MUST CHRISTIANS OBEY THE STATE?
by AdaomaINTRODUCTION
"The social principles of Christianity preach the necessity of a ruling and an oppressed class, and for the latter all they have to offer is the pious wish that the former may be charitable...The social principles of Christianity declare all the vile acts of the oppressors against the oppressed to be either a just punishment for original sin and other sins, or trials which the Lord, in his infinite wisdom, ordains for the redeemed...The social principles of Christianity preach cowardice, self-contempt, abasement, submissiveness and humbleness, in short, all the qualities of the rabble, and the proletariat, which will not permit itself to be treated as rabble, needs its courage, its self-confidence, its pride and its sense of independence even more than its bread. The social principles of Christianity are sneaking and hypocritical, and the proletariat is revolutionary. So much for the social principles of Christianity."
KARL MARX
The Communism of the Rheinischer Beobachter
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/09/12.htm
Karl Marx, in his critique of the Christian church misrepresents the doctrines of the Bible.
Romans 13: 1-7 to many, is understood to mean that God has ordained the State and that Christians are commanded to obey the State. Because of this verse, Christianity is said to be a tool by which the ruling classes manipulate workers and make them complicate to the oppression in a class society.
Yet, Marx did not live long enough to know that ardent, Christian activists of the abolitionist, women suffurage, trade unionist , Civil Rights, anti-war and anti-apartheid movements made use of their faith as an impetus to activism and liberation, much the same way as Marx viewed revolution as a categoric imperative to overthrow all relations in which man is a debased, enslaved, abandoned.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm
In an attempt to challenge and correct Marx's critique of the Christianity (which is not represented by the church in Prussia), let us examine one of the most commonly used scriptures that has been used to wrongly affirm such criticism as Marx has given, Romans 13:1-7.
Please read on.
Adaoma
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
"This difficult little extract is perhaps the most notorious text in the Christian canon. For centuries, ruling elites and their systems of domination have found an ally in these ostensibly unambiguous words from the mouth of the apostle Paul.
"As Robert Jewett puts it, Romans 13:1-7 "has provided the basis for propaganda by which the policies of Mars and Jupiter have frequently been disguised as serving the cause of Christ" (2007: 803). In the last century alone this text was used by the Nazi party in Germany, by the apartheid regime in South Africa, and by the genocidal Hutu government in Rwanda, to stifle Christian dissent to injustice.
"The complicity of Christians in but one of these atrocities should have been enough to suggest that there was something abysmally wrong with the traditional reading habits, yet here in the United States, land of the good guy, many continue to appeal to Romans 13 in their sacralizations of an increasingly imperialistic U.S. foreign policy.
"From the Holocaust to the present, historians and theologians have been scrambling to provide alternative readings of these seven verses, alternative readings to what would be the "plain sense" of the text to those who have benefited from the long, grueling history of Western domination. The fruits of their collective labors have brought no consensus. Yet all have attempted to come to terms with two realities: the text as it stands, and our common fear of totalitarianism in all its guises.
"Was Paul hopelessly naïve? Was he a political idealist? An apolitical opportunist perhaps? Or was he a radical subversive? Respectable scholars of all stripes, and even those with comparable methods and commitments, have come to radically different conclusions about the meaning of this text and its significance for us today. In this essay I will try carefully to lay out the many complementary and contradictory answers scholars have scrambled to provide, evaluating the options in light of exegetical work and with attention to historical background. In the end I will argue in favor of a subversive reading of Romans 13:1-7, in which Paul is actually critiquing the imperial pretentions of Rome by contrasting the Roman body politic with the body politic of Christ, while calling those constituted by the latter to resist the former not by violence, but by creating social counter-formations, marked by agape love, capable of both undermining and transforming the very foundations of the Roman imperial order.
"I will attempt to do this, bearing in mind that these sorts of problems are not finally resolved by atomized researchers at computers, wading in books. In fact, these sorts of problems are not the kind that can be
finally resolved at all; they can only be resolved once for each moment, and only by Christians gathered together in communities committed to embodying the gospel in an age of extremes. As such, this little research project to motivated by the hope that for moment it might somehow play a part in the conversation that disarmed people are having "on the ground" as they struggle to forge the kind of polities in which every subordinated soul can find liberation."
http://thomerica.com/essays/stark_romans13.pdf
How are we going to overcome Romans 13? What was Apostle Paul really saying? The best way to bring understanding on Romans 13 is to ask, "Who was apostle Paul writing to at Rome?" The answer is found at Romans 1:7: Paul was writing to all those in Rome who are "beloved of God, called to be saints." He was not writing to the general population at Rome. He was specifically addressing the "called out ones," the Body of Christ.
