Romans 13 and Revelation 13

General Christian Theology
Bootstrap
Posts: 3828
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2024 3:38 pm
Affiliation: Virginia Conference

Romans 13 and Revelation 13

Post by Bootstrap »

barnhart wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 7:04 amTwo kingdom theology must also include a reading of Revelation 13 each time Romans 13 is read as a description of God's work through government. In Rev. 13 ALL the kingdoms of this world are revealed to be under the power and control of Satan and will eventually turn against God and his people. An interpretation of Rom.13 that deletes the possibility of nations falling under the influence of Satan is not sufficiently biblical.
Well said.

Romans 13 tells us this:
For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
Revelation 13 tells us this:
The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months. It opened its mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

Whoever has ears, let them hear.
How do we respond in wisdom to both?
0 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
MattY
Posts: 284
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2024 1:01 pm
Affiliation: Beachy

Re: Romans 13 and Revelation 13

Post by MattY »

This is partly taken and adapted from something I've written but never published (yet).
Yahweh has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all. (Psalm 103:19)
Because the kingship belongs to Yahweh, and he rules over the nations. (Psalm 22:28)
To understand scriptural teaching on government and its relationship to God's kingdom and his people, we have to lay the foundation of God's sovereignty. God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. The prefix omni- means "all", indicating "in all ways or places". These descriptions of God mean that He knows all things, is everywhere present (see Psalm 139:8-10), and is all-powerful. 

God is the supreme ruler of the entire universe, and He has not just the power but the right to do whatever He wills. He may set things up and put them down, and He may kill and make alive, as He pleases. God has freedom of will and action in a way that is beyond our comprehension. He is limited by no one but Himself. And He is completely good and right in all of His ways. The only thing He cannot do is sin. He cannot be the author of evil. God allows sin to exist, without causing it or willing men to sin. Even then, He remains the sovereign governor of history. Not a single thing can happen that He does not permit.

This majestic God owns and rules over the entire earth - the wicked and the righteous alike. His throne has been established in heaven from the beginning of time. The fall of Satan, man's sin, the schemes of wicked rulers - none of that can change it.

So then, what does it mean when 2 Corinthians 4:4 calls Satan "the god of this age" (aion in Greek, from which we get our English word "eon")? This age is often contrasted with the future age, after Christ's return. Satan has power in the world during this era; but his power has a time limit. 

Jesus, in the gospel of John, calls Satan "the ruler of this world" three times (12:31, 14:30, and 16:11). Paul calls him "the ruler of the authority of the air" (Eph. 2:2). This refers to Satan's realm being in the space from the ground to the sky - basically, the same thing as the "firmament" in Genesis, or what might be called the "first heaven" - the second heaven being the heavenly bodies such as the planets and stars, and the third heaven being the home of God (2 Cor. 12:2). This is where Satan roams, looking for people to deceive.

Paul also instructs the Ephesians in chapter 6,
11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you may be able to stand against the stratagems of the devil, 12 because our struggle is not against blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.
 
"World rulers" has the idea of cosmic rulers or powers. It does not refer to flesh-and-blood, human rulers (since Paul has just said our struggle is not against humans), but to evil forces that rule over this world, with an unseen cosmic element similar to the idea in Eph. 2:2.

So Satan has a kingdom, and power, and a realm that he rules over. He is not to be trifled with; he is a dangerous enemy, and he deceives the whole world (Rev. 12:9). 1 John 2:16 lists the hallmarks of his kingdom: "the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the arrogance of material possessions."

When Satan was tempting Jesus, he took Him up to a high mountain and showed him in a moment all the kingdoms of the world, and said to him, "I will give you all this domain and their glory, because it has been handed over to me, and I can give it to whomever I want. So if you will worship before me, all this will be yours." (Luke 4:5-7)

So that settles the whole matter, right? All the kingdoms and governments of the world are under Satan's grasp, he controls them, and can do as he wants with them. All the power, authority, and actions they take are in Satan's kingdom and are therefore evil.

Not exactly. Let's stop and reconsider. Perhaps focusing too much on Satan's power and all that he can do leads to giving him too much credit - and ends up with a view of God and Satan that is too dualistic.

First, consider the account in Job where Satan discusses Job with God. We see the devil must ask permission for what he wants to do to Job. He does not simply have free reign; God remains in charge at all times, and He puts limits on what Satan can do.

Next, look again at the temptation of Jesus. Remember that Jesus called Satan a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44). We should not trust what Satan has to say. But he is a crafty liar. He mixes in some element of truth with the lie, and often makes it a subtle distortion of the truth rather than an outright denial of it.

