Romans 13 and Revelation 13

[ken_sylvania]

I need a little help in making these two passage agree:

Luke 4:(5) And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

(6) And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

(7) If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.

Rom 13:1 "the powers that be are ordained of God."

Rom 13:4 "For he is the minister of God to thee for good", "for he is the minister of God".

Rom 13:6 "for they are God's ministers"

Add in John 8:44.

... the devil.... is a liar, and the father of it.

The devil has been lying to people and promising them things he can never give for thousands of years.

[JohnHurt]

There is a possibility that Romans 13 was altered or inserted by Constantine and his priests that created the NT Canon to provide the scriptural basis for a State Church, completely subservient to government, as we have today.

That possibility can be ruled out by looking at the Ante-Nicene fathers who referenced the passage, such as Polycarp, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, etc.

Or by looking at early manuscripts like 𝔓46, well before that time.

https://greekcntr.org/manuscripts/index ... v=45013001

Yes, Romans 13 was a favorite of the proto catholic writers, here they are:
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... ans13.html

Men can quote what they want, but Christ never said anything like Romans 13 in His Message.

Christ said that if Caesar marked a gold piece with his name, then it belongs to Caesar and we should give it back, while the entire world, as well as the gold that in that coin belongs to God. Psalm 24:1 You can't make that into Romans 13, it is a way to deal with the governments of the Devil.

I would consider Romans 13 to have the same place in the church as 1 Tim 5:9, where it directly commands us that a widow should not be assisted if she is less than 60 years old, has relatives, or has never "washed the feet of the saints." Apparently this commands us that a widow should starve to death if she is 59. That is ridiculous.

I don't think any church asks a widow her age or proof of prior services before they provide for her. I think 1 Tim 5:9 is being politely ignored by every church, because it conflicts with how we are commanded to take care of the widows in Ex 22:22-24, with the NT example of Acts 6:1-6. There is no other place in scripture that gives the requirement of 60 years of age. We need two witnesses of 1 Tim 5:9 as a true commandment, and we only have one.

Likewise, Romans 13 is a single witness.

Romans 13 demands that you pay taxes, yet Christ said the children were free of taxes, but He said the taxes should be paid ONLY to not cause offense. Mt 17:24-27
Actually, Christ did not pay the tax, but gave information to Peter to pay for Him. So Christ did not pay taxes, but did so only because He did not want controversy. Yet Romans 13 demands paying taxes as being rightful obedience to God. There is a difference. The example is that Christ gave is that He was not fully under the authority of man's government.

The real problem with Romans 13 is that it puts the authority of man's government on the same footing as the authority of God. That every ruler is now a minister of God. That is absurd. Psalms 2 addresses this and clearly tells us that YHVH and Christ are superior to the governments of men.

And Romans 13 breaks the message of 1 Sam 8:6-8, that God condemned Israel for having a king as God said that men cannot be their own "god" or lawmaker:

(6) But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.

(7) And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

(8) According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.

The word" gods" is elohiym, or law maker. When you put the rule of Man's government over what God has commanded, you are serving the "god" or elohiym of the State.

This breaks the 1st Commandment:

Ex 20:(3) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

That is, we should have no other elohiym or law makers but YHVH.

I see the subservience of the church with the 501(c)3 ruling where they will lose their tax exempt status if they speak out on Christian principles that effect matters of public policy, as putting the church in an inferior position to the State. It is everywhere. All because of Romans 13.

I hope this sharpens your iron. Have a great day.
John

[JohnH]

I see the subservience of the church with the 501(c)3 ruling where they will lose their tax exempt status if they speak out on Christian principles that effect matters of public policy, as putting the church in an inferior position to the State. It is everywhere. All because of Romans 13.

Churches aren't regulated under 501(c)3; 501(c)3 is a status for nonprofit organisations other than churches. Churches are automatically tax exempt.

With that said, I'd like you to point me to any nonprofit or church, with 501(c)3 or otherwise, that has somehow "lost their tax exempt status" for speaking out on matters of public policy. You can run a church that says all kinds of zany anti-government stuff and it won't affect your tax exempt status at all.

[R7ehr]

I need a little help in making these two passage agree:

Luke 4:(5) And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

(6) And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

(7) If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.

Rom 13:1 "the powers that be are ordained of God."

Rom 13:4 "For he is the minister of God to thee for good", "for he is the minister of God".

Rom 13:6 "for they are God's ministers"

What makes you think the devil was telling the truth?

[barnhart]

I need a little help in making these two passage agree:

Luke 4:(5) And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

(6) And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

(7) If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.

Rom 13:1 "the powers that be are ordained of God."

Rom 13:4 "For he is the minister of God to thee for good", "for he is the minister of God".

Rom 13:6 "for they are God's ministers"

In the book of Job we see the powers of darkness asking God for authority to rule on earth, and it is granted within limits. These passages do not conflict if we accept this reality. They rule temporarily in limited ways as it suits God's purpose.

[Valerie]

I need a little help in making these two passage agree:

Luke 4:(5) And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

(6) And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

(7) If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.

Rom 13:1 "the powers that be are ordained of God."

Rom 13:4 "For he is the minister of God to thee for good", "for he is the minister of God".

Rom 13:6 "for they are God's ministers"

In the book of Job we see the powers of darkness asking God for authority to rule on earth, and it is granted within limits. These passages do not conflict if we accept this reality. They rule temporarily in limited ways as it suits God's purpose.

Does the fact that He allow it mean it always suits His purpose?

[Neto]

I need a little help in making these two passage agree:

In the book of Job we see the powers of darkness asking God for authority to rule on earth, and it is granted within limits. These passages do not conflict if we accept this reality. They rule temporarily in limited ways as it suits God's purpose.