If apostle Paul was advocating obedience to secular authorities, then Caesar would have no cause against him. Why would Caesar have Paul beheaded if he was promoting obedience to Rome?
The world loves its own. If Paul belonged to Caesar, Caesar would not want to kill his own. If Paul was promoting "be subject to Caesar," then Paul would be Caesar's friend. You would not kill your own. You don't destroy the very instrument that advertises for you.
The truth is that Apostle Paul was beheaded for promoting a rival government known as the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. Already this new government was turning the world upside down. Caesar had Paul killed to help stop this threat to Rome's power.
If Romans 13 does not mean "obey the State," what does it mean? Romans 13 means, "Remember them which have the rule over you," as you will also find at Hebrews 13:7. Since Paul was addressing the saints at Rome, it is logical that he would instruct them to submit to those who look after their souls. It is a reminder to be obedient to the authorities God has placed over His people. For they are truly the "ministers of God to thee for good." Unlike worldly rulers, God's ministers are not a terror to good works but to the evil. Therefore, "do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same."
Romans 13 is probably the most devastating thing to a Christian in the hands of the ungodly. It sounds so convincing to obey those who appear to be in power. For too long, secular governments have used Romans 13 as a club to beat Christians into obedience to them. Just because a group maintains power through their guns and jails, does not mean God put them there.
God said there are powers not ordained by Him at Hosea 8:4, "They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not."
God didn't put them in power over the righteous. That's Satan's idea. The righteous don't need worldly, filthy authorities, which are no authorities at all. Do you think that they can instruct the righteous? They themselves steal. They themselves are perverts. And they presume to instruct the righteous? I don't think so.
Apostle Paul had many troubles with worldly rulers. He was given 39 stripes five times by the Jews, beaten with rods three times, in perils by his own countrymen and by the heathen, and frequently in prison. (See 2 Corinthians 11:23-26). In Damascus the governor kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desiring to apprehend Paul. "And through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands," wrote Paul at 2 Corinthians 11:32. That is the same Paul that wrote Romans 13. He was forced to flee from the civil authorities, those "powers that be" that people say are ordained of God. Sorry folks, this does not compute. When Paul says, "the powers that be," he is saying the powers that be powers, are ordained of God. In other words, the only true powers are those that God ordains.
The crux of the matter is this, Does Paul in Romans 13:1-7 argue that the civil government of this world has legitimate authority over the people of God? We believe that the obedient, called-out people of God are not bound to obey manmade civil governments. God's people are answerable to God above all else and are bound by His commands. At the same time, God's people are not to use their liberty as a cloak to do evil, to foment rebellion or waste time trying to influence the politics of the governments of this world. Furthermore, we believe Paul in Romans 13:1-7 is referring to the spiritual leaders of the Body of Christ, not the civil authorities of this world.
If Paul is saying, "Obey the civil authorities," then he has a conflict in his life. Is Paul promoting Caesar or separating from Caesar? If Paul is promoting Caesar, there is no way I want Paul in my Bible. He can't work for Caesar and Jesus Christ. Caesar already has his writings, they are called "revised statutes" or the "law of the land." You can have them if you want. I would rather have God's Word. Actually that which is called the "law of the land," is the law of the devil... The term is used in the U.S. Constitution, where men claim that their laws are the supreme law of the land (See U.S. Constitution, Article VI).
"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Matthew 22:36-40). Do you know what that represents to a Christian? These two commands are the Supreme Law of the Land. If you believe that something else is the supreme law of the land for a Christian, someone has deceived you. It was a thief who drew you away from the true Supreme Law of the Land (see John 10:8).
If you have the two great commandments, how much allegiance do you have left for the worldly rulers of this dark age? Let me tell you, you have ZERO allegiance to Satan and his agents. All your time is spent "loving God" and "loving neighbor," and there is no room left over for obeying Satan and his minions.
And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. 1 John 5:19
As true followers of Jesus, we are led by the Spirit and our lives reflect the fact that we belong to another kingdom, the Kingdom of Heaven. Our stay on earth is only transitory. As citizens of Heaven, we are bound to submit and pledge allegiance to the King of Heaven and His government over us. We are not bound to obey the government of some nation just because we happen to be living within their so-called "borders."