What would have happened if Jesus had given in to the devil's temptation? Christians have debated various questions about the temptations of Christ, such as, was it actually possible for Him to sin, since He was God? But regardless of the answer to those questions, the fact is, if Jesus had given in to temptation, He would have ceased being God (if that was possible). But Satan would still be in power over the world, because worshipping Satan would make him Satan's servant. He'd just have been another of Satan's flunkeys. But Jesus is stronger than the devil, and overcame him. 

Satan said that his power over the world "has been handed over to me." (The Greek word is a form of the same word translated "betrayed" in Matthew 10:4, speak of Judas Iscariot). It was not his from the beginning, but it was somehow given to him, he claims. By whom?

John Piper says that it was God who gave the world to Satan. To a Calvinist like Piper, God exhaustively controls everything, even to the extent of predetermining all things that have ever happened. So God decided expressly to give the world to Satan.

I don't believe exhaustive determinism lines up with the character of God and his relationship with humans as outlined in Scripture, so I reject that option. Scripture nowhere says that God gave the devil authority over the world. 

Another opinion is that humans gave the world to Satan, when our first parents sinned in the Garden of Eden. I believe this is basically accurate, but some caveats and clarifications should be made. This idea is sometimes expressed in a way that makes Satan's control a legal reality, as if there was some type of cosmic judicial mechanism that legitimately gave him control of the world. This might also be connected to the "ransom" theory of atonement, that humans had come under Satan's bondage and owed a debt to Satan, and Jesus paid the debt to Satan with his death. By some cosmic principle of the universe, Adam's sin gave Satan the mandate that God had given him, like legal slavery. So Satan must be paid a debt in order to free humans and the entire world from bondage.

But I believe that is incorrect. Scripture never speaks of us owing a debt to Satan. Instead, it pictures us owing a debt to God. Our sins are our debts. When we pray the Lord's Prayer, we ask God to forgive our debts (sins), as we also have forgiven our debtors. Mankind is in bondage to Satan because our sin nature has made us sinners who cannot please God (Rom. 8:8). We are victims in need of rescue, it's true; but even more fundamentally, we are sinners in need of forgiveness. When Christ carried our sins in his body on the cross (1 Peter 2:24), God condemned sin in the flesh (Rom 8:3), forgiving our debts by nailing them to the cross, which made us alive in Christ, who thus triumphed over the powers of evil (Col. 2:12-15). His resurrection completed his triumph over those powers - by raising Him from the dead, God justified Him and all those who are in Him. If He were not raised, Satan and death would not be defeated, and instead of being alive in Christ, we would still be dead in our sins (1 Cor. 15:15). Those who believe in Him are freed from the power of sin and death, therefore being freed from Satan's bondage. Christ's death is metaphorically called a ransom, because it was the price that had to be paid for our redemption; but the metaphor should not be taken hyper-literally in the sense that it was paid to someone who had kidnapped us. Satan was never paid anything. Christ's sacrifice restores us to a right relationship with God, not with the devil.

So I think Satan's power is de facto (a description of fact or reality) because of humanity's continual actions (sinning), not de jure (by law - it's not because of some law that transferred power to him). If that is the case, then Satan's control over the world is only so far as humans are sinful, and if humans could fulfill God's righteous law, Satan's dominion would be broken.  Of course, they cannot, as the Law showed. We needed a Redeemer to fulfill God's Law perfectly. 

In Gen. 1:28, God gave Adam the creation mandate:
And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of heaven, and over every animal that moves upon the earth.”
God's intention was that mankind rule over the earth and subdue it, as God's regent. But man messed up. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God's command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Satan was able to take over. By giving in to his deception, all humanity came under Satan's dominion. Consequently, they have not been able to fulfill the creation mandate.

However, I see no evidence of a mechanism or a transaction that would therefore have given Satan legal or legitimate authority over the earth, including over earthly institutions and governments. I see much to the contrary.

Think about God's sovereignty again. God declared that He rules over the entire universe and over all of history. God owns it all and his throne is over everyone. His kingdom is over all earthly kingdoms, no matter the character of their rulers; it is God, not Satan, who sets them up, according to Daniel 4:17. Satan inspires evil people to try to take over the government and put their wicked schemes in place; God cannot do evil nor does He inspire evil rulers. But whether they are allowed to succeed in their evil schemes is ultimately up to God.