Does the fact that He allow it mean it always suits His purpose?

I think that if the "purpose of God" is viewed as what is at the core of God's desire, which I understand to be reconciliation with the beings he created especially for fellowship with him, then in some sense, yes. In the Old Testament events are represented in terms of God's efforts to bring his people back to himself. (Such as the destruction of Jerusalem, and the resulting exile of the Israelites.) I have seen how some horrible sins perpetrated within a family have shaken a father out of his calm disregard for spiritual life, essentially blindness toward personal relationship with God. Yes, it was a horrible thing that should have never happened (and wouldn't have if the perpetrator had been living in relationship with God the Father), but in the midst of the pain and anguish of the aftermath of the sin, a man turned his grieving and suffering heart toward God, and then toward his family. Family relationships were built (I won't say restored for what had never existed), and Jesus was allowed into hearts and lives. So while I would not phrase this in terms of it "suiting God's purpose", I will say that God is able and willing to use events that result from the Satan's work in people's lives for good. He (God) turns horrible things into a call to relationship that 'gets through' to at least some people.

[Neto]

....
Romans 13 demands that you pay taxes, yet Christ said the children were free of taxes, but He said the taxes should be paid ONLY to not cause offense. Mt 17:24-27
Actually, Christ did not pay the tax, but gave information to Peter to pay for Him. So Christ did not pay taxes, but did so only because He did not want controversy. Yet Romans 13 demands paying taxes as being rightful obedience to God. There is a difference. The example is that Christ gave is that He was not fully under the authority of man's government.
....

I don't think it is helpful to equate the temple tax with secular tax.

[MattY]

I need a little help in making these two passage agree:

Luke 4:(5) And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

(6) And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

(7) If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.

Rom 13:1 "the powers that be are ordained of God."

Rom 13:4 "For he is the minister of God to thee for good", "for he is the minister of God".

Rom 13:6 "for they are God's ministers"

Do you believe the devil? He is a liar and the father of lies.

Psalm 2 warns the nations against making plots against the Lord and His anointed King:

He who sits enthroned in the heavens laughs. The Lord derides them.
Then he speaks to them in his wrath, and in his fury he terrifies them: "But as for me, I have set my king on zion, my holy mountain."
...
So then, oh kings, be wise. Be warned, oh rulers of the earth.
Serve Yahweh with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son lest he be angry and you perish on the way, for his anger burns quickly. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

The rulers of the nations remain under God's power even when they serve Satan. They cannot thwart His will or escape His judgment, and He works through them for His purposes. They serve the purpose keeping order and promoting some good in society (to various degrees) during the present era.

Nebuchadnezzar had to learn the lesson that God rules over all in Daniel 4. He had been lifted up by pride, but an angel declared to him, "The Most High has authority over human kingdoms, and he bestows them on whomever he wishes. He establishes over them even the lowliest of human beings." This agrees with the prophecy in Is. 45 about God ordaining Cyrus to his position, and with Jesus's words to Pilate (John 19:11): "You would not have any authority over me unless it was given to you from above." All of this is in line with Paul's words in Romans 13.

I don't think this means that kings have a "divine right" to rule and not be accountable to any earthly authority. The Old Testament has examples of governments being overthrown, with God's approval, when they fail to rule justly. Nor does it mean that democracy can't be a legitimate method for God to raise up leaders. God can raise up leaders in various ways while allowing for human failures and free will, as he does in his dealings with mankind. Similarly, in the church, God raises up leaders, but they don't have the right to rule with absolute unquestionable authority, and he allows churches free will to choose and make mistakes.

[MattY]

But Romans 13 also tells Christians not to rebel against legitimate authority.

Mao said all political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The Power of a gun grants a type of authority, but it is not a legitimate authority.

When you are robbed at gunpoint, the robber has the power to kill but he is not a legitimate authority. When any government acts outside of God's Commandments, while it does have a gun that grants power, it does not have legitimate authority that only God can give.

The Hebrew Midwives in Exodus 1 are a good example of rebelling against the power of a ruler when the ruler's authority is not being used in a legitimate way.

What is wrong with Romans 13 is it seems to grant legitimate authority to every ruler that has a gun. There is no statement to limit this authority to just what is "good" that the ruler does. Rather is implies that everything the ruler does is "good."

Romans 13 does not even state what is "good" or what is "evil." Since it says that whatever the ruler does is "good", then in implies that the ruler's authority is always justified.

There is a possibility that Romans 13 was altered or inserted by Constantine and his priests that created the NT Canon to provide the scriptural basis for a State Church, completely subservient to government, as we have today. Romans 13 has a lot of problems. I understand Adolph Hitler would quote Romans 13 when ever someone from the German Church challenged his authority.

Romans 13 is also at odds with the 2nd Temptation of Christ in Luke 4, which clearly tells us that the Devil controls the rulers of this world, not God. I would be interested in anyone's effort to answer both Luke 4 and Romans 13 so they fit.

That a bad government is better than no government is not correct. Abraham sojourned in Beersheba, away from Ur to escape a bad government by going into the wilderness. The children of Israel left the government of Egypt and went to the wilderness for the same reason. My ancestors came to Tennessee before there was a State of Tennessee, to escape a bad government and live in the wilderness. That you need government to survive is incorrect and not a good argument for Romans 13. In the wilderness, God is your only government, and He will lead you.

Thanks,
John

Sounds similar to the libertarian view of government, which is that it began with warlords using an army or a band of brigands to take over an area and put themselves in charge. Their authority simply came from their power; government is basically just criminals who took over and declared themselves the authority. Albert Jay Nock wrote, "It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation—that is to say, in crime."

I don't see this view as scriptural at all, so I reject it.