds for which he will ultimately punish them.

Romans 13:1-6 is really a special case for the more general teaching of Romans 8:28:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good for those who are called according to his purpose.

Nobody questions the fact that in Rom 8:28 the "all things" includes bad things, and even morally wicked things. But somehow a few chapters later, when Paul applies this same principle to the powers that be, and applies his point explicitly to all such powers, leaving room for no exceptions, they fail to grasp that this too must include wicked powers, and thus refers not to God granting a moral license to them, but only to his sovereign superintendence over them.

To further illustrate this point, we can see that in Romans 9, Paul points to a very specific power from the pages of the Old Testament, namely Pharaoh (Rom 9:17), and makes precisely the point that he makes about powers more generally in chapter 13, which is that Pharaoh, though being wicked, and even precisely in his acts of disobedience to God, was established in his power by God, and used by God to bring about good results in accordance with God's plans, and that even those very acts of disobedience by Pharaoh were done as a result of God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart so as to ensure Pharaoh's disobedience and subsequent punishment by God, in the course of bringing about God's intended good results.

We also see this low view of the powers that be in Romans 8:38-39, where they are listed alongside such other forces that threaten the safety of believers in order to make the point that God's salvation supersedes all of them, and then again in Romans 12:14-21 (immediately prior to Romans 13 in the context of the book, which of course was originally written without chapter breaks), where it is a given that those who are able to persecute believers are higher powers with the means to do so.

[Invisible Man]

Yet verses 1 and 6 say that the authorities have been established by God and are His servants (probably the source of the theory of the Divine Right of Kings). It's strange to think that God would establish wicked people to govern.

No. The divine right of kings implies a moral license on the part of those kings. Romans 13 does not refer to a moral license. It does call them servants. But what Paul says of Pharaoh in chapter 9 would also qualify as Pharaoh being God's servant, albeit unwittingly. And there it's precisely in his doing what he had no moral right to do that Pharaoh came to be used by God as a servant.

Verse 6 says to pay taxes if you owe them. This would be an example of obedience to a law that imposes taxes and thereby creates an obligation to pay them.

Notice how you just switched from one thing to another. Paul only says, "if you owe them." He says nothing about what creates that obligation, or that some human being making up something and calling it a law constitutes an actual obligation. What if the powers that be claim that you owe them money, but you really don't. Does that verse command you to pay taxes even when you don't owe them?

And then, even if I do go along with your view that a manmade law can bring about an actual obligation like that, then yes, I agree that in this specific case it would be commanding obedience, and not just submission. But that's only in this specific case, and it wouldn't mean that obedience is the only form that submission can take. Suppose I give my son the following advice: "Son, if you're ever caught unawares in a dark alley by a man pointing a gun at you and demanding that you give him your money, give it to him."

In this case I would be telling my son to obey that robber. But it could also be taken in a larger context where it's understood that there could be situations where it would be advisable to escape the situation, or defend yourself, or only give the robber part of your money without telling him that you still have more hidden inside your shoe.

That kind of pragmatic outlook is how we should understand Romans 13. Paul isn't telling people that they have a moral obligation to do everything powerful people (whether those be low level gangsters or high level government agents) tell us to do, to the point of giving them money hidden in our shoe that they wouldn't have known about. He is telling us to go about our lives in a way that avoids conflict with these powers and that minimizes our danger at their hands.

How do you rationalize verse 2 ("Consequently whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves") with the notion of disobedience?

I don't rationalize it at all. I simply take it at face value. Paul wanted Christians to accept God's sovereignty in all things, not to fight against it as though the universe had escaped from God's providence in bringing about the trials they faced. Submission to the powers that be does rule out the pursuit of armed rebellion. But there's a lot of space in between armed rebellion on the one hand and obeying every law the government puts on the books on the other. Even if we wanted to do the latter, we'd find it impossible even to know all of the laws we had to obey, much less follow them all. Paul wasn't saying (the way many American evangelicals take him) that whatever government tells you to do is the same as if God himself told you to do it, such that we ought to study the countless volumes of laws and codes that are on the books at the federal, state, and local levels, in order to know and obey them as if they're practically appendices to the Bible itself.