The idea that Satan has legitimate authority over the world, and that he can actually give it to anyone he wishes - as he told Jesus - is difficult to reconcile with all these passages about God's ownership and authority over the entire world. Every one of these passages was of course written after the Fall, and is describing God's authority over the world in the present age between the Fall and the final Restoration. Yes, the Psalms are in the Old Testament, and so is Daniel. But Satan in the New Testament does not have *more* power and authority in the world than he did before. On the contrary, Satan has been defeated and his judgment is sure. Satan has power, certainly, and he has control. And he has a certain authority over those who have given him authority in their lives. But there is a difference between mere power and legitimate authority. The former is like a powerful warlord with a band of warriors who lay waste to a region, drive out the legitimate government, and steal from the inhabitants. The latter is the legitimate authority of the government of that country, which is restored when the government sends in its armies, drives out the warlord, and restores stability and the administration of law and justice.

It is true that man gave Satan his power and control; but that does not mean that Satan took over the God-given mandate to rule the earth. God has never recognized Satan's control over the earth as legitimate; the nations of the world still rightly belong under His authority. Satan is a usurper, a deceiver. He took his power by deception and set himself up as king - no one gave him a kingship by rights. 

The rulers of this world are commanded to honor God (Psalm 2:12). But when they forsake God's ways and reject His authority, as they inevitably do because of their sin nature, they come under the sway of other spiritual authorities, who are more than happy to take over. So Satan deceives them and becomes their ruler, just as he does with every person in the world who does not serve God. This is how Satan has gained his power over the kingdoms of earth.

So what is the "kingdom" of Satan that Jesus referred to in Matt. 12:26? The word translated "kingdom" is basileia in Greek. It doesn't necessarily mean the territory that a king rules over (though it can mean that). It refers more to the king's dominion and power that he exercises, and his right or authority to rule over his dominion. In Revelation 12, the dragon, that is, the devil, took a third of the stars of heaven (symbolizing the angelic host) and threw them to the earth; when Satan rebelled against God, he took many angels with him. Then we read of a war between the devil and his angels, vs. Michael and his angels. Remember that Paul wrote about the spiritual, cosmic rulers and powers of darkness in Ephesians. So from these passages we see that heavenly beings can be authorities and rulers and have angels under them. So therefore, Satan's kingdom is the spiritual realm and the spiritual forces (fallen angels) that he rules over, as well as humans who reject God and serve Satan. If Satan would cast out other demons in his kingdom, then his kingdom would be divided against itself. But that made no sense and it was clear that the Pharisees were grasping at straws to avoid acknowledging the power of Christ. 

After the Flood, God made a covenant with Noah. He repeated His command to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. But He added a few things. For one thing, He approved the eating of meat, with the limitation that they were not to eat meat with the blood still in it. Having the blood in it is equated with life. Second, He established punishment, by the death penalty, for murder:
5 "And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. 6 Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind." (Gen 9:5-6)
But there are more and deeper principles at work here than merely the death penalty. Those deeper principles are the sanctity of human life, and the establishment of civil government. Of course, Genesis 1 had already related the creation of man in God's image, and Cain had suffered consequences for the murder of his brother Abel. But that was God dealing with an individual situation and giving the punishment Himself. Here He declares the principle: Because man is made in God's image, the shedding of human blood cannot be ignored. Life for life. We may discuss whether this means that the death penalty is mandated for today, or whether it should be used for all murders, but that would be missing the deeper point: Life is sacred and there are to be consequences meted out by human society for the shedding of innocent blood. This is not a declaration that God will judge, although that is certainly true. This is God's mandate for severe punishment to be meted out by humans on those who commit murder. In other words, this is God's establishment of the sword to keep order and administer justice in society.

And if the sword is established, then so too is human government, for the bearing of the sword. To be sure, it is but a seed of government - it is only one law. But there must be someone to adjudicate justice and administer the decreed punishment. And the authority to administer the death penalty for murder implies the authority to administer less severe punishment for lesser crimes. This is supported by what Paul says in Romans 13.

Government, Paul says, is established by God - an ordinance which is from God. If we do what is bad, government is God's servant to punish us, through its use of the sword. This suggests that "the sword" does not necessarily mean capital punishment, since the punishment may vary for various crimes.

Government is not the kingdom of God. It does not bring man salvation. God established it for the present era; it is provisional, an interim institution to keep order and promote good in society, while He works out his purposes in history. One of those purposes is God's reign through man as His mediator, so that man rules over the earth in perfect harmony with God as He intended. For that, we await the return of Christ.

Finally, I mention this last for a reason, as the least important point. Revelation 13 is a prophecy about a specific person, time, and place, similar to the prophecies in Daniel - in fact, the beast in the first part of Revelation 13 is the same as the little horn of Daniel 7 - and should not be taken as a description of government at every time and place - although as I've already said, they can and do fall under Satan's power. By contrast, Paul is making a general point about how Christians are to relate to government and what government's purpose and role is in the world. 
4 x
Neto
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2024 7:01 pm
Affiliation: Gospel Haven Men.