Remember, "The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof" (1 Corinthians 10:26). Yet there is a pack of thieves out there who have divided up the earth and perverts are ruling over it. And they are doing it at the egging on of Satan himself.
Romans 13 has been wrongly interpreted by ruling secular governments to mean a Christian must submit to them. This misinterpretation forms a powerful weapon to neutralize and misdirect the power of God's Kingdom.
As the followers of Jesus Christ, we belong to another Kingdom, the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom has its own government, its own laws, and its own leaders. Apostle Paul was not commanding us in Romans 13 to submit to the civil authorities of the kingdoms of this world. He was commanding us to submit to the authority of God's leaders who oversee the "called-out ones."
It is a fallacy that Paul was commanding Christians at Rome to submit to the secular government. It is time that Christ's followers renounce their allegiance to the ever-changing governments of men. They must set an example that there is a higher and more perfect form of government, the Kingdom of Heaven.
Of course there will be consequences. Jesus was brought to Pilate to be crucified on charges of "perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King" (Luke 23:2). We, too, must be willing to sacrifice even our very lives to proclaim God's sovereign rulership over us.
When we boldly declare that we belong to God's Kingdom, we are left with no choice but to trust God for His provision in the face of a hostile world. We quickly learn that our safety is in our obedience. To trust in carnal weapons and physical force is vanity. We serve a living God. He is well able to make a way for us regardless of how much the modern day Nebuchadnezzar's rage and threaten to destroy us.
Christians are in no way bound by the Scriptures to obey and support the manmade governments of this world. We are bound to live peaceably with all men to the greatest degree possible. Yet our loyalty, allegiance, and obedience must always be found at the feet of Christ. Our goal is to see souls brought to Christ. The more fully we separate from the world and consecrate ourselves to God, the more power we will have to infiltrate the hearts and minds of men with a living example of the Gospel. The world must see that God does have a people on this earth, and that His power dwells in their midst. Let us commit ourselves to His kingdom and be His people.
Warning: Beware of the Living Bible and the Good News Bible. They are merely Bible paraphrases, not translations. The wording is not true to the original Hebrew and Greek. The scriptures are perverted to support secular Christianity.
Romans 13:1-7
King James Bible (Translation)
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.
Living Bible (Paraphrase)
Obey the government, for God is the one who has put it there. There is no government anywhere that God has not placed in power.
2 So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow.
3 For the policeman does not frighten people who are doing right; but those doing evil will always fear him. So if you don't want to be afraid, keep the laws and you will get along well.
4 The policeman is sent by God to help you. But if you are doing something wrong, of course you should be afraid, for he will have you punished. He is sent by God for that very purpose.
5 Obey the laws, then, for two reasons: first, to keep from being punished, and second, just because you know you should.
6 Pay your taxes too, for these same two reasons. For government workers need to be paid so that they can keep on doing God's work, serving you.
7 Pay everyone whatever he ought to have: pay your taxes and import duties gladly, obey those over you, and give honor and respect to all those to whom it is due.
http://romans13.embassyofheaven.com/understanding.htm
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15
In my hands is an old, beat up Bible. Somebody has been thumping it too hard and it is falling to pieces. This particular Bible has subheadings for each chapter. At Romans 13 it says, "Submission to the State." Wow, that really strikes a strong cord in me. Now those words are not part of the Scripture. They are just someone's opinion of what Romans 13 says, but does it?
Romans 13 is the scripture that stumbles so many people when they try to "come out from among them." How can they "come out" and "obey them" at the same time?
The harlot churches like to promote Romans 13 as meaning, "Obey Caesar," or "Obey the law of the land." How else can they interpret it? They have yoked themselves with Caesar through State incorporation. Their very life comes from the State. If they do not obey Caesar, Caesar will withdraw their corporate charter and they will die. State incorporated churches have only one choice if they are to survive: promote obedience to the State.
Barclay's commentaries, which are used as a textbook in Sunday Schools, shows the typical attitude about Romans 13. Barclay says, "At first reading this is an extremely surprising passage, for it seems to counsel absolute obedience on the part of the Christian to the civil power. But, in point of fact, this is a commandment which runs through the whole New Testament." According to Barclay, Romans 13 commands "absolute obedience on the part of the Christian to the civil power." With commentaries like this, it is no wonder that Romans 13 was Hitler's favorite Bible passage.