[ClaytonB]

That is Chuck Baldwin's view. He and his son (a lawyer) wrote a book defending that view. I appreciate it. But I disagree, both with respect to their understanding of Romans 13 and with respect to their understanding of the Constitution.

Romans 13 doesn't refer to laws, or a law of the land, but to superior powers, as in powerful people who have the means to subjugate others by way of wielding the sword effectively (i.e. not in vain).

You're already going off the rails. Romans 13 must be understood in terms of the heavenly hierarchy, which Paul mentions: "there is no authority except that which God has established"; compare, "Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above." (John 19:11, addressing Pilate). So this is the hierarchy that descends from the throne of God himself, which is why Romans 13 says, " the one in authority is God’s servant (Gr. diakonos)" This is why no king/president/emperor etc. can quote Romans 13 to command disobedience God. In the very act of doing so, they speak with the tongue of Lucifer who tried to use his heavenly position to attack God's throne -- Scripture will never support any theory that the servants of God can attack those who are obeying God. For their fate, see Matthew 24:48-51. Any police officer or other official of the State who is seized by the temptation to quote Romans 13 to justify their abuses should contemplate Matthew 24:48-51, long and hard. Very hard.

It is understood (and I believe this point would have been much more obvious to the original audience than it is to American evangelicals) that such powers are generally wicked people whose interests do not align with God's.

The wickedness or not of those who hold earthly power is not in view in Romans 13.

In practice, the powers are the physically present powerful people that Christians must deal with, not some theoretical ideal. The powers are the Roman soldiers, the cops, the criminal gangs who rule neighborhoods,

There is one (and only one) distinction between the State and mafia gangs -- the former claims moral legitimacy (implicitly claims to belong the hierarchy of heaven), the latter does not. It is the self-confessed moral virtue of the State that simultaneously impels Christian deference to their abuses, and also brings it under the dread power of Almighty God as subjects (servants) of him. See Deuteronomy 28:15-68 for a refresher on how God judges his own people when they rebel against him; how much more Gentiles who were never part of the covenant with Abraham (they fall under the ante-diluvian world order).

and the armed robbers who accost their victims in dark alleys,

This is incorrect. While the believer must seek a non-violent solution to any confrontation, if possible, he is not obligated (or even admonished) to absolute pacifism. Rather, he is to act in line with the Holy Spirit who oversees all such confrontations more closely than the human mind can imagine. Protecting the innocent (including oneself) is part of the image of God within man, thus, it is an aspect of the Holy Spirit.

also wielding deadly weapons not in vain. Romans 13 refers not to "the powers that ought to be," but to the powers that be, the ones that are actually here.

And it also notes that there is no authority but that which is appointed by God. He could have said "permitted/allowed" by God, but he did not. So he is talking only about authorities which can lay a legitimate claim upon our conscience (insofar as they themselves are acting in line with their position as servants of God, rather than rebels and traitors).

One thing I would point out to those who claim that Romans 13 demands that if the government tells you to wear pinwheels on your head, you do it (and there are man American evangelicals who essentially do say this), is that nowhere in Romans 13 does it use the word "obey." It does use the word "submit." But while "submit" and "obey" have similar and overlapping meanings, and while obedience is one form that submission can take, the two words are not strictly synonyms. The apostles did disobey the powers that were, and even Jesus did (hence his suffering of the death penalty at their hands), but even when they did that, they did so in a posture of submission.

The primary intent of Romans 13 is to prohibit believers from participating in revolution against the government (whichever government happens to be in place). Not only does this preclude believers from getting involved in PP/PB-style street brawls -- or even the egotistical rowdiness that inevitably precedes such brawls -- but it also precludes believers from participating in political regime change of any kind other than by peaceful, orderly means (such as voting, and so on). Anything that has to do with subverting/revolting is inherently opposed to Christian belief and practice because it is built on a fleshly mindset -- that power comes from the barrel of a gun. Power does not and never has come from a gun or sword, no matter what Mao was deluded into thinking. Power comes only from God, a point that cannot be driven home any more clearly than by reading the book of Job.