Re: Romans 13 and Revelation 13

Post by Neto »

MattY wrote: ↑Fri Dec 26, 2025 12:25 am This is partly taken and adapted from something I've written but never published (yet).
....
Good stuff here, Matt. Two thoughts:

Adam was given the responsibility of ruling over the earth and all living creatures. The Satan 'won' that power when Adam obeyed him. It is sin that gave him rule over the earth, and it is through sin that he conducts his rule. Jesus broke the power of sin, and thus if we but obey God, sin no longer has any power over us. This is redemption.

Re: "Satan casting out Satan":
I wish I could remember the name of the book, or even the author's name, but I read a book years ago that really made me think about this, and how it relates to what I heard from the Banawa in respect to how shamans conducted themselves, how they maintained power over their own people. That book had the author's mailing address in the back, and we wrote back and forth a few times. He was not a missiologist, but the conversation helped me rectify what I knew of shamanism with the Scripture.

The Banawa shaman went through a training period during which an existing shaman 'blew him', forcing evil spirits into his nostrils (aided by narcotics). At some point he would experience a crisis in his life, at which point he would either die, or a 'friendly spirit' would come to him, generally in the form of a bird or animal, and "rescue him". This spirit would then become his protector, a sort of 'spirit guide'. This allowed the shaman to be able to 'heal' people by taking (lesser?) evil spirits out of their bodies, but without being killed by them, or becoming severely ill. So the shaman exercises his power by putting curses on people (in which case he is taking some of the evil spirits out of his own bloodstream and putting them on others), and by 'healing' people (in which case he removes spirits from the sick or cursed). So the problem I faced in my understanding of this was "How is this not 'Satan casting out Satan'?" The answer that the book author & I came to is that whether doing 'good' or evil, the purpose is to control and deceive. Thus this 'casting out' does not reduce the Satan's power over people. (Also, the shaman is not able to really heal anyone. He is only removing a curse that either he or another shaman has put on the sick person.)
1 x
barnhart
Posts: 7724
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2019 9:59 pm
Location: Brooklyn
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Romans 13 and Revelation 13

Post by barnhart »

MattY, I think I agree. Just because Satan rules in this world does not mean the will of God is entirely defeated and the good design of creation is not defeated either. Weeds may grow, but they grow according to God's design for plants. Nations rule and war but they do it within the bounds God has prescribed. However their beastly nature is never far below the surface. Coersion is the coin of their realm but the Kingdom of heaven advances by persuasion.
1 x
User avatar
JohnHurt
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2025 1:17 pm
Affiliation: Primitive Christian

Re: Romans 13 and Revelation 13

Post by JohnHurt »

I don’t understand Romans 13.

The Book of Romans was written between 55 and 57 AD.

Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans to people living in Rome in 57 AD.

The Emperor of Rome from 54 AD to 68 AD was Nero. Romans 13:1-8 was written when Nero was Emperor of Rome.

I don't see how anyone could take Paul's statements in Romans 13 and apply them to Nero as "ordained of God", or that Nero "is the minister of God to thee for good", or that Nero is "not a terror to good works, but to evil."

Didn't Nero put Christians in wax clothes, crucify them on crosses, and light them on fire at night to illuminate his garden for his own pleasure?

How could Nero be someone that is "not a terror to good works, but to evil?"

Here is something else I don’t understand.

Yes, Romans 13 contradicts Revelation 13, and it is also against many other passages in the Bible about how we should view government, notably 1 Samuel 8:6-8.

God said to Samuel that the Israelites had rejected Him when they asked for a king to rule them, even when it was a king picked by God in 1 Samuel 9:15.

Romans 13 also contradicts the example of Peter in Acts 5:27-29 that we should obey God rather than men.

I may be wrong, but I can see only two valid explanations for Romans 13:

One is that Romans 13 is not about government at all.

The second is that Paul is not correct and Romans 13 is only Paul's opinion.

The most serious problems with Romans 13 is that it contradicts the temptation of Christ in Luke 4:5-6.

Romans 13 and the Temptation of Christ cannot both be true. Either Christ was tempted to accept and take over the power that the Devil has been given over the kingdoms to set up the rulers of the world, or the rulers of the world are the ministers of God and not the Devil.

Either Christ was tempted with this power given to the Devil, or Christ was not tempted and Paul is correct that the rulers are ordained of God in Romans 13. Both statements cannot be true.

And I cannot replace Nero's name with Hitler, Stalin, or Mao, or even a “good President”, if there ever was such a thing, and use Romans 13 to make these rulers into a "minister of God to thee for good.”