Absolute obedience means obeying the president and every bureaucrat under him. "Obey all these people who do not confess Jesus Christ. After all, God has set these men over us." Are we to obey anyone who claims to be a higher authority? Let's take another look at Romans 13 and rightly divide the word of truth.
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? Romans 6:16
http://romans13.embassyofheaven.com/submission.htm
Please note that everything that is written in these article is not my view. My commentary will include my views.
Adaoma
CHALLENGE TO THE CHURCH
A Theological Comment on the Political Crisis in South Africa
THE KAIROS DOCUMENT PREFACE
The KAIROS document is a Christian, biblical and theological comment on the political crisis in South Africa today. It is an attempt by concerned Christians in South Africa to reflect on the situation of death in our country. It is a critique of the current theological models that determine the type of activities the Church engages in to try to resolve the problems of the country. It is an attempt to develop, out of this perplexing situation, an alternative biblical and theological model that will in turn lead to forms of activity that will make a real difference to the future of our country.
Of particular interest is the way the theological material was produced. In June 1985 as the crisis was intensifying in the country, as more and more people were killed, maimed and imprisoned, as one black township after another revolted against the apartheid regime, as the people refused to be oppressed or to co-operate with oppressors, facing death by the day, and as the apartheid army moved into the townships to rule by the barrel of the gun, a number of theologians who were concerned about the situation expressed the need to reflect on this situation to determine what response by the Church and by all Christians in South Africa would be most appropriate.
A first discussion group met at the beginning of July in the heart of Soweto. Participants spoke freely about the situation and the various responses of the Church, Church leaders and, Christians. A critique of these responses was made and the theology from which these responses flowed was also subjected to a critical analysis. Individual members of the group were assigned to put together material on specific themes which were raised during the discussion and to present the material to the next session of the group..
At the second meeting the material itself was subjected to a critique and various people were commissioned to do more investigations on specific problematic areas. The latest findings with the rest of the material were collated and presented to the third meeting where more than thirty people, consisting of theologians, ordinary Christians (lay theologians) and some Church leaders.
After a very extensive discussion some adjustments and additions were made especially in regard to the section entitled 'Challenge to Action.' The group then appointed a committee to subject the document to further critique by various other Christian groupings throughout the country. Everybody was told that "this was a people's document which you can also own even by demolishing it if your position can stand the test of biblical faith and Christian experience in South Africa." They were told that this was an open-ended document which will never be said to be final.
The 'working Committee,' as it was called, was inundated with comments, suggestions and enthusiastic appreciation from various groups and individuals in the country. By the 13th of September 1985 when the document was submitted for publication there were still comments and recommendations flowing in. The first publication therefore must be taken as a beginning, a basis for further discussion by all Christians in the country. Further editions will be published later.
25 September 1985 Johannesburg
CHAPTER ONE
THE MOMENT OF TRUTH
The time has come. The moment of truth has arrived. South Africa has been plunged into a crisis that is shaking the foundations and there is every indication that the crisis has only just begun and that it will deepen and become even more threatening in the months to come. It is the KAIROS or moment of truth not only for apartheid but also for the Church.
http://www.bethel.edu/~letnie/AfricanChristianity/SAKairos.html
and
Romans 13
Introduction
The way we view Romans chapter 13:1-7 greatly determines the way we interact with the governments of men. The ideas we are about to set forth are radical, even revolutionary. They will overthrow many sacred "traditions" among those who claim to be followers of Jesus.
True Christianity is a way of life which involves renouncing the world and pledging our allegiance to the Kingdom of God. There is an inherent conflict between the old kingdom we have come out from and the new Kingdom to which we now belong. Jesus was crucified as a result of this conflict. He has assured us that if we are true to His word that we can expect the same kind of treatment. "I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world" (John 17:14).
To try to combine the humanistic governments of men with the Spirit government of God is an impossible task. Any attempt to combine the governments of men with God's government is doomed to failure.
Nevertheless, throughout history politicians have attempted to mix the holy and the profane. They have borrowed heavily from God's law in order to appear righteous, yet man is still left in control. This strange mixture is often called "God inspired government" or "Government based on God's laws." As a result, multitudes of Christians have been brought into bondage to patriotism and nationalism. They have been forced to submit to manmade governments under the pretext that God has commanded our submission in Romans 13:1-7.