Beyond prohibiting any kind of revolutionary/subversive activity, Romans 13 also exhorts believers to live peaceably within the existing legal system, regardless of whatever discomforts and annoyances that entails (and it always entails many such problems). This means you have to pay the speeding ticket that you got when rolling downhill on a straight-stretch with no intersections, into a reduced speed-zone with a traffic cop hiding in a blind-spot so he can make his monthly quota. It's obviously extortion. But you are obliged to pay the ticket (unless you can legally escape it) and not to create new problems on top of the ticket itself. The abuses of these wicked servants will indeed be answered for and not one person who witnesses their punishment would wish to trade places with them, even if that exchange could magically get them out of the initial abuse (ticket, beating, etc.)

The judgment of God is dread beyond words and the fleshly mind is only able to exist by ignoring this fact. Regular contemplation of the judgment of God is the cure for the temptation to organize revolt against the abusive tyrants that rule over us. These are abusive servants in the hierarchy of authority beneath Christ, with whom we are inheriting the Kingdom of God. The more you meditate on that last sentence, the more pointless and even ridiculous revolt will seem to you. Why will a king "revolt" against his own servants? And why will the court of the king revolt against the servants who answer to them??

"Do you not know that we will judge angels?" (1 Corinthians 6:3)

[ClaytonB]

Do you believe Romans 13 says you should "submit" to a vaccine mandate because sleepy Joe orders you to do so?

"No temptation[c] has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted[d] beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted,[e] he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it." (1 Corinthians 10:13 NIV; [c,d,e] The Greek for temptation and tempted can also mean testing and tested.)

The real question is not what the State can or can't do. The real question is what is God's will for you (individually) in each specific situation you find yourself in. If God wants you to be poked with a needle, then that's what's going to happen, no matter what you or the US government think about it. So the believer is to submit to the will of God in all things, no matter how dire the circumstances (this is one reason that Jesus went to the cross... he is not asking us to go through anything he did not himself already go through.) In point of fact, the present satanic world order has no power to do any of the things that it is doing. It went off the rails when it ceased paying even pro forma homage to the name of Jesus (as it once did under the Christian kings who openly acknowledged that Jesus is Lord, at least formally). So the rebellion of God's servants has become an open rebellion over the course of the last two centuries. You can be certain it will not be unanswered by the one who has all power in heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18).

[ClaytonB]

Incidentally, I know that the modern English versions of the Bible tend to put the word "governing" in Romans 13. But this is not a good translation of the Greek word huperecho, for which the word "governing" is being used in these versions.

Huperecho really means something more like "occupying a higher place than." When modifying the word exousia, meaning power or authority (in the context of Romans 13 I much prefer using the word "power" than "authority"), it refers to people who occupy higher positions of power than oneself, who must in turn hupotasso (i.e. submit), accepting one's resulting position in a lower state of power than that other higher power.

When these modern versions inject the word "governing," they stack the deck in favor of an interpretation of Romans 13 that assumes it means some kind of legitimate government. Likewise, when they say "authority" rather than "power." The result is to make it sound like these powerful people have a moral license granted by God to exercise their rule, when in fact the passage does not say that they have such a license, only that God is sovereign over them uses them as his tools to do good whether they themselves wish to be used this way or not, which God does even through their wicked deeds for which he will ultimately punish them.

This is incorrect. Romans 13 is specifically talking about appointed authorities, which specifically does not include the back-alley mugger. In 2,000 years of church history, you will find no scholarly support for your novel interpretation.

[pcosmar]

[I just bumped the most recent Romans 13 thread I could find.]

I said-long before seeing this-that in the U.S., the Constitution is the "governing authority". .

I have to disagree with that... The Constitution is a Document defining the organization and LIMITS of the Government,,as allowed by the Governing Authority..
We The People

We the People are the Governing Authority. in this land.

[wizardwatson]

"No temptation[c] has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted[d] beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted,[e] he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it." (1 Corinthians 10:13 NIV; [c,d,e] The Greek for temptation and tempted can also mean testing and tested.)