I need an example from history of a way to make sense of Romans 13 and so I would be interested in your logic on these points.
0 x
barnhart
Posts: 7724
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2019 9:59 pm
Location: Brooklyn
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Romans 13 and Revelation 13

Post by barnhart »

In the prophets God reveals that he uses various approaches or tactics to shepherd his people and not all of them are pleasant or even good, yet God works through them to accomplish his purpose. In the bad/unpleasant list we find things like famine, drought, plague, invasion, being hauled off captive to another land and other things no one wants to experience.

I see the ministry of good that God works through government (as per Romans 13) as an extension of that precedent. He is working in ways we cannot see or understand. The message I see from a balanced or combined view of the new testament is government is never completely good nor completely evil, at least until the apocalypse of Rev. 13, but neither is it outside God's reign, authority or control. I think this means we should never trust it either way, always keep your eye on it but never overreact against it and surrender the idealism of Jesus' call to live in humble vulnerability.

About 10 years ago our church hosted a former leader in the underground church in China. He was eventually thrown in prison and then expelled to the US. I vividly remember this part of his message.

"I know you do not respect Chairman Mao." (Pause for interpretation) "But I stand here to tell you there is NO. GREATER. SERVANT. OF GOD. IN CHINA. THAN CHAIRMAN MAO.". (Pause for interpretation) "No one could ever create the hunger for God that he has created."

This is the message of a man who was tortured extensively and despaired of his life, yet he can see clearly the hand of God working through government. I think apostle Paul would agree.
4 x
Valerie
Posts: 3006
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2024 9:01 am
Affiliation: Non-denom4F

Re: Romans 13 and Revelation 13

Post by Valerie »

Question (these are all good comments)
Romans 13 does not give me the impression that it is Gods will that evil leaders arise (even if He allows, is Sovereign, and uses the evil. Romans 13 convey His will being for “good” government? Just reading that seems to be His intention for them. We know Gods will for Christian leaders too but evil has always crept in, but that doesn’t mean evil is His will?
1 x
Bootstrap
Posts: 3828
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2024 3:38 pm
Affiliation: Virginia Conference

Re: Romans 13 and Revelation 13

Post by Bootstrap »

JohnHurt wrote: ↑Tue Dec 30, 2025 3:59 pm I don’t understand Romans 13.

!!! SNIP !!!

Didn't Nero put Christians in wax clothes, crucify them on crosses, and light them on fire at night to illuminate his garden for his own pleasure?

How could Nero be someone that is "not a terror to good works, but to evil?"
These are legitimate questions, and important ones.

Romans 13 is written under Nero, and there is no honest way to pretend Nero was righteous or good. So if Romans 13 only works when rulers are “good people,” then it collapses completely.

When Paul says “there is no authority except from God,” he is not saying Nero is God's personal favorite, he is saying that rulers have been given the role of establishing public order so that people can live in safety. Look at countries where there is no public order, and you can see what I am talking about.

Authority exists to restrain violence, theft, and social collapse. Even a wicked ruler is better than no ruler at all. Even Nero was better than total violent anarchy.

Paul does not say rulers are always just. He does not say they always command what is good. He definitely does not say Christians must obey rulers no matter what they say. Acts 5:29 tells us “We must obey God rather than men”. Revelation 13 shows that the state can become the beast when it tries to take the place of God.

But Romans 13 also tells Christians not to rebel against legitimate authority.
For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
0 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
Bootstrap
Posts: 3828
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2024 3:38 pm
Affiliation: Virginia Conference

Re: Romans 13 and Revelation 13

Post by Bootstrap »

Valerie wrote: ↑Tue Dec 30, 2025 8:31 pm Question (these are all good comments)
Romans 13 does not give me the impression that it is Gods will that evil leaders arise (even if He allows, is Sovereign, and uses the evil. Romans 13 convey His will being for “good” government? Just reading that seems to be His intention for them. We know Gods will for Christian leaders too but evil has always crept in, but that doesn’t mean evil is His will?
Romans 13 says that all authority comes from God. It does not say that all rulers are godly. It does not say that God approves of what all rulers do.

Romans 13 applies equally to all the presidents we disagree about on MN, for instance. And it applied to Nero Caesar.
2 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
Bootstrap
Posts: 3828
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2024 3:38 pm
Affiliation: Virginia Conference

Re: Romans 13 and Revelation 13

Post by Bootstrap »

MattY wrote: ↑Fri Dec 26, 2025 12:25 am This is partly taken and adapted from something I've written but never published (yet).
You really should consider publishing it.
1 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
Post Reply