___________________________________________________________________________
Since around the 4th century AD many have been led to believe that manmade governments actually possess authority to rule over God's people. A misinterpretation of Romans 13:1-7 is used to support this belief.
The average churchgoer believes that Christians should be satisfied with the humanistic governments of men, obeying the laws of the land. They don't stop to consider that God desires His people to live under His Spirit government.
The crux of the matter is this: Does Paul, in Romans 13:1-7, argue that the civil governments of this world have legitimate authority over the people of God?
We believe that the obedient people of God are not bound to obey the manmade civil governments of this world. God's people are answerable to God above all else and are bound by His commands. At the same time, God's people are not to use their liberty as a cloak for evil, to foment rebellion in the flesh, or waste time trying to politically influence the governments of this world.
Furthermore, we believe Paul, in Romans 13:1-7, is referring to the spiritual leaders of the Body of Christ, not the civil authorities of this world. Remember that the true followers of Jesus are Spirit people whose lives should reflect the fact that they belong to another Kingdom, the Kingdom of God. Their stay on earth is only transitory.
As citizens of Heaven, we are bound to submit and pledge allegiance to the King of Heaven and His government over us. We are not bound to submit to the government of some nation just because we happen to be living within its borders.
Romans 13 has been wrongly interpreted by ruling civil governments to mean that Christians should submit to them. Combined with nationalism and patriotism, a powerful weapon has been formed to neutralize and misdirect the power of God's Kingdom within His people. The idea that God's government is to be subordinated to the civil governments of this world is a deception that must be exposed.
This does not sit well with those in civil governments who claim to have power and authority to rule over other men. Throughout history, those who have declared independence from the systems of this world and dependence upon God, have almost always encountered violent reactions. They were frequently persecuted unto death by the "civil" authorities. It will be the same today for anyone who will break all allegiances and ties with this world and declare Jesus Christ as their Sovereign King.
This does not mean Christians are out to cause trouble or overthrow the governments of this world. On the contrary, Christians make the best citizens because they strive to obey the laws of God, which are far superior to the feeble attempts of men at lawmaking. Actually, the true Christian's goal is to live a life pleasing to God and win souls to Christ. This is hardly a threatening activity! We seek to obey Paul's advice in Romans 12:18, "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men."
Yet, the rulers of the nations of this world view this type of separation unto God as a serious offense. When a group of people refuses to pledge allegiance to their authority, that group is considered a threat to "national security" and dealt with accordingly. It was the same with King Nebuchadnezzar, who was determined to destroy anyone who would not bow down to his image.In Verse 1, the Interlinear text reads, "Let every soul be subject to authorities above him." The word translated authorities, or powers in the King James version, is the Greek word exousia. (Strong's #1849) The most crucial question in this study is, "Who are the exousia or authorities that Paul was referring to in this verse?"
Traditionally 99% of the church world has interpreted this passage to mean that Paul was referring to the manmade civil governments of this world. The governments of the world have been quick to place their "stamp of approval" on such an interpretation. Imagine the advantage enjoyed by worldly rulers when they can point to the Christians' own sacred writings for proof that Christians should submit to their authority.
It is not obvious from the original Greek text what authorities Paul was referring to in Romans 13. He does not specifically state that he is referring to civil government authorities anywhere in these verses.
It is our belief that the authorities or powers that Paul was referring to in Romans 13:1 were the spiritual leaders of the Body of Christ in Rome. Paul was not exhorting the Christians in Rome to submit to the Roman Empire. He was exhorting them to submit to their own government - to the spiritual leaders whom God has placed over the Ecclesia (called-out ones) to guide it by His Spirit.
God has always appointed leaders over His people such as Moses, Joshua, David and the Apostles, including Paul. He has invested those leaders with the authority to rule. Paul could easily have been speaking about Christian authorities within the Ecclesia. Why would Paul be directing the Roman Christians to obey the authorities of the Roman Empire when they had their own leaders to obey? Obviously, he was not.
In verse 4 of the Greek text, Paul refers back to the authority three times in the singular, using the word "it." ("he" in the King James version) Paul tells us "it" is a servant to us for good; "it" does not wear the sword in vain; and "it" is a servant of God.
Civil governments of this world rarely, if ever, meet these three points. You would expect them to, if Paul was indeed referring to them. Many times civil authorities stand in total opposition to the gospel and cruelly persecute God's people, just as Jesus said they would (John 15:20). In contrast, godly authority, exercised by God's leaders, will always meet these three qualifications and act as a "servant of God" for our good.