The real question is not what the State can or can't do. The real question is what is God's will for you (individually) in each specific situation you find yourself in. If God wants you to be poked with a needle, then that's what's going to happen, no matter what you or the US government think about it. So the believer is to submit to the will of God in all things, no matter how dire the circumstances (this is one reason that Jesus went to the cross... he is not asking us to go through anything he did not himself already go through.) In point of fact, the present satanic world order has no power to do any of the things that it is doing. It went off the rails when it ceased paying even pro forma homage to the name of Jesus (as it once did under the Christian kings who openly acknowledged that Jesus is Lord, at least formally). So the rebellion of God's servants has become an open rebellion over the course of the last two centuries. You can be certain it will not be unanswered by the one who has all power in heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18).

Well, said.

The main point from me, is that the bible does not support mandating Christians to get the jab.

There is no God elected Joe-Joe declared emergency-emergency means need jab to be safe, Romans 13 connection.

What God wills is what is happening (summer is near).

Repent or perish.

[Invisible Man]

This is incorrect. Romans 13 is specifically talking about appointed authorities, which specifically does not include the back-alley mugger. In 2,000 years of church history, you will find no scholarly support for your novel interpretation.

On the contrary, absolutely everything that ever has or ever will happen has been appointed by God, including the back-alley mugger.

And my interpretation is not novel. You can find plenty of scholarly support for it all through Church history.

In the modern age, perhaps the most highly respected commentary on the book of Romans is Cranfield's in the ICC series. He takes the view that I'm presenting.

There is also ancient support for it. I would have to revisit the sources to be sure who from. But my recollection is that Augustine was one supporter of it. I could be wrong about that. I'll need to double-check.

[wizardwatson]

I have to disagree with that... The Constitution is a Document defining the organization and LIMITS of the Government,,as allowed by the Governing Authority..
We The People

We the People are the Governing Authority. in this land.

Agreed, but it is the Constitution that establishes that consensus in writing. Hence the oath to the Constitution wherein the power of "we the people" is enshrined.

[pcosmar]

Agreed, but it is the Constitution that establishes that consensus in writing. Hence the oath to the Constitution wherein the power of "we the people" is enshrined.

Point being,,talking heads in Wash DC are NOT the Authority..

and we don't have leaders,,we have representatives..

and Servants don't command the Masters.

Following leaders is following the old error of Nimrod..

[ClaytonB]

On the contrary, absolutely everything that ever has or ever will happen has been appointed by God, including the back-alley mugger.

And my interpretation is not novel. You can find plenty of scholarly support for it all through Church history.

In the modern age, perhaps the most highly respected commentary on the book of Romans is Cranfield's in the ICC series. He takes the view that I'm presenting.

Well, I don't have that $75 commentary and it appears not to be freely available online. Feel free to share a screenshot of the relevant section, in particular, I am curious what his references are.

There is also ancient support for it. I would have to revisit the sources to be sure who from. But my recollection is that Augustine was one supporter of it. I could be wrong about that. I'll need to double-check.

I am not aware of any place that Augustine wrote on this specific topic (but it appears from web search that he has some letters discussing a variety of political issues) but it is unlikely the Church of Rome -- the most Augustinian of all churches -- would disagree with Augustine; see Civil Authority in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Hence civil authority is defined as the moral power of command, supported (when need be) by physical coercion, which the State exercises over its constituent members. Civil authority is of God, not by any revelation or positive institution, but by the mere fact that God is the Author of Nature, and Nature imperatively requires civil authority to be set up and obeyed. Nature cannot tolerate intemperance, nor anarchy either. And what Nature absolutely requires, or absolutely refuses as incompatible with her well-being, God commands, or God forbids. God then forbids anarchy; and in forbidding anarchy He enjoins submission to authority. In this sense, God is at the back of every State, binding men in conscience to observe the behests of the State within the sphere of its competence. "Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. . . . Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. . . . For they are the ministers of God, . ." (Horn. xiii, 1, 5, 6).

(Emphasis mine)

This is the accepted view of Romans 13, whether we are talking about Western, Eastern or Protestant theology. It's a pretty non-controversial passage.

[Invisible Man]

Well, I don't have that $75 commentary and it appears not to be freely available online.

I will shortly. But, if you are not familiar with standard sources like that, then what business do you have making dogmatic absolute assertions like the following?

