Romans 13 and Revelation 13

[JohnH]

The libertarian view of government is completely ahistorical. It's simply not how things happened.

[JohnHurt]

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?

Then what the Devil said would not be a valid temptation.

Christ's answered the Devil in a way that shows it to be a valid statement, that Christ said He would not worship the Devil regardless of what was offered.

Otherwise Christ would have said "You don't have that power." Christ would not deceive us.

It was a valid temptation.

What makes you think the governments of the world are not run by the Devil?

[JohnHurt]

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.

Job 1:(12) And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

YHVH allows the Devil or Satan to have power in this world, "for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. Luke 4:6

[JohnHurt]

....
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.

We also do not see Christ paying the tribute to Caesar in Matt 22:17-21, only holding the gold coin and asking who owns it.

Christ never answered the question about paying tribute to Caesar, only that we should return Caesar's money to him as it has his name on it, while the gold that makes the coin, and everything else belongs to God. Psalms 24.

[JohnHurt]

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.

You have a lot of good points.

There are rulers like David who was after God's own heart, Moses who spoke with God, Cyrus who was used by God for a purpose, Nebuchadnezzar who was humbled for a purpose, Pilate who could not contradict Christ that all power comes from God.

But in just these few exceptions, it appears that the rest of the kingdoms of the world have been delivered to Satan. No one can claim that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - all mass murderers - are "ministers of God to thee for good."

I believe there are two kingdoms, one ruled by man and the devil that uses physical force to tempt us with hunger, death, imprisonment.
The other kingdom is ruled by God and we have spiritual weapons to protect us, even in "impossible" circumstances.

One answer for Romans 13 is that it is not talking about the kingdoms of the world. I don't agree with this, but there are some good points to be made. I will start another thread on this.

Going back to Revelation 13, the imagery is also Satanic. One beast represents a satanic government that no one can oppose, the other is a satanic religion that convinces people to serve the satanic government.

Revelation 13 fits Luke 4 more than Romans 13.

Thanks for your comment.
John Hurt

[JohnHurt]

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.

Like 1st Enoch and The Shepherd of Hermas, the Book of Jasher is outside the canon, but it does give some historical background about how Nimrod came to power as the first king in Genesis 10.

Jasher says that before Nimrod, each community had their elders that oversaw the city. Nimrod got together 300 disreputable men and would attack a city, then rob, rape, and plunder, and go to the next city. Every other city had to create their own standing army to protect themselves against Nimrod and his men.

This is the beginning of Kings and government, all based on violence. And the religion founded by Nimrod is Satanic and found in every ancient culture.

Non canonical books means that the Roman Catholic church in the 4th century did not include them in the canon. Our Lord used the non-canonical book of 1st Enoch 15 and called it scripture in Matthew 22:29. Jude quoted Enoch in Jude 1:14. Yet Enoch is not in the canon.

I don't believe everything in these books that are not in the Canon, but I also do not accept that all books placed in the canon by the priests of Constantine in the 4th century are therefore inspired of God. Some books are to test us. Deuteronomy 13:3

Each book and writing should stand on its own based upon God, not man.

The only way I can make Romans 13 fit with how governments of man are viewed in the rest of the Bible, like the beasts in Revelation 13, is that we do not understand the context of Romans 13.

The way Hitler used Romans 13 to shut up Bonhoeffer and other members of the German church that challenged the German State, I have a problem with that. I don't believe Adolph Hitler was a "minister of God to thee for good." Or that any of these other Nimrods are ministers of God. They work for Satan.

Thanks
John Hurt

[JohnHurt]

The libertarian view of government is completely ahistorical. It's simply not how things happened.

How did the first governments originate?

[JohnH]

The libertarian view of government is completely ahistorical. It's simply not how things happened.

How did the first governments originate?

They are believed to have evolved from patriarchal oriented societies where a family looked up to a grandfather, and eventually that became the concept of a king, chief, etc

The Hobbesian view appears to be ahistorical.

[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.

We also do not see Christ paying the tribute to Caesar in Matt 22:17-21, only holding the gold coin and asking who owns it.

Christ never answered the question about paying tribute to Caesar, only that we should return Caesar's money to him as it has his name on it, while the gold that makes the coin, and everything else belongs to God. Psalms 24.

What I like to point out is that the coin had Caesar's IMAGE on it, and WE have GOD'S IMAGE on us. So we should in the same way give ourselves to God.

[ohio jones]

I don't believe everything in these books that are not in the Canon, but I also do not accept that all books placed in the canon by the priests of Constantine in the 4th century are therefore inspired of God. Some books are to test us. Deuteronomy 13:3

Each book and writing should stand on its own based upon God, not man.

The only way I can make Romans 13 fit with how governments of man are viewed in the rest of the Bible, like the beasts in Revelation 13, is that we do not understand the context of Romans 13.

If one is inclined to question the canon, there has been more doubt about the acceptance of the Revelation than about Romans.