When we realize Paul was talking about spiritual leaders of the Body of Christ in verse 1, the following verses become much clearer. We can focus on the fact that God has His own government which operates under His authority. As His followers, we are expected to submit to that authority which is invested in His leaders.
Civil governments make demands of those who happen to be living within their territory. These demands often openly contradict the gospel and the law of God. For the true Christian to submit to such commands would be sin. Yet according to the "civil government" theory of Romans 13, Christians are supposed to submit to the "laws of the land." This brings confusion and God is not the author of confusion.
Confusion is eliminated when we realize Paul was not commanding submission to manmade civil governments, but to God's government. The blood of the martyrs bears witness to the fact that true Christians throughout history have come to this conclusion. They have been persecuted and killed by "civil" governments on every continent because they were determined to submit to God's government and refused to obey the commands of men which opposed or contradicted God's laws.
Verses 2 through 5 give us several important reasons why we must submit to true godly authority. First of all, Paul says if you resist God's leaders, that you are in all respects resisting God. Those who resist will receive damnation. He goes on to explain that God's leaders are not a terror to good works. We need not be afraid to submit to godly authority if our hearts are dedicated to God.
In verse 4, Paul explains that godly authority is actually our servant if we desire to do what is right. At the same time, he warns us that if we do evil the same authority will become an avenger and execute God's wrath upon us. What a clear and beautiful picture of godly authority and how it is meant to function in the Body of Christ. Additionally, each one of the above points can be supported by numerous scriptures, which is always a characteristic of solid godly doctrine.
This kind of true godly authority is rarely found in the religious systems of today. As a result, many become confused. They end up believing Paul must be talking about civil governments who punish according to their own humanistic definitions of good and evil, which fluctuate from day to day. The spiritual authority described by Paul has all but vanished from the Body of Christ. As a result, evil works are not punished and sin runs rampant among God's people.
Paul sums up his arguments in verse 5 by stating the two main reasons why we must be subject to godly authority: 1) because of wrath, or the fear of God's judgement, and 2) because of conscience.
In chapter 12, Paul has been dealing with the mutual responsibilities and duties between Christians in the Body of Christ. This also clearly points to the fact that chapter 13 is a definite continuation along the same lines. There is nothing in the letter to indicate why Paul feels it necessary to so positively and quickly change from one subject to another without explanation.
Nothing in chapters 12 or 13 supports the idea that Paul has switched his focus in chapter 13 to discuss the Christian's relationship to civil government. In fact, the context clearly supports the contrary: Paul was dealing with spiritual authority within the Body of Christ and the individual members' relationship to that authority.
In verse 3 is the Greek word arkhone, which is translated as rulers in both the King James and the Interlinear text. The definition in Strong's concordance is, "A first in rank or power, chief, ruler, magistrate, prince." Every other instance of this word in the New Testament refers to Jewish (religious) leaders in Israel, not civil leaders.
Another important Greek word is diakonos, which is translated minister or servant twice in verse 4. Strong's concordance defines this word as "An attendant, a waiter at a table or other menial duties; specifically a Christian teacher or pastor; deacon, minister, servant." Paul uses this word to describe the authorities in verse 1. This strongly supports the fact that he was talking about God's leaders. This is the same root from which we get the word deacon, a widely used term to describe leaders in the church (1 Timothy 3:8; Philippians 1:1).
A true leader of God's people will be a servant of all. Jesus said, "But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant" (Matthew 23:11). Paul's description of the authorities as diakonos (servants) reinforces that God's leaders are actually the greatest servants to the Body of Christ.
Nowhere in the New Testament do we find civil authorities or officials described as servants of the body of Christ. Yet there are numerous examples of God's leaders acting as servants to God's people. That is why Paul would be exhorting the Roman Christians to submit to those whom God has placed in authority over them. These leaders were actually their servants in the Spirit, sacrificing their lives to lead God's people.
The next important Greek word is machaira, which is the Greek word for sword found in verse 4. This verse is often used as proof that Paul was talking about civil authorities, since God's leaders do not use weapons to enforce God's will. Strong's Concordance defines machaira as, "A knife or dirk; figuratively - war, judicial punishment; a sword."
Is there a sword entrusted to God's leaders to execute judgment in the Body of Christ? If so, could Paul have been referring to this sword in verse 4?