In 2,000 years of church history, you will find no scholarly support for your novel interpretation.

[ClaytonB]

I will shortly. But, if you are not familiar with standard sources like that, then what business do you have making dogmatic absolute assertions like the following?

lol "standard sources"

Edit: Just post the screenshots / references and skip the my-scholars-beat-your-scholars nonsense...

[ClaytonB]

Here is an interactive exercise for those who think that "muggers" could be somehow shoe-horned into "the powers that be". Start by reading the Wiki page for The Great Chain of Being. This is more or less the standard Christian view of the State and its relationship to the Church, the heavens, and the mass of the public. There have been minor variations in different times and places but this is more or less the accepted view, whether in the Eastern, Western or Protestant churches. After reading, please locate where on Aquinas' great chain you think that muggers are located. That's all. Here's a picture to assist you (feel free to reply with their location marked on the drawing):

[Invisible Man]

lol "standard sources"

Edit: Just post the screenshots / references and skip the my-scholars-beat-your-scholars nonsense...

I never said anything about my scholars beating yours. But you claimed that mine don't exist at all, and then admitted that you didn't have the familiarity with the landscape of scholarship on Paul to be able to make a claim like that (and frankly, who in the world does?).

And yes, Cranfield is a standard source on the book of Romans. Don't take my word for it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=best...ries+on+Romans

[ClaytonB]

I never said anything about my scholars beating yours. But you claimed that mine don't exist at all, and then admitted that you didn't have the familiarity with the landscape of scholarship on Paul to be able to make a claim like that (and frankly, who in the world does?).

I stand by what I said, you will not find any scholarly backing for your aberrant misinterpretation of Romans 13. Cranfield is a recent Protestant theologian -- his commentary may be widely used in certain circles but I've never heard of it until now. There is a literal ocean of Bible commentaries; no man alive could read them all even if he devoted his life to nothing else. Among those commentaries, who knows, perhaps someone can dig out an aberrant reading of Romans 13. Private opinions have often departed from orthodoxy in particular points of doctrine. But you will find no orthodox, accepted, authoritative source for this aberrant view of Romans 13 that "muggers" can be shoehorned somehow into the "powers that be". It's downright silly, actually.

And yes, Cranfield is a standard source on the book of Romans. Don't take my word for it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=best...ries+on+Romans

"Standard" is relative. I'm willing to bet all or nearly all Catholic or Orthodox scholars (the two largest and oldest branches of the Christian church) would have no idea who Cranfield was...

[Invisible Man]

Here is an interactive exercise for those who think that "muggers" could be somehow shoe-horned into "the powers that be". Start by reading the Wiki page for The Great Chain of Being. This is more or less the standard Christian view of the State and its relationship to the Church, the heavens, and the mass of the public. There have been minor variations in different times and places but this is more or less the accepted view, whether in the Eastern, Western or Protestant churches. After reading, please locate where on Aquinas' great chain you think that muggers are located. That's all. Here's a picture to assist you (feel free to reply with their location marked on the drawing):

I'm not so sure that that's "the standard Christian view." Undoubtedly most Christians have never heard of it. More importantly, Paul had never heard of it, at least not in the form it took in Medieval Christianity, so it could hardly be taken as background behind the book of Romans.

But to your question, where would Aquinas put muggers? He would put them on the level of humanity, being that they're humans. That is the same place he put human kings and other rulers, being that they were also human. And this also applies to the powers that be in Romans 13, which Aquinas also interpreted to be humans. This is not to be confused with angelic powers (although in my own view, Paul's use of the word "powers" for both those on the human level and those on the angelic/demonic level intentionally implies an interrelationship of those beings).

On the subject of Aquinas' interpretation of Romans 13, note especially these words of his, which he wrote in his commentary on that chapter:

This can also refer to evil rulers, who are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. For even though they sometimes unjustly persecute those who do good, the latter have no reason to fear; because if they endure it patiently, it turns out for their good: "Even if you do suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled" (I Pt 3:14).

https://sites.google.com/site/aquina...-12/chapter-13 (see paragraph 1030).

I will get to Cranfield and Augustine when I get a chance.