The answer is found in Ephesians 6:17, "And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." And again in Hebrews 4:12 we read, "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead by the sword of the Spirit which came out of Peter's mouth (Acts 5). Paul also executed judgment upon Elymas the sorcerer, as the sword of the Spirit speaking through Paul blinded the man (Acts 13:11).
It is not unreasonable to assume Paul was referring to this figurative sword of the Spirit in verse 4. Obviously, the Spirit sword is just as effective in executing judgment as any physical sword. And God invests His true leaders with this authority.
Another important word which we need to examine is foros, which is translated as tribute. This is again used as proof that Paul was commanding submission to the civil authorities - especially those who collect taxes! The word foros refers to a tax, being a general assessment of one's property and possessions. This tax was generally collected by civil governments such as the Roman Empire.
Paul was dealing with many new converts who had been raised in Roman society. Taxing was a commonly accepted fact of life. It is quite possible that Paul was describing their responsibility to give of what they had in support of God's work. He used the term "tribute" as a word they could easily understand. Paul was reinforcing the idea that Christians were no longer citizens of this world, but had come under their own government. If they wanted to enjoy the benefits of God's government, they were obligated to support it.
The world requires tribute to support their governments, which often serve their people very poorly. God's true leaders keep the Body of Christ clean, healthy and functioning properly. How much more should Christians be willing to support the government of God's Ecclesia with a portion of their personal wealth.
God's leaders need to be supported by those whom they serve, just as the civil servants of the world require support. Paul used the common Roman term tribute to remind God's people to "render therefore to all their dues."
In verse 7, Paul commands that fear be given to the authorities who deserved it. Paul had been whipped, beaten, stoned and imprisoned at the hands of "civil" authorities for refusing to compromise the gospel. Why would he exhort his fellow Christians to fear the authorities who worked for the manmade governments of this world?
One of the great themes of God's Word is that we are to fear and obey God alone, regardless of what "authorities" in the kingdoms of men have to say (Daniel 3:18; Acts 5:29). Yet it makes sense that Paul would exhort the Roman Christians to respect and honor the leaders of the Ecclesia. For they are appointed by God and entrusted with the Sword of the Spirit to execute judgement among them.
As the followers of Jesus Christ, we belong to a new Kingdom, the Kingdom of Heaven. This Kingdom has its own government, its own laws and its own leaders. Paul was not commanding us in Romans 13 to submit to the civil authorities of the kingdoms of the world. He was commanding us to submit to the authority of God's leaders who oversee the Ecclesias, or spirit communities of God's people.
There is no denying that true Christians make the best citizens. Their primary concern is obedience to God, and second, the reconciliation of lost humanity to God. Man, in his separation from God, does not think highly of the Christian's objectives. As a result, the governments of this world try to coerce Christians to abandon their course and submit to them. When these situations arise, Christians are forced to choose whom they will obey.
Romans 13 is used by secular interests.For too long the words of Paul in Romans 13:1-7 have been used by the world's governments as a club to beat God's people into submission. This kind of scriptural strong-arming must stop. It is a fallacy that Paul was commanding the Christians at Rome to submit to the governments of men. It is time that Christ's followers break their covenants and allegiances with the transitory governments of men. They must set an example that there is a higher and more perfect form of government - the Kingdom of Heaven.
Of course there will be consequences. Just as Jesus suffered as a consequence of our sin, we must be willing to sacrifice ourselves in any way necessary to fulfill our obedience to God. We serve the Living God. He is well able to make a way for us, regardless of how much the modern day Nebuchadnezzars rage and threaten to destroy.
When we boldly declare that we belong to God's Kingdom, we are left with no choice but to trust God for His provision in the face of a hostile world. We quickly learn that our safety is in our obedience. To trust in carnal weapons and physical force for our defense is vanity. Our greatest weapon is love! If we seriously claim to be followers of Jesus Christ, we must renounce the world, and the authority of the governments of this world. We must proclaim God's sovereign rulership over our lives. Christians are in no way bound by the Scriptures to obey and support the manmade governments of this world. We are bound to live peaceably with all men to the greatest degree possible. Yet, our loyalty, allegiance and obedience must always be found at the feet of Christ.
Our goal is to see souls brought to Christ. The more fully we separate from the world and consecrate ourselves to God, the more power we will have to infiltrate the hearts and minds of men with a living example of the gospel. The world must see that God does have a people on this earth and that His power dwells in their midst. Let us commit ourselves to His Kingdom and BE THAT PEOPLE.
http://romans13.embassyofheaven.com/spiritualauthority.htm
Please note that every that is written in these article is not my view.. My commentary will include my views.
Adaoma
Romans 13: 1-7 says:
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
The context of this letter (epistle) places Apostle Paul in Corinth at 58 A.D., in lieu of a trip to Rome. The letter was to the mixed group of believers in Rome and delivered by a woman, Phoebe (Romans 16:1, 2).
The first century church of Jesus was made up of Jews, Gentiles, men and women, slaves and free. Many of them were poor and working class folk and a few were rich, as was Gaius, from whose home that Paul wrote this letter (Romans 16:23). The distinctions of gender, economics, citizenship and ethnicity had no importance within the the first century church.
Galatians 3:28 and Colosians 3:11- There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. They sold their belongings and shared communally as each had need. (Acts 4: 34, 35)
What these believers in Jesus Christ also shared was persecution from the State of Rome. It was the Roman State that had crucified Jesus Christ and that finally Paul as well.
Like Jesus, Paul was executed as an enemy of the State. So, why would Paul endorse the State by calling on Christians to be subject to the State as "minsters of God to thee for good".
A foundation of writings and essays that challenges the common interpretation of Romans 13:1-7 has been presented now an analysis of the text will be presented.
ANALYSIS
The King James Bible has at least 40 writers and one author, God. The way scripture is understood is by scripture and the Holy Ghost.
Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little....Isaiah 28: 9 and 10.
Scripture answers scripture. Therefore, Romans 13: 1-7 can not be understood in isolation. But, must be understood in its context and in comparison with other scriptures.
Hebrews 13:7 reads:
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God : whose faith follow, considering the end of [their] conversation .Hebrews 13: 17 says: Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves : for they watch for your souls , as they that must give account , that they may do it with joy , and not with grief : for that [is] unprofitable for you.
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.
Therefore, when Paul talks about rulers in Romans 13:1-7, he is not talking about secular rulers, but the "rulers" of the spiritual kingdom, whose duties are to speak the word of God and watch for the souls of the saints!
Jesus had always maintained that:"My kingdom not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world,then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." John 18:36
The State of Rome was a secular government that did not the subjection of "souls", but of citizens and those in its jurisdiction. If there was an ordinance of God that commanded submission to worldly authority, would Jesus have chased the money changers (the old Judaic authority), would Moses have opposed Pharaoh?
The fact that Paul advised the church at Rome to obey something other than Rome made him a candidate for death. Yet, when according to Eusebius, the historian and 4th century bishop of Caesarea Paul was beheaded by Nero, who persecuted Christians because they were Christians.
Acts 5:29- We ought to obey God rather than man.This was a founding principle of the first century church. Therefore, therefore, it is a straw man to declare Paul's letter to the Romans as holding the State as being ordained of God.
Though Paul used his Roman citizenship to appeal to Caesar when he was arrested, he was in no way deluded that he would get any different treatment than did Jesus before Rome officials.
HOSEA 8:4 They have set up kings 4427 , but not by me: they have made princes 7786 , and I knew 3045 [it] not: of their silver 3701 and their gold 2091 have they made 6213 them idols 6091, that they may be cut off 3772 http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html
As it was, had Paul not appealled to Ceasar he would have been released by Festus.
Then 1161 said 5346 Agrippa 67 unto Festus 5347, This 3778 man 444 might 1410 have been set at liberty 630 , if 1508 0 he had 1941 0 not 1508 appealed unto 1941 Caesar 2541.
Paul prepared to die in Rome wrote:
2Ti 4:7
I have fought 75 a good 2570 fight 73, I have finished 5055 [my] course 1408, I have kept 5083 the faith 4102: 2Ti 4:7
http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.htmlII CORINTHIANS 11:32 Paul persecuted by the Roman state
PAUL'S IMPRISONMENT AND FINAL YEARS
http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/saintpaul.htmlMartin Luther King Jr.
Letter From A Birmingham Jail
(April 16, 1963)
================================================
You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may won ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there fire two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the Brat to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all".
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.
An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal .law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distort the soul and damages the personality.
It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I-it" relationship for an "I-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and awful. Paul Tillich said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression 'of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.
Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?
Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you are able to ace the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.
http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111mlk.html
Adaoma
LabourPartyPraxis discussion - subscribe
